Since Things Appear to be a Little Slow Right Now in the Blogosphere, I thought I Might Actually Post another One. Here is a Conversation that Took Place on another Blog and Once Again, Due to my Limited Knowledge in Historical Facts, I thought I'd Give some of my More Conservative Friends the Chance to Respond to it.
My Words
"And the Truth Remains that those who Own Businesses are those who Produce Jobs and if they do not Find the Rewards for Doing so Worth it to them, they will not Produce the Jobs. You see, most Republicans Think that the Fact that when Taxes are too High, it Hurts the Job Market, as well as the Consumer is Something that's a No Brainer."
Response from a Liberal
..no idea why most Republicans would think that. Consider the marginal tax rate on the wealthy vs employment in our recent past:
Eisenhower:
Unemployment-2.92-6.84%
Wealth tax 91%
Johnson:
Unemployment-3.56-5.64%
Wealth tax 75%
Reagan:
Unemployment-6.2-9.6%
Wealth tax 28%
..the tax on wealth has nothing to do with employment...just another 'non-fact' bandied about by political manipulators. (On the other hand, the tax on wealth has a LOT to do with the national deficit..even old conservative Ben Stein has noted that.)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
29 comments:
I can't argue with that.
But will add that in 1933:
Hoover:
Unemployment 37%
Wealth tax 24%
I found a chart that showed this:
Reagan 1981 – 1989
Taxes went from 70 to 28 (-150%)
Unemployment went from 7.6 – 5.3 (- 30%)
Bush I 1989 – 1993
Taxes: 28 – 40 (+43%)
Unemployment: 5.3 – 6.9 (+30%)
Clinton 1993 -2001
Taxes: 40 – 39 (-3%)
Unemployment: 6.9 – 4.7 (-32%)
Bush II 2001 – 2009
Taxes: 39 – 35 (-11%)
Unemployment: 4.7 – 9.3 (+98%)
According to this chart, when the tax rate went DOWN, so did unemployment, except for the later part of Bush II (which was the banking crisis), and when Bush I raised the tax rate. I’ll also look for another chart that is pre-Reagan.
No matter what, though, we're SPENDING way TOO much. Cuts needs to be made and quick. Even if we raise the tax rates to 90%, we still can't sustain our debt the way it is now.
Thanks you Guys. It Never Ceases to Amaze me how People can always Find Charts and Figures to Support their Point of View. It Makes it Hard to Discern the Truth.
Yes, and libs love pulling out some obscure chestnut or statistical model to prove some point or other.
Fact is, every tax cut, including JFK's resulted in higher GDP and more revenue flowing into government coffers. It's the spending!
Also, many liberals display a shocking ignorance of human nature.
There is a point at which a person will say "to hell with it" and cease a given activity because it is costing too much (money, time, headaches).
This is why corrupt countries have terrible economies. What fool would invest there?
It also explains why high regulation and taxation states (California, Michigan, NY) have crappy economies. Businesses are fleeing for the happier grounds of Texas, the Carolinas and Oklahoma, which explains why those states are more prosperous.
"It Makes it Hard to Discern the Truth." Whatever truths there are regarding employment level, are IMO, more complicated than taxing the wealthy. The two common theories are the
Trickle Down (the old two story outhouse) and the Trickle Up (which also
is subject to gravity :))
A well balanced economy requires both producers and consumers: unemployment decreases consumers, and it follows that producers must cut back. It is a profound
peculiarity that when a large company cuts back
workers its profits rise
as well as its stocks...
for awhile. From the consumer perspective, if
one is laid off, or is rehired at a lower paying job there will be less demand. Recognizing these complexities and taking steps is difficult; increasingly so in the
new Global Economy.
You are Making it Sound, BB, as if Unemployment is first and then the Cutting Back of the Producers, but you have that Turned Around. Unemployment does not Happen First. It Happens After the Producers have Already Cut Back.
Forgive me, but what Silverfiddle is saying Makes more Sense to me. First is the Regulations and Taxes, then the Discouragement of the Businessman and then the Unemployment. Sure, the Unemployment then Causes Additional Stress due to a Drop in Sales, which Leads to Additional Cut Backs, but do not Think for a Moment that Unemployment is the First Cause in the Chain. That's not Correct. I do Know That Much.
And anyway, Unemployment is not the Only Thing that Decreases Consumption. Less Money in the Private Sector Decreases Consumption and this Happens when the Government Takes it all.
When the Government is the Main Consumer, this just doesn't Make For a Healthy Economy.
Carolina is prosperous?
According to whom? I live here and I haven't noticed it.
I'm sure, Satyavati, that what Silverfiddle has Said is Based on Comparative Numbers. You are not Going to Notice Comparative Numbers just by Living in a State. Everything is Relative. The Economy of the Entire US is Struggling, yet the Economy in some States is Worse than in Others.
As I Take another Look at the Numbers Provided by a Liberal Friend in the Above Post and the Numbers Provided by Pamela, I have Realized that the First is Only a Snap Shot of some Isolated Moment in History. Pamela's Numbers, though, show a Range or a Change over a Period of Time and are more Representative of a Moving Picture, than of a Snap Shot.
It just So Happens that Movies Contain More Information than Snap Shots and Snap Shots can be Deceiving.
Also,
Hey Silverfiddle,
Have you been to Dave Miller's Blog Lately? At the Moment, it Appears to be Mostly Liberals over there and it would be good to Hear your Input.
RE: "..then the Discouragement of the Businessman and then the Unemployment."
Well good, perhaps you can explain this dismal situation?
I base my comments on business (JOBS!) growth and unemployment.
We can blather on all day about statistics, but a person needs a job to take care of herself and her family.
I'm not Sure what all I just Read, BB. All I Got Out of That is Multiple Problems, Requiring Multiple Solutions. So What are the Solutions; Regulations and Tax Incentives? That's all Fine and Good, but we are Moving a Little Off Subject.
The Exodus of Jobs to Overseas is an Entirely Separate Topic. Perhaps there should be no Tax Write Offs for Over Seas Labor Costs, that Would Put a Stop to it.
Well, Silverfiddle, How do you Suppose we Evaluate Job Growth and Unemployment if not by Statistics? I don't Believe I'm Following you.
Satyavati asked how I consider North and South Carolina more prosperous than Michigan. The criteria I used was unemployment statistics. Michigan's is high, the Caroina's are low
Unemployment statistics on the surface aren't going to cut it either.
We can create jobs by hiring one group to dig ditches. Then, we can hire another group to fill them back up again.
This is why GDP numbers are a sham as well.
Government does not produce. It consumes. If you want to get reliable data you've got to filter out the government makework.
I Understand what you're Saying, Soap, except that you Appear to be Implying that there is no Actual Production unless there is a Tangible Product Produced. It's not Really True, though, that Service is not a Product. Counseling, for Example, if done Effectively, Produces the Intangible Product of Self-Esteem and Restored Emotional Health.
I Guess it could also be Said that when the Government Builds Highways, Bridges, Schools and the Like, these are Actual Tangible Products.
The Main Problem that I Find with Government, though, is the Fact that, due to Lack of Competition, it is Inefficient. The Private Sector can Usually Find Ways to do the Same Thing both Cheaper and Faster.
I'll reiterate it again. Government does not produce. It consumes. For every Space Shuttle it builds, every satellite it launches into orbit, every teacher it hires, every Pell Grant it offers, etc. etc. etc. it must take from the private sector in order to accomplish this feat.
And, lest it be forgotten, government does not invest for an economic return. Government, and it's bureaucrats, invest for a political return.
"And, lest it be forgotten, government does not invest for an economic return. Government, and it's bureaucrats, invest for a political return."
Oh great..no airports, no highways, no roads, bridges. And thank heavens, no semi trucks
blocking the view and
wasting fossil fuel...
Gov't has been providing
infrastructure since the
Erie canal, National Road and golden spike. One ponders what 200 years of no government and just
business would have resulted in....my guess:
Donald TrumpLand and we would be little Trump-ettes. :)
You Know Soap,
As I was Thinking on what you Said, I Realized that the Right to Vote, Makes Opinion it's Own Type of Currency. I Happen to Think it is Neat that the Poor have Political Influence. There is Far too much Emphasis Placed on the Rights of those who have Money, as if they are Entitled to so much More than any One Else, just because They have been Genetically Gifted in ways that Cause their Efforts to Result in Money.
Voting isn't a right. It's a privilege which can be revoked.
@BB, Government hasn't been providing infrastructure individuals have. It's preposterous to infer that it took the concentration of power into the hands of politicians to bring this about.
I had to Think for a Moment about your First Sentence and I'm Assuming that what you Mean is that when Criminals are Put in Prison, they Forfeit Their Right to Vote.
I've Often Felt that Voting should be a Privilege, rather then a Right, and that a Test should be Required that shows that the People have a Reasonable Knowledge of Politics before they Vote, yet People Have Fits when such is Suggested, because Voting is Seen as a "RIGHT".
As to the Infrastructure Comment, I Think that we are getting Caught up in a Technicality Here? I Mean, we could Argue about who Produces anything at all. For Example, is it the Business Owner who Produces, or is it those who he Hires? If it is those who he Hires, then why is it the Business Owner that Gets all the Profits.
In the Case of the Infrastructure, it is the Government that does the Hiring. About the Only Other System I Can Think of to Pass this Responsibility to would be Property Owners Associations, yet we are Moving into another Subject here. The Point is that Right now it is the Responsibility of the Government. They are the Ones who do the Hiring and therefore are Responsible for this Particular Form of Production.
Soap,
When I Scanned Up to Remind Myself of the Context of your Comment, I Remembered that we were Talking about the Right to Vote, being "It's Own Type of Currency".
Even as a Privilege, Soap, it is Still Currency, in that with it, we have Influence Over our Politicians. In the Context of this as a Privilege, Being a Good Law Abiding Citizen, who has Registered to Vote Carries with it some Currency because "Government does not invest for an economic return. Government, and it's bureaucrats, invest for a political return."
35%, 91%...Doesn't matter because regardless of what marginal tax rate you have, the government still collects only about 19% of GDP.
I'm not Following you Soap, but that doesn't Matter. I Think it's Time for another Post and Perhaps we can Move the Discussion there when I do.
It's not that difficult Lista.
http://reason.com/blog/2010/11/29/the-remarkably-stable-amount-o
Ok. I'll Read that, but what I Really Need from you Now, Soap, is a Response to my Next Post, which I have Just Now Posted.
RE: "BB, Government hasn't been providing infrastructure individuals have. It's preposterous to infer that it took the concentration of power into the hands of politicians to bring this about." I'm not generally into preposterous, so the
average $300-400 billion a year Fed funding for highways is individuals rather than gov't? Let's follow that line of reasoning then...the current Federal deficit is not the fault of gov't but
individuals?
Since the Government is Made up of Individuals, Technically, you are Right, yet it is best not to get caught up in Technicalities and I guess that is your Point.
BB: By the way, I saw your comment on Tom's blog. I'm not going to make him blubber and have a Star Trek conniption again.
On the fake Clinton deficit. The truth is found in Obama's own Treasury Department web site. The debt went up (the accumulation of deficits, not surpluses) every single year during Clinton's administration. And the years right before and right after.
Do you want links to the cold hard figured showing deficits year after year?
As for the WMD, many from the Gulf War were found. These were prohibited, and Saddam was supposed to have turned them over or destroyed them. His secretly stockpiling them was a blatant, aggressive, and material violation of the cease fire. Do you want links to this? Like with the constacnt Clinton deficits, and the Toyota issue, I've given these to Tom before.
It's time for you to leave the fantasy world on these two issues.
:)
Post a Comment