@bmacs27 you're pretty good at aping the right's rhetorical style -- essentially all of your responses didn't address the point I made, and pivoted to some traditional right-wing hobbyhorse.

So the response to "I doubt he's really paying 50% in taxes" is not to recount even a hypothetical example of how someone could wind up paying a sum total of 50% in taxes, but instead to just argue that the dubious statement might feel true because there are many various taxes someone might be paying?

Meh.

The response to my argument about the impact of marginal tax increases on employment is to make some argument about Schiff's personal labor/leisure preferences? That has nothing to do with it at all. If Schiff is the entrepreneurial capitalist he claims to be (and not just the F-list media personality he seems to be), then he doesn't really do any direct labor, he just makes choices about allocations of capital -- he makes investment decisions, and business deals where all the real work is done by other people.

He's making the case that if he has to pay a few more percentage points in taxes, he's going to start walking away from making investment deals that would have made his company money and employed people. Hell, he goes so far as to say that he would dissolve his ostensibly profitable business and fire all his employees, rather than sell it to someone else who still likes making money, even if they have to pay taxes.

As for the "buying labor low" argument, which sector is doing that? Right now what they're doing is shedding lots of employees, not paying out raises, cutting health benefits, and hoping that if/when they need more labor, the extended period of unemployment will provide them with a pool of desperate talent willing to work for far less than they would have pre-2007.

It's true that once upon a time, back when we had a lot of unionization, a lot of companies hoarded talent in exactly the manner you describe, so they could potentially enter into the expansion with a competitive advantage. But that's the old way of thinking, back when labor was broadly considered a valuable company resource, and not simply a fungible commodity to be purchased or discarded as needed. Offshore contractors, anyone?

Lastly about the "leave the money where the market put it" -- that's a good one! You seamlessly pivoted from "economics as a theory for understanding the world" to "economics as a system of moral justice". Nicely done, you're pretty good at talking like a conservative!

Still it doesn't address my basic economic argument at all -- that our high unemployment is fundamentally a function of a lack of demand. Lots of people don't have money to spend, even on things they desperately need. The handfuls of people who do have money don't see any way to employ that money in a profitable way, so they're just sitting on it. There's a few ways to try to solve that problem, but cutting (or maintaining existing) taxes on the top income earners won't help.

A simple, but radical solution would be for the Fed to simply buy up everyone's mortgages, and then release the leins on everyone's deeds. In other words, just have Uncle Sam pay off everyone's mortgage with freshly-printed money. I suspect consumer spending would return if we did that!

As for my closing quip, I'm quite serious -- Schiff doesn't deserve any respect or deference. It's not classy to be deferential to the expertise of people who don't actually have any; it's foolish.

Our ancestors carved the dirt lines through conquest and started systems to manage it all that are crumbling from age and abuse. A global society needs renewable everything, and a willingness to share, rather than hoard wealth and power.

@marbles

I agree with your assessment of fiat currency, I guess I think the problem runs deeper because I'd rather not just gamble and assume technology will save us from ourselves.

There are quite a few problems with going back to a fixed-supply currency. Maybe I'm not studied up on all the current real-world solutions for moving back to the gold standard or whatever other flavor one might advocate, but gold can be debased, bars can be shaved, currency can be hoarded...the list is fairly long.

That's why we need a value-based monetary system rather than a debt-based one.

I'm totally fine with taxcuts for people who really do re-invest into their company and create jobs.

But the burden should be on them to demonstrate that they are putting that money back into the system and not just hoarding it.

The money HAS to be put back into the system, not just sit in a big pile for the rich people to swim in. That's how the economy works. The money has to move and change hands.

These people repeatedly demonstrate why businesses and wall street need regulation. Leave them to their own devices and they FUCK EVERYONE OVER!!

Why do people always think libertarians are anarchists? Just because I don't belong into either of these bullshit parties doesn't make me not believe in government. I do, however, believe that government is a social contract between you and me, and everyone else, and that contract has to be balanced since we all don't have the same opinion. With that said, I do not believe anything a democrat says, and I sure as hell don't believe anything a republican says. The sad part about these parties is that the only time in the last decade where they actually agreed unanimously at the house was right after 9/11. As for the people (fans), only sheep will agree with their party all the time.

As for size and function of government, this is dependent on the state of the country and the scope of government's responsibility (Federal vs State). If you read Jean Jacques Rousseau's Social Contract (Du Contrat Social), you'd see that an exemplary government is one that focuses service, and not laws. If you have a serious drug problem, then you should get help, not get thrown in jail. Alas, we have an archaic emotional government. Republicans want to limit personal freedom, and democrats want to limit economic freedom. I see no point in either one of those as long as nobody is unfairly treated. That is THE bottom line.

Three things should be considered essential to our future economy:
1) Education
2) Healthcare
3) Science Projects / Environment

I'd vote for anyone who is willing to throw everything else under the bus for reconsideration - regardless of partisanship. The reason I brought the politician's case to pay their own healthcare and get a pay cut is not to save money - You can't consciously deny others free healthcare when you yourself have it. That's what's happening in congress today.

I like your statement about the legalizing and taxing Marijuana; however, Marijuana can't be taxed as most people would grow it at home - I say just legalize it and stop wasting DOJ resources. I don't mind taxing the shit out of oil, use of plastics, tobacco, and alcohol.

>> ^VoodooV:

>> ^MonkeySpank:
Your assumption is that the government will create jobs. I don't expect the government to create jobs - that's socialism. Just so you get this straight. I am not a democrat - I am a libertarian. I don't care about Obama; he is a failed president - just like Bush Jr., Carter, and Reagan. I'd rather have Ron Paul in the office, but you have to understand that we DO need a government. You have to understand that conservatives are not helping the situation either - two years in congress and nothing to show for. On top of all this, the hoards of Tea Party drama queens have been a horrible addition to our economic climate. They are not happy with anything, and are not offering any solutions. They give a bad name to the rest of the libertarians.
I don't like pensions, I don't like entitlements, and I don't like big government. However, everybody bitches about not having any money, yet nobody is willing to give up their benefits, pensions, and social security. Nobody is boycotting Chinese products at Wallmart/ToysRUs or outsourced manufactured goods. Nobody is willing to send their kids to private schools, yet they want to put a tourniquet on the education system. It's total hypocrisy. I hope the movement will die soon so we can go back to reconstruction.
The key word in this whole debate is "deficit." The money is already gone, and no amount of budget balancing alone will pay back the ridiculous amount the government already owes. I call on all these house representatives and government officials to take a 15% salary cut and pay for their own private health care. Let's see how patriotic they are. That'd be a good start; if that's not enough, then we can revisit the talks about taxing the rich.
As they say "Those who make the rules don't play the game."
>> ^quantumushroom:
His Earness has burned through 4 trillion dollars already. Why didn't he put any of it towards "paying off" the wars?
The logic here is astounding. When the wealthy keep more of what they earn, the left claims they don't use it to create jobs, but when the wealthy are taxed at a higher rate, the government (which creates nothing) can't use the "extra" revenue create jobs. Repeating: 4 trillions dollars already down the shitter, no jobs created.

>> ^MonkeySpank:
It's going to start paying back for the two useless wars that some idiot president started about 8 years ago. One thing is for sure though, not taxing them did not create jobs!
>> ^quantumushroom:
Federal government wastes half of every tax dollar.
So what's this magic millionaire money going to do that the spending addicts haven't done already?




You do know that cutting senator pay and benefits is a drop in the bucket. Overpaid as they are, they're still gov't employees and really don't make anything compared to their private sector counterparts.
No one is saying we shouldn't cut spending. It just can't be the only thing we do. There is nothing wrong with entitlements and pensions as long as they are paid for and efficient. Sure there is waste and corruption in government. The obvious answer is, eliminate the waste, root out the corruption. But that takes regulations and enforcement. Two things that Libertarians seem to oppose.
Freedom is really quite a myth. There are plenty of things people are not allowed to do because we as a society has deemed that they are harmful to others. We live in this country and thus, we have agreed to live by it's rules. If you don't like it, get the hell out.
I'm fine with making sacrifices, but dude, you need to remember what a luxury is and what a necessity. Pensions and entitlements for some people ARE necessities. It's not just some giveaway to people who don't need it. you want to cut entitlements? why do rich people even get medicare and social security and other entitlements...they don't need them obviously...they're rich..so they have the most, so they can shoulder more burden without being seriously affected.
It takes a scalpel, not a bludgeon. There is plenty of waste in social entitlements that even dems would be willing to cut. Get out of these wars we're in. No one is saying throw the military under the bus and leave our nation unprotected but we clearly don't need to spend as much on defense as we do. There are plenty of expensive pie in the sky defense projects out there that simply don't need to exist right now. get rid of them.
Dems have already agreed to plenty of cuts, Dems have compromised up the butt or have you forgotten Boehner bragging about he got 98 percent of what he wanted. Now it's time to bring some extra revenue to help pay those bills and invest in green tech that will improve our economy.
Pardon the pun but cutting alone just doesn't....cut it. Legalize and tax the fuck out of Marijuana. empty out the non-violent offenders in our prisons.
Gov't will shrink and grow as it needs to be. the size of gov't is unimportant, it just needs to be efficient. And small gov't is not necessarily efficient gov't.

>> ^MonkeySpank:

Your assumption is that the government will create jobs. I don't expect the government to create jobs - that's socialism. Just so you get this straight. I am not a democrat - I am a libertarian. I don't care about Obama; he is a failed president - just like Bush Jr., Carter, and Reagan. I'd rather have Ron Paul in the office, but you have to understand that we DO need a government. You have to understand that conservatives are not helping the situation either - two years in congress and nothing to show for. On top of all this, the hoards of Tea Party drama queens have been a horrible addition to our economic climate. They are not happy with anything, and are not offering any solutions. They give a bad name to the rest of the libertarians.
I don't like pensions, I don't like entitlements, and I don't like big government. However, everybody bitches about not having any money, yet nobody is willing to give up their benefits, pensions, and social security. Nobody is boycotting Chinese products at Wallmart/ToysRUs or outsourced manufactured goods. Nobody is willing to send their kids to private schools, yet they want to put a tourniquet on the education system. It's total hypocrisy. I hope the movement will die soon so we can go back to reconstruction.
The key word in this whole debate is "deficit." The money is already gone, and no amount of budget balancing alone will pay back the ridiculous amount the government already owes. I call on all these house representatives and government officials to take a 15% salary cut and pay for their own private health care. Let's see how patriotic they are. That'd be a good start; if that's not enough, then we can revisit the talks about taxing the rich.
As they say "Those who make the rules don't play the game."
>> ^quantumushroom:
His Earness has burned through 4 trillion dollars already. Why didn't he put any of it towards "paying off" the wars?
The logic here is astounding. When the wealthy keep more of what they earn, the left claims they don't use it to create jobs, but when the wealthy are taxed at a higher rate, the government (which creates nothing) can't use the "extra" revenue create jobs. Repeating: 4 trillions dollars already down the shitter, no jobs created.

>> ^MonkeySpank:
It's going to start paying back for the two useless wars that some idiot president started about 8 years ago. One thing is for sure though, not taxing them did not create jobs!
>> ^quantumushroom:
Federal government wastes half of every tax dollar.
So what's this magic millionaire money going to do that the spending addicts haven't done already?





You do know that cutting senator pay and benefits is a drop in the bucket. Overpaid as they are, they're still gov't employees and really don't make anything compared to their private sector counterparts.

No one is saying we shouldn't cut spending. It just can't be the only thing we do. There is nothing wrong with entitlements and pensions as long as they are paid for and efficient. Sure there is waste and corruption in government. The obvious answer is, eliminate the waste, root out the corruption. But that takes regulations and enforcement. Two things that Libertarians seem to oppose.

Freedom is really quite a myth. There are plenty of things people are not allowed to do because we as a society has deemed that they are harmful to others. We live in this country and thus, we have agreed to live by it's rules. If you don't like it, get the hell out.

I'm fine with making sacrifices, but dude, you need to remember what a luxury is and what a necessity. Pensions and entitlements for some people ARE necessities. It's not just some giveaway to people who don't need it. you want to cut entitlements? why do rich people even get medicare and social security and other entitlements...they don't need them obviously...they're rich..so they have the most, so they can shoulder more burden without being seriously affected.

It takes a scalpel, not a bludgeon. There is plenty of waste in social entitlements that even dems would be willing to cut. Get out of these wars we're in. No one is saying throw the military under the bus and leave our nation unprotected but we clearly don't need to spend as much on defense as we do. There are plenty of expensive pie in the sky defense projects out there that simply don't need to exist right now. get rid of them.

Dems have already agreed to plenty of cuts, Dems have compromised up the butt or have you forgotten Boehner bragging about he got 98 percent of what he wanted. Now it's time to bring some extra revenue to help pay those bills and invest in green tech that will improve our economy.

Pardon the pun but cutting alone just doesn't....cut it. Legalize and tax the fuck out of Marijuana. empty out the non-violent offenders in our prisons.

Gov't will shrink and grow as it needs to be. the size of gov't is unimportant, it just needs to be efficient. And small gov't is not necessarily efficient gov't.

Your assumption is that the government will create jobs. I don't expect the government to create jobs - that's socialism. Just so you get this straight. I am not a democrat - I am a libertarian. I don't care about Obama; he is a failed president - just like Bush Jr., Carter, and Reagan. I'd rather have Ron Paul in the office, but you have to understand that we DO need a government. You have to understand that conservatives are not helping the situation either - two years in congress and nothing to show for. On top of all this, the hoards of Tea Party drama queens have been a horrible addition to our economic climate. They are not happy with anything, and are not offering any solutions. They give a bad name to the rest of the libertarians.

I don't like pensions, I don't like entitlements, and I don't like big government. However, everybody bitches about not having any money, yet nobody is willing to give up their benefits, pensions, and social security. Nobody is boycotting Chinese products at Wallmart/ToysRUs or outsourced manufactured goods. Nobody is willing to send their kids to private schools, yet they want to put a tourniquet on the education system. It's total hypocrisy. I hope the movement will die soon so we can go back to reconstruction.

The key word in this whole debate is "deficit." The money is already gone, and no amount of budget balancing alone will pay back the ridiculous amount the government already owes. I call on all these house representatives and government officials to take a 15% salary cut and pay for their own private health care. Let's see how patriotic they are. That'd be a good start; if that's not enough, then we can revisit the talks about taxing the rich.

As they say "Those who make the rules don't play the game."

>> ^quantumushroom:

His Earness has burned through 4 trillion dollars already. Why didn't he put any of it towards "paying off" the wars?
The logic here is astounding. When the wealthy keep more of what they earn, the left claims they don't use it to create jobs, but when the wealthy are taxed at a higher rate, the government (which creates nothing) can't use the "extra" revenue create jobs. Repeating: 4 trillions dollars already down the shitter, no jobs created.

>> ^MonkeySpank:
It's going to start paying back for the two useless wars that some idiot president started about 8 years ago. One thing is for sure though, not taxing them did not create jobs!
>> ^quantumushroom:
Federal government wastes half of every tax dollar.
So what's this magic millionaire money going to do that the spending addicts haven't done already?

Drachen, it sounds like your beef with the rich is that they "hoard" money rather than pump it back into the economy. Your solution, then, it to increase the capital gains tax rate (what Obama is promoting in this video)? As a hypothetical rich person, I have two options as far as what to do with my money. I can put it into a safe but low-interest bank account or I can invest in capital (stock market, real estate, etc), where on average I stand to earn a greater interest rate but where I also put my money at much greater risk. If you disincentivize the latter with an increased capital gains tax rate, you are going to divert funds from being invested into the economy toward Scrooge McDuck's swimming pool.

And in case there is any confusion, rich people are not taxed at a lower net rate than poor people on INCOME. Rich people in the U.S. pay 39.6 cents on every dollar they make in income over $250,000 after deductions, while those who make less $39,600 after deductions are taxed at 15 cents to the dollar. However, traditionally, capital gains (as opposed to income) have been taxed at 15% flat. Why should capital gains be taxed at a lower rate than income? Arguments include:

1. Investment in capital is an investment in the economy. It is encouraged with a lower capital gains tax rate.
2. Money must first be earned as income before it can be invested. Therefore it has already been taxed. Capital gains tax in essence is a taxation on already taxed money.
3. Investment is risky, bringing in a salary is not. Risk averse spenders will not take risks unless they are incentivized to do so. But it is essential to the growth of our economy that this risk be taken. Refer to point 1.

Lies, Michelle Bachman says so, but it's simply not true (and unlike Quant, I actually have evidence to back my claims http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/numbers/displayatab.cfm?Docid=2435&DocTypeID=2)

Top 1% pays 22.7% of Federal taxes and have 17% of the income. The bottom 90% pay 47.8% with 59.8% of all income. Those numbers are based on verifiable fact, not regurgitated punditry. So yes, the wealthy pay a slightly higher percentage of their income as tax, boo hoo, poor billionaires.

Second, it has been proven, time and again, 100% of the time, that tax breaks to the wealthy do not stimulate the economy nearly as much as tax breaks to the middle and lower classes. It has always been that way and I defy you to find a time and place in history when things worked differently. Middle and lower income people SPEND money, the wealthy HOARD money. It's a simple as that, hoarding does not stimulate the economy. They don't ACTUALLY spend it on job creation, that's just a myth.

Maybe you should get your 'facts' from someone other than Michelle Bachman, she's not very reliable.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Word up, lantern. The top 1% wealthy already pay 40% of the taxes. Forcing them to pay more will weaken the economy further but snag a few more voters seeking "revenge" for perceived economic injustices.
Hasn't President Foodstamps already blown 4 trillion in fiat money with nothing to show for it? The socialists of this corrupt regime can't create a single job for less than half-a-million dollars each.

>> ^lantern53:
It simply isn't true.
Warren Buffett pays about 45% of his income to the gov't whereas the poorest 50% of the citizenry pays no federal taxes at all.
Obama is just a divider encouraging class warfare.

There have to be lots of poor people in order for society to support a small number of rich people. That's how capitalism works. Don't know what richness of spirit means. If it means greedy, then yes, the poor are not as greedy as the rich. Studies show they tend to be more sympathetic to others in a similar situation and thus are more altruistic, whereas the rich don't give a damn and hoard their wealth.

>> ^pyloricvalve:

Thanks for the reply. There were things I really didn't understand about Krugman's Hangover Theory article, especially that very point that you quote. In fact I tried to ask in a post above about this but maybe you missed it. To me it seems only natural that there is no unemployment in the boom and there is some in the bust. Both are big reorganisations of labour, it is true. However, to start with the boom is much slower and longer so adaptation is easier. Also the booming industry can afford to pay slightly above average wages so will easily attract unemployed or 'loose' labour. As it is paying above average, there will be little resistance to people changing work to it. The boom is persistent enough that people will train and invest to enter the work created by it. The information for entering the boom industry is clear and the pay rise makes the work change smooth. I see no reason for unemployment.
The bust however is short and sudden. There is no other obvious work to return to. That information of what the worker should do is much less clear. The answer may involve taking a small pay cut or on giving up things in which people have invested time and money. Many people wait and resist doing this. They may well not know what to do or try to wait for opportunities to return. Thus there is plenty of reason for unemployment to be generated by the bust.
If I hire 100 people it can probably be done in a month or two. If I fire 100 people it may be a long time before they are all employed again. For me this difference seems so obvious I have a real trouble to understand Krugman's point. I know he's a very smart guy but I can't make head nor tail of his argument here. Can you explain it to me?


I'm trying to think how to connect what you're saying to the point Krugman's making (at least as I understand it).

At a minimum, he're Caplan making the same point in less space:

The Austrian theory also suffers from serious internal inconsistencies. If, as in the Austrian theory, initial consumption/investment preferences "re-assert themselves," why don't the consumption goods industries enjoy a huge boom during depressions? After all, if the prices of the capital goods factors are too high, are not the prices of the consumption goods factors too low? Wage workers in capital goods industries are unhappy when old time preferences re-assert themselves. But wage workers in consumer goods industries should be overjoyed. The Austrian theory predicts a decline in employment in some sectors, but an increase in others; thus, it does nothing to explain why unemployment is high during the "bust" and low during the "boom."

Krugman saying the same thing in more accessible language:

Here's the problem: As a matter of simple arithmetic, total spending in the economy is necessarily equal to total income (every sale is also a purchase, and vice versa). So if people decide to spend less on investment goods, doesn't that mean that they must be deciding to spend more on consumption goods—implying that an investment slump should always be accompanied by a corresponding consumption boom? And if so why should there be a rise in unemployment?

And as a bonus, here's Brad DeLong making a similar case.

My real handicap here is that I'm not familiar enough with the fine details of the Austrian theory to say with authority what they believe. So if I misrepresent their position, it's out of ignorance.

What I gather is that ultimately the Austrian theory of boom and bust is that central banks are messing with the "natural" balance of investment and consumption goods, with a boom happening when investment is being artificially stimulated (by low interest rates), and a bust happens when interest rates eventually go back up (due to inflation, or expectations thereof).

The response from people like Caplan and Krugman is to point out that since aggregate income has to equal aggregate expenditure (because everyone's income is someone else's expenditure, and vice versa), a fall in investment should mean a rise in consumption, and a rise in investment should mean a fall in consumption. Which means we should never see an overall boom or an overall bust, just periods of transition from a rise in consumer goods and a fall in investment, to a fall in consumer goods and a rise in investment. We should never see a situation where they both fall at the same time.

But we do see a fall in both during the bust. Why?

Keynes's answer was that it happens because people are hoarding cash. Either people are themselves stuffing mattresses with it, or more likely, banks start sitting on reserves and refusing to lend out, either out of a fear of their own solvency (Great Depression), or because a deflationary cycle with high unemployment makes sitting on cash look like a good, safe investment for them (Great Depression, and now). Put simply, depressions are the result of an excess demand for money. And since money is an arbitrary thing, it doesn't have to be a scarce resource, we can always just make more...

But that's just it: the treasury isn't the only source of money in the country. Bankruptcy implies defaulting on paying bills, which we haven't done yet. Everybody keeps saying how broke this country is, while the top 0.1% hoard massive amounts of the country's money supply. If we were serious about paying down our debt, we'd acknowledge that the plurality of wealth is concentrated into the hands of a tiny minority. There should be at least two more tax brackets, for millionaires and billionaires, to tap into the vast reserves of cash just sitting in the accounts of people who own private jets. Let's stop fooling ourselves that a nation where this is possible is somehow running out of money.

If Ron Paul had his way, we'd write off all the debt we owe ourselves like it didn't exist. Is that really a responsible solution?

>> ^MarineGunrock:

Apple now has more cash than the US Treasury.>> ^CircleMaker:
America is the wealthiest nation in the world by a huge margin. We are nowhere close to being bankrupt.

Honestly I don't know the first thing about celebrity gossip but I imagine it's actually quite the opposite; the dedicated tabloids would probably be much more interested in some truly trashy piece of gossip to report, and like it or not, a piece about celebrity yeast infections would probably sell way better than one covering hairstyles.

Remember the whole Gizmodo iPhone debacle? Same thing. Sure Gizmodo were to blame for being completely unprofessional, but they were simply the manifestation of the Apple fanboy hoards. We can't expect the media to practice professionalism and work ethic when we don't demand it as consumers but simply frown when they go 'over the line' (and even when they do, and we frown, we still manage to make it worth their while).

>> ^dannym3141:

>> ^NinjaInHeat:
I must say I sympathize with the so called "journalist". He is doing a very poor job of defending himself and I in no way support the point he's trying to make, but he does touch on something I agree with; this whole voyeurism industry is filth by definition, what's incredible here isn't the lengths that these reporters would go to to push out more trash news, it's that there's such an overwhelming demand for this garbage.
I would much rather hear actors directing heat on these issues straight at the audiences (which of course they won't). It's much easier blaming the celebrity media, but they are simply a manifestation of the mindless consumer horde.

In a way, sure, but i don't think the public would be happy with them hacking people's private shit to get that gossip. Well, they're clearly not because i haven't heard a single person standing up for them yet, though i'm sure there's reprehensible people who would somewhere in britain.
I don't think i've ever heard someone say "i get the paper for the celebrity gossip". And whilst i know there are celebrity gossip magazines out there that sell, i'd venture a guess that it's "cheryl cole's got a new hairstyle" that they're interested in rather than "cheryl cole's booked in for a yeast infection at local clinic, phone transcript inside".

http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/06/speedup-americans-working-harder-charts

Look at the top three. Are the rich (aka the top 1%) universally callous a-holes? No.

Are a statistically significant number of them hoarding a disproportionate helping of the gains achieved through productivity increases over a the last few decades? Yes.

Is that trend happening very, very quickly right now? Yes.

Oh, and about the above back and forth about tax rates, actual tax revenue as a share of GDP is lower than ever right now, personal income tax rates are lower than they've been since the 1920's, capital gains tax rate is lower than it's been since the 1920's, and the effective corporate tax rate (i.e. once you account for exemptions) is about 25%, which is well below the OECD average.

So yes, taxes are lower than ever here in the US.
>> ^quantumushroom:

Part of your writing is about what happened and the rest is about what you believe. Are the rich universally callous a-holes who care nothing about their employees? Some are like that, others ain't. Capitalism is like a military tank; it's better to be riding in the turret than getting caught under the treads.

"It's ours" says the Jewish American Princess who came here a week ago, ahahaha. It's peak season for the Jewish-American hoards here, as if we don't have enough indigenous mindless Patriotism, come summer the states never fail in funneling an endless supply of young morons to come support a cause that isn't theirs, in a country they've never been to, taking sides in a conflict they do not understand.
Bravo Israel, bravo.

These celebrations were so loud they almost disturbed my Team Fortress 2 session, bastards...