If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The New York Times)   Reagan adviser to GOP: You can believe raising taxes is always bad for the economy, but only if you can explain the Clinton boom   (economix.blogs.nytimes.com) divider line 303
    More: Interesting, GOP  
•       •       •

3719 clicks; posted to Politics » on 06 Aug 2012 at 1:35 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



303 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-08-06 04:34:08 PM

Epoch_Zero:
In November 2011 the Congressional Budget Office updated its earlier reports concerning the Act. The CBO stated that "the employment effects began to wane at the end of 2010 and have continued to do so throughout 2011." Nevertheless, in the third quarter of 2011, the CBO estimated that ...


Why does your graph say recovery stimulus started Q1? It didn't.

growlersoftware.com

Here's what your graph should look like if you move the start of the recovery to where it actually happened:

growlersoftware.com
 
2012-08-06 04:35:33 PM

Irregardless: I agree with the above. The internet business was responsible for the boom not tax increases. The internet took off after restrictions were lifted. This made it available for commercial use which resulted in the economic boom. Also as far as the creation of the early internet I believe Paul Baran at Rand came up with the idea for the internet (packet switching) and then a few years later Davies in Great Britain independently came up with the same idea. A private company founded by MIT guys, BBN in Cambridge, MA, came up with the idea for ARPANET, implemented it and ran it. The US government was their customer. They later helped to implement other networks, MILNET, CSNET etc.


cdn.cnwimg.com
 
2012-08-06 04:41:05 PM

ox45tallboy: relcec: clinton didn't have high tax policies.
he cut capital gains to their lowest levels in history.
he cut capital gains 28% for the rich.
true he raised taxes on people who actually take a salary for a living, but does that really count?
is your argument really going to be his high taxes on the working class, low taxes on the super wealthy are the key to economic progress?

In your opinion, was the cut to capital gains taxes during the Clinton Administration a significant factor in the economic boom that happened in that same time period? I don't mean was it the factor, but was it a significant factor? And if you think so, why? Was it because people were more likely to invest in businesses than to put their money under the mattress?


no. it was a handout to the rich. it had no societal or economic benefits overall.
and I don't think increasing taxes hurts much in the long term.
but I object to anyone calling clintons policies high tax. he raised taxes on those who work a 9-5 or take a salary, but for those who earn their income watching piles of money grow he cut them significantly.
if you add in the qualifier *except for the extremely wealthy, because he gave them the largest tax cut in history* I'm good though.
 
2012-08-06 04:43:52 PM

BojanglesPaladin: But with almost half of the country paying no Federal income tax at all, It's hard to argue that everyone is paying their fair share.


It's half of filers not half of the population. People have to have an income in order to file. As for who makes up that half - I'm betting it's freeloaders like Mitt Romney and his tax-skirting brethren.
 
2012-08-06 04:43:59 PM
the boom was do to a technological revolution, it would have happened regardless of any tax policy that was politically feasible in america in the mid to late 90s.
anyone who claims taxes cuts or tax increases could even possibly have helped or hurt the boom are full of shiat.
 
2012-08-06 04:45:51 PM

lennavan: Biotechnology is another enormous rapidly growing field. What made that possible?

[upload.wikimedia.org image 140x141]

The NSF. Also known as socialism.


Um, actually biotech as a science originated in private agriculture and drug testing. Which are things the government has put a little money into just to keep its hand in, but not really any significant amount. The NSF has never been about advancing science so much as about making sure some of it stays publicly accessible.

There have been essentially zero major biotech breakthroughs off of the NSF. While there has been plenty of work done off of public funding, it's usually been public in the sense of "several major corporations put money into a pool and give it to a university lab on the condition that the results not be restricted".

So... no. Not socialism, not the NSF.

//My lab does have one NSF project going... also in excess of 15 industry-funded ones. Tempted to say that's fairly representative, but actually the NSF is a much smaller proportion of public research dollars than that.

//Science is fairly self-sustaining at this point, the government tends to hurt us more than it helps us, for every NSF that puts a few hundred million into the system there's a Stem Cell ban that removes a billion or so in raw materials from our grasp.
 
2012-08-06 04:46:19 PM

DjangoStonereaver: propasaurus: DjangoStonereaver: propasaurus: The Clinton boom was the result of GHW Bush's policies and the Gingrich-led Congress keeping the tax & spend Clintonite Democrats in check. The recession during W's administration was a result of the Clinton high taxes taking effect. Just like 9/11 was a failure of Clinton's foreign policy and being soft on terrorism. Any upswing we've seen in the last 3+ years has been the residual effects of W's policies of fiscal responsibility and the last 2 years of a Republican House. Now we're seeing onshmer confidence springing back because Americans are anticipating a Romney presidency.

Wow.

I'm amazed that you have enough brainpower to even breath on your own.

Took all my energy to channel my inner troll.

/oh, and SEAL Team 6 only got bin Laden because of W's enhanced interrogations.
//derp

Congratulations.

Favorites as "Troll Jedi Master" in Blue2, baby.


No no. Don't do that. Too much pressure, I'll never live up to expectations.
 
2012-08-06 04:47:21 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: Please remind me,


Since you're playing nice today, that's actually a valid question.

1. How much do people want to raise the tax rates?


At present, the proposal is simply letting the Bush era tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans expire. This will raise their income taxes about 3% or so on paper, or exactly what they were when Clinton left office, but it is hard to tell if the average rich person would pay this much due to all kinds of other tax breaks they are eligible for.

2. How much money will that generate?


A fair question.

But if you want revenue, that's where the money is. If all Bush tax cuts were allowed to expire, it would cut the deficit by 54%, or $226 billion, in 2015.

If you tax only the rich, according to the New York Times analysis of the federal budget deficit (David Leonhardt's recent "Fix the Deficit Puzzle"), by allowing taxes to go up for households earning income above $250,000 a year, the take would be $54 billion in 2015 (or 13% of the projected $418 billion 2015 budget shortfall) or $115 billion in 2030 (or 9% of the projected $1,345 billion budget shortfall in 2030).


3. How many jobs will that create?


Probably none. It isn't about creating jobs, it's about increasing revenues to keep from going deeper in debt. You know, fiscal responsibility.

4. How?


Like I said, it isn't about job creation. However, one could find other ways to reduce the deficit by, for instance, cutting military spending and other tax breaks and loopholes for corporations, and use this additional revenue for infrastructure improvement, but that isn't likely to happen.

5. What impact will that have on our $15,916,000,000,000 debt?


See above. It will likely address 13% of the current deficit (the money we are short each year which gets added to the debt). No, it won't bring the debt down by itself, but keep in mind this is more than the entire budget of NASA, which Republicans in Congress took an axe to because every dollar counts.
 
2012-08-06 04:47:31 PM

Graffito: s half of filers not half of the population. People have to have an income in order to file.


Obviously. It's an income tax.

Which means that it's far more than half of the country that pays no Federal Income tax. But I'm only concerned with those who have income.
 
2012-08-06 04:50:22 PM

BojanglesPaladin: Graffito: s half of filers not half of the population. People have to have an income in order to file.

Obviously. It's an income tax.

Which means that it's far more than half of the country that pays no Federal Income tax. But I'm only concerned with those who have income.


Indeed.
 
2012-08-06 04:50:49 PM

Irregardless: I agree with the above. The internet business was responsible for the boom not tax increases. The internet took off after restrictions were lifted. This made it available for commercial use which resulted in the economic boom. Also as far as the creation of the early internet I believe Paul Baran at Rand came up with the idea for the internet (packet switching) and then a few years later Davies in Great Britain independently came up with the same idea. A private company founded by MIT guys, BBN in Cambridge, MA, came up with the idea for ARPANET, implemented it and ran it. The US government was their customer. They later helped to implement other networks, MILNET, CSNET etc.


Ah yeah, rewriting history. You've been appropriately labeled as a hack.

Here's the real story behind the internet. Take note that BBN is a mere tiny paragraph in the middle of that story.

Don't believe that? How about Vint Cerf ? I hear he knows a thing or two about the internet.
 
2012-08-06 04:51:29 PM
The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 - Deficit Reduction Act of 1993

It created 36 percent and 39.6 income tax rates for individuals in the top 1.2% of the wage earners.[2]
It created a 35 percent income tax rate for corporations.
The cap on Medicare taxes was repealed.
Transportation fuels taxes were raised by 4.3 cents per gallon.
The taxable portion of Social Security benefits was raised.
The phase-out of the personal exemption and limit on itemized deductions were permanently extended.
 
2012-08-06 04:53:24 PM

Jim_Callahan: lennavan: Biotechnology is another enormous rapidly growing field. What made that possible?

[upload.wikimedia.org image 140x141]

The NSF. Also known as socialism.

Um, actually biotech as a science originated in private agriculture and drug testing. Which are things the government has put a little money into just to keep its hand in, but not really any significant amount. The NSF has never been about advancing science so much as about making sure some of it stays publicly accessible.

There have been essentially zero major biotech breakthroughs off of the NSF. While there has been plenty of work done off of public funding, it's usually been public in the sense of "several major corporations put money into a pool and give it to a university lab on the condition that the results not be restricted".

So... no. Not socialism, not the NSF.

//My lab does have one NSF project going... also in excess of 15 industry-funded ones. Tempted to say that's fairly representative, but actually the NSF is a much smaller proportion of public research dollars than that.

//Science is fairly self-sustaining at this point, the government tends to hurt us more than it helps us, for every NSF that puts a few hundred million into the system there's a Stem Cell ban that removes a billion or so in raw materials from our grasp.


In conclusion, I have no idea what I am talking about.


Yeah, that was clear early on in your post. But kudos to you for pretending you have a lab.
 
2012-08-06 04:54:05 PM

relcec: no. it was a handout to the rich. it had no societal or economic benefits overall.
and I don't think increasing taxes hurts much in the long term.
but I object to anyone calling clintons policies high tax. he raised taxes on those who work a 9-5 or take a salary, but for those who earn their income watching piles of money grow he cut them significantly.
if you add in the qualifier *except for the extremely wealthy, because he gave them the largest tax cut in history* I'm good though.


So, would it be fair to say that economic factors other than the policies of the Clinton administration and Newt's "Contract with America" were what caused the economic boom of the 90's?

Do you think that it is possible that other governmental policies or spending programs might help bring about another technological revolution and accompanying boom? (I'm not saying that the boom of the 90's was a direct result of the investment by the US government in the technologies which fueled it, but would such a thing be possible in the future?)
 
2012-08-06 04:56:26 PM

MachineHead: Ah yeah, rewriting history. You've been appropriately labeled as a hack.

Here's the real story behind the internet. Take note that BBN is a mere tiny paragraph in the middle of that story.

Don't believe that? How about Vint Cerf ? I hear he knows a thing or two about the internet.


premierguidemedia.com
 
2012-08-06 04:56:55 PM

ox45tallboy: Like I said, it isn't about job creation. However, one could find other ways to reduce the deficit by, for instance, cutting military spending


good responses on the other points, thanks.

on this one, I wonder what the net impact is: doesn't cutting military spending result in more unemployment? It is after all a form of stimulus, isn't it?
 
2012-08-06 04:57:46 PM

lennavan: But kudos to you for pretending you have a lab.


If you need him he'll be in it.

/only has that to contribute
//you see, it's about sex with dogs
 
2012-08-06 05:01:05 PM

rnld: The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 - Deficit Reduction Act of 1993

It created 36 percent and 39.6 income tax rates for individuals in the top 1.2% of the wage earners.[2]
It created a 35 percent income tax rate for corporations.
The cap on Medicare taxes was repealed.
Transportation fuels taxes were raised by 4.3 cents per gallon.
The taxable portion of Social Security benefits was raised.
The phase-out of the personal exemption and limit on itemized deductions were permanently extended.



Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997
The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 (Pub.L. 105-34, H.R. 2014, 111 Stat. 787, enacted August 5, 1997) reduced several federal taxes in the United States.

Subject to certain phase-in rules, the top capital gains rate fell from 28% to 20% [8/28=28.5% - the largest tax cut on the ultra wealthy in history]...
The act exempted from taxation the profits on the sale of a personal residence of up to $500,000 for married couples filing jointly and $250,000 for singles...
The $600,000 estate tax exemption was to increase gradually to $1 million by the year 2006. Family farms and small businesses could qualify for an exemption of $1.3 million, effective 1998.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxpayer_Relief_Act_of_1997
 
2012-08-06 05:02:48 PM

ox45tallboy: It is my understanding that the delays were partially caused by the demand for transparency - i.e., the accounting for every single dollar would be publicly accessible, partially caused by the fact that many places didn't have their infrastructure improvements ready to go because they were under a rather safe assumption that there would be no money for the improvements, so they didn't spend the money to plan the improvements.


I think there was a variety of factors, the most obvious and impactful being that infrastructure projects do not spring up out of thin air in a matter of months. There must be proposals, plans, reviews, bids, committees, etc. and all of that takes months and years under the best of circumstances. Basically, this was a long term objective square peg trying to be jammed into a short term stimulus round hole. That is also why I am dubious about it's measurable impact in reducing unemployment. I think we both agree that it helped maintian existing employment even if for no other reason than it assured companies that money would still be coming. And that was probably very important given the near cessation of construction at the time.

ox45tallboy: But what do you think? Was there, in your opinion, a more significant part of the stimulus that did more to help unemployment and the economy in general?


I honestly don't know. It's not abundantly clear to me that the stimulus did anything beyond acting as a parachute to possibly minimize the impact of an economic free fall. I believe it can be argued either way whether we got our money's worth at the end of the day. I'm also not sure how much of the current anemic recovery is the natural business cycle and how much is a lingering effect of the stimulus.

This is part of why I'm interested in the specifics. I know for instance that despite stagnant growth and annual revenues at a flat line for the last three years, I have paid more in taxes each year than the previos. Not much mind you, but enought to notice. I also know that the policies designed to "encourage hiring" with small business bever reached me beacus eof all of the limitations. I actually increased our labor force by three people in the last two years and could not get a single one to qualify for my promised tax incentives. Nor do I know anyone who has.

I freely acknowledge that my experience is not universal, but I also think it has SOME value, and I just can't quite put my fingers on a tangible impact to employment from the stimulus. And too much of the support for the argument seems to boild down to "Stimulus money was spent and unemployment went down. Ergo Stimulus reduces unemployment." And that sometimes smells like "Pirate reduction causes global waming". Correlation being equated with causation.

Anyway, just rambling here. I'm not convinced the Stimulus was innefective. Just not sure we really know with any precision in what way it was effective or to what extent.
 
2012-08-06 05:06:34 PM

BojanglesPaladin: I think there was a variety of factors, the most obvious and impactful being that infrastructure projects do not spring up out of thin air in a matter of months. There must be proposals, plans, reviews, bids, committees, etc. and all of that takes months and years under the best of circumstances.


The thing is, though, at the end of the process the plan may be a very good one, but there simply isn't the money. There are all kinds of ways that proposals - solicited or no - could be totally ready to start spending money and putting subs on contract if only the money existed in the first place.

Not to say that people would begin breaking ground immediately, but people could at least start winding up right away.
 
2012-08-06 05:07:25 PM

BojanglesPaladin: ox45tallboy: It is my understanding that the delays were partially caused by the demand for transparency - i.e., the accounting for every single dollar would be publicly accessible, partially caused by the fact that many places didn't have their infrastructure improvements ready to go because they were under a rather safe assumption that there would be no money for the improvements, so they didn't spend the money to plan the improvements.

I think there was a variety of factors, the most obvious and impactful being that infrastructure projects do not spring up out of thin air in a matter of months. There must be proposals, plans, reviews, bids, committees, etc. and all of that takes months and years under the best of circumstances. Basically, this was a long term objective square peg trying to be jammed into a short term stimulus round hole. That is also why I am dubious about it's measurable impact in reducing unemployment. I think we both agree that it helped maintian existing employment even if for no other reason than it assured companies that money would still be coming. And that was probably very important given the near cessation of construction at the time.

ox45tallboy: But what do you think? Was there, in your opinion, a more significant part of the stimulus that did more to help unemployment and the economy in general?

I honestly don't know. It's not abundantly clear to me that the stimulus did anything beyond acting as a parachute to possibly minimize the impact of an economic free fall. I believe it can be argued either way whether we got our money's worth at the end of the day. I'm also not sure how much of the current anemic recovery is the natural business cycle and how much is a lingering effect of the stimulus.

This is part of why I'm interested in the specifics. I know for instance that despite stagnant growth and annual revenues at a flat line for the last three years, I have paid more in taxes each year than the previos. Not much mind you, but ...


With the same income?
 
2012-08-06 05:08:00 PM

ox45tallboy: AeAe: well, the regular sex is pretty awesome. Plus, I've grown to like her.

Then count your blessings and don't bring your problems to the Politics tab. We're trying to have an argument here!


well.. someone mentioned blowjobs, so I thought I would share my lack of said bj's and try to get some sympathy.
 
2012-08-06 05:08:48 PM

Epoch_Zero: In November 2011 the Congressional Budget Office updated its earlier reports concerning the Act. The CBO stated that "the employment effects began to wane at the end of 2010 and have continued to do so throughout 2011." Nevertheless, in the third quarter of 2011, the CBO estimated that the Act had increased the number of full-time equivalent jobs by 0.5 million to 3.3 million
upload.wikimedia.org



From the wikimedia page for that image


English: Graph showing projected monthly U.S. Unemployment Rate with and without the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (also known as the "Stimulus Package") versus the actual U.S. Unemployment Rate. The projected unemployment rate with and without ARRA 2009 is from President Barrack Obama's administration presented in January 2009 to justify the legislation: Romer, Christina; Bernstein, Jared (January 10, 2009), The Job Impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan (http://www.ampo.org/assets/library/184_obama.pdf). The actual unemployment rate is from the U.S. Labor Department.


Link

So its a mark-over derived the original plan proposal, not the actual plan passed by Congress, not done by the CBO and not revised in 2011.... And we should trust your interpretations why?
 
2012-08-06 05:09:22 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: on this one, I wonder what the net impact is: doesn't cutting military spending result in more unemployment? It is after all a form of stimulus, isn't it?


Without a doubt withdrawing troops from overseas bases such as Japan and Germany will have a negative impact on the economy - of the host country. Why are we propping up their economies? I mean, I agree that the regions surrounding the military bases are dependent on our soldiers spending money in restaurants and shops, but a gradual drawing down could somewhat mitigate this.

As far as major military suppliers like Boeing, why not put the same number of people to work on cheaper planes? It's great that they have all of these wonderful technologies, but for the most part, they are unnecessary, and just one more thing to fail.

When the generals in charge of the military are saying we shouldn't be building these new expensive weapons, that we don't have the use for them, or the trained personnel to operate them, then maybe we should listen to them instead of the military contractors putting bribes campaign contributions into Congress Critters' pockets.
 
2012-08-06 05:14:29 PM
How stupid can you be to think that logic or reasons or explantions matter to conservatives.
 
2012-08-06 05:17:57 PM

BojanglesPaladin: Anyway, just rambling here. I'm not convinced the Stimulus was innefective. Just not sure we really know with any precision in what way it was effective or to what extent.


You make a valid point - many small business owners didn't see any direct benefit from the stimulus, and the indirect benefits, if there were any, were extremely hard to quantify. There's a big difference between Rose's Cafe getting a bigger lunch crowd because the road workers ate there every day and Faye's Day Care getting more kids because the road workers as well as Rose's wait staff had enough work to need someone to keep their kids more often.

However, as a small business owner, would you say that you would hire more people if your taxes were lower, or would you hire more people if you had enough demand for your goods or services?

I think it is so silly for the Congress Critters to try to tell us that small business owners need lower taxes in order to hire more people. They need increased demand, which only comes about if other people, i.e., their customers, have more money to purchase the goods and services.

Do you mind telling us what sort of business you're in, and what government measure you think would benefit your business as a whole (not your pocketbook as a business owner, but what would cause you to expand and grow your business)?
 
2012-08-06 05:20:03 PM

AeAe: well.. someone mentioned blowjobs, so I thought I would share my lack of said bj's and try to get some sympathy.


Look, since you asked, just explain how much you would like it, and ask her what you could do for her - but not "what can I do in return", more like, "what would you like me to do" and then once you do that, then suggest the bj.
 
2012-08-06 05:36:45 PM

ox45tallboy: Do you think that it is possible that other governmental policies or spending programs might help bring about another technological revolution and accompanying boom? (I'm not saying that the boom of the 90's was a direct result of the investment by the US government in the technologies which fueled it, but would such a thing be possible in the future?)


when I think about the big practical technological breakthroughs that occurred in the 20th century that got serious funding from the government, I can't think of any off hand that weren't funded in significant levels primarily because of the likelihood that they could allow a given nation to kill it's enemies more efficiently.
jets, radar, microwave (and cellular telephone technology), nuclear, computers, satellites, gps, rockets, photovoltaic cells. nasa probably wouldn't exist if the soviet union never existed. it might only exist now because of bureaucratic inertia. if it didn;t exist for whatever reason, it would be diffiuclt as f*Ck to create it at this point under these economic circumstances.

all these things got significant amounts of government dollars devoted which in turn significantly hastened their development and allowed for civilian applications not because they could make our lives better, but because they offered the potential to kill our enemies more efficiently. so, I doubt anything has its practical development hastened very much by government forces because I don't see any existential threat will that will allow a bean counter to say something like *f*ck the price, we need radar now.*
 
2012-08-06 06:01:12 PM
The golden age of capitalism had tax rates of 90% on the rich and the economy roared for decades. Reality shows that high taxes on the rich are good for the economy.
 
2012-08-06 06:07:54 PM

ox45tallboy: AeAe: well.. someone mentioned blowjobs, so I thought I would share my lack of said bj's and try to get some sympathy.

Look, since you asked, just explain how much you would like it, and ask her what you could do for her - but not "what can I do in return", more like, "what would you like me to do" and then once you do that, then suggest the bj.


** unzip pants **

go on ...
 
2012-08-06 06:18:41 PM

ox45tallboy: However, as a small business owner, would you say that you would hire more people if your taxes were lower, or would you hire more people if you had enough demand for your goods or services?


Both, obviously.

But taxes are an operating cost. When operating costs go up, available funds to hire additional staff or to invest in resources goes down, regardless of shifts in demand. If there is a significant enough increase in demand, it can obviously overcome the increase in operating costs. But as operating costs increase, so do our prices, and when our prices are higher, the demand reduces. In the last three years, I have been able to expand the business by REDUCING prices. This may broaden my base, but even with an increase in gross revenue, increased operating costs have kept our profits at a flat to slightly falling level for the last three years. People are simply choosing to do without rather than pay our normal rates. (Rates which have not gone up in 7 years by the way).

But the idea that businesses are not negatively impacted by tax increases is absurd and is too often espoused by people who have never had to deal with it. You might as well say that an increase in fuel costs does not impact business, or that a sudden increase in shipping costs has no impact. It's ludicrous to dismiss out of hand the idea that taxes on businesses have any dampening affet on business.

rnld: With the same income?


Close enough to make no difference, yes. We did not change tax brackets or anything. However there have been changes ot how certain incomes are reported and calculated. Just for a quick instance, begining in 2010 health insurance paid by the company must be declared as income if it was paid for shareholders of more than 2%. Since we are an employee owned business, that had an effect. There are others. As I said, it hasn't been a crippling increase in taxes but it has been noticible.

Add to that a year over year double digit increase in health insurance rates since the ACA passed and we are getting squeezed more and more.

It may not be fashionable on this forum, but I am confortable saying that Obama has not been good for my business. Not saying he's been terrible, but I have three Presidents' worth of experience here, and it's never been as bad as the last three years. And that is not Obama's fault. But I feel that what changes he has made have not benefitted the business in the slightest, an in some cases have had a negative impact. I can also say that I am not alone in seeing it this way. Even among business owners wh ovoted for Obama. Economics tend to be non-partisan.

Obviously, Your mileage may vary.
 
2012-08-06 06:22:00 PM

ox45tallboy: However, as a small business owner, would you say that you would hire more people if your taxes were lower, or would you hire more people if you had enough demand for your goods or services?


Both, obviously.

But taxes are an operating cost. When operating costs go up, available funds to hire additional staff or to invest in resources goes down, regardless of shifts in demand. If there is a significant enough increase in demand, it can obviously overcome the increase in operating costs. But as operating costs increase, so do our prices, and when our prices are higher, the demand reduces. In the last three years, I have been able to maintain the business only by REDUCING prices. This may broaden my base, but even with an increase in gross revenue, increased operating costs have kept our profits at a flat to slightly falling level for the last three years. People are simply choosing to do without rather than pay our normal rates. (Rates which have not gone up in 7 years by the way).

But the idea that businesses are not negatively impacted by tax increases is absurd and is too often espoused by people who have never had to deal with it. You might as well say that an increase in fuel costs does not impact business, or that a sudden increase in shipping costs has no impact. It's ludicrous to dismiss out of hand the idea that taxes on businesses have any dampening affet on business. And whil ethese increases can eventually be absorbed and passed on to the consumer, even if it does not dampen demand, this means an overall increase in costs for everyone and that doesn;t help in the long run either.

rnld: With the same income?


Close enough to make no difference, yes. We did not change tax brackets or anything. However there have been changes ot how certain incomes are reported and calculated. Just for a quick instance, begining in 2010 health insurance paid by the company must be declared as income if it was paid for shareholders of more than 2%. Since we are an employee owned business, that had an effect. There are others. As I said, it hasn't been a crippling increase in taxes but it has been noticible.

Add to that a year-over-year double-digit increase in health insurance rates since the ACA passed and we are getting squeezed more and more.

It may not be fashionable on this forum, but I am confortable saying that Obama has not been good for my business. Not saying he's been terrible, but I have three Presidents' worth of experience here, and it's never been as bad as the last three years. And that is not Obama's fault. But I feel that what changes he has made have not benefitted the business in the slightest, an in some cases have had a negative impact. I can also say that I am not alone in seeing it this way. Even among business owners wh ovoted for Obama. Economics tend to be non-partisan.

Obviously, Your mileage may vary.
 
2012-08-06 06:23:54 PM

BojanglesPaladin: ox45tallboy: However, as a small business owner, would you say that you would hire more people if your taxes were lower, or would you hire more people if you had enough demand for your goods or services?

Both, obviously.


So if your taxes were cut by 20% tomorrow, how many more employees would you hire the next day? What would you have them doing that is not currently being done at your company?
 
2012-08-06 06:28:45 PM

BojanglesPaladin: But taxes are an operating cost. When operating costs go up, available funds to hire additional staff or to invest in resources goes down, regardless of shifts in demand.


How would income taxes affect your ability to hire additional staff? Either you need more staff to meet demand, or you don't.
 
2012-08-06 07:02:39 PM
img.timeinc.net

And by "boom" we mean the sound of the dumbocrap party imploding as the entire nation in near revolt turned on the donkeys in historic numbers and voted the asses out in 1994 after 40 years of being entrenched in congress and the GOP took over.

It's the kind of turnaround that only happens when...oh yeah, it happened to Fartbongo too.
 
2012-08-06 07:23:10 PM

cman: Same reason why the economy rocked during the industrial revolution. The Internet/computer (or digital) revolution brought upon a time of significant investing in new technologies. While a lot of it was real growth, most of it was just a bubble


Plus, the Asian stock market crash and the collapse of the Russian ruble resulted in a flood of capital into the US which helped fund the dotcom and mortgage booms.
 
2012-08-06 07:40:05 PM

impaler: BojanglesPaladin: But taxes are an operating cost. When operating costs go up, available funds to hire additional staff or to invest in resources goes down, regardless of shifts in demand.

How would income taxes affect your ability to hire additional staff? Either you need more staff to meet demand, or you don't.


I have the sneaking suspicion that he isn't an actual business owner, because only an idiot would hire an employee just because of lower taxes, if demand stayed the same.
 
2012-08-06 07:54:22 PM

relcec: when I think about the big practical technological breakthroughs that occurred in the 20th century that got serious funding from the government, I can't think of any off hand that weren't funded in significant levels primarily because of the likelihood that they could allow a given nation to kill it's enemies more efficiently.
jets, radar, microwave (and cellular telephone technology), nuclear, computers, satellites, gps, rockets, photovoltaic cells. nasa probably wouldn't exist if the soviet union never existed. it might only exist now because of bureaucratic inertia. if it didn;t exist for whatever reason, it would be diffiuclt as f*Ck to create it at this point under these economic circumstances.

all these things got significant amounts of government dollars devoted which in turn significantly hastened their development and allowed for civilian applications not because they could make our lives better, but because they offered the potential to kill our enemies more efficiently. so, I doubt anything has its practical development hastened very much by government forces because I don't see any existential threat will that will allow a bean counter to say something like *f*ck the price, we need radar now.*


I see your point, but in my opinion an actual war does little to stimulate research and development. It is precisely because we weren't actively fighting the Soviet Union that our military breakthroughs happened. One could argue that the Manhatten Project was R&D during a war, but most of the background work had already been done - the Manhatten Project was basically to figure out how to make this bomb explode when we wanted it to, and discover how big of an explosion it would make.

But yes, practical development of many things did come about as a means of self-preservation. However, look at how much things like those you listed (cellular communications, satellites, microwaves) have been popularized for strictly civilian uses. Sure, the satellites and cell phones helped our military to talk to one another, and microwaves let astronauts cook their food, but civilian usage of these things have far outnumbered their military usage. And you can also look at the fact that none of these things were actually used to kill the enemy - just to make it easier to do so.

That being said, do you think that other things like the new and expensive fighter jets and stealth bombers that we seem to be spending all of our R&D money on right now might create new opportunities for a new tech boom?
 
2012-08-06 07:56:31 PM

Jodeo: The "Clinton Boom" explained... ...sorta

1. The end/wrap-up of the Savings and Loan Bail-out at the end of the 1980s in the 1990s.
2. Increased IT spending in anticipation of the Y2Kpocalypse.
3. The Dot-Com boom.
4. China promoted to most favored nation trade status.
...among other factors.

* Bush 1 was fired for bringing on the largest tax increase in history: $500 Billion.
* The dems in Congress were fired for doing it again: Another $500 Billion increase (net $1 Trillion roughly).
* The net effect of Bush 2's tax cuts was about reducing those tax increases by one-third, or $350 Billion.

The economy grew despite the tax increases because of the opportunities that existed (especially Y2K and the internet). Those fizzled going into 2001. W's cuts stimulated economic growth until the housing crisis blew up the economy (a natural market correction to the unintended consequences of government action coupled with horrific investment strategies to mask high-risk investments).

Hey, if the Clinton years were so great, why not go back to the spending levels of the latter 1990s as well?

The solution is to have a flexible tax rate that can be adjusted (up or down, modestly) as we can with interest rates. Implement gradual increases as the economy grows and decreases as the economy stabelizes or slows. The balanced budgets of the 1990s was due to fiscal restraint, sure, but also because these two tax increases were still in effect. W's tax cuts helped, but RIGHT NOW we need to overhaul the tax code.

Unfortunately, we are spending our nation out of existence (bi-partisan blame for all). I hear Costa Rica's nice.


Oh, wait - shoot. This is a Fark Politics thread: WHY DO I DO THIS TO MYSELF???


Yeaaaaah, except that Clinton actually reduced federal spending in comparison to his prediscessors. Other than that, no wait, your analysis is completely wrong.
 
2012-08-06 07:59:01 PM

cameroncrazy1984: I have the sneaking suspicion that he isn't an actual business owner, because only an idiot would hire an employee just because of lower taxes, if demand stayed the same.


I have to agree. No one says, "I have all this demand, so many people want my product, I just don't have the money to hire more people to meet the demand." They hire the people and pay them with the increased revenue resulting from the increased sales resulting from the increased demand.

If government wants to help small businesses, they should increase demand for their products by increasing the available cash used to buy said products - i.e., make sure everyone else has money. The rich don't like this, because it generally causes inflation which makes all of that money they're sitting on and not spending worth less. In a capitalist economy such as we have here, money MUST be spent, not saved.
 
2012-08-06 08:07:47 PM

SevenizGud: [img.timeinc.net image 400x527]

And by "boom" we mean the sound of the dumbocrap party imploding as the entire nation in near revolt turned on the donkeys in historic numbers and voted the asses out in 1994 after 40 years of being entrenched in congress and the GOP took over.

It's the kind of turnaround that only happens when...oh yeah, it happened to Fartbongo too.


So you're saying that the economy went to hell after the GOP took over? That's what the rest of us have been saying too. Try to keep up.
 
2012-08-06 08:53:27 PM

ox45tallboy: relcec: when I think about the big practical technological breakthroughs that occurred in the 20th century that got serious funding from the government, I can't think of any off hand that weren't funded in significant levels primarily because of the likelihood that they could allow a given nation to kill it's enemies more efficiently.
jets, radar, microwave (and cellular telephone technology), nuclear, computers, satellites, gps, rockets, photovoltaic cells. nasa probably wouldn't exist if the soviet union never existed. it might only exist now because of bureaucratic inertia. if it didn;t exist for whatever reason, it would be diffiuclt as f*Ck to create it at this point under these economic circumstances.

all these things got significant amounts of government dollars devoted which in turn significantly hastened their development and allowed for civilian applications not because they could make our lives better, but because they offered the potential to kill our enemies more efficiently. so, I doubt anything has its practical development hastened very much by government forces because I don't see any existential threat will that will allow a bean counter to say something like *f*ck the price, we need radar now.*

I see your point, but in my opinion an actual war does little to stimulate research and development. It is precisely because we weren't actively fighting the Soviet Union that our military breakthroughs happened. One could argue that the Manhatten Project was R&D during a war, but most of the background work had already been done - the Manhatten Project was basically to figure out how to make this bomb explode when we wanted it to, and discover how big of an explosion it would make.


of course actual war actually stimulates it. radar, microwaves, the atomic bomb, atomic power, jet engine, computer, practical rocketry. all taken from theorectical and proptype phases to practical within a few war years.
you should read the making of the atomic bomb by rhodes if you think taking the theorectical to the practical was somehow the easy part. it's a great book.
http://c.www.endless.com/sis/main/3.1/e-cs.html?cb=0.1518779107899400 6
 
2012-08-06 09:12:42 PM
Tax cuts for the wealthy = no jobs
More tax cuts for the wealthy = no jobs
Tax holiday for the wealthy = no jobs
Bank bailouts with tax money for the wealthy bank owner and corporations = no jobs
Even more tax cuts for the wealthy = ???

One would think that after 30 years of being kicked in the ass people would learn not to bend over...
 
2012-08-06 09:36:06 PM

BojanglesPaladin: justtray: What we did with Bush didn't work, so what we need to do is do Bush's policies TWICE as HARD.

And by the same token, what we did with Obama didn't work, so what we need to do is Obama's policies TWICE as LONG.

I suspect that this is not an either/or solution, but rather a rational balance between the two. There is a third path, and it would be to combine limited and effective regulation with a reliable economicly sensitive tax policy and effective spending cuts. Basically, they are both right, but boith sides are wrong in their desire to implement only and exclusively their own side of the equation.


Funny, Obama's policies seem to be working, albeit not as quickly as people want. That would change even more for the better if the GOP in congress just stop being the road block to everything that Obama has proposed, even ideas that the GOP had previously proposed (tax credits to bring back jobs to the US, no tax deductions for offshoring jobs, etc.)
 
2012-08-06 09:41:29 PM

bhcompy: Mikey1969: According to the Congressional Budget Office, the federal budget deficit fell every year of the Clinton administration, from $290 billion in 1992 to $255 billion in 1993, $203 billion in 1994, $164 billion in 1995, $107 billion in 1996, and $22 billion in 1997. In 1998, there was a budget surplus of $69 billion, which rose to $126 billion in 1999 and $236 billion in 2000 before it was dissipated by huge tax cuts during the George W. Bush administration.

THAT is the most important part of the entire article, right there. There's a lot of good stuff, but too many forget about the surplus Clinton left behind when they factor in the current deficit into bitaching about Obama. Not only did Bush add trillions to the debt, he wiped away a $200 BILLION durplus on top of it.

The Dotcom crash and subsequent recession caused the surplus to go away. Bush wasn't any part of that. The later trillions you can tack on to him, like the wars, but he had no hand in the Dotcom crash, which was an inevitable.


The dotcom crash and subsequent recession was very brief. The cause for the loss of the surplus is 100% directly attributable to the Bush tax cut that he instituted so soon after entering the office of the POTUS. 100% attributable. Indeed, he ameliorated the tax cut by having a sunset provision in 10 years (2010), which limited the damage of the cut. Without that sunset provision, it would have been far more calamitous (albeit for people in the future, not necessarily for the present). Now, we had it extended for 2 more years because the GOP just loves to nose-dive this economy into the ground.
 
2012-08-06 09:45:39 PM

BojanglesPaladin: qorkfiend: Got any evidence to back up this assertion? Because there's plenty out there that says you're completely full of shiat.

I'm going to refer to reality here.

I'm not saying Obama's efforts have had no effect. I'm saying they have not fixed the problem, and so they have not "worked". Unemployment is still where it was when he took office. GDP growth is still sub-par at less than 2%, Consumer confidence has not rebounded, etc. We are in a state of barely not failing.

You can shout "But it might have been worse" all you want, and I won't argue with you. But one can simply not contest that our economy has not recovered yet, and we are still in a very precarious position where we could fall back into recession within the next 12 months.


When he took office, the US was losing 700,000 workers PER MONTH. Since mid-2009, Obama has kept the employment numbers positive (albeit small) for 30 consecutive months or so. The only sector that is still losing jobs is the government (federal, state and local). If those jobs were not lost, his numbers would definitely be in around the 6% range.
 
2012-08-06 09:50:04 PM

dericwater: The dotcom crash and subsequent recession was very brief. The cause for the loss of the surplus is 100% directly attributable to the Bush tax cut that he instituted so soon after entering the office of the POTUS. 100% attributable. Indeed, he ameliorated the tax cut by having a sunset provision in 10 years (2010), which limited the damage of the cut. Without that sunset provision, it would have been far more calamitous (albeit for people in the future, not necessarily for the present). Now, we had it extended for 2 more years because the GOP just loves to nose-dive this economy into the ground.


Brief only because of the joint effort of the Krugmanesque stimulus and the more ridiculous and unsustainable housing boom that was quietly riding the coattails of the dotcom boom. Perhaps nationally the recession was short, but California has struggled with budgetary woes since the dotcom crash because its economy was so dependent on those revenues as spending grew with the explosive revenue growth without real rainyday provisions for when the growth would stop.

As far as the sunset, yes, nice, but let's not pretend that Obama and the rest of the Democrats aren't perfectly okay with extending the cuts until, at earliest, after his reelection. The only taxes being debated by Democrats are the >$250k taxes. Everyone knew this would be a problem when it was enacted, just like everyone knew that the debt compromise would be a problem when it was enacted. Our government, on the whole, just loves the game of kick the can.
 
2012-08-06 10:59:41 PM

bhcompy: The Dotcom crash and subsequent recession caused the surplus to go away. Bush wasn't any part of that. The later trillions you can tack on to him, like the wars, but he had no hand in the Dotcom crash, which was an inevitable.


"I didn't crash, man, I was illegally raided by the Feds!"
static.guim.co.uk
 
2012-08-06 11:42:57 PM

cameroncrazy1984: impaler: BojanglesPaladin: But taxes are an operating cost. When operating costs go up, available funds to hire additional staff or to invest in resources goes down, regardless of shifts in demand.

How would income taxes affect your ability to hire additional staff? Either you need more staff to meet demand, or you don't.

I have the sneaking suspicion that he isn't an actual business owner, because only an idiot would hire an employee just because of lower taxes, if demand stayed the same.


I suspect you're right. I fully expected to come in here to post this to his response "you know how I know you don't do your business's taxes," but with no response, I can't even do that.
 
2012-08-07 07:53:01 AM

theorellior: zarberg: DjangoStonereaver: A dwarven sorcerer, which was the closest thing I could think of to a damn hippie among dwarven
kind.

With a thing for elf chicks.

Who used a horn of fog in the middle of a combat which obscured my view of being able to get 75% of the bad guys in a fireball!

I SHOOT THE GAZEBO WITH MY BOW.


That still leaves the bulbous bouffant.
 
Displayed 50 of 303 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report