Pelosi warns of history repeating itself ‘if we pull our punch’ on job creation.
Pelosi warns of history repeating itself ‘if we pull our punch’ on job creation.
With the unemployment rate above 10 percent and states across the country facing budget shortfalls, Democrats in Congress are looking at various measures to spur job creation. At the same time, though, deficit-mania has infected the political world, including the White House, which is reportedly going to “focus extensively on cutting the federal deficit in 2010.” On a conference call today, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) explained how she plans to reconcile deficit complaints with the need to pass an adequate jobs bill:
We’re never going to decrease the deficit until we create jobs, bring revenue into the Treasury, stimulate the economy so we have growth. We have to shed any weakness that anybody may have about not wanting to be confrontational on this subject for fear that we’d be labeled not sensitive to the deficit. … The American people have an anger about the growth of the deficit because they’re not getting anything for it. … So if somebody has the idea that the percentage of GDP of what or national debt is will go up a bit, but they will now — and their neighbors and their children — will have jobs, I think they could absorb that. … If we pull our punch, as they did in the mid-30’s, we shouldn’t be surprised if history repeats itself.
Listen here:
During the Depression, President Roosevelt’s policies brought the unemployment rate down to 14 percent, from 24 percent, by 1937. But then, as Paul Krugman explained, Roosevelt “mistakenly heeded the advice of his own era’s deficit worriers. He sharply reduced government spending, among other things cutting the Works Progress Administration in half, and also raised taxes. The result was a severe recession, and a steep fall in private investment.” The Wonk Room has more.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
It’s been proven time and time again. You gotta spend money to make money. I can’t think of a better way to spend money than creating jobs.
November 24th, 2009 at 12:47 pmHow about getting out of Iraq and Afghanistan?
November 24th, 2009 at 12:48 pmA jobs creation bill coupled with deficit reduction is obtainable, so long as people don’t mind paying up front for it. Keep squeezing the ultra-wealthy; it’s about damn time they paid their fair share.
And i’m not just saying raise the top marginal income tax rate back to 39% (it needs to be higher)…but get rid of the tax loopholes and shelters that allow these people to actually pay much less.
Bah.
November 24th, 2009 at 12:52 pm@3. That should come first, we cut the loopholes, and then we may not need to raise taxes much, if at all.
November 24th, 2009 at 12:53 pmOh yes, “deficit mania”.
The “disease” that only seems to appear when Democrats are in control.
How convenient.
November 24th, 2009 at 12:55 pmI’m not sure what bug flew up her butt but…you go, Madame Speaker. Yes, there will be tough times, belts tightened, penalties to be paid for ignoring reality but we aren’t going to get back on track without it. The siren call of easy money has to be answered with hard work and sacrifice.
And the first to sacrifice should be the leeches who pulled the crap. We need to get our money back from Wall Street, the HI industry and re-invest it in America.
November 24th, 2009 at 12:56 pmFunny thing, these deficit hawks weren’t very concerned about the deficit for the previous 8 years.
November 24th, 2009 at 12:57 pmWhy doesn’t the Federal Government start funding and hiring for their own existing programs? They could hire a million people tomorrow if they wished, all with Government-paid health insurance, too.
November 24th, 2009 at 12:59 pm@5. Just remember loki, being a fiscal conservative does make you fiscally responsible.
November 24th, 2009 at 1:00 pmConservatives say Deficits don’t matter when they are used to fund a war machine to kill people, but when deficits are used to fund schools, jobs and health care they are a huge faux pas…and yet, they continue to say liberals – progressives & Democrats are the party of death…
November 24th, 2009 at 1:02 pm@9. Does not
November 24th, 2009 at 1:05 pmmy mistake
Well, Nancy, how about we start by making the cheap foreign crap much more expensive to bring into this country. Then it will be cost-effective to manufacture it here. The tariffs collected until companies can ramp up to produce stuff can help with the deficit. It wouldn’t hurt to have a trade policy that requires real trade instead of assymetrical trade, where we buy things without getting to sell anything in return.
November 24th, 2009 at 1:06 pmO/T Just for the fun of it. Who do you think is better looking, Pelosi or Coulter? Try to ignore coulters adams apple. And pelosi`s pearl necklace.
November 24th, 2009 at 1:13 pmJust another reason that people have turned their backs on republicans.
The loss of jobs under their leadership can not be denied.
They trashed our economy and gave away our jobs.
America has gotten a good look at them and I’m glad.
November 24th, 2009 at 1:13 pmNeeds repeating…
How about getting out of Iraq and Afghanistan?
Last week everyone at my work was told that to keep the doors open we all were now on a 20 hour work week, with a program by the state that we would get unemployment for the other 20 hours, this would allow for us to keep or health insurance and get us throw this terrible BUSH RECESSION.
The jobs lost are not coming back…ever. Government cannot make enough jobs to keep people employed.
Until we stop the NOT FREE TRADE and make it FAIR TRADE we will continue a slow spiral into third world poverty.
November 24th, 2009 at 1:17 pmVP Dick Cheney to Treasury Secretary O’Niell in 2001: “Deficits don’t matter. Reagan proved that.”
Why hasn’t the “liberal media” revived that quote and shoved it back up repubs’ asses? Why hasn’t the “liberal media” reminded us that the last time Repubs were this fired up about deficits was after the last Dem won the presidency. Remember? After 12 years of running up the debt and deficit from 1980 to 1992, Repubs magically found budget discipline after Clinton was elected.
November 24th, 2009 at 1:19 pmAs critical as I can be of Nancy, I have to say one thing: She’s been prodding Obama and the Democrats more than anyone else.
We need a jobs bill, or else this recovery will be much worse than just ‘jobless’.
November 24th, 2009 at 1:20 pmThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
the White House, which is reportedly going to “focus extensively on cutting the federal deficit…”
This concept was alien to George W. Bush. He spent the last years in office denying that the economy was even in trouble…until it came crashing down around his incurious feet that is.
EnnuiDivine @3- I’m all for that. After the great Depression the top tax bracket in the US went from 25% in 1931 up to 63% through 1935, then incrementally up to 79%, 81%, 88% until peaking at 94% in 1945. As a matter of fact the top bracket stayed over 70% until 1981 when it dropped to a meager 50% through 1987. It all went drastically down hill from there. Can you imagine just how prosperous a Nation we would be if this trend had continued? Even at 50% America would have not likely seen anything near the hardships that we have witnessed these last few years and the rich would still be…well….rich.
November 24th, 2009 at 1:21 pmThe wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have cost us a trillion dollars and mounting — and their costs in veterans’ care will continue into the foreseeable future.
The government is the only entity capable of producing jobs in this kind of recession — it has been proven — but repugniscum will go to their deaths denying the facts.
A public works program, a program with the government employing people to re-build the nation’s infrastructure that has deteiorated in recent years will give repugniscum hissy fits like we’ve never seen before, but it is the only solution known to work.
November 24th, 2009 at 1:22 pmRepugs and their policies have always, always increased deficits and debts — their mantra to reduce the government works on paper, but it doesn’t work in real life. Never has – never will. Tax cuts for rich people do not help the economy. Putting a guy to work earning a liveable wage means he will spend every dime of his income — corporations don’t view that is a goal – human resources is a liability — profit is their goal.
Government is the only answer in a crisis.
The big scare about Iraq and Afghanistan is that if we leave they will both end up in civil war. The hawkish types think that if we provide the existing governments, which are not popular hence fueling the civil war aspect, we can somehow, magically make a difference.
The truth is, no matter what we do, there will be civil conflict when we leave and we have no business trying to support one side or the other.
November 24th, 2009 at 1:22 pmKenneth says:
Gosh, you’re right. I’m glad you were brave enough to step forward and call for the government to raise taxes. Thanks, Kenneth!
November 24th, 2009 at 1:23 pmWere you asking this same question when the last president was spending money we didn’t have in Iraq?
November 24th, 2009 at 1:24 pmOk, fine Kenny, we’ll just go ask Cheney, Halliburton, and all the rest of the people who made a killing off the past 8 years and have them cough up. Sound good to you?
November 24th, 2009 at 1:24 pmKenneth was so honest to add that appropriate postscript to his comment… “Dun!” seems to sum up Kenneth’s thought process quite aptly.
November 24th, 2009 at 1:26 pmThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
This comment has been voted down. Click to read.
Here we have proof that trickle down economics is the most effective way to stimulate an economy. Over the past few decades the rich have gotten richer and have used their wealth to bring more jobs to America and we are presently experiencing an unheard of boom in economic growth.
Oh look, a sasquatch!
November 24th, 2009 at 1:27 pmMr.Duke says:
We don’t have a revenue problem. We have a spending problem. The more they tax, the more they spend.
Oh, you are referring to Bush’s tax cuts and war spending?
November 24th, 2009 at 1:29 pmLet the Free Market system work and let the Senate and Congress get out of the way. Or, give Stimulus money to Small Business and let the system work.
Fact! Tax breaks for 1st Time Homebuyers has stimulated the real estate business in 2009 and will stimulate the market even more in 2010 with the Extension of the 1st Time Homebuyer Tax Credit and an additional Tax Credit for current homeowners.
http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=204671,00.html
How about Tax Credits for Small Business to expand and hire?
November 24th, 2009 at 1:32 pmhoodathunk
The same talk was coming from hawks in the viet nam era — and it took more than ten years before they were overcome by sane persons.
I agree – no matter when we leave, there will be greatunrest, if not civil war – the hawks will be critical no matter when it happens. We should just armor ourselves for their attacks and get out. The longer we stay, the more death, the more corruption, the more we lose our own integrity, the more it costs us in treasure.
November 24th, 2009 at 1:32 pmThe same way you can think without a brain? Duh!
November 24th, 2009 at 1:32 pmExcept that for Republicans the formula goes more like:
the less they tax, the more they spend.
see the problem?
November 24th, 2009 at 1:32 pmYeah, ’cause that worked so well in the banking industry the last decade.
November 24th, 2009 at 1:33 pmTax cuts are being proposed for small businesses to hire.
November 24th, 2009 at 1:34 pmKenneth says:
I say: Squeeze the rich until their pips squeak.
November 24th, 2009 at 1:34 pmRestore the 90% tax rate they had in the 1950s.
This comment has been voted down. Click to read.
This comment has been voted down. Click to read.
So in one post Kenneth decries spending without revenue, and in the next post he champions tax giveaways to stimulate the economy.
Kenneth, where do you think the government gets its revenue?
What do you think happens when that revenue stream shrinks?
November 24th, 2009 at 1:36 pmCheney said “deficits don’t matter”
Can we see billboards with his ugly face and those words in quotation marks?
When Reagan left office, tax increases were necessary. Reagan attacked labor, favored the rich, and created a mess that took ten years to clear — thanks Bill Clinton.
November 24th, 2009 at 1:36 pmKennth says:
Pelosi has more balls(pretty slick trick for a woman) than you can ever hope for.
November 24th, 2009 at 1:37 pmKenneth says,
We could start by getting out of Iraq and Afganistan. I don’t know how much money that would save, but it would be a helluva start. Take how much we spend per day on those two failed wars and apply it to a new, more robust stimulus, this time without the tax breaks for the vampire banks and you would make a start on turning things around for the middle class and the poor who desperatly need the help that creating jobs would give them.
November 24th, 2009 at 1:37 pmThat’s funny… I don’t hear you criticizing both parties. i only hear you criticizing Democrats.
Your claim to “refer to all fiscal idiots” might have more credibility if you recognized the idiocy of launching two expensive foreign wars while cutting taxes. but you don’t seem to want to acknowledge that.
November 24th, 2009 at 1:38 pmThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
This comment has been voted down. Click to read.
da duke says: The current administration in power is part of that disaster…. $12 trillion in debt and growing.
And just who handed them that? Somehow, miraculously, this administration ginned up a massive debt just by taking office? And now that we have an administration that is acknowledging the debt handed to it and is trying to find ways to recover from it, you are b!tching? While the ones responsible for the debt are doing everything they can to obstruct the process?
Pretty pathetic, little man.
November 24th, 2009 at 1:41 pmThanks for that tacit admission that you have no interest in actually looking at cause and effect, only in reiterating your cherished political orthodoxy.
We all suspected as much of you, Kenneth, but it’s comforting to have confirmation.
November 24th, 2009 at 1:42 pmLet’s get off the war thing. It’s here to stay. Obama has no guts to stop it.
Let’s not. It isn’t here to stay except in your wet dreams.
November 24th, 2009 at 1:43 pmWhy are people like Duke and Kenneth still pretending that their “free-market” dogma works or has ever worked at all. Just last year, we got a fresh lesson on how well Mr. Duke’s philosophy turns out. Every time we remove regulations on business and the markets, there’s a catastrophe. But, none of that matters to a guy like Duke. He’s got his libertarian dogma and no amount of historical fact or perspective is going to shake him loose from that dogma.
I’ll ask Mr. Duke again something I have asked before. It’s a question he always pretends not to notice: Mr. Duke, can you point to any example anywhere in the history of capitalism that supports your economic view? Is there any example of a completely free market actually working in the long term? There are plenty of examples of unregulated booms, bubbles and busts. Can you come up with an example of a sustainable economy or society with no regulations on business?
November 24th, 2009 at 1:44 pmThe part where you only criticize one party and use the empty phrase “no matter the party” as tissue-paper-thin cover for your unreflective partisanship.
Well, to be fair, I do understand it. I was just calling out your bullshit.
November 24th, 2009 at 1:44 pmKenneth says:
EnnuiDivine says:
“Keep squeezing the ultra-wealthy; it’s about damn time they paid their fair share.”
“You can only squeeze so much until it backfires!”
Kenny, the rich have been taxed at rates ABOVE 50% for at least 60 of the 84 years since an official income tax has been levied. Most of those years it was between 70-90%. 52 of those years it was at 63% or higher. America prospered during this time in our history. Why do you hate America Kenny?
November 24th, 2009 at 1:44 pmThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
Uncle Ho: “I say: Squeeze the rich until their pips squeak.
Restore the 90% tax rate they had in the 1950s.”
The irony is that we don’t need anything like the 91% rate in the 50’s or the 75% top rate in the 60’s. A 45% top marginal rate on everything over, say, $2 million in yearly income would solve every single fiscal problem we have in this country.
November 24th, 2009 at 1:47 pmMr.Duke says:
I refer to all fiscal idiots. No matter the party.
what part of NO MATTER THE PARTY don’t you understand?
The part about the party/administration that is trying to fix the cluster f(ck the Republicans built. The part about how the same party is trying to obstruct any effort to fix its colossal screw ups. The part about the obstructionist Party of No that is acting like a bunch of 2nd graders because they not only lost they screwed up the entire country for at least the next ten years.
November 24th, 2009 at 1:48 pmKenneth and Duke: “I agree totally! Both parties are at fault at this moment of history.”
This is the fall-back position for weasily conservatives. When Repubs are in charge, you don’t really hear it, do you? And, I love that “at this moment of history.” Nice try, a-holes. History didn’t begin on January 20, 2009.
November 24th, 2009 at 1:49 pmI like the trolls’ weak attempts at portraying themselves as non-partisans.
Unfortunately, even though they claim to blame “both parties” they have no interest in actually looking at history and examining the evidence of economic data and trends in order to understand current conditions.
They’re only interested in catapulting their propaganda of free-market fundamentalism.
The only reason they’re blaming both parties is because their party has failed so miserably that it can’t be denied. So to minimize the damage, they seek to spread around the blame.
November 24th, 2009 at 1:49 pmJoe Conason tried very hard, with some effectiveness, to shut down Joe Scarborough, by reminding him of what the wars have cost and how they have contributed to the deficit.
http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/conason-reminds-scarborough-iraq-war-and-t
But when repugs are found wrong, they simply yell louder.
November 24th, 2009 at 1:50 pmNinerFan- How about we compromise and jack it back up to where it was in 1986…50%? Up until ‘86 this was the LOWEST rate for the top bracket since the Great Depression. What do you say Kenny and Mr. Puke? Repubs love to live in the past so let’s roll back the tax clock to 1986!
November 24th, 2009 at 1:51 pmMr. Duke, can you give us an historical example of a society with no taxes and no regulations on business? I’m still waiting. Do you remember what Adam Smith said about society’s need to regulate business? Have you even read “Wealth of Nations?”
November 24th, 2009 at 1:51 pmAnd yet you only troll blue blogs, right, Kenneth?
Maybe you should bother some Republican blogs, see if they’ll satisfy your need for attention. You want to be fair and balanced, don’t you?
November 24th, 2009 at 1:53 pm50%? Sounds good to me, Patriot. Hey conservatives, if it was good enough for Ronald Reagan…
November 24th, 2009 at 1:53 pmEnnuiDivine says:
but get rid of the tax loopholes and shelters that allow these people to actually pay much less
I’m with you there! How did Goldman Sachs pull off a 1% tax rate anyway?
U.S. Representative Lloyd Doggett, a Texas Democrat who serves on the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee, said steps by Goldman Sachs and other banks shifting income to countries with lower taxes is cause for concern.
“This problem is larger than Goldman Sachs,” Doggett said. “With the right hand out begging for bailout money, the left is hiding it offshore.”
November 24th, 2009 at 1:53 pmThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
“Kenneth says:
Both parties are at fault at this moment of history.”
Good idea, Trollspotter. Kenneth, take that thought over to Red State and Free Republic and see what kind of responses you get. It may be illuminating for you.
November 24th, 2009 at 1:55 pmObama’s stimulus plan will cost under a trillion dollars over two years, and provide jobs for some.
How does that compare with the multiple trillions lost under dumbya? Nothing was gained — only lost.
November 24th, 2009 at 1:55 pmIt is amazing how the Republicans can ignore reality. From 1980-1992 deficit spending increased. From 1992-2000, it decreased. From 2000-2008, it increased again. Why is it that whenever things go in the toilet, the Republicans say its both parties fault?
November 24th, 2009 at 1:55 pmWhose backs should American debt be on?
November 24th, 2009 at 1:56 pmI thought I told everyone to make sure AUDIT wasn’t hiding his medication under his tongue and then spitting it out.
Come on, people! His well-being depends on getting the proper medication!!!
November 24th, 2009 at 1:57 pmAudit the Fed: “Like any other Obamabot, I keep telling myself that this guy has…”
BUZZZZZZZ! Disqualified. If you use the term “Obamabot,” I don’t want to hear anything else you have to say. F**K off.
November 24th, 2009 at 1:57 pmWOW… thanks Think Progress for the link to the TRUE STORY of the great depression
If you guys look at that link.. and focus mainly on the chart at the bottom… you see what really happened (and I didn’t know)
as always – it shows Republican policies of ‘cutting taxes on the rich’ and destroying the lower and middle class CAUSED the great depression..
and as always the Democrats – FDR – came in and saved the day.. it was deficit spending that pulled us out of the mess that Republicans put us in… not the war, the war of course caused even greater growth -(which was mainly because it was even GREATER deficit spending and fueled the middle class.. which it doesn’t do now)
FDR did the most logical thing to get us out of an absolute hell – he redistributed the stolen gains of the rich as quickly as he could to the poor through legislation – and he shot the taxes on the rich through the roof! And it worked – quite well.
I feel better now that I know the truth… now if only the whole world realized it.
November 24th, 2009 at 1:57 pmGoldman Sachs lowered its rate with more tax credits as a percentage of earnings and because of “changes in geographic earnings mix,” the company said.
November 24th, 2009 at 1:58 pmMr. Duke, where have you gone? I’m still waiting for your example of a libertarian system that works or has worked at all. Do you think slinking off back into your hole when someone challenges you helps your cause?
Why are libertarians such weasels?
November 24th, 2009 at 1:59 pmIt’s not secret, it’s just not destructive like yours.
Own up to your failures and then we will talk.
November 24th, 2009 at 2:00 pmHow magnanimous of you…everyone sees repubes caught red-handed…and out of the kindness of your little, black, conservative heart, you want to share the recognition for the failure…
November 24th, 2009 at 2:00 pmMary Lacewing says,
That’s the other issue as well. Get that money back into the Treasury. Why the original legislation for the bailout didn’t require that is beyond me. There are a lot of mistakes that were made in crafting that bill. The offshore loophole, among other things needs to be closed.
November 24th, 2009 at 2:02 pmlux, I think the idea that the war helped pull us out of the depression is conservative corporate revisionism. The middle class would have reached its peak a good two decades earlier if not for the war. The war set back FDR’s timetable for building up the middle class because we had to dump our resources into war spending rather than building our own economy.
November 24th, 2009 at 2:02 pmdbadass says: Whose backs should American debt be on?
The rich who caused the crisis
November 24th, 2009 at 2:03 pmThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
Jim Wolf: “Why the original legislation for the bailout didn’t require that is beyond me.”
Say what you want about Geitner – he claims he would have never given out that money without strings attached as the Bush administration did.
November 24th, 2009 at 2:04 pmThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
John Hoover: “The problem with squeezing that much is that the ultra rich don’t have to work. They also don’t have to stay in the country. They can decide to stop working (which wealthy people often do) or they can move to a country with a lesser tax rate and continue doing business there.”
Then, why didn’t they leave the country in the 50’s when the rate was 91% or in the 60’s when the rate was 75%? Pure, unmitigated bullshit, that’s all it is. Tell us, Mr. Hoover, which country should they move to with a lower top marginal rate? Is it a third-world country? Is it a country with little infrastructure? Wow, they could not only lose their wealth, they could lose their heads in a country like that. What the hell are you even talking about?
November 24th, 2009 at 2:07 pmThe rich who caused the crisis
—-
November 24th, 2009 at 2:08 pmThe rich of which nation?
Don’t rule out war with China!
—
Is this like one of those fantasy wars like the one on Christmas?
November 24th, 2009 at 2:10 pmAudit the Fed: “Don’t rule out war with China!”
I don’t usually want to talk with people who use the term “Obamabot,” but that’s just too inane to ignore. Which one of us would attack first, the country who depends on the other for credit, or the country who depends on the other for commerce? Would China want to attack the country who runs and owns half of their factories, or would the U.S. want to attack the country who owns most of our debt?
You need to think these things through before you embarrass yourself again.
November 24th, 2009 at 2:10 pmJohn’s a scared that he can’t make it alone. He needs big companies and rich people to tell him what to think.
November 24th, 2009 at 2:11 pmThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
John Hoover says:
Wait, I thought America was the beautiful free market paradise and the rest of the world was in the grip of the Socialist Communazis? Where exactly are they going to move to, Somalia?
November 24th, 2009 at 2:13 pmWell, at least John Hoover tries to offer a coherent justification for not taxing the rich.
Unfortunately, all it accomplishes is a justification for not taxing the rich TOO MUCH.
Anyone who studies macroeconomics even casually recognizes that there is a point at which ANY policy becomes counter-productive. The artistry lies in determining that balance. For the past thirty years this nation has been overplaying the hand that says “let the rich keep all their money; they will provide jobs”. There is some small bit of truth to this position, but not even close to as much as the Right continues to insist.
Beyond that, it seems to that the threshold required to push a successful businessman to relocate to another nation with comparable culture, services and protections has got to be pretty high. After all, a top marginal rate of 91% in the fifties didn’t cause a mass exodus of the wealthy back then, as far as I know.
November 24th, 2009 at 2:15 pmUuuuuuuh this nation ?
—-
UUUUUUUUh didn’t you keyboard this?
“The presidents China trip was revealing. He pretty much reassured our banker (China) that America would get its fiscal house in order on the backs of the American people.”
November 24th, 2009 at 2:15 pmBack in the late 80’s we had the S&L crisis that caused a big recession. As a result, that part of the industry was regulated. Today, the S&l and Credit Unions have weathered the recent crisis in much better shape than the banks.
There is no such thing as a ‘Free’ market.
November 24th, 2009 at 2:16 pmThey’ll all move to a magical island where there are only “extraordinary” men, captains of industry and commerce, who pay no taxes and suffer no regulations on their market pursuits. It’s a magical place where toilets get cleaned by themselves and streets stay clean without street cleaners. Oh, and no girls allowed…
November 24th, 2009 at 2:16 pmI agree…I’d like to paraphrase a favorite of the reightwingers:
November 24th, 2009 at 2:17 pmFree Markets are never free…
So the rich folk will run off to foreign countries if they get taxed? True patriots who will trickle down their wealth, you betcha.
November 24th, 2009 at 2:18 pmThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
I just love the Republican idea that someone with the mindset that demands gathering more wealth than they can use or need will somehow also have an altruistic desire to share said wealth.
Welcome to Fantasy Island!
November 24th, 2009 at 2:21 pmNinerFan Says – in reply to audit the feds apparent lust for war
Which one of us would attack first, the country who depends on the other for credit, or the country who depends on the other for commerce?
Exactly Niner! Which is precisely what the rich do here in our own country.. they kill the golden cow.. the middle class! They live under the delusion that corporations are the source of wealth.. how far do they get without their plantations.. without us worker bees to make their money? We are the source of the economy – not them. Yet they suck us dry in class warfare – and we fall into a depression/recession until someone comes along and forces them to give some of the money back. They like to talk about ‘if you raise the taxes on the rich.. the rich will stop working’… stop working??? What millionaire works? WE WORK. And if you suck every dime out of us… the unemployment rate skyrockets and we stop working.. and the economy DIES. It happens everytime…
ugh.
November 24th, 2009 at 2:23 pmAnyone else notice that Kenneth failed to answer even a single one of Hooda’s questions and instead tried to pass the buck by responding with another question?
Cowardly, Kenneth. Very cowardly.
November 24th, 2009 at 2:23 pmThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
You’ve said the same things before and they were right after a republican recession too:
Regarding President Clintons economic stimulus package
When you learn how to make your actions match your words, let us know.
November 24th, 2009 at 2:24 pmAnd who is in power now and adding to the unbelievable debt we are currently in?
I don’t know but I will play your little game. Who? You mean the guy who is trying his damndest to find ways to benefit the American public by generating jobs? The guy who is asking for health care reform that will allow American business to compete with all the other industrialized countries who aren’t handing over 1/6 of their countries wealth to private companies that produce absolutely nothing? You mean the guy who is trying to bring American money back into American society?
November 24th, 2009 at 2:25 pmIt’s funny how Kenneth, who claims to blame both parties for the current economic conditions, bypasses a perfect opportunity to prove his willingness to place blame on Republicans (by responding respectfully and directly to Hooda’s questions, of course) and instead pretends that those questions were never asked, and tries to place the blame on the President’s 10 months in office.
November 24th, 2009 at 2:29 pmdbadass
You’re playing a game of semantics. You know exactly what I meant! ON THE BACKS of People who AREN’T Rich!
November 24th, 2009 at 2:31 pmOr Kenneth, are you saying we should hold blameless the people who funded two wars on borrowed money? People who deregulated the economy to the point of depression? People who are calling for insurrection because they lost an election? People who support the purchase of Congressional votes by corporations who hold profits more dear than the continued existence of our country?
November 24th, 2009 at 2:36 pmAudit: “Now do you really believe that the white man is going to peacefully tranfer world power to the yellow man- who happens to be communist? Lol…”
Wake up, man. The transfer of power has already happened. They own our notes, we pay them interest, and nobody is going to attack anyone. The Chinese middle class is well over 300 million. Their middle class is larger than our entire population. We’re not attacking that market. Haven’t you heard? Let me paraphrase the great 1974 movie, “Network.” There’s no more USA, China, France, England, USSR. There’s IBM, Canon, Apple, Exxon, BP, GE, etc.
There will be no more world wars. This is the ONLY good aspect of world-wide corporate trade and, admittedly, it is a good one.
November 24th, 2009 at 2:36 pmSo I am gonna guess that you are not rich but your neighbor that has more is. I am not rich but I am happy to assume increased burden to help fix the problems of the nation. The imaginary us against them thing doesn’t cut it too well with me. Increase my taxes. It is okay. I don’t mind. There are debts to be paid.
November 24th, 2009 at 2:37 pmEnnuiDivine says:
A jobs creation bill coupled with deficit reduction is obtainable, so long as people don’t mind paying up front for it. Keep squeezing the ultra-wealthy; it’s about damn time they paid their fair share.
^^^^^^what he said^^^^^^^^
We can reduce the deficit by increasing taxes on the wealthy and shuffling money around in the budget by abolishing redundant agencies and reducing budgets for some of the nonsense agencies. It may also be necessary to freeze spending on some programs. This would allow Obama to keep current spending levels while reducing the deficit. However, any monies that the feds are not using for domestic programs will translate to the states having to pick up the shortfall. Obama needs to serious consider pulling out of Iraq earlier and plan a withdrawal from Afghanistan. We may be able to reduce our global presence in friendly countries also.
November 24th, 2009 at 2:37 pmthe bush’s were doing business with the nazi’s in that time frame.
rationalize that!
November 24th, 2009 at 2:40 pmHooda, I don’t think Kenneth wants to say that he holds Republicans blameless. After all, he claims to blame both parties.
He only wants to talk about the blame for one of them, however.
November 24th, 2009 at 2:41 pmYou want to cut government spending? Ok, get rid of the Bush boondoggle Department of Homeland Security. Task the agencies responsible for our security (FBI, CIA, NSA and others) to work together and get past the silliness of inter agency rivalries.
November 24th, 2009 at 2:42 pmTrue, Ralph. He wants to point the finger anywhere but where it belongs.
November 24th, 2009 at 2:44 pmThe Republican Party is the Party of NO…as in NO NUT LEFT BEHIND.
November 24th, 2009 at 2:48 pmHere’s a list of tax rates for different countries. Australia sounds nice…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Income_Taxes_By_Country.svg
November 24th, 2009 at 2:49 pmThe thing is – everyone is short sighted.. a small increase in taxes, a scaled one short term one, bundled with our current deficit spending, is what’s needed to get the economy as a whole back on track – and back working and cranking out that GDP. We can put taxes back down some after things are corrected.
The whole argument returns to the first comment on this page by USNclerk – You have to spend money to make money. Everyone knows it on an individual level.. but somehow we forget it on a macro scale.
The catch is — there will be NO SUSTAINED RECOVERY if the Republicans go back into office. It’s a proven, documented, verified, historical FACT.
November 24th, 2009 at 2:49 pmHey Mr. Duke – is that all it takes to get rid of you? Could it really be that simple? Just ask you to produce one example of a libertarian system working and you’re gone. Everyone take notice. It’s not that hard to do after all.
November 24th, 2009 at 2:50 pmThat’s if they wanted to move to a country with a lower tax rate than we have right now. If the tax rate were 90% then all of western Europe would result in them saving money from taxes.
November 24th, 2009 at 2:50 pmNinerFan
You are naïve. The world government for and by the rich is not in place yet. The U.S. And Europe Is trying decrease Chinas influence in South America, Africa, and the Middle East. They are also trying their best to not get FROZE out of the Asian trade block that China is poised to dominate. The EU is still thinking along national interest terms. Since our political systems are owned by big business, they are a direct reflection of what’s going on.
November 24th, 2009 at 2:53 pmJohn Hoover says:
Here’s a list of tax rates for different countries. Australia sounds nice…
John… Australia’s personal tax rate almost identical to ours. A raise in taxes would be PERSONAL tax. Not corporate.
November 24th, 2009 at 2:54 pm@85
Fred,
I never said or implied that I wanted or needed to rely on anybody, including big corporations. I was simply stating a position based on basic principles from economics.
November 24th, 2009 at 2:54 pmHoover: “Australia sounds nice…”
Then please move there as soon as possible. The graph shows your taxes might be a percentage or two lower, but remember, there aren’t as many ways to avoid paying taxes in Australia. I’m sure you’ll enjoy their universal health care system and their commitment to public schooling but be ready – even the conservatives in Australia sound like liberals by our standards. You’ll love it!
But, of course most of what you posted is irrelevant. I’m talking about top marginal rates. Do you have a graph which shows top marginal rates, ie. what societies demand from their richest citizens?
November 24th, 2009 at 2:56 pmI understand John, reading those graphs can be tricky.
Our personal tax rate.. which is what we would be talking about when referring to raising taxes, is one of the smallest in the world.
Our corporate tax rate is somewhat high.. everyone knows that – although it’s not extremely high.
November 24th, 2009 at 2:58 pmAgain, if our tax rate went up to 90%, then moving to Australia would over double a “rich person’s” take home pay. Would you move to Sydney if it meant you could make twice as much money as you make now? I know I would. :-\
November 24th, 2009 at 2:59 pmYou basically said that if we squeeze companies too much that they will leave America.
I say, if they want to stay, which they obviiously do, then they have to pay to play.
If that doesn’t fit into your economics then you are a republican.
November 24th, 2009 at 3:04 pmsecond problem with your theory john..
That’s the MEAN tax rate — in other words.. average. If we raised the tax rate for the top 1% to 90% how much do you think it would affect that average?
There’s no way to tell from that graph what the tax rates are for australia’s different levels of earners. For all you can tell from it – their top income group could BE 90%… that graph just doesn’t show that level of data.
November 24th, 2009 at 3:05 pmMr. Hoover, I don’t want to rain on your parade, but the top marginal tax rate in Australia is 47%. Ours is 35%.
November 24th, 2009 at 3:09 pmhmm.. got quiet awful quick.
John?….
November 24th, 2009 at 3:10 pmLux, you’re right. My fault. Even so…. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_rates_around_the_world
living in Australia with a max rate of 40% is still way better than being in the US with a rate of 90%.
Heck, even Canada would be better, and that move would be cheap and easy.
November 24th, 2009 at 3:10 pmJohn, companies, forign and domestic do not pay taxes in the US.
link 1 fox so you gotta believe it, right?
link 2
Which knocks a hole in your theory.
November 24th, 2009 at 3:10 pmnice work Niner =)
alright.. I’m movin along…
November 24th, 2009 at 3:11 pmHoover: “living in Australia with a max rate of 40% is still way better than being in the US with a rate of 90%.”
Again, the top rate in Australia is 47%. Our top rate is 35% and the most radical Dem plan raises it to about 39% where it was during Clinton.
November 24th, 2009 at 3:12 pmSame to you, lux. Thanks.
November 24th, 2009 at 3:14 pmJohn, companies, forign and domestic do not pay taxes in the US.
link 1 fox so you gotta believe it, right?
link 2
Which knocks a hole in your theory.
_________________________________________________
Actually Fred the articles refer to foreign and multinational corporations evading taxes through “creative” accounting practices. That’s not the same as businesses not being required to pay taxes.
November 24th, 2009 at 3:18 pmAgain, I was specifically responding to the comment that we should increase our tax rate to 90%. I’m just saying that there comes a point when moving away from such a tax rate becomes economical (heck, look at the origin of the US as an example).
Also, Lux, I’m not talking about multinational companies. I’m talking about someone with a high income switching over to a comparable job with another company in another country. If you are talking about running multinational companies, then we are talking about corporate tax rate, not personal.
November 24th, 2009 at 3:20 pmJohn Hoover, how about we look at history?
The top marginal tax rate during the Eisenhower years was 91%. This was intended to help pay for the expenses incurred from WW2.
If the right-wing doom scenarios for excessive taxation were solid principles of economics, then our economy would have tanked during those years, right?
But it didn’t. It grew very steadily. The middle class grew more than any other economic segment of the population, and the wealthy investors had incentive to re-invest their profits in their businesses (read: more jobs) rather than simply take the profits and have to pay taxes on them.
November 24th, 2009 at 3:20 pmSorry, that last part was to FVNY
November 24th, 2009 at 3:22 pmWith all due respect, you seem to be more than “just saying” that. You seem to be warning of it as a likely consequence of such a move (which no responsible policy maker has even come close to advocating).
November 24th, 2009 at 3:22 pmJohn Hoover says:
——————————————————————————–
Sorry, that last part was to FVNY
______________________________________________
I brought up multinational companies in response to Fred’s articles.
November 24th, 2009 at 3:24 pmOh, and to try to make the argument that “the origin of the US” has anything to do with with emigrating due to tax burden in one’s homeland, is stretching the truth beyond the limit of its elastic memory.
November 24th, 2009 at 3:27 pmIt most certainly does not. You can lie aaronk if you wish but expect to be called a liar every time you do.
November 24th, 2009 at 3:27 pmralph,
Perhaps, at the time, the US was just THAT much better than the rest of the world at the time. The world is catching up though now. So, that is not the case anymore.
November 24th, 2009 at 3:29 pmIt most certainly does not. You can lie aaronk if you wish but expect to be called a liar every time you do.
_____________________________________________
Your comment about businesses in the US not paying taxes was wrong and the articles you attempted to use to prove your point were irrelevant. The articles referred to foreign and multinational businesses evading taxes.
November 24th, 2009 at 3:30 pmfvny(aaronk)
directly from the first line of the fox article. US corporations.
You can call it creative or whatever, they still didn’t pay taxes.
November 24th, 2009 at 3:31 pmaaronk lies again. Shocking
November 24th, 2009 at 3:32 pmaaronk, first line from the other article:
You lie.
November 24th, 2009 at 3:34 pmSo, John Hoover, your argument is something along the lines of “history is irrelevant, because those lessons have nothing to do with today’s conditions”?
I will grant that, in the aftermath of the War, the US faced little competition from the rest of the industrialized world (Europe and Japan) and that factor played a huge part in our economic successes. But the troublesome fact remains: this nation taxed the wealthy at astronomical rates, and the economy responded well. The wealthy did not leave, and we created a middle class that had never before existed.
High marginal tax rates provided an incentive for the wealthy to re-invest their wealth, which protected it from taxation, rather than simply siphon off the cream as they largely do today.
Taxes don’t discourage investment. They discourage profit-taking.
November 24th, 2009 at 3:37 pmTaxes don’t discourage investment. They discourage profit-taking.
As an addendum, Ralph. Taxes on excess profits encourage reinvestment. Reinvestment of profits encourages business growth. Sort of a win/win situation.
November 24th, 2009 at 3:41 pmJohn Hoover,
Irony that last name.
Here’s the history:
in the 20’s the republicans cut taxes on the rich and business and deregulated.
result: Depression
In the 2000-2008 era republicans did the same thing and the results were the same. Recession bordering on depression.
Raygun and bush I did the same thing. Result: recession.
History is relevant and does repeat itself if you let it.
November 24th, 2009 at 3:42 pmJohn Hoover: “I’m talking about someone with a high income switching over to a comparable job with another company in another country.”
OK, let’s look at the numbers for professionals who make real nice salaries. If they raise the top marginal rate for income over $250K by 3%, that would be roughly a $3K increase in taxes for someone making $350K a year. A $3000 tax increase on a $350,000 salary… and you are arguing that it would be worth it to give up your citizenship and move to another country, with all that entails, to avoid that extra $3K?
Hoooookay. Whatever. These proposed tax increases on the wealthy, as you can plainly see, affect the super wealthy a LOT more than they affect people who are what I might call “well off.”
November 24th, 2009 at 3:44 pmNo Fred. Haven’t you heard? History began on 1-20-09.
November 24th, 2009 at 3:45 pmThe Republicans want to balance the budget on the backs of the poor and middle class. The rich have become disproportionately richer since our Reaganomics experiment because lowering tax rates benefited them the most. Tax fairness is not judged by dollars and percentages. The fairness of income taxes should also be judged on the basis that our country has allowed the people to become rich and therefor they should pay for that privilege.
November 24th, 2009 at 3:46 pmNo, ralph. My argument is that the risk-reward ratio for moving out of the US based on a 90% tax rate in 1948 was not as good as the risk-reward ratio for moving out of the US based on a 90% tax rate in 2009.
In 1948, where was the best place in the world to make money? Easily, the US. What about today? Well, Luxembourg has the highest GDP per capita in the world. They have a maximum tax rate less than 50%. So, not only would someone pay lower taxes, but they’d likely have a higher salary too.
Think of it this way, if you lived in California and the state tax rate was 40% and the state tax rate in Nevada was 20%, would you move? What about 50% vs. 20%? What about 80% vs. 20%? At what point do you just say “Screw it. I’m moving”?
November 24th, 2009 at 3:47 pmCEO’s in America make 20 times what CEO’s anywhere else make.
You seem to have some made up facts…..
November 24th, 2009 at 3:49 pmWe have two levels of income in the US right now. The first is the poverty level where income does not meet living standards. There is a second level where income exceeds living standards. It requires a certain level of income to meet the basic requirements of living. This number is about $60k a year. After that level income goes into the luxury bracket.
November 24th, 2009 at 3:50 pmWhoa, $60, just to meet basic requirements of living? That can’t be right because I make less than that and I consider myself to be living quite comfortably.
November 24th, 2009 at 3:57 pm$60k that is
November 24th, 2009 at 3:58 pmHow much does your wife make?
November 24th, 2009 at 4:05 pmFred, I’m not married.
November 24th, 2009 at 4:05 pmSince this is pure conjecture on your part, I’ll give it the weight it deserves.
Unless, of course, you’ve actually faced such a dilemma and considered all the factors involved…
I do live in California and we are taxed at a much higher rate than the citizens of Nevada face. And I have no interest in moving to Nevada.
You seem to enjoy reducing this question to a simplistic issue of tax levels. The level of services provided for the citizens who pay taxes are a much bigger factor than the simple tax rate. California’s population growth has flattened out, but what that tells me is that the levels of taxation, always among the highest in the nation no longer balance out the level of services available, which have declined precipitously.
A few years ago a California resident could attend one of the schools in the UC system for a little over $3000 a year. Under Schwarzenegger’s leadership, that has risen to over $10,000 next year.
When services were plentiful and well-delivered, California’s tax rates were comfortably borne by its populace. And the economy thrived.
November 24th, 2009 at 4:08 pmWhoa, $60, just to meet basic requirements of living? That can’t be right because I make less than that and I consider myself to be living quite comfortably.
___________________________________________
That all depends on where in the US you live. 60K in NYC will barely pay the rent.
November 24th, 2009 at 4:08 pmSo it’s a false equivilancy. You pretend that you have the same expenses that a family has.
November 24th, 2009 at 4:09 pmThe only jobs government creates is government jobs.
November 24th, 2009 at 4:14 pmRalph, yes, it’s not just a matter of tax level but also a matter of services. I did some searching and found this: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-voegli1-2009nov01,0,825554.story
November 24th, 2009 at 4:14 pmIt seems that people have been voting with their feet in support of my point.
November 24th, 2009 at 4:16 pmSo, for example, when the government spent on making the internet available, all the money made from that endeavor was government jobs? Really?
that’s just one example of how wrong you are.
November 24th, 2009 at 4:17 pmProbably just tired of the same old speil from another right winger who has all the answers although you just failed, again.
November 24th, 2009 at 4:19 pmhoover, do you have any children?
November 24th, 2009 at 4:20 pmThanks for finding an opinion piece in the LA Times that matches your own opinion. Well done.
Of course, the sub-head of the article reads:
Our high-benefit/high-tax model no longer works, especially compared with low-tax states like Texas.
This presupposes that the “high-benefit” model is still in operation, when as I suggested, the level of services (”Benefits”) has declined precipitously — partly because of a dysfunctional legislative system that makes raising taxes to fund those services all but impossible as long as there is an obstructionist minority that can muster a third of the votes in the Assembly or the State Senate to block such a move.
So I would argue that the opinion piece you offered is misguided in that it bases its argument on the existence of the “high-benefit/high tax” model that was once California’s state social structure.
November 24th, 2009 at 4:20 pmHow is that a response to my evidence and/or point? Circumstantial ad hominem attacks…for the lose.
November 24th, 2009 at 4:21 pmIt seems that you believe that your simplistic point reflects reality.
November 24th, 2009 at 4:21 pmJohn Hoover, what is your “evidence” again, exactly?
An opinion piece in the LA Times?
Try again, my friend.
November 24th, 2009 at 4:22 pmGiven that article, reality supports my point.
November 24th, 2009 at 4:23 pmRalph,
How is this opinion?
November 24th, 2009 at 4:24 pm
Yeah, right. All those people moved because of taxes.
You got to be kidding.
I can see it now. You guys pack up, I’m selling the house and quitting my job and we are moving to a state that has lower taxes.
more false equivialncies.
How many children do you have?
November 24th, 2009 at 4:30 pmJohn Hoover says:
Ralph,
How is this opinion?
Does someone need to teach you how to post a link? To, you know, a source?
November 24th, 2009 at 4:36 pmDid you read that paragraph? It’s not just California and Texas. 16 of the 17(bottom third) states with the lowest tax levels had a net positive amount of people moving in, and 14 of the 17(top third) states with the highest tax levels had a net negative amount of people moving in. Are you trying to say that you can explain away the migration pattern for 2/3 of the states in the country with something other than taxes and that the tax rates are simply coincidental? Can you support that at all?
How many children I have is completely irrelevant (speaking of false equivalences) to the Census Bureau’s statistics. We’re not talking about me. We’re talking about the average behavior of US citizens is.
November 24th, 2009 at 4:38 pmBetween April 1, 2000, and June 30, 2007, an average of 3,247 more people moved out of California than into it every week, according to the Census Bureau.
During that same time, Texas received 14 cents more in federal revenue per tax dollar, than they paid in. We’re paying for their low taxes.
November 24th, 2009 at 4:39 pmgummitch, he linked to one earlier.
Will you be surprised to know that the author, although it was in the la times was William Voegeli who also penned:
The Roots of Liberal Condescension
November 24th, 2009 at 4:40 pmSnobbery is the last refuge of the liberal-arts major.
How many kids you have will tell me just how much you know about life and as I suspected before, you have very little to offer.
You surmise along with other republican pundits that taxes are the reason.
You never consider jobs or lack of them in your equation, let alone a ream of other considerables for families…
You take census stats and put your own warped twist on their meanings and you can’t support anything except the numbers.
You’re a phony.
November 24th, 2009 at 4:44 pmFred, you’re still trying to claim that the article author’s arguments are false based on his opinions and dispositions. What the author thinks of taxes is irrelevant. The statistics stand for themselves: People migrated away from states with high taxes and towards states with low taxes. That is not an opinion. That is a fact. The only falsifiable claim is about the causal relationship between the taxes and the migration. The statistics seem to support that causal relationship.
Can you refute that evidence with your own evidence or not?
November 24th, 2009 at 4:45 pmSome moved from hot to cold climates too. Is that viable as a reason?
You offer no proof. Only your twisted interpretation of census numbers. If you’re going to prove it then get to doing it.
November 24th, 2009 at 4:47 pmSo, John, if I were to find an opinion piece that supports my contention that the decline in state services is far more damaging than the tax rate itself, would you concede that reality supports my point, as well?
How about we go to a statement delivered to a Joint Hearing of the Senate and Assembly Committees on Revenue and Taxation, January 20, 1993 by Lenny Goldberg, Executive Director, California Tax
Reform Association:
we cannot look at the issue of taxes and growth and not
address Proposition 13. The inability to pay for infrastructure,
environmental mitigation, local services, and quality of life
improvements, plus the unfair taxation of developers through
fees, is anti-growth. Counter to the tax-cutting perspectives,
and counter-intuitively for many people, there is a strong
argument that Prop. 13 reform which increases business taxation–
if done right–will improve the economic climate of California.
(emphasis mine)
November 24th, 2009 at 4:47 pmJohn Hoover says:
How is this opinion?
One way to assess how Americans feel about the different tax and benefit packages the states offer is by examining internal U.S. migration patterns….
The migration to the south and west were longstanding and will continue as the population ages, e.g. Florida, Arizona. This has nothing to do with taxes because people do not move based on that factor. Older retired people are moving to warmer climates.
November 24th, 2009 at 4:49 pmThe “fact” that you would have us believe is that taxes were the reason for the shift in population.
Surely you are clever enough to know that correlation does not equal causation, right?
November 24th, 2009 at 4:50 pmif hoover was right, everyone in the country would be moving to Montana where there is no income tax.
You missed the boat hoover. the train, the plane, etc.
In addition to what others have said. All through the era you point to, the bush era, times were getting harder for working class Americans.
Jobs were dissapearing and as history repeats itself, people migrate away from highly populated areas to more rural settings during hard times.
I would say that your and bush’s economics were the biggest driver of people in the directions they went. NOt taxes.
November 24th, 2009 at 4:53 pmyet John Hoover ALSO said:
Interesting how those false equivalencies get started.
November 24th, 2009 at 4:54 pmYou might just as easily make the case that people have been leaving California because Proposition 13 gutted the state’s ability to fund the benefits once considered critical, like the educational system from top to bottom. Or that the budget was gutted by the decisions to build prisons faster than schools, in order to house drug offenders.
Or you might point to the fact that Texas currently has a higher percentage of well-paying jobs, primarily as a result of high use of natural resources (oil and chemicals).
November 24th, 2009 at 4:54 pmWe’re talking about the average behavior of US citizens is.
November 24th, 2009 at 4:57 pm—
I have no investment in this conversation but still I feel it important to remember that averages are often very misleading mathematical measures
Gummitch,
November 24th, 2009 at 4:58 pmor that the yankees won because I wore my lucky socks…
Fred, as a Phillies fan, I say damn you and your lucky socks!
November 24th, 2009 at 5:00 pmSure, correlation does not imply causation. But California is in the west (response to pags2) but people are migrating away from *that*. An, no, an opinion that supports your point would not sufficiently put into question the Census Bureau statistics.
There is a high correlation between high taxes and emigration and a high correlation between low taxes and immigration.
And speaking of growth…Texas seems to be doing pretty well for job growth…and all with lower taxes too…weird.
http://www.newgeography.com/content/00741-all-cities-rankings-2009-new-geography-best-cities-job-growth
November 24th, 2009 at 5:00 pmRalph, I knew there was something not quite perfect about you……☮
November 24th, 2009 at 5:01 pmralph:
November 24th, 2009 at 5:02 pmPhillies?
Pat’s or Geno’s?
Mind you our friendship is at “steak” here….
gummitch,
We’re not just talking about California. People emigrated away from the almost all of the states in the top third for tax rates.
November 24th, 2009 at 5:03 pmSo, an opinion that supports my point is invalid, despite the copious inclusion of relevant facts, such as:
Total state and local taxes account for less than 2% of the
cost of doing business, and are in many cases closer to 1%. Thus
even large changes in tax law–which raise or lower taxes by 20%
–amount to about 2 tenths of one percent of costs. A New York
State study showed that labor costs were 53 times tax costs–so a
few pennies worth of productivity improvements or labor saving
(including, certainly, payroll costs such as workers’
compensation) far overshadow any potential tax breaks.
But an opinion piece that supports your point is unassailable?
Gotcha.
Tell the truth, John Hoover, you didn’t even check out my link, did you?
November 24th, 2009 at 5:03 pmJust a little friendly reminder. Texas is a welfare state:
barfly says:
November 24th, 2009 at 5:03 pmDuring that same time, Texas received 14 cents more in federal revenue per tax dollar, than they paid in. We’re paying for their low taxes.
The only jobs government creates is government jobs.
—
November 24th, 2009 at 5:07 pmand we have to ask ourselves is our children learning…
John Hoover, properly speaking, people have not “emigrated away from” California in a statistical sense. The population has not shrunk. It is still growing, but that growth has leveled off.
And this slower-growth trend has persisted for a couple of decades — in fact, since the LAST Republican-created recession in the early 90s.
Yet in the decades prior to that, California’s population grew at a strong clip, even though Californians were taxed at about the same rate as we are now. The difference?
Decimation of services.
November 24th, 2009 at 5:08 pmRalph,
opinions don’t support your point. Facts do. While those facts are interesting and I will definitely look into them more later, the discussion is not of taxes as a cost of doing business but of personal income. So, I’m not sure that those taxes are particularly relevant to your argument.
I tried to look through the link for the relevant facts, but it looked like opinions to me. When correlations to real world events were made, no hard numbers were given…just speculations.
What does concern me is barfly’s statement about Texas receiving more than is pays. Was that listed in one of the prior links? If it was then I missed it. I’d like to look into it more.
November 24th, 2009 at 5:12 pmNo one has ever gone homeless because of taxation,
but many have due to unemployment / underemployment.
Does Mr. Hoover understand the concept of “triage”?
November 24th, 2009 at 5:12 pmSo, according to Hoover, California population is dropping. Is that sort of like the last Hoover who said the economy was just fine just before the Great Depression?
November 24th, 2009 at 5:14 pmWe’re not just talking about California. People emigrated away from the almost all of the states in the top third for tax rates.
So population in the red states of the south is growing while population in the blue states is diminishing. I’d like to see some factual stats on that claim.
November 24th, 2009 at 5:18 pmBut Texas has low taxes AND high job growth. I don’t info for the other low tax states yet. I’m searching to see, but the “Texas” model does seem to be helping people more than the “California” model. :-\
November 24th, 2009 at 5:19 pmbut the “Texas” model does seem to be helping people more than the “California” model. :-\
November 24th, 2009 at 5:23 pm—
But how have you defined your model of help? Are you factoring in the qualitiy of the schools, services, etc available in each state or what? Maybe I missed it but in N-dimensional systems it is unwise to try to look for simplistic correlataions and then to hold them up without a greater context.
Y’know, I have the same response to your opinion piece.
When people relocate, they generally don’t decide where to go on the basis of relative tax burden. They decide based on job prospects, family situations, affordability of housing and the culture of their prospective new homes.
Tax rates can be a factor, but for most people, tax rates are not the reason to move somewhere. On a grand scale, statistics generally reflect situations of unequal pressures equalizing themselves. Housing costs are a big element of those pressures. A family that has been able to afford a modest house in a lower-middle class neighborhood in California, for example, can live like kings in rural Kentucky on the same housing investment. When housing gets too expensive, like it did in California until the housing bubble burst, that’s a much more powerful force for emigration than taxes.
November 24th, 2009 at 5:25 pmTexas also doesn’t have the population of California. It also doesn’t have the education system of California. Nor the road system. In fact, Texas is a backwater in every aspect of civilization when compared to California so of course their taxes will be less.
Comparing Texas to California is like comparing a Yugo to a Lexus.
November 24th, 2009 at 5:27 pmThere you go Mr. Hoover, three different sources telling you you assessment is basically uneducated and full of crap.
November 24th, 2009 at 5:30 pmCertainly, the variables are many, and making any concrete claim of causality is a non-trivial task. So, what we can do is look at the behavior of people to see what action they saw appropriate, given all of those variables. The LA Times article indicates that, after people considering all those variables (explicitly or implicitly), they moved away from California (and other “high tax” states) despite the added services. Where were people moving? They moved towards states with lower taxes. Were the taxes the reason for the move? Maybe, maybe not. I’ve moved from state to state several times in my life and I can say that sometimes it was a factor and sometimes it wasn’t (as I got older taxes seemed to matter to me more, but whatever). Perhaps the states with lower taxes were consistently able to offer people something else that the people wanted. I don’t know what that thing is or even if it’s one thing versus many things. But we’re still left with the fact that people would rather be in those states which just *happen* to have lower taxes than the states that *happen* to have higher taxes.
It sounds like it could be a good sociological and political study.
November 24th, 2009 at 5:32 pmIt sounds like unadulterated righty bulldookie,
because it is.
November 24th, 2009 at 5:37 pmA very erudite dodge, Mr. John Hoover. But it really says…nothing.
November 24th, 2009 at 5:37 pmIn other words, “I acknowledge your caution against simplifying complex data, but I’m going to go ahead and do it anyway.”
Once again, this is inaccurate.
People have not ‘moved away” from california in a statistical sense. The population of the state continues to grow, according to the U. S. Census Bureau.
One would think that someone as rigorous at examining whether or not facts support counter-arguments might be as rigorous about statements of fact which support his own.
November 24th, 2009 at 5:37 pmHusband:
“Hey Honey, I’ve been penciling this thing out, and I’ve decided we should quit our jobs and take a couple of weeks to spend $5,000.00 moving several states away, where, even though we’ll get paid a little less, we’ll save over ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY dollars in taxes next year, and that’s money we could really use right now.”
Wife:
“Jim – I’m leaving you because you’re an utter moron.”
November 24th, 2009 at 5:40 pmExcept, of course, that the most populous states are predominantly high-tax/high-service states, with the notable exception of Texas. Odd that Texas is the one state you have referred to more than any other to make your point…
By the way, this is even more true of states with the highest population density.
So it seems your statement “we’re still left with the fact that people would rather be in those states which just *happen* to have lower taxes than the states that *happen* to have higher taxes” was clumsily worded at best, downright wrong at worst.
November 24th, 2009 at 5:42 pmCan I recommend 210 more than once please? Oh and can I add let’s leave our family and friends behind just because we are cheap pricks? I mean for real does anyone personally know a single soul that ever told you their reason to relocate across state lines was because of taxes?
November 24th, 2009 at 5:43 pmRalph,
The piece I used was for the citation of US Census Bureau statistics…not the opinion. The piece you used had no references whatsoever.
Hooda
Yes, California is the most populous state. Texas is the next most populous. I hardly think a state with 24 million people can be considered “backwater in every aspect of civilization”. Texas beat California for job growth. Texas also beat out California for federal tax revenue paid per capita. Also, your claim that Texas has lower taxes because it has fewer people speaks only to the total revenue and not the rate, which is what we’re talking about. By the way, New York has fewer people than Texas but higher taxes than Texas. So…counter-example there.
And as far as the claim about education, do you have evidence to support it?
November 24th, 2009 at 5:45 pmRalph,
If we’re going to make any headway in society, which has high numbers of variables, then we need to have SOME way to make decisions. Otherwise, why do we even have government? Are we just supposed to throw up our hands and say “it’s too complex, I’m not even going to think about it”?
The article spoke of net migration not net population. More people are moving out than are moving in.
November 24th, 2009 at 5:49 pmI beg your pardon. Didn’t chimpy say we have jobs that ‘mericans don’t want?
It’s gonna take years to clean up the repugs’ messes.
I also agree to a greed tax on luxury items.
November 24th, 2009 at 5:49 pmThe article spoke of net migration not net population. More people are moving out than are moving in.
—
November 24th, 2009 at 5:51 pmNow how would you explain low tax rural state brain drain emigration to higher tax less rural states. Are these people saying I really am looking for a state with higher taxes?
Grover Norquist is a lying charlatan.
Tax whiners are destroying the US.
November 24th, 2009 at 5:52 pmWhich states are talking about? The fact is, the net effect of migration between the states is away from states with high taxes and towards the states with low taxes. Do some people go the other way? Sure…when the opportunity cost is beneficial, but that’s not the majority of the cases.
November 24th, 2009 at 5:55 pmJohn Hoover, your citation of US Census Bureau statistics supports your position only if you believe that correlation implies causation.
You have steadfastly refused to acknowledge that for decades California’s population grew at a steady pace despite having among the nation’s highest per capita tax burdens. I guess you have to ignore that, since it is a clear refutation of your point and demonstrates that your assumption — that high taxes drive emigration from states — is flawed at best.
If you want to take the argument further, we might look at New York state, another “high-tax/high-services” state and the third most populous. its population grew 2.7% between 2000 and 2008. People should have been leaving in droves, right?
November 24th, 2009 at 5:56 pmtombaker
November 24th, 2009 at 5:56 pmI agree totally. Still as a humanist I think it is important to try to understand just how hard it is to grow up being named Grover. Mr Norguist is doing that weird transference thing when people struggling with difficult issues shift those frustrations to some unrelated idea, thing, or group.
Sorry Grover. I meant Norquist!
November 24th, 2009 at 5:57 pmOf course California’s population is going to increase the fastest, it has the most people. People have babies. More people have more babies. QED. So what?
I’m not saying that taxation was the causation, but can you find a cause that correlates MORE HIGHLY than the taxation?
November 24th, 2009 at 5:59 pmI suppose you’re right.
Better just to embrace the simplistic data that supports the position we want to promote, and decide on that basis.
That’s the conservative way. It’s why republicans never solve social problems, because they’re not interested in the reality of a situation, they’re only interested in the reality (or fantasy, sometimes) that aligns with their cherished presuppositions.
not taht you’re like that, of course.
November 24th, 2009 at 5:59 pmFred quotes:
John Hoover says:
How many children I have is completely irrelevant (speaking of false equivalences) to the Census Bureau’s statistics. We’re not talking about me. We’re talking about the average behavior of US citizens is.
Fine!
Don’t claim them on your taxes. How stupid are you?
November 24th, 2009 at 6:03 pmI see. The statistics that say what you want to say, can be presented as is and interpreted in the most favorable manner you choose. Those that undercut your argument must be explained away. Gotcha.
I’m beginning to get the hang of this conservative/libertarian debate style.
Oh, and the fats that completely hammer your position? They must be ignored. I think I’m almost ready for RedState.
November 24th, 2009 at 6:03 pm::sigh::
Ralph, if you can think of a better way to analyze the behavior of people, then I’d love to hear it. Honestly.
If we can just get beyond the ad hominem attacks, then I feel like we’d be able to make real headway here. Unfortunately though, I have family coming in that need to be picked up at the airport. So, I must go.
I have honestly enjoyed this lively debate. I always appreciate when people take firm positions and help me to refine my arguments and identify holes in my logic. So, to all who contributed (especially ralph), thank you, and I’ll see you around.
Happy Thanksgiving, everyone!
November 24th, 2009 at 6:06 pmgee – maybe it’s the 10+% unemployment rate they’ve had down there for going on 3 years.
reverse Grapes of Wrath scene in progress.
lots of people are getting out of OR and WA for the same kind of reason. can’t stay where there’s no work and the cost of living has been hyper-inflated by tax-whiner power yuppies who all thought they’d become Carlton Sheets real estate moguls with no money down.
November 24th, 2009 at 6:08 pmthe logic doesn’t have holes – it is a hole.
November 24th, 2009 at 6:10 pmJohn Hoover says:
I’m not saying that taxation was the causation, but can you find a cause that correlates MORE HIGHLY than the taxation?
I already mentioned the job opportunities in Texas because of natural resources, but the critical mistake here is assuming that people are motivated by one element in their lives to do something as dramatic as moving to another state. It’s too simplistic and it therefore creates false causality.
And taxes? That doesn’t make the smell test.
November 24th, 2009 at 6:27 pmIf you look at the statistics for Texas you will note there were population changes after the oil industry went south in the 1980’s. The changes in Texas can easily be accounted for it relation to the oil industry. If taxes were a factor then Mississippi would have a huge population along with Arkansas, Alabama, Montana, Wyoming, etc. But they don’t.
November 24th, 2009 at 6:27 pmAnd as far as the claim about education, do you have evidence to support it?
According to US News & World Report:
#4 Ca. Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA
#4 Stanford University, Palo Alto, Ca
#4 Columbia University, NY, NY
#15 Cornell University, Ithaca, NY
#17 Rice University, Houston, TX
#21 UC-Berkeley, Berkeley, CA
#24 UC-LA Los Angeles, CA
#26 USC Los Angeles, CA
#32 New York University NY, NY
#35 UC-SD San Diego, CA
#42 Rennsselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY
#42 UC-Davis Davis, CA
#42 UC Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA
#46 UC-Irvine Irvine, CA
#47 UT Austin, Tx
So just looking at the top 50 universities in the country NY has 3, Texas has 2 and CA has 10.
November 24th, 2009 at 6:57 pmThe mistake Obama made with the stimulus bill was not the size per se. He put in too much trickle down in hopes of getting Republican support for his stated bi-partisam agenda. For his effort he only got the 2 Maine Republicans. The same amount of money more carefully targeted to job creation would have produced better results, especially regarding employment. Instead, it looks like he will need to augment the stimulus to give it the kick it needed in the first place.
November 24th, 2009 at 11:16 pmHoodathunk,
Are all of those schools run by the states that they are in?
November 25th, 2009 at 1:12 amWhat happened to my comment?
November 25th, 2009 at 1:44 pm