PA budget

[Undertoad]

Percentage of GNP IS adjusted for inflation by definition, and is a more accurate depiction than actual dollars.

[glatt]

The country has doubled in population in that time frame, so even if you do adjust for inflation, you also need to adjust for there being twice as many people paying in to the tax system. You need to express it as a percentage of GDP otherwise you'll see the line going up as the country (and government) have grown. UT is right, Spex.

[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

[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.

[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.

[Spexxvet]

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.

Here's a protected class for ya, champ.

At a time most employees can barely remember their last substantial raise, median CEO pay jumped 27% in 2010 as the executives’ compensation started working its way back to prerecession levels, a USA TODAY analysis of data from GovernanceMetrics International found. Workers in private industry, meanwhile, saw their compensation grow just 2.1% in the 12 months ended December 2010, says the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Here's another

General Electric Co (GE.N) went on the defensive on Thursday over a report it paid no income taxes in 2010, unapologetically saying it seeks to reduce what it owes, but expects to pay more this year.

...
The New York Times reported last week that GE owed nothing in federal income taxes in 2010 despite earning $14 billion, about a third from its U.S. operations.

But let's continue to screw the hard working middle class, like the folks who teach your children (the country's next generation) and the people who serve the needs of the community every day.

[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?

[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.

[SamIam]

context

[Flint]

You're not a very careful reader. That's twice in this thread you've reached conclusions that are not supported by the text that you've quoted. Feel free to address these oversights, if you wish.

Oh, and please stop intentionally quoting my posts out of chronological sequence in order manufacture a fictitous exchange.

[Fair&Balanced]

What we have here is a clash of ideologies that is symptomatic of the larger problem facing the nation.

If policymakers at the state/federal level remain rigid in their ideologies (at both ends of the spectrum) and unwilling to compromise, the problems will only fester and grow.

And, IMO, balancing budgets on the backs of the middle class and working poor with no shared sacrifice among the wealthy is not a compromise....or even good public policy as I pointed our earlier, it only transfers costs to other government programs.

[Flint]

That is a good point, that cutting jobs might increase the burden on support programs, simply shifting the expense. But I have to say that Undertoad's point, that government jobs should scale back just like everybody else, also has a ring of undeniable logic to it.