Raising taxes on high income households would not harm economy

[TonyR]

Here's an excerpt from the study linked below:


Opponents of raising effective marginal income tax rates on high-income taxpayers claim that higher rates would discourage them from working, thereby reducing labor supply and harming the economy. But for high-income taxpayers in particular, as Leonard Burman recently observed, “evidence suggests their labor supply is insensitive to tax rates.” The empirical evidence on how U.S. taxpayers have responded to tax increases indicates that, at most, high-income taxpayers respond to large cuts in tax rates with negligible increases in work hours.

Johns Hopkins economist Robert Moffitt and Purdue and Pennsylvania State University economist Mark Wilhelm report that work hours among working-age men remained essentially unchanged in response to the marginal tax rate changes made by the 1986 tax law. Moffitt and Wilhelm’s finding is consistent with earlier empirical studies: University of Michigan Professor Reuven Avi-Yonah has written that the literature as a whole suggests “high-income men are unlikely to decrease hours worked as tax rates go up.” Other groups, such as married women and older workers have been shown to be very responsive to tax rate changes, but the evidence generally doesn’t show similar responses for those at the top of the income distribution.

http://www.cbpp.org/files/4-24-12tax.pdf

[TonyR]

Here's a good follow up/commentary on the study.

http://jaredbernsteinblog.com/the-economic-impact-of-raising-taxes-on-high-income-households/

Touches on all of the subjects listed below:

Taxable income and revenue
Work and labor supply
Saving and investment
Small business
Entrepreneurship
Growth and jobs

[El Minion]

CHART: Since 1950, Lower Top Tax Rates Have Coincided With Weaker Economic Growth (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/06/20/249061/chart-taxes-economic-growth/)

By Pat Garofalo (http://thinkprogress.org/author/pat-g/) on Jun 20, 2011 at 3:55 pm


http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/boehnercantortaxrates0620.jpg



Ever since President Obama was on the campaign trail, he has been derided by Republicans for vowing to allow the Bush tax cuts for the richest two percent of Americans to expire. And that’s because, to Republicans, there are few things more important than the top marginal tax rate. And to hear Republicans tell it, marginal tax rates are the be-all and end-all of economic growth.


“We’ve seen over the last 30 years that lower marginal tax rates have led to a growing economy (http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/domestic-taxes/102443-boehner-bush-tax-cuts-didnt-lead-to-the-deficit), more employment and more people paying taxes,” said Speaker of the House John Boehner. “We also need to just cut the top marginal rate for individuals and corporations so that we’re more competitive (http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/71281-demint-urges-further-cuts-to-top-income-tax-bracket) and companies can look way out in the future and know they’ll have a competitive tax rate,” said Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC). “The economics profession has been really clear about this (http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/88492/fact-checking-paul-ryans-voodoo) – higher marginal tax rates create a drag on economic growth,” added House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI).


But is the data as clear as Ryan suggests? In fact, as Michael Linden, Director of Tax and Budget Policy at the Center for American Progress, found, “growth was actually fastest (http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/06/marginal_tax_charticle.html) in years with relatively high top marginal tax rates”:


Back in the 1950s, when the top marginal tax rate was more than 90 percent, real annual growth averaged more than 4 percent. During the last eight years, when the top marginal rate was just 35 percent, real growth was less than half that. Altogether, in years when the top marginal rate was lower than 39.6 percent — the top rate during the 1990s — annual real growth averaged 2.1 percent. In years when the rate was 39.6 percent or higher, real growth averaged 3.8 percent. The pattern is the same regardless of threshold. Take 50 percent, for example. Growth in years when the tax rate was less than 50 percent averaged 2.7 percent. In years with tax rates at or more than 50 percent, growth was 3.7 percent.
<center>http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/taxratesgrowth.jpg

</center> As Linden put it, “these numbers do not mean that higher rates necessarily lead to higher growth. But the central tenet of modern conservative economics is that a lower top marginal tax rate will result in more growth, and these numbers do show conclusively that history has not been kind to that theory (http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/06/marginal_tax_charticle.html).” Indeed, these numbers put the lie to the common Republican refrain that Obama and Democrats in Congress are trying to implement a “job-killing tax hike (http://www.speaker.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=215538)” by putting the top tax rate back to where it was under President Clinton.

[Rohirrim]

If we went back to where the tax rates were across the board, pre-Reagan, we'd be out of this mess in a year. The Republicans have propagandized and conditioned the American people to indulge in their brand of small-minded greed and stinginess - If you hate government why should you pay for it? See what happens to a society that nobody wants to share in? It goes into the toilet. Like I've always said, if you're going to advocate a dog eat dog society, make sure you're one of the big dogs, like the Koch Brothers, or Romney, for example, otherwise, you're just lunch.

[Pony Boy]

Democrat comic scorches Obama again

“Saturday Night Live” comedic legend Jon Lovitz is doubling down on his harsh criticism of Barack Obama’s alleged wealth confiscation and redistribution policies, claiming the president is lying to Americans. The President is lying to get votes … it’s obvious and transparent,” Lovitz, a self-proclaimed Democrat who voted for Obama in 2008, said on his Twitter feed Saturday night.

Lovitz responded, “I don’t mind paying a little more. I pay my fair share now. The President is lying to get votes…it’s obvious and transparent.”

http://www.wnd.com/2012/04/democrat-comic-scorches-obama-again/

[peacepipe]

Democrat comic scorches Obama again

“Saturday Night Live” comedic legend Jon Lovitz is doubling down on his harsh criticism of Barack Obama’s alleged wealth confiscation and redistribution policies, claiming the president is lying to Americans. The President is lying to get votes … it’s obvious and transparent,” Lovitz, a self-proclaimed Democrat who voted for Obama in 2008, said on his Twitter feed Saturday night.

Lovitz responded, “I don’t mind paying a little more. I pay my fair share now. The President is lying to get votes…it’s obvious and transparent.”

http://www.wnd.com/2012/04/democrat-comic-scorches-obama-again/LOL jon lovitz! WND! really!

[Pony Boy]

If we went back to where the tax rates were across the board, pre-Reagan, we'd be out of this mess in a year. The Republicans have propagandized and conditioned the American people to indulge in their brand of small-minded greed and stinginess - If you hate government why should you pay for it? See what happens to a society that nobody wants to share in? It goes into the toilet. Like I've always said, if you're going to advocate a dog eat dog society, make sure you're one of the big dogs, like the Koch Brothers, or Romney, for example, otherwise, you're just lunch.

In President Obama’s best-selling memoir, “Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance,” the president recalls being fed dog meat as a young boy in Indonesia with his stepfather, Lolo Soetoro.

“With Lolo, I learned how to eat small green chill peppers raw with dinner (plenty of rice), and, away from the dinner table, I was introduced to dog meat (tough), snake meat (tougher), and roasted grasshopper (crunchy),” the president wrote.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

“With Lolo, I learned how to eat small green chill peppers raw with dinner (plenty of rice), and, away from the dinner table, I was introduced to dog meat (tough), snake meat (tougher), and roasted grasshopper (crunchy),” the president wrote.

Translation...... I have no idea how to argue taxes, spending, economics so I will post something I understand, eating dog meat and grasshoppers.

[elsid13]

In President Obama’s best-selling memoir, “Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance,” the president recalls being fed dog meat as a young boy in Indonesia with his stepfather, Lolo Soetoro.

“With Lolo, I learned how to eat small green chill peppers raw with dinner (plenty of rice), and, away from the dinner table, I was introduced to dog meat (tough), snake meat (tougher), and roasted grasshopper (crunchy),” the president wrote.

You haven't traveled a lot have you? I had stuff OCONUS, especially in PACRIM that would turn most American stomachs. But when you are on official business you don't mock your hosts.

[Bob]

Here's an excerpt from the study linked below:


Opponents of raising effective marginal income tax rates on high-income taxpayers claim that higher rates would discourage them from working, thereby reducing labor supply and harming the economy. But for high-income taxpayers in particular, as Leonard Burman recently observed, “evidence suggests their labor supply is insensitive to tax rates.” The empirical evidence on how U.S. taxpayers have responded to tax increases indicates that, at most, high-income taxpayers respond to large cuts in tax rates with negligible increases in work hours.

Johns Hopkins economist Robert Moffitt and Purdue and Pennsylvania State University economist Mark Wilhelm report that work hours among working-age men remained essentially unchanged in response to the marginal tax rate changes made by the 1986 tax law. Moffitt and Wilhelm’s finding is consistent with earlier empirical studies: University of Michigan Professor Reuven Avi-Yonah has written that the literature as a whole suggests “high-income men are unlikely to decrease hours worked as tax rates go up.” Other groups, such as married women and older workers have been shown to be very responsive to tax rate changes, but the evidence generally doesn’t show similar responses for those at the top of the income distribution.

http://www.cbpp.org/files/4-24-12tax.pdf

But when 48% of folks dont pay income taxes, and when the top 10% pay 74% of the taxes -- how is that "fair"? Its not. Karl Marx advocated for the progressive income tax, its purpose is to steal from the wealthy and give to those that produce less -- no thanks, Karl.

[Bob]

Democrat comic scorches Obama again

“Saturday Night Live” comedic legend Jon Lovitz is doubling down on his harsh criticism of Barack Obama’s alleged wealth confiscation and redistribution policies, claiming the president is lying to Americans. The President is lying to get votes … it’s obvious and transparent,” Lovitz, a self-proclaimed Democrat who voted for Obama in 2008, said on his Twitter feed Saturday night.

Lovitz responded, “I don’t mind paying a little more. I pay my fair share now. The President is lying to get votes…it’s obvious and transparent.”

http://www.wnd.com/2012/04/democrat-comic-scorches-obama-again/

I guess he will be the next actor to be blacklisted...

[TonyR]

Republicans are currently blocking the extension of lower student loan interest rates because they insist on cutting a health care fund to pay for its cost. But when it comes to the Bush tax cuts, they continue to believe that no budget offsets are necessary to pay for them. ... You really couldn’t ask for clearer evidence that Republicans are not only wholly uninterested in reducing federal budget deficits, but even oppose the whole notion of considering individual spending and taxing decisions in the context of an overall budget.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/one-more-time-republicans-dont-care-about-the-deficit/2012/05/01/gIQAxqQ8tT_blog.html?wprss=rss_plum-line


How Would The GOP Pay For An Extension Of The Bush Tax Cuts?

http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/domestic-taxes/224677-republicans-no-offsets-for-extending-bush-rates

[TonyR]

Stephen King:

...I’ve known rich people, and why not, since I’m one of them? The majority would rather douse their ***** with lighter fluid, strike a match, and dance around singing “Disco Inferno” than pay one more cent in taxes to Uncle Sugar....

...It’s un-****ing-American is what it is. I don’t want you to apologize for being rich; I want you to acknowledge that in America, we all should have to pay our fair share. That our civics classes never taught us that being American means that—sorry, kiddies—you’re on your own. That those who have received much must be obligated to pay—not to give, not to “cut a check and shut up,” in Governor Christie’s words, but to pay—in the same proportion. That’s called stepping up and not whining about it. That’s called patriotism, a word the Tea Partiers love to throw around as long as it doesn’t cost their beloved rich folks any money...

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/04/30/stephen-king-tax-me-for-f-s-sake.html

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/jacketcopy/2012/04/stephen-king-tax-the-rich-including-himself.html

[Garcia Bronco]

It also wouldn't even begin to make a dent in the scorching debt. We have to cut spending to pre-2006 at the least.

[alkemical]

Why is controlled inflation good, but some deflation bad?

[alkemical]

What happens to public debt, if we move to the gold standard?

[Garcia Bronco]

What happens to public debt, if we move to the gold standard?

We're still in debt and worse off because there isn't enough gold to cover. Further...poor people will still be poor and rich people will still be rich so it's irrelvent because it's all based on belief.

[alkemical]

We're still in debt and worse off because there isn't enough gold to cover. Further...poor people will still be poor and rich people will still be rich so it's irrelvent because it's all based on belief.

It doesn't answer the question, but Ok.

[Garcia Bronco]

It doesn't answer the question, but Ok.

It does. It doesn't matter what our money is back by because it's based on belief. Debt is debt is debt....you can convert it to whatever you want but you still owe.

[alkemical]

It does. It doesn't matter what our money is back by because it's based on belief. Debt is debt is debt....you can convert it to whatever you want but you still owe.

No, it doesn't.

I'm looking for things like inflation, deflation...you know...how it would REALLY WORK. Not just some opinion.

Have a good day.

[DenverBrit]

I guess he will be the next actor to be blacklisted...

Only because he hasn't been funny in years and has a rep as a miserable a-hole.

[peacepipe]

I guess he will be the next actor to be blacklisted...hard to imagine a has been like jon lovitz needing to be blacklisted? he has essentially blacklisted himself years ago.

[Meck77]

It does. It doesn't matter what our money is back by because it's based on belief. Debt is debt is debt....you can convert it to whatever you want but you still owe.

The dollar will be devalued in the future by design. It will happen swiftly and without warning. Gold on the other hand will continue to rise vs the dollar.

You did after all make one of the worst calls in Omane history. "gold is a bad investment" when it was under $1,000 I believe. ;D

[Garcia Bronco]

The dollar will be devalued in the future by design. It will happen swiftly and without warning. Gold on the other hand will continue to rise vs the dollar.

You did after all make one of the worst calls in Omane history. "gold is a bad investment" when it was under $1,000 I believe. ;D

No...it was at roughly 1200 I believe and what I said was that most people could not buy real gold at that price as a hedge. Where as silver would be a much better purchase because of the price. Either way...it doesn't escape the fact that if the dollar tanks then all the gold and silver in the world will do you no good because you can't eat it and you can't drink it.

[Garcia Bronco]

No, it doesn't.

I'm looking for things like inflation, deflation...you know...how it would REALLY WORK. Not just some opinion.

Have a good day.

Wrong...those are projections on value. We only know if something actually deflated or inflated until after it's happened. Credits and debit. For ever credit you much have a debit and when your credits don't even come close to matching your debits...you are in debt. And no...we do not have a enough gold to cover our debts from a US Government perspective.

[Meck77]

No it was a $1,000 9/30/2009

http://www.monex.com/prods/gold_chart.html

You certainly won't be able to eat much with what will be devalued dollars. Gold will march on pushing 2,000 especially if Obama gets elected again. Our government will have to keep raising the debt ceiling simply because of all the entitlement spending.

Will be interesting to bump your gold thread in 2016.

[Garcia Bronco]

No it was a $1,000 9/30/2009

http://www.monex.com/prods/gold_chart.html

You certainly won't be able to eat much with what will be devalued dollars. Gold will march on pushing 2,000 especially if Obama gets elected again. Our government will have to keep raising the debt ceiling simply because of all the entitlement spending.

Will be interesting to bump your gold thread in 2016.

Either way....there are few that can afford many onces if any. You've taken that thread completely out of context.

[TonyR]

Holy moly, somebody must have hacked Rupert Murdoch's twitter account!

https://twitter.com/#!/rupertmurdoch/status/196697593017925632

[TonyR]

There is something un-Christian about the Gospel According to Paul Ryan. So says Ryan’s Catholic Church.

In an interview with the Christian Broadcasting Network’s David Brody this month, Ryan, the author of the House Republican budget endorsed by Mitt Romney, said his program was crafted “using my Catholic faith” as inspiration. But the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops was not about to bless that claim.

A week after Ryan’s boast, the bishops sent letters to Congress saying the Ryan budget, passed by the House, “fails to meet” the moral criteria of the church, namely its view that any budget should help “the least of these” as the Christian Bible requires: the poor, hungry, homeless and jobless.

“A just spending bill cannot rely on disproportionate cuts in essential services to poor and vulnerable persons,” the bishops wrote.

In fact, Ryan would cut spending on the least of these by about $5 trillion over 10 years — from Medicaid, food stamps, welfare and the like — then award some $4 trillion in tax cuts to the most of these. To their credit, Catholic leaders were not about to let Ryan claim to be serving God when, in fact, he was serving mammon.

“Your budget,” a group of Jesuit scholars and other Georgetown University faculty members wrote to Ryan, “appears to reflect the values of your favorite philosopher, Ayn Rand, rather than the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Her call to selfishness and her antagonism toward religion are antithetical to the Gospel values of compassion and love.”

Ryan didn’t turn the other cheek. He delivered a scheduled lecture Thursday at Georgetown, saying faculty members would benefit from a “fact-based conversation” on the issue.

From the balcony, young demonstrators answered Ryan by holding up a banner with the message “Stop the War on the Poor: No Social Justice in Ryan’s Budget.”

For the young chairman of the House Budget Committee, it was a timely lesson: However much Ryan may wish it, God does not take sides in politics. Ryan, transparently positioning himself to be Romney’s running mate, may believe he is on a mission from God. But in a democracy, such fanaticism makes people like Ryan unable to compromise.

The rebuke of Ryan is a credit to the Catholic leadership because they are displaying their doctrinal consistency, even as politicians embrace church teachings selectively. Republicans hailed the Catholic bishops when they opposed the Obama administration’s policy to expand contraceptive coverage; likewise, they cite the church’s opposition to abortion. But these same lawmakers have little interest in the church’s position against the death penalty or its opposition to the Arizona immigration law.

The bishops, in opposing Ryan’s budget, called for “shared sacrifice by all, including raising adequate revenues.” But Ryan challenged the theologians’ theology. “The holy father himself, Pope Benedict, has charged that governments, communities and individuals running up high debt levels are, quote, ‘living at the expense of future generations,’ ” he said.

Ryan argued that government welfare “dissolves the common good of society and it dishonors the dignity of the human person.” He would restore human dignity by removing anti-poverty programs.

The moderator asked Ryan about “the moral dimension” of a budget that gives tax cuts to the wealthy and cuts spending for the poor. His answer included the phrase “subchapter S corporations.”

Spending on programs such as food stamps and college Pell Grants is “unsustainable,” he said. If government does too much for the poor, “you make it harder” for churches and charities to do it.

It was a bold economic — and theological — proposition. Even Jesus said to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s. Ryan would rather give the rich a tax cut.

http://posttrib.suntimes.com/opinions/12168105-474/bishops-teach-paul-ryan-a-faith-based-lesson.html

[That One Guy]

No, it doesn't.

I'm looking for things like inflation, deflation...you know...how it would REALLY WORK. Not just some opinion.

Have a good day.

When was the last time a country like ours went back to the gold standard? So you'd like to know exactly what would happen in a hypothetical, never-before-happened scenario, but you don't want an opinion? Quit being a dick and asking stupidly impossible questions.Nobody here is a fortune teller.

[That One Guy]

TonyR, do you actually do anything but act as our news feed? Have an original thought, why don't you.

[Bob]

Only because he hasn't been funny in years and has a rep as a miserable a-hole.

Actually he was pretty good in rat race -- but yes, that was a few years ago.

[That One Guy]

And for all the studies, statistics, or anything else people can post, nobody has yet come up with a good solution for stopping the outsourcing problem we've had. Spend more time figuring out how to get people working and less time trying to blame someone and this problem might solve itself.

Making up jobs in the government or handing out money to fix the economy is not actually a fix. Start looking for a fix rather than a distraction.

[Bob]

No...it was at roughly 1200 I believe and what I said was that most people could not buy real gold at that price as a hedge. Where as silver would be a much better purchase because of the price. Either way...it doesn't escape the fact that if the dollar tanks then all the gold and silver in the world will do you no good because you can't eat it and you can't drink it.

So be prepared -- have some extra food, but also some gold and silver. The way we are spending, gold will continue to go up.

[Bob]

And for all the studies, statistics, or anything else people can post, nobody has yet come up with a good solution for stopping the outsourcing problem we've had. Spend more time figuring out how to get people working and less time trying to blame someone and this problem might solve itself.

Making up jobs in the government or handing out money to fix the economy is not actually a fix. Start looking for a fix rather than a distraction.

It might be an indication that no one has the courage to deal with the problem -- so for political survival they are more interested in blaming the other guy.

I think the starting point would be to educate the nation on the severity of the problem --

[TonyR]

TonyR, do you actually do anything but act as our news feed? Have an original thought, why don't you.

If you don't like my threads/posts feel free to stay out of them and/or not read them.

[peacepipe]

And for all the studies, statistics, or anything else people can post, nobody has yet come up with a good solution for stopping the outsourcing problem we've had. Spend more time figuring out how to get people working and less time trying to blame someone and this problem might solve itself.

Making up jobs in the government or handing out money to fix the economy is not actually a fix. Start looking for a fix rather than a distraction.

first,raise tarriffs back to pre-1980 levels. that will put an end to outsourcing.
second,hire back the 300,000+ teachers,firefighters that got layed off.
3rd,john boehner needs to tell the tea party wing of his party to go **** themselves & get with democrats to pass a bipartison jobs bill getting construction going again.

that would probably drop unemployment by 5 points.

[That One Guy]

first,raise tarriffs back to pre-1980 levels. that will put an end to outsourcing.
second,hire back the 300,000+ teachers,firefighters that got layed off.
3rd,john boehner needs to tell the tea party wing of his party to go **** themselves & get with democrats to pass a bipartison jobs bill getting construction going again.

that would probably drop unemployment by 5 points.

I don't necessarily know the exact reference point you mention but I agree that this is what I'd like to see more than anything else at this point and time. More than I'd like just about any other piece of legislature, I'd like the US to give the finger to the rest of the world and hike up tariffs. Just dissolve any benefit to producing abroad over producing in the US and see where the government goes.

[That One Guy]

If you don't like my threads/posts feel free to stay out of them and/or not read them.

I don't have a problem with your threads. They're pretty much the stereotypical thread around here (post a link from your side of the spectrum with no commentary). I have a problem with the fact that you never post any of your ideas and just post articles that you seem to agree with. Have a brain and some balls and construct your own opinion.

[alkemical]

When was the last time a country like ours went back to the gold standard? So you'd like to know exactly what would happen in a hypothetical, never-before-happened scenario, but you don't want an opinion? Quit being a dick and asking stupidly impossible questions.Nobody here is a fortune teller.

There are things in history that give indicications:

For example, moving to the gold standard. There's still debt, but how is that debt weighted? For example, if you "owe" $30k in debt, how is that changed? Does it become unobtainable.

What things would have deflation (purchasing power), and where would deflation kill you (lower cost of housing, but less $ in circulation). How much would your piece of the pie change.

I'm not interested in OPINIONS, i'm interested in learning more about mechanisms that have happened in history. I want to learn...not hear stupid regurgitated material that doesn't say or mean anything.

Wait, why am i wasting my time to respond to you when you offer nothing to the discussion?

[alkemical]

It might be an indication that no one has the courage to deal with the problem -- so for political survival they are more interested in blaming the other guy.

I think the starting point would be to educate the nation on the severity of the problem --

Americans don't want to deal with the problem. STOP OUTSOURCING OUR JOBS...did you see what I just bought at wal*mart?

It's this massive cognitive dissonance/stupidity that is driving America to eat itself.

[TonyR]

I know That One Guy hates articles, but here's an interesting (and optimistic) one that touches on some of what we're discussing ...


http://www.delawareonline.com/article/20120506/OPINION16/305060003/Cause-optimism-about-resurgent-America?odyssey=mod%7Cnewswell%7Ctext%7COpinion%7C s&nclick_check=1

The coming U.S. manufacturing recovery is the subject of several studies by the Boston Consulting Group. I’ll focus here on the most recent one, “U.S. Manufacturing Nears the Tipping Point,” which appeared in March.

What’s happening, according to BCG, is a “reshoring” back to America of manufacturing that previously migrated offshore, especially to China. The BCG analysts estimate that by 2015, China’s cost advantage will have shrunk to the point that many manufacturers will prefer to open new plants in the U.S.

In the vast manufacturing region surrounding Shanghai, total compensation packages will be about 25 percent of those for comparable workers in low-cost U.S. manufacturing states. But given higher American productivity, effective labor costs will be about 60 percent of those in America — not low enough to compensate U.S. manufacturers for the risks and volatility of operating in China.

In about five years, argue the BCG economists, the cost-risk balance will reach an inflection point in seven key industries where manufacturers had been moving to China: computers and electronics, appliances and electrical equipment, machinery, furniture, fabricated metals, plastics and rubber, and transportation goods. The industries together amounted to a nearly $2 trillion market in the U.S. in 2010, with China producing about $200 billion of that total.

[alkemical]

I know That One Guy hates articles, but here's an interesting (and optimistic) one that touches on some of what we're discussing ...


http://www.delawareonline.com/article/20120506/OPINION16/305060003/Cause-optimism-about-resurgent-America?odyssey=mod%7Cnewswell%7Ctext%7COpinion%7C s&nclick_check=1

The coming U.S. manufacturing recovery is the subject of several studies by the Boston Consulting Group. I’ll focus here on the most recent one, “U.S. Manufacturing Nears the Tipping Point,” which appeared in March.

What’s happening, according to BCG, is a “reshoring” back to America of manufacturing that previously migrated offshore, especially to China. The BCG analysts estimate that by 2015, China’s cost advantage will have shrunk to the point that many manufacturers will prefer to open new plants in the U.S.

In the vast manufacturing region surrounding Shanghai, total compensation packages will be about 25 percent of those for comparable workers in low-cost U.S. manufacturing states. But given higher American productivity, effective labor costs will be about 60 percent of those in America — not low enough to compensate U.S. manufacturers for the risks and volatility of operating in China.

In about five years, argue the BCG economists, the cost-risk balance will reach an inflection point in seven key industries where manufacturers had been moving to China: computers and electronics, appliances and electrical equipment, machinery, furniture, fabricated metals, plastics and rubber, and transportation goods. The industries together amounted to a nearly $2 trillion market in the U.S. in 2010, with China producing about $200 billion of that total.


One problem that's being run into now...is some of these local biz's can't find the 'talent' to work there (lack of training) - and they don't want to pay for it....

Crazy world.

[barryr]

How about those in Hollywood stop finding ways to hide their money and pay the taxes they should pay in the first place? It's always interesting how those that don't pay their taxes and/or find ways to not pay as much as they should are "evil capitalists" but those that share liberal ideals they do it are "smart business" people.

[peacepipe]

How about those in Hollywood stop finding ways to hide their money and pay the taxes they should pay in the first place? It's always interesting how those that don't pay their taxes and/or find ways to not pay as much as they should are "evil capitalists" but those that share liberal ideals they do it are "smart business" people.

i've never said they shouldn't pay there fair share. if we pass laws raising taxes they'll pay their fair share as well.

[alkemical]

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/editorials/2011/09/28/middle-class-entitlements-have-to-be-part-of-fix.html

Middle-class entitlements have to be part of fix




http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/12/us/even-critics-of-safety-net-increasingly-depend-on-it.html?pagewanted=all

Even Critics of Safety Net Increasingly Depend on It


The government safety net was created to keep Americans from abject poverty, but the poorest households no longer receive a majority of government benefits. A secondary mission has gradually become primary: maintaining the middle class from childhood through retirement. The share of benefits flowing to the least affluent households, the bottom fifth, has declined from 54 percent in 1979 to 36 percent in 2007, according to a Congressional Budget Office analysis published last year.

And as more middle-class families like the Gulbransons land in the safety net in Chisago and similar communities, anger at the government has increased alongside. Many people say they are angry because the government is wasting money and giving money to people who do not deserve it. But more than that, they say they want to reduce the role of government in their own lives. They are frustrated that they need help, feel guilty for taking it and resent the government for providing it. They say they want less help for themselves; less help in caring for relatives; less assistance when they reach old age.

The expansion of government benefits has become an issue in the presidential campaign. Rick Santorum, who won 57 percent of the vote in Chisago County in the Republican presidential caucuses last week, has warned of “the narcotic of government dependency.” Newt Gingrich has compared the safety net to a spider web. Mitt Romney has said the nation must choose between an “entitlement society” and an “opportunity society.” All the candidates, including Ron Paul, have promised to cut spending and further reduce taxes.

[Rohirrim]

I don't see what the big issue is. Cut the military to the bone. End all foreign occupations. Cut all government to the bone. Eliminate subsidies to all, including agriculture, oil, energy, etc. Eliminate every government program; Libraries, education, postal service, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, food stamps, energy, science investment, medical investment, EPA, transportation, support of the arts, etc. Close the Fed. Eliminate all regulatory functions of government: SEC, OSHA, etc. etc. etc. Then, since government will have far less to do, massively cut salaries of everybody in Washington, from the POTUS, to the SCOTUS, to Congress, etc. etc. Institute a flat tax of 5% to cover anything that is left. If that doesn't cover it, cut some more government.

And then do you know what we'll have?


Paradise.


The libertarians told me. ;D

[alkemical]

So who here likes their entitlements?

It got me the ability to go to school, and it helps my mom in taxes.

[El Minion]

http://i.imgur.com/u6L12.jpg

[That One Guy]

I don't see what the big issue is. Cut the military to the bone. End all foreign occupations. Cut all government to the bone. Eliminate subsidies to all, including agriculture, oil, energy, etc. Eliminate every government program; Libraries, education, postal service, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, food stamps, energy, science investment, medical investment, EPA, transportation, support of the arts, etc. Close the Fed. Eliminate all regulatory functions of government: SEC, OSHA, etc. etc. etc. Then, since government will have far less to do, massively cut salaries of everybody in Washington, from the POTUS, to the SCOTUS, to Congress, etc. etc. Institute a flat tax of 5% to cover anything that is left. If that doesn't cover it, cut some more government.

And then do you know what we'll have?


Paradise.


The libertarians told me. ;D

The only problem with your statement is that we all define paradise differently. For those libertarians, that might be paradise.