Has anybody moved to Atlanta from Chicago and have regretted their decision? (Alpharetta: fit in, transplants)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Is the state of Georgia in a much healthier state than IL in terms of budget surplus/deficiit?
I hesitate to make this comment, because it would probably cause a ruckus with locals that are very anti-tax increase at all costs, but the out of towners from higher taxed areas might be able to under/appreciate it a little more.
Georgia is in much better fiscal health, because if we -had to- raise taxes to balance the budget we have more room/ability to do that. Since taxes are kept low within the state, there is more taxing potential.
The only caveat to that, which I must acknowledge, even though the ability exists the political will to do that is very low. Most of our past saved budget surplus has been spent in the past two years. The incoming Governor Nathan Deal has been proposing nothing but cuts in services, including education and has vowed not to increase taxes and has actually discussed decreasing taxes.
Either way, the point is, we have the physical ability to balance the budget, it is just a matter of how it is done.
I also agree with the other poster about Korean areas. You will find more Korean people and businesses near Norcross and Duluth if that is something that matters to you.
Tax decreases always warrant bigger returns in tax. Raising taxes just makes people spend less to compensate and survive or in worst cases relocate.
So yea.. If you move down here these are the types of magical arguments you will start to hear being made frequently, because anything in favor of cutting taxes is always good regardless of how correct it is or isn't.
Remember... Give a person an extra $1 to spend privately... more than that $1 will eventually end up in tax revenue, because that person spent it... Like I said magic.
Assuming the person spends the money, rather than saves it, and they spend it on a good or service that involves more local production vs production from out of state or country, you might be able to assume 20-30% of that $1 will eventually end up in the tax coffers. However, to argue over 100% of it will end up being taxed never works out too well.
That idea hasn't held true in practice, even though the argument has been around for over 40 years.
It might stand a chance of being true if government spending was around 70% of GDP, but in modern history first-world societies spending 30-45% of GDP it hasn't been true. (Of course at the state level we are only talking about 4-4.5% of GDP)
Love taxing... Hate taxing... Hate paying taxes, but understand you need to... I don't care... but...
In practice if you decrease tax rates, then total tax revenues will decrease. The public's increase in private spending has never been enough to recover lost tax revenue by a long shot at our current tax levels.
This is why we, the people, need to make a better effort to listen to well educated economists, rather than news pundits and not just trash academia.
Tax decreases always warrant bigger returns in tax. Raising taxes just makes people spend less to compensate and survive or in worst cases relocate.
This statement isn't true. Or, to be more accurate, the relationship between taxation and revenue is far more complicated than "lower taxes = higher revenues." It's very often the case that lowering taxes lowers overall revenues.
There's some truth that targeted tax cuts for lower income earners can stimulate the economy to an extent, mainly because lower income folks are most likely to spend additional money on agricultural or manufactured goods (which stimulates consumption). But the wealthiest tend to hoard large portions of their tax cuts:
Or, to be more accurate, the relationship between taxation and revenue is far more complicated than "lower taxes = higher revenues."
Having run some small businesses over the years I can vouch for that. If for some reason we came out better on taxes we didn't view that as a reason to go hire more people. We might have paid our existing employees a little bonus, or maybe given our management and/or owners a bump. Most likely, we would have just paid down lines of credit and tried to sock something away for hard times.
Our hiring decisions were based more on demand from our customers, and our ability to supply their needs.
In my opinion, that's why you see unemployment staying high, although corporations are making money hand over fist.
Tax policy might have had some influence on our hiring if there was an incentive targeted to some particular area but even then it was indirect. Hiring somebody is a fairly complicated decision that takes a lot of factors into account.
Location: Mableton, GA USA (NW Atlanta suburb, 4 miles OTP)
9,858 posts, read 10,744,453 times
Reputation: 2540
Quote:
Originally Posted by OhioNative
I personally do not consider Atlanta a "downgrade" from Chicago!
Neither do I. The two cities are very different in terms of history and the types of areas and neighborhoods offers, and each has its positives and negatives.
Remember... Give a person an extra $1 to spend privately... more than that $1 will eventually end up in tax revenue, because that person spent it... Like I said magic.
Assuming the person spends the money, rather than saves it, and they spend it on a good or service that involves more local production vs production from out of state or country, you might be able to assume 20-30% of that $1 will eventually end up in the tax coffers. However, to argue over 100% of it will end up being taxed never works out too well.
That idea hasn't held true in practice, even though the argument has been around for over 40 years.
This sickening notion that saving is bad is what is the real killer. Keynesian economics has been proven over and over again to be stupid and even Keynes admitted that it could not sustain itself.
Why not let the government take all the money we make? That way we will never go in debt and we can be in utopia?
This sickening notion that saving is bad is what is the real killer. Keynesian economics has been proven over and over again to be stupid and even Keynes admitted that it could not sustain itself.
Why not let the government take all the money we make? That way we will never go in debt and we can be in utopia?
Keynesian economics has not "been proven over and over again to be stupid."
But that aside... you really need to get your facts straight and learn economic theory better.
I haven't necessarily been arguing Keynesian economics. I have been just explaining why the notion that a tax cut pays for itself doesn't/hasn't worked.
Two very different things...
Don't let poorly educated news pundits trick you into thinking every economic theory clearly fits into two camps: tax increase and tax decrease. That is not what economic theory is.
Keynesian economics has not "been proven over and over again to be stupid."
But that aside... you really need to get your facts straight and learn economic theory better.
I haven't necessarily been arguing Keynesian economics. I have been just explaining why the notion that a tax cut pays for itself doesn't/hasn't worked.
Two very different things...
Don't let poorly educated news pundits trick you into thinking every economic theory clearly fits into two camps: tax increase and tax decrease. That is not what economic theory is.
You argued against savings. That is very Keynesian.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $53,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
