PA budget

[Spexxvet]

The argument that raising taxes causes investment to leave the country doesn't appear to hold true.

Originally Posted by Undertoad

There won't be any revenues to tax, as all investment will immediately go overseas.

I don't see any correlation between GDP and highest bracket tax rate.

Originally Posted by Undertoad

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

Have you worked hard? Have you made the best decisions you could to put yourself in a position to attain wealth? My guess is that you put out as much effort as most "rich" people. Yet in the current climate, you will feel much more pain than the "rich" guy. You should not be left living paycheck to paycheck at a just-above-sustenance level when a guy who only works as hard as you and has reaped the benefits of our government gets to drive a Ferrari and summer on the Riviera.

Hard work, while important, isn't the main factor of financial success and it shouldn't be. It all comes down to playing the system. You will find people in all income categories that work tremendously hard but what separates them is what they are doing.

If you want to be financially successful you need to figure out how the world works and then be able to properly exploit it for your benefit. That will beat out hard work every time. It's not fair but it's how the world works.

[Undertoad]

The argument that raising taxes causes investment to leave the country doesn't appear to hold true.
(graph)
I don't see any correlation between GDP and highest bracket tax rate.

This may be but A) you didn't post anything related to foreign investment and B) the nature of foreign investment is extremely different today than 30 years ago. Forbes tells us that most new Billionaires come from Brazil India China and Russia these days. The world has caught up and given investors something to invest in.

I tire. Believe what you want, as you will anyway.

[Undertoad]

If you want to be financially successful you either need to figure out how the world works and then be able to properly exploit it for your benefit, or figure out what the world wants and needs and deliver it for your benefit.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

This may be but A) you didn't post anything related to foreign investment and B) the nature of foreign investment is extremely different today than 30 years ago. Forbes tells us that most new Billionaires come from Brazil India China and Russia these days. The world has caught up and given investors something to invest in.

You've done nothing to prove that raising taxes on the rich will cause investment to immediately go overseas

Originally Posted by Undertoad

I tire. Believe what you want, as you will anyway.

As also you will.

[Flint]

Going back to the original topic... if the belief is that regular middle-class folks should not have to take a hit in this bad economy, and the reality is that they already HAVE, why should there be a "protected" class of regular middle-class folks who get special treatment? Seeing as they work directly for our government overlords, they get to experience an "imaginary" economy where everybody still has a job?

The Republican governor called for public school administrators, teachers and support staff to “hold the line” and share in the economic sacrifice by agreeing to a one-year pay freeze, which he said could save school districts $400 million.

I HAVEN'T GOTTEN A RAISE IN THREE FUCKING YEARS, YET THESE FOLKS HAVE THE AUDACITY TO COMPLAIN??? Give me a break.

[Fair&Balanced]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

F&B. Your sources are always cherry-picking.....

I was simply pointing out that both Bush I and Clinton raised taxes on the top wage earners. Only to lowered by Bush II with, btw, no positive impact on economic growth and a significant contribution to the debt that will only increase more if those top rates are made permanent.

IMO, arguments that raising taxes on the wealthy stimulate economic growth and are a deterrence to working harder are baseless.

Debt reduction will require both spending cuts and increased revenue (taxes) and the burden should be spread across the board, with the wealthiest bearing the brunt of tax increases of a few percentage points on their last dollars earned (not on the entire income).

Originally Posted by Flint

Going back to the original topic... if the belief is that regular middle-class folks should not have to take a hit in this bad economy, and the reality is that they already HAVE, why should there be a "protected" class of regular middle-class folks who get special treatment? Seeing as they work directly for our government overlords, they get to experience an "imaginary" economy where everybody still has a job?

I HAVEN'T GOTTEN A RAISE IN THREE FUCKING YEARS, YET THESE FOLKS HAVE THE AUDACITY TO COMPLAIN??? Give me a break.

If you look at data, public employee pensions put more back into the local economy than they take out...something like $1.75 for every $1.00.

At the same time, income inequality in the US has soared to the highest levels in history.

Between 1979 and 2005, the mean after-tax income for the top 1% increased by 176%, compared to...21% for the middle quintile, 17% for the second quintile and 6% for the bottom quintile
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_..._United_States

[Flint]

Originally Posted by Fair&Balanced

If you look at data, public employee pensions put more back into the local economy than they take out...something like $1.75 for every $1.00.

I'm not even sure what that means, but I am positive it has nothing to do with what I was talking about. I assume it was supposed to, since you quoted me. Is this "a thing" with the political forum, where we just make a series of unrelated statements?

I've been trying hard to address the topics raised in the original post, and it's fine of course if you don't want to talk about that, but don't quote me and then launch into a complete non sequitur. That's a waste of everybody's time.

[Fair&Balanced]

IMO, the attack against public sector unions, at least as it is suggested by Republican state governors and legislators that it is for economic reasons and to balance a state budget is bogus. It is to break the unions.

Here is an example from WI on the impact of the public employees pension in that state:

Benefits paid by state and local pension plans support a significant amount of economic activity in the state of Wisconsin.

Pension benefits received by retirees are spent in the local community. This spending ripples through the economy, as one person’s spending becomes another person’s income, creating a multiplier effect.

Expenditures stemming from state and local pensions supported…
• 33,324 jobs that paid $1.7 billion in wages and salaries
• $4.5 billion in total economic output
•vv$732.6 million in federal, state, and local tax revenues
… in the state of Wisconsin.

Each dollar paid out in pension benefits supported $1.33 in total economic activity in Wisconsin.

Each dollar “invested” by Wisconsin taxpayers in these plans supported $7.47 in total economic activity in the state.

http://www.nirsonline.org/storage/ni...ctsheet_WI.pdf

I think it is relevant to the discussion. Certainly more so than comments that small tax increases on top wage earners are a deterrent to working harder or some such argument.

[Fair&Balanced]

As to the topic raised in the original post, PA has only tax rate (correct me if I am wrong).

The budget shortfall can be covered by simply raising the rate on wage earners over $500,000 by 1 percent rather than on the backs of teachers.

IMO, the arguments against such a tax are ideological, not economic.

When you cut (or freeze) salaries of the middle class or cut the workforce, you increase the likelihood that many will temporarily turn to other government programs to meet basic needs, so where is the savings?

When you raise the taxes on the top wage earners by a 1 percent, where is the pain and/or sacrifice?

[SamIam]

Originally Posted by Flint

Why is this a statement with no explanation? Why "should" a person who has worked hard and made smart decisions in order to provide for their family be punished for their hard work and sacrifices? If you set up the system: "the harder you work, the less you can keep" what would happen?

Originally Posted by Flint

Why is this a statement with no explanation? Why "should" a person who has worked hard and made smart decisions in order to provide for their family be punished for their hard work and sacrifices? If you set up the system: "the harder you work, the less you can keep" what would happen?

The following stats come from a frankly liberal web site edited by Steve Kangas.

However, Kangas cites a wide variety of sources for his research - from the extreme right wing (Christopher Jencks, a controversial researcher in the ‘70’s), to middle of the road, slightly right leaning Business Week to the liberal Claude Fischer’s book, Inequality by Design..

One major factor in determining who becomes successful is inheritance. In 1989, one third of all Americans who earned more than $1 million began with an inherited fortune. (3) But even more widespread is the practice of "living inheritances" -- the advantages passed on from parents to their children while still alive. Examples include wealthy families sending their kids off to college, providing venture capital for their start-up businesses, and otherwise granting them every advantage in a competitive world.

The social aspect of wealth accumulation can be seen in the following statistic: between 1975 and 1992, the amount of national household wealth owned by the richest 1 percent rose from 22 to 42 percent. Does this mean the richest 1 percent suddenly became twice as smart or productive? Does this mean that someone in the top 1 percent is 71 times smarter or more personally productive than anyone in the bottom 99 percent? Of course not. Social factors must be responsible for such tremendous differences, even if these are simply the dynamics of the market. What this means is that conservative talk of "merit" is misguided, and not a little ironic.

The following table is from Business Week – not exactly a hotbed of left wing thought.

CEO pay and other trends (original figures have been converted into constant 96 dollars)

1990 1995 Percent Change

Average CEO Pay 2.34 million 3.86 million +65%

Average Worker Pay $27,615 $27,418 -0.6%

Coorporate Profits 212 billion 317 billion +50%

Worker Layoffs 316,047 439,882 +39%



Note that company profits went up by 50% but the compensation of CEO’s rose a full 15% higher than that – to 65%. I think EVERY worker’s pay should be tied to the company’s profits. Even if only CEO’s reap the benefit of increased profits via increased pay, why they should they have gotten and additional 15% increase. Flint can sing the blues for these CEO’s all he wants, but, personally, I won’t be sending them CARE packages any time soon.

Also from Business Week:

Greater inequality has become a clear disincentive to workers, who are working harder, producing more, yet seeing stagnating wages and greater prospects of being laid off. The following sentiment, from a United Technologies middle manager who has seen his company downsize by some 30,000 employees in the past six years, is typical: "I used to go to work enthusiastically. Now, I just go in to do what I have to do. I feel overloaded to the point of burnout. Most of my colleagues are actively looking for other jobs or are just resigned to do the minimum."

I don’t care how much “merit” the guy at the top has. If the managers who work for him are incompetent or lacking in some way, the corporation is not going to do nearly as well. Middle managers work their tails off – the good ones do, anyhow. And their reward is income stagnation or worse yet, they get laid off.

Flint may call it “merit.” I call it greed.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-richmerit.htm

[Flint]

Always referring to "rich" people in a dehumanizing manner doesn't lend any further ethical weight to the concept of taking from them the sweat of their own brow. Compile your list of "they are evil and don't deserve their money because" A, B, and C reasons, but at the end of the day the fact remains that money is hard to earn. Money represents hard work. On a purely ethical basis, it isn't right to take from a man the fruit of his own labor. What you're doing is concocting an elaborate, narrative construct to convolutedly justify something which is plainly wrong.

[SamIam]

Originally Posted by Flint

Why is this a statement with no explanation? Why "should" a person who has worked hard and made smart decisions in order to provide for their family be punished for their hard work and sacrifices? If you set up the system: "the harder you work, the less you can keep" what would happen?

Money is hard to earn for you and me - well, me anyhow. It's a lot easier to earn if you start from a base of a $million plus the way at least 1/3 of all CEO's have started. And how is getting a 65% raise "punishment," especially when your company shows "only" a 50% increase in profits?

If you set up the system: "'the harder you work, the less you can keep' what would happen?" If you'd read my post, you'd see I answered that. Middle managers, demoralized by stagnant earnings and increasing layoffs, no longer give the job their best effort. This is both bad for them and bad for the company. Or are you so wealthy, you don't give a damn about the middle class?

[Flint]

I am talking about an individual man earning money to support his family. The better he can do, the more he is able to earn, the more he should be able to keep. If he manages to put himself in an advantageous position, then he has earned the right to be there.

It's a lot easier to earn if you start from a base of a $million plus the way at least 1/3 of all CEO's have started.

That's not even what your own source says. Read more carefully:

In 1989, one third of all Americans who earned more than $1 million began with an inherited fortune.

"An inherited fortune" --what does that mean? Your parents left you $5,000 and a Chrysler LeBaron?

At any rate, why is it okay to take a man's money from his CHILDREN? (the greedy bastards who inherited it from him)

[Flint]

If you'd read my post, you'd see I answered that.

You're quoting something I posted two days before the post that you're berating me for not reading.