California debt: What options are available? (taxes, moving, activity)

[nullgeo]

Originally Posted by TNEC_Dad

Stimulus has become a common word and one you should familiarize yourself with.

The question, in this thread, would be what type of state government action would result in the most effective financial gain to the government. The government is elected and funded by those citizens that participate in elections and taxation. Not everyone participates.

One course of action would be to spend less money on non-debt items and, therefore, allocate more money to debt retirement.

One course of action would be to take more money from the citizens and, therefore, allocate more money to debt retirement. There are many ways to do this. Taxation of spending, taxation of earning, and taxation of owning are the most common. All are dependent on the economy of the taxation jurisdiction.

One couse of action would be to uninhibit or promote the growth of the economy of the taxation jurisdiction. This would encourage earning that would fund spending and owning, all of which are then taxed. In this context, we call this action a stimulus.

One significant debate comes when people want to have the earnings, spending and owning without the taxation.

A hope you had a fun day yesterday.

I had a great day yesterday, as I do most every day.

There is nothing unfamiliar to me about the word or concept of stimulus. And nothing I have written would indicate otherwise. If we are suggesting vocabulary for each other, my submission is for the word "disingenuous".

That said, your claim that "not everyone participates" is incorrect -- unless you refer to children, I suppose. But you aren't. Every adult pays a variety of taxes, and pretty much at the same rates -- except one kind of tax, "income tax", which is wisely based on progressive earnings ... but not nearly enough.

As for your other list of options: yes, they are all the points to consider ... but you stated that the "actual" and "core" debate has been on the type (there goes one of those pesky "cute" italics again) of "stimulus" options ... and it really hasn't of late ... it's been all about austerity on the conservative side -- which side is making by far the loudest noise. The ultra-conservatives have been dominating the debates and shutting down stimulus proposals. And the moderate right has been almost entirely acquiescent to the extreme right.

The debate should (italics again!) be about the nature of stimulus ... I entirely agree ... as does Paul Krugman.

[TNEC_Dad]

Originally Posted by nullgeo

I had a great day yesterday, as I do most every day.

There is nothing unfamiliar to me about the word or concept of stimulus. And nothing I have written would indicate otherwise. If we are suggesting vocabulary for each other, my submission is for the word "disingenuous".

That said, your claim that "not everyone participates" is incorrect -- unless you refer to children, I suppose. But you aren't. Every adult pays a variety of taxes, and pretty much at the same rates -- except one kind of tax, "income tax", which is wisely based on progressive earnings ... but not nearly enough.

As for your other list of options: yes, they are all the points to consider ... but you stated that the "actual" and "core" debate has been on the type (there goes one of those pesky "cute" italics again) of "stimulus" options ... and it really hasn't of late ... it's been all about austerity on the conservative side -- which side is making by far the loudest noise. The ultra-conservatives have been dominating the debates and shutting down stimulus proposals. And the moderate right has been almost entirely acquiescent to the extreme right.

The debate should (italics again!) be about the nature of stimulus ... I entirely agree ... as does Paul Krugman.

I am glad you have an understanding of stimulus.

The debate is about what stimulus plan should be used. The debate is also about taxation and how it retards economic stimulus.

Your politics are getting in the way of clarity when it comes to the primary purpose of taxation.

A flat tax on earnings gives everyone the same opportunity to contribute to society in relation to their earning you are so focused on.

I am glad you feel comforted that someone agrred with you.

I do appreciate your discontinuing the use of those smiley faces.

[nullgeo]

Originally Posted by TNEC_Dad

I am glad you have an understanding of stimulus.

The debate is about what stimulus plan should be used. The debate is also about taxation and how it retards economic stimulus.

Your politics are getting in the way of clarity when it comes to the primary purpose of taxation.

A flat tax on earnings gives everyone the same opportunity to contribute to society in relation to their earning you are so focused on.

I am glad you feel comforted that someone agrred with you.

I do appreciate your discontinuing the use of those smiley faces.

You continue to make assumptions and state positions that aren't supported by evidence.
What debate is about "what stimulus plan should be used"? There hasn't been any debate about stimulus whatsoever in this thread ... I am the first and only one to use the word in all 10 - 11 pages of comments, I believe -- until you chimed in. Thus there has been no discussion of taxation retarding stimulus here either. So, either you refer to such debate as ongoing outside of this forum -- in which case my posts today relate -- or you simply haven't read this thread and are intent on inserting yourself regardless of following the topic.

My politics? Unknown to you.
Primary purpose of taxation? Too simple.

Flat tax, again? "opportunity to contribute ... in relation to their earning ..."
Ah, well, you have me and my discussions confused with another poster's ... though I happen to mostly agree with user-id in the other thread to which you refer, I haven't focused any arguments there or here on the relationship of taxes to earnings.

"Comforted" that someone agrees with me? phbbbbt. More snide disingenuity to go with your cute little "aw shucks" platitude-like false modesties about being "glad" of this and that, and being "simple-minded", and "happy" for others, and how you hope I enjoyed my day, etc.

[TNEC_Dad]

Originally Posted by nullgeo

You continue to make assumptions and state positions that aren't supported by evidence.
What debate is about "what stimulus plan should be used"? There hasn't been any debate about stimulus whatsoever in this thread ... I am the first and only one to use the word in all 10 - 11 pages of comments, I believe -- until you chimed in. Thus there has been no discussion of taxation retarding stimulus here either. So, either you refer to such debate as ongoing outside of this forum -- in which case my posts today relate -- or you simply haven't read this thread and are intent on inserting yourself regardless of following the topic.

My politics? Unknown to you.
Primary purpose of taxation? Too simple.

Flat tax, again? "opportunity to contribute ... in relation to their earning ..."
Ah, well, you have me and my discussions confused with another poster's ... though I happen to mostly agree with user-id in the other thread to which you refer, I haven't focused any arguments there or here on the relationship of taxes to earnings.

"Comforted" that someone agrees with me? phbbbbt. More snide disingenuity to go with your cute little "aw shucks" platitude-like false modesties about being "glad" of this and that, and being "simple-minded", and "happy" for others, and how you hope I enjoyed my day, etc.

You seem to be focused on me more than the topic at hand.

Again, a flat tax gives everyone an opportunity to contribute in equal proportion to their earnings.

It is sad that you do not appreciate common courtesy. That is just the kind of life I try to live. We are just two people discussing a topic on a forum. I can disagree with you and still be respectful and polite. I am not just friends who think just like me. Maybe you don't live your life that way.

[nullgeo]

Originally Posted by TNEC_Dad

You seem to be focused on me more than the topic at hand.

Again, a flat tax gives everyone an opportunity to contribute in equal proportion to their earnings.

It is sad that you do not appreciate common courtesy. That is just the kind of life I try to live. We are just two people discussing a topic on a forum. I can disagree with you and still be respectful and polite. I am not just friends who think just like me. Maybe you don't live your life that way.

Phony is neither "common courtesy" -- nor "polite". It is disrespectful. And I doubt very seriously that anyone reading your exchanges sees you as courteous, just phony. You entered the other thread with the schtick you continue with. I let it go a couple posts -- but I'm not much for phoney crap. You want to discuss? Drop the crap. I disagree with lots of people on these boards without any confrontational rhetoric.

[TNEC_Dad]

Originally Posted by nullgeo

Phony is neither "common courtesy" -- nor "polite". It is disrespectful. And I doubt very seriously that anyone reading your exchanges sees you as courteous, just phony. You entered the other thread with the schtick you continue with. I let it go a couple posts -- but I'm not much for phoney crap. You want to discuss? Drop the crap. I disagree with lots of people on these boards without any confrontational rhetoric.

I have stated my position clearly.

The crap you smell is not from me.

I don't think either of us has been phoney. I think your most recent post reflects your true self.

[nullgeo]

Originally Posted by TNEC_Dad

I have stated my position clearly.

The crap you smell is not from me.

I don't think either of us has been phoney. I think your most recent post reflects your true self.

Yes: straight forward. Cutting through others' crap.

[TNEC_Dad]

Originally Posted by nullgeo

Yes: straight forward. Cutting through others' crap.

I hope your tomorrow is better.

[TVC15]

Originally Posted by TNEC_Dad

I have stated my position clearly.

The crap you smell is not from me.

I don't think either of us has been phoney. I think your most recent post reflects your true self.

[user_id]

Originally Posted by TNEC_Dad

The debate is about what stimulus plan should be used. The debate is also about taxation and how it retards economic stimulus.

Oh geez....stop the games already. You're equivocating...stimulus, of the sort that nullgeo is speaking of, is of a very particular character. You, on the other hand, are using the term in a rather broad colloquial matter which is useless if you're trying to have a serious discussion. But we know that isn't the case now...don't we?

The only debate about the type of stimulus has been between Keynesian style fiscal stimulus (infrastructure, etc) and supply-side stimulus via reduced taxes...mostly for the rich. Though the latter has mostly been replaced by calls for austerity which are, economically speaking, not stimulus policies at all. Cutting taxes while making similar cuts to government spending will not increase economic activity, rather the opposite. At best 100% of the tax cuts will be spent in the economy which would just offset the contraction caused by the reduced government spending.

Of course, there is a special (in more ways than one) class of people that think cutting taxes and reducing government spending will increase economic activity by some unknown magical force that has alluded economists......and it is perhaps this that you have in mind.