Burnt Orange Report

As much as you libs like to whine and harp on this issue, what solution (if by some chance, any) do you offer on this? Astronomical taxes on someone making $116,000 a year? Limits on how much one in that income range can earn?
Sometimes I could almost mistake this message board as one from Cuba or China...

When our founding fathers found themselves being held as economic hostages by the crown, bled dry through unfair taxation, they set about a plan to save their livelihoods. Texans and America at large find themselves in a similar situation today. We are the economic slaves not of the crown but of wealthy financiers who have taken control of our government and used it to bleed Americans dry, not through taxes but through legislation that allows for increasingly low wages and corporate welfare, and a refusal to protect American economic interests on the world market. And when I say American economic interests, what I mean is, economic interests of the majority of Americans, not large corporations for whom the bulk of profits and salaries benefit a very small minority of the work force.

We will never be able to compete with labor in communist and third world countries unless we intend to become one. We must protect American economic interests at home; our government has failed to do this and in doing so has failed to uphold their constitutional duties to promote the general welfare.

Our legislatures virtual refusal to support public education serves to further solidify the argument that they are interested solely in supporting the wealthy, leaving low wage workers few options other than to continue to support the lifestyles of the wealthy elite with cheap labor. Once you price those of modest means out of education, you have secured them as part of the low wage labor market. It is difficult to discern whether this is an act of calculated social engineering, or simply the by-product of heartless indifference.

Those original revolutionaries took up arms to free themselves from the grips of a corrupt government who had come to view its colonies only as cash cows from which to stock their own coffers. We are fortunate that those original revolutionaries armed us with the means by which to end this type of tyranny without bloodshed. They armed us with the power of the vote, creating a society where outside complete procedural corruption, the pen is indeed mightier than the sword. It is time we exercise this power, and remove from elected office, those who would use their positions to strip us of the liberties for which our founding fathers fought and died; in order to establish themselves as a wealthy aristocracy; one such as the constitutional framers tried desperately to prevent.

Trey,
China. You'd never hear the Chinese complain like this.
you are talking about the same China where most of our manufacturing jobs are being shipped? The same China with whom we refused to trade just a short time ago, due in part to their abismall human rights record. (it really has not changed)
The China to whom the U.S. has abandoned our former convictions and sold our souls for the price of cheap t-shirts and 5 dollar toasters,oh and let us not forget 10,000 dollar automobils. All this at the cost of American jobs.
I'm not sure the Chinese are complaining, Why, because they love working in manufacturing jobs for 1,000 dollars a year and having no rights to practice their religion or to self expression. Or maybe they are not complaining because they don't want to dissapear forever as political prisoners to the Chinese government.

"Astronomical taxes on someone making $116,000 a year? Limits on how much one in that income range can earn?"

How about just paying people a living wage and recognize with financial reward in terms of lower taxation their essential contributions to the American economy. The contributions that make it possible for others to earn 116,000 dollars a year.

Hey, Trey, what solutions do you have? Keep raising taxes on the poor? How 'bout you take a slow boat to China already? Dems want a 1% -- one frickin' percent -- tax on the highest income tax bracket. That's not communism. If lower and middle income families can afford to stay healthy and educate their kids, they develop into a better workforce. That, ultimately, means better workers, better efficiency, and a better product for all those folks at the top.

Unless, of course, they're outsourcing those jobs to China. Why sending jobs to other countries is more "American" than investing in the future of America's workforce is beyond me.

When did becoming the economic equivalent of the British Empire become part of the American Dream?

Trey - $116K is considered middle class, is it not? Republicans believe in taxing the middle class because it is the biggest tax base. They don't believe in giving tax breaks to the lowest income brackets, because, well, they don't pay much in taxes, anyway. Supply side economics benefits only a few at the top and the rest of us get burdened with paying disproportionately more. Good things Republicans are running things because they are so damn good at proving their policies are all such miserable failures.

Incidentally, Texas got an "A" for how it treats its businesses and an "F" for how it treats its residents. I would suggest Trey that policy priorities are a large part of why Texas's income disparities are what they are. We don't need communistic attitudes, just more reasonable ones.

The Houston Business Journal, no commie rag, gets it:

http://houston.bizjournals.com/houston/stories/2006/01/23/daily50.html

-------------------------------

Texas earns mixed grades for economic performance

Texas continues to enjoy strong job growth and a robust business sector, yet those gains aren't translating into top-notch jobs for most Texans, according to a new study.

The 19th Development Report Card for the States, released by the nonprofit Corporation for Enterprise Development, found that Texas earned the same grades as it did in the group's 2004 report card:

* An "A" for business vitality (business competitiveness and entrepreneurial energy).
* An "F" for performance (performance of the economy for its residents).
* A "C" for development capacity (positioning of the state for future economic growth).

The study uses 68 measures to assess how the Texas economy is performing.

Data show that jobs are plentiful in many sectors in Texas, including technology, and the state is near the top in developing job-creating businesses and in taking those businesses public, according to the study. However, Texas has one of the country's highest poverty rates, highly unequal income distribution, and low job quality and quality-of-life ratings, the study says.

"Texas is like no place else in America. It's a land of big successes but also big problems," says Beadsie Woo, senior economist for the Washington, D.C.-based Corporation for Enterprise Development.

"Texas has a strong focus on business and is making investments in technology and infrastructure to ensure future growth. Yet the investments in human resources are lagging, which may limit opportunities for many Texans further down the road.

For Texas, the study suggests investing further in education. The state ranks 49th in average teacher salary and 43rd for education expenditures from kindergarten through 12th grade, according to the study.

Top performers in the study are Massachusetts and Minnesota, followed by Colorado, Connecticut, New Jersey, Virginia and Wisconsin.

-------------------------------

You libs apparently need another explanation. Liberals talk about how everything should be "fair," yet fair to them means punish the achievement of wealth. That's why Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis and John Kerry were never elected president. Their ideas on taxation and regulation of business failed in Cuba and Germany, and they sure as ever won't succeed in the United States.
When Bush cut taxes during his first term, it was cut for everyone. There's no "trickle-down" or "supply-side about it." If a new 10 percent tax bracket was CREATED (that means "made" for you BORLib bloggers) for someone like myself who makes $32,000 a year,
that means what it says, not that it was just randomly passed on from who knows where.
And I hate to take a leak on your rainbows (no pun intended..LOL), but in countries where they have a "living wage," as Rep. Kucinich (Soc.-Ohio) loves to tout, they have never been able to boast of having a strong economy. Such countries have had high levels of unemployment thanks to unbridled levels of economic regulation.
Everyone who works and pays taxes has something to contribute to the economy -- whether that taxpayer is making $16,000 a year or $160,000 a year. Taxation rates should be set across the board. If you want real fairness, the standard you apply, would apply to everyone- not out of your hatred for business and wealthy individuals.

Oh, you must be referring to the small fortune of $300 we got in the mail that we had to claim at the end of the year.
That wasn't a tax cut, wise guy, it was the ol' switcharoo that you obviously fell for. Pay attention, Trey, it's not too late.

Supply-side economics is not liberal or conservative, any liberal can be a supply-sider and a liberal in good conscience. When is the last time you heard a D actualy defend an 88% marginal tax rate?

It may offend some of us as Westerners to here about people subsiting on wages like $10-15 a day, but in some countries that has prodcued a standard of living that was unthinkable just ten years ago. It is hard to say out of one side of our mouth that America abhors the horrible conditions some people live in, while out of the other we say that we must deny them the most promising oppportunity to raise that standard of living and bring real government reform. The funny thing about the "evil corporate" types is they really won't invest their money in a palce where it won't be protected and that means laws, fair courts, and stamping out corruption. (Steps off soapbox)

(Onto new soapbox). L is right on one (if only one) point. We can't out-Malaysia Malaysia on labor. Three-quarters of the US economy is service based and if the US wants to maintain itself as the envy of the world when it comes to living standards that means that education had better be a hell of lot better than it currently is. That means money and reform. And it means taking a look at higher education and access to it and re-thinking some of our ideas about what higher ed is for. 20 years ago Ireland was headed for a pretty bleak future with a primarily agrarian economy, today is is about to surpass the rest of Europe and that was the result of policy choices.

A one percent tax increase on the wealthy is going to solve an income discrepancy? The loss of high paying jobs held by the middle class is slowly eroding because the higher paying industrial based jobs of the past no longer exist.
After WWII the US came out smelling like a rose while Europe and Asia was a basket case. It remained that way until unions forced most industrial activity off shore to survive. Ie; American steel priced itself out of existance. The high paying jobs of the future will belong to the educated, and outcome based education that we have in our schools today will simply exaserbate the problem.

No, wage increases and better tax policy will take care of the wage gap. This is merely data pointing to a problem. It's kind of like inversion in the yield curve... it shows there is a problem and it has to correct.

Over the last almost 40 years real wages have been dropping for lower paying jobs. That's a fact and it has real economic consequences. As consumers at the low end are squeezed, their spending slows and the repercussions are felt throughout the economy. Wal-Mart specifically has felt this, other retailers generally have been effected as well.

As for the arguments on the living wage, aside from anecdotal evidence that there are some dislocations (labor intensive vs. capital intensive businesses being affected) when a living wage is implemented, the history of set minimum wage levels in the US has been positive and contributed to the creation of the middle class.

There is a big misconception that somehow tax cuts create massive economic benefits. They do, for a short time, when business is running at capacity and marginal rates are high. Neither was the case in 2001. In fact, the only thing that has been propping up businesses and consumers has been access to financing at relatively low rates. These low rates are a mystery when you consider the massive amounts of borrowing in the private and public sector. Normally such borrowing would escalate interest rates providing a natural break on that borrowing as fewer have the capacity to service the debt. However, that hasn't really happened because of a preference on the part of international investors to purchase dollar denominated debt. Why? Mostly because in comparison to other economies around the world, our rates are high. This has allowed us to maintain our profligate spending. It could also lead to a catastrophe if there is ever a crisis of confidence in the dollar or if we continue deficit spending to cover operating expenses (DoD, entitlements, etc.). The solution is to dramatically cut spending OR allow the tax cuts (which were only intended as a stimulus anyway) to expire.

The Bush increase in 1990 and the Clinton increase in 1993 (both of which were, by the way, mostly bipartisan) and the prosperity that resulted show that the answer is balance... not too much in taxes, no deficit spending.

This leads us back to the wage gap. The tax cuts were structured to benefit invested capital by relaxing taxes on capital gains and profits. While this theoretically frees up capital for investment in new capacity (and jobs) it has, in the real world, the opposite effect as business try to increase productivity (and sell assets)as much as possible for profits, not expansion of the business. Capital gains taxes were specifically strutured to promote investment.

Finally, if you really wanted to spur economic growth in this country the easiest way is to cut taxes dramatically on lower and middle income groups. They are the ones who actually spend money in the economy. As Warren Buffett said in 2003, Cutting my taxes will give me $100 million and it's going to stay with me.

Tax cuts doo work, in certain instances, but the ones in 2001 and 2003 seem uniquely designed to not work.

Lower and middle income groups don't pay enough taxes to have any dramtic cut unless you are talking about a negative income tax. Also, talking about wage levels without talking about health care expenses masks some of that growth. Every GM employee has been getting a 10% wage hike every year, they just never realized it was in the form of $5 co-pays.

The Clinton tax increase did not pass by that wide a margin if I recall correctly (I'm too lazy to verify). And the smartest thing he ever did was allow the R's to pass their capital gains reduction at the same time.

All one needs to do as far as liberals' attitudes on tax cuts is to restate a quote from Rep. Rosa DeLauro (Soc.-CT): "The truth is, Democrats are opposed to tax cuts."
Enough said.

snrub, sure they do. Not everyone takes advantage of the EITC:). As for the health care benefits, a benefit that may (or may not) be taken advantage of is not really a wage increase.

Are you talking about the 1997 cut from 28 to 20%? Sure, it spurred the market but to what end? Investment took a back seat to speculation.

Everyone, please pardon my doppelganger. He's obviously quite mad and doesn't understand that you can't cut taxes to nothing and still have a national defense. Further, you can't repay the massive debt we've accumulated so far by continuous tax cut.

Or, maybe, he subscribes to the Grover Norquist theory and believes that a magical fairy comes and leaves money in the coffers of the Treasury daily.

Except that defense spending is a not too close second place to entitlements in spending.

Unfortunately, employer spending on health care benefits is treated as wages and it is why American taxpayers subsidize that to the tune of about $130 billion a year. It is bassackwards and it has depressed take home pay. which is why both parties better get serious about health care reform.