-
-
I just find it humorous that former Terminator/Kindergarten Cop now Governor is lecturing people on retaking Math 101.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-budget19-2009feb19,0...
I actually agree with him. Taxes will have to increase. Just as they will at the federal level when someone might realize that we will have to pay for stimulus package.
-
Jorge Montero
United States
St Louis
Missouri
I'll take Manhattan in a garbage bag. With Latin written on it that says "It's hard to give a shit these days"
-
I thought that the more we lowered taxes, the higher the tax revenues should be?
Did the republicans deceive us on that one too? 
-
Richard Hefferan
United States
Saint Paul
-
Koldfoot wrote: hibikir wrote: I thought that the more we lowered taxes, the higher the tax revenues should be? Did the republicans deceive us on that one too? Can we agree that an expanding economy will lead to more money coming into the treasury if taxes remain the same? Can we agree that targeted tax cuts if implemented correctly can stimulate a section of the economy?
Certainly, but I suspect we vastly differ on which segments should be cut to produce a stimulus
-
Jorge Montero
United States
St Louis
Missouri
I'll take Manhattan in a garbage bag. With Latin written on it that says "It's hard to give a shit these days"
-
Koldfoot wrote:
Can we agree that an expanding economy will lead to more money coming into the treasury if taxes remain the same?
Can we agree that targeted tax cuts if implemented correctly can stimulate a section of the economy?
Both of those have big conditionals. An economy can expand without increasing tax revenues. It's difficult, a priori, to know if a tax cut is actually stimulating the economy or not. And even if the economy is stimulated, it's hard to predict if the increased revenues from an expanding economy will beat the revenue losses from removing the tax cuts.
The only thing that is really undisputed is that taxes do affect people's behavior, so a tax cut will probably drop total revenues less than what what the simplest extrapolations will indicate, and that a tax increase will bring in less revenues than the same extrapolations would say. At which point do we reach equilibrium? When do taxes REALLY increase revenues? It's impossible to say. But I do remember many years of stimulative tax decreases that should pay for themselves, and not just in the US. As it happens, it's hard to even know if those tax cuts were effective a posteriori, because the economy is just too complex. Was the tax cut the one causing the effect, or was it just coincidence? Given that we cannot run macro economic experiments all the time, we'll just have to fly by the seat of our pants, just like we always do.
Just take a look at the many conflicting articles out there about the great depression, or Japan's lost decade. All economists can do is come with hypothesis that nobody can really prove.
-
Ken
United States
Crystal Lake
Illinois
-
steinley wrote: I just find it humorous that former Terminator/Kindergarten Cop now Governor is lecturing people on retaking Math 101.
Yeah. Not the image you ever expected, is it?
But CA's government is such a flaming disaster it's not funny. In the 19 years I lived there, I paid a boatload of income, sales, and real estate taxes and could never figure out how the hell they managed to spend it all, then spend more than it all, and still not deliver diddly on basics like education, transportation, police, etc.
Don't worry about the earthquake, worry about the state debt becoming a black hole that sucks in all the bordering states and parts of Mexico.
-
Ken
United States
Crystal Lake
Illinois
-
Koldfoot wrote: What? No call for the legislature to come up with a stimulus package?
Every budget in CA has been a stimulus package for at least the last decade.
Wait, you didn't mean stimulating the state debt, did you?
-
David desJardins
United States
Burlingame
California
-
perfalbion wrote: I paid a boatload of income, sales, and real estate taxes and could never figure out how the hell they managed to spend it all, then spend more than it all, and still not deliver diddly on basics like education, transportation, police, etc.
Who's "they"? Police are primarily a local function, there's no problem with police services in wealthy areas. Maybe it should be state funded, but it's not. And there's a commuter train that runs a short walk from my house 100, times a day. How many trains would they have to run, to add up to "diddly"?
-
|
