Reality strikes deep [Archive]

Eki

8th July 2010, 19:18

It seems that those who thought Barry Obama was God, have found out he is just another golden-calf.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/dailybeast/8874_aspenideasfestivalobamalosessupportofnationse lite

Ridiculous claim:

“The curse of longterm unemployment is that if you pay people to do nothing, they’ll find themselves doing nothing for very long periods of time,” Ferguson said. “Long-term unemployment is at an all-time high in the United States, and it is a direct consequence of a misconceived public policy.”

If that is true, they really must pay well people in Equatorial Guinea to do nothing. The unemployment rate there is around 30%:

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ek.html

It would be good for people who think like that to be unemployed for awhile. Maybe they'd find out it's not so rosy to be unemployed. As long as working pays more than not working, people will choose working.

chuck34

8th July 2010, 19:22

The curse of longterm unemployment is that if you pay people to do nothing, they’ll find themselves doing nothing for very long periods of time,” Ferguson said. “Long-term unemployment is at an all-time high in the United States, and it is a direct consequence of a misconceived public policy.

Ding, ding, ding! We have a winner! Thank you Mr. Obvious, you're a life saver.

This was greeted by hearty applause from a crowd that included Barbra Streisand and her husband James Brolin. “Depressing, but fantastic,” Streisand told me afterward, rendering her verdict on the session. “So exciting. Wonderful!”

Brolin’s assessment: “Mind-blowing.”

Those statements from those two blew my mind.

“When I talk to venture capitalists, their companies are starting to move their manufacturing operations out of the United States…Our corporate tax rate, on a worldwide competitive basis, is just not competitive. Taiwan is lowering their rate to 20 to 15 percent in order to stay competitive with Singapore. These countries have made it their job to attract industry. You don’t get that sense here in the United States.”

Can someone make sure that our President and Democratically controlled Congress get this message?

“He said jobs were going to be his No. 1 priority—there’s a huge disconnect between Washington and what’s going on out in the country,” nominal Obama supporter Arianna Huffington said. “The president’s economic team kept talking about a ‘cyclical’ problem. Larry Summers said jobs were a lagging economic indicator. All these things are simply wrong. The president put all his trust in the wrong economic team—an economic team that didn’t understand what was happening.”

What the hell is this world comming to when I agree with Ariana Huffington?????!!!!!!

chuck34

8th July 2010, 19:27

As long as working pays more than not working, people will choose working.

But in the US the jobless benifits are so high that the gap between working and not working is so low that, once you factor in the power of lazyness, it is really the same level. So, for the choice for those people, is easy. Stay at home and collect the Wellfare check.

Mark in Oshawa

8th July 2010, 19:37

But in the US the jobless benifits are so high that the gap between working and not working is so low that, once you factor in the power of lazyness, it is really the same level. So, for the choice for those people, is easy. Stay at home and collect the Wellfare check.

AS someone who is unemployed, Eki's assertion that if working pays more than not working, then people will work is true ONLY if the check for staying home isn't enough. In Canada, EI (Employment Insurance) isn't enough. Believe me, I want to be working, but I am also trying to change careers in mid life. If I wanted to hit the highway again, I could be working, but it is soul sucking lifestyle that I couldn't do and working locally in trucking just isn't worth the money for the hassles of the job.

In The US, in my travels before I gave it all up I found people there really were not impressed by what was going on. There is this myth too many believe in that government creates jobs. Unless they are government jobs which are a parasitic drag on the economy, the government creates NO jobs.

For the chattering classes to finally figure out Obama has no clue is comical. 2 more years left with this guy and they just are figuring out now he is a Keynesian/socialist who hasn't figure out it doesn't work?

The best way the US could make a comeback is to find ways to reduce the tax burdens for companies and individuals and free up this money to drive the economy. Money taken from the pay check at source, or money taken at the registar for VAT schemes is money not circulating in a natural fashion. The money instead goes to the government for what IT wants, and it often just wastes it projects that are money losers. You give private industry and individuals more of their own money by not taking it, I guarntee you it helps the economy more. It did so in the 80's in most of the Western World....

chuck34

8th July 2010, 19:51

Funnily enough I just ran accross this article that is dealing with this very issue. Great minds think alike I guess. Not that I'm comparing myself to Arthur Laffer in any way though. :)

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704862404575351301788376276.html?m od=WSJ_hpp_sections_opinion

since the 1970s there's been a close correlation between increased unemployment benefits and an increase in the unemployment rate. Those who argue that things are different today don't have the data to back up their claims.

Whether increased unemployment benefits incentivize workers to work less or disincentivize employers from hiring more workers, the effect will be the same—higher unemployment.

The flaw in their logic is that when it comes to higher unemployment benefits or any other stimulus spending, the resources given to the unemployed have to be taken from someone else. There isn't a "tooth fairy," or as my former colleague Milton Friedman repeated time and again, "there ain't no such thing as a free lunch." The government doesn't create resources. It redistributes them. For everyone who is given something there is someone who has that something taken away.

While the unemployed may spend more as a result of higher unemployment benefits, those people from whom the resources are taken will spend less. In an economy, the income effects from a transfer payment always sum to zero. Quite simply, there is no stimulus from higher unemployment benefits.

But it doesn't stop there. While the income effects sum to zero, the substitution effects aggregate. The person from whom the unemployment funds are taken will find work less rewarding and will work less. The person who is given the unemployment benefits will also find work relatively less rewarding and will therefore work less. Both people in this two-person economy will be incentivized to work less. There will be less work and more unemployment.

No one opposes unemployment benefits as a transition aid for people to get back on their feet and find a new job. Unemployment benefits are a safeguard for individuals down on their luck. But to argue that unemployment benefits actually reduce unemployment is disingenuous at best, and could induce our government to enact policies that have the effect of destroying our nation's production base from whence all benefits ultimately flow.

Sorry for so many quotes from an article that you all could read on your own. But I know most won't so I wanted to get the key points out there.

Eki

8th July 2010, 19:56

AS someone who is unemployed, Eki's assertion that if working pays more than not working, then people will work is true ONLY if the check for staying home isn't enough.
Enough for what?

When I was unemployed, I got about 60% of what I got when I was working before my unemployment. Yes, it was enough to keep a roof above my head and food in my stomach and pay my car loan, but almost nothing was left for hobbies, travelling and maybe get a new car or a new home. I'd call that staying alive or surviving, but not living.

anthonyvop

8th July 2010, 20:00

Eki

8th July 2010, 20:04

The best way the US could make a comeback is to find ways to reduce the tax burdens for companies and individuals and free up this money to drive the economy. Money taken from the pay check at source, or money taken at the registar for VAT schemes is money not circulating in a natural fashion. The money instead goes to the government for what IT wants, and it often just wastes it projects that are money losers. You give private industry and individuals more of their own money by not taking it, I guarntee you it helps the economy more. It did so in the 80's in most of the Western World....
If they did reduce taxes, how would they educate and train workers for the companies? At least here, companies don't much train or educate their workers, they expect the government to provide them with readily educated and trained workers.

Eki

8th July 2010, 20:11

The fact that you are complaining that your unemployment benefit was only enough to cover your current car payment speaks volumes.
It's very difficult for an MSc in Engineering to find a job here, if he doesn't have a home, a phone and an internet connection. Heck, it's difficult for everyone. Some if not most employers also prefer their employees to have cars of their own in case they need one to do their job. They aren't that willing to buy you a car.

anthonyvop

8th July 2010, 20:35

It's very difficult for an MSc in Engineering to find a job here, if he doesn't have a home, a phone and an internet connection. Heck, it's difficult for everyone. Some if not most employers also prefer their employees to have cars of their own in case they need one to do their job. They aren't that willing to buy you a car.

So? Why should I subsidize your poor choice in employment?

Your entitlement attitude is what is killing our economies. You can't find a job as an Engineer? Tooooooooooo Bad. Burger king is hiring.

Eki

8th July 2010, 20:46

So? Why should I subsidize your poor choice in employment?

Your entitlement attitude is what is killing our economies. You can't find a job as an Engineer? Tooooooooooo Bad. Burger king is hiring.
And what would the people currently looking for work in Burger King do? Become Engineers? Or starve and become criminals? I'm sure Burger King has enough uneducated applicants for their jobs, so that people with university education don't have to apply.

chuck34

8th July 2010, 20:48

If they did reduce taxes, how would they educate and train workers for the companies? At least here, companies don't much train or educate their workers, they expect the government to provide them with readily educated and trained workers.

Where do you get that the government has the responsibility to train anyone? That is the stupidist thing I've ever heard. Well not really, you've said a LOT of really dumb things, it'd be hard to rank them all.

Do you really have no concept of personal responsibilities? Do you really think that everything must be handed to you? Do you really believe that you don't have to WORK for anything?

My God, why have I let myself get sucked back into Eki's insanity?

Eki

8th July 2010, 20:57

Where do you get that the government has the responsibility to train anyone? That is the stupidist thing I've ever heard. Well not really, you've said a LOT of really dumb things, it'd be hard to rank them all.

Do you really have no concept of personal responsibilities? Do you really think that everything must be handed to you? Do you really believe that you don't have to WORK for anything?

My God, why have I let myself get sucked back into Eki's insanity?
That's just the way things work in Finland. The companies trust the government and the people trust the government. Of course we all have to work for everything, it's just that the government taxes the outcome and spreads it further fair and square to both the companies and the people.

chuck34

8th July 2010, 21:04

That's just the way things work in Finland. The companies trust the government and the people trust the government. Of course we all have to work for everything, it's just that the government taxes the outcome and spreads it further fair and square to both the companies and the people.

Did you read the Arthur Laffer article? If you had, you'd see why your statement is crap.

The government doesn't create resources. It redistributes them. For everyone who is given something there is someone who has that something taken away.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/stealing

1: to take the property of another wrongfully and especially as a habitual or regular practice
1 a : to take or appropriate without right or leave and with intent to keep or make use of wrongfully
b : to take away by force or unjust means

Eki

8th July 2010, 21:07

Did you read the Arthur Laffer article? If you had, you'd see why your statement is crap.
Or Arthur Laffer's article is crap.

chuck34

8th July 2010, 21:12

Or Arthur Laffer's article is crap.

He backed up all of his assertions with evidence. Do you have anything that would refute him?

Eki

8th July 2010, 21:14

The people who want others to start all over again from the bottom and work their way up every time they end up unemployed want to bring back slavery.

anthonyvop

8th July 2010, 21:16

And what would the people currently looking for work in Burger King do? Become Engineers? Or starve and become criminals? I'm sure Burger King has enough uneducated applicants for their jobs, so that people with university education don't have to apply.

So?

I ask again.

Why should I pay for your bad life decisions?????

anthonyvop

8th July 2010, 21:17

The people who want others to start all over again from the bottom and work their way up every time they end up unemployed want to bring back slavery.

Really? Is that what you really believe?

You really think I want to bring back slavery?

anthonyvop

8th July 2010, 21:19

The companies trust the government and the people trust the government.

The same Government that sided with the NAZIS and then when the NAZIS lost sided with Stalin?

Eki

8th July 2010, 21:22

Eki

8th July 2010, 21:25

The same Government that sided with the NAZIS and then when the NAZIS lost sided with Stalin?
No, the government has changed many times after 1944. Actually their jobs are evaluated every four years. If they don't do a good job, they'll be voted out.

chuck34

8th July 2010, 21:30

The people who want others to start all over again from the bottom and work their way up every time they end up unemployed want to bring back slavery.

What the hell are you talking about? That statement is beyond even the crap you normally spew.

chuck34

8th July 2010, 21:31

Depends on the government. There are crappy ones ranging from Somalia to the US, but there are also better ones.

So then show me the evidence of what government CREATES RESOURCES.

This should be good.

Eki

8th July 2010, 21:38

So then show me the evidence of what government CREATES RESOURCES.

This should be good.
A government that educates and trains workforce for private companies. Also a government that takes care of the health of the workforce reserves and maintains them in working condition for the private companies.

Eki

8th July 2010, 21:40

Really? Is that what you really believe?

You really think I want to bring back slavery?
Seems that way. Seems that you'd be in ecstasy if you didn't have to pay anything to your employees and your government.

chuck34

8th July 2010, 21:41

A government that educates and trains workforce for private companies. Also a government that takes care of the health of the workforce reserves and maintains them in working condition for the private companies.

Where do they get the money and resources to train these people, or take car of their healthcare? The tooth fairy, I suppose.

chuck34

8th July 2010, 21:42

Seems that way. Seems that you'd be in ecstasy if you didn't have to pay anything to your employees and your government.

No if you don't pay, you don't get any work. Slavery is abhorant to the free market system.

Eki

8th July 2010, 21:45

Where do they get the money and resources to train these people, or take car of their healthcare? The tooth fairy, I suppose.
Taxes.

Eki

8th July 2010, 21:46

No if you don't pay, you don't get any work. Slavery is abhorant to the free market system.
Define "free". Free to whom? What does "free" mean? Free workforce? Freedom from rules and regulations, so that you're not responsible to anyone?

anthonyvop

8th July 2010, 22:13

Define "free". Free to whom? What does "free" mean? Free workforce? Freedom from rules and regulations, so that you're not responsible to anyone?

You got it.

As long as I don't violate the rights of anyone else (which means the use of force) I am not responsible for your poor decision making.

Bob Riebe

8th July 2010, 22:13

The people who want others to start all over again from the bottom and work their way up every time they end up unemployed want to bring back slavery.

AH, the real Eki and his asinine rhetoric is back.

Give your proof to that statement or have you reverted to just being a babbling troll.

Brown, Jon Brow

8th July 2010, 22:15

It's very difficult for an MSc in Engineering to find a job here, if he doesn't have a home, a phone and an internet connection. Heck, it's difficult for everyone. Some if not most employers also prefer their employees to have cars of their own in case they need one to do their job. They aren't that willing to buy you a car.

I don't agree with this view Eki.

Just because you are educated in a particular field it doesn't mean you have to work in that field only.

Eki

8th July 2010, 22:24

I don't agree with this view Eki.

Just because you are educated in a particular field it doesn't mean you have to work in that field only.
What's wrong in people working in the field they can do the best?

Eki

8th July 2010, 22:29

You got it.

As long as I don't violate the rights of anyone else (which means the use of force) I am not responsible for your poor decision making.
By "poor decision making" you mean luck. The world changes, it's not the same as it was ten years ago and nobody can foresee the future ten years ahead. It's like you picked the right lottery numbers and look down upon those who didn't.

Eki

8th July 2010, 22:31

You got it.

As long as I don't violate the rights of anyone else (which means the use of force) I am not responsible for your poor decision making.
Extortion is a form of using force. "You either work for me for peanuts or starve to death" is extortion.

Brown, Jon Brow

8th July 2010, 22:33

What's wrong in people working in the field they can do the best?

Nothing wrong with it but the world isn't that black and white.

So now I'm I have a marketing degree I should quit my job in retail and live off handouts?

If you can't find a job in your field you should try and work where ever you can find.

Eki

8th July 2010, 22:35

The people who want others to start all over again from the bottom and work their way up every time they end up unemployed want to bring back slavery.

The funny thing about these people is that they don't see anything wrong in that some people inherit a fortune from their parents and don't ever have to work up their way from scratch.

Eki

8th July 2010, 22:45

Nothing wrong with it but the world isn't that black and white.

So now I'm I have a marketing degree I should quit my job in retail and live off handouts?

No, you're just starting your career in a business you studied and retail is a part of it. You are working your way up for the first time. A different thing is that if you have been a marketing director for 20 years and end up being unemployed. Should you settle for a job flipping burgers in Burger King or try to find a job that suits your education and work experience? Employers don't like to hire over-qualified people in fear that you'll leave right after you've found a better job that suits your needs and qualifications.

Furthermore, being unemployed doesn't look good in your resume, but neither does flipping burgers if you're looking for a job in engineering.

GridGirl

8th July 2010, 22:54

Enough for what?

When I was unemployed, I got about 60% of what I got when I was working before my unemployment. Yes, it was enough to keep a roof above my head and food in my stomach and pay my car loan, but almost nothing was left for hobbies, travelling and maybe get a new car or a new home. I'd call that staying
alive or surviving, but not living.

Did you get that instantly when you were out of work. As someone who has always has a full time job sinse I graduated from university, paid my taxes, become a house owner and never been on benefits I would find myself with nothing if I found myself out of work. I can claim benefits if I've been out of work for 6 months though. Luckily for me I have some savings and qualifications that I wouldn't be in dire straights but the government wouldn't instantly be helping me out.

Brown, Jon Brow

8th July 2010, 22:55

No, you're just starting your career in a business you studied and retail is a part of it. You are working your way up for the first time. A different thing is that if you have been a marketing director for 20 years and end up being unemployed. Should you settle for a job flipping burgers in Burger King or try to find a job that suits your education and work experience? Employers don't like to hire over-qualified people in fear that you'll leave right after you've found a better job that suits your needs and qualifications.

Furthermore, being unemployed doesn't look good in your resume, but neither does flipping burgers if you're looking for a job in engineering.

We had plently of people who were trained/experienced engineers or plumbers who came to work in our store when the recession kicked in and they lost their career jobs.

Bob Riebe

8th July 2010, 23:21

The funny thing about these people is that they don't see anything wrong in that some people inherit a fortune from their parents and don't ever have to work up their way from scratch.

There is nothing wrong with that, unless one is jealous and vindictive, which your rhetoric says your are.

As usual you can give no proof for your earlier rhetoric, you are trolling.

BDunnell

8th July 2010, 23:21

So? Why should I subsidize your poor choice in employment?

Your entitlement attitude is what is killing our economies. You can't find a job as an Engineer? Tooooooooooo Bad. Burger king is hiring.

Out of interest, what academic qualifications do you possess, and why is gaining an MSc in engineering — which I would consider an admirable thing to do — a poor choice?

BDunnell

8th July 2010, 23:22

There is nothing wrong with that, unless one is jealous and vindictive, which your rhetoric says your are.

As usual you can give no proof for your earlier rhetoric, you are trolling.

Change the record yourself, please.

BDunnell

8th July 2010, 23:23

The same Government that sided with the NAZIS and then when the NAZIS lost sided with Stalin?

Is NAZI an acronym for something? If not, why the capitals?

anthonyvop

8th July 2010, 23:41

Out of interest, what academic qualifications do you possess, and why is gaining an MSc in engineering — which I would consider an admirable thing to do — a poor choice?

It is a poor choice if one selects a career with little employment opportunities.

BDunnell

8th July 2010, 23:42

It is a poor choice if one selects a career with little employment opportunities.

So you think no-one should study engineering? And what about the first part of my question?

anthonyvop

8th July 2010, 23:49

By "poor decision making" you mean luck. The world changes, it's not the same as it was ten years ago and nobody can foresee the future ten years ahead. It's like you picked the right lottery numbers and look down upon those who didn't.

Not luck.

Anyone can look at the stats and see what jobs will increase and decrease in demand.

And why 10 years/ A masters in engineering takes about 2 years. During those 2 years you have ample time to change careers. Then even after you graduate I see no reason why I have to subsidize you just so you can feel good.

I believe the pursuit of happiness is a right. Happiness isn't! If being an engineer makes you happy good for you. Nobody should be forced to subsidize your happiness.

BDunnell

8th July 2010, 23:51

Not luck.

Anyone can look at the stats and see what jobs will increase and decrease in demand.

And why 10 years/ A masters in engineering takes about 2 years. During those 2 years you have ample time to change careers. Then even after you graduate I see no reason why I have to subsidize you just so you can feel good.

I believe the pursuit of happiness is a right. Happiness isn't! If being an engineer makes you happy good for you. Nobody should be forced to subsidize your happiness.

Would you, therefore, only be in favour of public funding of university courses based on 'what jobs will increase and decrease in demand'? This is already the way things are going, and I think it's very sad, because I am perfectly happy to subsidise what amounts to intellectual curiosity. I studied the subjects I studied at university because I was good at them and interested in them. This is all the motivation one should need.

anthonyvop

8th July 2010, 23:52

So you think no-one should study engineering? And what about the first part of my question?

Anybody can study engineering but they should go in knowing that it is very competitive and I shouldn't be forced to subsidize those who don't.

As for the first part. None of your business.

I will say I do not work in any of the fields of my degrees.

BDunnell

8th July 2010, 23:58

Anybody can study engineering but they should go in knowing that it is very competitive and I shouldn't be forced to subsidize those who don't.

As for the first part. None of your business.

I will say I do not work in any of the fields of my degrees.

Why? I am perfectly happy to tell you what I studied, and furthermore I promote your website with every post I make. Let's try and guess. I'm thinking you did your BA in philosophy and ballet dancing, followed by an MA in trade union funding.

GridGirl

9th July 2010, 00:00

I work in the field of my degree but would say that my degree hasn't particularly helped me to get where I am in my career today. That said, the university experience was one of the best things that has happened to me. Maybe I should have done an engineering degree instead.

Bob Riebe

9th July 2010, 00:04

Change the record yourself, please.

He is making asinine vacuous statements, which suit your fancy apparently.

BDunnell

9th July 2010, 00:05

That said, the university experience was one of the best things that has happened to me.

And quite right too. I'm delighted as a taxpayer to have contributed to that — and I mean it. If money is to be saved in the university system, it should be done in part by way of reducing overall numbers of students through more stringent entry criteria. Then, in my old-fashioned opinion, funds should be directed towards the more traditionally academic areas of study.

BDunnell

9th July 2010, 00:05

He is making asinine vacuous statements, which suit your fancy apparently.

Obviously, I feel suitably chastened.

More seriously, they were merely statements which disagree with your views. This does not constitute trolling.

anthonyvop

9th July 2010, 00:08

Would you, therefore, only be in favour of public funding of university courses based on 'what jobs will increase and decrease in demand'? This is already the way things are going, and I think it's very sad, because I am perfectly happy to subsidise what amounts to intellectual curiosity. I studied the subjects I studied at university because I was good at them and interested in them. This is all the motivation one should need.

I am not in favor of any public funding of university courses!!!

I believe you have a right to study whatever you want. That is called freedom!

I am against being forced to subsidize your decision.

anthonyvop

9th July 2010, 00:09

I'm thinking you did your BA in philosophy and ballet dancing, followed by an MA in trade union funding.

Close

BDunnell

9th July 2010, 00:09

I am not in favor of any public funding of university courses!!!

I believe you have a right to study whatever you want. That is called freedom!

I am against being forced to subsidize your decision.

I must say, I do not believe that you went to university at all, despite your claim to have 'degrees'.

anthonyvop

9th July 2010, 00:31

I must say, I do not believe that you went to university at all, despite your claim to have 'degrees'.

Believe it.

Do they have real Universities in Germany?

Rollo

9th July 2010, 01:22

And quite right too. I'm delighted as a taxpayer to have contributed to that — and I mean it.

Universities and education generally improves the quality of the labour force. Certainly for the individual, the likely increase in productivity and therefore the increase in taxation that can be subsequently collected from them, can then be used to fund more students entering the system.
If you don't believe me, Ireland as a result of free education, developed one of the biggest IT industries in the world:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,348682,00.html

Bob Riebe

9th July 2010, 05:23

Obviously, I feel suitably chastened.

More seriously, they were merely statements which disagree with your views. This does not constitute trolling.
If you are chastened, it comes from your mind punishing yourself, as I merely made an observation based on your rhetoric.

He is making baseless accusations, that is trolling.

Eki

9th July 2010, 05:48

Did you get that instantly when you were out of work. As someone who has always has a full time job sinse I graduated from university, paid my taxes, become a house owner and never been on benefits I would find myself with nothing if I found myself out of work. I can claim benefits if I've been out of work for 6 months though. Luckily for me I have some savings and qualifications that I wouldn't be in dire straights but the government wouldn't instantly be helping me out.
Yes, I got it instantly. The unemployment benefit didn't come from the government, it came from the trade union. If I had not been a member of a union and had to live on the government benefit, I would not have been able to pay my car payments. The government benefit is really small.

Eki

9th July 2010, 06:00

Not luck.

Anyone can look at the stats and see what jobs will increase and decrease in demand.

And why 10 years/ A masters in engineering takes about 2 years. During those 2 years you have ample time to change careers. Then even after you graduate I see no reason why I have to subsidize you just so you can feel good.

I believe the pursuit of happiness is a right. Happiness isn't! If being an engineer makes you happy good for you. Nobody should be forced to subsidize your happiness.
For your information, here a masters in engineering takes in average 5 to 6 years. Furthermore, I wasn't talking about the time you study alone, but about the pace the economy, industry and technology changes. For example in the late 1990s, there was a high demand of software and computer engineers. 5 to 10 years later after the internet bubble burst and the ICT industry matured, many of them found themselves unemployed. Many companies have also moved their operations to countries with cheap labor, like China. It's hard to predict things like that 10 years ahead.

Eki

9th July 2010, 06:08

I believe you have a right to study whatever you want. That is called freedom!

Chuck might ask who would pay it. Tooth-fairy?

Mark in Oshawa

9th July 2010, 07:14

If they did reduce taxes, how would they educate and train workers for the companies? At least here, companies don't much train or educate their workers, they expect the government to provide them with readily educated and trained workers.
Eki, If they reduce taxes, they get more back in the growth of the economy. You just cannot grasp this because you see it as a zero sum game. If the economy grows, the Gov't doesn't have to tax everyone as much because more people are benefitting economically from this growth.

AS for why I am not a fan of unemployment, I make not enough to survive on if I wasn't with my spouse. If I was on my own, I would be barely surviving and I get the Maximum amount available. What I pay in rent, some of my utilities and my other bills is gone and food and any transportation to look for work has to come from my wife. That however is fine, I have an incentive to find work now don't I? You would see this of course as unfair....

Mark in Oshawa

9th July 2010, 07:19

The people who want others to start all over again from the bottom and work their way up every time they end up unemployed want to bring back slavery.

Only you would be so silly...

People who think they should walk into the job they want without paying their dues obviously were raised by idiots, or a culture that breeds entitlement. Ask the Greeks how well that entititlement thing works for them...

I am looking to change careers. I know I am going to end up going to an entry level position likely in my chosen next field if I get in at all. Why would you call this slavery and why would you think anyone else should have to fund my training other than maybe my prospective employer if he offered.

Eki, the problem you have is you keep thinking society owes you things that you could go get on your own. Society should protect you from foreign invasion, lawlessness and provide the people who live in it with services that are for the common good, but at a limited level. IN short, you want to live a life of luxury, you better work for it.....

It seems it is a dying thought,...and not just in America either.

F1boat

9th July 2010, 07:24

The people who want others to start all over again from the bottom and work their way up every time they end up unemployed want to bring back slavery.

Uh, rednecks? :D

Rollo

9th July 2010, 07:32

Eki, If they reduce taxes, they get more back in the growth of the economy. You just cannot grasp this because you see it as a zero sum game. If the economy grows, the Gov't doesn't have to tax everyone as much because more people are benefitting economically from this growth.

Um no.
Taxes and Government spending have different effects on the economy.

Changes in Taxation have the effect of twisting the curve for Aggregate Demand (because it is a leakage), whereas Government Spending has the effect of pushing the curve up and down, because Government Spending like Investment Spending is a direct Demand pushing injection.

If you reduce taxes, then the money either gets saved (which is a leakage) or spent on Consumption which is neither a leakage or an injection because in the very basic two sector model of the economy Aggregate Income = Aggregate Consumer Spending.

If you reduce taxes, you don't necessarily get growth in the economy. Obviously if the Government continues to balance it's budgets, then because there is a decrease in the money that it collect, there should follow a corresponding decrease in what it spends; consequently Aggregate Income should fall not increase.
If the Government doesn't balance it's budgets, then obviously decreasing Taxation either reduces the Government Sector's reserves or puts it into a situation of dissaving which is the accumulation of debt.

So no, no and no.

Eki

9th July 2010, 07:32

IN short, you want to live a life of luxury, you better work for it.....

That's exactly what I said. Having a roof over your head, clothes to cover you, medical care that you need and food in your stomach aren't luxury in where I come from. They are necessities. If you want anything extra on top of that, it's luxury and you have to work for it. That's how things here work.

Mark in Oshawa

9th July 2010, 07:50

Um no.
Taxes and Government spending have different effects on the economy.

Changes in Taxation have the effect of twisting the curve for Aggregate Demand (because it is a leakage), whereas Government Spending has the effect of pushing the curve up and down, because Government Spending like Investment Spending is a direct Demand pushing injection.

If you reduce taxes, then the money either gets saved (which is a leakage) or spent on Consumption which is neither a leakage or an injection because in the very basic two sector model of the economy Aggregate Income = Aggregate Consumer Spending.

If you reduce taxes, you don't necessarily get growth in the economy. Obviously if the Government continues to balance it's budgets, then because there is a decrease in the money that it collect, there should follow a corresponding decrease in what it spends; consequently Aggregate Income should fall not increase.
If the Government doesn't balance it's budgets, then obviously decreasing Taxation either reduces the Government Sector's reserves or puts it into a situation of dissaving which is the accumulation of debt.

So no, no and no.

So when Reagan reduced the income tax rates in the US, the revenues in actual dollars shrank? Funny, that isn't what I remember. I also know the provincial government in 1995 in this part of the world was working with a budget of over 55 billion dollars. The Conservatives that took over chopped it down to 45 or so Billion per year, eliminated the 10 billion dollar yearly deficit and found their revenues went up. So sorry, Rollo, as much you often have good points, I am telling you that when you free up the economy by loosening the grip on people's wallets, they spend it and drive economic activity which is taxed. The government can get its money one way, or it can get it the other way, but which in the end is a more equitable way to treat the taxpayer?

Mark in Oshawa

9th July 2010, 07:53

That's exactly what I said. Having a roof over your head, clothes to cover you, medical care that you need and food in your stomach aren't luxury in where I come from. They are necessities. If you want anything extra on top of that, it's luxury and you have to work for it. That's how things here work.

I wouldn't have that Eki if I was single. THAT is my point. I wouldn't have food in my tummy based on what I get....

That said, your points are very capitalist of you. Rare that you defend working for a living in such a way...lol..

Rollo

9th July 2010, 08:17

So when Reagan reduced the income tax rates in the US, the revenues in actual dollars shrank? Funny, that isn't what I remember.

Apparently you also don't remember that US Government Debt increased from 33.4% of GDP in 1980 to 51.9% of GDP in 1988, which by the way is exactly as I've said:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2006/pdf/hist.pdf
As a result, deficits averaging $206 billion were incurred between 1983
and 1992. These unprecedented peacetime deficits increased debt held by the public from $789 billion in 1981 to $3.0 trillion (48.1% of GDP) in 1992.
p.5

If the Government doesn't balance it's budgets, then obviously decreasing Taxation either reduces the Government Sector's reserves or puts it into a situation of dissaving which is the accumulation of debt.

chuck34

9th July 2010, 14:27

Universities and education generally improves the quality of the labour force. Certainly for the individual, the likely increase in productivity and therefore the increase in taxation that can be subsequently collected from them, can then be used to fund more students entering the system.
If you don't believe me, Ireland as a result of free education, developed one of the biggest IT industries in the world:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,348682,00.html

And Ireland is doing great right now.

piIgs

chuck34

9th July 2010, 14:34

Chuck might ask who would pay it. Tooth-fairy?

You really don't have a clue. It's not even a question any more, just a plain fact. You have NO pride in yourself, any sort of work ethic, nor sense of personal responsibility.

Here's a clue: if you want an education work for it, or get loans, or find a rich uncle, or whatever. If you do something on your own you just might find that you have a bit more pride in your accomplishments. But you'll never know that because you are too scared to go out there and take a risk without Daddy Finland holding your hand every step of the way. Sad really.

anthonyvop

9th July 2010, 15:45

Chuck might ask who would pay it. Tooth-fairy?
Are you being serious when you ask that question?

anthonyvop

9th July 2010, 15:47

Eki

9th July 2010, 16:41

You really don't have a clue. It's not even a question any more, just a plain fact. You have NO pride in yourself, any sort of work ethic, nor sense of personal responsibility.

Here's a clue: if you want an education work for it, or get loans, or find a rich uncle, or whatever. If you do something on your own you just might find that you have a bit more pride in your accomplishments. But you'll never know that because you are too scared to go out there and take a risk without Daddy Finland holding your hand every step of the way. Sad really.
I am working for my education. I'm only paying it after I graduated? Get it? I pay taxes so that someone else can now get their education in turn. Instead calling it "paying taxes", you could call it "paying back a loan".

Mark in Oshawa

9th July 2010, 18:16

Apparently you also don't remember that US Government Debt increased from 33.4% of GDP in 1980 to 51.9% of GDP in 1988, which by the way is exactly as I've said:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2006/pdf/hist.pdf
As a result, deficits averaging $206 billion were incurred between 1983
and 1992. These unprecedented peacetime deficits increased debt held by the public from $789 billion in 1981 to $3.0 trillion (48.1% of GDP) in 1992.
p.5

Rollo, who was controlling Congress? Not Reagan, his opposition. They were helping him spend it as fast as they got it. The fact is the actual revenue, in that the money coming in was GREATER after they lowered the tax rate. The fact they were spending it like water was the other side of the equation but it doesn't change the fact that when the tax rate's were lowered to give people more money to play with, the spinoff was the government still made more money.

There are two sides to the coin. Getting the money, and spending the money. Getting the money is levying taxes and fees. Spending it is deciding what do with it once you have it. If you lower taxes and still gain in revenue, you have that side of the equation giving you at least more options on the spending side. What politicians fail to grasp is if you are getting more revenue, it isn't a license to over spend and buy votes with, yet they all do it.

Rollo, I don't disagree that fiscal policy is complicated and to an extent, you have to have taxes, but when you are punitive in your tax policy, you drive money out of your economy. The rich are not wedded to keeping their investments or their money in country and raising the rates discourages them keeping their money in your nation's economy. The Beatles were living proof of how even the most libreal of citizens saw no use in staying in the UK when more of the money was going to the Crown. Every time a country raises taxes, they risk driving the money into safe haven's or off shore investments.

Revenue for a government is its life blood, and too many people see it as a zero sum game. Laffer's theory works....moderate tax policy will grow revenues....

chuck34

10th July 2010, 22:21

Rollo, who was controlling Congress? Not Reagan, his opposition. They were helping him spend it as fast as they got it. The fact is the actual revenue, in that the money coming in was GREATER after they lowered the tax rate. The fact they were spending it like water was the other side of the equation but it doesn't change the fact that when the tax rate's were lowered to give people more money to play with, the spinoff was the government still made more money.

There are two sides to the coin. Getting the money, and spending the money. Getting the money is levying taxes and fees. Spending it is deciding what do with it once you have it. If you lower taxes and still gain in revenue, you have that side of the equation giving you at least more options on the spending side. What politicians fail to grasp is if you are getting more revenue, it isn't a license to over spend and buy votes with, yet they all do it.

Rollo, I don't disagree that fiscal policy is complicated and to an extent, you have to have taxes, but when you are punitive in your tax policy, you drive money out of your economy. The rich are not wedded to keeping their investments or their money in country and raising the rates discourages them keeping their money in your nation's economy. The Beatles were living proof of how even the most libreal of citizens saw no use in staying in the UK when more of the money was going to the Crown. Every time a country raises taxes, they risk driving the money into safe haven's or off shore investments.

Revenue for a government is its life blood, and too many people see it as a zero sum game. Laffer's theory works....moderate tax policy will grow revenues....

Same for Bush II. He cut taxes, revenues went up, unfortunatly Congress spent more than they took in. And yes, it was a Republican Congress, no one's perfect.