President Kennedy Responds To Paul Krugman [View article]
I'm not sure why, but I'll post one more reply. Any honest analysis of your comments would show that, in fact, you are refuting Prof. Perry's article and supporting, if not proposing, an absolute limit on one's ability to produce wealth. Just because in your last paragraph you state that you are not doing so doesn't make it so. Transparent trick.
President Kennedy Responds To Paul Krugman [View article]
I'm not sure what "unlimitedly rich" means. If it means possessing everything -- i.e., every dollar/Euro/whatever that exists, then that seems a little hyperbolic. If it means, earn as much as one can, then I'm not sure what the problem is.
President Kennedy Responds To Paul Krugman [View article]
Surely you aren't suggesting that the gist of your statement isn't a refutation of Professor Perry's article. My reading comprehension has generally been adequate to understand the writer's message (Chaucer notwithstanding). Professor Perry's message seems to me to favor lower tax rates than Krugman calls for. Your refutation, almost by definition, seems to side with Krugman.
President Kennedy Responds To Paul Krugman [View article]
Your analogy fails on several points. First, to update Reagan's analogy to current times, let's say that Brad Pitt passes on a movie because, assuming 91% tax bracket, he would only get to keep 9% of his fee (say a $20MM fee plus percentage of gross). That same movie won't be made by some lesser star because the investors won't take the risk. The movie just doesn't get made. Perhaps, instead, a movie gets made that grosses one tenth of what the Brad Pitt movie might have grossed. There would be significantly less economic activity.
Second, you are taking Reagan's use of movie stars to make his point too literally. Suppose we substitute a restaurant owner who has a very successful restaurant. Reagan's point was that he might not take the risk of opening a second restaurant if the potential for earning a return is reduced so significantly by a 91% tax. And you can't assume that someone else would open the restaurant because one restaurateur decided not to. Again, less economic activity.
What you are proposing is to punish success in order to "spread the wealth around." Unfortunately, that's not the way economies work. Not everyone is equally able to succeed. That's why Southwest Airlines is one of the largest airlines in the world and Braniff is no longer around.
Housing Affordability At Record High; Does This Counter The Economic Stagnation Narrative? [View article]
I'm not one to bash NAR (I used to be a R). But, after all, NAR is a trade association and will generally push what is best for their members (which you acknowledge). There is nothing wrong with that. And I wouldn't say that this:
Housing Affordability At Record High; Does This Counter The Economic Stagnation Narrative? [View article]
The problem with the NAR index is that they measure affordability against a mortgage payment that represents 80% of the cost of the home (20% down payment). Measuring at 95%-97% (3%-5% down payment) would result in a different graph.
The Ongoing Deleveraging of American Households [View article]
Well, yes, I know not spending the money would not result in actual dollars being returned to taxpayers. Thus, my comment "in the form of a complete overhaul of the tax code."
For me, the most important reform would be to cut federal spending to no more than 10% of GDP. I believe that would be easier to accomplish over time if we had a more rational tax code and for me, the FairTax is a more rational approach to funding necessary federal government expenditures.
The Ongoing Deleveraging of American Households [View article]
"That money could be better spent on some serious infrastructure and employment at home."
Disagree. That money would be better NOT spent and returned to taxpayers in the form of a complete overhaul of the tax code (FairTax?) with the ultimate goal of getting total government spending down to 10% or less of GDP.
Debt Ceiling Scenarios: How Each Outcome Could Affect the Price of Gold, Silver [View article]
Poppycock. White, perhaps, but not rich or Christian. A couple decades ago was 1991. Michael Dell established PCs Limited in the mid-80s. And while he wasn't a poor kid from the wrong side of the tracks, he wasn't rich and he isn't Christian. Even if you exagerated a little by saying "a couple decades ago," there were hundreds of thousands of successful companies launched in the U.S. prior to (pick a decade since the industrial revolution) by people of every race, creed, and national origin.
In reality, it is harder today than ever before to start a company -- due in no small part to ever expanding government regulations. The more free we are, the more we all prosper.
Paul Ryan's Plan for a Debt-Free Nation [View article]
From my perspective, the more time the President spends on vacation, the better. Extend that to the House and Senate, too. In Texas, the state legislature meets for 140 days every two years. Many of us think they have it wrong. They should meet for 2 days every 140 years!
Paul Ryan's Plan for a Debt-Free Nation [View article]
Who knows how much of what Ryan proposes will be passed into law. I do know that his most important projection is the one that calls for reducing federal government spending to 14% of GDP by 2050. Even that is too high and too far away.
Reducing the government's total footprint in terms of percentage of GDP is the only thing that really matters in economic terms. Peg it at 10% and then argue about how much of it to spend on what.
Paul Ryan's Plan for a Debt-Free Nation [View article]
President's don't produce balanced budgets -- Congress does. The President only signs what the Congress passes. As I recall, Newt Gingrich was the Speaker when we had the last balanced budget.
President Kennedy Responds To Paul Krugman [View article]
President Kennedy Responds To Paul Krugman [View article]
President Kennedy Responds To Paul Krugman [View article]
President Kennedy Responds To Paul Krugman [View article]
Second, you are taking Reagan's use of movie stars to make his point too literally. Suppose we substitute a restaurant owner who has a very successful restaurant. Reagan's point was that he might not take the risk of opening a second restaurant if the potential for earning a return is reduced so significantly by a 91% tax. And you can't assume that someone else would open the restaurant because one restaurateur decided not to. Again, less economic activity.
What you are proposing is to punish success in order to "spread the wealth around." Unfortunately, that's not the way economies work. Not everyone is equally able to succeed. That's why Southwest Airlines is one of the largest airlines in the world and Braniff is no longer around.
Housing Affordability At Record High; Does This Counter The Economic Stagnation Narrative? [View article]
http://yhoo.it/rLSvnU
has anything to do with the Affordability Index. It's just interesting that it has come up in the context of discussing the veracity of the AI.
Housing Affordability At Record High; Does This Counter The Economic Stagnation Narrative? [View article]
The Ongoing Deleveraging of American Households [View article]
For me, the most important reform would be to cut federal spending to no more than 10% of GDP. I believe that would be easier to accomplish over time if we had a more rational tax code and for me, the FairTax is a more rational approach to funding necessary federal government expenditures.
The Ongoing Deleveraging of American Households [View article]
Disagree. That money would be better NOT spent and returned to taxpayers in the form of a complete overhaul of the tax code (FairTax?) with the ultimate goal of getting total government spending down to 10% or less of GDP.
Debt Ceiling Scenarios: How Each Outcome Could Affect the Price of Gold, Silver [View article]
In reality, it is harder today than ever before to start a company -- due in no small part to ever expanding government regulations. The more free we are, the more we all prosper.
Tax Cuts Won't Cut It [View article]
Paul Ryan's Plan for a Debt-Free Nation [View article]
Paul Ryan's Plan for a Debt-Free Nation [View article]
Reducing the government's total footprint in terms of percentage of GDP is the only thing that really matters in economic terms. Peg it at 10% and then argue about how much of it to spend on what.
Paul Ryan's Plan for a Debt-Free Nation [View article]
Government Mandates Do Not Create Jobs [View article]
The Fed Has No Idea What It's Doing [View article]