So you don't disagree, the money is there, it's just fear of the future that is suppressing business start-ups, ie. employing that money?
We are raising money for a fund to buy distressed properties. We know the margins and the nets the private money is looking at. We have talked with people with 100s of millions on the side line... and it is mostly staying on the side lines. They need to see big margins and low risk to make a move. There is a major fear of increased taxes, inflation, increased regulation, obama care and cap and trade. People want business models which do well in a down market. Investors are looking at their net and they are quite worried that if Obama gets re elected the economy really falls apart. There is a major sense that we are on the cliff staring at the abyss. The consensus is that Obama will send us in but we are not sure about the Republican candidates. People make jokes about the fact the Republicans are almost as bad as the leftists. America is screaming for a leader on a mission to cut taxes and govt spending. We need a plan which is Congress Proof.
Thank you for proving the point. A quote from your article... "According to the second table, the real growth in individual income tax receipts was 9.41% from 1981 to 1991 and 10.41% from 1982 to 1992. These were the lowest growth rates of any of the 58 10-year spans from 1940 to 2007. However, these record lows were surpassed by 1998 to 2008 (5.77%) and 1999 to 2009 (-19.36%). Hence, the evidence is that the Reagan tax cuts DECREASED revenues over what they would have been, at least over the short (10-year) term" --- So again revenues went up after Reagan tax cuts even after you took out FICO receipts.... Notice the last sentence in the selection... this is the ones designed to fool the low comprehension leftists on this board.
Again, so much political bs involved in all this. The right saying that the world is coming to an end, socialism is coming, we're copying Europe, and all that stuff. So, even if you have money and a good idea, you're 'afraid' so very 'afraid' of starting a business. OK, I guess the fear factor is working in that regard. Even when facts get in the way, facts that one would want to start buying homes again, rent them out, invest in new technologies working. Not just Facebook, but other social media. The market is at 13,000 again, double where it was. Yeah, I know the market is not a mirror of the economy, ok, sure. Well, for our less then enlightened pals here on ET. How many more $trillions are in play at 13,000 dow than 6,000 dow? Seriously, you're stock market guys. Anything good since 2009 low happen? Anywhere? I gave you a big hint guys. Does it half to be gloom and doom? Did Obama take your guns? Did he join his Muslim brothers? Did he go back home to Kenya? What the hell is everyone so afraid of? And, my logical caveats are simple. I don't like some of the regulations, but then again, we blew it and had to bail out banks. And, then Madoff and all those characters. Take an objective look. Everything can be better, but many things are good. Even the 'dumb money' investors who bought and hold are happy since 2009. So, how much more money in play? Why so doom and gloom? Seriously guys. c
Sorry, I have to correct the word 'half' and substitute 'have' - must have gotten caught up in the moment. c
I wasn't intending to prove anything in particular. I certainly did not prove what you think I proved! For those who can understand it, the article seems to do a better than usual job of examining the question of whether tax cuts are related to revenue increases as cause and effect. There is no question that revenues have increased after tax cuts. The question is: are these events related as cause and effect? The conclusion of the article seems to be that in the Kennedy case tax cuts may have been at least partially responsible for revenue increases, but in the Reagan case they were counter productive. That is, in the case of the Reagan tax cuts, the cuts decreased revenue over what it would have been had the cuts not been in place. It's really not too complicated, I hope. I've made this point many times in these forums, that a main driver of revenues is often government spending, so that when you have tax cuts in an atmosphere of massive increases in government spending, i.e., borrowing and deficits, subsequent revenue increases will come from spending, and whether tax cuts increased or decreased that revenue can't be known unless one can somehow separate out the effect of the increased spending.
1. When revenues are falling under the weight of a poor economic structure... you can't guess what revenues would have been under the current tax structure. You have to do something to make the people with the money invest in job creating businesses. 2. We are not here to generate max revenue for the govt... the govt is here to serve us. as a side note... 3. deficit spending is a massive tax on americans, especially if you have tax structure which is regressive and also if we do not see incomes go up to match the debasing activity. Americans ares spending much larger amounts of their income on oil and food and rent. We must lower taxes and lower spending.
+1 or even +100. The problem, as you well know, is that politico's cannot decide on what to stop spending/wasting money on, or whose taxes to cut. There must be a compromise, a word that the extremes don't like, but it is the only chance IMO. I don't want to pay more taxes, but I will, happily, if the spending is cut in a way that I feel comfortable with. I didn't like my taxes spent on foolish wars, and I still don't like it. I don't like all the money going to every country in the world, when we need it here, in so many places. I keep saying 'social liberal' - stay out of our bedrooms and off our phones and web. Fiscal conservative, stop wasting our damn money. Help Americans who really need it, yes, foreign enemies, not. c
Me too. I would less opposed to paying somewhat higher taxes if spending were cut sensibly. We don't need a new government agency for every little social problem. We don't need highly paid unelected Czars in the executive who aren't agreed upon by congress. We don't need the government subsidizing car manufacturers or solar cell supliers or windmill installations. We definitely don't need the government deliberately driving gasoline prices to the moon in the name of reducing carbon emissions. Half of what the government does these days is frankly illegal and unwanted.