Unemployment Rate in Low Tax Nevada Increases

Australia Unemployment rate: — 5.1%

They're more capitalist... they have less of a safety net (ala socialism) than we do.

swe, do you have a source for that, because that certainly isn't my understanding of the australian system.

Austrailia has high taxes.

*30% corporate
* Top tax federal bracket of 45%
* 1.5% Medicare tax
* Top state tax rate of 6%
* 10% VAT

Auatralia also has Socialist, single payer Medicare:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_(Australia)

And prescription drug benefits since 1948.

Please guys, no facts - they get in the way of discussion and making highly dubious correlations.

prescriptiion drug benefits? Oh my goodness. Those Commies. Who is on the Australian money? Karl Marx?

my, my, my, are folks confusing capitalism in job creation with what one spends it on?

Rookie mistake, people.

We spend far more in healthcare than anyone else does. We can debate the why in the system (definite problems with ours), but it is the cost as the primary job growth factor...

Funny, socialist, how you left out the 50% discount on capital gains.

Second, its also funny how one is confusing high or low taxes with socialism.

For a guy with it in his handle, I think you need to look it up...

and lets also be honest... Nevada's revenue is largely discretionary spending, which got KILLED.
Been to Vegas lately.

Its a bad example....

How is Virginia doing versus the whole US?

As a matter of fact, Nevada is the home of one perfidiotz, who cashed in his tenement and video-game empire for 8.956294 zillion dollars last year, and discretionarily spends all of it near his greenpool on a man-made lake in Vegas. So Nevada has plenty of revenue. From chicken ranches, anyway.

Well done. I stand corrected. He alone has created a zillion jobs.

Socialist, do you think raising taxes will increase employment? Or if more people are employed, will taxes go up?

huntersburg....is hfscomm1

Australia is benefiting from high commodity prices. Period. Commodity exports are a much larger piece of their GDP than for the US. Secondly, Nevada is disproportionately reliant on tourism and housing. So neither of these cases has anything to do with taxes, high or low. High tax Norway and low tax Quatar are doing well because of high oil prices, and high tax Spain and low tax Ireland are doing poorly because they, too, had real estate bubbles.

"How is Virginia doing versus the whole US?"

Virginia is doling well because of all the govt. jobs in DC. Take away the govt., and Virginia has no economy.

High tax Denmark is doing relatively well. High tax Sweden, with a very similar language, culture, and overlapping history, is doing relatively poorly.

btw, Australia...
http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/ED-AM861_miller_NS_20110111093202.jpg

#3 on the list of economic freedom.... way ahead of the US.

Yes, thanks for not letting facts get in the way of your arguments....

and canada is ahead of the US also on that list. i didn't ask about economic freedom, whatever that implies. i asked about whether or not australia has less "socialistic" tendencies.

3 vs. 9 on a list doesn't really tell you much. and it certainly doesn't support your original assertion.

ar, absolutely. I mean, Denmark is ahead of the US in "economic freedom" as well. Whoopsie.

I definitely think higher taxes can lead to job gains, if done right. In a moderately high taxes on profit and generous offsets for investments, owners and companies will have incentives to choose long-term reinvestment and growth over myopic quarter growth through cost slashing. That's pretty much the German model: semi-high taxes, generous tax incentives for research & development. They have taken great care to avoid large structural deficits (unlike the US) even as they absorbed East Germany. The Bush tax cuts are rewarding all the wrong moves (no estate taxes, low capital gains taxes, high taxes on middle-class.) It was designed to create a casino economy, spending and borrowing at all levels, rewarding the top of the Ponzi schemers.

Agreed maly. Bullshit Economy based on yacht flippers levying stooooopid tax on bubblers.

>I definitely think higher taxes can lead to job gains, if done right. In a moderately high taxes on profit and generous offsets for investments,
>That's pretty much the German model: semi-high taxes, generous tax incentives for research & development.
>The Bush tax cuts are rewarding all the wrong moves (no estate taxes, low capital gains taxes, high taxes on middle-class.)

I'm confused, you want moderately high taxes or semi-high taxes, but you say that our taxes are too high on the middle class.
Plus you want tax offsets for investments and research & development - how does that reconcile with your criticism of low capital gains taxes?

Socialist
about 17 hours ago
ignore this person
report abuse "How is Virginia doing versus the whole US?"

Virginia is doling well because of all the govt. jobs in DC. Take away the govt., and Virginia has no economy.

tricky tricky virginia is doing we well as it is because of it's proximity to dc and its low taxes compared to maryland, mr. riddler. the mcmansions on steroids in mclean were not bought by government employees, but private-ish sector lobbyists, lawyers, and military contractors. people whose income absolutely, undeniably, comes out of the astronomical tax revenue of our beloved nation, but who are much too smart to actually work for the government. or, rather, only do it (1)at the start of their careers to establish their contacts, (2) between private sector gigs to maintain street cred and get to new any new kids on the block.

pss, bring up part time legislature and the balanced budget amendment. go team!

^^^get to know any new kids.......

You dummies. That list above - from the HERITAGE FOUNDATION AND THE WALL STREET FUCKING JOURNAL lists Denmark ahead of the US - and in terms of unemployment, GDP growth, etc, Denmark is among the best-performers over the last 1-, 5- and 10-year periods. And its one of, if not THE highest-tax country in the entire OECD. I have pointed out numerous examples above of high-tax poor performers, high-tax low performers, and visa versa X2. So the level of taxation in and of itself is not the problem. Its so many other things - as the Economic Freedom Index cited above clearly shows. Denmark and Canada are listed ahead of the US - but both (especially Denmark) are unambiguously more socialist. Honk Kong is not fully democratic. And Singapore, while economically free, is an authoritarian, paternalistic, single-party autocracy.

Clearly, however, Canada, Denmark, the Netherlands, Germany, Finland, Norway, Australia, and a few other industrial democracies show that you CAN have higher taxes overall than the US, and still have higher growth.

....while Ireland, Iceland, and a few others show that you can have lower taxes and be a basket case. There are numurous examples of lower tax countries (most of the Asian tigers) doing better. So taxes are not some simple cure all, nor is cutting taxes.

"and canada is ahead of the US also on that list. i didn't ask about economic freedom, whatever that implies. i asked about whether or not australia has less "socialistic" tendencies."

Uh, ar, what do you think that means?

From the creators of the index - "Economic freedom is the fundamental right of every human to control his or her own labor and property"

And now tell me I don't have to define socialism for you.

swe, nice try but wrong.

LucilleIsSorry, you and Alpie are saying the same thing ... the McLean McMansion McCriminals are there ***because of all the govt. jobs in DC***

I once had to do some work in the VA suburbs, beyond McLean, and to dodge bad freeway traffic took a secondary road back into DC while McLean drivers were heading in the opposite direction (PM rush hour, very slow). I can't even describe the look of depravity on the face of each and every one of them.

"High tax Sweden, with a very similar language, culture, and overlapping history, is doing relatively poorly."

Seeeden's unemployment rate is 8.1%... still better than the U.S.

I think Lucillels was being sarcastic while agreeing with me. The D.C. suburbs would crash if it were not for the govt. How anyone there could vote Republican is beyond me. Budget cuts will absolutely destory that area. I was in Silver Spring, Maryland last summer and while you could sense things were hard (tons of for sale signs) the area was holding up. Everywhere you walk you see govt workers (you can tell since they all had ID tags). Cut spending, and that area will plummet.

> swe, nice try but wrong.

You can repeat that all you want, but there is a reason you can't come up with a counter argument.

Its because you are wrong. Seriously, look up what socialism means. I gave you the benefit of the doubt, but seems like you really don't know.

who has nationalized health care? who has an unemployment system that theoretically allows lifetime unemployment benefits?

guess what, it's not the US.

seriously, maybe you should look up the definition of socialism.

Sweden is doing worse than Finland, Norway, or Denamrk. As is Iceland. And socialism is NOT relavent to ecnomic freedom. Denmark has the highest percentage of government per GDP in the OECD. And the highest taxes. Meanwhil, Singapore has low taxes, but an authoritarian semi-command economy - one where the government intervenes in a way that would make the French blush and far exceed teh crazy accusations of the Tea Party vis-a-vis Obama. But please don't tell me you think Denmark is less socialist than the US...if you do I will have to re-ignore you for another six months. That is plain old crazy talk. The Danish are entirely socialist. The conservative parlimentarians there are to the left of Pelosi.

ANd just so we are clear - in Singapore the government has and does tell businesses exactly what to do. Hong is the most opposite in the OECD - it is super laissez-faire. Yet they are both in the top five on that "freedom" list. Because many other things - taxation and level of corruption among them, go into the ranking. Which is why in part Canada and Denmark, with all of their unambiguously more socialistic government programs, are ranked ahead of the US.

But that list is not meant as a guide to more or less socialistic countries.

i specifically asked for proof that australia is less socialist than we are, and you provided that garbage, swe. sorry for the source quality, and it's a few years old, but i'm in a hurry.

"Australia operates the most targeted social security system in the OECD, and probably in the world." Peter Whiteford, welfare analyst at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development told the Australian Social Policy Conference that Australia has the most progressive welfare system in the Western world. ...

Australia redistributes almost 4 per cent of its GDP to the poorest 20 per cent of the population, more than Denmark, Norway or Sweden, and the third-largest serving in the OECD. In real terms, sole parents and unemployed parents receive the seventh highest benefits in the OECD.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0LVZ/is_2_21/ai_n15922895/?tag=content;col1

Australia has higher government per gdp, taxes per gdp, and has something like Obamacare WITH the government option. Among other things. There is no way any member of the Tea Party of Fox news commentator would NOT call any American politician who advocated Australian policies "a socialist." Australian "conservative" politicians are all to the left of Obama by a LOT.

thank you jason

> lists Denmark ahead of the US

I remember my last trip to beautiful Denmark. The people are really beautiful, except for the people who aren't blond, they aren't considered beautiful ... I watched a nasty racial incident right in downtown Copenhagen. In all my years in New York, never seen anything like that.

>Australia has higher government per gdp, taxes per gdp, and has something like Obamacare WITH the government option. Among other things.

Yes, Australia, wonderful country too. Just on Tuesday one of our new junior associates explained why his parents moved from Australia to the United States a bit under 20 years ago because there was insufficient economic opportunity for them. But maybe that has changed in the intervening years, with all of the precious natural resources and of course everyone chasing real estate. In any case, his background won't be held against him at the firm because he doesn't even have a detectable accent.

> sorry for the source quality, and it's a few years old, but i'm in a hurry.

Unbelievable

And the great "free market" economist" Milton Friedman was actually a SOCIALIST. He beleived in negative income taxes for poor people, in which people who don't work would get money from the government. Hmmm, free money from the govt. that you don't have to work for.... what is that called?

> seriously, maybe you should look up the definition of socialism.

Well, if you really, really want to be proven wrong, sure... I'll oblige.

Webster's: "a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state"

hey, that sounds familiar!

"Economic freedom is the fundamental right of every human to control his or her own labor and property"

whooops.

What econ 101 lesson do you need next, AR?

you've just proved zero, swe. but nice try.

proof for your assertion? still waiting.

In the U.S., there is no private property. If someone can use your property in a way that will bring the govt more tax revenue, they will use eminent domain and throw your ass out.

> Australia redistributes almost 4 per cent of its GDP

Social Security alone is 4.8% of our GDP, and Medicare is 4.2%.

US welfare spending - family and children, unemployment, housing - at state and local levels is another 4.8%

Sounds like Australia has ways to go.

Of course, once again, AR is still missing the actual definition about socialism, which is more about ownership of the means of production, not how it is spent.

But, hey, wrong either way...

> you've just proved zero, swe. but nice try.

Still waiting for you to prove something, AR. Of course, you still need to learn what socialism means before you can try.

BTW, know what are truly socialist? Farm subsidies.

Who has 'em? WE DO!

> proof for your assertion? still waiting.

No, you're ignoring. The WSJ/Heritage foundation study I pointed at is a pretty clear analysis, by folks who actually understand the definition of socialism.

Correct, farm subsidies are Socialist. Republicans love them, epsecially those who represent farming states or need to kiss the a$$ of Iowa farmers to win the 2012 caucus.

alan, socialist

right, that area has experienced explosive exponential growth due the explosive exponential growth of government in the last 2.5ish decades. my point it that in *this country* more and bigger government does not translate to any real benefit to the citizens. it just means they take more of your money and find more ways to spend it on themselves. you guys put way too much stock in these people, the idea that anyone goes into public service with the pure intention of serving the public is incredibly naive. you don't have to be a crazy libertarian uncle with an arsenal that could rival a small country to distrust and unchecked growth of government. you just have to step away from your own ideology and look at them in an objective way. dc, our nation's capital, is first and foremost a city of self serving cynics who just want to survive and make some money. what makes them extra slimy is that they do it (1) under the guise of patriotism, and (2) by taking YOUR money. instead of looking at how other countries spend their tax revenue, why don't you study how your own government does it, and decide whether or not you approve.

huntersburg=hfscomm1=Alpie?

No way

Alpie had too good a head for that nonsense. No sitting president would ever do that.
I think Alpie is now the Gov. of N.J.. Why do you think he scraped the tunnel.

i guess you can't read, swe. but i can't help you with that.

socialism in a marxist context? nice obfuscation. there are, btw, many types of property. australia feels free to move quite a bit around.

from wiki, what i believe is the most common form of socialism that we generally are discussing here, and what would apply in a comparison between america and australia. although feel free, swe, to tell me i'm wrong and the us is engaging in marxist socialism.

Social Democratic concept, based on the capitalist mode of production, which defines socialism as a set of values rather than a specific type of social and economic organisation. It includes unconditional support for parliamentary democracy, gradual and reformist attempts to establish socialism, and support for socially progressive causes. Social democrats are not opposed to the market or private property; instead they try to ameliorate the effects of capitalism through a welfare state, which relies on the market as the fundamental coordinating entity in the economy and a degree of public ownership/public provision of public goods in an economy otherwise dominated by private enterprise.

ass.

"self serving cynics who just want to survive and make some money." nothing wrong with that btw, in case it came off that way

just don't elevate them to higher standard than they deserve

omg, swe, way to pervert the numbers. that 4% is just the amount that is given to the lowest 20% (and right now, because they didn't have a banking crisis, their numbers might seem relatively good, but that's due to decent regs). australia provides huge amounts to the middle class, much more than we do.

Peter Whiteford, welfare analyst at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development told the Australian Social Policy Conference that Australia has the most progressive welfare system in the Western world. ...

what did you not get about this? really?

swe, quit hyperventilating. You essentially claimed that less of a safety net leads to lower unemployment. When Canada and Denmark are listed ahead of the US on this "economic freedom" chart you're touting (hint: they both have a safety net for arguably the biggest expense a government can have), well...

>huntersburg=hfscomm1=Alpie?

??

you're hfscomm1.

not alpo.

hfscomm1

plus buyerbuyer.

and midtownereast

and a couple of hundred others.

but, of course, you know that.

>Correct, farm subsidies are Socialist. Republicans love them, epsecially those who represent farming states or need to kiss the a$$ of Iowa farmers to win the 2012 caucus.

And it's a problem. Unfortunately democracy lends itself more to socialism than to capitalism. We talked about it in context of the unions trading votes for lucrative contracts, another obvious flaw in democracy. But, I have no better solutions.

just in case you missed it.

you're hfscomm1.

not alpo.

hfscomm1

plus buyerbuyer.

and midtownereast

and a couple of hundred others.

but, of course, you know that.

>swe, quit hyperventilating. You essentially claimed that less of a safety net leads to lower unemployment. When Canada and Denmark are listed ahead of the US on this "economic freedom" chart you're touting (hint: they both have a safety net for arguably the biggest expense a government can have), well...

Denmark is a very homogenious society.
Canada is a more legitimate country to compare us to, but we don't see much exodus from the U.S. of people going to Canada.

nice try.

you're hfscomm1.

not alpo.

hfscomm1

plus buyerbuyer.

and midtownereast

and a couple of hundred others.

but, of course, you know that.

>ass.

Always a good way to end an intellectual argument.

you're hfscomm1.

not alpo.

hfscomm1

plus buyerbuyer.

and midtownereast

and a couple of hundred others.

but, of course, you know that.

cc who cares? he just wants to talk. let's talk!

huntersburg, i don't think there can be a solution. it has to play itself out until some sort of violent end. just like every single other time in the history of the monkey people.

i care.

I'm not sure there needs to be a violent end, but conflict is part of evolution.

you're hfscomm1.

not alpo.

hfscomm1

plus buyerbuyer.

and midtownereast

and a couple of hundred others.

but, of course, you know that.

i know you care, honey. you care very deeply. no one doubts how much you care. just lighten up. want to see my puppy?

i am not your honey.

i really don't care what you think.

no.

oh come on

I'm not sure we've gotten to the stage where you can call me honey, but if you have a link to your puppy I'll take a look.

go for it lucy.

enjoy yourself with this asshole.

huntersburg
3 minutes ago
ignore this person
report abuse I'm not sure there needs to be a violent end, but conflict is part of evolution.

right, but when a thing evolves it becomes a different thing, thus the first thing has to end.

There's not always a bright line, but anyway.

What are you sorry about?

hb, no. the offer of puppy pictures only extends to columbiacounty. he's very grumpy and needs some puppy love in his life.

lucy...you are an embarrassment.

ok not sure what you are talking abt.

to whom?

huntersburg
2 minutes ago
ignore this person
report abuse There's not always a bright line, but anyway.

What are you sorry about?

i don't want my progeny to suffer

cc, I really want to like you, but you make it pretty difficult. Even if you're right (and I believe most people here are past the point of caring, but that's just my impression), you're just continually drawing more attention to it while adding next to nothing to these discussions. Here's hoping you'll take the right step out of grey-ville.

and still se is wrong about his australia/us socialism comparison.

how will your progeny suffer? curious.

perhaps you should just ignore me.

how will your progeny suffer? curious.

call me what you want, but i am of the opinion that we will have a bloody bloody civil war in the next.....i don't know. i don't want to see it, and i don't want my kids to live through it.

well, miss bluth, we're rather on the same page about that. i gave my crystal ball to w67th, who needed it to determine where to find and park the unicorns, but i'm a bit nervous myself. ruling societies never go down easily. sorry, just didn't get the connection.

Seriously, the two of you...

but where is there to go? the next real estate bubble is in space. or on the ocean floor? where?

well, it wouldn't be a bubble. but development.

> socialism in a marxist context? nice obfuscation. there

Oh Jesus, AR, face it, you lost. That is the definition of socialism in our outside marxism. That's what the word means. Sorry, toots.

> i guess you can't read, swe. but i can't help you with that.

You lost, ar, sorry. Now you need to resort to insults?

Even worse, now you are resorting to wikipedia? Ouch, painful.

"from wiki, what i believe is the most common form of socialism that we generally are discussing here, and what would apply in a comparison between america and "

I see, if you come up with a new form of socialism that is, well, pretty much the OPPOSITE of what socialism means. Hey...

"Social democrats are not opposed to the market or private property"

Meaning they aren't, uh, socialists.

But, hey, if you need to change the definition of words to stop embarrasing yourself...

i guess you can't read, swe. but i can't help you with that.

> ass.

Yes, I know its frustrating that you lost the argument, but do you really need to resort to cursing?

swe, sometimes you're just a total joke.

no, you lost, totally.

and i find it totally remarkable that you're one of the few people here who can't say, hey, made a mistake.

no, that is now what we commonly use as socialism as a definition. unless you can prove otherwise. are you reallly saying that the us is engaging in marxist socialism to an extreme more than the aussies?

>You lost, ar, sorry. Now you need to resort to insults?

aboutready criticized someone for not being able to write a paragraph to her satisfaction, and in so doing was unable to write a sentence.

> no, you lost, totally.

You can repeat it 100x ar, but you still got it wrong.

That you tried to change the definition of socialism to being ok with capitalism, that was just the funny part.

> no, that is now what we commonly use as socialism as a definition

Nah, its what YOU used to keep talking in circles and avoid admitting you were wrong.

> are you reallly saying that the us is engaging in marxist socialism to an extreme more than the
> aussies?

Well, the Heritage Foundation and the WSJ certainly are...

I'm still laughing on that one... the "common use" of socialism as free market capitalist.....

actually, swe, i think you're are 100% wrong. you think i'm 100% wrong, and you are using a model that doesn't even support your theory.

although i find it interesting that you aren't responding to the other comments. do you have jason on ignore?

so, are you honestly suggesting that we have marxist socialism? you really think that the definition of socialism that i posted is less accurate?

so intellectually dishonest, swe. really. and no, the heritage foundation and wsj are saying absolutely nothing about socialism or socialistic spending, which is obvious is you spend even two minutes looking at the list.

i'm still laughing about this one:

"They're more capitalist... they have less of a safety net (ala socialism) than we do."

so you didn't even really mean socialism? just that safety net? the country that has the lifetime dole?

you defined socialism, stupid ass, as a safety net, not property control. i can't believe how dumb your arguments have been here.

SWE -- You are playing games. If you are defining socialism in its pure form -- which exists nowhere other than in the mind of Marx, Engels, Fourier, etc. -- of course places like Australia are not socialist. But it shows what an effed world we live in that people have perverted the word "socialism" to mean any government intervention in the economy or any social welfare (such as calling a Chicago economics guy like Obama a "socialist"). If it is the latter (ie government intervention), you are dead wrong if you are trying to say Australia is a free-market economy. They have a cradle to grave safety net that rivals Scandinavian countries. Seems like you got called out on being wrong so you are resorting to the cheap debater's rhetorical trick of changing definitions.

>Seems like you got called out on being wrong so you are resorting to the cheap debater's rhetorical trick of changing definitions

At least somewhereelse didn't criticize someone else for writing poorly constructed paragraphs, while at the same time being unable to construct proper sentences.