|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/02/2004 12:47:37 PM · #101 |
|
|
|
08/02/2004 01:09:08 PM · #102 |
Originally posted by EddyG:
And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The ones who get the most money back from a reduction are those who paid in the most. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore. There are lots of good restaurants in Europe and the Caribbean.
David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D
Distinguished Professor of Economics
536 Brooks Hall
University of Georgia
|
Whoever wrote this did so to mislead, and so some have been misled. The argument is simplistic and foolish, and not the work of any serious student of economics, at least in the opinion of the man that the mysterious author gave credit to. Dr. Kamerschen denies writting this silly peice of fluff. How can you give credence to something that the real author tries to foist authorship onto another to attempt to trick the gullible. |
|
|
|
08/02/2004 01:21:12 PM · #103 |
Thanks for pointing out the attribution error. Apparently I'm not the only one who "fell for it": William F. Buckley Jr. also reprinted and analyzed a version of this piece in his National Review column. More info here.
Although it might be simplistic, the content is hardly "misleading". The link above references a professor at the University of South Dakota who provides the text to the students of his graduate tax class "to encourage them to think beyond the rules and regulations".
I also see nothing on Dr. Kamerschen's page stating that it is "misleading", "simplistic", "foolish" or a "silly peice [sic] of fluff"; but rather a simple statement that he did not write it. Nothing more, nothing less.
Message edited by author 2004-08-02 13:25:06. |
|
|
|
08/02/2004 01:42:51 PM · #104 |
I would agree that the current tax system is a mess, that the educated and well advised citizen can use to unfair advantage. I know I try to. It is a bit like the use of steroids in baseball, as long as they are legal, you are giving up a compeitive edge by not using them.
Whether it was Mr. Forbes' or Kemp's flat tax, or a Scandanavian mega graduated system, a simpler clearer tax code would iron out the inequities that have grown like barnacles over the years onto our taxation system. And frankly neither political party is likely to do anything of the kind.
Did you know that you can write off the entire cost of a Hummer if you buy it for your company since it weighs over six thousand pounds? You can't write off an economy car or a truck weighing less than six thousand pounds, but a sixty thousand dollar luxury behemouth is underwritten by the tax codes.
Untill they fix the tax codes, I'll be jamming everything I can into ten year real-estate roll overs and capital gains to avoid getting hosed on simple income or double taxation on my self-employment. There are players in baseball that want steroids banned, and there are folks who know how to shift out from under a tax burden that would not mind a more equitable system.
As to Dr. Kamerschen's opinion on the piece attributed to him, I did not mean to imply that he had an opinion on the peice, mearly that the attribution was an attempt to ride his coat tails. If I were him I would say as little as I could on the subject too.
|
|
|
|
08/02/2004 01:43:41 PM · #105 |
| Nice pic in movie titles Eddie, love the color. |
|
|
|
08/02/2004 01:53:25 PM · #106 |
| The tenth guy will figure out a way to have his accountant deduct the whole $100 as a "business expense" so that the other taxpaying diners -- and the restauranteur, will end up refunding about $20-60 to him down the road. Because it's in a separate transaction months later its effect is hidden from the other diners at the time. |
|
|
|
08/02/2004 02:08:50 PM · #107 |
| Rumor is out that the GOP is going to propose eliminating the IRS. |
|
|
|
08/02/2004 02:10:52 PM · #108 |
If no one goes to the post, I'll bring the post to everyone:
Democrats vs. the GOP: Do the Math
Michael Kinsley
August 1, 2004
You know how sometimes, when it's really, really hot, you get this urge to crank up the old spreadsheet, download a bunch of numbers from the Web and start crunching away like there's no next fiscal year?
Me neither. But I did spend a bit of the past week watching the Democratic convention on TV, and I needed something to exercise my mind while that was going on. Convention season is the one time every four years when we pretend that political parties matter. In general, we have accepted the reality that campaigns for national office have become entrepreneurial, united more by shared political consultants than by old-fashioned parties.
So I thought I'd see if there was a difference between the parties that transcended the differences between the candidates. Is one of them, for example, a better steward of the economy? One year won't tell you much, or even one administration. But surely differences will emerge over half a century or so, if they exist.
With that thought, I headed for the Web. Specifically, I went to the charts attached to the President's Economic Report, released in February. There, I downloaded like a madman and then distilled the mess into a few key stats.
The figures I'm using are from 43 years, 1960 through 2002. I didn't choose the years in order to skew the results; these are the years that were available for the categories I wanted to include.
The results are pretty interesting. Maybe presidents have little power over the economy. And we know that they must fight with Congress over the budget. Still, elections are based on the premise that who you vote for does matter. So let's at least entertain that assumption for a few minutes.
It turns out that Democratic presidents have a much better record than Republicans. They win in a head-to-head comparison in almost every category. Real growth averaged 4.09% in Democratic years, 2.75% in Republican years. Unemployment was 6.44%, on average, under Republican presidents, and 5.33% under Democrats. The federal government spent more under Republicans than Democrats (20.87% of GDP, compared with 19.58%), and that remains true even if you exclude defense (13.76% for the Democrats, 14.97% for the Republicans).
What else? Inflation was lower under Democratic presidents (3.81% on average, compared with 4.85%). And annual deficits took more than twice as much of GDP under Republicans than Democrats (2.74% of GDP versus 1.21%). Republicans won by a nose on government revenue (i.e., taxes), taking 18.12% of GDP, compared with 18.39%. That, of course, is why they lost on the size of the deficit.
Personal income per capita was also a bit higher in Republican years ($16,061 in year- 2000 dollars) than in Democratic ones ($15,565). But that is because more of the Republican years came later, when the country was more prosperous already.
There will be many objections to all this, some of them valid. For example, a president can't fairly be held responsible for the economy from the day he takes office. So let's give them all a year. That is, let's allocate each year to the party that controlled the White House the year before. Guess what? The numbers change, but the bottom-line tally is exactly the same: higher growth, lower unemployment, lower government spending, lower inflation and so on under the Democrats. Lower taxes under the Republicans.
But maybe we are taking too long a view. The Republican Party considers itself born again in 1981, when Ronald Reagan became president. That's when Republicans got serious about cutting taxes, reducing the size of government and making the country prosperous. Allegedly. But doing all the same calculations for the years 1982 through 2002, and giving each president's policies a year to take effect, changes only one result: The Democrats pull ahead of the Republicans on per capita personal income.
As they say in the brokerage ads, past results are no guarantee of future performance.
//www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-oe-kinsley1aug01,1,182049.column
|
|
|
|
08/02/2004 02:14:55 PM · #109 |
Originally posted by louddog:
Rumor is out that the GOP is going to propose eliminating the IRS. |
Hun? where did you dig up that lil nugget? Enlarge, explain, enlighten please. |
|
|
|
08/02/2004 02:18:21 PM · #110 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by louddog:
Rumor is out that the GOP is going to propose eliminating the IRS. |
Hun? where did you dig up that lil nugget? Enlarge, explain, enlighten please. |
Go here...
|
|
|
|
08/02/2004 08:11:18 PM · #111 |
Obviously they did not get the boost they wanted. Usually after a convention the candidate gets a huge boost, but it did not happen here. I dont really know if it was John Kerry, It may have been some of the other people they had on stage...some I thought were more of a detriment then a benifit.
//www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-08-01-poll-kerry_x.htm |
|
|
|
08/02/2004 08:31:40 PM · #112 |
Well, it all depends on the poll one looks at. Before getting to that, just one point: no one expected a "big boost." Reps had been raising expectations, saying that Mr. Kerry should receive anywhere between 10-15 pts. However, any close observer of politics would've told you that that's impossible at the moment -- given the statistically 50/50 breakdown in our country.
In fact, close observers of politics would remind you that it's the incumbent that should be up at this point. Just consider, Bush: 1. A self-described war president, 2. with a war-chest of over $220 million, 3. with approval ratings that were as high as 95%, 4. and with the power of the White House (and Congress, given that Reps control both houses) at his command, is behind the challenger.
According to the latest Washington Post/ABC poll:
"The new poll shows Kerry now claims the support of 50 percent of all registered voters, compared with 44 percent for Bush, with independent candidate Ralph Nader at 2 percent. On the eve of the convention, Bush led Kerry 48 percent to 46 percent.
Among those most likely to vote, the race is tighter: Kerry holds a 2-point advantage over Bush in the current poll."
//www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A34914-2004Aug2.html
Here's another poll that illustrates why a "big boost" was impossible, note the support of Dems and Reps for their partys' candidates. Now, here's what has the Bush administration worried. We constantly hear that it's the Indies that will determine the election; well, guess what, Independents support Kerry by 10% points:
//americanresearchgroup.com/presballot/
Message edited by author 2004-08-02 21:12:22.
|
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 08/07/2025 07:00:38 AM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/07/2025 07:00:38 AM EDT.
|
