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.
No longer, and it wasn't just toxic assets. Also a huge amount of Treasuries, and viable debt as well. The Fed is a private concern and they are not going to throw money down the drain. Somewhere there is a link to these holdings. I don't doubt though for one minute that there is or was some toxicity buried in there.
That is what they said they were going to do when they started QE III buying. The FED is owned by the really big banks and they took the loss so the banks wouldn't have to.
Giving people money decreases the value of the US$ (this is what closes the trade gap), and increases demand. We would experience a boost in consumption, and we'd have fewer imports, and more exports.
USD is in to high a demand, unlimited printing of it won't push our FX rate.
Pushing for them to raise the amount that their workers get paid would very effectively put pressure on the FX rates.
(SLC shown to range from 4% to 6% during 2001 recession, same as rest of nation)
Well hey there you go, the unemployment rate of a suburb of Salt Lake City six years later somehow validates the BS you were spewing earlier. Brilliant.
I'd found a reference to unemployment rate in Bountiful Utah that went back to 2,000 a short search didn't turn it up.
Over the time frame of the graph, the unemployment rate in Bountiful was 2% less than the national average. The reference that I found originally but can't relocate showed that the unemployment rate held at 2% less than the national average back in 2001 as well.
In this one it shows the higher than average for Utah post Olympics unemployment rate, It was just higher than the national average. Just prior to the Olympics and during them it was much lower.
Also raise marginal income taxes to pre '70 levels.
No one paid those rates. They just paid tax accountants ( handsomely ) to figure out ways to make their tax bills lower.
The rates of the 1990s are probably the best ones to maximize revenues since that's when we came closest to a budget surplus. The Laffer curve is real.
That being said, I'm for making marginal rates for anyone making more than the median wage 99%. I need to be able to work for the next ten years and I'm a CPA. I could just spend 30-35 hours a week and make a fine income off of people being taxed at an excessive rate.
Actually they did. The top .1% and .01% paid very high effective tax rates.
That looks completely unlike any historical effective tax rate data I've ever seen. You can't just hurl up some random graph without citing a reference. Anything I've ever seen had the effective tax rate for 1%ers around mid-30 percent since WW II.
That looks completely unlike any historical effective tax rate data I've ever seen. You can't just hurl up some random graph without citing a reference. Anything I've ever seen had the effective tax rate for 1%ers around mid-30 percent since WW II.
Picketty, it's on the graph. Income only.
I don't know how it looks with capital gains, but I'm sure it would be lower and flatter. Plus 99%ile would not be the same as top 1%.
No one paid those rates. They just paid tax accountants ( handsomely ) to figure out ways to make their tax bills lower.
And doing that limits where and how the economy grows with the result of having lower over all debt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by IDtheftV
The rates of the 1990s are probably the best ones to maximize revenues since that's when we came closest to a budget surplus. The Laffer curve is real.
I don't care about maximizing tax revenue, I care about controlling growth so that there is lots of new job creation in the US.
Quote:
Originally Posted by IDtheftV
That being said, I'm for making marginal rates for anyone making more than the median wage 99%. I need to be able to work for the next ten years and I'm a CPA. I could just spend 30-35 hours a week and make a fine income off of people being taxed at an excessive rate.
I'd settle for a top marginal rate of 90% at over $1 million a year income. But first we need to get strong growth.
Over the time frame of the graph, the unemployment rate in Bountiful was 2% less than the national average. The reference that I found originally but can't relocate showed that the unemployment rate held at 2% less than the national average back in 2001 as well.
Okay let me get this straight, you said:
"salt lake city had about a 1.5~2% unemployment rate in 2001, during a national recession"
When it was pointed out this was completely false and SLC's unemployment rate during that recession ranged from 4% to 6% inline with the US average, you've now come back with different claims about Bountiful Utah and some pretty graphs of Utah unemployment from 2007 on. Can you explain exactly how all this proves what I was questioning, specifically what you said in your initial post about Salt Lake City's unemployment rate?
Are you still hanging on the to Salt Lake City thing or have you admitted that was complete BS you were shoveling? If the former, how does the unemployment rate in a suburb of 40k prove what you said about Salt Lake City?
USD is in to high a demand, unlimited printing of it won't push our FX rate.
Get real! We can push down the US$ value with incredible ease any time we wish.
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.
