-
The Biggest Fool of All
June 17, 2013 | 121 comments
-
Intervention Temptation
June 13, 2013 | 45 comments
-
Korean Déjà Vu
June 11, 2013 | 24 comments
-
Turkey Is Different
June 10, 2013 | 18 comments
-
Religion Living Dangerously
June 6, 2013 | 22 comments
The Tax and Spend Spectator
Fewer Taxpayers, More Spending
Those who still pay income taxes will be paying even more.
(Page 2 of 2)
The Foundation figured that every one percent increase in the share of nonpayers corresponded to an increase of $10.6 billion in transfer payment outlays. The money adds up. Explained the report: “Since the number of nonpayers has increased by 20 percentage points over the last two decades, this model implies that in 2010 alone, almost $213 billion in higher transfer payments resulted from the growth of nonpayers over the last two decades. This represents nine percent of the total $2.287 trillion spent in transfer payments that year.” Stripping out Social Security and Medicare do not change the relationship, but only cut the estimated annual increase to $9 billion.
No such association was evident for non-transfer payments. Although that would seem counter-intuitive, the authors posited that “non-transfer payment spending does not go directly into the hands of the voters. Instead, this spending is often composed of indirect investments and the benefit from this spending is widely dispersed among all voters.” Moreover, perhaps these outlays have hit the point of diminishing returns, and thus voter demand has fallen. Or perhaps overall budget constraints exist and have placed transfer and non-transfer payments in competition, with the former emerging victorious.
The Foundation also found a positive correlation between nonpayers and federal debt. For every one percent increase in nonpayers as a share of filers, the debt/GDP ratio rises .704 percent. “This implies that the 20 percentage point increase in the share of nonpayers over the last 20 years has increased the debt ratio by 14 percentage points.” Such a rise logically follows the increased demand for transfer payments when taxpaying voters seem increasingly averse to higher taxes.
In Washington today the greatest concern over nonpayers is lost revenue. However, the underlying problem is that government spends too much, not that it collects too little. Unfortunately, noted the Foundation, “we are now seeing the fiscal cost of dropping millions of Americans from the income tax rolls in the form of record levels of federal transfer spending and national debt.”
Thus, despite the obvious appeal in further reducing the tax rolls, the Foundation’s “findings imply that when voters perceive the cost of government to be cheaper than it really is, they demand ever more government benefits because they either don’t feel the cost directly or believe that others will be paying those costs.” Which means meaningful tax reform should address the problem of nonpayers.
The Foundation concluded with a call for “a more balanced tax burden.” The wealthy already pay the vast majority of income taxes. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the total share of income tax liabilities paid by the top one percent of households ran 39.5 percent in 2007 (the CBO’s latest figures). The top five percent paid 61.0 percent of all income taxes. The highest earning ten percent were responsible for 72.7 percent of income tax collections. (The same groups also pay the bulk of corporate and social insurance taxes.) It simply isn’t possible to fund the welfare state by extracting more money from those who already are paying the bulk of the bill.
Especially since the attempt to do so likely would further inflate federal outlays. Concluded the Foundation: “so long as income taxes fund the largest part of government spending, exempting half the population from income taxes is not a sustainable fiscal model. Debt accumulation and eventual default await those democracies that fail to connect a majority of voters to the cost of government spending.”
Reconnecting voters may be the most important objective of tax reform. Reducing rates and simplifying administration are important. But ensuring that all Americans have a financial stake in paying for general government operations, and especially transfer payments, may be most vital.
About the Author
Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. A former Special Assistant to President Ronald Reagan, he is the author and editor of several books, including The Politics of Plunder: Misgovernment in Washington (Transaction).
Letter to the Editor View all comments (62) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Doug Bandow
More Articles From The Tax and Spend Spectator
http://spectator.org/archives/2013/03/05/fewer-taxpayers-more-spending
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Overheated Frauds and Fools
- Once Upon a Time in the West
- Of Weiner and Women
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
vtwin| 3.5.13 @ 9:15AM
“There are currently more Americans off the tax rolls than at any time since 1940.”
The problem the dramatic growth of income inequality in the United States since Reagan; the share of national income going to the top 1% has more than doubled since 1979 to a share not seen since before the Great Depression. While the share for bottom 95% during the same time period has fallen and for some income groups by as much as 30%. This failure of Reaganomics has shrunk the number of tax payers and created massive demands for government assistance fueling our growing National Debt.
http://www.businessinsider.com.....11-11?op=1
TLP| 3.5.13 @ 9:47AM
Since your Boy's been here?
The Income Inequality is the Highest that it's ever been.
Are you really this Stupid?
Don't you see him making Uber Tax Giveaways to Millionaires and Billionaires in the Financial Institutions, Big Business, and in Hollywood?
Why is John Corzine working for this POS, when he should be in Prison?
Why is Google, Facebook, GE, GM, and all of the Unions PAYING NO TAXES?
Why hasn't the XL Pipeline been Built?
Because, as long as it goes Unbuilt? All of that Canadian Crude will continue to Ride the Rails on Your Boy's Bestest Friend's Trains (WARREN BUFFETT) all the way to the Gulf, thus making him even Richer than he already is.
You're not even a Useful Idiot.
You're somewhere in the category of those who wish that he's Crap on their Face every morning.
You're like the journOlists.
SUBVET| 3.5.13 @ 10:04AM
Tim...........you just wasted you time HE CAN'T READ.
TLP| 3.5.13 @ 10:37AM
He can read.
He just has a Comprehension problem, and Shitt all over his face.
vtwin| 3.5.13 @ 10:57AM
Translation: Tim......... I don’t even understand what you guys are talking about so I'll just say something rude.
TLP| 3.5.13 @ 2:45PM
That's what I said.
You don't understand what anybody's talking about, so you just say something Stupid.
Thanks for the Confirmation.
I didn't need it.
But I appreciate it, just the same.
Purp| 3.5.13 @ 10:43AM
You really are an idiot.
We can't even clean up 1 oil spill of easily cleaned oil and you're ready to ship billions of barrels in a pipeline over the water aquifers that 50 million Americans need for drinking water. What a fool.
And, yes, a train can spill too, but much less to clean up than a pipeline breakage. You can look up the latest disasters with pipelines, if you want facts... I'm not going to bother, unless you do your own homework.
As far as protecting Big Money from taxes - look to your Republican Filibusters for stopping any legislation to change it... are you this dumb, you don't know that?
Okay, go ahead, be your nasty mouth, arrogant, ahole that you usually are... go ahead Mouth of the South...
Drunken Sailor| 3.5.13 @ 3:46PM
Don't feed the troll
CJW| 3.5.13 @ 4:05PM
Purpie the Village Idiot posted:
1. "Hurricane Sandy and Chris Christie was the Lord's way of pressing his thumb on the scale to tilt in the direction of President Obama. It was His punishment of Republicans for their lying and trying to cheat (Voter Suppression) their way to political victory, while espousing faith, freedom and constitutional credentials."
2. purpie believes God killed over 100 persons and destroyed millions of dollars of property to help Obama win.
3. In Sept Purpie wrote that Amassador Stevens was at fault and caused his death.
4. Purpie also wrote that the unborn are biological entities not deserving of protection until God allows them to be born.
5. purpie believes that a 20% cut in the tax rate will INCREASE his 0% rate to 8%.
6. purpie also posted one of the female bloggers here should just lay back and enjoy the rape.
7. purpie is a racist who posted that "You can't even beat a black man....haha," implying blacks are inferior.
Purp-arnie-vtwin represents the Loon Left that should be mocked and ridiculed, and not engaged in debate
davidh| 3.5.13 @ 1:02PM
What is interesting to me is how the Democrats are arguing for “democracy” in our republic.
Polls are displayed to show the will of the American people is being thwarted by the House of Representatives to stop:
1. Gun control
2. Immigration reform
3. Progressive tax and spend agenda
4. Abortion
5. Same sex everything
It is fascinating to watch the media whine about how the election settled these issues and the Republicans are obstructing the will of the people. Go to liberal sites and read the comments from their faithful about how democracy should rule over the concept of the Republic.
The position of the minority in the USA is not as weak as we are lead to believe.
1. Republicans control 30 governorships highest since 2000
2. House majority is relatively safe in Red States
3. 10th amendment gives power to the states, leadership should use it
Obama can never do what he wants to do to the USA as long as this structure exists.
Hold the Republicans feet to the fire and Obama will be stopped. That is why the media and democrats need to attack the Tea Party. This minority has power and needs to be conservative to wield it.
Purp| 3.5.13 @ 4:32PM
Just remember you are teaching the other side the tactics to use against you when they are in the minority ... and listen to you scream when they do it to you.
In the meantime, while you are making your point, Americans need help and you are playing your little games with people's lives. Live with that.
davidh| 3.5.13 @ 7:10PM
Games like Iran is years away from nukes. Oh wait, they are close now the election is over.....
What?
George S| 3.5.13 @ 10:07AM
It isn't the failure of 'Reaganomics" that is the cause of income inequality.
Think about it: people are working harder but the average income does not rise. Well, if people are working harder, then their employers are making more money off of that hard work. Where does that money wind up?
Profits? No. Look at the profit margins of the Fortune 500 and you will see they did not change much.
Dividends and stock? Good guess, but the climb in the markets is mostly due to the Fed's printing press and borrowing.
What else could it be...?
Look around where you work. There are two types of employees: those whose labor directly produces the goods and services that make the income and those who are overhead.
Who is overhead? Human resources people, for one. Their job is to make sure all the federal laws pertaining to everything from sexual harassment to workplace violence to minority sensitivity are complied with. In addition, they have to manage the health care benefits paperwork. The accounting department has to wade through all the tax codes. The legal department navigates labor law requirements, construction permits, zoning, parking tickets, sign postings, daycare and family leave counseling, workplace violence and a host of other federal requirements.
George S| 3.5.13 @ 10:07AM
Then there are the fees, licenses and penalties levied by various government agencies and departments, both federal and local.
A lot of people doing a lot of work. Yet those people are paid salary and benefits. Since they do not produce the goods or services, their labor does not result in wealth production and therefore are overhead.
Where does your employer get the money to pay them? From YOU. You work more efficiently; you work more overtime; you work the job of two people... you.
Yet you -- the one making the money -- are not compensated for your harder, more efficient work. Your employer is depending on that to pay Human Resources, Legal, and Accounting. And the lobbyists, consultants and lawyers as needed.
That is why your income is steady while everyone else gets rich. Now you see why Washington D.C. has seven of the richest real estate markets in the country?
Federal and state regulatory compliance industries are a multi-billion dollar market. Someone has to do the actual work to make that money move.
It's you. What are you complaining about? At least your employer has to give you a Casual Friday. Be grateful.
Purp| 3.5.13 @ 10:48AM
What a bald-faced lie ... Corporations are swimming in dough, including the one I work for (yes, Fortune 10), but they aren't sharing it with their employees. They don't have to. Reagan and the Bushes taught them that as they killed the unions.
Management doesn't give anything to anyone it doesn't have to. They are more Mr. Potter than George Bailey in "It's a Wonderful Life" ...
You can look at the balance sheets of Corporations, and as much as they try to hide it, they can't. They are VERY profitable, and very stingy to the employees at the same time.
Regulation is something they bitch about, but it is NOT a reason for employee wage stagnation.
It was Reagan's policies continued by the Bush Twins that favored the wealthy over the Middle Class and here we are...
markenoff| 3.5.13 @ 1:39PM
That "dough" belows to the share holders. If the employees want a share they should invest in stock.
Anthony| 3.5.13 @ 2:11PM
Sight unseen, I knew Purp and vtwin would defend the Muslim Marxist and this Kensyian nonsense of his, and of course, I was right. The two wingnuts are in overdrive.
Poor Purp, so under appreciated as the head of this Fortune 10's mailroom.
Hey Purp, ain't it a bitch that your company never lets you leave the basement, except for lunch, and makes you exit through rear door for non essential employees?
Of course, you could make it to head janitor if you got rid of the nose rings and the purple hair.
Purp| 3.5.13 @ 4:34PM
You have no clue what you're talking about. You make this shit up on what, your potty break?
You may as flush your comments and stick your head in for all I care, they are so irrelevant as are you.
Purple hair and nose rings? Where you been hangin' out Boy? LMFAO.
Anthony| 3.5.13 @ 5:05PM
Musta hit a nerve eh Purp? Let me guess, you've made it out of the mailroom and you're now an officer of this Fortune 10, is that what we are supposed to believe?
Does your company know what an a**hole Marxist they have on their payroll?
CJW| 3.5.13 @ 4:04PM
Hey idiot pupie/arnie/vtwin:
How did Reagan and Bush kill the unions? What has Obama done for unions in 5 years?
That Reagan was sure smart. Clinton in 8 years and Obama in 5 years cannot undo what Reagan did 30 years ago. Must mean Clinton/Obama are as stupid as you.
Purpie the Village Idiot posted:
1. "Hurricane Sandy and Chris Christie was the Lord's way of pressing his thumb on the scale to tilt in the direction of President Obama. It was His punishment of Republicans for their lying and trying to cheat (Voter Suppression) their way to political victory, while espousing faith, freedom and constitutional credentials."
2. purpie believes God killed over 100 persons and destroyed millions of dollars of property to help Obama win.
3. In Sept Purpie wrote that Amassador Stevens was at fault and caused his death.
4. Purpie also wrote that the unborn are biological entities not deserving of protection until God allows them to be born.
5. purpie believes that a 20% cut in the tax rate will INCREASE his 0% rate to 8%.
6. purpie also posted one of the female bloggers here should just lay back and enjoy the rape.
7. purpie is a racist who posted that "You can't even beat a black man....haha," implying blacks are inferior.
Purp-arnie-vtwin represents the Loon Left that should be mocked and ridiculed, and not engaged in debate
Stan Redmond| 3.5.13 @ 7:50PM
Why did you buy several multi million dollar houses and brag about it if you are so generous with giving away your money? Do you work for the Fortune 10 while you run your other multi million dollar business you told us all about here? By the way. Do you let the shareholders of this fortune 10 company know how much time you spend posting online that isn't work related? I'm sure the high tech fortune 10 (HP is the only one on the list last I checked) company would like your explanation.
vtwin| 3.5.13 @ 10:55AM
Deregulation, is another failure of Reaganomics.
In the forty years between the 1940 and 1980 a period of heavily regulated banking how many financial crises did we as a nation experience? That’s right ZERO! And, how financial crises in the thirty years since Reagan Administration started deregulating of the financial industries? Well there was the Savings and loan crisis, the Subprime mortgage crisis, the…
lost| 3.5.13 @ 12:18PM
Subprime mortgage crisis was cause by what? Oh thats right the government saying banks had to give loans to those that could not afford the loan and had a government approved skin color. Which opened the door others to get loans they could not afford.
Purp| 3.5.13 @ 4:37PM
No bank was ever forced to do anything... it was their greed that incented them to larceny.
Homeowners should have known better too, if they couldn't afford the housing ... but they had PLENTY of help believing they could... by the same people that profited from the deals.
Is it really that hard to understand for you ReichWingers?
JD| 3.5.13 @ 1:20PM
In the mythology of the Left, Reagan inherited a great economy.
And the simple fact remains that regulators CAUSED the subprime crisis. They were the ones who bullied lenders into making more "minority" and "low income" loans. They were the ones who established loan standards that ensured that said minorities and low income were only eligible for subprime loans. They were the ones who mandated that Fannie's portfolio contain a large number of "low-income" loans. They were the ones who called it discrimination if securities consisting of loans to low-income and minority people were rated lower than other loans.
In short, they told banks that there could be no mortgages for anyone unless a bunch of subprime loans were issued, packaged into securities, and sold with the same ratings as safer loans.
But because you are Leftists, you are required to say that the consequences of your insanity are the fault of those who did what you told them to do. They should have committed financial suicide instead!
And of course, you support your dishonesty by citing examples of bankers who greedily, eagerly played this game. You think that proves that it is conservatism's fault, because you think that every rich businessman can only represent conservatism, even if his behavior is the opposite of what conservatives espouse. Such straw men are the entire underpinning of your theology.
Purp| 3.5.13 @ 4:39PM
Back at you dude... follow who made the money and you'll find the REAL Culprits - and it wasn't some poor schmuck buying his first house. It wasn't the regulators. It wasn't even the mortgage brokers.
Who gained the most over that period ... think about it and I earnestly wait to see if you have any investigative ability. It's all public record... you can do it. Or can you?
Anthony| 3.5.13 @ 5:11PM
You do an aweful lot of blogging on company time don't you Purp? Or do you work the midnight shift cleaning floors?
Perhaps we can inform your Fortune 10 company what a POS worker they have on their hands.
Stan Redmond| 3.5.13 @ 8:20PM
You know. You might want to look up the dates on these dreaded deregulations. As much as you wouldn't like it Volker was an Carter appointee who started that ball rolling in 1979. My history is a little fuzzy but I don't think Reagan was president in 1979.
But the Keating 5 and their bribes to republicans...OH WAIT, those were democrats...
cicero| 3.5.13 @ 9:34AM
You are looking through the wrong end of the telescope. When you raise the level of taxation of the capital accumulating class, you take away the incentives to invest/risk that capital. The Reagan tax cuts obviosly worked, as the economy, along with the earning capacity of the middle class, grew tremendously. The increase in capital, and the willingness to risk it, resulted in the great tech boom of the 90s.
On the other hand, the explosion of the government, and the increase in transfer payments from the capital class to the non-working class, without any corresponding reward for the outlay, resulted in what we have now. As long as we refuse to admit cause and effect, we will continue to subsidize that which is not beneficial, and penalize that which is.
To blame the productive class for the condition of the nonproductive class is the height of insanity. Human nature must be considered in any economic decision making. To deny this results in what we have now. The liberal class has figure this out. They mine the poor for power, and milk the wealthy for gain. Works every time, until the music stops, and there are no chairs left.
vtwin| 3.5.13 @ 10:02AM
Reagan cut income taxes on the wealthy and raised payroll taxes (Social Security and Medicare) on the Middle Class. What happened? The National Debt tripled in eight years and the Middle Class saw real incomes fall for the first time since the end of WW II.
Bush cut taxes in 2001 and again in 2003 lowering capital gains tax to 15% a rate lower than the payroll tax (Social Security and Medicare) on earned income. What happened? The National Debt tripled again in twelve years (remember the Bush tax rates were still in place during Obama’s first term) and the financial system collapsed and the nation enter the second Great Depression.
George S| 3.5.13 @ 10:13AM
Then how did Clinton get a surplus after 1997 when Gingrich cut the capital gains tax from 28 to 20 percent? The 1993 tax increase hardly moved the balance sheet, yet after that capgains cut we got the surplus. Funny how you leave holes in history, Comrade.
Purp| 3.5.13 @ 10:57AM
If we had a capital problem now, all your bluster might mean something.
The problem now is that we don't have a capital problem, we have a demand problem... too much money at the top doesn't grow demand. There is only so many gallons of milk a billionaire can buy and only so many houses, cars, shoes, etc. and they can never match 300 Million people buying those things to create demand.
Wages need to increase, the middle class and working poor needs money to spend to rev the engine of demand which leads to more jobs and a growing economy.
If TeaPublicans would get off their high horse and get out of the way, the economy would take off with a little priming on construction and infrastructure spending ...
George S| 3.5.13 @ 11:27AM
In all seriousness...
If you increase people's wages then where does the money come from to pay them the increase? It is not the corporate "stash" because corporate assets equal liabilities (plus equity). They can only get the money by raising prices. Once the price rises, then those wage increases even out and cannot buy anymore than prior to the wage increase.
That's why it is not about money. It is about labor. You are worth what OTHER people value your labor, regardless how hard you work. You can pay a base salary of a million an hour and all that will do is send grocery bills into the trillions.
You cannot escape your own worth. It's like a gravitational field -- you really have to exert energy (muscle or brains) to overcome it.
vtwin| 3.5.13 @ 11:42AM
“If you increase people's wages then where does the money come from to pay them the increase?” Answer: from the increase in productivity provided by the workers.
Since 1979 productivity has increased an astonishing 80% but the average workers wages have increased a meager 10%.
The question you should be asking is where did the other 70% go? Hint: The top 1% income increased 240%.
http://www.motherjones.com/pol.....der-charts
Purp| 3.5.13 @ 12:14PM
Very good response ... he ignores the obvious because it doesn't fit the agenda.
George S| 3.5.13 @ 12:15PM
Didn't I answer that?
JD| 3.5.13 @ 1:13PM
Vtwin, your source is incredibly dishonest.
Democrats always use "household" income rather than "personal" income so that the fact that household size has shrunk over time created the illusion of wage stagnation. Your link's measure of "productivity" is also highly misleading, as much of the same productivity it includes is factored out of wage gains as "inflation". If you're not going to factor inflation into "productivity", you can't factor it into wages either. Both or neither.
And the "top 1%" are not the same people every year. Also, that spike in "top 1%" growth in the mid 1980s is an accounting trick, not a change, as much wealth that wasn't counted as income starting being counted as income under Reagan's tax simplification.
Finally, as my post a ways down illustrates, use of pre-tax income to measure prosperity is misleading in a redistributive society.
The simple reality is that the middle class has advanced FASTER than the rich in America. This has been true for a long time. Here's a link which covers 2000-2007, and does it well:
http://www.american.com/archiv.....ddle-class
Purp| 3.5.13 @ 4:48PM
Puhlease ... you can look at your own life and income and know vtwin is right... but it doesn't fit your agenda.
Even your own source says the top 5% made a 20% gain in income over that period, while the lowest quintile gained a measly 5%.
Besides, a hit piece by the AEI, and a Doctoral Dissertation to boot, basically a research paper to get a degree? - hardly is a source of truth and goodness... hahaha...
Opelske| 3.5.13 @ 11:18AM
...in a nutshell. Well said.
Opelske| 3.5.13 @ 11:20AM
Why is my reply to Cicero appearing below three other posts????? I was replying to Cicero's comment, and not the article or any other posts. Very annoying.
Purp| 3.5.13 @ 12:17PM
Cicero is wrong. We don't have a capital problem right now... we have a lack of demand problem. There are Trillions in capital and cheap money to borrow as well - but it won't be invested until there are customers to buy what is produced.
Any marketing professional can tell you that. You don't produce something that isn't going to sell...unless you just want to throw money away. If there is no market, don't even start.
Supply side doesn't work ... you can't make it and they will come - they don't if they don't have the cash!
JD| 3.5.13 @ 1:27PM
To be Leftist is to get as many fundamentals as possible completely backwards.
Demand is supply in the hands of someone who wants to trade. That is all demand can ever be. No one can have economically useful demand if he does not have something to trade for what he wants. He can have "need", but needing something while having nothing to trade for it cannot drive economies.
You say "they don't if they don't have the cash", but what is cash? Cash is wealth produced, then traded for currency. That is the only way anyone has "cash". Your "demand" can only ever come from "supply".
Ask a farmer where he'll get food if no one wants to buy his crops. Foolish question - he grows his own! And how does he get things he doesn't make for himself? He grows more food and trades it for other things.
You say there's "no demand". Absurd! Do you think that everyone has everything he needs or wants? Of course not! So what is a person who doesn't have what he needs do? He makes it for himself. What if he can't make it? Then he makes something that he CAN make, and trades it for what he can't.
So long as there is NEED, then what is needed is SUPPLY. "Demand" is just "supply" in the hands of people who want to trade it for others' supply.
There is never demand without there first being supply.
Purp| 3.5.13 @ 5:00PM
Nice little story, but vis a vis the farmer, try building your own house or car, refrigerator or roof shingles. Maybe you could, but who would?
It's completely backwards what you have explained. Your little supply to market ditty works only in the smallest of locales ... it completely falls down in the complex society we live in today.
Anyone who produces goods or services hoping the supply will be met by higher demand is a fool, soon parted from his money.
You do know what market research is for don't you? Do you really think Apple produced the iPad without market research into the possible DEMAND for such a product?
You never heard of New Coke that bombed big time, even with growing demand for soda.
If you can't sell it, no point in making it, is there?
JD| 3.5.13 @ 1:32PM
You say that someone won't produce something if there is no "demand". What does that mean?
It could mean that the demand that exists is for different products. If so, the solution is obvious - make THOSE products!
It could be that there is no demand because no one has money to spend. If so, then THOSE people need to start SUPPLYING something, so that they can trade it for YOUR supply!
What if they won't? What if the entire world won't make anything, such that they have no wealth at all with which to buy anything from you?
Well, despite Leftist efforts to make that a reality, it isn't, and it never will be. But even then, the answer would be to produce everything you need for yourself. SUPPLY is still the answer.
No problem is ever solved with "demand." Demand can only ever be one of two things:
1. Mislabeled supply. If "demand" is a person with money to spend, then he had to create supply to have acquired his money, and you are wrong to say that "demand" is the starting point.
2. "Need" - a desire for something, but nothing to trade for it. This is economically useless - it can't buy anything.
I know I've made this argument before, and Purp has never demonstrated comprehension, but hopefully someone here will.
Purp| 3.5.13 @ 5:04PM
This is the age-old question - which came first, Capital or Labor?
But let me ask, with factories below capacity, oil refineries below capacity, why don't they simply boost supply and we'll all simply buy then? What is holding us back?
In your prescription, simply making more of something will incent someone to buy. So why are corporations sitting on Trillions instead of making Trillions more by creating inventory of goods and services to sell, putting people to work making and serving? Hmmmmm? What's holding them back?
markenoff| 3.5.13 @ 1:42PM
Plenty of demand for AR-15 type weapons and ammo. It's flying off the shelves.
Drunken Sailor| 3.5.13 @ 3:49PM
Don't feed the troll
CJW| 3.5.13 @ 4:00PM
Purpie the Village Idiot posted:
1. "Hurricane Sandy and Chris Christie was the Lord's way of pressing his thumb on the scale to tilt in the direction of President Obama. It was His punishment of Republicans for their lying and trying to cheat (Voter Suppression) their way to political victory, while espousing faith, freedom and constitutional credentials."
2. purpie believes God killed over 100 persons and destroyed millions of dollars of property to help Obama win.
3. In Sept Purpie wrote that Amassador Stevens was at fault and caused his death.
4. Purpie also wrote that the unborn are biological entities not deserving of protection until God allows them to be born.
5. purpie believes that a 20% cut in the tax rate will INCREASE his 0% rate to 8%.
6. purpie also posted one of the female bloggers here should just lay back and enjoy the rape.
7. purpie is a racist who posted that "You can't even beat a black man....haha," implying blacks are inferior.
Purp-arnie-vtwin represents the Loon Left that should be mocked and ridiculed, and not engaged in debate.
BShep| 3.5.13 @ 10:13AM
What in the world is wrong with me? I have paid federal income taxes every year starting in 1968 when I entered the workforce. I was once a family of four also. Obviously, I did not play the game correctly.
On the other hand, even people who pay federal income taxes do not realize how much they pay. If you ask a group of people (it is okay to try this at home) how much they pay in federal income taxes most will reply that they do not pay, they get a refund. They do not realize that they pay every payday and they are only getting some of their own, interest free money back at tax time. Hardly anyone knows how much they actually hand over to Uncle Sugar every year.
Even first time workers who are upset that the first paycheck is made much smaller because of withholding forget all about it after a few checks.
Do you want real tax reform and lower spending? Eliminate withholding and force people to write a check to Uncle Sugar every month. The revolution will begin soon after.
Purp| 3.5.13 @ 10:59AM
And, then what kind of backwards, third world country easily conquered by Iran would be become? Lord of the Flies ring a bell?
JD| 3.5.13 @ 1:05PM
Until the late 1990s, the sum of all taxation on almost any poor/middle class person was a positive number. That doesn't mean there were no wards of the state, since there was "welfare", but the tax code didn't go negative.
The concept of "refundable tax credits", which allow "negative" taxation, is relatively new. It started with the EITC, but that was the only one until the last 15 years.
Redistribution to low earners is substantially higher than it had ever been until recently. I call them "low earners", not "the poor", because many of them are not poor. Thanks to redistribution, they are often richer than middle-earners.
This link is basically accurate and informative:
http://www.zerohedge.com/artic.....family-mak
Shockingly, even CNN printed an editorial on this recently, though with a Leftist spin:
http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/08/.....-tax-rates
fmm| 3.5.13 @ 10:16AM
Was going to ask "a study is needed to understand this stuff?" then I saw vtwin's comments and realized even good studies do not make headway against stupid ideologies. Comment away troll.
Purp| 3.5.13 @ 11:00AM
Conservadums are all about ideology, not facts.
Dave Williams| 3.5.13 @ 12:16PM
Purp the Twerp, the poster child for both liberal idiocy AND projection....
Purp| 3.5.13 @ 12:21PM
Dave you should behave... see I can rhyme too... wow what an achievement - for a 12 yr old like you.
CJW| 3.5.13 @ 4:05PM
Purpie the Village Idiot posted:
1. "Hurricane Sandy and Chris Christie was the Lord's way of pressing his thumb on the scale to tilt in the direction of President Obama. It was His punishment of Republicans for their lying and trying to cheat (Voter Suppression) their way to political victory, while espousing faith, freedom and constitutional credentials."
2. purpie believes God killed over 100 persons and destroyed millions of dollars of property to help Obama win.
3. In Sept Purpie wrote that Amassador Stevens was at fault and caused his death.
4. Purpie also wrote that the unborn are biological entities not deserving of protection until God allows them to be born.
5. purpie believes that a 20% cut in the tax rate will INCREASE his 0% rate to 8%.
6. purpie also posted one of the female bloggers here should just lay back and enjoy the rape.
7. purpie is a racist who posted that "You can't even beat a black man....haha," implying blacks are inferior.
Purp-arnie-vtwin represents the Loon Left that should be mocked and ridiculed, and not engaged in debate
Bandido| 3.5.13 @ 12:54PM
Ok, raise taxes again. The question is: at what point will the beast be satiated? At what percentage will the Left say, hold, enough? 50%? 75%? 90% What is their plan for when percentages can longer rise?
JD| 3.5.13 @ 1:00PM
Because they are dishonest/ignorant, Leftists believe that society once thrived with effective tax rates of 75-90%. They think that today's equivalent rate is Mitt Romney's 14%. They don't understand, and don't want to understand, that the average percentage of gross income paid in taxes by the top 1% was lower 50 years ago than it is today.
It should be obvious how incredibly wrong it is to compare a top marginal rate to an effective rate, but Leftists do this consistently and deliberately, even after I point it their mistake out to them. There is no explanation other than deliberate dishonesty.
Bandido| 3.5.13 @ 12:54PM
Should be no longer rise.
JD| 3.5.13 @ 12:56PM
This article does us three disservices:
1. It focuses on "income" taxes, with the disclaimer that there are other taxes, such as FICA. It doesn't need to do this. A quarter of Americans pay a total federal tax that is zero or negative. That includes payroll taxes. We can get these numbers, and we should report them.
2. It ignores social welfare spending. There is no practical difference between a tax credit and a welfare check. Both are direct payments from government to people. If someone pays $100 in taxes but gets $10,000 in handouts, it is dishonest to present him as a net payer. We should be summing all transfers of money between a person and government when computing his net.
3. It evaluates people using pre-tax income. This favored Leftist lie advances the myth that someone is "poorer" than someone else simply because he earns less, even if government's redistribution leaves him with considerably more. It also inflates wealth disparity. The realities of our extremely progressive tax/welfare system are that the after-government "income" of a poor person is higher than his "pre-tax income", while for a rich person, it's considerably less. Leftists inflate "disparity" by using pre-tax numbers.
Anthony| 3.5.13 @ 2:01PM
Fewer taxpayers, more spending. Only a Kenysian Muslim Marxist, with TWO Ivy League degrees could come up with this formula for success!!!!Look for vtwin and Purp to extoll this wisdom of the great Obozo!!!
hrgfue | 3.5.13 @ 7:52PM
thank you for your New post on that site.which is the best blog for us.we are enjoy it and will show them to everyone.