home

Saturday Morning OpenThread

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Blog Related
Posted on Sat Apr 23, 2011 at 12:20:33 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

I am about to get on a plane so no blogging for me.

Open Thread.

< War on Drugs: Shifting Focus to Guatemala and Honduras | AZ Approves 579 Medical Marijuana Licenses in First Week >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Saturday Morning OpenThread | 73 comments (73 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Happy Easter, (5.00 / 4) (#1)
    by KeysDan on Sat Apr 23, 2011 at 12:27:55 PM EST
    to Jeralyn, BTD and all the other good eggs at TL.

    Happy Easter Everyone (none / 0) (#11)
    by MO Blue on Sat Apr 23, 2011 at 01:54:17 PM EST


    Parent
    why does the city of (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by observed on Sat Apr 23, 2011 at 01:03:34 PM EST
    Dearborn hate our freedoms?
    Jailing pastor jones was appalling.
    But the transit worker who lost his job (none / 0) (#5)
    by oculus on Sat Apr 23, 2011 at 01:06:15 PM EST
    after burning the Koran got his job back.  

    Parent
    As best I can tell from news stories, (none / 0) (#8)
    by Peter G on Sat Apr 23, 2011 at 01:46:13 PM EST
    the city's entire permitting and "peace bond" scheme for demonstrators is patently unconstitutional.  Glad to see that the ACLU of Michigan, while condemning the intolerant and provocative content of Jones' proposed actions, spoke up clearly on this issue.

    Parent
    He deserved jail time (none / 0) (#10)
    by Harry Saxon on Sat Apr 23, 2011 at 01:54:09 PM EST
    for the accidental discharge of a firearm, IMHO:

    A  gun went off  late Thursday night, outside the studios of Fox 2 in Southfield, following a live interview with Rev. Terry Jones.

    The gun discharged as Jones was getting into his rental car.  No one was hurt. Police are interviewing witnesses.

    Fox 2 and WWJ legal analyst Charlie Langton was there during the live interview. And he was there when the gun went off:

    "The preliminary report is that it was an accidental, that the gun went off accidental, however, Rev. Jones is being held in our studio (Fox 2) while the police continue their investigation," says Langton.

    It's still unknown if Rev. Jones will face any charges. And it's still unknown where the gun came from.

    He shouldn't be trusted with anything above the level of a pointed stick or bunch of bananas.

    Click or CBS2 Me

    Parent

    I dunno, Harry. Maybe we should wait (none / 0) (#18)
    by Peter G on Sat Apr 23, 2011 at 03:01:14 PM EST
    until there has been some determination of the facts, and perhaps a little due process, before we decide who "deserve[s] jail time" for the accidental discharge of a firearm, which for all we know was lawfully possessed and carried. On the other hand, I already know enough not to want to call this clown-provocateur "Rev." or "pastor" or "Christian," that's for sure.

    Parent
    Yah know (none / 0) (#34)
    by Harry Saxon on Sat Apr 23, 2011 at 05:51:58 PM EST
    I should've stated, "if he's found guilty of an accidental discharge of a firearm", because I do believe in fair trials and all that.

    which for all we know was lawfully possessed and carried

    Oh, if it wasn't, I'd be in favor of enhanced penalties if he was convicted.

    his clown-provocateur "Rev." or "pastor" or "Christian," that's for sure.

    It's ludicrous that his organization is "Dove Outreach World Center".

    It reminds me of the old bromide about the "Holy Roman Empire".


    Parent

    I don't think anybody... (none / 0) (#76)
    by kdog on Mon Apr 25, 2011 at 01:23:34 PM EST
    should be caged over an accidental discharge of firearm unless their is an accidental victim bleeding or dead.

    No more jail at the drop of a hat.

    Parent

    I think careless with a deadly weapon (none / 0) (#77)
    by Harry Saxon on Mon Apr 25, 2011 at 01:29:56 PM EST
    needs to be deterred, and IMHO a 24-hour stint along with community service would serve the purpose of deterring people from treating a firearm like a hair brush.

    I come from a family of hunters, and we take gun safety very seriously, because we know what firepower can do to flesh and bone, be it avian or human.

    Parent

    How bout'... (none / 0) (#78)
    by kdog on Mon Apr 25, 2011 at 01:38:31 PM EST
    a warning, 2nd instance you lose your gun license, third instance maybe we start thinking about a criminal punishment.

    I got no love for guns...but even less for cages.  We gots to chill with that, across the board...its embarassing.

    Parent

    I'll trade you the warning (none / 0) (#79)
    by Harry Saxon on Mon Apr 25, 2011 at 02:37:28 PM EST
    for a few hours community service in the morgue, along with restitution for any property damage.

    That's not durance vile, IMHO.

    Parent

    i surprised jeralyn or BTD hasn't (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by cpinva on Sat Apr 23, 2011 at 03:12:17 PM EST
    mentioned the recent statement by pres. obama (a former constitutional law instructor), that bradley manning has "broken the law". this, before the young man has even been tried, much less found guilty of anything.

    so much for that whole constitutional thing.

    According to Greenwald's link to (none / 0) (#27)
    by oculus on Sat Apr 23, 2011 at 04:24:35 PM EST
    Michael Manning, Pres.Obama is a "self-described Constitutional scholar."  Ouch.  

    Parent
    Obama Our " Snarlin Darlin" (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by samsguy18 on Sat Apr 23, 2011 at 06:36:30 PM EST
     Sees himself as an expert in all things ! It will be interesting to watch him cope with all the criticism coming his way.  

    Parent
    Spent much of the day in the kitchen, (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by Anne on Sat Apr 23, 2011 at 07:10:55 PM EST
    getting some Easter cooking/baking underway; even as late as Easter is this year, the foods represent - for me - the real harbingers of spring.

    Lamb is a given, studded with garlic slivers and rosemary, slathered with good olive oil....mmmm.

    Freah asparagus with a lovely gremolata: lemon zest and garlic and fresh parlsey.  Carrots with cippolini onions, roasted in the oven with olive oil, white wine and chicken broth.  Baby Yukon Gold potatoes, steamed with butter and parsley and water until tender.

    Strawberry pie with clouds of whipped cream.  Cheesecake swirled with lemon curd (am going to decorate it with  a couple bright yellow Peeps!

    We're going to my daughter's, but I'm bringing the veggies and the desserts; her in-laws - not fans of lamb - will bring a ham (I just never developed a taste for baked ham - although I love ham salad, go figure - and everyone at my house knows: if Mom doesn't like it, we don't eat it, lol).

    Have to go make the crust for the strawberry pie; seriously, nothing makes a pie like great crust.

    Anyone's mouth watering yet?

    Too bad (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Apr 23, 2011 at 07:40:08 PM EST
    you and I don't know each other outside of blogging because we would have a great time together. I love to cook too and love the holidays because it gives me an excuse to cook.

    We are having spiral sliced ham. My husband and I like lamb but the kids don't and believe it or not, the first time I ever had lamb was when my best friend who grew up in New Jersey cooked it for me. It's not something that's served much in the south for some reason.

    Asparagus here too but roasted. A friend is bringing some sides and since I'm not much of a baker or really don't have the time to do it, I bought a dutch apple pie that I'm going to serve with vanilla ice cream. She is bringing a cookies and cream pie because it's something we're sure that the kids will like.

    I'm probably going to make macaroni and cheese too though the kids won't eat it because it's not the kind out of the box. What is it with kids and mac and cheese out of the box? My oldest wouldn't eat homemade mac and cheese until he was in middle school or high school.

    It's early Eucharist in the morning and then cooking more when I get home!

    Happy Easter to everyone at TL!  

    Parent

    Great recipe for lamb (none / 0) (#67)
    by BackFromOhio on Sun Apr 24, 2011 at 03:18:01 PM EST
    that takes out the lamb taste and seals in juices; also takes 5 minutes to prepare -

    Recipe is Julia Child's Lamb au moutarde -
    just baste leg of lamb night before or early a.m. with a mustard paste that includes fresh rosemary, soy sauce and one or two other ingredients.  I throw in halved new potatoes on top of lamb when in oven & they pick up tastes.  Lamby taste disappears, and mustard paste keeps lamb very moist.

    Parent

    Going to my sister's in Jacksonville for Easter. (none / 0) (#49)
    by honora on Sat Apr 23, 2011 at 08:10:57 PM EST
    That is probably in your neck of the woods, be careful or you will have to share that pie!!  Enjoy your day and I hope that the rain will wait until Monday.

    Parent
    Shifting the tax burden to the rich (none / 0) (#2)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Sat Apr 23, 2011 at 12:40:08 PM EST
    .

    This graph demonstrates how the income tax burden has shifted to the rich in the past three decades or so.

    .

    Don't assume causation (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by sario on Sat Apr 23, 2011 at 06:08:53 PM EST
    Correlation (in this case a negative correlation) doesn't imply causation.  

    It is something that people often forget.  Until you do some analysis you cannot argue that one causes the other; you cannot even say which direction the causation works (i.e. what is Granger Causality?)

    s.

    Parent

    Shares can be missleading (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by sario on Sat Apr 23, 2011 at 06:30:35 PM EST
    Consider the following example:

    Suppose you have 3 people:

    1. income 10,000 - tax is 0.5% - $500 tax liability
    2. income 100,000 - tax is 1% - $1,000 tax liability
    3. income 1mil - tax is 2% - $20,000 tax liability

    Tax liability share for 1 = 2.3%
    Tax liability share for 3 = 93.02%

    Now suppose 2 things happen:

    1. The income for the first person falls to 5,000 and the tax rate for the wealthy falls to 1.95%.

    2. income 5,000 - tax is 0.5% - $250 tax liability
    3. income 100,000 - tax is 1% - $1,000 tax liability
    4. income 1 mil - tax liability 19,500

    Tax liability share for 1 = 1.2% - it falls
    Tax liability share for 3 = 93.97% - it goes up.
    In this case, the share goes up because the poor are not there to pay the tax.  
    If the income for the poor stayed at the same level and only the tax for the wealth fell, then the tax liability share for the wealthy would fall to 92.85%.

    So, the fact that the poor earn less in this example, means the rich even if their income has stayed the same (they have not gotten any richer - they are only richer in relative terms), and they are actually richer in terms of having more after tax income, are actually as a share paying more, simply because the poor are poor.  I am not saying that is what happened in the data you showed.

    What I am saying is that one has to be careful about correlations and making some causality type of statements.There is not enough information in that data to draw these types of conclusions.

    s.

    Parent

    Is it irrelevant to you (none / 0) (#3)
    by Rupe on Sat Apr 23, 2011 at 12:48:16 PM EST
    that the rich now control significantly more of the wealth, and therefore by simple math should pay more of the income tax burden?

    Parent
    First (none / 0) (#7)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Sat Apr 23, 2011 at 01:17:57 PM EST
    .

    First of all, income is a measure of income it is not a measure of wealth.  Income taxes are completely unrelated to net worth (wealth).

    The second point is that among the very highest incomes (top 1%) more tax revenue is collected at lower rates than at higher rates.  

    Is it more important to fund programs like Medicare with the higher tax revenue produced by lower tax rates or is it better to short change programs in order to punish an unpopular tiny minority?

    .

    Parent

    I'm certainly glad you're here (none / 0) (#9)
    by Harry Saxon on Sat Apr 23, 2011 at 01:49:21 PM EST
    to stick up for this unpopular minority, AAA:

    Yes, "there's class warfare, all right," warns Warren Buffett. "But it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning." Yes, the rich are making war against us. And yes, they are winning. Why? Because so many are fighting this new American Civil War between the rich and the rest.

    Not just the 16 new GOP governors in Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Florida, and across America fighting for new powers. Others include: Chamber of Commerce billionaires, Koch brothers, Forbes 400, Karl Rove's American Crossroads, Grover Norquist's Americans for Tax Reform -- which now has 97% of House Republicans and 85% of the GOP Senators signed on his "no new taxes" pledge -- the Tea Party and Reaganomics ideologues.

    Click or Market Watch Me


    Parent

    I'm not sticking up for them at all (none / 0) (#12)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Sat Apr 23, 2011 at 01:58:21 PM EST
    .

    Apparently unlike you, I think they should provide a greater rather than lesser share of income tax revenue.

    .

    Parent

    On this issue your are a wretched human (none / 0) (#14)
    by Dadler on Sat Apr 23, 2011 at 02:19:41 PM EST
    Sorry, you seem to think NUMBERS ARE EVERYTHING, that they somehow measure fairness.  Listen, Einstein, when you take three grand from a person making twenty, you directly impact their lives in a physical manner -- choices are made between necessities.  When you take that same percentage from someone making a million, you have zero impact on their ability to live very comfortably. If you are going to tax people so that the ONLY people who PHYSICALLY FEEL IT are those with less money, then count yourself a very dim and selfish and irrational human being, as well as quite cruel.

    I'm sure you are decent to your children, your wife if you have one, but on this issue...you are truly inhumane.

    Parent

    Dadler (none / 0) (#16)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Apr 23, 2011 at 02:50:11 PM EST
    His point is that lower marginal rates on the "rich" lead to increased tax revenue from the "rich."

    Now, I think it is proven that this correct. The question becomes, at what tax rate percentage point do the rich start to take enough evasive measures that the tax revenue starts to go down?

    I've seen no information. Maybe someone has a link or whatever.

    Parent

    no, it isn't. (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by cpinva on Sat Apr 23, 2011 at 03:08:41 PM EST
    His point is that lower marginal rates on the "rich" lead to increased tax revenue from the "rich."

    lower rates never, ever, lead to higher revenues, ever. not now, not during reagan's terms in office, not ever. lower rates lead, not surprisingly, to lower revenues, period. that is just a mathematical & historical fact. the only reason tax receipts from the filthy rich are higher, at the lower rate, is because their taxable income has increased exponentially, not because the marginal rate declined.

    anyone who argues otherwise is either a liar, or completely uninformed, in matters of tax and economics.

    Parent

    You are badly mistaken (none / 0) (#24)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Sat Apr 23, 2011 at 03:43:09 PM EST
    The top income tax rate went down dramatically in Reagan's term in office, but over those eight years tax revenue increased by about 50%.

    Lower top tax rates results in more reported income results in more tax revenue.  

    That has been the economic reality since WWII.  Pretending otherwise will not change that.

    When JFK lowered the top rate from 90% to 70% the revenue from the new 70% bracket was greater than the old 70% and 90% combined.

    Parent

    Can you cite (none / 0) (#28)
    by Peter G on Sat Apr 23, 2011 at 04:28:17 PM EST
    an authoritative, non-politicized source for your assertion that tax revenues have consistently (or ever) increased due to, rather than just coincident with, a rate reduction, AAA? In addition, I must say I don't find very compelling the argument that tax rates should be reduced because higher (and otherwise fair) rates create an incentive to "evasive"(i.e., fraudulent and criminal) behavior. If evasion escalates, I'd rather see an increase in the IRS enforcement budget, targeted at high income evaders, which I think would tend to result in higher compliance rates via deterrence, and thus substantially more tax revenues.  

    Parent
    Sounds like he's talking around (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by andgarden on Sat Apr 23, 2011 at 04:31:21 PM EST
    the vaunted Laffer curve.

    Parent
    If he's relying on Laffer's theory, (none / 0) (#42)
    by Peter G on Sat Apr 23, 2011 at 06:52:19 PM EST
    then he's misunderstanding it.  Laffer posits that there is some point along a continuum of tax rates where people will no longer find it worth the trouble to work any more, and will choose therefore to work (and earn) less, and thus will end up paying less tax, as they find the marginal rate confiscatory. Laffer does not claim, as does AAA (still without citing anything) that reducing tax rates always produces more tax revenues.  If Laffer's theory is correct (which is, in any event, much disputed), reducing tax rates that are on the far side, so to speak, of that presumed tipping point would enhance revenues.  But reducing rates that are at or below that point would not.  

    Parent
    Evasion? (none / 0) (#31)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Sat Apr 23, 2011 at 05:15:40 PM EST
    .

    This has little to do with evasion. It has to do with things like taking more vacation instead of higher pay, or more deferred pay instead of up front pay, or declining a side job, or declining overtime, etc.

    There is a very strong inverse correlation between tax rates and reported income at the top bracket. That's just reality.

     .

    Parent

    Well, I was directly referring to Jim's defense (none / 0) (#41)
    by Peter G on Sat Apr 23, 2011 at 06:40:20 PM EST
    of your position:  "I think it is proven that this correct. The question becomes, at what tax rate percentage point do the rich start to take enough evasive measures that the tax revenue starts to go down?" I responded to that contention. You hadn't given any support for your counter-intuitive (and self-serving, from the richest slice's POV) position, and didn't disagree with Jim's explanation, so I assumed you embraced his defense of your claims.  If you have any actual data, or other explanation, you have yet to share it.  

    Parent
    Virtually (none / 0) (#65)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Sun Apr 24, 2011 at 01:31:08 PM EST
    .
    100% of tax free municipal bonds are bought by high income people because the after tax return is higher.  Every tax free municipal bond purchased represents lower reported federal income.

    As the graph posted earlier shows there is more income tax revenue collected at 45% than at70%.

    Parent

    Those rates (none / 0) (#62)
    by Harry Saxon on Sun Apr 24, 2011 at 11:05:16 AM EST
    aren't even close to what they were under Clinton, and of course they were reduced in order that our nightmare of peace and prosperity come to an end:

    Bush swore to do "everything in [his] power" to undo the damage wrought by Clinton's two terms in office, including selling off the national parks to developers, going into massive debt to develop expensive and impractical weapons technologies, and passing sweeping budget cuts that drive the mentally ill out of hospitals and onto the street.

    Click or Onion Me

    Parent

    How about (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Apr 23, 2011 at 03:10:13 PM EST
    they pay no taxes if they do something with the money like build something. Right now the tax burden is so low that they are just going to sit on it.

    Maybe they could use that money to build housing for low income elderly people and use it as a tax write off?

    How about give them an incentive to do something?

    Parent

    Do you have any proof that (none / 0) (#25)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Apr 23, 2011 at 03:56:16 PM EST
    they just sit on it?

    Me? I dunno if AAA is right but it makes sense that if you decrease the hit but increase the base that the total could be an increase.

    Parent

    Yep, (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Apr 23, 2011 at 04:35:52 PM EST
    you haven't heard all the talk on the business shows about how everybody is just sitting on money? Give them some incentive to do something with it instead of just sitting on it.

    They would spend the money if there was demand but there is a severe lack of aggregate demand and the only way to increase the demand is to pump some money into the economy. They can do it or the government can do it but right now neither is doing it.

    Parent

    Don't know how things are now (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Harry Saxon on Sat Apr 23, 2011 at 05:43:56 PM EST
    but I found this from January 20, 2011, from a non-partisan site:

    As we mention in our upcoming BMO ETF 2011 Outlook Report, we believe U.S. equities could be well positioned this year, given that a good number of non-financial companies are showing cash-rich balance sheets.

    Click or advisoranalyst(dot)com me.


    Parent

    The issue is FIT (none / 0) (#45)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Apr 23, 2011 at 07:33:24 PM EST
    not companies or corporations, banks or otherwise.

    Parent
    Um, this is an open thread (none / 0) (#46)
    by Harry Saxon on Sat Apr 23, 2011 at 07:37:41 PM EST
    the parent was Ga6thDem:

    you haven't heard all the talk on the business shows about how everybody is just sitting on money?

    and thanks as always for the feedback.

    Parent

    Harry please stop repeating (none / 0) (#52)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Apr 23, 2011 at 10:51:46 PM EST
    "and thanks as always for the feedback." You do it on almost every comment as a dig at the person you are replying to. It's not acceptable.

    Parent
    I'm sorry (none / 0) (#54)
    by Harry Saxon on Sat Apr 23, 2011 at 11:31:04 PM EST
    but I think it a dig to be told what the topic is on an open thread.

    I won't be provoked by any commentator here to use the phrase in the future, you have my word on that.

    Happy Easter to everyone, I can say that, right?

    Parent

    Everyone (none / 0) (#48)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Apr 23, 2011 at 07:46:26 PM EST
    is sitting on their money--banks, wealthy people, businesses etc. Maybe if some of the CEO's pumpmed those 24 million dollar salaries and bonuses into the country it would help the economy. I guess right now it's all going to the Cayman's or something. It's sure not trickling down.

    Parent
    If everyone is sitting on their money (none / 0) (#50)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Apr 23, 2011 at 08:20:49 PM EST
    where did all those cash rich companies Harry writes about come from?

    Parent
    It seems to me that (none / 0) (#51)
    by Harry Saxon on Sat Apr 23, 2011 at 10:13:20 PM EST
    both individuals and businesses are sitting on their money, following the same strategy.


    Parent
    No, I have heard it opined that the banks (none / 0) (#32)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Apr 23, 2011 at 05:40:46 PM EST
    are sitting on stimulus money, TARP, etc.

    That is not individuals and has nothing to do with AAA's claim.

    Parent

    other large corporations (none / 0) (#69)
    by BackFromOhio on Sun Apr 24, 2011 at 03:40:44 PM EST
    have been sitting on a lot of cash as well

    Parent
    thanks for reposting (none / 0) (#68)
    by BackFromOhio on Sun Apr 24, 2011 at 03:30:58 PM EST
    I didn't see it yesterday

    Parent
    Digby's first name turns out to be (none / 0) (#6)
    by oculus on Sat Apr 23, 2011 at 01:07:34 PM EST
    "Heather."  Which reminds me of the movie "Back to the Future."  

    Shumlin wants Vermont (none / 0) (#15)
    by Politalkix on Sat Apr 23, 2011 at 02:43:58 PM EST
    to live within their means. link

    Vermont (5.00 / 3) (#60)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Apr 24, 2011 at 08:37:06 AM EST
    Has always lived within its means.  VT has also always had a much more generous safety net than most other states.  VT is also moving towards a single-payer health care system.  Vermont is not a wealthy state.  We do have around 5 percent unemployement, though.  And unlike every other state, we do not have an idiotic balanced budget requirement.

    Parent
    Vermont Politics (none / 0) (#61)
    by Politalkix on Sun Apr 24, 2011 at 09:48:04 AM EST
    is the best politics in the country. Have said that before in this blog, will say it once again. Why can't the entire USA be more like Vermont?
    :-).

    Parent
    Tornados hit St. Louis Friday (none / 0) (#17)
    by MO Blue on Sat Apr 23, 2011 at 02:52:08 PM EST
    ST. LOUIS (AP) - The National Weather Service says a tornado that socked St. Louis' Lambert Airport and nearby suburbs was at least an EF3 on the tornado-strength scale and followed an eerily similar path as a devastating 1967 twister than left an estimated $15 million damage.
    ...
    An EF3 tornado carries wind speeds of 136 to 165 mph.

    Reports of more than a dozen tornadoes around the St. Louis area overnight have left major damage around the region - and have shut down the Lambert-St. Louis International Airport
    ...
    Unconfirmed tornadoes were reported in several counties in the St. Louis area, and at one point utility company Ameren Missouri reported more than 47,000 power outages, with another 7,000 reported in Illinois.

    In the suburbs of Maryland Heights and New Melle, the storms damaged several dozen homes but there were no immediate reports of major injuries. Some playground equipment in New Melle was left in a twisted heap by the storm that also tore up roofs and ripped off siding. link

    Luckily, they did not hit in my area or where my grown daughter and her family lives.

    My niece moved from Maryland Heights (none / 0) (#19)
    by oculus on Sat Apr 23, 2011 at 03:06:23 PM EST
    to St. Charles.  No destruction in her new neighborhood.

    Parent
    Glad that she is O.K. (none / 0) (#26)
    by MO Blue on Sat Apr 23, 2011 at 03:59:11 PM EST
    Everyone that I have talked to so far had the good fortune of having the tornado pass them by. Hope that is the last of the bad storms for a while.  

    Parent
    I once spent a few worrisome minutes (none / 0) (#35)
    by Harry Saxon on Sat Apr 23, 2011 at 05:55:12 PM EST
    in the basement of my dorm in St. Louis because of a tornado warning, that was many, many moons ago.

    Parent
    Never a good thing for a budding Politician (none / 0) (#36)
    by CoralGables on Sat Apr 23, 2011 at 06:07:05 PM EST
    NEW YORK -- The New York City Board of Elections says Donald Trump hasn't voted in any primary elections for more than 21 years.

    Did he vote in the generals? (none / 0) (#39)
    by nycstray on Sat Apr 23, 2011 at 06:33:52 PM EST
    His record sounds similar to Meg's  :)

    Parent
    Voting is for hoi polloi. (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Sat Apr 23, 2011 at 06:56:22 PM EST
    The Donald, Megs, the Koch's and their ilk do it in a much more refined manner--they buy their representation.

    Parent
    Republicans on the defensive (none / 0) (#53)
    by Politalkix on Sat Apr 23, 2011 at 11:14:18 PM EST
    for supporting wealth care.

    We (I) missed a kerfluffle at DK. (none / 0) (#55)
    by oculus on Sun Apr 24, 2011 at 12:04:34 AM EST
    Wondering what it was about.

    I guess this is what happens to us (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Apr 24, 2011 at 05:47:21 AM EST
    when we get a life :)  I have no idea how to inspect the new DK for kerfuffle, but the list of who I follow is probably a good place to start :)

    Parent
    How can one tell? (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Apr 24, 2011 at 11:32:07 AM EST
    I go over there and it looks like a big cluttered mess.  Their design is AWFUL. I leave in about an instant.   Uh....IMHO.

    It's just a big scary propaganda/mind control machine anyway. The longer you stay away, the stranger it is to go back.

    Parent

    How to run a time tested (none / 0) (#56)
    by Politalkix on Sun Apr 24, 2011 at 01:32:14 AM EST
    election campaign for Democrats is discussed in this WP article.
    Correct Link to post 56 (none / 0) (#57)
    by Politalkix on Sun Apr 24, 2011 at 01:35:42 AM EST
    link

    Parent
    I don't think the claim is that (none / 0) (#64)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 24, 2011 at 12:52:21 PM EST
    revenues would always rise when the top 1% of taxpayers rates are cut.

    The claim is that there is a point at which the rich start to take advantage of the various legal ways to avoid taxes. At that point revenue falls. And the reverse is also true, which is what the graph shows.

    And I can't tell you what that point is.

    But I do know that if I invest my money in a risky start up situation and expect to see 90% of any returns taken from me if I am successful only, say, 25% of the times, then I would also consider a strategy of investing in low return situations that I expect to be 100% successful.

    Simply put, high marginal rates discourage risk taking by the individual.

    Equally absurd as your previous suggestion (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Peter G on Sun Apr 24, 2011 at 02:57:56 PM EST
    The claim is that there is a point at which the rich start to take advantage of the various legal ways to avoid taxes.  WTF?
    Yesterday, Jim, you tried to explain/justify AAA's assertion (which he has yet to defend) by saying that at some point when rates are high the rich would resort to "evasive" measures.  In tax parlance, evasion means something quite specific, which is what I thought you meant when you used the term -- that is, illegal (fraudulent or even criminal).  I responded to that at #28 & #41.  Without saying whether you realize you misused the term (if you did) or whether you're just changing your story, you now say something even less sensible.  I don't think anyone would doubt or deny that the "point at which the rich start to take advantage of the various legal ways to avoid taxes" is the exact same point at which they sit down with their tax adviser for the first time.  Not when the rates are too high; all the time, every time, regardless of the marginal rate.

    Parent
    I am not a lawyer so I apologize (2.00 / 1) (#70)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 24, 2011 at 05:33:11 PM EST
    for my use of the word evasive. But surely you did not think that I was arguing that AAA's chart was correct because the rich took illegal actions.

    My point remains. People make economic decisions based on many things. High on the list is ROI. Part of the ROI equation is how much money is required and what is the risk. Lower marginal rates mean higher NIAT so the investor can take higher risks. That was demonstrated dramatically during the Internet expansion. A lot of risks, a lot of failures, a lot of success and a lot of tax money paid.

    That's what AAA's charts show. Now, are the points optimal?? I don't know. And that's really what all the arguments re taxes come down to.

    How much can the tax payer be taxed before the golden goose dies?

    Parent

    Re Excuses (none / 0) (#71)
    by Harry Saxon on Sun Apr 24, 2011 at 10:22:17 PM EST

    How much can the tax payer be taxed before the golden goose dies?

    We have a lower tax rate compared to many countries, see the chart in this article:

    U.S. taxes are low relative to those in other developed countries. In 2006 U.S. taxes at all levels of government claimed 28 percent of GDP, compared with an average of 36 percent of GDP for the 30 member countries of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).

    Click or Tax Policy Center Me

    Lower marginal rates mean higher NIAT so the investor can take higher risks. That was demonstrated dramatically during the Internet expansion. A lot of risks, a lot of failures, a lot of success and a lot of tax money paid.

    Except that the Internet expansion took place mostly after Clinton became President and passed the tax increases in 1993.

    Thanks for helping me demonstrate the unreality of your economic thinking around here.

    Parent

    As I wrote. (2.00 / 1) (#72)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 25, 2011 at 09:27:48 AM EST
    That's what AAA's charts show. Now, are the points optimal?? I don't know. And that's really what all the arguments re taxes come down to.

    Which was to say that the increase started under Reagan when he cut the FIT  and then continued upward with variations at about the same point the economy faltered.

    So the question remains. At what point will tax increases cause decreased revenue by increased tax avoidance. And I again note that I don't know what that point is. But I do know there is a point.

    Parent

    Saturday Morning OpenThread | 73 comments (73 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment