What happened to redistributing all that "wealth held at the top", Muirdiot? God, you're an idiot.
Jeremy PFebruary 23, 2009 at 4:43 pm
I live on Long Island, NY, and one can tell that the economy is really starting to slow down here. And I think it will be permanent. The cost of living is so high that young professionals do not find it possible to live down here. Per capita income does not tell the whole story. Look at cost of living in those blue states; I guarantee that it is much higher. Are you in favor of progressivity for individuals but not for states? The whole point of the federal government collecting revenue anyway is to redistribute it, so why would you expect the states that contribute more to receive an equivalent amount? What would be the rationale for collecting the tax in the first place if a state gets what it puts in? This is also about future economic growth. These blue states are complaining about revenue shortfall; I wonder why. As a savvy consumer, I am taking these statistics into consideration when I choose a college. For example, I have the feeling that Nashville and Raleigh-Durham are cities with bright futures while New York, New Haven, and Chicago will continue to be burdened by poor government policies.
P.S. Sorry, George Mason is not on my list. I think I'd start to feel sick in D.C. (speaking of poor policies). .
Marty SFebruary 23, 2009 at 4:45 pm
Muir,
You lying loser, Is your pair growing?
Jeremy PFebruary 23, 2009 at 4:55 pm
This does not take into account cost of living. I live on Long Island, NY, where the economic future is incredibly bleak (even with our high per capita income). Young professionals are moving away; housing is too expensive, taxes are tremendously high, and the state taxes and policies are a tremendous burden as well. Are you in favor of progressivity among individuals and not among states? If the purpose of the federal governments bloated budget is to progressively appropriate resources, why should states that put the most in get the most out of the federal budget? What would be the rationale for this in the first place? I am selecting a college this Spring and the economic future and opportunity will factor into my decision. For example, Nashville and Raleigh-Durham have a bright economic future, while New Haven, New York, and Chicago will continued to be burdened by high levels of taxation and poor government policies. Is this because Vanderbilt students are smarter than Yale students? No. Nashville is a burgeoning city where businesses are interested while these blue states continue to run their metropolitan cities into the ground economically. Which states are having the most trouble with their state budgets? The most liberal states. Businesses are looking for areas of entrepreneurism and innovation, not areas that run like a giant DMV office full of government employees and inefficiencies.
Jeremy PFebruary 23, 2009 at 4:56 pm
Is muiergo a real person or just one of those robo-marxists?
Jeremy PFebruary 23, 2009 at 4:59 pm
I don't know why it did not post the first time. Sorry.
Marty SFebruary 23, 2009 at 5:03 pm
Jeremy,
Calpershit the fan in california. State has a net outflow of population. Many southern states have net inflow.
Muir is a dishonest, brainwashed nincompoop.
muirgeoFebruary 23, 2009 at 5:31 pm
What happened to redistributing all that "wealth held at the top", Muirdiot? God, you're an idiot.
Posted by: Methinks
That's the whole point. We do redistribute it and we still make more money then Texans. How can that be?
It might be interesting to see the wealth distribution numbers from different states.
Methinks I'm busy because I have a real job… do you think you could look that up for us?
Marty SFebruary 23, 2009 at 5:40 pm
Muir,
You jerk, how far are you along the path to growing 2 balls?
MethinksFebruary 23, 2009 at 6:10 pm
No, moron, it won't be interesting. If you call risking the lives of unsuspecting children to your unmitigated stupidity, then you have a real job
MWGFebruary 23, 2009 at 6:19 pm
I think a good indicator of how people view the economic situation in their country (or this case, their state) is how they vote with their feet. Note CA and NY in terms of net migration.
GilFebruary 23, 2009 at 7:35 pm
Well muirgeo, it invariably pains righties to see lefties who are considerably more productive than them . . .
"Why couldn't Warren Buffett been a grumpy Conservative? Why couldn't he given people lectures on hard work and frugality? Instead he plans to give most of his fortune away to the underserving masses! Oh the humanity! That steekin Marxist!!"
muirgeoFebruary 23, 2009 at 8:42 pm
Gil,
Yes it is interesting that in general people who make a lot of money doing something productive and that which they love are more likely to be lefties. People who simply go out into the world to make money for the sake of making money tend to be grumpy, unsatisfied, wealthy, miserable wretches. Worth and value are two very different things. Modern finance has de-linked the two and created a super wealthy completely non-productive scavenger class that thinks its entitled to its ill gotten gains. They actually think they are somehow different then common thieves and bank-robbers.
It's sad how much good talent has been attracted to the unproductive… nay counter-productive "industries" that are to be found on Wall Street. Their profits going for 15 to 35% of all corporate profits ever since Ronnie Reagan. Christ we had geniuses figuring out high stakes gambling methods that could have actually been working on renewable energy or something useful. Hell I bet methinks would have made a great doctor… well at least a pathologist. And Mesa used to be a doctor but he apparently found more important work on Wall Street.
RickCFebruary 23, 2009 at 9:03 pm
Gil, Muirgeo,
What exactly are you guys on?
Thanks for messing up another thread.
Oh, I happen to be an artist, not a Wall Streeter and I'm as happy and as libertarian as you will find. Your analysis is based in Marxist Materialism not mine.
MnMFebruary 23, 2009 at 9:10 pm
Test
MnMFebruary 23, 2009 at 9:12 pm
The comments here are becoming tired and redundant…
MethinksFebruary 23, 2009 at 9:41 pm
Why couldn't he given people lectures on hard work and frugality? Instead he plans to give most of his fortune away to the underserving masses! Oh the humanity! – Gil, the other twit.
I know it has escaped your notice that while Buffet screeches for government to confiscate more wealth from the producers of said wealth, he himself is not planning to give a DIME to government because he will disgorge his wealth as he sees fit before he croaks. Nobody here has a problem with people privately donating every last cent they have. In fact, Paul Tudor Jones has started an organization called The Robin Hood foundation so that hedge fund managers have an easy vehicle to donate hundreds of millions of dollars to the less wealthy.
As usual, you idiots miss the important difference: confiscation of wealth by government vs. private, voluntary, donation.
Incidentally, if you think Buffet is a happy go lucky guy and if you think he didn't employ an army of tax attorneys and accountants to exploit every last tax loophole, then you know absolutely zip about Buffet. And you know exactly nothing. The fact that you helped the resident imbecile get off on another moronic slobberfest is not much of an accomplishment.
MWGFebruary 23, 2009 at 9:45 pm
"Yes it is interesting that in general people who make a lot of money doing something productive and that which they love are more likely to be lefties. People who simply go out into the world to make money for the sake of making money tend to be grumpy, unsatisfied, wealthy, miserable wretches."
-Muir
Is this backed up by some study you've read or are you just talking out your ass again? I suggest you google "wall street donations to Obama".
GilFebruary 23, 2009 at 10:40 pm
Okay Methinks – howz about I put it another way. Michael Medved liked to point out that Conservatives were more likely to have children and at an earlier age than Liberals. If this was also combined with Conservatives being considerably more likely to be wealthier than Liberals then there'd be nothing to worry about as Liberals were nothing but a down&out minority that natural selection would weed out. Unfortunately for Conservatives the 'Liberal Gene' is quite prolific ahead of the realm of 'deadbeat losers who are unlikely to get anywhere in life, let alone get laid'. Conservatives had a hard road ahead of them trying to find what that gene is and how to eliminate it from the human genome.
MnMFebruary 23, 2009 at 10:52 pm
Gil, what the hell are you talking about? Can you follow a conversation? Swing by Wikipedia and look up "non sequitur" and get back to us.
GilFebruary 24, 2009 at 1:08 am
Or to put it another way (for M&M's sake) is to imagine Warren Buffett as a Conservative who extols the virtues of hard work, entrepreneurism, government hating, tax hating, inheritance liking, etc. I'm sure Libertarians hit their heads against their table when they hear Warren Buffet come out things like "it's unfair that people like me pay less than my secretary (and suggest the rich should be taxed more)" and "I'm not leave my children with much because I believe it's unfair they get a headstart (ignoring he didn't come from poverty or from a poor nation and long-term wealth is multi-generational)".
Likewise I said Conservatives should find out what makes Liberals tick if they are to put a stop to it. What's so hard to follow about that?
muirgeoFebruary 24, 2009 at 2:24 am
"In fact, Paul Tudor Jones has started an organization called The Robin Hood foundation so that hedge fund managers…"
methinks
Now that's droll. How bout this? How bout the Robin Hood Hedge Fund JO's instead come up with some financial products that are transparent, help to properly allocate resources and minimize risk rather then products designed to steal from the productive economy. They should have named their organization the Sheriffs of Nottingham… Robin Hood would have despised them greatly.
MethinksFebruary 24, 2009 at 8:22 am
Gil,
How about you lay off the meth so that your already sparse brain cells don't disappear. As it is, it's clear that between you and the resident idiot, you don't have enough of them to comprehend my post – let alone cobble together a response. Now, go back to what you can understand – diddling with your close relatives.
MnMFebruary 24, 2009 at 8:58 am
Okay, again, stop by Wikipedia and look up "non sequirtur".
You responded to Methinks, but your post did nothing to address her post. Think about that for a minute…
MnMFebruary 24, 2009 at 9:05 am
"They should have named their organization the Sheriffs of Nottingham… Robin Hood would have despised them greatly."
As a lover of literature, I'm appalled. This is the worst case of bad reading I've ever seen.
Muirgeo, Robin Hood stole from the government…
KevinFebruary 24, 2009 at 4:18 pm
The Buffett quote about paying a lower tax rate than his secretary is incomplete, was made disingenuously, and is used disingenuously by people who quote him to advocate higher marginal income tax rates on the top 1 or 5 or 10 percent of ordinary income earners (not "the rich" by any means). Buffett is as "the rich" as "the rich" gets, but earns no ordinary income thanks to the way he has structured his income relative to the tax rules. This is not a result of insufficient progressivity of taxation or of secret loopholes that people who are "the rich" can access that others can't.
It's really just evidence that Buffett made a quote and others drop it all over the internet, neither providing fair context or explanation, and both hoping to strike an emotional chord that would dissipate if the whole truth were plain to see. Many holders of the so-called liberal gene exhibit this behavior, which could explain Gil's observation that they have little problem conning mates, passing on the gene, and resuming their consumption of others' produce.
SengFebruary 24, 2009 at 5:33 pm
If Buffett really thought it was so unfair, why wouldn't he just pay them and not structure his income to avoid it? Surely the IRS would welcome his donations.
Recent Episodes
Podcast RSS Feed
Full EconTalk Text
{ 28 comments }
Blue states look pretty good to me on a per capita income basis.
” rel=”nofollow”>And imagine if they received as much as they put in to the federal budget. And imagine if the Red States received proportionately less federal revenues.
What happened to redistributing all that "wealth held at the top", Muirdiot? God, you're an idiot.
I live on Long Island, NY, and one can tell that the economy is really starting to slow down here. And I think it will be permanent. The cost of living is so high that young professionals do not find it possible to live down here. Per capita income does not tell the whole story. Look at cost of living in those blue states; I guarantee that it is much higher. Are you in favor of progressivity for individuals but not for states? The whole point of the federal government collecting revenue anyway is to redistribute it, so why would you expect the states that contribute more to receive an equivalent amount? What would be the rationale for collecting the tax in the first place if a state gets what it puts in? This is also about future economic growth. These blue states are complaining about revenue shortfall; I wonder why. As a savvy consumer, I am taking these statistics into consideration when I choose a college. For example, I have the feeling that Nashville and Raleigh-Durham are cities with bright futures while New York, New Haven, and Chicago will continue to be burdened by poor government policies.
.
P.S. Sorry, George Mason is not on my list. I think I'd start to feel sick in D.C. (speaking of poor policies).
Muir,
You lying loser, Is your pair growing?
This does not take into account cost of living. I live on Long Island, NY, where the economic future is incredibly bleak (even with our high per capita income). Young professionals are moving away; housing is too expensive, taxes are tremendously high, and the state taxes and policies are a tremendous burden as well. Are you in favor of progressivity among individuals and not among states? If the purpose of the federal governments bloated budget is to progressively appropriate resources, why should states that put the most in get the most out of the federal budget? What would be the rationale for this in the first place? I am selecting a college this Spring and the economic future and opportunity will factor into my decision. For example, Nashville and Raleigh-Durham have a bright economic future, while New Haven, New York, and Chicago will continued to be burdened by high levels of taxation and poor government policies. Is this because Vanderbilt students are smarter than Yale students? No. Nashville is a burgeoning city where businesses are interested while these blue states continue to run their metropolitan cities into the ground economically. Which states are having the most trouble with their state budgets? The most liberal states. Businesses are looking for areas of entrepreneurism and innovation, not areas that run like a giant DMV office full of government employees and inefficiencies.
Is muiergo a real person or just one of those robo-marxists?
I don't know why it did not post the first time. Sorry.
Jeremy,
Calpershit the fan in california. State has a net outflow of population. Many southern states have net inflow.
Muir is a dishonest, brainwashed nincompoop.
What happened to redistributing all that "wealth held at the top", Muirdiot? God, you're an idiot.
Posted by: Methinks
That's the whole point. We do redistribute it and we still make more money then Texans. How can that be?
It might be interesting to see the wealth distribution numbers from different states.
Methinks I'm busy because I have a real job… do you think you could look that up for us?
Muir,
You jerk, how far are you along the path to growing 2 balls?
No, moron, it won't be interesting. If you call risking the lives of unsuspecting children to your unmitigated stupidity, then you have a real job
I think a good indicator of how people view the economic situation in their country (or this case, their state) is how they vote with their feet. Note CA and NY in terms of net migration.
Well muirgeo, it invariably pains righties to see lefties who are considerably more productive than them . . .
"Why couldn't Warren Buffett been a grumpy Conservative? Why couldn't he given people lectures on hard work and frugality? Instead he plans to give most of his fortune away to the underserving masses! Oh the humanity! That steekin Marxist!!"
Gil,
Yes it is interesting that in general people who make a lot of money doing something productive and that which they love are more likely to be lefties. People who simply go out into the world to make money for the sake of making money tend to be grumpy, unsatisfied, wealthy, miserable wretches. Worth and value are two very different things. Modern finance has de-linked the two and created a super wealthy completely non-productive scavenger class that thinks its entitled to its ill gotten gains. They actually think they are somehow different then common thieves and bank-robbers.
It's sad how much good talent has been attracted to the unproductive… nay counter-productive "industries" that are to be found on Wall Street. Their profits going for 15 to 35% of all corporate profits ever since Ronnie Reagan. Christ we had geniuses figuring out high stakes gambling methods that could have actually been working on renewable energy or something useful. Hell I bet methinks would have made a great doctor… well at least a pathologist. And Mesa used to be a doctor but he apparently found more important work on Wall Street.
Gil, Muirgeo,
What exactly are you guys on?
Thanks for messing up another thread.
Oh, I happen to be an artist, not a Wall Streeter and I'm as happy and as libertarian as you will find. Your analysis is based in Marxist Materialism not mine.
Test
The comments here are becoming tired and redundant…
Why couldn't he given people lectures on hard work and frugality? Instead he plans to give most of his fortune away to the underserving masses! Oh the humanity! – Gil, the other twit.
I know it has escaped your notice that while Buffet screeches for government to confiscate more wealth from the producers of said wealth, he himself is not planning to give a DIME to government because he will disgorge his wealth as he sees fit before he croaks. Nobody here has a problem with people privately donating every last cent they have. In fact, Paul Tudor Jones has started an organization called The Robin Hood foundation so that hedge fund managers have an easy vehicle to donate hundreds of millions of dollars to the less wealthy.
As usual, you idiots miss the important difference: confiscation of wealth by government vs. private, voluntary, donation.
Incidentally, if you think Buffet is a happy go lucky guy and if you think he didn't employ an army of tax attorneys and accountants to exploit every last tax loophole, then you know absolutely zip about Buffet. And you know exactly nothing. The fact that you helped the resident imbecile get off on another moronic slobberfest is not much of an accomplishment.
"Yes it is interesting that in general people who make a lot of money doing something productive and that which they love are more likely to be lefties. People who simply go out into the world to make money for the sake of making money tend to be grumpy, unsatisfied, wealthy, miserable wretches."
-Muir
Is this backed up by some study you've read or are you just talking out your ass again? I suggest you google "wall street donations to Obama".
Okay Methinks – howz about I put it another way. Michael Medved liked to point out that Conservatives were more likely to have children and at an earlier age than Liberals. If this was also combined with Conservatives being considerably more likely to be wealthier than Liberals then there'd be nothing to worry about as Liberals were nothing but a down&out minority that natural selection would weed out. Unfortunately for Conservatives the 'Liberal Gene' is quite prolific ahead of the realm of 'deadbeat losers who are unlikely to get anywhere in life, let alone get laid'. Conservatives had a hard road ahead of them trying to find what that gene is and how to eliminate it from the human genome.
Gil, what the hell are you talking about? Can you follow a conversation? Swing by Wikipedia and look up "non sequitur" and get back to us.
Or to put it another way (for M&M's sake) is to imagine Warren Buffett as a Conservative who extols the virtues of hard work, entrepreneurism, government hating, tax hating, inheritance liking, etc. I'm sure Libertarians hit their heads against their table when they hear Warren Buffet come out things like "it's unfair that people like me pay less than my secretary (and suggest the rich should be taxed more)" and "I'm not leave my children with much because I believe it's unfair they get a headstart (ignoring he didn't come from poverty or from a poor nation and long-term wealth is multi-generational)".
Likewise I said Conservatives should find out what makes Liberals tick if they are to put a stop to it. What's so hard to follow about that?
"In fact, Paul Tudor Jones has started an organization called The Robin Hood foundation so that hedge fund managers…"
methinks
Now that's droll. How bout this? How bout the Robin Hood Hedge Fund JO's instead come up with some financial products that are transparent, help to properly allocate resources and minimize risk rather then products designed to steal from the productive economy. They should have named their organization the Sheriffs of Nottingham… Robin Hood would have despised them greatly.
Gil,
How about you lay off the meth so that your already sparse brain cells don't disappear. As it is, it's clear that between you and the resident idiot, you don't have enough of them to comprehend my post – let alone cobble together a response. Now, go back to what you can understand – diddling with your close relatives.
Okay, again, stop by Wikipedia and look up "non sequirtur".
You responded to Methinks, but your post did nothing to address her post. Think about that for a minute…
"They should have named their organization the Sheriffs of Nottingham… Robin Hood would have despised them greatly."
As a lover of literature, I'm appalled. This is the worst case of bad reading I've ever seen.
Muirgeo, Robin Hood stole from the government…
The Buffett quote about paying a lower tax rate than his secretary is incomplete, was made disingenuously, and is used disingenuously by people who quote him to advocate higher marginal income tax rates on the top 1 or 5 or 10 percent of ordinary income earners (not "the rich" by any means). Buffett is as "the rich" as "the rich" gets, but earns no ordinary income thanks to the way he has structured his income relative to the tax rules. This is not a result of insufficient progressivity of taxation or of secret loopholes that people who are "the rich" can access that others can't.
It's really just evidence that Buffett made a quote and others drop it all over the internet, neither providing fair context or explanation, and both hoping to strike an emotional chord that would dissipate if the whole truth were plain to see. Many holders of the so-called liberal gene exhibit this behavior, which could explain Gil's observation that they have little problem conning mates, passing on the gene, and resuming their consumption of others' produce.
If Buffett really thought it was so unfair, why wouldn't he just pay them and not structure his income to avoid it? Surely the IRS would welcome his donations.