The point is, the current economic debate is between a mainstream GOP position (Obama's) and a far-right GOP position (where most of the GOP have now migrated toward). Obama's tax rates are as low as any in our lifetimes, and his government growth has been as slow as any in our lifetimes.
That's the amazing thing, isn't it. If you look at the policies and actual positions he takes on economic matters, he's probably to the RIGHT of Republicans 20 years ago. I watched the PBS Frontline show about 'The Untouchables' today and the question that occurred to me was, 'Would Obama have bailed out Lehman Bros, instead of letting them go down as shrub did'? I can't be sure but, if someone told me he would have done, it wouldn't surprise me particularly. I'm not saying that's the criteria for whether someone is left or right wing in terms of their economics, (their are arguments for bailing them out and arguments against it), but I tend to think he'd have been too much of a weenie to have let them fail, preferring to let the taxpayer take the hit. Similarly with the ACA where he caved immediately on the public option. It was like he almost wanted the ACA as it is, to START with. It's only the constant assurance of right-wing pundits and the fact that their talking points are taken seriously by the 'meeja', (instead of just saying, 'You're all batshit crazy, shut up!' as they should do), that means the narrative is whether he's a 'socialist or not' which is BEYOND stupid to my mind. Frankly, Obama could fit quite nicely into the modern British tory party. In fact, I can well imagine him taking this position... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20642428 As for pushing for these income tax and national insurance rates which are current under the tories... NO Chance!
As always, that comes with a certain caveat. The overall tax burden is lower in Texas than in California, but it's not terribly different from other states. The thing is that while there is no state income tax in Texas, there are high taxes elsewhere, like property taxes. I owned a house worth around $200,000 which had a yearly property tax bill of around $5,000. Most of it went to the school district, but parts also went to the city, county, and the community college district. This was on top of the 8.25% sales tax, and being nickled-and-dimed here, there, and everywhere. In the end, my overall tax burden has been the same or less since leaving the state six years ago. Of course, I have no idea how all this translates to someone who earns what Lefty makes, but if he really wants to lower his tax bill, he needs to figure out a way to earn tens of millions a year through dividends and capital gains, rather than working for it like some plebian, but that's another topic.
By nature Obama is Labour but there's no chance of being POTUS without moving far enough to the right so as to become mainstream Tory. So yes.
How about all professional players become share holders of the leagues they play, their compensation would be paid in shares that they can then sell yearly or at the end of their careers they must sell them back at market value. That would mean more risk and more variable salaries for the players (so that is a problem) but it could save them tons of money in taxes and perhaps accounting fees since they have to pay payroll taxes in many of the states they play.
http://www.economist.com/news/unite...-pitfalls-texan-austerity-too-much-good-thing Fucking Texas, we could use some of that here in Illinois, too bad that comes with crazy social policies.
Post the whole paragraph. Context is important: y. Sales-tax receipts, which make up more than half of the state’s general-revenue funds, had come in higher than expected, after several years in which consumers had been looking down the back of the sofa for spare change. Oil and gas revenues were up, too, as big fracking sites such as the Eagle Ford Shale came online. Her estimate also included a hefty surplus: Texas would end the current budget cycle with $8.8 billion left over.
Correct because they set up their budgets at prior revenues (2 year budgets) then if revenues come higher than expected then they run a surplus.
This thread is so cool. The economy is bursting, people can't be hired quick enough. Happy Days are here again. Thank you St. Barack.
Still butthurt that you wingnuts blew up the economy and the Dems had to come in and clean up your mess, huh? May I recommend some...
This could go in the fiscal cliff thread, of course, but I put it here since it illustrates the fallacy behind R arguments that the Obama Administration is expanding the size of government: Austerity Kills Government Jobs as Cuts to Budgets Loom
http://econbrowser.com/archives/201...imum-wage-regime-correlate-to-growth-addendum Basically, if your state enacts the ALEC agenda, your state doesn't get richer. But the income within it is less evenly distributed, obviously, so the median person is harmed. Feature or bug?
I was referred to a similar (same?) study from a different source and the findings are obvious but still interesting to see in writting: http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/11/alec-american-legislative-exchange-council-economy
Then why is it that the people pushing this agenda generally make their money from wealth rather than work? Are those people stupid?
The spirit of charity. The same impulse that leads them to advocate for lower taxes, so that they can spend more money, which will trickle down as extra income for the poor folk. It's all about caring, Dave. You wouldn't understand that because you are always pushing for government solutions, but the rich really will provide for the poor if government gets out of the way. They have very good hearts. Very very good hearts.