Interesting article on supply side economics....

http://www.wweek.com/portland/article-17350-9_things_the_rich_dont_want_you_to_know_about_taxes.html

Thoughts?

Nothing too surprising in there. Here is another article that I found interesting recently:

Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%

I feel that as long as we continue with our current monetary system that puts the power of money creation in the hands of a provate banking cartel (The Fed) and our government must borrow money from them to be repaid with interest we will not solve our economic problems. There is no reason that the governmen cannot make money instead of borrowing it from private banks. Any amount of tax code reforms or other things like that will not get us out of the impossible math presented by the exponentially growing debt caused by our absurd debt-based money supply.

In reply to T.J.:

I am missing your point. Are you suggesting we just print more money instead of borrowing it?

Otto Maddox wrote: In reply to T.J.: I am missing your point. Are you suggesting we just print more money instead of borrowing it?

I think what he's suggesting is that we print it ourselves rather than borrowing the money from someone else who is. Either way money is being printed, but with the former we're not taking on an interest burden to do so.

In reply to ReverendDexter:

Yeah, but won't printing (a lot of) money lead to massive inflation?

Yeah, that. I feel that we need drastic cuts in spending, but that is not going to happen. Look at the recent brouhaha over cutting $30billion. In the 8 days leading up to that the defecit went up by almost twice that amount. The debt is out of control and unsustainable. Currently all of our income taxes just go straight to the banks and others in the form of interest on the debt. There is no reason that the government is in debt when it could just create the money themselves instead of letting the banks do it and then loan it to us at interest.

Sure Congress would still spend too much in relation to what revenue they collect, but at least we wouldn't be stuck paying the interest.

In my perfect world, the Fed is disbanded/nationalized and we officially default on our debt and start over. That would be a mess and is not ever going to happen and is not realistic. What is realistic is we are going to let our politicians do what they can to maintain the status quo untl the entire system finally collapses. The current approach seems to be to try to inflate the debt away. Sure we owe trillions upon trillions, but if we can just devalue to the dollar enough it won't be too hard to pay it back. The approach is really not working because every other country is trying the same thing so all fiat currencies are in a race to the bottom. We are all going to suffer from this and lose in the end.

In reply to ReverendDexter:

Ok. Sounds like some sort of Ron Paul propaganda. Maybe not. But I think we were talking about taxes anyway.

This article does pretty good at pointing out one of the things that seem to be missing from the "discussions" that occur on similar topics, providing a wider view of a situation (of course this one might have been motivated by less noble goals).

There is a very common aspect among these "conversations" to leave out very relevant aspects of statements / assertions / arguements. I am not sure whether this is intentional or not.

The aspect of looking at total taxation vs income tax taxation is a good one.

I am still VERY suspicious of the idea of reducing the wealthiest taxes (only) will spur growth. I can see how that can work with businesses, but I really don't see it happening with the wealthy more so than anyone else. I find it quite funny though, that the people that are so certain it has to be done (and have the power to spread the word) all have very high income.

The implication that Pfizer fired people because they brought there untaxed money back seems potentially very flawed, (correlation does not infer causation.)

I would love to see someone do an analysis of that "huge" income tax cut that Reagan did. I am very suspicious that VERY few people were in the top bracket (it probably works out to something like a few million a year income in todays money) and of those, almost none of them were actually paying it (loopholes etc.)

In reply to ReverendDexter:

Yes it will, but we have that already. Or at least signs of it starting. Look at gas, oil, copper, cotton, corn, gold, silver prices for the past couple years. Virtually everything is costing more in dollars as the dollar's value is being destroyed. Other than real estate and natural gas I don't know of anything that is not showing signs of inflation. The monetary base has been tripled in the past few years already and there is talk of another round of quantitative easing. (code word for money printing).

until we close the silly loopholes, we'll never have any hard data as to how the tax rates compare to anything.

There is one thing certain though, Congress since nearly the beginning has bet on the currency to pull us through our debt. As was said here, since all other currencies are doing the same thing, we all end up in the cesspool.

In reply to T.J.: :confused: I think you meant to reply to bravenrace

Quantative Easing Explained

Ya'll might find THIS an interesting read.

I have found that any piece that revolves around the theme of "Things rich people don't want you to know" is typically propaganda written by rich people looking to gain some sort of control over people who underestimate themselves.. and greedily dream of something for nothing.

So given that I view all of those things through that type of lens.. Maybe I should just stop here...

ronholm wrote: I have found that any piece that revolves around the theme of "Things rich people don't want you to know" is typically propaganda written by rich people looking to gain some sort of control over people who underestimate themselves.. and greedily dream of something for nothing. So given that I view all of those things through that type of lens.. Maybe I should just stop here...

Someone telling you about something political is always trying to convince you of something. Right now, for instance, I am trying to convince you to send me $1,000. :: wzzzzwzzzwwwzzzzz ::