White flight — to the city (Atlanta, East Point: insurance, credit card, incomes)

[goofy328]

Originally Posted by arjay57

Some suburbs may be weakened, but they're the ones that have other problems as well.

In general the suburbs will continue to thrive. They'll become more urbanized and efficient but they are certainly not going away. That's where 90% of Americans live.

I don't see the increased popularity of cities as an either/or thing. They're simply offering folks another choice.

absolutely. suburbs may have had a late start in the game but it has been what, 70 years now? that is easy to overlook when you consider that cities are hundred or more years old.

[cityrover]

Originally Posted by JPD

Some people do behave the way you describe. No argument there. But you are painting the entire trend of "white people moving back into the city" with that brush, and that is just plain false.

am i using any broader of a brush than the people that say "white people moving back into the city"?

doubt it.

it is implied that a statement is not universally applicable and you cannot possibly identify trends without generalizations. and isnt this what this thread is about? the trend of gentrification by a group of people. should we take it to mean that this entire group meets a totally scientific and rigid criteria? impossible to do because no such thing exists.

[cityrover]

Originally Posted by K-SawDude

I want to be crystal clear here. I am NOT suggesting the U.S. would just magically be in a strong position if it could adopt a Sweden-style economy. That's not even a practically implementable possibility considering how different we are demographically and in terms of scale.

All I'm saying is that part of our revenue problems at present could be alleviated by raising tax rates proportionally higher for the wealthiest Americans. They've benefitted from relatively higher percentage increases in their incomes compared to the lower classes over the last two decades (due largely in part to tax breaks that benefitted them more than anyone else). They can afford it more than average consumers and smaller business owners, both of which are going to be more of the drivers of future growth than hedge fund managers, IMO.

I don't think spending cuts alone, which are going to hit the lower and middle classes hardest, are going to help us out all that much in the short term.



I appreciate your perspective here on European tax systems. I can see how it's less progressive than I initially suggested. We'll just have to see how Scandinavia does in the long run. I have a feeling both our system and theirs is going to be relatively weaker in the next few decades than they've been in the last few. But I also think (hope?) we're all going to end up fine as well. Maybe a slightly lower standard of living, but not god-awful.

There is no doubt that disposable income after taxation is so overlooked. People look at the tax numbers but not at what is left after. But instead of raising taxes, wouldnt it be better to plug in the tax evasion holes, aka deductions. These deductions become disproportionately more lucrative the more money you have to declare, which ultimately ends up with you paying far less tax than intended by the actual taxation algorithm.

I really don't find it plausible to just raise taxes. it is incredibly unpopular with everybody regardless of income and there will never be enough political motivation to do so. It also opens up a can of worms for other things to come.

I am not saying it shouldn't be done (that's my alter communist speaking here), but realistically i just don't see it happening in my lifetime. Now addressing deductions is a far more popular route which at least, gets the ball rolling. However, a whole lot of interests will be affected if that too takes place so again, massive resistance this route as well. All those non profit money leeching organizations? What will happen if people can't wash money donating to them... hmmm somebody will be out of a job, i mean volunteer position.

It's all linked. You can't just touch one brick without placing a steel beam under the roof, sadly

[muxBuppie]

Originally Posted by K-SawDude

Right. Revenues fall. Which is partly solved by raising taxes, partly by trying to add additional revenue with growth. This isn't rocket science. There's no a priori logical reason to absolutely exclude tax increases from the discussion. Every local, state, and national government considers tax increases when revenues are down. So I don't know why you're acting like that's such a nutty notion.

Yes, they do. They adjust for inflation to compare across decades.
.

I think my last post indicates that I at least "know something" about Europe. The primary difference between you and me is that I'm resisting the tendency both to demonize Europe (which you're doing) or to apotheosize it (which you CLAIM I'm doing, which I'm very obviously not).

Europe is a mixed bag. For different reasons, some countries in Europe are doing fine with their socialist-leaning mixed economies. Other counties aren't. One could argue Greece tried to be too socialistic without making the hard choices (like, I don't know, actually collecting taxes to pay for all their over-the-top spending). Ireland arguably was too capitalistic and got themselves into trouble by trusting investment bankers way too much and then, like the U.S., socializing the banks' losses on the backs of the people.

Cityrover may be correct that Scandanvia is on a bad path. We'll see. Germany from all accounts is in a strong position in terms of their own economy. The problem is that the less strong European countries and the euro may drag them down into the mire, too. But that has little to nothing to do with Germany's revenue stream.

1. How taxing the hell out of the people who do have a job and/or are making money in business going to bring everyone out of a recession? WTF?

2. Adjustment for inflation doesn't mean it is included in the burden. Do you think if those tax charts were static with the way prices have been rising in the last century that people would still have the same standard of living? Whew. Imagine ever rising tax burdens AND our ever rising prices? We would be a third world country.

[Cameron H]

Originally Posted by cityrover

But instead of raising taxes, wouldnt it be better to plug in the tax evasion holes, aka deductions. These deductions become disproportionately more lucrative the more money you have to declare, which ultimately ends up with you paying far less tax than intended by the actual taxation algorithm.

Yes! Let's do this. We need more revenue, but that doesn't have to come from higher marginal income tax rates. In fact, some dude with a funny name who lives in the White House has been calling for precisely this kind of tax reform. Unfortunately, the party that controls the House of Representatives has thus far been unwilling to support any tax reform that creates higher revenues. Bummer.

I really don't find it plausible to just raise taxes. it is incredibly unpopular with everybody regardless of income and there will never be enough political motivation to do so.

Actually, higher marginal rates on incomes over $250,000 is extremely popular. In fact, it's the single most popular measure to reduce deficits. A majority of even Republican voters like the idea.

The economic rationale for closing loopholes and tax expenditures is stronger, but this is actually very difficult to do politically. Middle-class voters (and Realtors) like their mortgage interest deduction. Voters (and fund managers) like their 401k deductions. Voters (and employers, and insurance companies, and the AMA, and labor unions) like their employer-provided health insurance deductions.

Ideally, both parties sit down and negotiate tax reforms that increase revenue and have the smallest possible impact on the real economy and real families. That's hard to do when one party is intransigent on the issue.

[cwlawrence]

Originally Posted by muxBuppie

Whew. Imagine ever rising tax burdens AND our ever rising prices? We would be a third world country.

You have never lived in a third world country apparently; taxes are low and prices are low. the end. And, btw, the third world is not so bad if you are not in abject poverty - the middle class (a small, but rapidly emergent class in the third world) enjoys a much higher standard of living than the middle class in the US.

[cwlawrence]

Originally Posted by arjay57

That's where 90% of Americans live.

Are you sure 90% of Americans live in the suburbs?

[cityrover]

Originally Posted by Cameron H

Yes! Let's do this. We need more revenue, but that doesn't have to come from higher marginal income tax rates. In fact, some dude with a funny name who lives in the White House has been calling for precisely this kind of tax reform. Unfortunately, the party that controls the House of Representatives has thus far been unwilling to support any tax reform that creates higher revenues. Bummer.



Actually, higher marginal rates on incomes over $250,000 is extremely popular. In fact, it's the single most popular measure to reduce deficits. A majority of even Republican voters like the idea.

The economic rationale for closing loopholes and tax expenditures is stronger, but this is actually very difficult to do politically. Middle-class voters (and Realtors) like their mortgage interest deduction. Voters (and fund managers) like their 401k deductions. Voters (and employers, and insurance companies, and the AMA, and labor unions) like their employer-provided health insurance deductions.

Ideally, both parties sit down and negotiate tax reforms that increase revenue and have the smallest possible impact on the real economy and real families. That's hard to do when one party is intransigent on the issue.

It's popular at the fireside chat. If it actually becomes a possibility, it will be far less popular. People support things they know won't happen. It's responsibility free stance if you will.

Both parties have their bacon and won't let it get out of the pan. We are just the pork is all

[Cameron H]

Originally Posted by cityrover

It's popular at the fireside chat. If it actually becomes a possibility, it will be far less popular.

I showed you the evidence for my position. Where's yours?

[muxBuppie]

Originally Posted by cwlawrence

You have never lived in a third world country apparently; taxes are low and prices are low. the end. And, btw, the third world is not so bad if you are not in abject poverty - the middle class (a small, but rapidly emergent class in the third world) enjoys a much higher standard of living than the middle class in the US.

how is the pay?