Tax Cuts Extended to All Americans

[lets-retire]

Wow, very impressive spawn of my simple news report on the tax bill. Way to go guys!

Ha

And the discussion is still mostly civil.

 

[ERD50]

Wow, very impressive spawn of my simple news report on the tax bill. Way to go guys!

Ha

I had to go back and read the first post. Totally forgot how this started. Good work!

C'mon in and join the conversation, the water's getting warm.

Now I need that hour of my life back!

-ERD50

 

[clifp]

Okay, I should have been more careful with the wording. People disagree on how much our taxes should be tilted and will provide various pros and cons for their positions. I think lines like "A poor person never gave me a job" are misleading and therefore don't count as valid arguments. I was trying to say that $100,000 in the hands of 100 middle income people will generate just as many jobs or just as much productivity growth as the $100,000 dollars in the hands of one high income person.

The Atlantic's economist Megan McArdle discussing the CBO findings on the subject here

According to CNN, the two-year cost of the tax cuts for high earners will be about $75 billion, while the estimated cost of the cuts for incomes below $250,000 is about $310 billion, or four times larger. In other words, in the "high estimate" world, a $300 billion stimulus composed only of tax cuts on income above $250,000 would reduce unemployment by 40 basis points, while one of a similar size composed entirely of tax cuts on income below that level would lower it by about 50 basis points. That isn't nothing, but it isn't a particularly large difference in effectiveness, either.

Looking at the numbers the low estimate looks like requires 600K in tax cuts on middle class folks and $750K for upper income people for each new job and the high estimate requires something like 150-200K in tax cuts per new job.

In a later post she discusses the theory (which seems intuitively correct to me.) that we should extend only unemployment benefits and tax cuts for the wealthy but not for the middle class Unemployment, because people out of job for a year generally desperately need the money and will immediately spend it. The high income people will spend the money on something stimulative a yacht or a Vail/Hawaii vacation or invest in a business. The middle income people who are understandable scared don't have enough money to create a job, so they will save the money or pay down debt so no need to give them a debt increasing tax cut. Needless to say this approach has zero political support.

I think a lot of humility is called for. We are in uncharted waters and the effectiveness of any policy is pretty much a SWAG (scientific wild ass guess)

 

[ERD50]

I believe I did understand your intention in making the analogy (though I don't agree with you at all).

If you don't agree with it, you must not be understanding it!

Ok, so if the colonoscopy anal-ogy ( ) was too obscure, I'll bring it back more to the point. All I'm saying is that some well intentioned social services can seem like a very good thing in isolation, but when you look at the big picture and the long term effect, maybe they are actually doing harm over-all?

Was providing 'free education' for K-12 really a good thing in the long run, or did it wipe out competition from the private sector and end up lowering education standards in the US? Some thought 'Cash for Clunkers' provided some feel good something, but it did it accomplish anything at all? Is giving rebates for a 96% eff furnace but not a 95% furnace (or whatever the numbers are) really a good use of MY money, (though someone can say 'it is greener')? And on and on. We need to take a harder look at what the govt is doing and the effects it has. They aren't always as positive as they might appear on the surface.

-ERD50

 

[GregLee]

All I'm saying is that some well intentioned social services can seem like a very good thing in isolation, but when you look at the big picture and the long term effect, maybe they are actually doing harm over-all?

Yes, that's what I understand you to be saying. Here is what I'm saying: there's miles of difference between what may be and what is. I am willing to concede that income redistribution which is intended to have good effects may actually, as it turns out, have bad effects. I am willing to concede that when income redistribution has had a good outcome, that as good, or an even better outcome may have been obtained without redistribution. But showing that a thing is conceptually possible does not show that it's true. The case that you present us is just a bunch of maybes.

 

[Independent]

Here are a few facts about those insignificant small business owners; many of whom would be negatively impacted by higher taxes, from the US Department of Commerce to chew on... (#4 is especially interesting with unemployment hovering around 10%)

This was addressed to me so I should reply, but I think M Paquette already covered the important issue - only a handful of the "small businesses" included in these numbers would be likely to hire someone because a a drop in individual income tax rates. Even fewer will hire because of a drop in dividend and capital gains rates.

My daughter is a small business owner who doesn't net enough to be impacted by this tax. She's in your numbers. The farmer I talked to last night is in your numbers, but he's not making $250,000 taxable, and if he were he wouldn't be hiring anyone. Similarly, my brother-in-law is in a two person real estate investment company. They will have enough income to be impacted by this tax decision, but they aren't going to hire/not hire because of this tax.

Maybe you have some better stats that reflect the types of people you're thinking about, but the numbers you provided include far too many businesses that clearly shouldn't be counted.

But, of course that still leaves the issue that prompted my first post. Even to the extent that small business owners may be impacted and change their behavior, it's hard for me to see that the same dollars wouldn't produce the same economic impact in some other hands.

 

[Independent]

I'm not sure you made that point at all (though this thread is getting long, I may have missed it).

You did make the point that those 100 middle income people may well create as much demand for jobs as 1 rich person. I can accept that as a hypothetical (might even be more). But remember, those homeowners aren't going to separately deal with every laborer and co-ordinate the work. That takes a businessperson/manager, and they likely make a better buck to take on that work. If they get less compensation, expect fewer of them (or they marginally work less hours, and take on less jobs as it is marginally worth less to do so).

I can see that if taxes go up on managers but nobody else, we would have to pay managers more pre-tax to keep the same number.

With fewer of those managers available, you are going to have to compete harder for their business (and the ones that stay in the business are the ones who couldn't find higher paying work - probably not the best/brightest). Prices go up for these services, and some people decide to do without - whoops, fewer jobs for those workers now!

But I don't get this. Businesses will not stop hiring managers. Similarly, if we tax plumbers more we may have to pay them more to get them to come to work. I don't see how raising taxes on managers does more damage than raising taxes on plumbers.

The paycheck is literally coming from the businessperson, not the homeowner (it is indirectly). Hence the saying. Again, it takes two to tango.

I'm arguing against the "who wrote the check" fallacy. When the gov't taxes gasoline, the check for taxes literally comes from the refiner, but nobody believes that the refiner isn't able to pass it along to someone else. The real economic impact is different from who writes the check. The fact that a rich person may sign my paycheck doesn't mean that the rich person is somehow the only critical player in this multi-person economic arrangement.

[ Indy-The claim is that the lost economic activity when you raise taxes on high income people is greater than the lost activity when you raise taxes on middle class people. That's the thing that I've never seen validated.]
Well, I don't think I ever claimed that, and it might or might not be true. I'm simply responding to the claims that taxing the rich will not affect them at all. I don't think that is right either. There may very well be a multiplier effect. We need someway to understand the sum total of the relative effects.

Apparently we've been talking past one another. I'm not claiming that taxing the high income has no impact, I'm saying the impact isn't greater. That was the point of the $20 million house example. I'd make the same claim about both "management" and "capital" which you brought up in the next post. Taxes impact their use and availability. But the damage done by taxing high income people, which sometimes converts into taxing management or capital, is no greater than the damage done by taxing middle income people, which also converts into taxing labor, management, and capital but in different ratios.

But I'll re-repeat myself - I am thinking that raising taxes on everyone to the point that we would balance the budget and make a dent in the debt would get enough voters attention to actually start changing policy approaches. Announce a 10 year phase in to give people time to think about what it means. Of course, politicians won't do this, they hope to kick the can down the street. One of these days I'm afraid they are going to find an angry mob at the end of that street, picking up the can and looking to do some damage.

I can agree almost completely. I'd change "every" to "any". I think that almost any tax scheme that puts all the cost of government on individuals, (clearly, so people can see what gov't is costing them) would be a major improvement. I think high income people have far more impact on the political process than their numbers suggest because money is so important in modern US politics. So if we really balanced the budget by taxing just the high income, I think we'd have a (well dressed) mass of people getting in congress' faces. That would probably reduce spending just as effectively as the same dollars in taxes spread out over everyone. But I can't say I've got a strong preference. Like almost everyone else who posts here, I'd go with the Simpson/Bowles proposal, not because I think it's perfect but because almost anything that balances the budget is better than where we are today.

No, I don't think a head tax is workable. But I like to throw it out there as sort of a mental "reset button" when we talk about flat versus progressive. A head tax could be considered 'fair' by some, so it's worthy of discussion, right?

I'm in favor of progressive taxes. And tax simplification so that actually has some meaning. I just don't like the knee-jerk reaction that taxing the rich even more, while half the filers pay such low single-digit average FIT is a slam-dunk 'solution'.

-ERD50

 

[ERD50]

Yes, that's what I understand you to be saying. Here is what I'm saying: there's miles of difference between what may be and what is. I am willing to concede that income redistribution which is intended to have good effects may actually, as it turns out, have bad effects. I am willing to concede that when income redistribution has had a good outcome, that as good, or an even better outcome may have been obtained without redistribution. But showing that a thing is conceptually possible does not show that it's true. The case that you present us is just a bunch of maybes.

Good, I think we are communicating now. And yes, what I am presenting is a bunch of maybes, no question about it. We agree.

They are maybes, which means we need to think long and hard about these programs. Are they doing good overall, or not? But some on this forum just seem to want more and more, based on some anecdotal good stories (while ignoring anecdotal bad stories), and don't want to consider the 'maybes', or the overall benefit. That is what I have a problem with.

That doesn't seem so controversial does it? Or anything for people with different viewpoints to get upset about? Let's just understand what we are doing, and do the best we can we can with what we have. It's basic common sense, who can disagree?

-ERD50

 

[myself]

I fully understand (at least I understand what I believe I understand )...

But Westerskies was making an argument that he did not get any extra benefits of society that would have helped him achieve his level of success... one of those was a statement that he paid 100% of his tuition. I just pointed out that even if he did so, going to a state university and paying 100% means taxpayers in that state paid for him to go also....

Just as ANY other person who attended that same state college at the same time would have done.

You see, what Westernskies was stating was not just that he paid 100% of this tuition. It was that he paid 100% of the tuition that was charged, just like the other students that experienced the same financial situation as he did. Or he is driving on the same roads as the rest of the people that drive in the same areas.

I think that is the part that you're not fully understanding. if you have 2 people paying the same tuition, then Student A didn't receive and additional benefits that Student B received.

Out-of-state students seem to always pay more than in-state students as far as I've seen. I think it is ridiculous, since they receive nothing extra due to they're living out-of-state (unless you count living in a low property tax state, but commuting to a high property tax state college).

 

[myself]

Wealth redistribution comes in many forms. It's not just the cash payments to the unemployed or the poor (welfare, medicaid) which seem to get all the attention.

Child tax credits/deductions for example. Children don't "pay" into the system for the government services they enjoy. Shouldn't parents pay extra rather than less?

In countries without big-government social safety nets the kids work in the fields or in factories. These kids help feed their families. Kids in America run up massive student loans while majoring in art history or (gasp) french literature.

Just a modest proposal..

Personally, I think that the fundamental reason for the child tax credits is that they will more than make up for the money that the parents would pay if the credit wasn't available. After all, don't they want more people to fund the gov't coffers.

 

[ERD50]

Well, this is a lot to munch on. I appreciate the discourse, but I just have time for a portion of this for now...


(edited before submitting) arggggh, I just deleted a bunch, it's just getting so long and circular. I'll try to condense it down to this:

I don't think that progressive taxes cause any harm to our economy just because they sometimes impact successful manager/owners. The before-tax rewards of those jobs are high enough to attract plenty of people even with progressive taxes.

This just continues to ignore the laws of supply demand. It may attract 'plenty' but it will attract less at lower effective compensation. How can that not cause 'any harm'? We had 'plenty' of gasoline at $4.00/gallon, but it slowed the economy. I'm sorry, but it's hard to discuss this sensibly if one continues to ignore the effects of that.

Apparently we've been talking past one another. I'm not claiming that taxing the high income has no impact, I'm saying the impact isn't greater.

Apparently. But it's tough since the bolded sections seem to contradict each other. And it's getting too long to go back through all the old posts to reconstruct, so how about you concisely restate what it is you are trying to say with regard to the tax proposals?

I'll restate mine: Spreading any tax increases across all taxpayers is likely to get them voting for more sensible government policies and reduced spending, since the spending affects them more directly. The 'rich' already pay a very high % of FIT, with the lower 50% of filers paying very little.

I won't take it at face value that the 'rich' have more influence on political policies, there are big voting blocks of non-rich with plenty of power. I'd give examples, but it would drive this further into political hot territory.

-ERD50

 

[GregLee]

That doesn't seem so controversial does it? Or anything for people with different viewpoints to get upset about?

No, not at all. We're just trying to make sense of things.

 

[myself]

But I'll re-repeat myself - I am thinking that raising taxes on everyone to the point that we would balance the budget and make a dent in the debt would get enough voters attention to actually start changing policy approaches. Announce a 10 year phase in to give people time to think about what it means. Of course, politicians won't do this, they hope to kick the can down the street. One of these days I'm afraid they are going to find an angry mob at the end of that street, picking up the can and looking to do some damage.
...
I'm in favor of progressive taxes. And tax simplification so that actually has some meaning. I just don't like the knee-jerk reaction that taxing the rich even more, while half the filers pay such low single-digit average FIT is a slam-dunk 'solution'.

-ERD50

That's something that i'd be all for too (no write-offs, super tax simplification, etc.). But like you said, it would have to be phased in, lest there be more increased unemployment because people are paranoid about how the modified tax rules would affect their paycheck.

 

[NW-Bound]

But, but, but eventually we will get past the point of talking and have to decide on a policy, boy, oh boy, people will get back into disagreement fast and furious...

...
That doesn't seem so controversial does it? Or anything for people with different viewpoints to get upset about? Let's just understand what we are doing, and do the best we can we can with what we have. It's basic common sense, who can disagree?
-ERD50

The students in London are disagreeing violently that their college costs will be tripled from about US$5000/yr to US$15000/yr and they are letting their opinion be heard. On 12/9/2010, Prince Charles' car was spotted on his way to a charity event, and was attacked by a student mob chanting "Off with their heads". A car window was smashed and a can of paint was splashed. A commentator said that it could have been worse, as many protesters carried gasoline and could have used that. What Charles has got to do with this tuition increase, I don't know, other than being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Kids in America run up massive student loans while majoring in art history or (gasp) french literature.

Eh? What do you have against French literature? Or are you against all literature?

Anyway, I don't think these protesting students in London were studying literature.

Or do they?

Well, enough kidding around.

No matter how the income tax is proportioned among different income levels, the citizenry should always ask how the tax shall be used. We are all users of the services that our government provides, and we are within our rights to ask for our money's worth, yes?

Regarding how the income tax should be levied, I have seen this subject coming up so many times before, although I have not been here all that long. Same as ERD50, I do not mind a mildly progressive tax, and with most of the loopholes and deductions taken out for a simplified tax code. For example, no more mortgage deductions. That would have alleviated the housing bubble and bust that we suffered from. No silly tax code that allows the deduction of the Hummer - which satisfies the 6000-lb requirement - for business use like that of a realtor in my area.

And back to the education discussion... Let's not talk about how useful or practical the study of French literature is. I want to ask what the cost of that study should be. How much does it cost to purchase some old classics, and to hire a good professor, whose lectures can now be shared via video? As with any public endeavor, we should ask how we can achieve the same result by spending more wisely, and not just by throwing more money at the problem.

 

[Texas Proud]

Which was kind of my point. If I don't receive the benefits offered by the taxpayer from going to a public school, then the argument that I have to pay higher taxes because I have benefited from the taxpayer subsidizing my education loses its effect. An argument can be made that instead of paying back the taxpayer, I should have to pay back whatever private industry subsidized my education, but that is a bit off topic.

Except I never made that argument (that you should pay more because you benefited from subsidized education)... and I don't think anybody else did... maybe you can find that a bring it to my attention...

My point was that anybody who says they got where they are today with only their hard work and nothing from anybody else is just wrong... that is what I was trying to point out...

What others were trying to say (and I am not anywhere near a fan of this argument) is that because of the US system, your hard work can pay off handsomely and THAT is why you should pay more taxes.... to support that system....

 

[Texas Proud]

With all due respect, many of us on the board here understand exactly how our society is working. Although everyone in the US is provided an education and multiple opportunities to make what they want out of life, there is a growing segment of our population that smugly thinks it knows better than the rest how to build the Utopian society it envisions for it's like-minded citizenry; all they need are unlimited funds and a lack of accountability to accomplish their lofty goals. For some reason, they can't quite seem to raise the funds necessary to fund all of their ever-expanding programs on their own, so they feel compelled to force their neighbors to pay a much larger share of the bill by wringing their hands and waving a banner of self-serving morality.

I do understand this- the Government never gave anyone something that it didn't take away from someone else first. The government doesn't create wealth, commerce does. Maybe the class warfare so ominously predicted in this thread should come from the top down, not the bottom up? We are several generations down the road with failed feel-good entitlement programs, our educational systems are failing, and our infrastructure is falling apart. Our government has expanded while the economic engine that generates the funds to pay for it has faltered. What we need is to reduce the size of the public sector, wean able-bodied adults away from the public trough, and demand accountability for what we already pay in taxes, not impose punitive taxes on those who already pay the vast majority of taxes in this country. Imagine how healthy we would be if we were able to put everyone on welfare/food stamps/ 99+ week unemployment, etc. who is physically able to work into a tax-generating private sector job? Shake your fist and express moral outrage at the very concept, but I believe it's the first step in making people accountable for themselves and not expect Uncle Sugar to provide for their day-to-day existence.

I also understand that it takes money to run our government, and provide essential services, and have no problems paying my fair share of taxes for this. I do have a problem when people tell me I am receiving more benefits from our government than others and therefore I need to write a bigger check each year for reparations.

And I think this is a well thought out response... and I agree with this point of view...


To me, someone who says that we have to 'do both, raise taxes and cut spending' just does not know enough areas to cut.... I can do it with only cuts and I bet there are many more that could.... Heck, I think if we went back to say spending at the year 2000 levels we could balance the budget.... (have to check on this... just throwing out a thought)....

 

[lets-retire]

Except I never made that argument (that you should pay more because you benefited from subsidized education)... and I don't think anybody else did... maybe you can find that a bring it to my attention...

The argument for taxing the rich more than the poor, as I've understood it, is that they have received more benefit from society. The specific example of going to a state funded college was brought up and how tax money is used to partially fund the state colleges. I was simply pointing out that if a person goes to a private college, that doesn't receive aide from state coffers, the argument that they should be taxed more on their success because the state helped them achieve that success loses it's point. And what about those who never go to college, should they be taxed more because they consumed more state resources?

My point was that anybody who says they got where they are today with only their hard work and nothing from anybody else is just wrong... that is what I was trying to point out...

I was actually having this discussion with my kid the other day. I agree that people don't become successful by themselves. That does not mean they use state funded programs or resources provided to society more than the poor to become successful. Why should the state be able to confiscate more of their money because they were able to grab their bootstraps and make themselves successful without consuming more state resources?

What others were trying to say (and I am not anywhere near a fan of this argument) is that because of the US system, your hard work can pay off handsomely and THAT is why you should pay more taxes.... to support that system....

That is not how I've been understanding the argument. I've understood it as the rich benefit more from the government's resources so they should be made to pay for more of those resources.



ERD--I am in a position where my pay is a bit below one of the tax increase cutoffs. Just about everyone I work with is in the same boat. We all know how much O/T we can work before we start to see diminishing returns. We have the good fortune to be able to turn down O/T jobs and once we hit the point where our taxes go up we shut off the O/T spigot. The general consensus is it makes no sense to work an extra 6 hours O/T when we will only see pay for 2-3 hours work because we worked too much O/T. The extra money is not worth our time once we hit that point because of the tax increase. Granted this is only local, but I personally know of approximately 30 people who stop working after they hit a specific earning point, solely because the tax increase means we work just as hard and long for less take home pay. Kind of like the simplistic military retirement pay issue, where people see that they are working for half pay if they stay in the military passed 20 years.

 

[Nords]

Kind of like the simplistic military retirement pay issue, where people see that they are working for half pay if they stay in the military passed 20 years.

After 20 years, it's usually not about the money anymore...

 

[lets-retire]

After 20 years, it's usually not about the money anymore...

That wasn't the point I was making. The point I was making is since the military member is eligible for retirement (@ 50% base pay) they essentially are working for about half pay (minus allowances) because the rest they get whether they are in the military or retired.

 

[Independent]

This just continues to ignore the laws of supply demand. It may attract 'plenty' but it will attract less at lower effective compensation. How can that not cause 'any harm'? We had 'plenty' of gasoline at $4.00/gallon, but it slowed the economy. I'm sorry, but it's hard to discuss this sensibly if one continues to ignore the effects of that.

Apparently. But it's tough since the bolded sections seem to contradict each other. And it's getting too long to go back through all the old posts to reconstruct, so how about you concisely restate what it is you are trying to say with regard to the tax proposals?

I'll restate mine: Spreading any tax increases across all taxpayers is likely to get them voting for more sensible government policies and reduced spending, since the spending affects them more directly. The 'rich' already pay a very high % of FIT, with the lower 50% of filers paying very little.

I won't take it at face value that the 'rich' have more influence on political policies, there are big voting blocks of non-rich with plenty of power. I'd give examples, but it would drive this further into political hot territory.

-ERD50

I tend to write awfully long posts, and then still get in trouble because I didn't write the extra words.

I should have said "I don't think progressive taxes do any more harm to the economy than flat taxes." Does that reconcile the contradiction?

My first example was the impact on consumption, partially because our current economic problem isn't lack of productivity or lack of capacity but lack of customers.

But then I also talked about managers and capital, which I agree are more likely to come from the higher income end. I understand that managers have special skills, but plumbers have special skills too. $x of taxes collected from plumbers will do as much damage as $x of taxes collected from managers. The capital situation is more complex. I understand there's an economic theory related to high wealth people and capital, but I think the last 30 years have badly damaged that theory. I'd say letting middle income people keep $y of earnings will provide as much benefit from capital accumulation as letting high income people keep $y.

The above is an economic discussion. You seem to be more interested in the political science perspective. You think that if we fully funded government spending with a flat tax we'd have better spending decisions. I agree. But I also think we'd make essentially the same progress if we fully funded spending with progressive taxes. Anything that visibly puts the full cost of gov't on the voters will change votes. I happen to go further and think we'd make even more progress if we set taxes/spending by annual referendum, but that's another thread.

 

[haha]

Personally, I think that the fundamental reason for the child tax credits is that they will more than make up for the money that the parents would pay if the credit wasn't available. After all, don't they want more people to fund the gov't coffers.

A more fundamental reason is that society winds down without homegrown children. If you don't believe this, just manage to live another 50 years or so and you will see.

Ha

 

[haha]

And back to the education discussion... Let's not talk about how useful or practical the study of French literature is. I want to ask what the cost of that study should be. How much does it cost to purchase some old classics, and to hire a good professor, whose lectures can now be shared via video? As with any public endeavor, we should ask how we can achieve the same result by spending more wisely, and not just by throwing more money at the problem.

Excellent point. Get a quality set of language DVDs, software or audios. Master the accent. Go to France. Teach a little English, read your Flaubert and Verlaine, have a tremendous amount of fun, go to a few free lectures, get in on some pillow tutoring. Return home, much better qualified in French literature than the hapless US French major who was mostly taught by someone named Johnson and was bored stiff.

Ha

 

[ERD50]

I tend to write awfully long posts, and then still get in trouble because I didn't write the extra words.

heh-heh - I feel your pain! Seems whenever I make an effort to be concise, I leave a hole for misunderstanding, then the explanation is longer than what I may have written in the first place (but maybe no one would read due to length). We can't win for losin'

I should have said "I don't think progressive taxes do any more harm to the economy than flat taxes." Does that reconcile the contradiction?

Yes, thanks - that does help and I would actually lean more towards your view - that progressive taxes (in general, and if modest enough), actually do less harm than flat taxes. My objection to the current system isn't that it is progressive (I think it should be), but that ~ 50% pay such little in FIT. It's the shape of the curve that bothers me (lingering near zero for half the filers, than a slope up), not so much the overall end-to-end slope. In fact, if we simplified the tax code to make this meaningful, I could support modest increases in the top marginal brackets as you get to the very, very rich. Something tells me that a guy isn't bustin' his butt to make $110M instead of $100M because he 'needs' the money. It's a game at that point. And I don't think modest increases would do much to de-motivate that game. Now, maybe at the $5M level, a guy really is pushing to do more to grow a small business into a bigger one. I think we could have a gentle slope all the way up the range. Use a formula instead of brackets.

The above is an economic discussion. You seem to be more interested in the political science perspective. You think that if we fully funded government spending with a flat tax we'd have better spending decisions. I agree.

It's some of both. I suspect there is more multiplier effect in money invested in businesses, but I don't have the data to back it up, and has been said, not all money from the 'rich' goes back into investments in job growth. Some is consumed, and that's probably no different than the same amount of consumption spread over a larger group.

Related to all this, it sure would be a tough road at this juncture to get our tax revenues to match our spending (even with some real cuts in spending). No matter who we tax for it, it's going to be a drag on the economy and that isn't going to get support from many in the state we are in. But it might actually be the least painful medicine in the long run.We have to deal with this spending/revenue gap sometime, and I fail to see how it will get easier later than sooner. Bitter medicine though.


Hey, are we agreeing too much? Is it time to throw in some name-calling and get this thread closed?

-ERD50

 

[haha]

Hey, are we agreeing too much? Is it time to throw in some name-calling and get this thread closed?

-ERD50

I think it has been a very long time since there was any name calling here. It was fun, but it led to unfortunate thread closures, poster departures, etc., etc.

Ha

 

[Westernskies]

I think it has been a very long time since there was any name calling here. It was fun, but it led to unfortunate thread closures, poster departures, etc., etc.

Ha

..although I do see one member here refers to himself as a moron...