j_b

"Conservatives are also wrong about the effects of tax cuts on investment and savings. The boost to investment predicted by conservatives after the tax cuts during the Reagan administration never took place. Between 1979 and 1989, the average rate of investment was 2.5%. From 1989 to 2000, it rose significantly to an average of 5.9%. But this was after George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton both raised federal taxes. There is also little evidence that the Reagan tax cuts boosted savings either. Savings rates fell from 8.8% of personal disposable income in 1981 to 6.0 percent in 1986.11 Moreover, two economists who did a comprehensive survey in 1996 of the economic literature on the effects of tax cuts on savings concluded: “Virtually no empirical study suggests a large saving response by households to changes in after-tax return.”12 Strike two for tax cutters. But what about the over-all beneficial effects of tax cuts on economic growth? Again, history is a good guide. From 1981 to 1985, after the tax cuts of the Reagan administration, the economy did grow at a good rate – averaging 2.6% a year. But between 1976 and 1980, when the tax rates were higher, it grew even faster – averaging 3.2%. Similarly, after taxes were raised by Bush and Clinton, economic growth actually picked up and averaged 3.2% between 1989 and 2000.13 So there is clearly not a strong relationship between tax rates and growth in this country. Strike three – they’re out. Comparing the U.S. to other countries brings little solace to tax cutters either. They like to think that our growing economy outpaces those of other advanced democracies in large part because of our lower tax burden. But the research doesn’t bear any of this out. Consider the results of a study that compared tax levels and economic growth rates between 1970 and 2000 for a large number of countries.14 It did find that Denmark and Sweden, which had much higher taxes than the U.S., also did worse in terms of average growth – about 1.6% versus about 2.3% for the U.S. But how do anti-tax advocates explain Finland and Norway, which had taxes almost 50% greater than we did, but actually enjoyed higher rates of growth? In fact, the overall results of the study indicated very little correlation between taxes and economic growth – with the U.S., Italy, Canada, the United Kingdom, Germany, Belgium, France and the Netherlands having relatively similar rates of growth, but widely varying tax levels – from 27% to 42% of GDP. International comparisons, then, contradict rather than support the conservative contentions that we need to cut taxes to ensure economic growth or that high taxes hurt the economy. Clearly a country can have high taxes and strong economic growth as well. Strike four. One economic analyst, Anna Bernasek of The New York Times, examined a wide variety of academic studies on the relationships between tax rates on productivity, savings, and growth. She concluded that the “notion that taxes are bad for the economy is just that: a notion not backed by strong evidence. And the costs of ignoring experience in favor of hope can be high: mounting deficits, decaying infrastructure, inadequate investment in public education and research. So the next time some proponent of tax reform promises king-size economic benefits, there is reason to be skeptical."15" shattering the myths about lowering taxes

"Goldschläger is a strong, clear cinnamon schnapps liqueur with 24k gold leaf flakes." ewwww!

really? serious departure from hard-man etiquette. Wankers.

It's not just tight pants, they are wearing jeans, in the perfect Cascade hard-men tradition ..

Utah powder is for weenies. real men ski cascade crud and rain crust.

sorry about that, although I am not very fond of "darwin awards" (i find it mean) so it probably wasn't entirely innocent.

Never had caviar soaked in champagne. I prefer mine with wodka anyway.

That's nice. Am I supposed to make both your argument and the response to it?

Indeed, that's the "taxes are good" part. Then there is the bit about cutting the progressive income tax, followed by an increase in regressive tax to offset the resulting budget shortfall. End result: Joe Average who paid little taxes due to his small income and benefited from services, infrastructure, safety net, etc .. now pays more taxes and has to pay for services the collectivity cannot afford anymore due to lack of revenue.

The populist anti-tax demagoguery of the last 30+ years has led to a precipitous decrease in taxation of the wealthy and corporations (especially when taking into account the extensive use of tax heavens) while effective taxation increased for everybody else (due to increases in regressive taxes such as sales tax, user fees, etc ..). Overall loss of tax revenues has led to slashing essential services needed by average Americans and their children, and led to the general bankruptcy of the state as planned by right wing anti-government zealots. Reaganites made no mystery about bankrupting the state to justify the elimination of "entitlement" programs that economic elites didn't want to contribute to. In other words, the very same people who benefit most from the developmental and social safety net have campaigned against taxes because they have been told by conservatives that taxes were a bad thing and that government wasted their money (of course, no mention of the role of war expenditures in this calculus). It is the perfect example of the people working against their own interests, which you'll agree is worthy of a Darwin award. Very good read on this topic: Taxes are good.

No way. There are a few people clearly much more worthy of the Darwin award:

Meanwhile, the so-called "deficit hawks" work on yet another tax give-away for the wealthy: Lincoln-Kyl Estate Tax Giveaway Now Has Matching House Counterpart Sens. Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) and Jon Kyl (R-AZ) are leading a fight in the Senate to implement a cut in the estate tax that would lower the rate from 45 percent to 35 percent and bump the exemption (the amount to which the tax does not apply) from $3.5 million to $5 million ($10 million for a couple). Thanks to a Bush-era accounting gimmick, the estate tax is set to disappear in 2010, and come back with a much lower exemption and higher rate in 2011, thus necessitating Congressional action. As we’ve noted here before, the Lincoln-Kyl plan constitutes a $250 billion giveaway to the rich. And not to be outdone in terms of bad bi-partisan proposals, the House now has it’s own version of the Lincoln-Kyl “compromise,” introduced by four members: The stakes were raised today in the House, when Reps. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., Artur Davis, D-Ala., Kevin Brady, R-Texas, and Devin Nunes, R-Calif., introduced legislation to set the rate at 35 percent going forward, with the exemption bumped up to $5 million from the current $3.5 million and indexed for inflation…Brady said it would exempt 99.8 percent of all estates from the “death tax,” calling it the “best option available today to preserve small businesses and family farms in America.” As National Journal noted, the House measure “would be much more expensive than extending the 2009 rate.” For the record, under current law, 99.7 percent of households will be completely exempt from the tax. So by Brady’s own calculation, $250 billion will buy an exemption for .1 percent of households. And as for looking to “preserve small businesses and family farms,” current law would only affect about 100 of them, and “all but a handful would have sufficient liquid assets on hand (such as bank accounts, stocks, and bonds) to pay the tax without having to touch the farm or business.” The House plan would drop that number to 40." http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/10/24/estate-tax-hous/ "

Huh? Reading JayB carefully won't convince me that letting the plutocracy loot Social Security and privatize medicare after they destroyed the economy and got bailed out is a good thing for Americans. Anyway, many people were discussing the real estate bubble by the time JayB called it so I don't see what you're talking about. After years of shilling for corporocrats, "free market" charlatans and warmongers, JayB's batting average is in the shitter and it will remain there.

Proposing the privatization of medicare and the cutting back of SS benefits, without even discussing taxing the plutocrats responsible for ruining the economy speaks about your respective nonexistent commitments to socio-economic justice. It's going to be fun watching you pretend that you represent the angry people between now and November. No absolutely not. It can't be a coincidence that you are always wrong in describing what I stand for. Are you trying to slander me again?

You guys are lousy populists if you think cutting SS benefits is going to get you elected. Just make sure you own up to it between now and November.

Social Security is solvent for at least another 30 years and doesn't need to be cut. People who pay SS taxes shouldn't pay for gambling by the plutocracy that is richer than ever. As for healthcare, single payer is by far the most "efficient" system out there just by virtue of "cutting out the middlemen" so I am not so sure what's the hang up. What about the 5 millions unemployed who'll stop getting unemployment benefits between now and June? I guess you don't care since your rhetoric amounts to "burn, baby, burn"

Bush dead enders certainly don't want to talk about Americans having to pay for the plutocracy gambling on Wall Street, even though they have claimed to be anti-tax on the middle class all along (end result is of course the exact opposite of their claims: +25% increase in effective taxation [fees, sales taxes and whatnot] on median incomes since Reagan).

Dean Baker Co-director, Center for Economic and Policy Research : Next week dozens of honchos around Washington are going to be gathering to try to devise ways to ensure that ordinary working people pay for their incompetent management of the economy. This effort will pass under the guise of "fiscal responsibility." The basic story of course is quite simple. Geniuses like Ben Bernanke, Alan Greenspan and the rest of the country's top economists and policymakers somehow either could not see an $8 trillion housing bubble or just thought it was cute. When it collapsed and brought down the economy, as every competent economist knew it would, it also created a serious budget problem. Now, these elites are convening special sessions devoted to fiscal responsibility in which they will devise schemes to take away the Social Security benefits that workers have already paid for and to cut Medicare. Invariably they will praise themselves for having the courage to take part in these Wall Street funded sessions to plot ways to take money from ordinary workers. And, they wonder why people hate Washington. http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/beat_the_press

As long as it happens every day in nature, it's "safe" for work.

That's one of the differences we have, I don't wish to see you go

I sincerely doubt any of your actions threatened the existence of this site. You are a little bit of a drama queen like many who post here and in climbing (I don't think I have met as many 'characters' as in climbing), but you have lots to offer to cc.com readers.

For you Ivan since you brought up the issue of obesity in times of unusual hardship a while ago: "hunger, food insecurity, and food hardship are gradations of the same phenomenon in which individuals who cannot afford sufficient nutritious food, fill up on energy-dense but nutrient-poor food, and often suffer from cycles of plenty/want/plenty based on the timing of their income streams. Researchers confirm that these patterns often lead to higher incidences of overweight and obesity. It is becoming clear that the apparently contradictory phenomena of hunger and obesity are flip sides of the same coin; a food system in which filling but fattening foods are inexpensive, and nutritious foods are beyond the reach of many." Hunger and Obesity: 2 sides of the same coin

I hope the parsnip wasn't too edgy. I agree the nectarine was way too explicit.

why should you block them? Even I would click on them if it means cc.com gets a fee