I enjoyed that. You said it right.

I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view

I appreciate your effort and the quality of the information you provide. Hopefully you can find the time to visit my site.

Great things are not done by impulse, but by a series of small things brought together.

“Tell me TUNDRA, how has this TAX CUT RECOVERY affected tax receipts, compared to Clinton’s TAX INCREASE RECOVERY?”

In the 1990s government spending was kept in check by the balanced budget amendment and at the same time taxes were increased resulting in paying down the national debt and creating a surplus. Something the governement should never be running BTW. You do know that Clinton’s tax increase on the wealthy did only one thing to help the economy…pay off the debt. It’s also amazing how good the economy can do despite increasing taxes when spending is kept in check. Please explain in economic terms how increasing taxes stimulates the economy. Clinton’s tax increase did little to stimulate the economy. The economy, because of it’s own strength overcame the tax increase and passed it.

Should High School kids be making enough money to get an apartment and stop going to school?

Employers will add tasks to jobs that qualify. Perhaps now the greeter at Wal-Mart has to get carts to justify the extra expense. Now you have the retiree that liked the job just to get out of the house, who can’t fill the new role.

That’s not a good answer or even a decent one. Let’s try again…what is a wage that one can live on? I agree that $5.15 is not a wage that I or you would accept but, what hourly rate would you find to be “livable”? Should it be $8/hr., what about $15/hr? Who makes the determination on the amount?

“How did you pass Economics in college? ”

Tax cut do stimulate the economy, unless you can prove otherwise thru long term historical data. I would like to know how you passed your business classes, if you think that increasing taxes helps the economy. Now if BS government spending isn’t kept in check then the it doesn’t help as much and if it gets out of control like it has for the last five years then it really doesn’t help the economy grow like it could.

Translation: He’s poor. He’s too vain not to brag about being loaded.

A wage that one can live on…

A study a few years ago showed that it was impossible to rent an apartment anywhere in the United States on a minimum wage salary… Therefore, $5.15 is not a wage that one can live on. Morgan Spurlock and his fiancee did a real world experiment on this and validated it.

Clear?

Lower tax rates don’t stimulate the economy?
Comment by Tracy — November 27, 2006 @ 7:06 pm

How did you pass Economics in college?

*********Dear Imp, Your scenario reminds me of the teacher’s unions and hammock slackers. If they have received a certain percentage increase in funding their budget, and the following year receive more money, but a LOWER percentage, they start screaming and crying about “the cuts”.

Who do you think the rich employ – other rich people?? Who do you think produce the goods and services used by “the RICH”??

Re: are the Aphrodites’ in the top 1-2%? It’s none of your business….

Lower tax rates don’t stimulate the economy?

How do we or should we define this term called a “livable wage’?

You are assuming that the inflationary effect of an increase in the minimum wage will lead businesses to increase prices by the same percentage that the minimum wage increase was (I am referencing a quote, not your original comment so this may be out of context but still relevant).

Minimum wage earners are a MINORITY and the net inflation impact of an increase in the minimum wage would be an increase that is much less than the percentage increase in the minimum wage precisely because the consumers who receive the new wage are in the MINORITY.

Even if we assumed that all wages increased (ie a minimum wage increase leads to an increase in wages for ALL WORKERS) the percentage change in consumer products would likely be somewhat less than the the actual percentage increase in wages. This is a productivity effect (higher wages should lead to higher productivity which will mitigate price increases – lots of research on that) and because producers will have to bear some of the new price burden, ie, the consumer isn’t the only one that is impacted.

And again, this new legislation NEEDS TO HAVE AN INFLATION ADJUSTMENT IN IT. It is NOT ACCEPTABLE that real purchasing power DECREASES until congress decides to increase it again (which is definitely NOT ANNUALLY).

It also matters what sort of workers the minimum wage attracts. It is unlikely that a motivated (and educated) senior will take a position at the current fed minimum but may reenter the work force at the a higher wage (we did see this during the late 90s and very early part of this decade).

Incidentally that’s good for the economy.

At some point, though, all the ‘attractive workers’ will have been hired and the ones who are unable to justify such a wage (their marginal product is less than their marginal cost) will exit the workforce. This HAPPENS. BUT it happens on a very small small scale and is usually counteracted by net gains in employment as more people are attracted to work who are attractive to employers.

I frequently post ’sceptical’ comments on econ issues which lead some to believe I am a right wing nutjob. Not true at all.

Of course, there is a point where you can’t increase the miniumum wage without incurring net job losses but those WITH jobs will be better off. That’s also a union phenonmenon btw.

As it is the current fed minimum wage at it’s REAL LEVEL has remained essentially static over time and in recent years has become less than it was decades ago (in REAL TERMS, not nominal dollars). This is because the minimum wage is not adjusted to inflation.

And yes I also believe the minimum wage should be adjusted for inflation ANNUALLY so we don’t have to have a fight every decade after workers have seen a decrease in real wages over that decade.

Comment by mighty aphrodite — November 27, 2006 @ 6:12 pm

No, the ONLY reason the deficit is lower than projected is because the projection was inflated. And lower tax rates, when most beneficial to the top 1-2%, stimulates the economy for that group…the investment class. The ordinary middle-class American is losing ground, and the poor are poorer. Question for you MA…are you in that 1-2% top economic class…or just striving (to believe) you can join those ranks? If it’s the second, the train has already left the station.

Why does this argument apply only to those making minimum wage, but the millions of dollars paid to CEOs and other top-level executives of corporations doesn’t also equal increasing the cost of doing business?

What a load of nonsense. As usual. The deficit is out of control and you’re trying to take credit for it not being as out of control as it could be? Talk about rationalization…

Seriously, stop banging your head against the wall. It’s causing severe brain damage.

How many toothbrushes will one Billionaire buy in a year? And – how many will 295 million Average Americans buy in comparision?

Now apply that reality to shampoo, aspirin, dog food, light bulbs, gasoline, bananas, and so on.

So, of course it’s much healthier for our economy for the 99% of average Americans to have more money than the richy rich 1-percenters. We consume more, and therefore more must be produced for us.

Not that complicated.

******Dear barfly – If you decide to read anything to the right of NPR on tax cuts increasing tax REVENUE (as they’ve done for the last 2 years) let us know. The ONLY reason the deficit is lower than projected is because of of increased tax revenue…..due to lower tax rates – which stimulate the economy….. But you knew THAT….