The unemployment rate has fallen a full percentage point over the last 4 mo

[tjts1]

It's America, believe in freedom and that includes my money. Remember how crippling high marginal tax rate was when we had stagflation and how the larger carrot helped drive business in the 80s? Why go back or even compare to yesteryear? I am not sure if you are aware, but things are a bit different between 1941 to 1945 and now, or 1950 post-war baby boom, etc. The economy, our people, and the world are much different.

Letting people keep more of what they earn encourages them to earn more, and also allows them to do what they see fit with it, which with plenty of people is give away as they want to. Greed is often misplaced on those who simply want control over where their money goes. People don't donate a million just to save a fraction of that, they do it to benefit what they want, instead of what the government sees fit.

But other nations believe the government ought to decide what is best to do with majority of the people's money. I have fundamental issues with this as government is usually inefficient and full of morons.

If anything, I'd say the US's tax rate allows for many more private philanthropic and other NPO efforts. People spend their lives in these organizations, out of choice, to make a difference... and seem much more hard working to do so than an government employee at an agency.

Yes, ignoring history and coming up with your own theories about taxation and the role of government is fun. Unfortunately reality is a little different. The real problem is politicians have been selling you the idea of low taxes on one hand and lots of government services on the other while borrowing to make up the different. Unfortunately the borrowing can't go on for ever. So you either pay more taxes to maintain you standard of living, or you put a bunch of people out of work.

Sacrifice those who are unemployed. Problem solved.

Thank you! Finally somebody gets it.

[z31maniac]

^I say put them out of work and see what the private sector can do to fill the void.

*I say this as someone who basically works for the gov't and current reforms will likely put me out of a job in the next 9-24 months.*

[rwh11385]

There's no world war fueling production nor great popular boom, so looking at 1941-45 and 50-60 is irrelevant aka yesteryear examples don't do us much good. You can look at history and see tax revenues went up as tax marginal rate went down. Choking the economy to death with high tax rates doesn't do anyone any favors. Google "Laffer Curve", get back to me. kthanxbye

Also, look at what happens when a country makes a business-healthy environment with low taxes. I dunno, like Singapore. Heard much about their economy?

[tjts1]

You keep insisting that history doesn't matter and that you're paying high taxes when thats simply not true. But whatever, carry on with the fantasy.

I'll just park this right here.


Oh this is a fun one too.

I don't see the tax revenue increasing. Do you?

[EN318isPDX]

There's no world war fueling production nor great popular boom, so looking at 1941-45 and 50-60 is irrelevant aka yesteryear examples don't do us much good. You can look at history and see tax revenues went up as tax marginal rate went down. Choking the economy to death with high tax rates doesn't do anyone any favors. Google "Laffer Curve", get back to me. kthanxbye

Also, look at what happens when a country makes a business-healthy environment with low taxes. I dunno, like Singapore. Heard much about their economy?

this in an A and B conversation, so why don't you C your way out before D jumps over E and fucks you up like a G

[rwh11385]

You keep insisting that history doesn't matter and that you're paying high taxes when thats simply not true. But whatever, carry on with the fantasy.

Oh this is a fun one too.

I don't see the tax revenue increasing. Do you?

Holy shit, did you just post a lazy graph from 2003 excel without even an x-axis scale? You are so amateur, not even funny.

Anyway, I don't want to have it repost the charts they are so bad and ugly. Look at the second graph you posted (and the better one with same data I posted). % of GDP (which has for the most part) is hovering around 17-8%, REGARDLESS OF THE TOP MARGINAL RATE.


Same idea, better display.

The clear message from the Wall Street Journal chart is that the gold line (tax revenues) has been pretty steady at about 18-20% of GDP for 60 years even though the other line (tax rates) fluctuated from a high rate of 91% to a low of just under 30%. Despite changing tax rates, the actual tax revenues as a percentage of GDP really have not changed much.

Even though the percentage of tax revenues compared to GDP has not changed much since 1965, the actual revenues in dollars have tripled:

http://blogs.marketwatch.com/fundmastery/2010/07/02/does-hiking-tax-rates-raise-more-revenue/

http://econ4261fall2010.wdfiles.com/local--files/markov-regime-switching/gdp%201947-2010.png

I don't see the tax revenue increasing. Do you?

Why are you such a moron?

Check your axes. Graph was tax revenues as % of GDP. GDP jumped after the Reagan Tax cuts, so same % * larger GDP = more revenue you dolt. Is this too hard of a concept for you to understand? Google searching graphs doesn't mean you know what they mean...


Heritage, I'd admit, is biased but numbers are from good source and well made graph. Take your chart of tax revenue as % of real gdp and multiple by real gdp and you'd see the same picture.

Since GDP has been growing, and tax revenue as % of gdp has remained about the same (mostly)... where has the debt come from....(here's a hint: not lowering taxes) ... if not revenue... what could it be? Oh yeah, spending.


tl;dr Marginal tax rates is not the problem, spending is.

[tjts1]

Well you choose to ignore the history and ignore the facts and they you start calling people names because they don't agree with you. I think you have the basis of a really strong argument going there. Good luck with that.

By the way, your GDP chart isn't adjusted for inflation. In fact it follows inflation almost exactly.

[rwh11385]

Well you choose to ignore the history and ignore the facts and they you start calling people names because they don't agree with you. I think you have the basis of a really strong argument going there. Good luck with that.

By the way, your GDP chart isn't adjusted for inflation. In fact it follows inflation almost exactly.

I call you an idiot because you can't understand that tax revenues is not just their % of GDP. It's basic math a middle schooler should be able to comprehend. Once you include growing GDP, revenues have greatly increased over time and economic growth, even with lower marginal tax rates.

You have no basis of argument, besides clear ignorance and google search charts, and misunderstanding their meaning. You need to understand concepts before you can use graphs to back your argument. You're just an idiot, like your incorrect belief on inflation vs. gdp. You actually believe gdp growth has been inflation alone??

You are mistaken on inflation vs. gdp growth and the charts were updated before you posted to have real gdp included. For more info, go here: http://www.data360.org/graph_group.a...h_Group_Id=149 Try basing opinion on fact instead of ignorance, mmkay?

It's frustrating that people like you are allowed to vote, and media would rather try to stir up emotion and bias rather than actually educate citizens on facts.

[joshh]

The unemployment rate is not a good way to tell growth in an economy. Or really even the unemployment rate for that matter. It only accounts for those who are filing for unemployment.

[mrsleeve]

The unemployment rate is not a good way to tell growth in an economy. Or really even the unemployment rate for that matter. It only accounts for those who are filing for unemployment.

this


why are the rates dropping off so fast in the last 3-4 months. People running outta UE benefit extensions. You are not drawing you are not counted its as simple as that.

[EN318isPDX]

Name calling should be a requirement for this subforum IMO

[rwh11385]

Congrats joshh and sleeve for criticizing one of the measurements and ignoring the overall message.

a) At this point, who is just now running out of unemployment?

b) If you even care to look at the data, the number of full-time workers is consistently increasing. http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t09.htm - top line. The rate is not simply people going off UE rolls because of no more extensions, but you're free to make assumptions that it is out of not carrying to find out the numbers

c) Like Ryan mentioned, it's not the professionals who are still impacted: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t13.htm

Management, professional, and related occupations, 4.3% unemployed
Sales & Office: 8.5%
Service: 10.2%
Production & Transportation: 12.2%
Construction, 20.3%

[Farbin Kaiber]

I'm about to run out of UI.

[EN318isPDX]

I'm about to run out of UI.

You should have a doctor check that out! UI are serious

[HarryPotter]

All I have to say is look at the U-6 unemployment numbers not the bs U-3.

LOL

http://portalseven.com/employment/unemployment_rate_u6.jsp