User Tag List

First 1234 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 35

  1. #11
    Senior Member wildcat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,619

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tellenbach View Post
    OPINION: 17 Million Reasons to Raise the Minimum Wage



    How does someone as economically ignorant as Senator Warren get elected? Economist Milton Friedman explained repeatedly (look it up on Youtube) why and how minimum wage laws hurt the poor. He called it the most anti-black law in the books and for good reason. Minimum wage laws result in increased unemployment among those who are least skilled and educated. Every time the minimum wage is increased, we see a spike in teen and black unemployment. The reasons are quite obvious. The market is willing to pay only what your talent and skill level demands. If your talent is only worth $5/hour but the government mandates that the company pays you $10/hour, the company will simply refuse to hire you.

    I'm reading a book right now about a runaway, homeless teen (Breaking Night by Liz Murray). She was raised by two drug addicted parents who used up their welfare check in the first week buying drugs. This teen wanted to get a job bagging groceries (at 13 yrs old) but there was an age restriction and a minimum wage. The grocery store hired immigrant workers instead because they were better workers. Now, if the minimum age were lower, this teenager might've stood a better chance.

    What lefties like Senator Warren fail to understand is that it is her policies that drive up poverty. Lefty policies like the minimum wage, Obamacare, the entire anti-fossil fuel agenda, high taxes, anti-school choice, and over-regulation all drive up poverty by reducing opportunities. There are few poor people in North Dakota because they are at full employment and have a huge demand for labor. There is opportunity in North Dakota and in Midland, Texas. As supply sider Art Laffer says, "The best anti-poverty program is a job." We are now in year 5 of this leftist administration. Under Obama, the number of people on food stamps has about doubled and the real unemployment rate (the U6 number) is 13.1%.

    Senator Warren, do the country a favor and watch some Milton Friedman youtube videos.

    There is such a thing as history.

    In the 40s and 50s and 60s a working man did get along in America. You did not need to do three jobs to feed your family.
    Why it is not possible any more?

    Even before the Second World War ended, progressive policies, ironically based upon the American model, ensued in short time in places like Guatemala. The CIA, however, had the successful bourgeois-progressive (read: non-Marxist) politicians murdered throughout the western hemisphere of the third world, later also in Indochina. Such people were conveniently labelled as Communists. Graham Greene was the first person to write about the new American policy. Greene was not a Communist. He was a bourgeois-progressive Catholic.

    Meanwhile a petty clausule prevented the CIA to murder politicians at home. The job of the FBI was to take care the clausule was followed to the letter. It was not. What did the FBI do when they found the trangression?
    There was no such dichotomy of power in Chile.

    Pinochet invited Milton Friedman to come by.
    Milton was so happy. Finally there was a man who understood monetarism.

  2. #12
    Senior Member Mal12345's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    MBTI
    IxTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ti
    Posts
    14,019

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tellenbach View Post
    OPINION: 17 Million Reasons to Raise the Minimum Wage



    How does someone as economically ignorant as Senator Warren get elected? Economist Milton Friedman explained repeatedly (look it up on Youtube) why and how minimum wage laws hurt the poor. He called it the most anti-black law in the books and for good reason. Minimum wage laws result in increased unemployment among those who are least skilled and educated. Every time the minimum wage is increased, we see a spike in teen and black unemployment. The reasons are quite obvious. The market is willing to pay only what your talent and skill level demands. If your talent is only worth $5/hour but the government mandates that the company pays you $10/hour, the company will simply refuse to hire you.

    I'm reading a book right now about a runaway, homeless teen (Breaking Night by Liz Murray). She was raised by two drug addicted parents who used up their welfare check in the first week buying drugs. This teen wanted to get a job bagging groceries (at 13 yrs old) but there was an age restriction and a minimum wage. The grocery store hired immigrant workers instead because they were better workers. Now, if the minimum age were lower, this teenager might've stood a better chance.

    What lefties like Senator Warren fail to understand is that it is her policies that drive up poverty. Lefty policies like the minimum wage, Obamacare, the entire anti-fossil fuel agenda, high taxes, anti-school choice, and over-regulation all drive up poverty by reducing opportunities. There are few poor people in North Dakota because they are at full employment and have a huge demand for labor. There is opportunity in North Dakota and in Midland, Texas. As supply sider Art Laffer says, "The best anti-poverty program is a job." We are now in year 5 of this leftist administration. Under Obama, the number of people on food stamps has about doubled and the real unemployment rate (the U6 number) is 13.1%.

    Senator Warren, do the country a favor and watch some Milton Friedman youtube videos.
    "No one should work full time and live in poverty. In 1968, the minimum wage was high enough to keep a family of three out of poverty. In 1980, the minimum wage was at least high enough to keep a family of two out of poverty. Today, the minimum wage leaves a working parent with one child in poverty. This is fundamentally wrong."

    Name your fundamentals.
    "Everyone has a plan till they get punched in the mouth." Mike Tyson
    “Culture?” says Paul McCartney. “This isn't culture. It's just a good laugh.”

  3. #13
    deplorable basketcase Tellenbach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    MBTI
    ISTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Posts
    3,953

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus
    This doesn't prove or even support your claim that raising the minimum wage will automatically lead to an increase in unemployment.
    I can think of two exceptions where this might not be the case. If the minimum wage were 5 cents/hour and it were raised to 6 cents/hour, that'd have a negligible effect because it's a negligible expense. The second case would be in places like North Dakota or Midland, Texas where there is full employment and a shortage of labor. Raising the minimum wage in a vibrant economy won't have a great impact on hiring since the profit margins will be greater in such times.

    What FDR did and what Senator Warren is suggesting would definitely have a negative impact on hiring since we are still in a stagnant economy right now. In a stagnant economy, there is less spending by the consumer (meaning less profit margins) and any added expense such as higher wages or Obamacare would hurt hiring. This is just common sense.

    You've done nothing to support that claim other than wave your hands and make broad assertions. Where is your evidence?
    I've already given you the example of FDR's New Deal wage controls and how they hurt poor blacks in the south.

    Yes, all economic transaction result in a change in the distribution of wealth. Is this really so difficult to understand?
    When a Marxist like President Obama or FDR says he wants to "spread the wealth around", that's not what he means. He means taking from the top income bracket and redistributing it to the lower brackets.

    19 million from Reaganomics alone? Nothing unrelated Reaganomics had an impact? Link?
    Yes, from Reaganomics alone. In fact, the turn-around is quite remarkable. There are graphs in Art Laffer's book "The End of Prosperity" which show economic growth almost immediately after the capital gains tax was cut.

    Supply-side economic policies have been in place for 30+ years in the US. They're clearly doing wonderfully. Oh wait, you're gonna say they haven't been because Obamacare or whatever.
    I hope you are not suggesting that Obamacare is a supply-side policy.
    Senator Rand Paul is alive because of modern medicine and because his attacker punches like a girl.

  4. #14
    deplorable basketcase Tellenbach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    MBTI
    ISTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Posts
    3,953

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wildcat
    In the 40s and 50s and 60s a working man did get along in America. You did not need to do three jobs to feed your family.
    Why it is not possible any more?
    We are over-taxed. One of the biggest problems was the 1974 Budget Act which gave Congress unlimited spending powers. Before this legislation, the president had authority to stop expenditures that he deemed unnecessary. After this legislation, Congress ran deficits 32 of the next 35 years and the federal budget exploded from $250 billion to $3 trillion.

    Between 1965 and 1978, taxes increased from 19.4% to 29.5% as a share of the taxpayer's adjustable gross income. (Art Laffer, The End of Prosperity)

    Pinochet invited Milton Friedman to come by.
    Milton was so happy. Finally there was a man who understood monetarism.
    Did Pinochet's economic policies work?
    Senator Rand Paul is alive because of modern medicine and because his attacker punches like a girl.

  5. #15
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tellenbach View Post
    I can think of two exceptions where this might not be the case. If the minimum wage were 5 cents/hour and it were raised to 6 cents/hour, that'd have a negligible effect because it's a negligible expense. The second case would be in places like North Dakota or Midland, Texas where there is full employment and a shortage of labor. Raising the minimum wage in a vibrant economy won't have a great impact on hiring since the profit margins will be greater in such times.

    What FDR did and what Senator Warren is suggesting would definitely have a negative impact on hiring since we are still in a stagnant economy right now. In a stagnant economy, there is less spending by the consumer (meaning less profit margins) and any added expense such as higher wages or Obamacare would hurt hiring. This is just common sense.
    Minimum wage jobs are in a similar situation to what you describe in Midland, Texas, but not because of a vibrant economy. Most fast food restaurants are constantly looking for new employees because turnover is so high. They simply can't hire enough people because not enough people want those jobs.

    I've already given you the example of FDR's New Deal wage controls and how they hurt poor blacks in the south.
    You said that was done intentionally. We're not talking about instituting racist policies with the intent of harming poor blacks. Show me something else.

    When a corporatist like President Obama or FDR says he wants to "spread the wealth around", that's not what he means. He means taking from the top income bracket and redistributing it to the lower brackets.
    FTFY

    When Obama speaks, don't bother listening. His words are meaningless.

    Yes, from Reaganomics alone. In fact, the turn-around is quite remarkable. There are graphs in Art Laffer's book "The End of Prosperity" which show economic growth almost immediately after the capital gains tax was cut.
    It's no more possible to isolate the impact of Reaganomics on the economy than it is to isolate the impact of carbon dioxide on the climate. Economies and climate are mathematically chaotic systems.

    I hope you are not suggesting that Obamacare is a supply-side policy.
    Nope. Obamacare is a corporate sellout, but it's not supply-side economics. The way these things work is one side blames the other for ruining their perfect plan. In your case, any criticism leveled at supply-side economics is automatically deflected in your mind and blamed on some Democrat policy (whichever policy you feel like blaming in that particular moment). Supply-side economics is infallible. The problem MUST be something the Democrats did. You don't even entertain the notion that supply-side economics could have problems.
    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

  6. #16
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tellenbach View Post
    We are over-taxed. One of the biggest problems was the 1974 Budget Act which gave Congress unlimited spending powers. Before this legislation, the president had authority to stop expenditures that he deemed unnecessary. After this legislation, Congress ran deficits 32 of the next 35 years and the federal budget exploded from $250 billion to $3 trillion.

    Between 1965 and 1978, taxes increased from 19.4% to 29.5% as a share of the taxpayer's adjustable gross income. (Art Laffer, The End of Prosperity)



    Did Pinochet's economic policies work?
    Let me see if I've got this right. Globalization is not the reason American workers are struggling. Automation is not the reason American workers are struggling. Women working, effectively doubling the domestic labor supply, is not the reason American workers are struggling. No, it's taxes. You've been drinking too much kool-aid. Your brain is mush.

    Let me guess, you've got some explanation as for why taxes caused all of that to happen, right?
    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

  7. #17
    deplorable basketcase Tellenbach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    MBTI
    ISTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Posts
    3,953

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus
    Most fast food restaurants are constantly looking for new employees because turnover is so high. They simply can't hire enough people because not enough people want those jobs.
    The US youth unemployment in June 2013 is 16.2%. If it is as you say that these young people don't want minimum wage jobs, then the market forces will force businesses to increase those wages. We don't need Senator Warren to do it for businesses. After all, if businesses like In N Out will automatically raise wages without government intrusion, why do we need the government involved at all?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus
    You said that was done intentionally. We're not talking about instituting racist policies with the intent of harming poor blacks. Show me something else.
    "This report estimates the impact of the July 2008 minimum wage increase on unemployment rates
    in the United States. The July minimum wage increase affected only 26 states, with increases
    between 5 cents and 70 cents per hour. The remaining 24 states had minimum wage laws above the
    2008 Federal level. Our analysis concludes that a 10 percent increase in the minimum wage would
    result in a roughly 0.19 percent increase in unemployment. Applied to the U.S. labor market in July,
    this results in a one-time decrease in employment of approximately 160,000 workers."

    Did the Increase in Minimum Wage Cause Our Unemployment Rate to Rise?

    Also, the meta study that you posted upthread should be ignored as all meta studies should be ignored because they are not true studies. A meta-study is only as good as the worst study in the batch and since no one is going to look through all 100 studies chosen, it is pointless to even discuss it. Today, meta-studies are used by special interests (like Internists who want to ban vitamins) to obscure uncomfortable truths so they can push an agenda. They deliberately hand pick bad studies and ignore good studies so they get the result they're looking for.

    It's no more possible to isolate the impact of Reaganomics on the economy than it is to isolate the impact of carbon dioxide on the climate.
    There was a 10% tax cut in 1982. In 1983, the economy expanded by 3.5% and in 1984, it expanded another 6.8% (adjusted for inflation), which is the highest single year growth rate in 50 years. I'm a results oriented person. We've tried Keynesian garbage for 50 years and it's failed.

    "I knew the program was working when they stopped calling it Reaganomics." Reagan, October 1983

    The problem MUST be something the Democrats did. You don't even entertain the notion that supply-side economics could have problems.
    The biggest drivers of a bad economy are high taxes and over-regulation. Which party likes high taxes and regulations?

    Let me guess, you've got some explanation as for why taxes caused all of that to happen, right?
    "In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now." JFK

    JFK is describing what's called the Laffer curve. There is a sweet spot where you can get maximize both the tax revenue and the tax rate. You go any higher, it will discourage productivity and result in lower tax revenue.

    "In short, tax increases appear to have a very large, sustained, and highly significant negative impact on output." Christina Romer (too bad Obama ignored Romer)
    Senator Rand Paul is alive because of modern medicine and because his attacker punches like a girl.

  8. #18
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tellenbach View Post
    The US youth unemployment in June 2013 is 16.2%. If it is as you say that these young people don't want minimum wage jobs, then the market forces will force businesses to increase those wages. We don't need Senator Warren to do it for businesses. After all, if businesses like In N Out will automatically raise wages without government intrusion, why do we need the government involved at all?
    You clearly don't get it because you don't want to understand. This concept is so important to your ideology that it must be protected at all costs, so I know I'm talking to a brick wall.

    In N Out burger has a different business philosophy than McDonalds. When you're hiring unskilled employees, you can use one of two strategies. You can either pay them well enough that they care about the job so you retain your employees (In N Out burger's strategy), or you can pay them the legal minimum and have a high turnover rate because people don't care about the job (McDonalds strategy). McDonalds strategy is only possible because there is such a high unemployment rate. In fact, I predict that if the minimum wage was increased, McDonalds employment would actually increase because more people would actually want those jobs. Like I said, companies like McDonalds are constantly looking for new employees because they can't keep the ones they have. People don't value the job.

    "This report estimates the impact of the July 2008 minimum wage increase on unemployment rates
    in the United States. The July minimum wage increase affected only 26 states, with increases
    between 5 cents and 70 cents per hour. The remaining 24 states had minimum wage laws above the
    2008 Federal level. Our analysis concludes that a 10 percent increase in the minimum wage would
    result in a roughly 0.19 percent increase in unemployment. Applied to the U.S. labor market in July,
    this results in a one-time decrease in employment of approximately 160,000 workers."

    Did the Increase in Minimum Wage Cause Our Unemployment Rate to Rise?

    Also, the meta study that you posted upthread should be ignored as all meta studies should be ignored because they are not true studies. A meta-study is only as good as the worst study in the batch and since no one is going to look through all 100 studies chosen, it is pointless to even discuss it. Today, meta-studies are used by special interests (like Internists who want to ban vitamins) to obscure uncomfortable truths so they can push an agenda. They deliberately hand pick bad studies and ignore good studies so they get the result they're looking for.
    The timing of that study is horrible. 2008? Right before Lehman Brothers was going under? Yeah...

    There was a 10% tax cut in 1982. In 1983, the economy expanded by 3.5% and in 1984, it expanded another 6.8% (adjusted for inflation), which is the highest single year growth rate in 50 years. I'm a results oriented person. We've tried Keynesian garbage for 50 years and it's failed.

    "I knew the program was working when they stopped calling it Reaganomics." Reagan, October 1983
    In one ear and out the other. Economics is mathematically chaotic. Do you know what that mathematically chaotic means? Google it.

    The biggest drivers of a bad economy are high taxes and over-regulation. Which party likes high taxes and regulations?
    This is a vague, meaningless platitude. It's also circular reasoning. The reason our economy is struggling is because we are transitioning from an industrial economy to something else and the establishment prefers the status quo. Established businesses want to slow the transition because the status quo is profitable. It's comfortable.

    "In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now." JFK

    JFK is describing what's called the Laffer curve. There is a sweet spot where you can get maximize both the tax revenue and the tax rate. You go any higher, it will discourage productivity and result in lower tax revenue.

    "In short, tax increases appear to have a very large, sustained, and highly significant negative impact on output." Christina Romer (too bad Obama ignored Romer)
    This does not support your argument. If you wanted to use the Laffer curve to support your argument, you would present math that showed what the optimal tax rates should be. But that's not what you're doing. You say tax rates should be lower, with no qualifiers.

    Also, when Kennedy was speaking tax rates were significantly higher than they are today. The top income tax rate was 91% when Kennedy was president. It is 35% today.
    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

  9. #19
    deplorable basketcase Tellenbach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    MBTI
    ISTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Posts
    3,953

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus
    You clearly don't get it because you don't want to understand. This concept is so important to your ideology that it must be protected at all costs, so I know I'm talking to a brick wall.
    My ideology is whatever works. Government intrusion into the economy has failed many, many times. I could post examples but I'm sure you already know them. I want wages to increase by creating a vibrant economy, as in North Dakota, where fast food workers make $15/hour because of the vibrant economy. You want wages to increase by govt fiat. Why do you think that govt would know better how to manage finances than the business owners themselves? That's a silly notion.

    The timing of that study is horrible. 2008? Right before Lehman Brothers was going under? Yeah...
    The conclusions of the study would hold more true in downturns, so it's even more valid today.

    When you're hiring unskilled employees, you can use one of two strategies. You can either pay them well enough that they care about the job so you retain your employees (In N Out burger's strategy), or you can pay them the legal minimum and have a high turnover rate because people don't care about the job (McDonalds strategy).
    What's wrong with having two or more strategies? No one expects the guy at McDonalds to work there forever. These are entry level positions, not careers. You work at McDonalds to get money to buy video games, text-books, and to get work experience.

    This is a vague, meaningless platitude. It's also circular reasoning.
    No it's not. We've had 4 major tax cuts over the past century and each action resulted in tremendous economic growth.

    Economics is mathematically chaotic. Do you know what that mathematically chaotic means? Google it.
    Economics is common sense. Remove as much burden on the entrepreneurial class as possible; get out of their way and the economy will thrive. It's really that simple.

    The reason our economy is struggling is because we are transitioning from an industrial economy to something else and the establishment prefers the status quo.
    I say it's high corporate taxes (2nd highest in the world) and over-regulation (Obamacare, licensing regs).

    You say tax rates should be lower, with no qualifiers.
    15% flat tax; get rid of the income tax altogether; get rid of the corporate tax as well.

    Also, when Kennedy was speaking tax rates were significantly higher than they are today. The top income tax rate was 91% when Kennedy was president. It is 35% today.
    Kennedy cut income tax rates by 30% and that resulted in 1 million new jobs in the 4 years following. The economic growth rate increased from 4.3% to 6.6%. Total income tax revenue went from $48.7 billion in 1964 to $68.4 billion by 1968. (from Laffer's book, The End of Prosperity)
    Senator Rand Paul is alive because of modern medicine and because his attacker punches like a girl.

  10. #20
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tellenbach View Post
    My ideology is whatever works. Government intrusion into the economy has failed many, many times. I could post examples but I'm sure you already know them. I want wages to increase by creating a vibrant economy, as in North Dakota, where fast food workers make $15/hour because of the vibrant economy. You want wages to increase by govt fiat. Why do you think that govt would know better how to manage finances than the business owners themselves? That's a silly notion.
    Yes, government intrusion has failed. Let's repeal murder laws so businesses can murder their competitors. Let's get rid of police departments so businesses can rob their competitors. Cruel, cruel government getting in the way of business.

    North Dakota is digging decayed dead plant and animal parts out of the ground. I wouldn't call that vibrant. It's no Silicon Valley. Once the oil boom is over, North Dakota will be full of ghost towns, just like what happened after gold booms. Booms, like what is happening in North Dakota, is no way to model a national economy. But you haven't thought that deeply about this.

    The conclusions of the study would hold more true in downturns, so it's even more valid today.
    My statement went right over your head. The economy was just about to begin its freefall at that time. Nationwide unemployment went from 5.6% to 6.1% during the period of that study. The people who did that study have no idea how much (if any at all) unemployment was caused by the increase in minimum wage. You believe the study because it's what you want to believe. It tells you what you want to hear.

    What's wrong with having two or more strategies? No one expects the guy at McDonalds to work there forever. These are entry level positions, not careers. You work at McDonalds to get money to buy video games, text-books, and to get work experience.
    Another strawman. I made no value judgments about McDonalds business strategy. Obviously you accept my argument because the only thing you refuted was a value judgment you imagined in your head.

    No it's not. We've had 4 major tax cuts over the past century and each action resulted in tremendous economic growth.
    You're confusing growth with bubbles. Bush's tax cuts last decade did not produce real growth. It was imaginary. It was growth that only existed in accounting ledgers. It was all credit based and it all disappeared in 2008. Poof.

    Economics is common sense. Remove as much burden on the entrepreneurial class as possible; get out of their way and the economy will thrive. It's really that simple.
    You're demonstrating the Dunning-Kruger effect here. If economics was "common sense", there wouldn't be any debates about it and economists would be able to make precise predictions about the future of the economy. But they can't. No one can because economies are mathematically chaotic. What you think you know...you don't.

    I say it's high corporate taxes (2nd highest in the world) and over-regulation (Obamacare, licensing regs).
    You can say whatever you want, but you're still wrong. Those may have been factors, but the dominant factors have been globalization and automation. Factories that employed 2000 Americans a generation ago now either employ 200 Americans or 2000 Chinese. Even with enough tax loopholes that allow companies can to pay 0% corporate income tax, they still moved to China. Why? Because they can pay Chinese pennies on the dollar for work Americans were doing. The only way to keep jobs here would have been to have a negative tax rate for domestic production or raise tariffs. And no tax breaks were going to keep companies from reducing their labor force by automating. That's a fantasy in that exists only in your mind.

    15% flat tax; get rid of the income tax altogether; get rid of the corporate tax as well.
    If lower is always better, why not 10%? Why not 5%? Why 15%? Show me the math. Or did you pull that number out of your ass?

    Kennedy cut income tax rates by 30% and that resulted in 1 million new jobs in the 4 years following. The economic growth rate increased from 4.3% to 6.6%. Total income tax revenue went from $48.7 billion in 1964 to $68.4 billion by 1968. (from Laffer's book, The End of Prosperity)
    So what? The conditions that existed in the 1960s do not exist today. The US actually has competition now. The prosperity of the 50s and 60s weren't the result of the US being better than everyone else. It was the result of the rest of the world still recovering from WWII. The US had no manufacturing competition for decades after WWII. Now we do.
    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

Similar Threads

  1. [NT] So.. if life's a bitch, then am I wrong for trying to enjoy the ride?
    By mysavior in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 07-03-2011, 06:59 PM
  2. Is it reasonable to compare Socionics with MBTI?
    By Athenian200 in forum Socionics
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 08-15-2007, 09:41 AM
  3. Reasons to Believe organization
    By Totenkindly in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: 07-12-2007, 10:11 PM
  4. Reasons to move to Rome...
    By sdalek in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 06-25-2007, 04:41 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO