More spending on the way.

Every recession includes a bunch of self-appointed experts talking about a 'jobless' recovery.

And they are always wrong.

Given that it's Krugman repeating what he's already heard, it can only mean that the recovery will create a recordnumber of new, good-paying jobs

Self appointed?
He's a Nobel laureate

Twisted, isn't it, that "recession" and "recovery" are defined in terms of corporate productivity, and have nothing to do with unemployment or worker well-being?

Translation: Banks win even after they lose the game they invented, everyone else takes it in the ass.

Twisted, isn't it, that "recession" and "recovery" are defined in terms of corporate productivity, and have nothing to do with unemployment or worker well-being?
#4 | Posted by Phoenix

In the international marketplace, yes, that's right. Its called the China standard.

Krugman, the ultra-left quintessential Keynesian is correct on the first half and in a true leftist tradition wants to increase the misery by more spending. However, this corrupt Government will continue to dig and dig until it is hopelessly bankrupt and controls as much as they can and than mandate taxpayers to another bailout by raising taxes and confiscating other people's wealth-whatever will be left on these shore. Who is to stop them???

Translation: Banks win even after they lose the game they invented, everyone else takes it in the ass. -- #5 | Posted by nutcase

Remember how stunned many bankers were when the gov't decided not to bail out Lehman?

Kinda looks like the game has reverted back to the way they assumed it would be played -- they take risks, privatize any gains, and dump the losses on ordinary taxpayers.

Translation: Banks win even after they lose the game they invented, everyone else takes it in the ass.

---------------

Yup.

The real purpose of banking is to keep the people in power there forever.

Interest = slavery, and ALL money is borrowed by the people from these fascist motherfuckers at interest.

Liberty,

Just wondering, with productivity gains in almost every sector we now as a country can produce everything we need with about 20% employment. So the question comes in what do the other 80% do? There comes a point in time where we simply do not need 100% employment. How do you reconcile the need for people to work with the fact that we don't need everyone to work?

and the mortgage crisis is limited to subprime... and the 9/11 commission told the whole story...

He's a Nobel laureate

#3 | Posted by bruceaz at 2009-07-15 08:18 PM | Reply

So was Yasser Arafat ...... and Jimmy Carter for that matter

so much for the credibility of the Nobel clowns

Krug,am is an idiot. Government spending money it doesn't have will make things worse. We need tax cuts, especially capital gains to 0%. How did this left wing political hack ever win a Nobel?

Vern,

Yassr Arafat and Jimmy Carter were ten times the men that Smirky the Wonder Chimp and Dickless Cheney were. Direct you ire at the real cause for this economic mess: Your Fucking Heros, the man-boy queer and the spineless shitstain.

Krugman is an idiot. He's also a communist, which may help you win Nobels, but doesn't help you fix economies....With Axe's brilliance above, I'd say we should appoint him to fix the economy.....Honestly, though, Carter does have more experience creating these conditions than anyone else....of course, he shows no capacity for learning from life's lessons....

There comes a point in time where we simply do not need 100% employment. How do you reconcile the need for people to work with the fact that we don't need everyone to work?
#10 | Posted by TaoWarrior

question bears repeating.

#14 Axe intones "Direct you ire at the real cause for this economic mess: Your Fucking Heros, the man-boy queer and the spineless shitstain."

Axe baby, Maybe you should get back on your thorazine...but it is fun to read your irrational spew. I must admit "shitstain" is one of the better progressive adjectives I've seen. Must have come from listening to the crowd of lefty elites that wild eyed Krugman represents.

He's a Nobel laureate

#3 | Posted by bruceaz

The prize for being a noted lib.

How can you have a recovery with no private sector jobs?

He's a Nobel laureate

There was a time in history when that meant something.. today, it more often means you've impressed the left wing.

It's like we're in an asylum, and the head inmates are doing the talking. I read years ago about an old test to detect insanity.

They would stop up the sink in a guy's cell, and turn the water on after giving him a bucket and telling him he could use it to bail out the water and put pour it in the toilet. Guys that were nuts would do that.. sane people just turned off the faucet.

We're spending ourselves into bankruptcy... so Krugman's answer.. keep spending...

Sounds nuts to me.

Blah blah blah blah

All this whining done by rightwingers about Nobel winners being Libs is reminiscent of all the whining by rightwingers when a supposedly Conservative judge is appointed to the SC, but in light of the rule of law actually rules against right wing ideology, which exists more in their head than in the Constitution.

Get over it.

cor, all that means is there is no value to the PRIZE. Get over it yourself.

How many jobs are we going to lose next month?

Half as many as we were losing two months ago.

Really? Was it Krugman who confinced our Fuhrer that 9.5 % and rising was "working as designed", when the Fuhrer's own predictions were 8% if the stimulus package wasn't passed immediately, without so much as reading it? Well, the Fuhrer was probably correct about the topping out at 8% without the stimulus, so i can only assume from his recent statement that he INTENDED to crash the economy....Yeah, Obomba's Gonna Change 'em, alright....

And now, the brilliant Krugman, more than a year after the Fuhrer-to-be outlined his plan which anyone not yet besotted with Fuhrerlove had predicted would crash the economy, suddenly realizes that this plan will crash the economy? Well, maybe he thinks so deeply that it took him a year to figure out the obvious....More likely, he's a dumbass who wasn't consulted to his liking, so now he's in a Nobel snit and, like Billary, is trying to distance himself from this train wreck....well, it'll work for his stoolies....of course, everyone else isn't going to be impressed with the notion that if something doesn't work, just do more of it, but hey, he's a Nobel Winner!

Sieg Heil, comrades!

Half as many as we were losing two months ago.

#24 | Posted by Corky

Trickle up econ at work. You lay-off half your employees two monthas ago and do the same thing today because the poor folks are spending all their money on the the lottery.

has their been a policy out of obama that would inspire anybody to hire anyone?

"How do you reconcile the need for people to work with the fact that we don't need everyone to work?"

In France they lowered the number of hours full time employees work per week. One of the main reasons we have SS today is to encourage older workers to retire and open up jobs for younger folks. This is why I always argue with folks who want to raise the age for SS, where are the jobs for them to continue doing????

Half as many as we were losing two months ago.

#24 | Posted by Corky at 2009-07-16 11:44 AM

"has their been a policy out of obama that would inspire anybody to hire anyone?"

There are thousands of people working in jobs that were brought about by the stimulus. NOt as many as hoped though but more coming.

There are thousands of people working in jobs that were brought about by the stimulus. NOt as many as hoped though but more coming.

#30 | Posted by danni at 2009-07-16 12:09 PM

There are thousands of people working in jobs that were brought about by the stimulus. NOt as many as hoped though but more coming.

referring to any private business policy that might lead to hiring people.

who fucking cares. Snape killed Dumbledore!

Yassr Arafat and Jimmy Carter were ten times the men that Smirky the Wonder Chimp and Dickless Cheney were. Direct you ire at the real cause for this economic mess: Your Fucking Heros, the man-boy queer and the spineless shitstain.

#15 | Posted by axe at 2009-07-16 10:47 AM | Reply |

When shitstains have nothing fresh to say, they go back to their tired and predictable. "Let's screech about Bush! That always worked before!"

IQ of 73

Proverbs 26:11 -- As a dog returns to its vomit, so a fool repeats his folly.

Axe barf!

The first monthly payment was issued on January 31, 1940 to Ida May Fuller of Ludlow, Vermont. In 1937, 1938 and 1939 she paid a total of $24.75 into the Social Security System. Her first check was for $22.54. After her second check, Fuller already had received more than she contributed over the three-year period. She lived to be 100 and collected a total of $22,888.92.[23]

Better than the stock market - someone please tell me how this is not wealth redistribution again?

Sorry, that was for DANNI- kind of off thread topic.

Half as many as we were losing two months ago.

#24 | Posted by Corky

You do know that number was ADJUSTED for tha auto workers lay-offs. You see, they are not layed-off because they are still getting 90% of their pay and not entitled to unemployment bennifits.

Revive the Civilian Conservation Corps. Beautify. Clean. Clear out ditches. Condemn old junkyards and clean them up. Cut down and dig up privet hedge and plant useful trees. Put people to work using their hands.

Revive the Civilian Conservation Corps. Beautify. Clean. Clear out ditches. Condemn old junkyards and clean them up. Cut down and dig up privet hedge and plant useful trees. Put people to work using their hands.

#38 | Posted by grumpy_too

But they wern't creating anything. They were just a drain on the tax payer.

Sniper,

They don't have to create anything. We have more workers in this country than work. Thats what all our productivity gains have gotten us. If the fed were not controlled by the bankers the gov could issue the new curency the market needs as payment to the CCC.

There are thousands of people working in jobs that were brought about by the stimulus. NOt as many as hoped though but more coming.

#30 | Posted by danni

For $7.83B, I'd sure as hell would hope it's more than thousands.

"There are thousands of people working in jobs that were brought about by the stimulus."

Prove it.

They don't have to create anything. We have more workers in this country than work. Thats what all our productivity gains have gotten us. If the fed were not controlled by the bankers the gov could issue the new curency the market needs as payment to the CCC.

#40 | Posted by TaoWarrior

I guess most of our manufacturing going to foreign countries dosen't have anything to do with that fact. Have you ever stopped to wonder why jobs are going off-shore?

1 - Corperate tax rates, close to the highest in world
2 - Environmental laws and fines, highest in the world
3 - Cost of labor
4 - Our welfare system that pays people NOT to work, union and government

I have nothing against people taking a pee test and doing some work for that government check they get. You will never live long enough to see that.

Sniper,

Agreed. Institute the FairTax and watch that tide reverse...

WHAT A BUNCH OF FUCKIN RETARD SHEEP SPEND YOUR WAY OUT OF NOT HAVING A JOB

"Institute the FairTax and watch that tide reverse..."

Not to start that debate again, but the FT is a boondoggle pioneered by people using formulae no one else gets to use.

For example, if you walk into a store and but an item for a dollar, and it costs $1.07, we call that a 7% sales tax.

Now, if you buy that same item, and the total cost is $1.30, what tax rate would you call that? 30%?

So would I. So would every municipality in America.

The Fair Tax calls that 23%.

Sniper,

Yes offshoring the mfg. sector has not helped but the fact is even if we had all those jobs back we could still not have 100% employment. Not because of lazy bastards not wanting to work but because of a lack of need.

"There are thousands of people working in jobs that were brought about by the stimulus."

Prove it.

#42 | Posted by JOE at 2009-07-16 03:58 PM

I think we're supposed to just take her word for it and vote Obama!

Danni is a semi comotose retarded blatherskit, and ugly as a dung beetle...of course she cant back her idiotic statements with proof. her world is filled with special colors and shapes and magic ponies...

RIL,

Next time you insult someone else's intelligence, try not to do it while making at least four errors in your post.

You just have to catch Danni when she isn't in pom-pom waving mode for the dems. She'll debate with the best and even put the dems in their place.

There are thousands of people working in jobs that were brought about by the stimulus. NOt as many as hoped though but more coming.

#30 | Posted by danni,

What a twist of numbers! Almost sounds good till you hear that MILLIONS have lost their jobs.

I received a great write up from John Mauldin who sites economic studies regarding gov spending. basically for every dollar the gov spends, it causes THREE less dollars to be spent by the private sector.

WHO WAS the sited economist you ask??????

Christine Rohmer's own writting from 2007. FACT

"basically for every dollar the gov spends, it causes THREE less dollars to be spent by the private sector."

I don't care who wrote that it is utter bull shit.
When the private sector isn't creating jobs then the only one who can is government. Unfortunately, our government, even under DEmocratic rule, is still constrained by corporate money and it works to deprive us of an economy that benefits us, the citizens and workers, of this country instead of the few who own those international corporations that have become post-patriotic.

True, the CCC was not making salable items, but it was doing helpful things, and some things that are now actually needed but are not getting done. For example cleaning out drainage ditches to make them flow better would save money in a lot of ways. They could clean up small pollution sites that do not qualify under superfund guidelines. There is no telling how much abandoned land and lots there are in the this country. Wouldn't it be helpful for the future if they were cleaned up and planted with trees? Sure the projects are not going to pay for themselves, but the work would give some relief for the feeling of hopelessness about the job situation.

I don't care who wrote that it is utter bull shit.

MIT educated economist who heads Obama's economic team.

Oh OK danni..... you obviously know jack shit about economics. FACT

Name ONE for profit company you respect danni!!!!

"corporate money and it works to deprive us of an economy that benefits us"

You are so completely wrong and full of hatred your posts almost all board on lunacy! FACT

"When the private sector isn't creating jobs then the only one who can is government."

So you agree with Joe Biden that "We have to go spend money to keep from going bankrupt".

As Laffer stated, why not just have a federal tax holiday, same deficit, better results.

The private sector requires stability for planning, it isn't going to hire or purchase anything, until OBAMACARE, and CAP&TAX are decided upon. Which in my opinion this is why Obama&Co want to rush it, that and so we won't know what it is until it hits us.

When the private sector isn't creating jobs then the only one who can is government. Unfortunately, our government, even under DEmocratic rule, is still constrained by corporate money and it works to deprive us of an economy that benefits us, the citizens and workers, of this country instead of the few who own those international corporations that have become post-patriotic.

-----

There are no nations. Only multinational corporations.

When the private sector isn't creating jobs then the only one who can is government.

#53 | Posted by danni

The government can't create anything unless they take over industry. All they can do is tax production to feed their own hungry mouths and greedy pockets. They have the power of the gun and law to take anything they want from you. If they want your land so their buddy can build a big complex, they condem it and you lost your land for a fraction of what it was worth.

We need enough government to keep the crooks at bay and to provide us BASIC services. That is all we need from them.

Not to start that debate again, but the FT is a boondoggle pioneered by people using formulae no one else gets to use.

For example, if you walk into a store and but an item for a dollar, and it costs $1.07, we call that a 7% sales tax.

Now, if you buy that same item, and the total cost is $1.30, what tax rate would you call that? 30%?

So would I. So would every municipality in America.

The Fair Tax calls that 23%.

Danforth,

The 23% comes from using the same percentage method as the income tax, which the FairTax is designed to replace. If you like, you can call the FairTax a 30% rate, but then you'd have to jack the income tax rates up to higher than the numbers commonly used now for the different income levels. The comparisons are apples to apples, although nincompoops try to use the low number for the income tax and the high number for the FairTax as a way to make the rate seem high....

Even if that were true, which it is not, poor people and businesses would benefit immensley from the FairTax, reguardless.

Most importantly, it would make it impossible for politicians to do political favors by claiming they're cutting taxes on some and raising them on others...they would only have one way to raise taxes...raise the rate, and they'd have to raise it on everybody....

Lobbyists could no longer work tax favors for their special interests through loopholes and tax exemptions....

People on the brink of poverty could work multiple jobs and not be penalized for working more.

People's retirement investments would be tax exempt, giving a huge incentive to savings and investments, ultimately easing the burden on Social Security....

Then again, there's no way you could fund and endlessly expanding government like you progressives want to, so your weak efforts at deception will ultimately not wash...

National poll numbers for FairTax replacing Income Tax are now up to 43% and is rising rapidly....I think, perhaps the cornerstone of the 2012 election....in the mean time, you nannyfascists keep screwing things up....it just makes the case easier....

There are no nations. Only multinational corporations.

#59 | Posted by Shawn

There are also no liberals in government or the corporate media right?

not one real liberal. Not one.

" The comparisons are apples to apples, although nincompoops try to use the low number for the income tax and the high number for the FairTax as a way to make the rate seem high...."

Except it's structured like a sales tax, and telling someone who just paid $1.30 for a $1 item that they're only paying 23% is ludicrous. And that's before we even begin to talk about making up for the state income tax and the local sales taxes.

"there's no way you could fund and endlessly expanding government"

First, that hasn't stopped them yet. Second, they're going to have to expand, to fund the FTRS. And who is the FTRS, you ask? Well, currently, the IRS is only interested in a handful of your transactions each year: income, and a handful of deductions; who cares if you bought your family ice cream? But with the FT, every transaction becomes taxable, so to properly ensure all taxes are being paid, the FTRS (Fair Tax Revenue Service) will have to be empowered to investigate EVERY transaction. Anyone pretending that would be less of a bureaucracy, or cost less to operate/enforce, is nuts.

Next, it erases all collections for FICA taxes and replaces them with...nothing. Riiiiiiiiiight. And finally (though there's more), how much time would you say people and/or businesses spend as a percentage of their time on their taxes? You know, keeping records, filling out forms, learning the rules, etc. 1% (3 and a half days a year)? 2% (A week)?

Try over two months. Yup, the FT estimates that fully 20% of our energies are spent dealing with tax issues (and assumes the FTRS will take no time at all), so one of it's basic underlying assumptions is, freed of this massive burden, the economy will expand by 20% virtually overnight, and suffer no 'conversion confusion'. Anybody buying that?

"Most importantly, it would make it impossible for politicians to do political favors by claiming they're cutting taxes on some and raising them on others"

Riiiiiiiiiiiight. Now the only power will be in directing enforcement.

"People's retirement investments would be tax exempt,"

What are you talking about? Some (like the Roth) already are; others are tax exempt until retirement, and you're trading what might have been a 15% Fed rate with a rate over 50% higher. And the Roth investors? Talk about taking it in the shorts: they pay income tax up front, and the Fair Tax at the back end?!?

"National poll numbers for FairTax replacing Income Tax are now up to 43% and is rising rapidly"

And I'd bet half of those folks would fail a basic test regarding what it's about. I'd like to see how the question was worded, because if it starts with "Would you like to see the IRS abolished and...", many will say yes before you finish the sentence.

Spending didn't work during the Great Depression and it won't work here either.

Jobless for the next 10 years if cock and bull con and health care destruction passes.

not one real liberal. Not one.

#63 | Posted by Shawn

Worse than liberals are statists.

We are chalk full of statists.

not one real liberal. Not one.

#63 | Posted by Shawn

Well lets see if I cant name at least 4 right off the top of my head.

Keith Overbite
Rachel Maddcow
Ed Shitz
All work for GE and Microsoft.

Randi Rhodes works for clear channel.

Paul Krugman
Frank Rich
Maureen Dowd

All work for the old york times

Shall I keep going.

" I'd like to see how the question was worded, because if it starts with "Would you like to see the IRS abolished and...", many will say yes before you finish the sentence."

Here's the question I'd like to pose:

Yes or no, would you be in favor of creating a new tax-collecting bureaucracy that could investigate every single one of your transactions, and force you to pay a 42%* surcharge on everything you buy, if that meant you didn't have to fill out your 1040-EZ?

Let's see the percentage of positive responses to that.

*(30% FT, plus 7% [avg] local sales tax, plus 5% [avg] state income tax)

Not one of those is a real liberal except for randi rhodes. And she was booted off air america for exactly that reason. Clear channel is like democracy now. Not on the radar.

All the rest are moderate to moderate reichwing.

You really cant be that stupid can you oh wait I forgot who I was talking to.

Clear channel is like democracy now. Not on the radar.

I know hypocrisy now and that fugly Amy Goodman are not on the radar, but dipshit With 900 stations, Clear Channel is the largest radio station group owner in the United States.

Now I know you are a lying cocksucker.

Yes, clear channel is big, but most of it is shit like howard stern. And if you are calling howard a liberal then just go fuck yourself.

I'm calling you a marketing cocksucker. Blow off like the rest of your corporate scum sucking motherfucking shit eating garbage.

#71 | Posted by Shawn

Well that was quite coherent.

Shawn you need to take some lessons on goalpost changing you're not quite up to par with a lot of your buddies here on the DR.

Asshole you said they weren't on the radar I simply pointed out they own over 900 stations that pretty much makes them the radar. Then you some how came up with this Howard Stern straw man so you could knock it down. As usual you have to come up with some bullshit because you cant dispute the facts but that's pretty much your MO

Blow off like the rest of your corporate scum sucking motherfucking shit eating garbage.

#71 | Posted by Shawn

Well since I run a corporation albeit a quite small one I'll take that as a compliment.

How dare those corporate scum sucking motherfuckers produce profits and jobs the sorry assholes.

Shawn you need to take some lessons on goalpost changing you're not quite up to par with a lot of your buddies here on the DR.

-------

Pot calling kettle black shitbag.

I won't even bother with the 2nd comment.

You fail. Go back to your employer and tell him/her to fire you.

Go back to your employer and tell him/her to fire you.

You mean ask

"Spending didn't work during the Great Depression and it won't work here either."

You can keep saying it but it still won't be true.
Just a right wing talking point.

"Spending didn't work during the Great Depression and it won't work here either."

You can keep saying it but it still won't be true.
Just a right wing talking point.

#76 | Posted by danni

The only thing that was great about it was how long it lasted. You would thing that with all the government intervention it would have been short.

Why can't you figure out that government doesn't create anything. All it does is take from thoes that do create something.

The WPA and CCC were jobs from the government but.... if thoes tax dollars wern't taken from companys that actualy produced a product, they could hace actualy produced something.

If govt is so bad we should just get rid of it. See how long you last in a lawless society.

Danforth,

Well, let's see....as far as percentage goes....under the FairTax, you would pay 1.23 for a $1 item...in any case, whether you call that 23 % tax, or 23/123, it is the same amount of tax. Right now, the 30% income tax means that if your momma makes $100K, she pays 30K in taxes....now, is that 30% or 30/70, a much higher rate? Since income taxes pick the former, lower percentage, the FairTax people have done the same, because it is designed to REPLACE in income tax....another red herring...If you want to call the FairTax rate 30%, that's fine, but you have to bump the published income tax rates up accordingly...

As far as policing the taxes...currently, somewhere in the vicinity of 60% of owed income tax is collected...lots of households, lots of lies....The IRS policing only businesses is a LOT fewer people to police, and they have no incentive to cheat, because they can lose their license for cheating, and aren't saving their own money by cheating....much less cheating, many fewer people to watch, MUCH easier to police....

NO, the FICA tax is figured in the 23% rate...if you wanted to ditch social security and not fund it, then that rate would be much lower...this is a revenue-neutral proposal....of course this has not included Bush's or Obomba's spending increases, but neither have they....

These businesses already do state local sales taxes....this is just another line on the receipt...automatic...one rate...no exceptions...you pay the business owners a little to do it, and they will..it's almost free money to them....At the same time, they don't have to do FICA, their own income tax, or pay a CPA to figure out what to do....businesses come out way ahead, and will be able to hire more people or make more money....As far as conversion confusion, should we have kept Roman numerals because the Arabic ones were different, and therefore...confusing? You are a luddite....

Directing enforcement? Right now, income tax laws are selectively enforced, and generally not enforced...Enforcing this would be effortless, as it is in the business owner's interest to comply and there is no incentive to cheat....

As far as retirees and Roth Accounts...it is like an unlimited Roth Account, rather than a small one....the difference is, you are not automatically taxed upon using it....if your are poor when you retire and only spend at poverty level, the prebate will cover your taxes, so the use of your retirement account will not be taxed as it is now....secondly, if you're really in hard times and buy used things like used cars, houses, clothing, etc...you won't be taxed on that at all....another benefit to poor people and an incentive to recycle...you greenies ought to like that....now, imagine how much more you will have saved under these circumstances than with the current Roth Acoount....

Why is abolishing the IRS not good reason...do you think the IRS is a good thing? Personally, you'd need a much smaller IRS to send out prebate checks and monitor business compliance, but their job would be much different....a big improvement...How questions are worded are important, but the point is that support is growing rapidly....

In the end, the FairTax forces politicians to openly raise or lower taxes for EVERYONE....this is transparency....it allows people who save and invest to not be taxed on that growth....it untaxes the poor while broadening the tax base...it incentivizes working and saving rather than penalizing...and, it cuts the lobbyists out of the tax system....it also would substantially decrease the cost of doing business in America, which would ensure that capital and jobs flowed into this country from all over the world....you can only be against these things if you prefer government controlled stagnation to liberty and opportunity...true of progressives, but not most Americans.....

"Well, let's see....as far as percentage goes....under the FairTax, you would pay 1.23 for a $1 item...in any case, whether you call that 23 % tax, or 23/123, it is the same amount of tax."

Close. The formula is 30/130 = 23%. But don't you see the inherent danger in telling someone it's going to be 23%, and it turns into 42%...?

"Right now, the 30% income tax means that if your momma makes $100K, she pays 30K in taxes"

No, it doesn't. You're ignoring many other factors, like the personal exemption, the exemption for spouse & kids, and the standard deduction or itemized deduction, not to mention adjustments to AGI, like educational expenses, IRAs, or Individual 401(k)s.

"As far as policing the taxes...currently, somewhere in the vicinity of 60% of owed income tax is collected"

Link?

"The IRS policing only businesses is a LOT fewer people to police"

But it's no longer just businesses. If someone paints my house, FT is supposed to apply. If i buy some lemonade from a kid's stand, the FT is supposed to apply. And if government buys from another sector of government, the FT is supposed to apply. Doesn't that increase a lot of governmental purchases by 30%?!?

"and they have no incentive to cheat"

This may be the funniest of all: You've just incentivized cheating, in a big, big way. Look at cigarette smuggling if you don't believe me.

"MUCH easier to police...."

Not when EVERY transaction can be investigated, which is what you would have to do with the FT. Do you actually believe the FTRS is going to take your word for it? No, you're still going to have to keep extensive records.

"NO, the FICA tax is figured in the 23% rate"

No it's not. Certainly not the worker's half, or does the FT continue the FICA withholdings from the paycheck?

"this is a revenue-neutral proposal"

In theory only.

"These businesses already do state local sales taxes....this is just another line on the receipt."

Yeah, the receipt that adds 42% from the original price.

(more)

"no exceptions"

Again, you've incentivized the exceptions.

"you pay the business owners a little to do it"

Where's that in the FT proposals?

"...businesses come out way ahead, and will be able to hire more people or make more money"

As long as no black market develops.

"As far as conversion confusion, should we have kept Roman numerals because the Arabic ones"

Strawman. The FT folks think the economy will expand by 20% virtually overnight. To see how tethered you are to reality, do you believe them, or not?

"Right now, income tax laws are selectively enforced, and generally not enforced"

I can assure you you're incorrect.

"Enforcing this would be effortless"

And therein lies the heart of the fantasy.

"as it is in the business owner's interest to comply and there is no incentive to cheat."

All due respect, that's wishful thinking at best. How will you know if 10 units were destroyed or used as demos, versus sold with or without the FT?

....secondly, if you're really in hard times and buy used things like used cars, houses, clothing, etc...you won't be taxed on that at all..."

Can you imagine the precipitous drop in production of new cars and new homes? We're going to have unintended consequenses out the yang.

"imagine how much more you will have saved under these circumstances than with the current Roth Acoount."

What would the difference be compared to what it is now?

"Personally, you'd need a much smaller IRS"

But a much larger FTRS.

"How questions are worded are important, but the point is that support is growing rapidly."

"Support" has a lot to do with how the question was worded. And not unlike privatizing SS, the more folks learn about it, the less they'll like it.

"it untaxes the poor while broadening the tax base."

How is that?

"it incentivizes working and saving rather than penalizing"

It also incentivizes the black market, as we've never seen before.

"it also would substantially decrease the cost of doing business in America"

Why? Would the business owner cease to need to keep proof purchase and business use, or are you planning on FT-ing the gross?

"you can only be against these things if..."

Riiiiiiiiiiight.

Of course, after all this, there's one overriding reason FT will never see the light of day: no politician has any vested interest into letting the taxpayer see all the taxes paid on one receipt.

I replied, but it was too long. We'll do this later on an appropriate thread....

"I replied, but it was too long. "

Same here, so I had to split it.

Of course, after all this, there's one overriding reason FT will never see the light of day: no politician has any vested interest into letting the taxpayer see all the taxes paid on one receipt.

absolutely true.

Ok, I'll try again..

While certainly most of today's lawmakers are against the notion because they are corrupt, when the wind shifts, they'll follow it, as they did when deciding to revolt, eradicate slavery, start the income tax in 1913, join WW1, WW2, and vote for civil rights bill, and every other impossibility this country enacts.

Yes, paying business owners to do it is in the FairTax proposal...That would be easy....they already to state and local taxes, and with this one, there are no exceptions to worry about, so its just a cash register program addition....

Black market exists now and always will...usually, profits have to be much greater than 23% to warrant black market risk...

The tax burden is the same, but shifting the burden from businesses to consumers greatly widens the tax base to poor and rich, two groups who currently avoid paying taxes, and shifts it diretly out of the cost of doing business, which will make us the best place in the world to do business...ensure a huge flow of capital, jobs and investment into this country. At the same time, poor people will now be part of the system (once they spend over the poverty level) and rich people, who currently avoid most income tax because they aren't paid wages and hide most of their income in offshore accounts anyway, will pay a lot more taxes, because rich people always buy lots of new things...it's just that now, they pay no tax for doing so.

People know more about the FairTax than they did 2 years ago, and the support is up sharply...

As far as business cost goes, right now, if you buy a car, that steel has been taxed 4-5 times in mining, making, shipping, making car, and selling the car...labor has been taxed along the way...so, you're already paying 23%, it just isn't obvious...With those taxes removed and the FICA tax removed, businesses can cut costs to compensate for the tax "hike" the FairTax would appear to be.

Business owners are taxed on what they buy...what they buy it for is now immaterial....a big source of tax fraud vanishing in the process...

Finally, with no tax on earning, investment will flow out of the hidden, offshore accounts and into american investments, which helps everybody with huge sums of money that are currently invisible to the IRS....

"Black market exists now and always will...usually, profits have to be much greater than 23% to warrant black market risk..."

Huh? Link?

"People know more about the FairTax than they did 2 years ago, and the support is up sharply..."

Wait till 23% turns into 42%.

"widens the tax base to poor and rich, two groups who currently avoid paying taxes,"

Wait...I thought the rich pay the bulk of the taxes. You'll need to decide on that talking point before going forward.

" At the same time, poor people will now be part of the system "

They already are, via payroll taxes.

"that steel has been taxed 4-5 times in mining, making, shipping, making car, and selling the car...Business owners are taxed on what they buy..."

Not necessarily. Many states allow sales-tax exempt intermediary purchases provided the final product collects sales tax.

"so, you're already paying 23%, it just isn't obvious.."

You're simply stating that number, without having any backing. How do you know it doesn't add up to 8%? Or 18%?

In short, in the current system, you earn $1, but you receive 70cents, because the government takes 30 cents, so you can't make the purchase unless you're very rich or very poor, in which case, you don't count, according to the IRS. With the FairTax, you earn $1, and the cost might appear to be $1.23 at first blush, so maybe you can't afford to buy it, so you invest instead, in which case neither your income nor your earnings in the investment will be taxed, and you come out ahead in the long run. Now, the $1.23 won't really be that, because the cost of producing and selling the product will have been reduced with the removal of all the internal taxes, FICA, and cpa costs, so probably the $1 won't really be priced at $1.23, but will likely come out at right around $1 with the tax, so if you're a spender, you probably end up exaclty where you do now. The difference is, the feds made 23 cents off you, the business makes money, and everybody's happy, except the lobbyists.

The real benefit, of course, comes from the incentives to invest the $1, which, can become 2, 3, or 12 dollars later, and you won't be taxed on it. From a retirement perspective, this is like compound interest on 23% more money...over the course of a working lifetime, that's a huge difference in nest egg...making everybody happy, and relieving the strain on the social security ponzi scheme, which could ultimately be scrapped. At the same time, the death of the income tax will draw investment from all over the world at an unprecedented level, and we're all gonna get rich at the expense of all those socialist regimes who disincentivize this sort of behavior. Everybody happy, except those who play race and special-interest politics, those who want to quietly and without scrutiny expand government, and politicians who like to pay off their campaign supporters....Go to FairTax.org, which is not affillitated with any party, and read it through. i think, in the end, you'll like it, unless you prefer the current divide-and-corrupt system....

Danforth,

23% is where the internal tax number came out when the bi-partisan expert panel was commissioned to work out this notion. Bush didn't like what they came up with, so he shelved it, but 23% was what they came up with. More specifics, go to website....that average included states who exempt taxes on such things....

Rich pay most of the taxes, but the super-rich pay very little, because they don't have jobs...they have trusts, and since most of the trusts operate in off-shore banks, they don't pay income tax as a rule....same for big corporations....so you could actually get a lot more taxes from rich people if you taxed them on what they buy, rather than on what income they choose to let you know about..

Poor people who work are penalized for doing so with the payroll tax, and many don't work because of this penalty....if more people worked and paid taxes above poverty level, we'd all be better off. This is particularly true if you are getting government support and are considering taking another job....often you lose money by doing this, so you stay in the low-paying job and take the subsidy or quit working entirely....this is counter-productive, and it cut these people out of the system....unhealthy. I know, I teach them every day and have had the discussion several times....

As far as black market profits go, do you think drug dealers, robbers and such would take that risk for only a 23% mark-up? Come on, even from your momma's basement you ought to know better than that....Besides, where are they gonna get black market cars from?

"23% is where the internal tax number came out "

After they did a survey showing people wouldn't accept the 30% number. How accepting do you think they'll be when that number turns out to be, on average, 42%?

"since most of the trusts operate in off-shore banks"

There you go again. You keep barfing up these statements, and I've yet to see any proof. Please link to proof.

"so you could actually get a lot more taxes from rich people if you taxed them on what they buy"

So you're telling me in an economy that is 70% driven by consumer spending, you want to severely de-incentivize consumer spending?

"Poor people who work are penalized for doing so with the payroll tax, and many don't work because of this penalty:

Because of?!? LINK.

In short, in the current system, you earn $1, but you receive 70cents, because the government takes 30 cents,

Not true. When ALL taxes are taken into account, all five quintiles pay about 17%-21% of their overall income in taxes. You're confusing overall burden with marginal rate.

" Now, the $1.23 won't really be that, because the cost of producing and selling the product will have been reduced with the removal of all the internal taxes, FICA, and cpa costs, so probably the $1 won't really be priced at $1.23, but will likely come out at right around $1 with the tax"

Pure speculation.

"The real benefit, of course, comes from the incentives to invest the $1, which, can become 2, 3, or 12 dollars later, and you won't be taxed on it"

Yes you will, when you spend it, and at a 42% rate.

"and relieving the strain on the social security ponzi scheme, which could ultimately be scrapped."

The FT plan does none of that. If it's revenue-neutral, as it claims, that means the underfunding problems still exist.

"At the same time, the death of the income tax will draw investment from all over the world at an unprecedented level"

Most corporations pay no income tax as it is.

"Go to FairTax.org, which is not affillitated with any party, and read it through"

I have, more than once. More holes than a swiss cheese factory.

"As far as black market profits go, do you think drug dealers, robbers and such would take that risk for only a 23% mark-up? "

Of course. They'd do it for half that. And again, it's 42%, not 23%. The FT has admitted it does not account for state income taxes or state/local sales taxes.

Apologies, Jon. The first line in the last post should have quotes around it.

Danforth,

ok. you make 80 cents. you still can't buy it.

Internal taxes being removed is not pure speculation...they are explicitly removed in the proposal...

No you won't unless you're spending it on new things at above the poverty level, in which case, your're paying those taxes now on everything you buy, so you're still no worse off....the rate would not be 42 % unless both houses of congress voted, in front of their constituents, to raise it from 23 to 42...unlikely, even with the help of MSNBC....as far as that fake high rate goes, we've been over that...

I know corporations pay no income tax, but they invest elsewhere because of tax penalties here, and you could tax them on stuff they bought here, which you don't now, so you'd end up with more corporation taxes and more corporation investment in this country....all good.

Of course it doesn't account for state income or sales taxes THIS IS A REPLACEMENT FOR THE FEDERAL INCOME TAX....

More holes than swiss cheese, and yet, I feel you must be saving them for later, because all I've seen from you is red herring....it won't matter...you're a shrinking voting block....

The Social Security program will be less and less drawn upon as people's nest eggs, given the 23% (or 42%, if we use your false numbers break they've been given on their investments, compounded over 30-40 years...). Most people simply won't need it, and it will die on the vine....I know. That's horrifying to progressives, but not to most people...

"Internal taxes being removed is not pure speculation...they are explicitly removed in the proposal..."

My point was many internal taxes aren't there, due to sales tax exemption rules for end-product taxers.

"No you won't unless you're spending it on new things at above the poverty level, in which case, your're paying those taxes now on everything you buy, so you're still no worse off"

Then your claim of bringing the poor into the system is bogus. Ones now in via payroll taxes will be out.

"..the rate would not be 42 % "

Huh? It's similar to a 30% sales tax, and once you add state income taxes and local sales taxes, that comes out to 42%, and much higher in places like CA, NY, VT, UT, etc.

"as far as that fake high rate goes, we've been over that..."

Are you going to pretend a $1 item won't cost $1.30 to walk out the store, and that states and locals won't want their piece as well? Really?

"I know corporations pay no income tax, but they invest elsewhere because of tax penalties here..."

Because of tax "penalties" here?!? That's now 5 links you owe me.

"and you could tax them on stuff they bought here, which you don't now"

So by your own admission, you're INCREASING taxes on corporations, yet expect them to flock to the US?

"Of course it doesn't account for state income or sales taxes THIS IS A REPLACEMENT FOR THE FEDERAL INCOME TAX...."

So the $1 item will cost $1.42, and a $30,000 new car will cost $42,600. To the consumer, that's a long way from a promise of 23%.

"because all I've seen from you is red herring"

Too funny, coming from the guy who has pulled at least 5 screwball statements out of his ass.

"The Social Security program will be less and less drawn upon as people's nest eggs, given the 23%"

What 23%? How will the ROI for savings spike? Remember, this is Roth-like.

And why on earth would this change SS payouts? Less and less drawn on?!? What does that mean?

Except for Roths, you can only save a small amount of money a year, not unlimited amounts. For the FairTax, you can save as much as possible, and none of what you save, invest, or the earnings off of that will be taxed..... If I have a nest egg of 1 million dollars when I retire, I'm not gonna care if you cut my ss benefits...in fact, I might not mind if you cut them and turned it into a program only for poor elderly people....i'm set because I've had 23% extra to save, invest, and profit off of for my whole life. Fewer and fewer people will need the benefits, and, since you removed the FICA, fewer and fewer people will feel entitled to the benefits. You can turn the program back into what it was intended to be, help for elderly poor people, not an entitlement to all. Of course, there will be a lot fewer poor people here after a while, so that, too, will shrink the demand for SS....this has nothing to do with the tax level per se, which is neutral, but the behaviors it incentivizes and the benefits therefrom, which will make the program less necessary as time goes on.

You can't add state income and sales taxes to the FairTax any more than you can to the Federal Income tax....they are seperate piles of money.....

The $1 item only costs a dollar now because of 23% hidden federal taxes already built into the price. So, the cost without these taxes is more like 77 cents....businesses would compete accordingly, and the competition point would be at and around 77 cents. Of course, once you add the 23 cents, you'll actually sell it for $1. This whole discussion from the beginning has never included the added on state tax, so let's not do that here. There are state taxes now. there'd be state taxes then...no different...

"The Social Security program will be less and less drawn upon as people's nest eggs, given the 23%"

LOL! What a dumbass!

The lowest corporate tax paid revenue for government in the world is the United States.

The highest money in tax revenue to protect corporate interest is the United States.

They contribute the least and get the most protection.........works for them and the United States lets the corporations offload employees to foriegn countries and still protects them.....what a nice country the United States is.

Moneywar....you seem to miss the point. If you want to tax corporations, don't tax their earnings, which they can, and do hide. Tax their purchases, which they cannot hide. Don't tax them for investments...you want those...it creates jobs and nice retirement accounts...the corporate tax rate is very high in this country, which is why they move their operations elsewhere and don't pay it....I know, this is too hard for you, but i'm a teacher, and I never give up on my students, regardless of their difficulties.

Ryker you are full of shit.

Government revenue from corporate tax is less than 3% the lowest it has been in the history of our country.

Fucking grow up and at least speak a minute bit of truth or I will take you for the WOB you appear to be.

If govt is so bad we should just get rid of it. See how long you last in a lawless society.

#78 | Posted by jackass

That has to be the most stupid arguement ever. I can't think of anyone that wants to get rid of all government.

Government is to serve and protect, not enslave the producers. The constitution clearly states what the government is to do. The only part is where it says something about the general welfare "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States;" General welfare being for the country, not each individual.

Moneywar,

Now wait a minute. It seems I'm not understanding this time....I'm supposed to care what you think? Still, I don't give up....I'm a dedicated teacher....3% of what? Do you mean the effective rate of corporate income tax is 3%? If so, you make my point. The rate is 35% I think, in fact. However, since these guys are smarter than the dumbasses who decided to set that tax rate, they take their business, their jobs, and their investments and they do them in countries and banks where the IRS can't find them...thus, the effective rate of 3%.....Now, if you didn't attempt to tax that income, but instead eliminated that tax, they'd keep that money here, invest it, and in general, interest rates would be lower and employment rates a lot higher....At the same time, if you taxed corporations on stuff they buy, which right now you only do indirectly, you'd end up with a lot more tax revenue, a lot more capital investment, and a much higher employment rate....now, if this is still hard for you, we can have you tested for special ed.....

"Except for Roths, you can only save a small amount of money a year, not unlimited amounts."

How many couples do you think are chomping at the bit because the $12,000 a year isn't enough? I've seen these 'unlimited' concepts before, and they always benefit the rich.

"i'm set because I've had 23% extra to save"

But this is supposed to be revenue-neutral. Where do you get the extra 23%?

"Fewer and fewer people will need the benefits"

That doesn't stop the wealthy now from demanding their SS; do you really think it would change in the future...that folks would actually say "oh, no you keep that money, I have enough"?!? And if you do...could you share some of what you're smoking?

"The $1 item only costs a dollar now because of 23% hidden federal taxes already built into the price. So, the cost without these taxes is more like 77 cents"

That's possibly the most cockamamie economic reasoning I've ever read.

"Of course, once you add the 23 cents, you'll actually sell it for $1."

Riiiiiiiiiiiight. Currently, it's a dollar, yet we still pay FICA taxes at work. If it's revenue neutral, the final price will have to reflect the FICA taxes as well, so your example is bogus on its face.

"You can't add state income and sales taxes to the FairTax any more than you can to the Federal Income tax....they are seperate piles of money....."

And you can't pretend, after selling this at 23%, you're not going to get a lot of backlash when it comes out to what we currently call 42%.

"Tax their purchases, which they cannot hide."

Huh? Currently their purchases aren't taxed on the federal level, and in fact REDUCE their tax burden. Again, by your own admission, you'd be raising taxes on corporations, and expecting them to relocate here.

#61 | Posted by jonryker at 2009-07-16 11:29 PM

People's retirement investments would be tax exempt, giving a huge incentive to savings and investments, ultimately easing the burden on Social Security....

Regardless of "the source" of support for those old folks and disabled folks, who are using resources and not contributing to the economy, what is represented is the amount of resources set aside to sustain non-productive consumers. Whether it's private investments or Social Security is without consequence. Discussing the matter in terms of "programs" and "sources" only confuses the issue since we are all sustained for the most part (although shelter and capital improvements and infrastructure are largely banked) on contemporary production.

Don't fall for the Social Security deception. Sufficient current productivity is required to support the non-productive regardless of the source. We need production workers, plumbers, mechanics, barbers, what have you to engage in activities that provide the goods and services that we use.

Think of the Chinese or Italian or Russian inverted tree family with one child, two parents, and four grandparents. When the parents and grandparents are unable to be productive in the labor market, it's going to be incumbent on one "Little Prince" to support them, provide food, provide service in the nursing home, provide transportation, fix the plumbing, whatever. It's a bleak future as the world population has proliferated and cannot be sustained at its current level, and reduction in population needs to be accomplished incrementally, or else there will be a debacle and a very chaotic and bleak future as the aged non-productive population grows disproportionately to the productive population. What's going to happen to the standard of living?

"Regardless of "the source" of support for those old folks and disabled folks, who are using resources and not contributing to the economy, what is represented is the amount of resources set aside to sustain non-productive consumers."

What a ginormous pile of bullshit.

Oh wait...it's Johnson; I repeat myself.

Today's current SS recipients, like the generation after them, would have been much better off taking those same dollars and investing them for themselves. To suggest they are somehow parasitic it the height of idiocy.

But again, I repeat myself.

Folks, my apologies: in my haste to insult Johnson, I used the wrong word. To suggest today's current retirees are somehow parasitic is the height of ingratitude.