U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 11-22-2010, 12:50 PM
 
10,536 posts, read 13,023,421 times
Reputation: 2815

Advertisements

because whenver the government gets money it spends more than it gets.

Stephen Moore and Richard Vedder: Higher Taxes Won't Reduce the Deficit - WSJ.com

"The claim here, echoed by endless purveyors of conventional wisdom in Washington, is that these added revenues—potentially a half-trillion dollars a year—will be used to reduce the $8 trillion to $10 trillion deficits in the coming decade. If history is any guide, however, that won't happen. Instead, Congress will simply spend the money.

In the late 1980s, one of us, Richard Vedder, and Lowell Gallaway of Ohio University co-authored a often-cited research paper for the congressional Joint Economic Committee (known as the $1.58 study) that found that every new dollar of new taxes led to more than one dollar of new spending by Congress. Subsequent revisions of the study over the next decade found similar results.

We've updated the research. Using standard statistical analyses that introduce variables to control for business-cycle fluctuations, wars and inflation, we found that over the entire post World War II era through 2009 each dollar of new tax revenue was associated with $1.17 of new spending. Politicians spend the money as fast as it comes in—and a little bit more."
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-22-2010, 12:51 PM
 
Location: Great State of Texas
86,052 posts, read 80,539,664 times
Reputation: 27693
We could hand over 100% of our money to the government and they'd still be short and ask us to give MORE.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-22-2010, 01:23 PM
 
10,536 posts, read 13,023,421 times
Reputation: 2815
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan View Post
We could hand over 100% of our money to the government and they'd still be short and ask us to give MORE.
You're right. There is no end point where they would be satisfied. That's the question I have; what does the final product look like? When is it enough?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-22-2010, 08:31 PM
 
1,432 posts, read 1,035,079 times
Reputation: 333
I don;t think there is ever enough...my question, how can we as citizens put in fail safes to block this. Too bad we can;t have a citizens committee that could provide congress oversight..beyond elections.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:17 AM.

© 2005-2022, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top