Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[smeeprocket]

flat tax hurts the poor, even if it worked on some level it wouldn't be worth it.

I mean our system is beneficial if you are rich.

[Graknorke]

Any system besides 100%+ taxes are beneficial if you're rich. Being rich and all.

[aenri]

Problems with the Slovakia theory:

- GDP growth was actually pretty good before the tax reforms were implemented, averaging ~4.5 - 5% per year for the 3 years before the tax reforms. And GDP growth ROSE every year from 1999-2004. So it's a bit iffy to label a change in legislation from 2004 as being responsible for the rises from 2004-2007 in GDP growth. There was a previous 5 year-long boom with GDP growing faster (even in percentage terms) every year. So, GDP growth rising again in the next couple of years after that would just be expected even without the tax changes. There was no "new trend" in GDP that can be attributed to the tax cuts.

In fact, by 2007 the economy collapsed, only 3 years after the tax reforms came in. So you have 3 years of good growth, which you attribute to the tax changes. but tax changes just don't cause that sort of growth spurt instantly, they actually take a couple of years to kick in, as investment shifts. So in other words at the peak point where the tax reforms should have fixed things, a 10 year trend of improving GDP growth suddenly failed in a catastrophic decline.

Yep GDP growth was pretty good in 2001   3.4%, 2002 4.9% and 2003 4.7%. But then after 2004 it rose even higher - 2004 5%, 2005 6.6%, 2006 8.4%, 2007 10.6%!. I would ascribe this development to many factors, one very important factor that acted as force multiplier on GDP growth was tax reform (tax cuts). After that the economy tanked - GDP growth in 2008 5.5% and -4.9%! in 2009. This had little to do with tax reform though and much with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_crisis_of_2007%E2%80%9308.

As for government spending: it fell from 55% GDP in 2001, to 40% GDP in January of 2004. And 2004 was the year of the tax reforms. It was already on a downhill trend, but that pretty much flattened out 2 years after the tax reforms. There was a 15% decline before the tax reforms and another 5% after the tax reforms, not the 10% change from 45% - 35% you cited: that has one name, bullshit intended to deceive you. Declines in government spending slowed down after the reforms, they didn't speed up. It's definitely in the "your being lied to" category, because even that 10% decline you noted? Most of it happened before the tax reforms.

My theory is that the government knew there was already a boom on, and they took the opportunity to slash taxes on the rich because they knew this would be hidden in the rising revenues from taxes they were already getting.

You shouldn't look just on government expenditure alone. The country budget deficit and public debt all decreased the whole period after tax reforms. Even with slashed taxes (though real public revenue steadily increased), the government could maintain pretty positive budget balance and even decrease the public debt. The government expenditure also wasn't only affected by tax reform, and in no way I can here single out tax reform as very important factor in decreased government spending. There were many other reforms in government before tax reform and they started to kick in before the tax reform could be passed.

[Leafsnail]

Unsustainable economic bubbles that burst catastrophically: a good thing that we should encourage

[Graknorke]

Unsustainable economic bubbles that burst catastrophically: a good thing that we should encourage

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/david-cameron-says-it-would-be-lovely-if-interest-rates-could-remain-at-the-current-low-level-9829844.html

It's apparently not a rare sentiment.

[palsch]

Study quantifying the effect a conversation with an openly gay person about gay marriage can have on people's opinions.

The author has the study for download on his page along with some of the figures for quick reference.

Spoiler: Graphs (click to show/hide)

The big results there are a positive effect from the conversation (with a gay or straight canvasser) but the conversation with a gay person had a longer lasting effect which was them amplified when the Prop 8 decision was handed down. A weaker effect was also seen in other members of the household. In that case they were even more amplified by the Prop 8 decision.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

That's hardly the important part of this study. What we can clearly derive from this is that gay people are useless at recycling advocacy, and while passing anti-gay referendums to try and increase recycling initially gives a major boost, it quickly crashes afterwards. We must separate homosexuals and recycling programs completely in the mind of the public if we expect any success in the latter.

[smeeprocket]

Wow, it's amazing what actually talking with this to people affected does.

I feel like perhaps the people involved didn't personally know anyone gay or had never talked to them about this.

I think that is often part of the problem. Many people are simply unable to empathize because the problem isn't close enough to them.

Also, am I the only one that feels reduced govt spending isn't always a good thing. The government needs to be spending money, on the right things.

[Antsan]

Also, am I the only one that feels reduced govt spending isn't always a good thing. The government needs to be spending money, on the right things.

Nah, I feel the same way. As long as there is a government it's better when it's spending money, on the right things, like base necessities.

[Helgoland]

Also, am I the only one that feels reduced govt spending isn't always a good thing. The government needs to be spending money, on the right things.

Hell, even Republicans don't always like cuts, for example cuts of military expenditure. "Government spending" is just a black box for anything the speaker doesn't like.

[smeeprocket]

America spends such a crazy amount of money on the military, and the spending bill most recently passed cut more from food stamps.

I don't understand cutting food stamps. Food should be a right. Why would they want to target that? It's the most effective program with the least fraud we have. I mean, even if someone is selling food stamps, the person they sell it to gets food for less money, thereby making it possible for them to eat.

[Descan]

Because if you give people hand outs, they'll be too lazy to do actual work. Damn lazy kids, they should be in factories!

:V

[smeeprocket]

Because if you give people hand outs, they'll be too lazy to do actual work. Damn lazy kids, they should be in factories!

:V

yea lol

Of course, studying, doing work, being too old to work, all very hard to do on an empty stomach, I find.

[Descan]

Personally I just still want a basic income guarantee, shove the rest of welfare off the cliff except for disability and seniors, and let people figure out what they'll spend the money on themselves. I dislike the hand-holding nature of ost welfare, like Food Stamps and such.

[smeeprocket]

Personally I just still want a basic income guarantee, shove the rest of welfare off the cliff except for disability and seniors, and let people figure out what they'll spend the money on themselves. I dislike the hand-holding nature of ost welfare, like Food Stamps and such.

it's not really hand holding to prevent people from starving, and most people that are on welfare and foodstamps are working anyway (excluding the many many children and elderly.)

You can't really call it hand holding to ensure that children get fed. I realize that's an appeal to emotion but that's the crux of the issue. Without things like foodstamps, you end up with malnutrition and starvation. That shouldn't be happening in first world countries.

And a lot of families, without welfare, would end up homeless, which also shouldn't happen. Really, housing should also be a basic right. We are an advanced society, people shouldn't be living on the street and starving.