The Dino Rossi campaign will no doubt be crowing tomorrow morning about the state’s revised revenue forecast, which now predicts a $3.2 billion budget shortfall for the 2009-2011 biennium, but it should be remembered that the projected deficit is a revenue problem not a spending one, stemming from a long-term structural deficit and a weakening economy.
State spending as a percentage of the total economy has in fact remained flat for much of the past decade, while our antiquated tax structure has continued to rely on an ever shrinking portion of our economy. Our media and political elite have thus far studiously avoided and serious discussion about tax restructuring—the Democrats out of fear of a voter backlash, and the Republicans secure in the knowledge that to do nothing virtually assures their vision of a dramatically smaller government by default.
No doubt the Governor and the Legislature face tough short term choices during the next session, as they do during every economic downturn. But if we want to solve our long-term structural deficit while maintaining the quality of life Washingtonians have come to expect, then we need to rely on more than mere tough talk and a rainy day fund. We need to start talking about an income tax, or some other broad based tax designed to fit the realities of our twenty-first century economy.
I’d love to see any of our resident wingnuts defend the state’s current B&O tax as being better for economic growth than an income tax. I’ll even give them a head start: compare and contrast the difference between a tax on business revenue vs a tax on business profits.
Rossi hopes the voters of WA are stupid enough to blame Gregoire for the national economic slow down. Riiiight.
Nice try. What a tool.
I’m not how you run your budget, but claiming it’s a revenue and not a spending issue is silly. When you have less revenue (income) you spend less or at least try to.
But as long as you claim that spending is not an issue, it’s the money coming in, you will continue to have a bloated government with government waste.
If I follow your argumentation the only way out of the deficit is to tax more and bring in more money…which then will lead to more spending (hey, we got more money) which then will create a shortfall (aka deficit) which can only be solved with more taxes/revenue.
And we all can point out many places where state and county spend friviously or without consideration of tomorrow.
@2
She spent spent spent and spent because it’s her Re-Election year, needed to give our tax dollars to everyone who could send her money back to her war chest.
Fred @4,
It should be noted that the bulk of the increased spending under Gregoire’s administration was to fulfill the mandate of two citizens initiatives (teachers pay and class size) and to provide health care to tens of thousands of additional children.
Call that pandering if you want.
What a F’n Crock of Shit, Gregoire and her 33% increase in spending and 8 Billion dollar spending spree is directly responsible for this.
And she will pay for it in November!
And Please Please Gregoire, bring up your desire for an Income tax in this state during your campaign…..
Especially while you are on your not so new no new taxes mantra again, heard that one before in 2004
And especially while the economy is tanking.
Yes please Saturday bring up your Income Tax desires in the debate.
He Obama Folks, Trump said this evening he was supporting McCain and Palin, because he said if Obama throws all the taxes he has on his plate out, you will see a situation worse than the great depression in this country as a result…
@3 It is a revenue problem. Washington citizens voted to spend more money on schools and roads. That is proof that our state’s citizens want state government to provide these services, not pare back services to an inadequate revenue system. The Gates Commission study, which revealed that the richest 20% of households pay only 1/4th as much of their income in state and local taxes as the poorest 20% of householes, demonstrated that this state has an undertaxed group who, if they were paying their fair share, would enable the state to support the services our citizens need and want.
@ 8
“You’re fired!”
The Chance of getting an Income tax in this state is what it has always been…..It’s Not ever gonna happen! But I love when it is brought up! Kinda like beating a F’n dead dog. And then continuing to beat that F’n dead dog….It can’t get no deader!
3 Actually, you’re 100 percent dead wrong. If Roosevelt had felt that way (or if Hoover had been able to sit in the Oval Office for another term not doing jack squat), the Japanese and the Nazis would have been able to sail in and taken us over ten years later without firing a shot.
You libruls just lookin’ for a gub’mint check.
Look at what Dubya and Paulson did for AIG and Bear Stearns. Now der goin’ after them librul short sellers. Dat’s leaderalship.
I’m votin’ for Dino Rossi. Him and BIAW know what der’ doin’. He got the plan to build dose roads for cheap. He gonna kick all the libruls off the welfare rolls and balance that budget. He goin’ to run the gub’mint like dose great bidnesses AIG and Bear Stearns.
You say smaller government like it is a bad thing.
How would having a bigger state government make things better?
I agree with Goldy. Nothing the Gregoire does is her fault. Others are to blame. I also agree that the answer to over-spending is raising taxes and creating new taxes. I think Goldy would agree with me that one day, for the common good, the government should take 100% of our income and then give us small allowance back.
Revenue problem? As a percentage of my gross income my state taxes have done nothing but go up. They need to try something I do……..live within their means. Fiscal responsibility seems to be outside the scope of Olympia.
@16 Drool,
Nicely worded comment, but no matter how much lipstick you put on it, it’s still hate speech.
Why do you hate children? Why do you want homeless people to starve to death? Why do you want pregnant mothers turned away from hospitals?
You Nazi Republicans should be wiped off the face of the earth!
re 3: Your core argument does not advance your thesis — which is that wasteful government spending is bad.
You are in favor of wasteful government spending — as long as it enriches you and your cronies.
Therefore, you are a fool and a liar.
Hey Rog–
HOME RUN today baby!! Posted this trade yesterday:
This AM, sold the 3000 shares of GE @ $28.50
Made $6/share or $18,000!!
Also sold the 2000 shares of NOV @ $60.81.
Made $11/share or $22,000!!
God Bless America!!
Rog–
I see IBM is currently up over $8/share and NOV up $6…the only thing in the whole universe that is down is that dog you insist on hanging onto BOOM.
I sold those stocks I bought yesterday because I think there is an over-reaction to the bailout. Think about taking some profits…quick.
Rog–
Government ALWAYS seems to have a revenue problem according to government bureaucrats!
Spoken like someone who was at the trough his whole life.
The fact is, Gregoire increased spending $8 Billion in the face of a recession knowing it wasn’t sustainable and it offered little benefit to taxpayers…and a whole lot to unions. Average families did not increase spending 33%!!! Why should Gregoire have done it?? Cut Government. Reign it in. But NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO…spend like crazy and blame Bush.
Goldy–
Due to changing economic conditions, Gregoire could have and should have nixed those so-called “mandated” spending increases.
Why are you KLOWNS defending Gregoire’s unwise actions?? You want her to win…but she wants to get the hell out.
@21 Mr. Cynical,
Why do you hate poor people? Why do you hate children?
Anyone who disagrees with Goldy hates children and poor people. Goldy just want to help people; help the less fortunate. Why don’t you people want to help them, too? Why are you so greedy? People need more government. That’s a proven fact. And it takes money to run all the programs we need. I don’t understand Republicans at all.
#17 Troll,
How many meals would the cost of the fake salmon on the I-90 overpass at Eastgate purchased?
“it should be remembered that the projected deficit is a revenue problem not a spending one”
Ah spoken like a good comrade. How could government be wrong. How could it be that the government is spending too much….
The values of the far left are always revealed… of course it is in “code language”, it is a revenue problem…..
de-coded WE MUST RAISE TAXES..
Or as Joe Biden says..””It’s time (for the well-off) to be patriotic.”
All that’s left is too change our state flag from green to red..
Comrade
Troll,
I’ll help you with the math. The “fish” cost $198,000 per Sound Transit.
Do you know what my local food bank could do with 200 grand?
It’s actually saving us money by having the government buy art from artists, because if they didn’t buy it, the artists would go hungry and become homeless, and we would end up spending more on services for them.
As a Progressive Democrat, I believe it’s the role of government to step in buy art that nobody else wants to buy.
@26 Drool
The fish artist can now buy health insurance for his family. If the state had not bought those freeway fish from him, his family would be homeless, hungry, and without health insurance. And if one of his children needed a heart transplant surgery, that would have cost $750,000 that WE would have had to pay for! Now that he has money to buy health insurance, we have just saved that amount. So we didn’t lose $198K, we saved $750K.
She has been in a state of denial about our economy for some time. In fact she blames the other Washington for our shortfalls.
How any could vote for her is a mystery oh,wait she stole the election the same same way she stole our money.
She will never remove the ARTS mandated on new public construction which has cost us Billions.
Public building that look like Corp. offices.
I think Dori Monson is stupid cuz he is always making fun of art projects. Like one time he made fun of art being put in the dump. He said it’s a dump, and doesn’t need public art, but the way I see it, that’s the place that needs art the most.
BTW, I’m changing my name soon. Something that better represents who I really am. Like Progressive Liberal Democrat.
This is now my new name. I think this is a better fit for me.
Anyone knows what the percent of Public construction is mandated to the arts?
I thought it was 1 or 2% of the total cost.
“27. Troll spews:
It’s actually saving us money by having the government buy art from artists, because if they didn’t buy it, the artists would go hungry and become homeless, and we would end up spending more on services for them.
As a Progressive Democrat, I believe it’s the role of government to step in buy art that nobody else wants to buy.”
Well said..
Hey, even “artists”, albeit bad ones, have pride. Saying you are a Progressive “artist” or “author” sure sounds better than the reality for most which is UNEMPLOYED!
Fred–
I believe it’s 1% Mandated..although some of the more fringe lunatic left communities often do more.
The fact is, Gregoire increased spending $8 Billion in the face of a recession knowing it wasn’t sustainable and it offered little benefit to taxpayers…and a whole lot to unions. Average families did not increase spending 33%!!! Why should Gregoire have done it?? Cut Government. Reign it in. But
At the time some voices were warning about the increased spending and the risk of a deficit – they were ignored. Larger concerns were also being raised about a housing bubble, but those were also ignored. A popped housing bubble clearly would have had a detrimental impact on the state revenue picture.
Pointing the finger at the Bush administration is awfully lame when the warnings were there. Where is the leadership? What happened to the buck stops here?
Goldy
Doesn’t this analysis argue FOR the current tax system? Ideally a tax system would be a constant fraction of the GDP. Your data says that this is.
I think an argument for change should not be based on revenue but on redistribution of an unchanging burden. The current system is unfair to the middle class. It is also, however, antagonostic towards businesses.
If it were me, I would take the chart Goldy showed and use it as offensively against Rossi. The argument should be that this system hurts the middle class most during a crisis.
“Gregoire says state expects deficit next year
Gov. Christine Gregoire for the first time Thursday echoed what Republicans have been saying for months: The state will face a budget deficit next legislative session.
By Andrew Garber
Seattle Times Olympia bureau
OLYMPIA — Gov. Christine Gregoire for the first time Thursday echoed what Republicans have been saying for months: The state faces a budget deficit next legislative session.
“I’m expecting a shortfall and I’m preparing for it,” she said in a telephone interview.”
Anyone in leadership that takes this long to even acknowledge an obvious problem deserves to be fired. Gregoire blames Washington and pretends to demand accountability. She ought to start with herself.
Working families have not increased their spending over 31% the past 4 years like Gregoire did.
To only now acknowledge the Budget Trainwreck she created is telling…she is either blind or incompetent. Neither one is good.
And we still haven’t heard a peep about the DEFICIT in the State Retirement Fund. Governor Gregoire, someone someday is going to have to fund this. While you increased spending $8 BILLION and created a phoney-baloney Rainy Day Fund for political window-dressing, the State Retirement Fund went deeper and deeper into debt and our Budget situation is now disastrous.
The question now is this:
Do voters trust Gregoire, the person who caused this mess with overspending, to fix her mess? Do voters trust Gregoire, who only now even acknowledges the problem, to fix her mess? Do voters trust Gregoire, a 39-year Government tax-and-spend Bureaucrat to fix this mess without a major tax increase? Do voters trust Gregoire who now says she is preparing some secret mystical plan for fixing her mess??
I don’t!
Please Lefty’s….share with us why we should?
@37
You are so stupid. It is not her fault. It is Bush’s fault.
Gregoire’s decision to increase state spending by 31% in 4 years is Bush’s fault??
Gregoire’s decision to increase spending in the face of a recession, knowing & admitting it was not sustainable, is Bush’s fault??
Yeah right..good luck with all that.
I thought the KLOWNS wanted accountability?
You should start with Gregoire.
Now you want us to trust a 39-year career government bureaucrat to fix this mess she created and reward her 4 more years??
No thanks.
She’s toast.
Cynical @whatever
Your message discipline is beside the point. The question before voters is instead the one I posed:
“Why should we turn a highly competent 30+ year-veteran out of an office she has handled well and turn it over to a one-term State Senator who hasn’t seen the inside of the government for the last four years?”
Dino Rossi does not offer an answer. He has no track record, and he has no plan.
Your only an swer is nto to tell us what Rossi would to, but just to attack Gergoire. You don’t offer us an answer.
And, despite all of your shouting, Chris Gregoire and the legislature balanced the budget despite a projected deficit in this biennium, AND ended up with an $800 million surplus you conveniently forget over and over and over and over again. They will do the same this biennium, and I predict another surplus.
In the meantime, Dino Rossi STILL does not offer an answer, and neither do you.
I thought the KLOWNS wanted accountability?
You should start with Gregoire.
On the other hand, Goldy heard the same warnings about the risks of overspending as everyone else but went along with it – perhaps the accountability needs to be broader?
They will do the same this biennium, and I predict another surplus.
Based on what?
Daddy Love–
Your Gregoire defense message is consistent and mighty tired.
Rossi can point to all the states with budget surpluses that have 1 thing in common…Republican Governor’s!
I posted it previously, but you ignored it so I’ll refresh your memory:
Alabama 700 mil
Alaska 2.7 bil
Idaho 224 mil
Missouri 833 mil
Utah 1.6 billion
Gregoire is the sitting Governor. The FACT that only today she acknowledges the huge problem and blames Bush is a huge problem. Gregoire is essentially absolving herself of all responsibility DESPITE THE FACT that she acknowledged increased spending was not sustainable…and did it anyway.
Daddy Love…you know in your heart of hearts a 39-year career government bureaucrat who makes this kind of mess and is slow beyond belief to even acknowledge it, deserves to be fired. Didn’t you demand the firing of all kinds of folks connected with the Katrina disaster? This is just as bad.
I know you are obligated to ring the partisan Leftist Bell so I don’t hold you nonsensical posts against you personally. But it’s mighty lame to say Rossi should present his plan BEFORE the sitting Governor who created the mess with 31% increased spending on her watch.
You actually want us to trust Gregoire’s secret plan?
C’mn Daddy Love…that flies in the face of everything you have claimed to believe in repeatedly!
And Daddy Love–
You conveniently fail to ever acknowledge or address the huge $5.1 BILLION @ 6/30/07 and growing underfunding of the State Retirement Fund. It is probably nearly $8 BILLION DEFICIT with the decline in equity markets and the FACT that $38 BILLION (over 1/2) of the State Retirement Fund is invested in equities.
This is a disaster.
Do you really truly believe the average voter will believe you can have a Budget Surplus and Rainy Day Fund when we have a monstrous unfunded liability????
C’mon Daddy Love…you look foolish and are better than that.
Gregoire used smoke-and-mirrors, shell-game accounting & budgeting to creat these mystical situations.
It’s like the average citizen taking out a bunch of credit cards, borrowing to the max, putting money in the bank, spending some of it and decrying “LOOK I HAVE A SURPLUS AND RAINY DAY FUND!!
What a joke Daddy Love.
Throw in the towel.
Daddy,
Can you discuss in detail how Gregoire will bring us to a surplus when right now we’re sitting on a whopper of a deficit? Has she shared her plan w/you?
You conveniently fail to ever acknowledge or address the huge $5.1 BILLION @ 6/30/07 and growing underfunding of the State Retirement Fund.
The Washington State Investment Board that manages $78 billion in public employee retirement funds took a $130 million loss when Lehman Brothers filed for bankruptcy.
The top four lawmakers who received campaign contributions from Lehman Brothers employees, 1989-2008
Hillary Clinton $409,980
Barack Obama $395,574
Charles Schumer $181,450
Christopher Dodd $165,800
@5
Yeah, She spent and had no vision or cared to know where the economy was going until it hit bottom. Only a month ago she said where in good shape. This is leadership we don’t need.
The really funny thing is that Goldy is shooting down the liberal message.
He is talking about percentages of the economy. But the liberal message is that average citizens have not been brought along with the rest of the economy. So we should be looking at — since it’s the average citizens who mostly pay for the government — the cost of government against the real wages of working families.
I keep pointing this out. While wingnuts are quick to point out that some Democrats went along with the deregulation that led to the current crisis, they cannot deny, and none of them even attempt to deny, that this is an abject failure of Republican philosophy.
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G.....Bliley_Act:
After passing both the Senate and House the bill was moved to a conference committee to work out the differences between the Senate and House versions. The final bill resolving the differences was passed in the Senate 90-8-1 and in the House: 362-57-15. This veto proof legislation was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on November 12, 1999.
From Arianna Huffington of Huffinton Post:
He (Obama) needs to start by making sure that the economic advisers he turns to extend beyond those he had on a conference call on Monday — Robert Rubin, Lawrence Summers, Laura Tyson, and Paul Volcker. It’s great to include graybeards who have been through crises before, but he needs to go beyond the two Treasury Secretaries who were complicit in the 1990s deregulation orgy that has led to so many of the problems we are now seeing. **** And he needs to make it clear that the Clinton-era Democrats who put the interests of Wall Street ahead of the interests of Main Street are not going to be the primary voices he listens to.*****
Some who voted for the version of the bill that overwhelmingly became the law of the land in 1999:
Joe Biden
Christopher Dodd
John Edwards
Diane Feinstein
Edward Kennedy
Patrick Leahy
Carl Levin
Chuck Schumer
@ 48
Go back up to the graph, and read what it says along the vertical axis. Then tell us how your “real wages of working families” differs from the base used in the graph.
The more I read posts by conservatives the more I realize these people have an aversion to books, learning and the truth.
The whole “tax and spend” liberal mantra is proven to be false. Period.
Remember way back in the ’92 election cycle when the economy was, after 12 years of Republican stewardship in shambles, and the commies on the right were saying that if we follow Clinton’s policies he’ll tax us right in to the poorhouse?
Yeah, same situation, same argument and conservatives expect different results this time.
The classical definition of insanity. And, mental retardation to the Nth degree.
“44. Mr. Cynical spews:
It’s like the average citizen taking out a bunch of credit cards, borrowing to the max, putting money in the bank, spending some of it and decrying “LOOK I HAVE A SURPLUS AND RAINY DAY FUND!!”
Very Reagan/Bush/Bush jr. like isn’t it?
I wish you pay as much attention to the $10 TRILLION dollar debt the Republicans have ACTUALLY run up as you do a $3-5 billion dollar PROJECTED revenue shortfall.
In fact, the AIG bailout has added $1,100 to the Republican Birth Tax. You know, the one every person in America gets imposed on them because Republicans have committed FINANCIAL TREASON against America.
More than 50 comments in this thread, and not a single wingnut has been willing to take me up on the challenge I posted @1. Pathetic.
Don Joe:
He said “total economy.” Obviously — duh — the total economy includes a lot more than personal income.
As to your idiotic challenge @1 … both the B&O *and* a sales tax are terrible ideas. I’d love to see the Democrats run on either one.
@ 53
He said “total economy.”
In other words, you read the text, but didn’t bother to read the graph.
both the B&O *and* a sales tax are terrible ideas
I didn’t ask about the difference between the B&O tax and a sales tax (which, in terms of Economics, are virtually the same thing). I asked you to start with the difference between a tax on revenue and a tax on profits.
You guys are a scream. This is first year price theory, but none of you can explain this rather important difference. In other words, you are incapable of intelligently discussing the theory that underlies your ideology.
Um, the text and the graph are two different things, obviously.
And I meant “income” tax. It was late. And no, you did NOT ask about the difference, you asked which is better. AND NEITHER IS BETTER, THEY ARE BOTH TERRIBLE. You’re committing the question-begging fallacy by assuming one is better than the other, and then attacking people for not answering your fallacy. Poor form.
To a conservative, it’s like asking which is better: driving drunk, or driving high, and then attacking us for not answering such an inane question.
@ 55
Um, the text and the graph are two different things, obviously.
The text is ambiguous. The graph is not.
And no, you did NOT ask about the difference, you asked which is better.
I did suggest that an income tax is better for Economic growth than the current B&O tax, but the hint I gave was that you should start by comparing the difference between a tax on business revenue and a tax on business profits.
I also did not ask you what your preference is. We all know that Republicans prefer to free-load on government services without having to pay any taxes required to support those government services.
I asked you to explain the various effects on Economic growth. This isn’t a question subject to political biases. It’s a test of your knowledge of very basic Economics.
The overall point of this is that the reason an income tax isn’t politically viable in this state is that people like you are simply too stupid to figure out these basic questions. You’d rather pay through the nose via the hidden price effects of a B&O tax than pay a graduated income tax, even though, for the vast majority of people in this state, a graduated income tax would cost them less than does the current B&O tax.
These are not subjective conclusions. These are conclusions based on the same price theory that underpins your very Economic philosophy. For folks like you to use this theory to justify a trickle-down philosophy while completely disregarding the implications of that same theory for various taxing structures is pure sophistry.
The text is ambiguous. The graph is not.
As ambiguous as you think it is, the text does not represent what the graph does. It makes no sense to refer to personal income as “the total economy.”
I also did not ask you what your preference is.
Yes, but you did ask us which is better. The answer is neither.
We all know that Republicans prefer to free-load on government services without having to pay any taxes required to support those government services.
We all know you’re a liar.
You’d rather pay through the nose via the hidden price effects of a B&O tax than pay a graduated income tax
No, I’d rather eliminate the latter and not replace it with the former, but with lower spending by government.
The point is, of course, that you are babbling about irrelevancies, because you aren’t speaking to an issue of importance.
@ 57
It makes no sense to refer to personal income as “the total economy.”
It makes perfect sense to use personal income as an indicator of what the “total economy” has done. Or, are you going to suggest that the two are not at all correlated?
Yes, but you did ask us which is better. The answer is neither.
I asked which is better for economic growth, and that is a question that’s easily answered using basic Economics. If you’re not going to read all of what I’ve read, or you’re going to willfully answer a question I have not asked, then why bother?
We all know you’re a liar.
Are you completely incapable of losing an argument with grace and dignity?
No, I’d rather eliminate the latter and not replace it with the former, but with lower spending by government.
I believe this cartoon perfectly captures the incoherence of your position.
you are babbling about irrelevancies
The topic at hand is the pending budget deficit for the next fiscal biennium, and I’m talking about using Economic theory to devise a tax structure that resolves that pending deficit, evens out the state’s current problem of roller-coaster revenues and has the least negative impact on economic activity regardless of the overall level of taxation.
If you don’t want to participate in the discussion, then don’t. Declaring the discussion irrelevant with a dismissive hand-wave, however, is plain old intellectual sloth. That you would use this same Economic theory to bolster your own ideology, yet dismiss it as irrelevant when we’re talking about something that might run against your ideology is nothing short of hypocrisy.
It makes perfect sense to use personal income as an indicator of what the “total economy” has done.
False.
I asked which is better for economic growth
Both hurt economic growth.
I believe this cartoon perfectly captures the incoherence of your position.
That only proves you do not understand my position.
@ 59
False.
Do you ever come up with something more than a hand-wave when cornered? If you think personal income and the overall trend for the economy do not correlate, then perhaps you’d care to provide even some data to back that up?
Perhaps not, because there is no data that would back that up.
Both hurt economic growth.
Actually, that’s not strictly true depending on broader circumstances, but that’s somewhat beside the point. Even if we assume that any form of taxation is detrimental to Economic growth, we can easily demonstrate that some are less harmful than others.
That only proves you do not understand my position.
Given that you absolutely refuse to participate in any discussion of which form of taxation is better in terms of Economic growth, one can reasonably assume that you want no taxes whatsoever.
Either that, or you’re simply trying, rather desperately I might add, to give the appearance that you understand this subject when, in fact, you are as out of your element on Economics as John McCain is. Unfortunately, your ignorance and his could well end up being quite detrimental to all of us.
If you think personal income and the overall trend for the economy do not correlate …
I *know* that personal income *is not* the total economy and *do not necessarily* correlate because they are *different things.* Saying “false” about assertions to the contrary seems, to me, to be sufficient.
we can easily demonstrate that some are less harmful than others.
Yes. But since both suck, and since we are not faced with an either-or proposition, I feel no compulsion to engage in such a race to the bottom.
one can reasonably assume that you want no taxes whatsoever.
False.
@ 61
I *know* that personal income *is not* the total economy and *do not necessarily* correlate because they are *different things.*
Oh. My. The stupidity of that sentence is so astounding, it almost requires no response. Let’s see if I can state this in terms you’ll understand. Football passer rating and team victories are very different things. Guess what. They correlate.
Find any time period in the entire annals of recorded human history when personal income went up while GDP went down. You aren’t going to find one.
All this in order to cover up the fact that you didn’t read the graph before stuffing your foot into your mouth. Idiot.
But since both suck, and since we are not faced with an either-or proposition,
So you want both the the B&O and an income tax??
I feel no compulsion to engage in such a race to the bottom.
So, you prefer the current regressive tax structure, because it keeps poorer folks closer to the bottom? At least that would be an honest, if not all that intelligent, line of reasoning.
one can reasonably assume that you want no taxes whatsoever.
False.
So, then the alternative I stated above is true.
The stupidity of that sentence is so astounding
Why am I not surprised that you think a true statement is stupid?
Football passer rating and team victories are very different things. Guess what. They correlate.
Um. Not necessarily.
Find any time period in the entire annals of recorded human history when personal income went up while GDP went down
We can find you cases where personal income goes down while GDP goes up.
So you want both the the B&O and an income tax??
So you want to keep beating your mother?
So, you prefer the current regressive tax structure
So you prefer to keep beating your mother.
So, then the alternative I stated above is true.
False.
Um. Not necessarily.
I could say that the grass is green and the sky is blue, and you’d say, “False,” just to be an ass.
We can find you cases where personal income goes down while GDP goes up.
First, while there are theoretical, degenerate cases, no one has found a definitive case in history. In fact, there was a period not long ago where it appeared that personal income fell while GDP rose, but it turned out to be a problem with the way “personal income” was measured.
Second, if you’re trying to say that the correlation isn’t perfect, then you’re arguing against a straw man. I’ve never said that the correlation is perfect.
Lastly, we are talking about a period when personal income rose, so the statement I made in the beginning of my comment at 59 is still valid in this context.
So, you prefer the current regressive tax structure
So you prefer to keep beating your mother.
Well, you did agree that some tax structures are, indeed, better than what we currently have, but you “feel no compulsion” to change the status quo.
So, then the alternative I stated above is true.
False.
Except that you’ve given no reason for anyone to believe otherwise.
I could say that the grass is green and the sky is blue, and you’d say, “False,” just to be an ass.
Shrug. You said something as a truism. I pointed out it isn’t.
no one has found a definitive case in history
Um. How about in the last few quarters? Real income is down, but GDP is still positive. You lose.
Well, you did agree that some tax structures are, indeed, better than what we currently have, but you “feel no compulsion” to change the status quo.
You are lying about what I said.
Except that you’ve given no reason for anyone to believe otherwise.
False.