Reagan-Lovers: Stop the Bull

[pjorourke]

Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

Typical misdirection. Elementary school teachers use this tactic to control 7 year olds. PJ, you aren't that smooth.

You aren't as bright as most 7 year olds.

[John Bull]

Originally Posted by Doove

So you agree that the Bush tax cuts were his addition to the debt.

Absolutely! I've never been accused of being a person who supports any pol who adds to the debt w/o being forced into it.

[DFW5Traveler]

Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

Nice recitation. Nowhere in it do you deny the figures in the article. Probably because the figures cannot be denied...they are historical facts.

The fact is that the US corporate tax rates among the several states deter expansion within our borders. Cutting tax rates promotes expansion which generates revenue.

When compared to other OECD countries:

• 24 U.S. states have a combined corporate tax rate higher than top-ranked Japan.
• 32 states have a combined corporate tax rate higher than third-ranked Germany.
• 46 states have a combined corporate tax rate higher than fourth-ranked Canada.
• All 50 states have a combined corporate tax rate higher than fifth-ranked France.

Thus, if lawmakers are serious about making the U.S. corporate tax system more competitive internationally, corporate tax rates will have to be reduced both in Washington and in state capitals. State officials should be champions of substantial cuts in the federal corporate tax rate because there is only so much they can do to improve their own competitiveness. After all, even corporations that operate in the three states that do not impose a major state-level corporate tax—Nevada, South Dakota, and Wyoming—still shoulder a higher corporate tax rate than fifth-ranked France and 24 other OECD countries because of the 35 percent federal corporate rate.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/publica...how/22917.html

Fact: The DFW area one of the highest in areas housing more business headquarters than any other metropolitan area. Why? TX has one of the lowest tax bases resulting in a highly competitive business environment. The US could learn something from the capitalists in this state. Is it any wonder that states like NY, NJ and CA have droves of people leaving because they are being taxed into poverty by their local, state and federal governments?

Why are people moving to states that have no state income taxes? Can't you see that the states that have been blue are now in the worst shape financially? Are you that blind that you can't see that the legislation passed may be the one thing that is causing those states to fail?

The next time you drive down a TX street/hwy start taking notice of all of the different states tags. They are moving here because they voted in a way that destroyed their states economies. It's common freeking sense.

[charlestudor2005]

Originally Posted by DFW5Traveler

http://www.taxfoundation.org/publica...how/22917.html

Fact: The DFW area one of the highest in areas housing more business headquarters than any other metropolitan area. Why? TX has one of the lowest tax bases resulting in a highly competitive business environment. The US could learn something from the capitalists in this state. Is it any wonder that states like NY, NJ and CA have droves of people leaving because they are being taxed into poverty by their local, state and federal governments?

Why are people moving to states that have no state income taxes? Can't you see that the states that have been blue are now in the worst shape financially? Are you that blind that you can't see that the legislation passed may be the one thing that is causing those states to fail?

The next time you drive down a TX street/hwy start taking notice of all of the different states tags. They are moving here because they voted in a way that destroyed their states economies. It's common freeking sense.

I'm not sure you can take TX and expand it to the whole Reagan administration (just to keep this on thread topic since you focused on TX today as opposed to the fictitious Reagan tax cuts).

To respond to your TX argument: Yes, there is no income tax in TX. So, TX has to make up the difference in other ways. You just can't cut out a whole spectrum of state income w/o making it up elsewhere and still keep similar service by the state. One of the ways TX makes up the income is by over-taxing property owners. Property owners in TX bear the whole brunt of public school funding, plus some utility districts. As a TX property owner, it somehow seems unfair for this to be the system. Most people with a lot of kids cannot afford home ownership, so they rent. They don't support the school funding system in TX. The argument of course, is: that the landlord has to pay the property taxes and the landlord passes it through to the tenant in the rent. Somehow, I doubt that. What about Section 8 housing?

BTW, I don't really think you can blame the flight solely on taxes, like you state. I think more likely it is due to the lack of jobs and the jobless rate (especially in the North). And, when it comes to the economics of CA, I've always felt that CA was sui generis. I think there are multiple BIG reasons why CA is where it is. And I think taxes is a minor reason.

[nevergaveitathought]

Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

I'm not sure you can take TX and expand it to the whole Reagan administration

To respond to your TX argument: Yes, there is no income tax in TX. So, TX has to make up the difference in other ways. You just can't cut out a whole spectrum of state income w/o making it up elsewhere and still keep similar service by the state. One of the ways TX makes up the income is by over-taxing property owners.

BTW, I don't really think you can blame the flight solely on taxes, And I think taxes is a minor reason.

there were so many non sequiters and so much non-directed thinking in your post its hard to even take the gook and make gobbledy out of it

taxes, regulation, unions, spending they are all the reasons...

you said something like up north its due to unemployment..well hell yeah..work ethic and taxes and regulation and unions (work ethic)

[DFW5Traveler]

Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

...Property owners in TX bear the whole brunt of public school funding, plus some utility districts...

That is a flat out lie... http://www.txlottery.org/export/sites/default/Supporting_Education/

When your property taxes go up in local municipalities, take a good look at who is in control of the local governments. Next, if you do not take advantage of your right to mediate with the local board, your taxes are likely to go up. I've known several people dispute the tax increases and win because their property values did not increase and in some cases got their taxes reduced. Real Estate Appraisal 101, look it up.

[DFW5Traveler]

Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

...BTW, I don't really think you can blame the flight solely on taxes, like you state. I think more likely it is due to the lack of jobs and the jobless rate (especially in the North). And, when it comes to the economics of CA, I've always felt that CA was sui generis. I think there are multiple BIG reasons why CA is where it is. And I think taxes is a minor reason.

LOL, jobless rates are tied to the amount of businesses in an area. If a business isn't profitable it cannot remain competitive in a job market. Unions are driving up wages which drives down profits, which in turn forces businesses to MOVE to competitive locations including those off-shore. Think about it, real hard; no businesses, no jobs. Again, common freeking sense.

Do you honestly think someone working on a union assembly line putting Screw-A in Slot-A 100 times a day deserves more money than a teacher, a nurse, a firefighter or a police officer who actually have to be educated or motivated to serve and protect.

[Sisyphus]

Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

Property owners in TX bear the whole brunt of public school funding, plus some utility districts.

Originally Posted by DFW5Traveler

That is a flat out lie... http://www.txlottery.org/export/sites/default/Supporting_Education/

When your property taxes go up in local municipalities, take a good look at who is in control of the local governments. Next, if you do not take advantage of your right to mediate with the local board, your taxes are likely to go up. I've known several people dispute the tax increases and win because their property values did not increase and in some cases got their taxes reduced. Real Estate Appraisal 101, look it up.

If "whole brunt" = 100%, the claim is absolutely false. If "whole brunt" = majority, it's damn close....

See also http://www.investintexasschools.org/...ng/current.php

I won't quote the whole thing here but I will steal from the 1st paragraph:

"Texas School Funding: The Current System

Funding for Texas’s schools is derived from local funds, state funds and federal funds. During the 2002-2003 school year, about 49 percent of school funds came from local sources, 41 percent from state funds and 10 percent from federal sources. The percent of revenue from each source will differ from district to district because of variations in local property wealth and student population."

It would be pretty easy to argue that a property owners w/in the ISD are the majority source of funds when indirect state funds are also accounted for.

I found the last sentence bolded particularly interesting. It was before my time down here but - as I understand it - the previous funding system was even MORE reliant on local sources of funding but was struck down as unconstitutional...NOT because it was too onerous on the property owner w/in the ISD...but rather because it resulted in too much disparity when it came to student per capita funding.

[nevergaveitathought]

healthcare costs and taxes, not to speak of everything else

is obama a memorex of carter or is he much worse?

http://www.cnbc.com/id/39097299

[Doove]

Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

healthcare costs and taxes, not to speak of everything else

is obama a memorex of carter or is he much worse?

http://www.cnbc.com/id/39097299

"To be sure, the folks at Wien’s lunches certainly have the most money at stake, but that hasn’t meant they were always correct. As The Financial Times chronicled in August 2007, only George Soros and one other big investor believed the economy was headed into a recession or a bear market. Now, we know those two men, not the consensus, were correct.
The scary part this time is that it seems from reading Wien’s commentary that there were not many dissenters."

Not many dissenters? Like, only 2?

Me thinks the biggest difference between 2007 and today is that 2007 was looking quite good for Billionaire's, the hell with everyone else. Now, maybe not quite so much.

[pjorourke]

Originally Posted by Doove

So you agree that the Bush tax cuts were his addition to the debt.

That is actually an interesting philosophical question -- not unlike the chicken and the egg.

You have to start with the question of what is the right level of government revenues, relative to GDP (the only meaningful measure that is relevant over time.) As shown in the graph below, government tax receipts don't vary that much as a percentage of GDP -- averaging about 18% since WW2. The percentage actually varies more from GDP falling (e.g., in a recession it goes up) or growing fast (in a boom it goes down) than it does from changes in marginal tax rates. (See second graph) Changes in marginal rates change the rate at which the economy grows and the timing of income recognition.

Now there is nothing magic about an 18% average tax rate. The so-called social democracies of Europe operate a federal government that is closer to 30% of GDP -- it takes that much to pay for all those health care and income transfer schemes. But they don't do it through an income tax scheme that 50% of the country doesn't pay. Even if you confiscated 100% of the income of the upper 50% of income earners you couldn't move receipts from 18% to 30%. To get tax receipts to that level you have to put in a steep VAT or similar sales tax that hits everybody. (Which obviously begs the question am I truly getting a free lunch if I have to pay for it?)

So, given the fact that tax receipts over an economic cycle are largely a structural issue, do changes in tax rates really add to a deficit? The evidence is quite compelling that deficits are largely driven by spending. The spending problem has gotten much worse since Congress took the power to rescind spending away from the Executive branch during the Nixon era (when he was up shits creek with the Watergate mess and politically unable to stop them). Presidents today largely can't cut spending enough to get rid of deficits -- Congress has to do that. Now they can drive them up in the short term through wars (e.g., Johnson with Vietnam or Bush 43 with Iraq*) but that is about the only spending they can directly initiate -- and even there, Congressional approval is required.

And there is the crux of our problem -- Congress - an institution with a built in bias towards increased spending. As Pogo so wisely said: "We have met the enemy and he is us".

_____
* Bush 41's Iraq war was much cheaper and largely paid for by others -- e.g., Saudi's, Kuwait, etc.

[atlcomedy]

PJ - if your rates vs. revenue graph went out further than '05, I suspect these last few years would be even more dramatic.

Different gov't entities rely on different funding mechanisms, but much more than income or property taxes what is killing a lot of places are the lower sales tax revenues.

We tend to think a lot about our property tax assessment because even if we space out the payments, sometime during the year we get a bill for a larger number, but we're getting hit with the sales tax everyday.

As an aside, of all the major taxes most citizens routinely pay (income, sales, property), I'll suggest the property tax is the one that most favors the educated/informed with means. That is in most cases even though the rate if fixed the assessment is largely negotiated through appeal. So someone that knows how the system works and has a little coin to finance an appeal gets a much better deal than the guy across town.

[nevergaveitathought]

spending is the bane of our existence

static scoring of tax cuts by the cbo and dems is its hand maiden

government unions, big business and ne'er-do-wells are the footmen holding spending's coat

self-interested politicians are quislings seeking thier own power through employment of the common purse

new congressmen, while pledging fealty to common sense, become zombies in stockholm syndrome fogs and are themselves swept away

why dont we invent something like a tea party?

[charlestudor2005]

Originally Posted by pjorourke

That is actually an interesting philosophical question -- not unlike the chicken and the egg.

Actually, scientists recently proved which came first.

And, DAYUM!, PJ. Finally a post that is more than a one-liner.

[charlestudor2005]

Originally Posted by DFW5Traveler

When your property taxes go up in local municipalities, take a good look at who is in control of the local governments. Next, if you do not take advantage of your right to mediate with the local board, your taxes are likely to go up. I've known several people dispute the tax increases and win because their property values did not increase and in some cases got their taxes reduced. Real Estate Appraisal 101, look it up.

I routinely appeal increases every time the County attempts to raise taxes. I really don't need to take REA 101, TYVM. I'm successful about 50% of the time, even when the numbers are in my favor. The County just goes and raises the taxes (the rate AND the value) in order to make more income. And yes, I know there is an appeal process from the the appeal I just lost. That process, however, is financially inequitable to property owners.

Originally Posted by DFW5Traveler

Do you honestly think someone working on a union assembly line putting Screw-A in Slot-A 100 times a day deserves more money than a teacher, a nurse, a firefighter or a police officer who actually have to be educated or motivated to serve and protect.

As the son of two teachers who grew up in a GM town I am more aware of these inequities than you probably are since I experienced them from birth. You, however, probably only read about them in the conservative literature you seem to inhabit.

And for your information, it isn't the libs responsible for this inequity. It is the companies that are willing to do so. And, before you say it's the unions forcing the companies to do so, I'd point out that unions would never have existed if companies hadn't treated their employees like shit and forced them to buy at the company store.

Originally Posted by atlcomedy

As an aside, of all the major taxes most citizens routinely pay (income, sales, property), I'll suggest the property tax is the one that most favors the educated/informed with means. That is in most cases even though the rate if fixed the assessment is largely negotiated through appeal. So someone that knows how the system works and has a little coin to finance an appeal gets a much better deal than the guy across town.

First of all, all citizens pay sales taxes. Not all citizens pay income taxes. There are those who make less than the minimum taxing amount, and there are those who "fail" to file. In some states, there is not state income tax. Approximately 2/3 of citizens are homeowners. Not all have sufficient coin to process an appeal.

Appealing an increased tax assessment is relatively free at the first level, but requires time and energy, and access to the Assessor's database. Even then you're at an extreme disadvantage because they make it hard for you to determine comparables.

Past the first appeal level, it becomes REALLY, REALLY expensive. First of all, you'll probably have to hire your own independent assessor as an expert. Although you can legally determine your the value on your own house, you cannot do so on comparables, but the Assessor can because his/her staff has that expertise. And they can testify virtually for free.

Second, if you have any kind of daytime job (I do, and am frequently out of town), you'll have to hire an attorney (preferably RE) to monitor the hearings and take the case to trial (including the Board and then the appeal to civil court). Most assessments only result in an increase of actual cost to the property holder of several hundred to a thousand dollars. By the time you've paid an attorney to prosecute the appeals involved, you've paid many times the assessment even if you prevail.

So, DFW5 and Atl, yes the process exists. But it's a losing proposition in every respect except one: if you can get a break on the appeal to the Assessor, then it's a small victory. Otherwise, it's more expensive than it's worth, and you lose every time.