Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Snow Birds

Usa 2011 Economic Collapse

Recommended Posts

Just picked this up from the Rush show check out:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704113504575264513748386610.html

A synopsis in case my link doesn't work (google Arthur Laffer economic collapse 2011) is that Bush instituted large tax cuts that expire this year. Obama is unlikely to continue them so corporations are loading 2010 with income so that they can take advantage of the lower tax this year. Of course next year will show much less income and with higher taxes there is likely to be much less business done next year on top of all that. It will be a double whammy and will show in unemployment etc leading to a possible total collapse.

Read it for yourselves . . . scary stuff!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just picked this up from the Rush show check out:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704113504575264513748386610.html

A synopsis in case my link doesn't work (google Arthur Laffer economic collapse 2011) is that Bush instituted large tax cuts that expire this year. Obama is unlikely to continue them so corporations are loading 2010 with income so that they can take advantage of the lower tax this year. Of course next year will show much less income and with higher taxes there is likely to be much less business done next year on top of all that. It will be a double whammy and will show in unemployment etc leading to a possible total collapse.

Read it for yourselves . . . scary stuff!

Or alternately, a man called Arthur Laffer who gained fame amongst the right wing when he described an economic theory that the tax take drops beyond an optimal tax rate and has the Laffer Curve named after him, says that rising taxes in a left leaning administration will reduce the total tax take.

I happen to agree with him but this article is really quite shameless self promotion and very ideologically biased.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or alternately, a man called Arthur Laffer who gained fame amongst the right wing when he described an economic theory that the tax take drops beyond an optimal tax rate and has the Laffer Curve named after him, says that rising taxes in a left leaning administration will reduce the total tax take.

I happen to agree with him but this article is really quite shameless self promotion and very ideologically biased.

You mean the laugher curve. Or is it the joker curve? Or the 'let's see if they're so dumb we can convince the poor that cutting taxes for the rich will be good for them' curve?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

imo in order to offset the demand drain from lower public spending revenues, they'll have to decrease taxes. But that would constitute a ballsy move right now, I don't think Obama has it in him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Steve Cook

You mean the laugher curve. Or is it the joker curve? Or the 'let's see if they're so dumb we can convince the poor that cutting taxes for the rich will be good for them' curve?

:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You mean the laugher curve. Or is it the joker curve? Or the 'let's see if they're so dumb we can convince the poor that cutting taxes for the rich will be good for them' curve?

Tax cuts on employment will increase the incentive to gain employment. Cutting basic income taxes (or increasing the personal allowance) benefit everyone that works for a living.

Edited by Chef

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cutting basic income taxes (or increasing the personal allowance) benefit everyone that works for a living.

No it doesn't.

If you want to live in some kind of civilised society you need some taxation so the society can perform essential services such as helping those in needs, building and maintaining infrastructure etc.

I'm not against intelligent taxation, my gripe is with the Mr Laffer's so called 'theory'. LuckyOne generously describes him as 'very ideologically biased', I would rather say this man stands for the worst kind of ideological neoliberal f*ckwitery. These kind of guys make me lose faith in the human race.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No it doesn't.

If you want to live in some kind of civilised society you need some taxation........

That doesn't have to mean taxes on income though. Taxing work lowers the returns that workers receive and so it makes working for a living less attractive. Unfortunately most people need to work for a living to produce the goods and services that humanity needs to survive, which results in a bit of an economic mess if it's taxed heavily.

Edited by Chef

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That doesn't have to mean taxes on income though. Taxing work lowers the returns that workers receive and so it makes working for a living less attractive. Unfortunately most people need to work for a living to produce the goods and services that humanity needs to survive, which results in a bit of an economic mess if it's taxed heavily.

I agree with what you write, but I don't think this is what Laffer is about. I believe he is an advocate of supply side 'economics' (never was a word so misused) aka a political ideology that aims to turn a majority of the population into shoe shine boys.

The US did absolutely fine with extremely high tax rates (by today's neoliberal standards) for decades (http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/stats/tax_structure/incometaxrates_1974to1990.pdf), if I am not wrong the top rate went up to 90% at some stage.

What Laffer promotes is a monstruous over simplification of taxation that suits his ideology and is advantageous to high income people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with what you write, but I don't think this is what Laffer is about. I believe he is an advocate of supply side 'economics' (never was a word so misused) aka a political ideology that aims to turn a majority of the population into shoe shine boys.

The US did absolutely fine with extremely high tax rates (by today's neoliberal standards) for decades (http://www.hmrc.gov...._1974to1990.pdf), if I am not wrong the top rate went up to 90% at some stage.

What Laffer promotes is a monstruous over simplification of taxation that suits his ideology and is advantageous to high income people.

Ahem, US income tax rates here http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/history-of-federal-individual-1.html, the table I posted was for the UK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with what you write, but I don't think this is what Laffer is about. I believe he is an advocate of supply side 'economics' (never was a word so misused) aka a political ideology that aims to turn a majority of the population into shoe shine boys.

The US did absolutely fine with extremely high tax rates (by today's neoliberal standards) for decades (http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/stats/tax_structure/incometaxrates_1974to1990.pdf), if I am not wrong the top rate went up to 90% at some stage.

What Laffer promotes is a monstruous over simplification of taxation that suits his ideology and is advantageous to high income people.

All I know about Laffer is his curve theory, it was summed up for me in this 2 minute vid.

I agree with this piece of theory though, taxing at stupidly high levels either encourages people to use tax loopholes or move into the black economy, either way the gov't in question will lose revenues.

I'm not familiar with any of his other stuff though, perhaps it's something that I could research.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with this piece of theory though, taxing at stupidly high levels either encourages people to use tax loopholes or move into the black economy, either way the gov't in question will lose revenues.

The loopholes are legislated by people keen to sabotage the taxation process to help their political contributors.

It's a complicated matter that I don't know much about either (it's hard to find the enthusiasm), but one thing is sure: if you reduce taxes too much then you get into the situation we're in now e.g. massive inequalities, huge budget deficits, inflation etc.

We are now going to have to pay for this ideology in the form of higher taxes (for the middle class) and much, much lower public services (I'm not talking quangos here, I'm talking ambulance services).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a complicated matter that I don't know much about either (it's hard to find the enthusiasm), but one thing is sure: if you reduce taxes too much then you get into the situation we're in now e.g. massive inequalities, huge budget deficits, inflation etc.

It's been v.simple imo, people have enpaying more and more tax, and simultaneously there have been enormous (often tax free) gains to be had from playing the housing market.

In other words there's been a sly transfer of wealth from the working poor to the propertied rich, but it becomes entangled between political ideology and an economics profession that want to complicate things because it makes them look clever.

Edited by Chef

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

an economics profession that want to complicate things because it makes them look clever.

Agree with everything you write but the above. Economists supported the people that gave them jobs, funding, book writing opportunities and nowadays nice trips to exotic locations and fame.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or alternately, a man called Arthur Laffer who gained fame amongst the right wing when he described an economic theory that the tax take drops beyond an optimal tax rate and has the Laffer Curve named after him, says that rising taxes in a left leaning administration will reduce the total tax take.

I happen to agree with him but this article is really quite shameless self promotion and very ideologically biased.

Shamefully misrepresented as "any increases in tax will really lose money", its corollary being "we are already taxed at the optimal rate or above". I think Dubya killed this one off as an easy line of rhetoric to be honest with you, he claimed this, cut taxes and then borrowed to make up the huge losses. Turned out they weren't at the optimal level after all. Call him Nworb Nodrog, you can't spend money you haven't got except through borrowing in the end, whichever side you dress.

Edited by Cogs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest The Relaxation Suite

No it doesn't.

If you want to live in some kind of civilised society you need some taxation so the society can perform essential services such as helping those in needs, building and maintaining infrastructure etc.

I'm not against intelligent taxation, my gripe is with the Mr Laffer's so called 'theory'. LuckyOne generously describes him as 'very ideologically biased', I would rather say this man stands for the worst kind of ideological neoliberal f*ckwitery. These kind of guys make me lose faith in the human race.

Low taxes are essential to a healthy economy, and without a healthy economy eveyone is harmed, most obviously the poor. High taxation in small nations with very homogenous populations seemed to work OK-ish for a while (think Scandinavia), but all he high tax, big welfare states are seriously unwinding now. The deficits are too big because there haven't been conservatives in power for so long, and just as when conservatives are in power for too long investment in society starts to slump, when liberals are in powder for too long debt gets too big and everyone suffers.

I agree with what Laffer wrote, to a large extent, and I expect things to get much worse over the next five years. 2007 - 2010 was just a warning bell that told those who know what to look for that it is time to get out and move to the South Pacific for a few years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Low taxes are essential to a healthy economy

A quick one on this point. What are we really after? A healthy economy or a healthy society?

If the latter you should ask what you want 'society' to provide and how much will it cost.

Determining some optimum taxation level without looking at the social consequences doesn't make sense, unless

- you are driven primarily by your personal economic wellbeing (that tends to apply to wealthy people who can obtain everything they need through the private sector without help and couldn't care less about social constructs)

or

- you are pursuing inflationary policies and as we can see yet again, these blow up in our faces at some point and come with very painful consequences

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest The Relaxation Suite

A quick one on this point. What are we really after? A healthy economy or a healthy society?

If the latter you should ask what you want 'society' to provide and how much will it cost.

Determining some optimum taxation level without looking at the social consequences doesn't make sense, unless

- you are driven primarily by your personal economic wellbeing (that tends to apply to wealthy people who can obtain everything they need through the private sector without help and couldn't care less about social constructs)

or

- you are pursuing inflationary policies and as we can see yet again, these blow up in our faces at some point and come with very painful consequences

You cannot have the later without the former. A broken down economy means high unemployment, an increase in crime, more people idling their time away on the dole, less hope for the future.

We are all driven by our personal wellbeing. This is what makes us human. Read Hobbes and his view on self-interested cooperation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You cannot have the later without the former.

Precisely. Trying to determine some optimal tax level without any consideration for the societal aspect is disingenuous IMO.

We are all driven by our personal wellbeing. This is what makes us human. Read Hobbes and his view on self-interested cooperation.

Quite, we are social animals. The benefits of cooperation are clear to all with the exception of those that don't need it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest The Relaxation Suite

Precisely. Trying to determine some optimal tax level without any consideration for the societal aspect is disingenuous IMO.

Quite, we are social animals. The benefits of cooperation are clear to all with the exception of those that don't need it.

We cooperate because it is our individual self-interest to do so. You win the lottery, you stop cooperating. You demand. Thus we are able to see true human nature. Set taxes and benefits low and people will work harder and society will get richer. When the Tories slashed the top rate of income tax in the 1980s, the overall take by the Treasury went up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We cooperate because it is our individual self-interest to do so. You win the lottery, you stop cooperating. You demand. Thus we are able to see true human nature. Set taxes and benefits low and people will work harder and society will get richer. When the Tories slashed the top rate of income tax in the 1980s, the overall take by the Treasury went up.

The 60's were seen as a golden age of liberty when the US put a man on the moon. You could afford to provide well for your family on a single income, educate your children and save for retirement.

Over the last 30 odd years of Reganism, the taxes in the US have been slashed, especially for the rich.

Public sector borrowing has soared.

Private sector borrowing has soared.

Prison population has soared.

Economy is collapsing.

Oh dear.

Sorry Tecu, but reality seems to be completely different from your ideology.

People are not getting richer, they are getting poorer. Very rapidly. They masked it for a while with debt but that just exploded.

When my father went to university his grant was so generous that he could afford to support a family on it and take out a mortgage on a house now worth £220,000. Today university students have to take on a minimum £20,000 debt to go to uni (about to go up) and the jobs they get at the end of it pay 1/12 of the cost of putting a roof over your head.

How are they richer?

Because technological progress invented the frickin Ipod?!

I'll swop the Ipod for a house with a record player any day of the week.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest The Relaxation Suite

The 60's were seen as a golden age of liberty when the US put a man on the moon. You could afford to provide well for your family on a single income, educate your children and save for retirement.

Over the last 30 odd years of Reganism, the taxes in the US have been slashed, especially for the rich.

Public sector borrowing has soared.

Private sector borrowing has soared.

Prison population has soared.

Economy is collapsing.

Oh dear.

Sorry Tecu, but reality seems to be completely different from your ideology.

People are not getting richer, they are getting poorer. Very rapidly. They masked it for a while with debt but that just exploded.

When my father went to university his grant was so generous that he could afford to support a family on it and take out a mortgage on a house now worth £220,000. Today university students have to take on a minimum £20,000 debt to go to uni (about to go up) and the jobs they get at the end of it pay 1/12 of the cost of putting a roof over your head.

How are they richer?

Because technological progress invented the frickin Ipod?!

I'll swop the Ipod for a house with a record player any day of the week.

Public debt is soaring because governments are spending too much money on the state. As a result of this the poor will get poorer, that I guarantee you. It will not affect the rich because they up sticks for the duration. Reagan's spending was high because he put a lot of money into ending the Cold War, but his overall defence budget as a percentage of GDP was lower thwn Eisenhower's.

People are getting poorer in some ways because the fiat currency in inflating (houses) but in others (consumables) they have never been richer. In 1915 a pint of beer cost a third of a sailor's daily pay. a third! Today people have a life richer and more varied than ever before. Unfortunately, the liberal spending plans will see much of society in the gutter.

Also, do not conflate Thatcherism and Reaganism with conservatism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Public debt is soaring because governments are spending too much money on the state. As a result of this the poor will get poorer, that I guarantee you. It will not affect the rich because they up sticks for the duration. Reagan's spending was high because he put a lot of money into ending the Cold War, but his overall defence budget as a percentage of GDP was lower thwn Eisenhower's.

People are getting poorer in some ways because the fiat currency in inflating (houses) but in others (consumables) they have never been richer. In 1915 a pint of beer cost a third of a sailor's daily pay. a third! Today people have a life richer and more varied than ever before. Unfortunately, the liberal spending plans will see much of society in the gutter.

Also, do not conflate Thatcherism and Reaganism with conservatism.

You keep saying the same shite over and over and over again with no evidence.

That doesn't make it true.

The figures and reality demonstrate that quite clearly the poor have been getting poorer consistently over the last 30 years.

Reagan wasn't conservative. Thatcher wasn't conservative. I'm guessing Bush senior wasn't conservative either? What about Bush junior?

Let me get this straight, if it walks like a conservative, talks like a conservative, claims to be a conservative, runs a conservative party and gets elected by conservatives it still isn't conservative when it fecks up the economy because that is impossible for a true conservative to do and your ideology would implode?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 259 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.