Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
We don't have revenue problem man. We pay taxes out the ass no matter how much more you think we can squeeze out of people.
If that's the case, then why are revenues at the lowest percentage of our GDP in our lifetimes?
Corporate taxes are at an all-time low:
And Americans' taxes are at the lowest level of recent decades:
We need more revenues, which IMO should be partially funded by higher taxes within the next couple of years. And the wealthiest should pay more than the working middle and lower classes. Hopefully additional revenue will come from increased GDP (and wage increases).
Quote:
We need responsible spending. That crap you are talking about didn't even work in Europe because they are collapsing left and right now. All that is going to happen is you tax the rich we get into another debacle and then we tax them some more and more and more because instead of controlling spending we tax until we get to the point where hardly anyone can even make the "rich" income you tax more, and then what do we do? We tax the middle and lower class more and more.
You don't show a nuanced understanding of the European crises. Countries with fairly progressive tax systems (where taxes are high and the rich pay more) are doing fine, including the Scandinavian counties and Germany. (The richest in Germany pay 42% income tax, significantly higher than the U.S.)
Greece got in trouble for a lot of reasons, much of which had to do with the government basically lying about their solvency to lenders/bond holders. Domestically, the country spent WAY too much AND allowed the populace to evade taxes left and right. They overpromised on social programs without collecting adequate taxes.
It's simply unreasonable to claim that we don't have a revenue problem. It's not either/or when it comes to revenue and spending. We have a problem in both areas.
I like to be the counter view of popular notions. Let me say that im not convinced it is white flight but rather, smug flight. You have a group of trendies that force themselves to act and fit in a clique. These people have currently found refuge to their madness in pretending they are so evolved they can live among the roughness of the city. The more different it is from them, the more they are attracted to it.
But, here is the but, they don't want to really be there. So they set up sections and begin to push the ahem, undesirables out (and undesirables are really everybody else, regardless of creed). Once they have made their enclaves, they go on proclaiming they live in the rough hoods of the inner city and everybody else who does not is an inbred hick racist.
Think about it. You know im right here. Dead on right.
You don't show a nuanced understanding of the European crises. Countries with fairly progressive tax systems (where taxes are high and the rich pay more) are doing fine, including the Scandinavian counties and Germany. (The richest in Germany pay 42% income tax, significantly higher than the U.S.)
....... cut to save space....
No. Those systems used to work. They don't anymore. They worked because you had a layer of very overpriced labor that had so much pork in it it could afford to pay massive taxes to support the limited uniform population who did not have that income buffer.
As population grows, that income buffer does not grow fast enough or declines for a variety of reasons. What happens when taxing the richest isn't doing it anymore?
Scandinavia is presently on a massive downhill slope. It is not talked much because as population and % of euro gdp it isnt enough to raise eyebrows and because they are not bankrupting and threatening the euro yet. But give it a few more years and the systems will be depleted of money, just like the US is.
Progressive taxation is fine, BUT, you have to be seriously joking if you think scandinavia or whoever else is actually a progressive tax system. It is a mix of flat tax (commodity tax), vat tax (sales tax give or take) and income tax. The income tax is the progressive part, but hardly the big budget feeder.
The commodity tax is where it is at. Say, how do you feel about paying 180 000$ for a VW passat in denmark? And im not even joking about that number. That tax is paid by anyone, regardless if you make 3000 euros or 400000 euros. Now, you can see where the real income is at.
OK, I'll humor you. I will drop out of school (that is the cool thing to do) and get a job with a moving company. I will then get on food stamps and section 8... permanently. Then, I will knock up 3 or 4 different chicks, but refuse to commit to any of them and leave them to raise the kids (on welfare, of course). Using what is left of my salary after child support is taken out, I will buy an Xbox, a big-screen, and start smoking weed during work and crack at night. I will also steal pills from the people employing me to move them and sell them, because, you know, they owe it to me because I am so poor and they are so wealthy.
The sad thing is, I am not making this up. I worked at a moving company for a summer and this was the life of almost every single one of my co-workers. I have experienced what their life was like: it was one of government hand-outs excusing one bad decision after another.
So almost ALL of your co-workers smoked crack at night and stole pills to sell on the street? About how many co-workers are you talking about? Did you voice the same opinions to them that you do here on city-data? If not, why? You would be able to directly address (and I suppose help) the people that you claim to despise and are ruining it for honest hardworking, tax-payers like yourself...
If that's the case, then why are revenues at the lowest percentage of our GDP in our lifetimes?
Corporate taxes are at an all-time low:
And Americans' taxes are at the lowest level of recent decades:
We need more revenues, which IMO should be partially funded by higher taxes within the next couple of years. And the wealthiest should pay more than the working middle and lower classes. Hopefully additional revenue will come from increased GDP (and wage increases).
You don't show a nuanced understanding of the European crises. Countries with fairly progressive tax systems (where taxes are high and the rich pay more) are doing fine, including the Scandinavian counties and Germany. (The richest in Germany pay 42% income tax, significantly higher than the U.S.)
Greece got in trouble for a lot of reasons, much of which had to do with the government basically lying about their solvency to lenders/bond holders. Domestically, the country spent WAY too much AND allowed the populace to evade taxes left and right. They overpromised on social programs without collecting adequate taxes.
It's simply unreasonable to claim that we don't have a revenue problem. It's not either/or when it comes to revenue and spending. We have a problem in both areas.
1. Ofcourse during a recession revenues will fall. We have millions people out of work and businesses shut down!
2. Your charts don't even include inflation which has constantly risen. Inflation is the tax you can't measure but it only come from governmet spending and printing. So unless you can argue that things are the same price they were decades ago and wages have actually kept up we are still paying too much and this is still a spending issue. If the government spent within it's means it would need to print and borrow cash inflating the money supply. Do you think if they got more out of us they would spend responsibly? You are naive if you believe that.
You also know nothing about the Europe or world debt crises going on now. This is what is wrong with Americans and the media.
I like to be the counter view of popular notions. Let me say that im not convinced it is white flight but rather, smug flight. You have a group of trendies that force themselves to act and fit in a clique. These people have currently found refuge to their madness in pretending they are so evolved they can live among the roughness of the city. The more different it is from them, the more they are attracted to it.
But, here is the but, they don't want to really be there. So they set up sections and begin to push the ahem, undesirables out (and undesirables are really everybody else, regardless of creed). Once they have made their enclaves, they go on proclaiming they live in the rough hoods of the inner city and everybody else who does not is an inbred hick racist.
Think about it. You know im right here. Dead on right.
This assumes all intown areas are rough. George Chong, Pless, and other posters on here who live intown prove your entire premise wrong.
I like to be the counter view of popular notions. Let me say that im not convinced it is white flight but rather, smug flight. You have a group of trendies that force themselves to act and fit in a clique.
That doesn't describe my neighborhood at all (or any of the other neighborhoods I know about).
Many of the folks around here have been in the area for generations and we've seen all kinds of "flight" come and go. For us it's just home. Many have the resources to live anywhere they want but they stay put because of the convenience and the very high quality of life. Great schools, the best cultural amenities, outstanding grocery store, restaurants and other shopping. And world class public transit if that's your thing.
One of the attractions for me personally is the diversity of the housing stock. Every dang house on my street was individually designed and built. Fortunately, Atlanta is also one of those cities where you have plenty of room to spread out if you want. I love our old garage out back and the shed I call "the barn," although they mostly just accumulate junk. We've had chickens, dogs. cats and always have a vegetable garden. Some folks like the smaller lots or condo/townhouse living and if the real estate market gets better we'll probably go that route too.
On the whole it's just a good place to live. That's true of many places in metro Atlanta but I don't see any reason for anybody to start getting smug about it.
On the whole it's just a good place to live. That's true of many places in metro Atlanta but I don't see any reason for anybody to start getting smug about it.
I have witnessed some smugness on the part of ITP folks towards OTP folks, and I find it repulsive. You can see it pretty often in Creative Loafing and in various local blogs (Decatur Metro being one example.)
However, the so-called "white flight" back into the city is not driven by smugness. Young people have always tended to live in the city rathwer than the suburbs. There are legitmiate logistical reasons for this, and it doesn't have to do with trends or being cool. It usually has to do with college and lifestyle. Why would or should a 20-something college student (or recent graduate), who probably likes to spend their free time hanging out in nightclubs, music venues or bars, live anywhere BUT intown?
As for 30+ year old whites moving back to the city, they usually do so because they're sick of sitting in traffic and sick of having to get in their car every time they need to leave their house.
There's nothing smug or snobby about identifying the things that degrade your quality of life and then choosing to relocate in search of a lifestyle in which those things are elimintaed. On the contrary, I can't think of a wiser decision one could make.
I have witnessed some smugness on the part of ITP folks towards OTP folks, and I find it repulsive. You can see it pretty often in Creative Loafing and in various local blogs (Decatur Metro being one example.)
However, the so-called "white flight" back into the city is not driven by smugness. Young people have always tended to live in the city rathwer than the suburbs. There are legitmiate logistical reasons for this, and it doesn't have to do with trends or being cool. It usually has to do with college and lifestyle. Why would or should a 20-something college student (or recent graduate), who probably likes to spend their free time hanging out in nightclubs, music venues or bars, live anywhere BUT intown?
As for 30+ year old whites moving back to the city, they usually do so because they're sick of sitting in traffic and sick of having to get in their car every time they need to leave their house.
There's nothing smug or snobby about identifying the things that degrade your quality of life and then choosing to relocate in search of a lifestyle in which those things are elimintaed. On the contrary, I can't think of a wiser decision one could make.
I agree people my age wanting to live intown has nothing to do with smugness. But young people wanting to love intown is actually a relatively new trend. The reasons for the shift have been documented and studied, and some reasons include the influence of shows like Friends and the rise of groups like MADD that stigmatized drunk driving. In earlier decades, it seems like the trend was to live in suburban, garden-style apartment complexes (such as Riverbend) and commute into town to go out. Although the coolness factor certainly plays a part in wanting to love intown, I think it became cool because it's just so convenient to live near where you go out.
I have witnessed some smugness on the part of ITP folks towards OTP folks, and I find it repulsive. You can see it pretty often in Creative Loafing and in various local blogs (Decatur Metro being one example.)
That's a totally dumb attitude! The ATL has fantastic suburbs, many of which are more dense, urban and diverse than the city of Atlanta.
Speaking of those attitudes, it's also very common for people in the suburbs to look down their noses at us intowners. I don't know how many times on this very forum I've seen people talk about how crappy and substandard they consider the city of Atlanta.
By the way, it's not just young folks involved in the "back to the city" movement. I know zillions in their 30s and 40s, and there are a lot of old geezers like me as well.
It's important to remember that this isn't a zero sum game. The fact that cities are experiencing renewed interest doesn't imply that the suburbs are declining. Where people err, in my opinion, is in adopting an air of superiority about where they live. Every location has pluses and minuses.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 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 2 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.
