Some Bermudan company formations were also partly due to the favorable regulatory environments at the time. Now that regulators have more tools and data capabilities, there are fewer regulatory capacity differences between Bermuda and other regions. In turn, that validates Schnitzer’s comments on high taxes being the primary reason for the exit of (insurance) companies from the US.
Yogi, he is absolutely correct. Many other industries have already moved some of their operations offshore due to the tax and regulatory structure of this country and the terrible Obama Administration. Very little job creation, poor GNP results for 7+ years and Progressives think 1.5% to 2.5% are good growth numbers.
Vote for Trump! He will lower corporate taxes and bring back jobs to the USA. Democrats and Socialists are for growing the government, raising taxes and raising the price of goods here. Why else push the minimum wage increase to $15??? That will raise the price of goods and services, and raise taxes!
Mickey, the only thing a Progressive Democrat knows is raising taxes and spending the country into bankruptcy. They think the only way to increase revenue is to raise taxes. Actually, more revenue is received with tax cuts as Reagan proved. More jobs are created and more tax payers instead of tax takers. The Progressives are very hard headed and have diminished capacity to understand the concept. We need reduced government and reduced taxes if we ever hope to balance the budget and get moving again.
” Actually, more revenue is received with tax cuts as Reagan proved.”
Agent, you are uneducated beyond belief. Even replying to 1% of your completely false statements would take all day. Reagan’s 1981 tax cut reduced revenues by $208 billion in its 1st 4 years; Reagan’s tax increases in ’82, ’83, ’84 and ’87 boosted revenue by $137 billion. Overall, that’s increased debt, so I am sure you will rip him for that, right? For a more recent example look at Kansas.
Most of the growth during Reagan’s presidency were from government spending, and over 8 years there was a net increase in jobs created per year that was smaller than even during Carter’s term (about 2.58 million/yr for Carter to 2.01/yr for Reagan).
What you are referring to is called the Laffer Curve, and it has been thoroughly debunked in economics. A 2012 University of Chicago poll of economists asked about this theory, and not one agreed with it. 0.0%, just like the percentage of comments you make that turn out to be true.
UW – Reagan is up there with the worst President of all time. He is responsible for turning us from a creditor to a debtor, the start of the trade deficit (which Clinton, Bush added to and now President Obama trying to further that), and the creation of the largest wealth gap in the history of the world with his failed “trickle down” economic model. Bush Sr. summed it up the best, voodoo economics.
Ever seen the stance WR Berkley Co takes on off-shore reinsurers? They won’t work with them because they don’t support America. More companies need to act like Berkley! It’s a company’s decision to move off-shore, they don’t have to.
I agree. He is liked almost entirely due to a marketing story by conservatives after he left. The economy was bad under him and he destroyed the middle class. He was also stupid enough to rely in part on astrology, although that was on his wife’s urging. He was a nut.
April 8, 2016 at 1:29 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
2
1
Do some math. Really. It’s infuriating. Higher taxes do not help the middle class. I know what my father would have retired with if the lower taxes of Reagan didn’t take place, it’s simple math. He would have retired with less than half of what he did.
Reagan, Clinton, and onward, was the rise of the middle class. It took a long time to come into fruition. The recession is not the norm. That destroyed wealth but it had nothing to do with taxes.
On Reagan’s revenues, do, some, math.
Regan’s LPR rate went up while the unemployment rate went down. With Obama, the LPR going down is why the unemployment rate is down. This is not solely retirees.
I will give links on this, as giving more than one link in a post makes it approve slowly, but here is one:
Other than a few outlying years, the tax revenues as a percent of GDP are within a normal band, yet we had substantially different tax rates during these time frames.
Then you have to account for recessions and booms. As the link I went over showed, there was a recession just after Reagan passed his tax cuts. It’s important to know the 5% tax decrease applied for 1981. What do you notice about 1981? The revenues are 19.1%, the highest year by far in a while. It’s difficult to compare a year, without comparing a time frame and the economy. They went down after another 5% in correlation with a recession.
So even if your argument is that the 17% average with Reagan is lower than the highest of 18.5% of Carter, and that it lowered the revenues by 1.5%, then you have to look at GDP growth, as well as the unemployment rate.
Spending you try to focus on, which is separate from tax rates. Reagan wasn’t able to reduce spending, but his lower tax rates did have an affect. I might add, REAGAN DID TRY to lower spending. I have provided Ron with a link in the past when they said Reagan proposed the largest spending cuts and they were dangerous that had ever been at the time in many generations. You cannot claim both that Reagan spent more, and that the proposed the largest spending cuts nearly in history at his time. It is absurd.
But now back on point:
Obama: Starting LPR: 65.7%. Current: 63%. And that is only after it recently started coming back up after 7 years. Unemployment rate 5%.
That’s insane.
Now Reagan: Starting about 64%, ended about 66%.
Unemployment: We should count form 1983 here, since as I said, his recession hit after he got in office. At that point it went down to 10.4%, and within 5 years (not 7 like Obama) it went down to 5.7% all the while the labor participation rate went up.
When Reagan took office, also showing a recession happened in 1982 that was bad, the employed percentage of the population dipped from 59 to 57%. Then it shot up to 63% within 5 years. Those 5 years, were phenomenal. If you look at the years before then, from 1950 until 1975, the highest number was 58%. Then suddenly we pass tax healthy environments, and it shoots up. That number continued to soar for some time, but not by as much as when Reagan was in office until it ended up at almost 65%. Having a work force stuck at 55% average for 25 years means you would have in today’s population 3.3 million less workers roughly. That is 32 billion in revenues lost, this is not including incomes which Reagan boosted with GDP, that is likely another 32 billion saved that we don’t have to spend per year. Do the math. Just there that makes 1.7%. So by lowering taxes, having a slightly lower revenue, letting business handle taking care of people, you technically just on that alone increased their benefit by 1.7%. Or you could do enough taxes to increase it by 1.7%, which the math isn’t there to do that. The government does not create wealth. The more you take from the economy, the more you reduce it’s capability.
Since Reagan, we took the best path we could. We have done well.
Regan proposed spending cuts. The democrats did the same thing Obama did this presidency.
They said they wouldn’t leave the poor vulnerable while giving tax cuts to the super wealthy.
They said they would trade spending cuts for tax increases. Reagan refused. When it became clear he was going to cut taxes no matter what, they then said they would only allow it if he agreed to spending increases for the poor, for the same reason. He still refused. He used his veto. They over rode it, several times.
What do you notice, in the section “Jobs created in thousands” sir?
Carter: 8,601
Reagan: 13,621
You and Planet are wrong about this crap.
You cannot tax and spend the middle class into a better scenario The reason we are doing better is the blocks to the economy were taken off after Reagan, the BEST president in our history.
April 8, 2016 at 2:03 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
3
1
I should also note: That a lower marginal rate with no deductions is still a lower tax even if the effective isn’t much different.
A lower marginal rate with less deductions broadens the target, but it also ensures that firms who are say filing on marginal rates have a lower start up cost.
These start up firms wouldn’t have a bunch of deductions. So a 75% top rate would make starting up nearly impossible, whereas a lower rate with less deductions they would be taxed lower starting up.
A high marginal rate is intentional to crush start ups. The same occurs with corporate tax rates.
You really need to stop being lead, and start thinking for yourself.
I haven’t been told this to figure it out.
I looked at profit loss sheets, and saw how firms were taxed that I insure.
Are you in the business of insurance or not?
I kind of doubt it. Have you looked at a PL in your entire life, and then done the math as to how they are taxed? Have you seen the profit margins?
Have you for example, seen GE’s profits?
They made 77.5 billion last year in revenues. After expenditures they had a profit of about 12 billion.
Sanders claims they paid 10% and he wants them to pay 35. This means if he gets the additional 25% they will pay about an additional 19.375 billion. They would go bankrupt.
Rather than trying to get everyone to share in the misery, why not allow companies to come here, give them profitability means, get the extra revenues of bringing them back, and the extra jobs?
We can focus on revenue, which doesn’t support the middle class, or we can focus on business, which does.
You can make a living on one. The other you cannot, unless you take it from someone else, and sooner or later, you run out of people to take it from.
April 8, 2016 at 3:10 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
2
1
And on that, what do you notice between the jobs?
Carter: 8,601
Reagan: 13,621
Just on social security taxes alone that would be 12.2% of taxes on 5 million jobs.
1.45 percent on the medicare.
And, they would pay at least $5,000 per year in federal taxes on average.
Assuming they made the median family income of $53,000,
That is:
25 billion per year on federal taxes
And on social security and medicare: 36.1725 billion. This is part of why a lower marginal rate can be offset by revenues.
The other fact is that many homes have a primary and secondary earner. And many secondary earners stop working because the tax code is far too punitive. This harms productivity. My wife is one of those when we had kids. Lowering the tax rate as a whole I would have kept her in work. Having it as high as it was, inclusive of day care, there was no reason for her to be there. This happens in many scenarios.
What do you notice UW? With all of this we aren’t helping the poor, but we are making it harder for businesses to thrive. If instead we passed laws requiring a certain amount of profitability either be put into expansion or to wages or jobs, we would have better results.
The government does waste money. As things stand now the 0-10% isn’t being lifted out of being poor through these government revenues, and it does harm the economy.
April 8, 2016 at 3:32 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
3
2
And for you Planet:
It is a company decision to move off shore, because they don’t have incentive to stay here.
If GE paid the tax rate all in the U.S. that Sanders wants them to, they would be several billions in the hole and would be bankrupt. They don’t choose to go off shore.
They have been forced to.
We would get more revenues if we lowered our rates, and more jobs here.
It’s time to lower our corporate tax rate.
April 11, 2016 at 11:17 am
UW says:
Like or Dislike:
2
2
Bob, this is just a tsunami of stupid washing away every fact, reality and shred of common sense. I’ll assume you aren’t responding to my earlier proof of Trump supporting a database to track Muslims, which you denied, my comments on women and the Bible, which you denied and got eviscerated on, and seemingly every comment anybody makes with actual facts or reason.
First you dismiss one of the major surveys of economists offhand without ever looking into it, as you always do, but I’ll give you credit for not lying about reading it this time. You also dismiss a theory which had widespread acceptance and is now known to be false and viewed widely as a joke-literally. You do this because it’s a “liberal university”, again showing you ignorance on the most basic facts about economics. The University of Chicago is a far right-wing university when it comes to economics, and the survey had many right-wing economists-they are over represented according to most.
This also brings into quetion whether you know what a survey is.
Yes, genius Reagan created more jobs than Carter… in four more years, which is obviously why I used per year figures. Comparing 8 years of data to 4 is idiotic, and brings into question just how little you know about statistics, data and economics-next to none at a maximum . You did that – again, incompetent about economics. Most of the environment for job growth under Reagan was due to Volcker at the Fed ending inflation with revolutionary techniques, an example of a conservative making a great decision, which was outside his school of thought’s standard beliefs. But Reagan’s influence on this was nothing asidee from rightly staying out of the way after other moves failed. In all probability the actor president was unaware of what it was, or was following the astrology he and his wife used – which is what passes for science in a conservative administration apparently.
You constantly ask whether people have looked at P&L sheets when making a false claim, as if what you deal with is the entire economy. Yes, again, I do, and can almost guarantee I’ve looked at larger ones than you, although, again is irrelevant. You constantly make points that are irrelevant, false and go against your meandering points in reality. From 2002-11 GE paid an effective tax rate of 2.3% at most. Yes I’m in the industry, are you, can I assume you don’t work with any actual numbers other than simple arithmetic?
Bob, funny how you rant about the government not being able to create wealth, over the Internet, which was created almost exclusively through government funding paid for by taxes. Yeah no wealth creation there, nor with GPS, most health research, etc. You are truly clueless like a clown repeating what you hear on right-wing media without a single thought of your own. You shoot down massive studies and surveys you haven’t heard of just because you don’t like or know the facts. You are a total, 100% clown. But hey, the data doesn’t exist because it’s either from a very liberal University (even when it’s not), or it wasn’t on your P&L sheet. Clueless to the extreme. With the labor force participation rate you again ignore all demographic factors as if they don’t exist. We are slightly under forecasted numbers due to our aging population, primarily because after the Republicans/conservatives crashed the economy in 2008 and many older workers were forced out prematurely and could not or did not want to enter again. This too is econ 101 but you are ignorant of it just like you are when it comes to our Healthcare system. If it’s not blabbed on right-wing media it doesn’t exist to you apparently. Got don’t seem to even know what the Baby Boomers are or there effect on the economy.
I’ll take on the rest of this mess if I get bored and have time, and then you can ignore everything relevant, whine about liberals, repeat trite talking points, pretend to know economics and dismiss anything not written by a kook on Forbes or from Limbaugh.
You were probably one of the people here warning about runaway inflation because of our debt a few years ago after hearing it all over your echo chamber.
April 11, 2016 at 1:29 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
“First you dismiss one of the major surveys of economists offhand without ever looking into it, as you always do, but I’ll give you credit for not lying about reading it this time. You also dismiss a theory which had widespread acceptance and is now known to be false and viewed widely as a joke-literally. You do this because it’s a “liberal university”, again showing you ignorance on the most basic facts about economics. The University of Chicago is a far right-wing university when it comes to economics, and the survey had many right-wing economists-they are over represented according to most.
This also brings into quetion whether you know what a survey is. ”
I question if you know what a survey is, vs what studies are.
You used one university. That is the problem. A cherry picked university that you say 100% says the laffer curve is fake. Well, I don’t care about he said she said. Do you deny that a 100% rate would leave no economy? The concept of the laffer curve was gone over in my link I gave. Also, I don’t lie about reading links kid. …. Quit with the lying ….
“Yes, genius Reagan created more jobs than Carter… in four more years, which is obviously why I used per year figures. Comparing 8 years of data to 4 is idiotic, and brings into question just how little you know about statistics, data and economics-next to none at a maximum . You did that – again, incompetent about economics. Most of the environment for job growth under Reagan was due to Volcker at the Fed ending inflation with revolutionary techniques, an example of a conservative making a great decision, which was outside his school of thought’s standard beliefs. But Reagan’s influence on this was nothing asidee from rightly staying out of the way after other moves failed. In all probability the actor president was unaware of what it was, or was following the astrology he and his wife used – which is what passes for science in a conservative administration apparently.”
I will give you credit for giving credit to a conservative. However, this does not explain the growth during the decades following Reagan, and the constant lower employment population ratio that we had until the recession. Also, did you read the link I gave you? Only one other president that served two terms surpassed Reagan. One. That is Clinton. Now moving back on topic: I mentioned the employment to population ratio for a reason. Carter did not fix this. For the prior 30 years it averaged 55%. After Reagan it was a full 10% higher. This is what good policies do.
“Bob, funny how you rant about the government not being able to create wealth, over the Internet, which was created almost exclusively through government funding paid for by taxes. Yeah no wealth creation there, nor with GPS, most health research, etc. You are truly clueless like a clown repeating what you hear on right-wing media without a single thought of your own. You shoot down massive studies and surveys you haven’t heard of just because you don’t like or know the facts. You are a total, 100% clown. But hey, the data doesn’t exist because it’s either from a very liberal University (even when it’s not), or it wasn’t on your P&L sheet. Clueless to the extreme. With the labor force participation rate you again ignore all demographic factors as if they don’t exist. We are slightly under forecasted numbers due to our aging population, primarily because after the Republicans/conservatives crashed the economy in 2008 and many older workers were forced out prematurely and could not or did not want to enter again. This too is econ 101 but you are ignorant of it just like you are when it comes to our Healthcare system. If it’s not blabbed on right-wing media it doesn’t exist to you apparently. Got don’t seem to even know what the Baby Boomers are or there effect on the economy. ”
You seem to be mistaking what my comment means. Let’s say the government make a few investments and that helps certain aspects of the economy. That is fine, as long as it is limited. The majority of government spending is not going toward that. And the majority of the time, when the government finances the primary sections of economy, it fails. You have just tried to advocate socialism. It doesn’t work. The government does not do well if we expand it’s investments. Moreover, what I’m referring to is that high tax environments and random spending on infrastructure do not help the economy. Also, stop with the he said she said, liberal conservative ad hominem s..t.
I have quoted the New York Times and CNN today. I DO NOT READ OR LISTEN TO OR WATCH FOX NEWS NOR ANY CONSERVATIVE LEANING SITE. This is largely due to how idiots like you debate. Debate facts, not who people listen to.
April 11, 2016 at 1:34 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
2
So if you didn’t catch, the issue with your referencing some people laughing in one State, is that not all people laugh at the Laffer curve.
Also, if they didn’t take it seriously, why did one of the researchers at your same university do a study on it?
Bob: Also, if they didn’t take it seriously, why did one of the researchers at your same university do a study on it?
God Bob just stop. Do you really think studying something means it is true? You are just aimlessly ranting about stuff you clearly haven’t looked into before. By your logic you agree climate change exists because it has been studied.
April 11, 2016 at 5:53 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
Actu:
It’s a relevant point. He just said the survey shows none of them think that the laffer curve exists.
It’s a bold statement. In one section of the world.
Plenty of economists acknowledge the laffer curve, inclusive of the guy at the school I mentioned he didn’t only do a study of it, he has talked at length what the affects of taxes might be.
There is a dynamic affect of taxation. This isn’t an opinion.
April 8, 2016 at 1:43 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
2
1
Also UW:
“Most of the growth during Reagan’s presidency were from government spending, and over 8 years there was a net increase in jobs created per year that was smaller than even during Carter’s term (about 2.58 million/yr for Carter to 2.01/yr for Reagan).”
Citation needed. The percentage of the employed population sky rocketed as I said before, after Reagan.
This proves that Reagan started an environment to have a larger percentage of the population work. A link is coming proving your number on jobs is wrong.
I noted that you didn’t try to say whether or not higher tax rates would eventually stop economic output. It’s a fact. If we had 100% it would stop all economic activity. I also note that you went with a liberal city, with a liberal university.
While you say 100% of economists in one particular city agree with you,
I will show in this link that 100% of all economists agree with what this guy says about the laffer curve.
“I will show in this link that 100% of all economists agree with what this guy says about the laffer curve.”
You are outright stupid if you believe that is what that link shows or is what the author is even saying. Dynamic scoring is WAY out of your league.
You constantly say you are providing math Ave then pour forward outright BS, like not knowing the difference between numbers for 8 years or 4.
Yes, slightly more literate than your average Republican can still be completely clueless, so you make my point for me, but to refresh your memory I have also called your arguments retarded as well.
You are a libertarian only in the sense that you are embarrassed to say you are a Republican and think you are smart. You have never advocated libertarian ideals other than no taxes or worker protections. You have supported Trump’s Muslim database, his violence towards protestors, his ban on immigration, and countless other anti-libertarian policies.
Economic libertarianism is about as stupid as it gets, and is full of frauds and pseudo-intellectual, economic illiterate so I’m not surprised you claim that as your ideology.
Every sentence you write is wrong. A high marginal rate harms start ups. No because most startups are not earning enough to pay the highest marginal rates, But if they are, they aren’t in the phase where it will do much harm. It could hinder expansion, but that’s debatable. You don’t even seem to know what marginal rates are, much like you don’t seem to understand or believe in loopholes. You are clueless on everything. 0 for infinity, do the math. And the full math, not the 8 years compared to 4 years totals to incompetently make a point.
BTW, what about the math on climate science? Oh yeah, the 95%+ of climate scientists working around the world for decades, and the oil company scientists who hid it, all did the math wrong, or are liberal, of course!
Just a totally disastrous light-weight clown, very funny.
April 11, 2016 at 12:55 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
UW:
Let’s start from a few points you were wrong about and move forward:
So suffice it to say, you need to now say the words:
Reagan was not Keynesian, he was not a big spender.
People forced spending, he tried to get it under control.
Item one proving you are a numb skull moron.
April 11, 2016 at 1:15 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
So I used CNN and NY Times on purpose by the by.
Moving to your points:
“You constantly say you are providing math Ave then pour forward outright BS, like not knowing the difference between numbers for 8 years or 4.”
I don’t even know what this means. To try and say I don’t know the difference between 4 and 8 years is such a lie and exaggeration it shows how polarized you are.
“You are a libertarian only in the sense that you are embarrassed to say you are a Republican and think you are smart. You have never advocated libertarian ideals other than no taxes or worker protections. You have supported Trump’s Muslim database, his violence towards protestors, his ban on immigration, and countless other anti-libertarian policies.”
No. You’re wrong here. You are labeling what Libertarians think. I subscribe to many channels and sites where hundreds of thousands from each of them, a total of over a million, talk about these issues. Libertarians support the issues I have mentioned. There are reasons. His ban on immigration and refugees as a temporary ban are items that are entirely within range of the constitution. We get to decide who is a risk to come here. Trump does not engage in violence against protestors. Protestors engage in violence against Trump, and he is mad, and says over the top things. A person ran and jumped over a barrier, ended up making a security guard bleed, and had tweets about being a martyr. He was given his 15 minutes on CNN. That is encouraging violence, and the left does it. Obama excused the riots in Ferguson saying he understands why they do it. That emboldens people to riot.
“Economic libertarianism is about as stupid as it gets, and is full of frauds and pseudo-intellectual, economic illiterate so I’m not surprised you claim that as your ideology. ”
As you have labeled it, I am sure it is. This is your weak point, not that of libertarians.
“Every sentence you write is wrong. A high marginal rate harms start ups. No because most startups are not earning enough to pay the highest marginal rates, But if they are, they aren’t in the phase where it will do much harm. It could hinder expansion, but that’s debatable. You don’t even seem to know what marginal rates are, much like you don’t seem to understand or believe in loopholes. You are clueless on everything. 0 for infinity, do the math. And the full math, not the 8 years compared to 4 years totals to incompetently make a point. ”
Let me just point something out to you, UW.
The first 10 years make or break a business.
Carter’s top 70% rate started at 108,300. The 55% started at $41,500. That is: $111,000 at a 55% rate, and $292,000 for the highest.
You think that the majority of businesses won’t fall into the size range of $111,000 – $292,000 in annual billings?
“BTW, what about the math on climate science? Oh yeah, the 95%+ of climate scientists working around the world for decades, and the oil company scientists who hid it, all did the math wrong, or are liberal, of course!”
You’re speaking to other conservatives here, and are applying it to all of them. It’s a nice try to label them as extreme, and it’s what your party does often, so good job little lap dog. Good job.
Conservatives are not against good environmental decisions as it is. Even Agent said this. What he is, is against the government trying to manage it. Also, conservatives do not believe 100% of what liberals say about climate change. This is different than rejecting what 95% of scientists say. Liberals are lying about what scientists say, and conservatives are angry about it. They are mad at the exaggeration, which you’re doing now.
The calculator that gave me 1979 dollars converted into 2015 for my $111,000 and $292,000.
I swear to God UW, if you don’t get the point by now, you’re insane.
You’re arguing with someone who is not just “slightly” more literate.
You said things about Reagan that I have now proven to be untrue. Do you recant those statements? Or do you hard headily proceed forward?
You said the top rates wouldn’t apply to start up businesses. Did you even look at what the top rates were? Did you grab an inflation calculator to bring the dollars to currency in the current year? No! You just parrot what some other idiot told you.
Yes, you did just get completely annihilated. Deal with it.
For God’s sakes I’m sick of you. You think you’re so much smarter and everyone else says things that aren’t thought out, but I just proved on these two items you did not think worth a damn!
April 11, 2016 at 2:18 pm
UW says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
Bob, the tax document you posted, once again doesn’t show what you claim it does. You are incompetent, dishonest, or both. Those are personal tax rates, not corporate tax rates. You are just comically wrong on everything. You are overestimating the top rate for businesses by over 50%, you are just totally incompetent. It should be noted along with your nonsense, the top rate now kicks in somewhere over $18 million if I remember correctly, again making my point they aren’t struggling upstarts being put out of business.
You are showing your brutal incompetence; these aren’t simple errors anybody could make, they are fundamental errors showing a total lack of understanding of the basics, and more interest in an adherence to an ideology than a reality.
April 11, 2016 at 3:32 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
2
1
“Bob, the tax document you posted, once again doesn’t show what you claim it does. You are incompetent, dishonest, or both. Those are personal tax rates, not corporate tax rates. You are just comically wrong on everything. You are overestimating the top rate for businesses by over 50%, you are just totally incompetent. It should be noted along with your nonsense, the top rate now kicks in somewhere over $18 million if I remember correctly, again making my point they aren’t struggling upstarts being put out of business.
You are showing your brutal incompetence; these aren’t simple errors anybody could make, they are fundamental errors showing a total lack of understanding of the basics, and more interest in an adherence to an ideology than a reality.”
Evidently you are unaware that many businesses fall under marginal rates.
The top rate of what kicks in after $18 million? Certainly not the corporate tax rate:
I am not inept, and stop calling me either dishonest, ignorant, or both.
No one who debates here is dishonest, they all believe what they say, asshole. So get your arrogant head out of your ass.
I noted you didn’t recant your either dishonest or ignorant position about Reagan spending.
Do you acknowledge you were wrong? Does this make you ignorant or dishonest?
Do these rules only apply to your “enemies” in politics?
People like you are destroying the nation. Grow up kid.
April 11, 2016 at 3:35 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
Also UW:
I noticed you seem to not grasp that start up firms are usually started by someone who started as an upper middle class person, and saved enough to start his own business.
If the person in that income range is paying 55% as opposed to say 28% after Reagan, this would affect the amount they have to invest by nearly double.
Capital gains is another way people save up money to start a business, after they have saved some amount of money. Again, the upper middle class save enough capital, and then start a business. The marginal rates affect start ups.
This is elementary type of thought. Learn to think on your own.
April 11, 2016 at 3:48 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
UW:
You went from:
“Every sentence you write is wrong. A high marginal rate harms start ups. No because most startups are not earning enough to pay the highest marginal rates, But if they are, they aren’t in the phase where it will do much harm. It could hinder expansion, but that’s debatable.”
First this was a debatable issue, that you agreed marginal rates apply to, but the cut off range was too high.
Then I showed you what the cut off range would be in today’s dollars, and then you changed your mind, now I’m stupid and marginal rates don’t apply.
They did apply, now they don’t. Did you change your mind, or, realize you made a mistake in logic?
Did you suddenly change your mind because you wanted to find a way to dismiss what I found that harms your belief system?
UW, you are trying your damnedest to find a way to disprove me while you are contradicting yourself.
April 11, 2016 at 3:52 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
Face it moron,
With my last post I exposed your ignorant dance.
So chock it the @#%@ down, and shut up. You’re just talking, blah blah blah.
Knee jerk, un-reasearched comments, that you believe are absolute and suddenly change from one section to the next.
You’re a whiny little brat. You’ve labeled everyone including sources, conservatives, etc, so you sit in your own little world and block out what everyone says, change your phrases to meet your blocked out reality’s needs.
You are not a liberal as it is. This type of block is conservative. I am not conservative per say in that regard. I believe in listening to all facts that have reason and logic.
Sometimes as a human I am wrong, just like you.
But I don’t make a habit of calling a class of people, a type of people, or a section of society, a bunch of idiots.
I believe you are a stupid democrat. But the pre-qualifier doesn’t apply to all.
April 11, 2016 at 7:58 pm
UW says:
Like or Dislike:
3
1
Bob, you are right, I forgot the top rate dipped down before kicking back up. It is a small amount though, and does not change anything. It also doesn’t change the fact that you 2X confused individual taxes with corporate taxes. Inept doesn’t apply here, so I’m not sure why you would use it, but I know plenty of other adjectives that do.
Thanks for the link to the paper you didn’t read (literally the first one if you Google Laffer Curve University of Chicago). You still seem to be suffering from the reading comprehension and misquoting problems. I never said the Laffer Curve doesn’t exist, in fact as a theory even knowing about it proves it exists. I said it has been disproven, and in a poll of major economists not one agreed with it. Now, you don’t seem to know what a poll is, and multiple times said it was from a liberal city and a liberal university (incorrect to the extreme), while in fact it includes many right-wing economists. You cannot refute this, because you comically proved you didn’t know about it, nor did you read it, you dismissed it offhand because you disagreed with it, because you are a clown.
Now, you are mad and having a total meltdown because I informed Agent the Laffer Curve has been disproved, you provided a paper as “proof” that isn’t the fact. Again, you didn’t read the study, or if you did you didn’t comprehend it, because you are a fraudulent intellectual light-weight driven by ideology instead of facts. The best part of the study you linked is when it said 54% of a labor tax cut and 79% of a capital tax cut are self-financing, at the optimal part of the curve (at best). This means that tax cuts DO NOT bring more tax revenue as Agent claimed, and you melted down over when I presented the theory, and major economists saying it is not true. YOUR CITATION confirms my point, and the beliefs of every major economist polled in my poll.
Now, to clarify this for you, if tax receipts are 100, and capital taxes are cut 10%, the new tax receipts are 97.9. That is less, tax cuts do not lead to higher tax receipts.
Bob, 97.9 < 100.
Also,
"I will show in this link that 100% of all economists agree with what this guy says about the laffer curve."
Read your sources, idiot. That isn't what that even sets out to prove, it's a throwaway line to debunk a fiction you created in your head. You don't understand what the Laffer Curve even is, or the dozens of sub-theories associated with it. Move onto something basic you can grasp. This guy is an Austrian economist, BTW. You complain about me putting a poll from a right-wing school you call liberal, and then cite a guy from a school that specializes in a totally discredited school of economic thought. The Laffer Curve is at it's most simple form the curve showing tax rates and tax receipts. Agent's claim is that this curve shows that lower taxes increase revenue. This isn't true. I provided evidence and you went into a purely ideologically-driven rant without understanding what the curve is. You misinterpreted this as me saying there is no such thing as a Laffer Curve, instead of saying his interpretation of it is not correct. You need to read and re-read before you have these unhinged meltdowns, because pasting a bunch of irrelevant numbers when you don't know the elementary theory you are arguing is a moronic waste of time.
Your incomprehensible rant about the government projects I mentioned borders on retarded. You say it is alright when it works, but when it doesn't it is socialism. That is intellectually bankrupt, which is why you wrote it. It is socialism when it works. No major research breakthroughs like this can ever be completed by private entities alone, because they simply do not have the capital, nor the incentive to do it.
You again, for seemingly the 100th time don't understand, comment on, or acknowledge the importance of demographics in the economy. The Labor Force Participation rate increased during Reagan's years primarily due to the tail end of the Baby Boomers reaching working age, meaning the population on the whole contained more prime aged people as a percentage of the total population than it was 5, 10, etc years before. The LFPR contains everybody over 16, so obviously when those people age and reach retirement age the rate will drop. What a coincidence, that's now!! Just like we predicted in all the projections of the LFPR which was only slightly higher than it is now.
But, because you are soooo intellectually rigorous, and claimed this "explosion" happened due to Reagan's great policies, I'm sure you will look at the data, and see the explosion started under Carter, before temporarily dropping during the oil crisis, and then continuing at the same rate. So, you, as an intellectually honest person will state the great policies were actually Carter's, right? It's pretty stunning what a superficial knowledge you have on the labor force participation rate. It's almost as if you are just repeating word-for-word what right-wing BS sites say every day…almost.
You are 100% a clown, but providing the first source on Google as proof, even though it actually confirms what I said is classic. Nice one. Just a total train wreck. Hey at least you nailed me forgetting the top rate dropped down a little before bumping back up, NICE ONE, GENIUS (even though you were confusing individual and corporate taxes, multiple times)!
April 8, 2016 at 3:47 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
2
1
Also,
You don’t trust Mr. Bush, so don’t refer to Mr. Bush in regards to Voodoo economics to do some sort of an association or character link to whether or not lower taxes are beneficial.
You have to provide numbers. Not he said she said they said and I say, types of crap.
You are such an indoctrinated child, and yet you believe everyone else is.
You once called me slightly more literate than your average republican…
Another time you called me completely clueless, as if I was retarded.
You disagree with my numbers, that is what it is. I am not however, ignorant. It’s no coincidence you guys do this political allegiance to such insane degrees. It’s part of the goal.
Trigger, galvanize, class warfare, divide and conquer, and then make it look cool and hip.
I’m not part of your idiotic club.
I’m not even part of the republican club.
I’m a god damn proud libertarian, who wants my government limited, and knows the best way to take care of people is through business.
In other words some examples: In the past I’ve supported a public option, I’ve supported legalization of pot, I’ve supported hpv vaccines, and many other “liberal” hot issues.
I am not some crazy conservative, which is why I keep swearing at you.
You keep on applying that label and you’re going to get my foot up your ass.
Bob, this may shock you but Reagan’s term went beyond 1981. You used a story from the only year he didn’t raise taxes, because you are a dishonest fraud. He also almost tripled the federal deficit-which I don’t disagree with under the circumstamces although much of it was wasted spending. He proposed cuts to agencies and then grew them even adding Veterans Affairs which is huge. You are buying into the fiction. The veto you point to mainly funded already approved programs, was done by a largely Republican Senate, and it was smaller than the budget proposed by Reagan. So again you are posting a nonsense story that runs counter your argument. We’re done here. That Bob-Math again!
I read a lot of libertarian nonsense too. I’ve read more political philosophy than you can imagine, but unlike you I’ve actually gasped it.
You claim it is libertarian because it’s temporary (irrelevant when it comes to freedom and libertarianism) because we get to decide who comes here is dumb based on that philosophy. That’s deciding through the government, and they limit the freedom of movement of people through the use of force, and through the government. That’s not libertarian, dolt. Nor is threatening me with violence because I have dismantled your arguments and enraged you adhering to the non-aggression principle which libertarianism is based on. I won’t whine and complain, but I promise you it would be a bad idea for you. Luckily I know people like you and Trump are just bully cowards and it’s not a big deal.
Your comments on Trump are moronic. You’ve already dodged this by at least 3 different people. You are an authoritarian and probavly a fascist. You are 100% wrong, incompetent, dishonest and full of crap on Trump. You stated he didn’t say a bunch of things, whined for citations Ave then ignored them. You are full of it.
In your deluded rants I noticed you ignored my crushing of your moronic Laffer Curve claims, sources, and statements about the poll. You also ignored my comment about climate change and “the math,” as you do every time you are refuted, which is every time somebody engages your nonsense. You carpet bomb a bunch of nonsense, and ignore everything, instead just carpet bombing more nonsense.
Are you trying to claim we have had runaway inflation? Because that’s not even debatable, and again isn’t supported by economists, only right wing cranks (mostly “libertarian” unsurprisingly).
Are you one of the clueless gold standard supporters?
April 11, 2016 at 4:24 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
This may surprise you, but I used 1981 precisely because that year he did decrease taxes, and the 1981 date received the largest amount of revenues as a percent of GDP. I then noted that the economy suffered a recession in 1982, showing the sharp decline was after the first year boon to the receipts. I then noted that unlike Obama, the LPR went up, the employed population number went up above 30 year highs, which would make a huge difference in our spending to take care of the poor.
The tax increases Reagan passed were not income taxes, and they were not designed to roll back income tax cuts, which had benefits.
“He proposed cuts to agencies and then grew them even adding Veterans Affairs which is huge.”
Citation needed. Each president will decide to spend on a few areas. Show me the exact amount the Reagan himself authorized to increase the budget. I doubt you know the number, you grab one off items and label them the norm. I show 200 agencies he sought to cut, and you list one. So if he wanted to cut 200 agencies and raise a few others, the 200 cuts would out balance the 1. In fact, I’ll give you your own math. My next link will outline spending for the department you just mentioned, which was in fact not created by Reagan.
Reagan’s 8 years measured in hundreds of thousands.
First year: $22,455
Last year: $29,345
An increase of $7,000
1973: $12,300
1980: $$20,550
An increase of $8,000.
Reagan didn’t do anything that was outside of the normal band for the time frame.
Let’s go further and include two democrats:
Clinton 1993: $35,000
Clinton 2001: $48,665
More than a $12,000 increase.
Now the fun one:
Obviously, Iraq made a huge increase with Bush w, but did Obama slow that down afterward?
Bush W:
2001: $48,665
2009: $99,445
So that’s bad right, Bush W doubled it. But what is more concerning is Obama. After we already doubled it, it stands to reason we should come back down, right? Or at least slow down a bit.
I’ll give links on this, but 2015 was $182,000, with Obama’s starting year at $99,445. Obama has nearly doubled it, AGAIN, following a doubling. Reagan was well within the normal band. The presidents after him all increased it more. Inclusive of Clinton. A new department section of the Veteran of Affairs was created, but that doesn’t necessarily mean spending will come with it, as my numbers show.
The “UW math” is the issue with your post here. You don’t know it. At all. This means at that time he increased that budget within the normal band, at about 7 billion per year. This is normal.
My link shows 7.6 billion in cuts, and those are not even all the cuts. The one listed there were about a fifth of the total cuts numerically, but important to note is that he proposed many other cuts that were blocked, again and again.
Reagan was not some huge spender, as YOU have bought into.
Links provided, numbers provided. You didn’t provide any.
UW, you are acting like a buffoon.
April 11, 2016 at 4:31 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
2
What else have you got?
As fun as it is to chop you off at the knees every time you speak like this, with a blind allegiance to democrats, I don’t have the time to teach you all this.
You need to do your due diligence. You need to listen to right wing sources and compare to left instead of plugging your ears saying la la la la la.
This is your weakness but it certainly isn’t mine. I’ve used the left side links, intentionally I might add, consistently.
So the more you call me a right wing robot, the more I will show you these links from the left.
For all you say I listen to the right, I’m giving you details from the left, from .gov websites, numbers, data, etc.
Do you think you can think for yourself for two seconds UW, or will you give me more opinions and theory on leftist ideals?
I make my own theories. I use my own data. Yes, I use other theories as a baseline, and compare it. I don’t do it blindly. I study the methods on the people on the left and the right, and then try to find what they may have left out.
I do these numbers because I know that coming to a conclusion takes hard work.
April 11, 2016 at 11:39 pm
riskctrl says:
Like or Dislike:
2
1
Do you really think you are winning this Bob? You look like a lunatic who cannot make a point and are making stupid responses not even close to what the other people are commenting on. Ron, Confused, UW and Greta all make points against you and you either attack them, make a long pointless rant, or attack them personally. Even the basic economics courses I took years ago went over the Laffer Curve although I didn’t remember exactly what it was until I read about it again.
April 12, 2016 at 11:21 am
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
2
2
Bob, as soon as I saw your several posts yesterday, I could accurately predict the massive down votes of Progressives on this site while up voting their own. They really don’t like hearing the truth, do they? They just kick and scream and throw a big fit and say you are dumb and spend an hour or more down voting hoping to hide your comments. I am used to it. However, they are the ones with the failed belief system and being a troll on this site. Our education system in this country is in big trouble and the brain washing of impressionable minds of the Millenials and Gen X crowd is almost complete.
April 12, 2016 at 11:41 am
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
2
1
Agent,
I am not sure what is funnier; you’re blatant hypocrisy or the fact that you don’t see it.
April 12, 2016 at 6:02 pm
Actu says:
Like or Dislike:
1
2
So don’t count Bush, because it was bad for your thesis and compare 8 years of Reagan jobs to 4 of Carter. Uw is right you are just ranting and wrong. Even Laffer no longer supports the Laffer Curve all the time. Lol, here come 20 pages of cherry picked rants
April 8, 2016 at 5:53 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
2
3
I swear you liberals,
You somehow magically think that taxes and expenditures will solve the world’s problems.
It’s like south park.
Taxes
????
Middle class profit!
It’s common sense. The government does not build wealth.
I just gave links showing what the middle class gets per tax dollar paid, and yet we are in debt beyond belief, so that we may have to tax them more due to pork spending that they give to their buddies.
Giving the government this kind of control isn’t ok.
And yet here I am dealing with kids, I know the attitude well I was raised into this myself, who are destroying themselves in the name of believing they are the greater good.
You, are not, the greater good.
Absurd, not one of you holds a candle to my debates, and you’re all so arrogant you think magically you’re right. Because reasons.
If we go back to those old tax rates, most of you will soon realize why they don’t work, and you will have less food on your table.
I do have a job, I do well. I don’t do all my research at work.
I know these things because I constantly study them. All I have to do is pull up the studies again, and then write a few minute post.
In the last few months I would say it is a stretch to say I have spent more than 4-5 hours of my break time at work pulling these numbers up. I don’t take lunch breaks, I might add. I also might add, I service my clients outside of work hours.
Also:
I can practically guarantee I brought more into my firm this last year than you.
How many hundreds of thousands of commissions have you brought in for your brokerage this last year in business, both renewals and new business?
April 11, 2016 at 4:40 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
3
Also I should note:
I’m the only poster here who regularly disappears for weeks at a time.
Why do you suppose that is?
I noticed rather than direct my comments you come after my character. Isn’t that interesting…
It’s almost like you democrats care more about image than policy…
That’s not new news to me.
April 11, 2016 at 5:25 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
3
3
Bob, so Greta doesn’t like the truth you present on your posts. Who cares? You regularly hand Ron, UW and Confused their heads. They throw a tantrum and down thumb your comments just like they do me. If Greta has anything intelligent to post on anything, no one is preventing her from posting. Personal attacks are not the way to go, but that is the Progressive way.
April 12, 2016 at 8:49 am
Mickey Dee says:
Like or Dislike:
3
1
Bob,
If you are attending the GOP convention, I am throwing all my delegates your way!
April 14, 2016 at 2:45 pm
Greta says:
Like or Dislike:
1
2
My, my Bob…you know nothing about me. You assume I am a democrat – I am not – and you assume that I am in production and don’t do as well as you. I’m in management, and have a very healthy salary and many benefits/perks.
As for attacking your comments, I don’t have time nor the stomach to read everything that you write. Your character is obvious by the length and the sheer numbers of posts at a time. You needn’t justify to me the amount of time you spend, your disappearances, etc. I know all I need to about you from your posts – and I’m not assuming things as you and your buddy Agent seem to. Agent indicating that ‘personal attacks is not the way to go’ is laughable.
April 14, 2016 at 3:14 pm
UW says:
Like or Dislike:
0
2
Bob says he’s the only one here who leaves for weeks at a time – – coincidentally after he has been destroyed in 2 -5 different arguments and has been provided the citations he whines about and claims don’t exist. As usual this shows his fundamental dishonesty and lack of even basic critical thinking skills.
If you leave for weeks at a time you can’t know who is and isn’t here, unless you go back and read everything, which you don’t. Just a total clown.
April 12, 2016 at 9:20 am
UW says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
You are what dumb people think smart people sounds like. You are an unhinged lunatic who thinks verbosity equals intelligence or an actual point. You’ve never addressed a single actual issue I’ve brought up, whether it is the numerous lies or ignorant statements you’ve made about Trump, the Bible, women, immigrants, terrorism, Islam, inflation, or any of the economic topics. Until you do I have better things to do than deal with an unemployed, unhinged, racist, sexist, fascist who thinks it’s still 1965. Based on your responses there is a case to be made that you have severe reading comprehension problems. In every post you focus on the irrelevant part and cling to it for 10000 words.
Write a long, meandering, pointless diatribe filled with incorrect statements and links to discredited right-wing BS claiming victory, and then post a paper you haven’t read that actually supports exactly what I said and claim victory, idiot.
How will Trump bring European, Bermudan and Asian insurance companies (back) to America when he will serve at most 8 years in the Oval Office?
Taxes can be hiked by Trump’s successor, and insurance company egress to foreign countries are based on long term financial & regulatory conditions.
Trump promises a lot of stuff to his naive followers. His proposed repeal of ObamaCare will be accompanied by repeal of the McCarran-Ferguson Act, aka Public Law 15, which exempts insurance companies from Federal Anti-trust laws. THAT would put an end to smaller insurance companies in ALL arenas of insurance, not just health insurance. Small companies would not be able to join ISO, which would be outlawed as data pooling & rate compilation would violate anti-trust laws. In turn, small companies could not produce rates and research on a cost-effective and credible basis, and would fail to attract investor capital.
Cruz’s plan to repeal ObamCare has not included any such harmful repeal of insurance industry protective/ promotional laws. Bernie and Hillary are socialists, out in the open or still in the closet, respectively, who would both eventually push insurance industry segments toward Single Payer situations. Kasich likes the idea of expanding Medicare and Medicaid, as he bragged about the results of his doing so in Ohio on multiple instances on the campaign trail. Pick your poison, or Cruz’s plan, if you care about the insurance industry that employs you.
The minimum wage is tied to MANY state union labor contracts with states, thus their interest in raising it, for financial, more than political, purposes.
Al Gore promises rising sea-waters will flood your basement if you are near the current shoreline. If you’re inland, you’ll just have to deal with raccoons through exercise of your 2nd Amendment rights.
My money is on Trump in WI. These polls, none of them reach out to the farm fields, just hang around the bigger cities like Madison, Milwaukee, Janesville. No one bothers to reach out to the agriculture based areas which covers the vast majority of WI (Appleton, Marinette, even Green Bay).
The silent majority keeps Walker in office. I have no reason to expect anything different with Trump. too Conservative for Hillary.
FFA, well I guess we will see how it goes. The Bernie vote is really an anti Hilliary vote. Nobody likes that witch, but she has already gamed the system with those pledged delegates. Sure would be nice if that indictment came down soon. FBI will be interviewing her, the minions under her for the mess and possible criminal charges. Has Loretta Lynch already been bought off by the Clinton Foundation to not prefer charges?
The indictment will probably come after the Benghazi indictment, or maybe the indictment for killing Vince Foster and dragging his body to the park, or maybe right-wingers just repeat every moronic conspiracy theory they hear until they are told to repeat a new one.
Look into the actual laws (other people, not Agent who we know wouldn’t and couldn’t), no laws were broken. Even the whole line about classified at creation refers to administration guidelines, not actual law.
April 6, 2016 at 11:40 am
Yogi Polar Berra says:
Like or Dislike:
4
3
@UW: keep repeating to yourself: “It’s (the 147 FBI Investigative Agents) only a movie.”
Meanwhile, those in the know, who spoke anonymously with some of the FBI investigators, are claiming the sheer number of agents on the case is EXTREMELY unusual. And the intent of such a large number of agents is to produce an air-tight case for Lynch to prosecute. Failure to do so (i.e. prosecute) will be cataclysmic for both BHO and HRC.
Finally, comparison of the current FBI investigation to prior incidents of Clinton corruption is a ‘fallacy of composition’ argument that has already failed with anyone who understands the concept.
April 6, 2016 at 3:52 pm
UW says:
Like or Dislike:
4
2
Actually Yogi, that 147 number has been revealed as false. Check an actual news outlet now and then. It’s closer to 12. That was put out there so idiots could continue their frenzy and mislead others (It hads been corrected in the original story and other outlets have confirmed around 12) Apparently it worked. From the start the right wing has been wrong on this, so nothing new there, and even if it was 1 million it wouldn’t change the point of law I mentioned.
Also for the same people, notice how this theory was based on an unreliable source, as have been the other stories on this, and even with the retraction they won’t change their theory or talking points that they literally repeat without looking into long after they’re debunked.
How about this Agent and Yogi? If Clinton is indicted before the election and then convicted I will leave the site forever, if not, you will.
April 5, 2016 at 5:51 pm
Yogi Polar Berra says:
Like or Dislike:
2
2
WI Cheese Farmers don’t have phones to reach them to ask them poll questions?
Real Clear Politics poll avgs for WI are misleading as they use unweighted averages rather than weighted averages. Weighted avgs someone showed me this morning show a larger lead for Cruz and smaller lead for Bernie than the straight averages shown.
Maybe Travelers will employ “agent robots”, since they believe that agents are compensated too much. That is why they rolled out Travelers “Screw-Em Agents 2.0” new auto compensation. Anyone finished rolling their Travelers book yet?
Actually lonestar, Travelers has been doing a bit better the past year, improved their HO and although the Auto pays less commission, the rates are much better than the old Consumers County Mutual book which was pretty much a joke. Many other carriers are taking rate since their Predictive Modeling and Price Optimization schemes are not working so well.
No, he doesn’t even know what price optimization (don’t know why he capitalizes it) is, basic statistics, or from what I’ve seen in other posts, the basics behind simple statistical concepts like averages.
If so, YOU can certainly quote the Travelers stats and Consumers County Mutual stats, right?
Also, did you notice he mentioned BOTH Price Optimization AND Predictive Modeling – – – as if they were different things? Why would someone as dumb as you claim do that?
@Ron; what does approval of PO have to do with its use in the market? I mean, beside the legal aspects of such use in the market. I mean, it’s only illegal if you get caught, right?
Or, does it depend on what the meaning of ‘is’ is? But,… what difference, at this point, does it make?
April 6, 2016 at 12:08 pm
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
1
2
Yogi Polar Berra,
It means everything. It is the only way to prove that companies are actually using it in their rating. It also shows that this practice goes against the principles of insurance pricing and government regulations are in place to protect the insurance consumer.
April 6, 2016 at 1:04 pm
Yogi Polar Berra says:
Like or Dislike:
2
1
@Ron; I see you’ve finally recognized the distinction between legal and illegal.
The distinction of PO and PM was discussed in another thread, and the author used the terms in a way that caused confusion.
Don’t you recall THAT was mentioned in the comments? Apparently not.
April 6, 2016 at 1:39 pm
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
1
2
Yogi Polar Berra,
I am not exactly sure why you made the statement, “I see you’ve finally recognized the distinction between legal and illegal.” What have I stated in the past would have given you the impression that I did not previously?
I am very well versed in the difference due to my professional experience. I do not need IJ to become educated on the principles of insurance pricing. Did you not notice that I have only pressed Agent about Price Optimization and not Predictive Modeling? Apparently not!
It is Agent that continually links them together. Maybe you should tell him he is wrong and teach him the difference. He will not listen to me.
April 11, 2016 at 2:39 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
Yogi, someone as idiotic as UW & Ron understands nothing about what is going on in the marketplace. They haven’t seen the stories on this blog about the states placing bans on price optimization schemes by numerous companies. Allstate was the first caught in the scheme and yes, modelers and actuaries thought them up. Modeling is bad enough, but price optimization is downright theft. These dudes should be prosecuted.
April 11, 2016 at 3:58 pm
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
Agent,
So, your answer to the question: “Can you name one insurance company who has received regulatory approval for implementing Price Optimization?” is that post? I will infer that your answer is a resounding NO!
In addition, this must mean that you are conceding that Price Optimization schemes have been officially repudiated by all states in which they were filed? Can you now please stop stating that insurance companies are utilizing this practice? If they are, please provide proof.
April 11, 2016 at 5:28 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
Hey Ron, insurance companies didn’t think they needed to ask permission to do Price Optimization. They just started doing it until the complaints piled up and they were caught red handed. No rate filings involved, just do a computer program and they were good to go.
Assuming you are against Price Optimization schemes and have yet to prove that any state regulator has approved them as an acceptable part of rating, indicates you favor government regulation over free market principles.
Who is the pro-government person again?
April 5, 2016 at 5:37 pm
lonestar says:
Like or Dislike:
7
0
Agent, maybe if you, I and the entire agency force decided to work for free, that would allow us to sell more Travelers auto policies.
lonestar, I have 4 other standards besides Travelers and we spread it around. Progressive pays less than Travelers and we only put dufus drivers with tickets and accidents with them. They have their place and the others have their place.
I’m all for lowing corporate tax rates but only if corporate welfare is eliminated for all getting it with the exception of small businesses and family farm subsidiaries. Would like to see cut off with revenues of $2 million or more.
Also believe job growth reports should only include permanent job that pay a living wage. Any jobs paying wages where employees can still qualify for government programs should not be counted.
Lowered tax rates and accurate stats on the labor force are ‘pesky things’ for liberals. Please be mindful of their feelings when you post such common sense ideas!
Yogi, I think the word liberal needs to be defined to include somebody, who wants things given to them without working for it or doing anything to earn it like acquiring an education or developing additional job skills. That would include those people wanting $15 per hour minimum wage so they can have careers as crew people at McDonald’s or some other low end job that don’t require much in the way of job skills (the jobs that use to be temp jobs for high school kids, collage students and housewives looking to make a few bucks while their children were in school).
Most people making some dough, have made sacrifices like working their way thru college (some over 10+ years) as they had to pay for it themselves while supporting themselves and their family. Many have sacrificed time spent with their spouses, children, other family and friends just to put themselves in a position to earn more. Why should those whom made these kinds of sacrifices be forced to subsidize others who don’t.
Those seeking $15 per hour should be careful what they wish for; the real beneficiaries will be unions whose contracts have clauses which peg their wage rates and bennies to the level of the minimum wage.
The trouble with Socialism is similar to the trouble with minimum wage hikes; you will eventually run out of jobs at that wage level.
The reverse of a minimum wage hike needs to occur. Why? Illegal immigrants are doing that in violation of the minimum wage laws and are taking most of the unskilled jobs from US citizens. So, setting a low or zero minimum wage will increase starting level jobs, to help people get started in their careers. But that would ruin the liberals dreams of binding low skilled workers to them to enable them to stay in power…. e.g. Detroit, Chicago, LA, Newark, Baltimore, ….
This is moronic. We could actually punish companies that break minimum wage laws, but that helps people so you’re against it. 55 percent of minimum wage earners are 25+. These jobs are not for people entering the market and getting rid of that won’t change that. It would marginally increase youth employment but would harm millions of other workers.
April 11, 2016 at 2:19 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
Yogi, saw an interesting political cartoon today which sums it up perfectly. NY Restaurant owner says to employees. I have good news and bad news for you. The good news is that you will now be making $15 per hour. The bad news is that I have to cut your hours.
April 6, 2016 at 5:28 pm
UW says:
Like or Dislike:
3
2
We have pretty accurate stats on the labor force; now stats that back up your nonsense, that’s a different story.
You are reaching Agent-level delusion and incompetence lately.
If the stats are put out by oBama admin, you cant believe them He has that new math that skews everything from traditional math. Like everyone will pay $2500 less on their health insurance when the reality is we are paying at least $2500 or more.
Besides, Minn wage jobs are entry level for High Schoolers who cant find jobs because people are trying to support their families on them. He has done nothing to stop the flow of higher paying jobs out of the country.
The stats are put out by the Department of Labor who are government employees, not political appointees. They have been calculating statistics the same way for decades.
The outflow of higher paying jobs started well before President Obama and no previous presidents did anything about it either. Not saying he shouldn’t have, but, even if he had a phenomenal idea, Congress would have stopped it anyway.
Unfortunately, there are many adults who work minimum wage jobs, sometimes multiple minimum wage jobs, just to make ends meet. These are the people who are getting Medicaid, food stamps, and/or other assistance from the government. Sometimes it’s their own fault, but other times they may not have had the opportunities for education and/or training as others.
April 7, 2016 at 4:16 pm
FFA says:
Like or Dislike:
2
2
After mt dealings last week with Medicare – 4 hours of getting transferred for a simple question that never got answered – someone probably just made the numbers up because no one in Medicare really wants to work nor do they give a darn.
Further proof Universal Health Care would just be nothing but a pain the the a@#.
April 7, 2016 at 4:17 pm
FFA says:
Like or Dislike:
2
1
And yes Ron, no one has done a thing about it (Exporting Jobs). Now Obama wants this Pacific Trade Agreement in place. All that will do is export more jobs.
April 8, 2016 at 12:27 am
UW says:
Like or Dislike:
2
2
So, yet again, when things don’t show what they want them to show the right-wingers create a conspiracy theory. Yes, the BLS, with offices all over the US, and a huge staff of people collecting price data and wage data, and jobs data, etc., and a huge number of stores giving price data, and unemployment offices reporting numbers, and many businesses contacted for survery, are dismissing that, and putting out fake numbers. Somehow, they have been able to also convince independent places, like Gallup and right-wing Rasmussen to also put out fake data every week, which basically tracks their data, in order to keep the fraud going. When it comes to inflation data, which uneducated right-wingers also whined about, they convinced all the same groups, as well as MIT and Google to release fraudulent data matching theirs.
Or, just maybe, conservatives don’t operate in reality, and believe every moronic story they hear on right-wing BS media outlets.
April 8, 2016 at 8:06 am
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
3
1
FFA,
You seem like an intelligent, reasonable person. I am not sure why I need to keep repeating myself. However, my Universal Health Care plan would eliminate Medicare, Medicaid and the VA health systems. I want to get the government out of health care administration and give it to private companies. The government sole role would be to collect taxes and distribute premiums.
April 8, 2016 at 1:29 pm
FFA says:
Like or Dislike:
3
0
Ron, with the PPACA, they have proven they can not even do that (distribute premiums). They would just take the money and sent it to those that dont deserve it.
Completely out is Govts role in health care.
April 8, 2016 at 1:49 pm
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
0
2
FFA,
So, your proposal would eliminate Medicaid, Medicare and the VA and leave the masses to the mercy of profit driven private companies with no guarantees of coverage and/or acceptability?
Sounds like a great plan that would leave you and your wife in an even more difficult situation.
April 8, 2016 at 4:48 pm
FFA says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
Ron, the way it was is better then they way it is. My Market Place HMO will not cover her paid meds at all. None. Zip. As the HMO says, the Market Place Dictates coverage. But women get FREE Birth Control.
My Ideal plan would leave Medicare / caide in tact pre ACA as that was working – Needs help, but it worked.
Yes, put the Healthcare back into profit motive. Resurrect what was know as ICHIP in IL (it worked but needed help) Give it the help it needs.
Remove the Cobra Limitation and force the carrier into rolling it into some sort of personal plan like they used to in the Mid 80’s. The HIPPA Law had something to do with taking that away from we the people. I was new in the biz and do not recall all the details of that. But I know that the Govt expanded the regs and we the people suffered. That brought the Group Experience Rating to be (as opposed to individual experience rating) and screwed the majority of people in groups. It also brought hiring discrimination into play as Employers would not hire based on health history as it would bump up the entire group costing all employees more if they hired someone in the pre x crowd. Which the brought more litigation as people that didnt get hired based on health sued for discrimination.
Of course the dumbest thing with the PPACA is the open enrollment all at once. Who in their right mind would even think one web site can handle all that traffic at the same time?
April 11, 2016 at 2:19 pm
FFA says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
UW, I’m from IL. What that means is that I question everything the Govt puts out no matter what side of the Isle it came from. I dont trust any of them to do whats right by the people and to fudge what ever to make them selves look better then they are. Thats the norm in IL and has nothing to do with party affiliation.
Left or right leaning, it just dont matter. No trust at all. They are just liars.
April 6, 2016 at 2:12 pm
FFA says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
A tale of domestic violence that will make your stomach turn…
In April, 2014 the father of my Gr Children beat the crap out of my daughter. He punched in her pass door window with such force that glass was embedded in her face as she was trying to start the car. He grabbed onto the door jam and held on as she took off. He eventually fell off and she ran his leg over. Police involved, the whole shot. He was charged.
I was informed yesterday that a law suite was filed and Progressive is paying him over $20,000 even though injuries incurred during the commission of a crime are excluded.
Sad, FFA. Who would have paid had he entered the car and severely injured her or killed her? What justification does the adjustor for Progressive have for someone doing a criminal deed against your daughter and paying them? Do Police investigations or reports matter anymore?
Some Bermudan company formations were also partly due to the favorable regulatory environments at the time. Now that regulators have more tools and data capabilities, there are fewer regulatory capacity differences between Bermuda and other regions. In turn, that validates Schnitzer’s comments on high taxes being the primary reason for the exit of (insurance) companies from the US.
Yogi, he is absolutely correct. Many other industries have already moved some of their operations offshore due to the tax and regulatory structure of this country and the terrible Obama Administration. Very little job creation, poor GNP results for 7+ years and Progressives think 1.5% to 2.5% are good growth numbers.
Vote for Trump! He will lower corporate taxes and bring back jobs to the USA. Democrats and Socialists are for growing the government, raising taxes and raising the price of goods here. Why else push the minimum wage increase to $15??? That will raise the price of goods and services, and raise taxes!
Mickey, the only thing a Progressive Democrat knows is raising taxes and spending the country into bankruptcy. They think the only way to increase revenue is to raise taxes. Actually, more revenue is received with tax cuts as Reagan proved. More jobs are created and more tax payers instead of tax takers. The Progressives are very hard headed and have diminished capacity to understand the concept. We need reduced government and reduced taxes if we ever hope to balance the budget and get moving again.
” Actually, more revenue is received with tax cuts as Reagan proved.”
Agent, you are uneducated beyond belief. Even replying to 1% of your completely false statements would take all day. Reagan’s 1981 tax cut reduced revenues by $208 billion in its 1st 4 years; Reagan’s tax increases in ’82, ’83, ’84 and ’87 boosted revenue by $137 billion. Overall, that’s increased debt, so I am sure you will rip him for that, right? For a more recent example look at Kansas.
Most of the growth during Reagan’s presidency were from government spending, and over 8 years there was a net increase in jobs created per year that was smaller than even during Carter’s term (about 2.58 million/yr for Carter to 2.01/yr for Reagan).
What you are referring to is called the Laffer Curve, and it has been thoroughly debunked in economics. A 2012 University of Chicago poll of economists asked about this theory, and not one agreed with it. 0.0%, just like the percentage of comments you make that turn out to be true.
http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2012/06/laughing-at-the-laffer-curve.html
Literally 100% of the statements I have seen you make that can be fact checked are wrong.
UW – Reagan is up there with the worst President of all time. He is responsible for turning us from a creditor to a debtor, the start of the trade deficit (which Clinton, Bush added to and now President Obama trying to further that), and the creation of the largest wealth gap in the history of the world with his failed “trickle down” economic model. Bush Sr. summed it up the best, voodoo economics.
Ever seen the stance WR Berkley Co takes on off-shore reinsurers? They won’t work with them because they don’t support America. More companies need to act like Berkley! It’s a company’s decision to move off-shore, they don’t have to.
I agree. He is liked almost entirely due to a marketing story by conservatives after he left. The economy was bad under him and he destroyed the middle class. He was also stupid enough to rely in part on astrology, although that was on his wife’s urging. He was a nut.
Do some math. Really. It’s infuriating. Higher taxes do not help the middle class. I know what my father would have retired with if the lower taxes of Reagan didn’t take place, it’s simple math. He would have retired with less than half of what he did.
Reagan, Clinton, and onward, was the rise of the middle class. It took a long time to come into fruition. The recession is not the norm. That destroyed wealth but it had nothing to do with taxes.
On Reagan’s revenues, do, some, math.
Regan’s LPR rate went up while the unemployment rate went down. With Obama, the LPR going down is why the unemployment rate is down. This is not solely retirees.
I will give links on this, as giving more than one link in a post makes it approve slowly, but here is one:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/briandomitrovic/2014/09/23/the-obama-reagan-comparison-does-o-no-favors/2/#5eefc0f47c9c
He goes over some of Reagan’s positives well.
but the math is this:
1971 – 16.7%
1972 – 17.0%
1973 – 17.0%
1974 – 17.7%
1975 – 17.3%
1976 – 16.6%
1977 – 17.5%
1978 – 17.5%
1979 – 18%
1980 – 18.5%
1981 – 19.1%
1982 – 18.6%
1983 – 17%
1985 – 16.9%
1985- 17.2
1986 -17%
1987 -17%
1988 -17.9%
What do you notice?
Other than a few outlying years, the tax revenues as a percent of GDP are within a normal band, yet we had substantially different tax rates during these time frames.
Then you have to account for recessions and booms. As the link I went over showed, there was a recession just after Reagan passed his tax cuts. It’s important to know the 5% tax decrease applied for 1981. What do you notice about 1981? The revenues are 19.1%, the highest year by far in a while. It’s difficult to compare a year, without comparing a time frame and the economy. They went down after another 5% in correlation with a recession.
So even if your argument is that the 17% average with Reagan is lower than the highest of 18.5% of Carter, and that it lowered the revenues by 1.5%, then you have to look at GDP growth, as well as the unemployment rate.
Spending you try to focus on, which is separate from tax rates. Reagan wasn’t able to reduce spending, but his lower tax rates did have an affect. I might add, REAGAN DID TRY to lower spending. I have provided Ron with a link in the past when they said Reagan proposed the largest spending cuts and they were dangerous that had ever been at the time in many generations. You cannot claim both that Reagan spent more, and that the proposed the largest spending cuts nearly in history at his time. It is absurd.
But now back on point:
Obama: Starting LPR: 65.7%. Current: 63%. And that is only after it recently started coming back up after 7 years. Unemployment rate 5%.
That’s insane.
Now Reagan: Starting about 64%, ended about 66%.
Unemployment: We should count form 1983 here, since as I said, his recession hit after he got in office. At that point it went down to 10.4%, and within 5 years (not 7 like Obama) it went down to 5.7% all the while the labor participation rate went up.
When Reagan took office, also showing a recession happened in 1982 that was bad, the employed percentage of the population dipped from 59 to 57%. Then it shot up to 63% within 5 years. Those 5 years, were phenomenal. If you look at the years before then, from 1950 until 1975, the highest number was 58%. Then suddenly we pass tax healthy environments, and it shoots up. That number continued to soar for some time, but not by as much as when Reagan was in office until it ended up at almost 65%. Having a work force stuck at 55% average for 25 years means you would have in today’s population 3.3 million less workers roughly. That is 32 billion in revenues lost, this is not including incomes which Reagan boosted with GDP, that is likely another 32 billion saved that we don’t have to spend per year. Do the math. Just there that makes 1.7%. So by lowering taxes, having a slightly lower revenue, letting business handle taking care of people, you technically just on that alone increased their benefit by 1.7%. Or you could do enough taxes to increase it by 1.7%, which the math isn’t there to do that. The government does not create wealth. The more you take from the economy, the more you reduce it’s capability.
Since Reagan, we took the best path we could. We have done well.
It’s time you start recognizing that.
http://historyhalf.com/the-reagan-deficits/
Regan proposed spending cuts. The democrats did the same thing Obama did this presidency.
They said they wouldn’t leave the poor vulnerable while giving tax cuts to the super wealthy.
They said they would trade spending cuts for tax increases. Reagan refused. When it became clear he was going to cut taxes no matter what, they then said they would only allow it if he agreed to spending increases for the poor, for the same reason. He still refused. He used his veto. They over rode it, several times.
Reagan proposed spending cuts he couldn’t get.
http://www.truthfulpolitics.com/http:/truthfulpolitics.com/comments/u-s-job-creation-by-president-political-party/
What do you notice, in the section “Jobs created in thousands” sir?
Carter: 8,601
Reagan: 13,621
You and Planet are wrong about this crap.
You cannot tax and spend the middle class into a better scenario The reason we are doing better is the blocks to the economy were taken off after Reagan, the BEST president in our history.
I should also note: That a lower marginal rate with no deductions is still a lower tax even if the effective isn’t much different.
A lower marginal rate with less deductions broadens the target, but it also ensures that firms who are say filing on marginal rates have a lower start up cost.
These start up firms wouldn’t have a bunch of deductions. So a 75% top rate would make starting up nearly impossible, whereas a lower rate with less deductions they would be taxed lower starting up.
A high marginal rate is intentional to crush start ups. The same occurs with corporate tax rates.
You really need to stop being lead, and start thinking for yourself.
I haven’t been told this to figure it out.
I looked at profit loss sheets, and saw how firms were taxed that I insure.
Are you in the business of insurance or not?
I kind of doubt it. Have you looked at a PL in your entire life, and then done the math as to how they are taxed? Have you seen the profit margins?
Have you for example, seen GE’s profits?
They made 77.5 billion last year in revenues. After expenditures they had a profit of about 12 billion.
Sanders claims they paid 10% and he wants them to pay 35. This means if he gets the additional 25% they will pay about an additional 19.375 billion. They would go bankrupt.
Rather than trying to get everyone to share in the misery, why not allow companies to come here, give them profitability means, get the extra revenues of bringing them back, and the extra jobs?
We can focus on revenue, which doesn’t support the middle class, or we can focus on business, which does.
You can make a living on one. The other you cannot, unless you take it from someone else, and sooner or later, you run out of people to take it from.
And on that, what do you notice between the jobs?
Carter: 8,601
Reagan: 13,621
Just on social security taxes alone that would be 12.2% of taxes on 5 million jobs.
1.45 percent on the medicare.
And, they would pay at least $5,000 per year in federal taxes on average.
Assuming they made the median family income of $53,000,
That is:
25 billion per year on federal taxes
And on social security and medicare: 36.1725 billion. This is part of why a lower marginal rate can be offset by revenues.
The other fact is that many homes have a primary and secondary earner. And many secondary earners stop working because the tax code is far too punitive. This harms productivity. My wife is one of those when we had kids. Lowering the tax rate as a whole I would have kept her in work. Having it as high as it was, inclusive of day care, there was no reason for her to be there. This happens in many scenarios.
http://taxfoundation.org/article/accounting-what-families-pay-taxes-and-what-they-receive-government-spending-0
What do you notice UW? With all of this we aren’t helping the poor, but we are making it harder for businesses to thrive. If instead we passed laws requiring a certain amount of profitability either be put into expansion or to wages or jobs, we would have better results.
The government does waste money. As things stand now the 0-10% isn’t being lifted out of being poor through these government revenues, and it does harm the economy.
And for you Planet:
It is a company decision to move off shore, because they don’t have incentive to stay here.
If GE paid the tax rate all in the U.S. that Sanders wants them to, they would be several billions in the hole and would be bankrupt. They don’t choose to go off shore.
They have been forced to.
We would get more revenues if we lowered our rates, and more jobs here.
It’s time to lower our corporate tax rate.
Bob, this is just a tsunami of stupid washing away every fact, reality and shred of common sense. I’ll assume you aren’t responding to my earlier proof of Trump supporting a database to track Muslims, which you denied, my comments on women and the Bible, which you denied and got eviscerated on, and seemingly every comment anybody makes with actual facts or reason.
First you dismiss one of the major surveys of economists offhand without ever looking into it, as you always do, but I’ll give you credit for not lying about reading it this time. You also dismiss a theory which had widespread acceptance and is now known to be false and viewed widely as a joke-literally. You do this because it’s a “liberal university”, again showing you ignorance on the most basic facts about economics. The University of Chicago is a far right-wing university when it comes to economics, and the survey had many right-wing economists-they are over represented according to most.
This also brings into quetion whether you know what a survey is.
Yes, genius Reagan created more jobs than Carter… in four more years, which is obviously why I used per year figures. Comparing 8 years of data to 4 is idiotic, and brings into question just how little you know about statistics, data and economics-next to none at a maximum . You did that – again, incompetent about economics. Most of the environment for job growth under Reagan was due to Volcker at the Fed ending inflation with revolutionary techniques, an example of a conservative making a great decision, which was outside his school of thought’s standard beliefs. But Reagan’s influence on this was nothing asidee from rightly staying out of the way after other moves failed. In all probability the actor president was unaware of what it was, or was following the astrology he and his wife used – which is what passes for science in a conservative administration apparently.
You constantly ask whether people have looked at P&L sheets when making a false claim, as if what you deal with is the entire economy. Yes, again, I do, and can almost guarantee I’ve looked at larger ones than you, although, again is irrelevant. You constantly make points that are irrelevant, false and go against your meandering points in reality. From 2002-11 GE paid an effective tax rate of 2.3% at most. Yes I’m in the industry, are you, can I assume you don’t work with any actual numbers other than simple arithmetic?
Bob, funny how you rant about the government not being able to create wealth, over the Internet, which was created almost exclusively through government funding paid for by taxes. Yeah no wealth creation there, nor with GPS, most health research, etc. You are truly clueless like a clown repeating what you hear on right-wing media without a single thought of your own. You shoot down massive studies and surveys you haven’t heard of just because you don’t like or know the facts. You are a total, 100% clown. But hey, the data doesn’t exist because it’s either from a very liberal University (even when it’s not), or it wasn’t on your P&L sheet. Clueless to the extreme. With the labor force participation rate you again ignore all demographic factors as if they don’t exist. We are slightly under forecasted numbers due to our aging population, primarily because after the Republicans/conservatives crashed the economy in 2008 and many older workers were forced out prematurely and could not or did not want to enter again. This too is econ 101 but you are ignorant of it just like you are when it comes to our Healthcare system. If it’s not blabbed on right-wing media it doesn’t exist to you apparently. Got don’t seem to even know what the Baby Boomers are or there effect on the economy.
I’ll take on the rest of this mess if I get bored and have time, and then you can ignore everything relevant, whine about liberals, repeat trite talking points, pretend to know economics and dismiss anything not written by a kook on Forbes or from Limbaugh.
You were probably one of the people here warning about runaway inflation because of our debt a few years ago after hearing it all over your echo chamber.
“First you dismiss one of the major surveys of economists offhand without ever looking into it, as you always do, but I’ll give you credit for not lying about reading it this time. You also dismiss a theory which had widespread acceptance and is now known to be false and viewed widely as a joke-literally. You do this because it’s a “liberal university”, again showing you ignorance on the most basic facts about economics. The University of Chicago is a far right-wing university when it comes to economics, and the survey had many right-wing economists-they are over represented according to most.
This also brings into quetion whether you know what a survey is. ”
I question if you know what a survey is, vs what studies are.
You used one university. That is the problem. A cherry picked university that you say 100% says the laffer curve is fake. Well, I don’t care about he said she said. Do you deny that a 100% rate would leave no economy? The concept of the laffer curve was gone over in my link I gave. Also, I don’t lie about reading links kid. …. Quit with the lying ….
“Yes, genius Reagan created more jobs than Carter… in four more years, which is obviously why I used per year figures. Comparing 8 years of data to 4 is idiotic, and brings into question just how little you know about statistics, data and economics-next to none at a maximum . You did that – again, incompetent about economics. Most of the environment for job growth under Reagan was due to Volcker at the Fed ending inflation with revolutionary techniques, an example of a conservative making a great decision, which was outside his school of thought’s standard beliefs. But Reagan’s influence on this was nothing asidee from rightly staying out of the way after other moves failed. In all probability the actor president was unaware of what it was, or was following the astrology he and his wife used – which is what passes for science in a conservative administration apparently.”
I will give you credit for giving credit to a conservative. However, this does not explain the growth during the decades following Reagan, and the constant lower employment population ratio that we had until the recession. Also, did you read the link I gave you? Only one other president that served two terms surpassed Reagan. One. That is Clinton. Now moving back on topic: I mentioned the employment to population ratio for a reason. Carter did not fix this. For the prior 30 years it averaged 55%. After Reagan it was a full 10% higher. This is what good policies do.
“Bob, funny how you rant about the government not being able to create wealth, over the Internet, which was created almost exclusively through government funding paid for by taxes. Yeah no wealth creation there, nor with GPS, most health research, etc. You are truly clueless like a clown repeating what you hear on right-wing media without a single thought of your own. You shoot down massive studies and surveys you haven’t heard of just because you don’t like or know the facts. You are a total, 100% clown. But hey, the data doesn’t exist because it’s either from a very liberal University (even when it’s not), or it wasn’t on your P&L sheet. Clueless to the extreme. With the labor force participation rate you again ignore all demographic factors as if they don’t exist. We are slightly under forecasted numbers due to our aging population, primarily because after the Republicans/conservatives crashed the economy in 2008 and many older workers were forced out prematurely and could not or did not want to enter again. This too is econ 101 but you are ignorant of it just like you are when it comes to our Healthcare system. If it’s not blabbed on right-wing media it doesn’t exist to you apparently. Got don’t seem to even know what the Baby Boomers are or there effect on the economy. ”
You seem to be mistaking what my comment means. Let’s say the government make a few investments and that helps certain aspects of the economy. That is fine, as long as it is limited. The majority of government spending is not going toward that. And the majority of the time, when the government finances the primary sections of economy, it fails. You have just tried to advocate socialism. It doesn’t work. The government does not do well if we expand it’s investments. Moreover, what I’m referring to is that high tax environments and random spending on infrastructure do not help the economy. Also, stop with the he said she said, liberal conservative ad hominem s..t.
I have quoted the New York Times and CNN today. I DO NOT READ OR LISTEN TO OR WATCH FOX NEWS NOR ANY CONSERVATIVE LEANING SITE. This is largely due to how idiots like you debate. Debate facts, not who people listen to.
So if you didn’t catch, the issue with your referencing some people laughing in one State, is that not all people laugh at the Laffer curve.
Also, if they didn’t take it seriously, why did one of the researchers at your same university do a study on it?
http://home.uchicago.edu/~huhlig/papers/uhlig.trabandt.jme.2011.pdf
It doesn’t exist right?
Shhh!!! Quiet, I’m hunting for laffer curves!
Freaking moron.
Bob: Also, if they didn’t take it seriously, why did one of the researchers at your same university do a study on it?
God Bob just stop. Do you really think studying something means it is true? You are just aimlessly ranting about stuff you clearly haven’t looked into before. By your logic you agree climate change exists because it has been studied.
Actu:
It’s a relevant point. He just said the survey shows none of them think that the laffer curve exists.
It’s a bold statement. In one section of the world.
Plenty of economists acknowledge the laffer curve, inclusive of the guy at the school I mentioned he didn’t only do a study of it, he has talked at length what the affects of taxes might be.
There is a dynamic affect of taxation. This isn’t an opinion.
Also UW:
“Most of the growth during Reagan’s presidency were from government spending, and over 8 years there was a net increase in jobs created per year that was smaller than even during Carter’s term (about 2.58 million/yr for Carter to 2.01/yr for Reagan).”
Citation needed. The percentage of the employed population sky rocketed as I said before, after Reagan.
http://www.multpl.com/us-employment-population-ratio
This proves that Reagan started an environment to have a larger percentage of the population work. A link is coming proving your number on jobs is wrong.
I’m also going to insert a comment here:
I noted that you didn’t try to say whether or not higher tax rates would eventually stop economic output. It’s a fact. If we had 100% it would stop all economic activity. I also note that you went with a liberal city, with a liberal university.
While you say 100% of economists in one particular city agree with you,
I will show in this link that 100% of all economists agree with what this guy says about the laffer curve.
http://www.cato.org/blog/debunking-debunking-dynamic-scoring-laffer-curve
Instead of trying to be hip and cool, and say someone is a laughing stock, and put it to who knows who, why don’t you debate it on your own logics?
Or can you? I don’t think you can.
I have source quoted what, almost 10 links this time around, and went over the math myself.
Do you think you can do that, show me the math that proves higher tax rates won’t affect the economy?
I just showed you what revenues we would lose by having the lower employment population ratio.
Do you think you can do something similar?
“I will show in this link that 100% of all economists agree with what this guy says about the laffer curve.”
You are outright stupid if you believe that is what that link shows or is what the author is even saying. Dynamic scoring is WAY out of your league.
You constantly say you are providing math Ave then pour forward outright BS, like not knowing the difference between numbers for 8 years or 4.
Yes, slightly more literate than your average Republican can still be completely clueless, so you make my point for me, but to refresh your memory I have also called your arguments retarded as well.
You are a libertarian only in the sense that you are embarrassed to say you are a Republican and think you are smart. You have never advocated libertarian ideals other than no taxes or worker protections. You have supported Trump’s Muslim database, his violence towards protestors, his ban on immigration, and countless other anti-libertarian policies.
Economic libertarianism is about as stupid as it gets, and is full of frauds and pseudo-intellectual, economic illiterate so I’m not surprised you claim that as your ideology.
Every sentence you write is wrong. A high marginal rate harms start ups. No because most startups are not earning enough to pay the highest marginal rates, But if they are, they aren’t in the phase where it will do much harm. It could hinder expansion, but that’s debatable. You don’t even seem to know what marginal rates are, much like you don’t seem to understand or believe in loopholes. You are clueless on everything. 0 for infinity, do the math. And the full math, not the 8 years compared to 4 years totals to incompetently make a point.
BTW, what about the math on climate science? Oh yeah, the 95%+ of climate scientists working around the world for decades, and the oil company scientists who hid it, all did the math wrong, or are liberal, of course!
Just a totally disastrous light-weight clown, very funny.
UW:
Let’s start from a few points you were wrong about and move forward:
http://www.nytimes.com/1981/03/11/us/reagan-proposals-detail-further-trims-in-budget.html
Regan proposed cuts to 200 government agencies.
Now let’s move to vetoes regarding spending that congress over rode:
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1997/09/22/back.time/
So suffice it to say, you need to now say the words:
Reagan was not Keynesian, he was not a big spender.
People forced spending, he tried to get it under control.
Item one proving you are a numb skull moron.
So I used CNN and NY Times on purpose by the by.
Moving to your points:
“You constantly say you are providing math Ave then pour forward outright BS, like not knowing the difference between numbers for 8 years or 4.”
I don’t even know what this means. To try and say I don’t know the difference between 4 and 8 years is such a lie and exaggeration it shows how polarized you are.
“You are a libertarian only in the sense that you are embarrassed to say you are a Republican and think you are smart. You have never advocated libertarian ideals other than no taxes or worker protections. You have supported Trump’s Muslim database, his violence towards protestors, his ban on immigration, and countless other anti-libertarian policies.”
No. You’re wrong here. You are labeling what Libertarians think. I subscribe to many channels and sites where hundreds of thousands from each of them, a total of over a million, talk about these issues. Libertarians support the issues I have mentioned. There are reasons. His ban on immigration and refugees as a temporary ban are items that are entirely within range of the constitution. We get to decide who is a risk to come here. Trump does not engage in violence against protestors. Protestors engage in violence against Trump, and he is mad, and says over the top things. A person ran and jumped over a barrier, ended up making a security guard bleed, and had tweets about being a martyr. He was given his 15 minutes on CNN. That is encouraging violence, and the left does it. Obama excused the riots in Ferguson saying he understands why they do it. That emboldens people to riot.
“Economic libertarianism is about as stupid as it gets, and is full of frauds and pseudo-intellectual, economic illiterate so I’m not surprised you claim that as your ideology. ”
As you have labeled it, I am sure it is. This is your weak point, not that of libertarians.
“Every sentence you write is wrong. A high marginal rate harms start ups. No because most startups are not earning enough to pay the highest marginal rates, But if they are, they aren’t in the phase where it will do much harm. It could hinder expansion, but that’s debatable. You don’t even seem to know what marginal rates are, much like you don’t seem to understand or believe in loopholes. You are clueless on everything. 0 for infinity, do the math. And the full math, not the 8 years compared to 4 years totals to incompetently make a point. ”
Let me just point something out to you, UW.
The first 10 years make or break a business.
Carter’s top 70% rate started at 108,300. The 55% started at $41,500. That is: $111,000 at a 55% rate, and $292,000 for the highest.
http://taxfoundation.org/article/us-federal-individual-income-tax-rates-history-1913-2013-nominal-and-inflation-adjusted-brackets
You think that the majority of businesses won’t fall into the size range of $111,000 – $292,000 in annual billings?
“BTW, what about the math on climate science? Oh yeah, the 95%+ of climate scientists working around the world for decades, and the oil company scientists who hid it, all did the math wrong, or are liberal, of course!”
You’re speaking to other conservatives here, and are applying it to all of them. It’s a nice try to label them as extreme, and it’s what your party does often, so good job little lap dog. Good job.
Conservatives are not against good environmental decisions as it is. Even Agent said this. What he is, is against the government trying to manage it. Also, conservatives do not believe 100% of what liberals say about climate change. This is different than rejecting what 95% of scientists say. Liberals are lying about what scientists say, and conservatives are angry about it. They are mad at the exaggeration, which you’re doing now.
http://stats.areppim.com/calc/calc_usdlrxdeflator.php
The calculator that gave me 1979 dollars converted into 2015 for my $111,000 and $292,000.
I swear to God UW, if you don’t get the point by now, you’re insane.
You’re arguing with someone who is not just “slightly” more literate.
You said things about Reagan that I have now proven to be untrue. Do you recant those statements? Or do you hard headily proceed forward?
You said the top rates wouldn’t apply to start up businesses. Did you even look at what the top rates were? Did you grab an inflation calculator to bring the dollars to currency in the current year? No! You just parrot what some other idiot told you.
Yes, you did just get completely annihilated. Deal with it.
For God’s sakes I’m sick of you. You think you’re so much smarter and everyone else says things that aren’t thought out, but I just proved on these two items you did not think worth a damn!
Bob, the tax document you posted, once again doesn’t show what you claim it does. You are incompetent, dishonest, or both. Those are personal tax rates, not corporate tax rates. You are just comically wrong on everything. You are overestimating the top rate for businesses by over 50%, you are just totally incompetent. It should be noted along with your nonsense, the top rate now kicks in somewhere over $18 million if I remember correctly, again making my point they aren’t struggling upstarts being put out of business.
You are showing your brutal incompetence; these aren’t simple errors anybody could make, they are fundamental errors showing a total lack of understanding of the basics, and more interest in an adherence to an ideology than a reality.
“Bob, the tax document you posted, once again doesn’t show what you claim it does. You are incompetent, dishonest, or both. Those are personal tax rates, not corporate tax rates. You are just comically wrong on everything. You are overestimating the top rate for businesses by over 50%, you are just totally incompetent. It should be noted along with your nonsense, the top rate now kicks in somewhere over $18 million if I remember correctly, again making my point they aren’t struggling upstarts being put out of business.
You are showing your brutal incompetence; these aren’t simple errors anybody could make, they are fundamental errors showing a total lack of understanding of the basics, and more interest in an adherence to an ideology than a reality.”
Evidently you are unaware that many businesses fall under marginal rates.
The top rate of what kicks in after $18 million? Certainly not the corporate tax rate:
http://biztaxlaw.about.com/od/businesstaxes/a/corptaxrate.htm
Certainly not the marginal rate.
I am not inept, and stop calling me either dishonest, ignorant, or both.
No one who debates here is dishonest, they all believe what they say, asshole. So get your arrogant head out of your ass.
I noted you didn’t recant your either dishonest or ignorant position about Reagan spending.
Do you acknowledge you were wrong? Does this make you ignorant or dishonest?
Do these rules only apply to your “enemies” in politics?
People like you are destroying the nation. Grow up kid.
Also UW:
I noticed you seem to not grasp that start up firms are usually started by someone who started as an upper middle class person, and saved enough to start his own business.
If the person in that income range is paying 55% as opposed to say 28% after Reagan, this would affect the amount they have to invest by nearly double.
Capital gains is another way people save up money to start a business, after they have saved some amount of money. Again, the upper middle class save enough capital, and then start a business. The marginal rates affect start ups.
This is elementary type of thought. Learn to think on your own.
UW:
You went from:
“Every sentence you write is wrong. A high marginal rate harms start ups. No because most startups are not earning enough to pay the highest marginal rates, But if they are, they aren’t in the phase where it will do much harm. It could hinder expansion, but that’s debatable.”
First this was a debatable issue, that you agreed marginal rates apply to, but the cut off range was too high.
Then I showed you what the cut off range would be in today’s dollars, and then you changed your mind, now I’m stupid and marginal rates don’t apply.
They did apply, now they don’t. Did you change your mind, or, realize you made a mistake in logic?
Did you suddenly change your mind because you wanted to find a way to dismiss what I found that harms your belief system?
UW, you are trying your damnedest to find a way to disprove me while you are contradicting yourself.
Face it moron,
With my last post I exposed your ignorant dance.
So chock it the @#%@ down, and shut up. You’re just talking, blah blah blah.
Knee jerk, un-reasearched comments, that you believe are absolute and suddenly change from one section to the next.
You’re a whiny little brat. You’ve labeled everyone including sources, conservatives, etc, so you sit in your own little world and block out what everyone says, change your phrases to meet your blocked out reality’s needs.
You are not a liberal as it is. This type of block is conservative. I am not conservative per say in that regard. I believe in listening to all facts that have reason and logic.
Sometimes as a human I am wrong, just like you.
But I don’t make a habit of calling a class of people, a type of people, or a section of society, a bunch of idiots.
I believe you are a stupid democrat. But the pre-qualifier doesn’t apply to all.
Bob, you are right, I forgot the top rate dipped down before kicking back up. It is a small amount though, and does not change anything. It also doesn’t change the fact that you 2X confused individual taxes with corporate taxes. Inept doesn’t apply here, so I’m not sure why you would use it, but I know plenty of other adjectives that do.
Thanks for the link to the paper you didn’t read (literally the first one if you Google Laffer Curve University of Chicago). You still seem to be suffering from the reading comprehension and misquoting problems. I never said the Laffer Curve doesn’t exist, in fact as a theory even knowing about it proves it exists. I said it has been disproven, and in a poll of major economists not one agreed with it. Now, you don’t seem to know what a poll is, and multiple times said it was from a liberal city and a liberal university (incorrect to the extreme), while in fact it includes many right-wing economists. You cannot refute this, because you comically proved you didn’t know about it, nor did you read it, you dismissed it offhand because you disagreed with it, because you are a clown.
Now, you are mad and having a total meltdown because I informed Agent the Laffer Curve has been disproved, you provided a paper as “proof” that isn’t the fact. Again, you didn’t read the study, or if you did you didn’t comprehend it, because you are a fraudulent intellectual light-weight driven by ideology instead of facts. The best part of the study you linked is when it said 54% of a labor tax cut and 79% of a capital tax cut are self-financing, at the optimal part of the curve (at best). This means that tax cuts DO NOT bring more tax revenue as Agent claimed, and you melted down over when I presented the theory, and major economists saying it is not true. YOUR CITATION confirms my point, and the beliefs of every major economist polled in my poll.
Now, to clarify this for you, if tax receipts are 100, and capital taxes are cut 10%, the new tax receipts are 97.9. That is less, tax cuts do not lead to higher tax receipts.
Bob, 97.9 < 100.
Also,
"I will show in this link that 100% of all economists agree with what this guy says about the laffer curve."
Read your sources, idiot. That isn't what that even sets out to prove, it's a throwaway line to debunk a fiction you created in your head. You don't understand what the Laffer Curve even is, or the dozens of sub-theories associated with it. Move onto something basic you can grasp. This guy is an Austrian economist, BTW. You complain about me putting a poll from a right-wing school you call liberal, and then cite a guy from a school that specializes in a totally discredited school of economic thought. The Laffer Curve is at it's most simple form the curve showing tax rates and tax receipts. Agent's claim is that this curve shows that lower taxes increase revenue. This isn't true. I provided evidence and you went into a purely ideologically-driven rant without understanding what the curve is. You misinterpreted this as me saying there is no such thing as a Laffer Curve, instead of saying his interpretation of it is not correct. You need to read and re-read before you have these unhinged meltdowns, because pasting a bunch of irrelevant numbers when you don't know the elementary theory you are arguing is a moronic waste of time.
Your incomprehensible rant about the government projects I mentioned borders on retarded. You say it is alright when it works, but when it doesn't it is socialism. That is intellectually bankrupt, which is why you wrote it. It is socialism when it works. No major research breakthroughs like this can ever be completed by private entities alone, because they simply do not have the capital, nor the incentive to do it.
You again, for seemingly the 100th time don't understand, comment on, or acknowledge the importance of demographics in the economy. The Labor Force Participation rate increased during Reagan's years primarily due to the tail end of the Baby Boomers reaching working age, meaning the population on the whole contained more prime aged people as a percentage of the total population than it was 5, 10, etc years before. The LFPR contains everybody over 16, so obviously when those people age and reach retirement age the rate will drop. What a coincidence, that's now!! Just like we predicted in all the projections of the LFPR which was only slightly higher than it is now.
But, because you are soooo intellectually rigorous, and claimed this "explosion" happened due to Reagan's great policies, I'm sure you will look at the data, and see the explosion started under Carter, before temporarily dropping during the oil crisis, and then continuing at the same rate. So, you, as an intellectually honest person will state the great policies were actually Carter's, right? It's pretty stunning what a superficial knowledge you have on the labor force participation rate. It's almost as if you are just repeating word-for-word what right-wing BS sites say every day…almost.
You are 100% a clown, but providing the first source on Google as proof, even though it actually confirms what I said is classic. Nice one. Just a total train wreck. Hey at least you nailed me forgetting the top rate dropped down a little before bumping back up, NICE ONE, GENIUS (even though you were confusing individual and corporate taxes, multiple times)!
Also,
You don’t trust Mr. Bush, so don’t refer to Mr. Bush in regards to Voodoo economics to do some sort of an association or character link to whether or not lower taxes are beneficial.
You have to provide numbers. Not he said she said they said and I say, types of crap.
You are such an indoctrinated child, and yet you believe everyone else is.
You once called me slightly more literate than your average republican…
Another time you called me completely clueless, as if I was retarded.
You disagree with my numbers, that is what it is. I am not however, ignorant. It’s no coincidence you guys do this political allegiance to such insane degrees. It’s part of the goal.
Trigger, galvanize, class warfare, divide and conquer, and then make it look cool and hip.
I’m not part of your idiotic club.
I’m not even part of the republican club.
I’m a god damn proud libertarian, who wants my government limited, and knows the best way to take care of people is through business.
In other words some examples: In the past I’ve supported a public option, I’ve supported legalization of pot, I’ve supported hpv vaccines, and many other “liberal” hot issues.
I am not some crazy conservative, which is why I keep swearing at you.
You keep on applying that label and you’re going to get my foot up your ass.
Bob, this may shock you but Reagan’s term went beyond 1981. You used a story from the only year he didn’t raise taxes, because you are a dishonest fraud. He also almost tripled the federal deficit-which I don’t disagree with under the circumstamces although much of it was wasted spending. He proposed cuts to agencies and then grew them even adding Veterans Affairs which is huge. You are buying into the fiction. The veto you point to mainly funded already approved programs, was done by a largely Republican Senate, and it was smaller than the budget proposed by Reagan. So again you are posting a nonsense story that runs counter your argument. We’re done here. That Bob-Math again!
I read a lot of libertarian nonsense too. I’ve read more political philosophy than you can imagine, but unlike you I’ve actually gasped it.
You claim it is libertarian because it’s temporary (irrelevant when it comes to freedom and libertarianism) because we get to decide who comes here is dumb based on that philosophy. That’s deciding through the government, and they limit the freedom of movement of people through the use of force, and through the government. That’s not libertarian, dolt. Nor is threatening me with violence because I have dismantled your arguments and enraged you adhering to the non-aggression principle which libertarianism is based on. I won’t whine and complain, but I promise you it would be a bad idea for you. Luckily I know people like you and Trump are just bully cowards and it’s not a big deal.
Your comments on Trump are moronic. You’ve already dodged this by at least 3 different people. You are an authoritarian and probavly a fascist. You are 100% wrong, incompetent, dishonest and full of crap on Trump. You stated he didn’t say a bunch of things, whined for citations Ave then ignored them. You are full of it.
In your deluded rants I noticed you ignored my crushing of your moronic Laffer Curve claims, sources, and statements about the poll. You also ignored my comment about climate change and “the math,” as you do every time you are refuted, which is every time somebody engages your nonsense. You carpet bomb a bunch of nonsense, and ignore everything, instead just carpet bombing more nonsense.
Are you trying to claim we have had runaway inflation? Because that’s not even debatable, and again isn’t supported by economists, only right wing cranks (mostly “libertarian” unsurprisingly).
Are you one of the clueless gold standard supporters?
This may surprise you, but I used 1981 precisely because that year he did decrease taxes, and the 1981 date received the largest amount of revenues as a percent of GDP. I then noted that the economy suffered a recession in 1982, showing the sharp decline was after the first year boon to the receipts. I then noted that unlike Obama, the LPR went up, the employed population number went up above 30 year highs, which would make a huge difference in our spending to take care of the poor.
The tax increases Reagan passed were not income taxes, and they were not designed to roll back income tax cuts, which had benefits.
http://dailycaller.com/2012/06/06/ronald-reagan-raised-taxes-11-times-the-real-story/
This guy explains it well.
“He proposed cuts to agencies and then grew them even adding Veterans Affairs which is huge.”
Citation needed. Each president will decide to spend on a few areas. Show me the exact amount the Reagan himself authorized to increase the budget. I doubt you know the number, you grab one off items and label them the norm. I show 200 agencies he sought to cut, and you list one. So if he wanted to cut 200 agencies and raise a few others, the 200 cuts would out balance the 1. In fact, I’ll give you your own math. My next link will outline spending for the department you just mentioned, which was in fact not created by Reagan.
Reagan’s 8 years measured in hundreds of thousands.
First year: $22,455
Last year: $29,345
An increase of $7,000
1973: $12,300
1980: $$20,550
An increase of $8,000.
Reagan didn’t do anything that was outside of the normal band for the time frame.
Let’s go further and include two democrats:
Clinton 1993: $35,000
Clinton 2001: $48,665
More than a $12,000 increase.
Now the fun one:
Obviously, Iraq made a huge increase with Bush w, but did Obama slow that down afterward?
Bush W:
2001: $48,665
2009: $99,445
So that’s bad right, Bush W doubled it. But what is more concerning is Obama. After we already doubled it, it stands to reason we should come back down, right? Or at least slow down a bit.
I’ll give links on this, but 2015 was $182,000, with Obama’s starting year at $99,445. Obama has nearly doubled it, AGAIN, following a doubling. Reagan was well within the normal band. The presidents after him all increased it more. Inclusive of Clinton. A new department section of the Veteran of Affairs was created, but that doesn’t necessarily mean spending will come with it, as my numbers show.
The “UW math” is the issue with your post here. You don’t know it. At all. This means at that time he increased that budget within the normal band, at about 7 billion per year. This is normal.
My link shows 7.6 billion in cuts, and those are not even all the cuts. The one listed there were about a fifth of the total cuts numerically, but important to note is that he proposed many other cuts that were blocked, again and again.
Reagan was not some huge spender, as YOU have bought into.
Up to 2012 years here:
https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS22897.pdf
2015 year here:
http://www.va.gov/budget/products.asp
Links provided, numbers provided. You didn’t provide any.
UW, you are acting like a buffoon.
What else have you got?
As fun as it is to chop you off at the knees every time you speak like this, with a blind allegiance to democrats, I don’t have the time to teach you all this.
You need to do your due diligence. You need to listen to right wing sources and compare to left instead of plugging your ears saying la la la la la.
This is your weakness but it certainly isn’t mine. I’ve used the left side links, intentionally I might add, consistently.
So the more you call me a right wing robot, the more I will show you these links from the left.
For all you say I listen to the right, I’m giving you details from the left, from .gov websites, numbers, data, etc.
Do you think you can think for yourself for two seconds UW, or will you give me more opinions and theory on leftist ideals?
I make my own theories. I use my own data. Yes, I use other theories as a baseline, and compare it. I don’t do it blindly. I study the methods on the people on the left and the right, and then try to find what they may have left out.
I do these numbers because I know that coming to a conclusion takes hard work.
Do you really think you are winning this Bob? You look like a lunatic who cannot make a point and are making stupid responses not even close to what the other people are commenting on. Ron, Confused, UW and Greta all make points against you and you either attack them, make a long pointless rant, or attack them personally. Even the basic economics courses I took years ago went over the Laffer Curve although I didn’t remember exactly what it was until I read about it again.
Bob, as soon as I saw your several posts yesterday, I could accurately predict the massive down votes of Progressives on this site while up voting their own. They really don’t like hearing the truth, do they? They just kick and scream and throw a big fit and say you are dumb and spend an hour or more down voting hoping to hide your comments. I am used to it. However, they are the ones with the failed belief system and being a troll on this site. Our education system in this country is in big trouble and the brain washing of impressionable minds of the Millenials and Gen X crowd is almost complete.
Agent,
I am not sure what is funnier; you’re blatant hypocrisy or the fact that you don’t see it.
So don’t count Bush, because it was bad for your thesis and compare 8 years of Reagan jobs to 4 of Carter. Uw is right you are just ranting and wrong. Even Laffer no longer supports the Laffer Curve all the time. Lol, here come 20 pages of cherry picked rants
I swear you liberals,
You somehow magically think that taxes and expenditures will solve the world’s problems.
It’s like south park.
Taxes
????
Middle class profit!
It’s common sense. The government does not build wealth.
I just gave links showing what the middle class gets per tax dollar paid, and yet we are in debt beyond belief, so that we may have to tax them more due to pork spending that they give to their buddies.
Giving the government this kind of control isn’t ok.
And yet here I am dealing with kids, I know the attitude well I was raised into this myself, who are destroying themselves in the name of believing they are the greater good.
You, are not, the greater good.
Absurd, not one of you holds a candle to my debates, and you’re all so arrogant you think magically you’re right. Because reasons.
If we go back to those old tax rates, most of you will soon realize why they don’t work, and you will have less food on your table.
You must really hate Thomas Jefferson. He stated that the top 5% should pay all of the taxes.
Citation and context needed. I call BS.
Bob, do you have a job? Your multiple diatribes must have taken you hours.
I do have a job, I do well. I don’t do all my research at work.
I know these things because I constantly study them. All I have to do is pull up the studies again, and then write a few minute post.
In the last few months I would say it is a stretch to say I have spent more than 4-5 hours of my break time at work pulling these numbers up. I don’t take lunch breaks, I might add. I also might add, I service my clients outside of work hours.
Also:
I can practically guarantee I brought more into my firm this last year than you.
How many hundreds of thousands of commissions have you brought in for your brokerage this last year in business, both renewals and new business?
Also I should note:
I’m the only poster here who regularly disappears for weeks at a time.
Why do you suppose that is?
I noticed rather than direct my comments you come after my character. Isn’t that interesting…
It’s almost like you democrats care more about image than policy…
That’s not new news to me.
Bob, so Greta doesn’t like the truth you present on your posts. Who cares? You regularly hand Ron, UW and Confused their heads. They throw a tantrum and down thumb your comments just like they do me. If Greta has anything intelligent to post on anything, no one is preventing her from posting. Personal attacks are not the way to go, but that is the Progressive way.
Bob,
If you are attending the GOP convention, I am throwing all my delegates your way!
My, my Bob…you know nothing about me. You assume I am a democrat – I am not – and you assume that I am in production and don’t do as well as you. I’m in management, and have a very healthy salary and many benefits/perks.
As for attacking your comments, I don’t have time nor the stomach to read everything that you write. Your character is obvious by the length and the sheer numbers of posts at a time. You needn’t justify to me the amount of time you spend, your disappearances, etc. I know all I need to about you from your posts – and I’m not assuming things as you and your buddy Agent seem to. Agent indicating that ‘personal attacks is not the way to go’ is laughable.
Bob says he’s the only one here who leaves for weeks at a time – – coincidentally after he has been destroyed in 2 -5 different arguments and has been provided the citations he whines about and claims don’t exist. As usual this shows his fundamental dishonesty and lack of even basic critical thinking skills.
If you leave for weeks at a time you can’t know who is and isn’t here, unless you go back and read everything, which you don’t. Just a total clown.
You are what dumb people think smart people sounds like. You are an unhinged lunatic who thinks verbosity equals intelligence or an actual point. You’ve never addressed a single actual issue I’ve brought up, whether it is the numerous lies or ignorant statements you’ve made about Trump, the Bible, women, immigrants, terrorism, Islam, inflation, or any of the economic topics. Until you do I have better things to do than deal with an unemployed, unhinged, racist, sexist, fascist who thinks it’s still 1965. Based on your responses there is a case to be made that you have severe reading comprehension problems. In every post you focus on the irrelevant part and cling to it for 10000 words.
Write a long, meandering, pointless diatribe filled with incorrect statements and links to discredited right-wing BS claiming victory, and then post a paper you haven’t read that actually supports exactly what I said and claim victory, idiot.
How will Trump bring European, Bermudan and Asian insurance companies (back) to America when he will serve at most 8 years in the Oval Office?
Taxes can be hiked by Trump’s successor, and insurance company egress to foreign countries are based on long term financial & regulatory conditions.
Trump promises a lot of stuff to his naive followers. His proposed repeal of ObamaCare will be accompanied by repeal of the McCarran-Ferguson Act, aka Public Law 15, which exempts insurance companies from Federal Anti-trust laws. THAT would put an end to smaller insurance companies in ALL arenas of insurance, not just health insurance. Small companies would not be able to join ISO, which would be outlawed as data pooling & rate compilation would violate anti-trust laws. In turn, small companies could not produce rates and research on a cost-effective and credible basis, and would fail to attract investor capital.
Cruz’s plan to repeal ObamCare has not included any such harmful repeal of insurance industry protective/ promotional laws. Bernie and Hillary are socialists, out in the open or still in the closet, respectively, who would both eventually push insurance industry segments toward Single Payer situations. Kasich likes the idea of expanding Medicare and Medicaid, as he bragged about the results of his doing so in Ohio on multiple instances on the campaign trail. Pick your poison, or Cruz’s plan, if you care about the insurance industry that employs you.
The minimum wage is tied to MANY state union labor contracts with states, thus their interest in raising it, for financial, more than political, purposes.
Yogi, we just want the raccoons out of our basement.
Al Gore promises rising sea-waters will flood your basement if you are near the current shoreline. If you’re inland, you’ll just have to deal with raccoons through exercise of your 2nd Amendment rights.
Dodd Frank sent a lot of them put of the country too (Met Life). I guess that would fall under Regulations, not taxes.
Too much of both FFA. Who will win the Wisconsin primary? Perhaps the Madison crowd will overpower the rest of the state? Pretty blue up there, right?
My money is on Trump in WI. These polls, none of them reach out to the farm fields, just hang around the bigger cities like Madison, Milwaukee, Janesville. No one bothers to reach out to the agriculture based areas which covers the vast majority of WI (Appleton, Marinette, even Green Bay).
The silent majority keeps Walker in office. I have no reason to expect anything different with Trump. too Conservative for Hillary.
FFA, well I guess we will see how it goes. The Bernie vote is really an anti Hilliary vote. Nobody likes that witch, but she has already gamed the system with those pledged delegates. Sure would be nice if that indictment came down soon. FBI will be interviewing her, the minions under her for the mess and possible criminal charges. Has Loretta Lynch already been bought off by the Clinton Foundation to not prefer charges?
The indictment will probably come after the Benghazi indictment, or maybe the indictment for killing Vince Foster and dragging his body to the park, or maybe right-wingers just repeat every moronic conspiracy theory they hear until they are told to repeat a new one.
Look into the actual laws (other people, not Agent who we know wouldn’t and couldn’t), no laws were broken. Even the whole line about classified at creation refers to administration guidelines, not actual law.
@UW: keep repeating to yourself: “It’s (the 147 FBI Investigative Agents) only a movie.”
Meanwhile, those in the know, who spoke anonymously with some of the FBI investigators, are claiming the sheer number of agents on the case is EXTREMELY unusual. And the intent of such a large number of agents is to produce an air-tight case for Lynch to prosecute. Failure to do so (i.e. prosecute) will be cataclysmic for both BHO and HRC.
Finally, comparison of the current FBI investigation to prior incidents of Clinton corruption is a ‘fallacy of composition’ argument that has already failed with anyone who understands the concept.
Actually Yogi, that 147 number has been revealed as false. Check an actual news outlet now and then. It’s closer to 12. That was put out there so idiots could continue their frenzy and mislead others (It hads been corrected in the original story and other outlets have confirmed around 12) Apparently it worked. From the start the right wing has been wrong on this, so nothing new there, and even if it was 1 million it wouldn’t change the point of law I mentioned.
Also for the same people, notice how this theory was based on an unreliable source, as have been the other stories on this, and even with the retraction they won’t change their theory or talking points that they literally repeat without looking into long after they’re debunked.
How about this Agent and Yogi? If Clinton is indicted before the election and then convicted I will leave the site forever, if not, you will.
WI Cheese Farmers don’t have phones to reach them to ask them poll questions?
Real Clear Politics poll avgs for WI are misleading as they use unweighted averages rather than weighted averages. Weighted avgs someone showed me this morning show a larger lead for Cruz and smaller lead for Bernie than the straight averages shown.
Yogi – not if they dont recognize the number especially if its Blocked or outside their Area Code. Thats been there done that experience, not a guess.
Besides, they are gearing up for planting season. They are currently spending their day servicing the machinery (just a guess).
Looks like you wasted your money on Trump in WI. Losing big, by 13+ points is not foretelling success going forward.
Maybe Travelers will employ “agent robots”, since they believe that agents are compensated too much. That is why they rolled out Travelers “Screw-Em Agents 2.0” new auto compensation. Anyone finished rolling their Travelers book yet?
Actually lonestar, Travelers has been doing a bit better the past year, improved their HO and although the Auto pays less commission, the rates are much better than the old Consumers County Mutual book which was pretty much a joke. Many other carriers are taking rate since their Predictive Modeling and Price Optimization schemes are not working so well.
Agent,
Can you name one insurance company who has received regulatory approval for implementing Price Optimization?
No, he doesn’t even know what price optimization (don’t know why he capitalizes it) is, basic statistics, or from what I’ve seen in other posts, the basics behind simple statistical concepts like averages.
If so, YOU can certainly quote the Travelers stats and Consumers County Mutual stats, right?
Also, did you notice he mentioned BOTH Price Optimization AND Predictive Modeling – – – as if they were different things? Why would someone as dumb as you claim do that?
@Ron; what does approval of PO have to do with its use in the market? I mean, beside the legal aspects of such use in the market. I mean, it’s only illegal if you get caught, right?
Or, does it depend on what the meaning of ‘is’ is? But,… what difference, at this point, does it make?
Yogi Polar Berra,
It means everything. It is the only way to prove that companies are actually using it in their rating. It also shows that this practice goes against the principles of insurance pricing and government regulations are in place to protect the insurance consumer.
@Ron; I see you’ve finally recognized the distinction between legal and illegal.
The distinction of PO and PM was discussed in another thread, and the author used the terms in a way that caused confusion.
Don’t you recall THAT was mentioned in the comments? Apparently not.
Yogi Polar Berra,
I am not exactly sure why you made the statement, “I see you’ve finally recognized the distinction between legal and illegal.” What have I stated in the past would have given you the impression that I did not previously?
I am very well versed in the difference due to my professional experience. I do not need IJ to become educated on the principles of insurance pricing. Did you not notice that I have only pressed Agent about Price Optimization and not Predictive Modeling? Apparently not!
It is Agent that continually links them together. Maybe you should tell him he is wrong and teach him the difference. He will not listen to me.
Yogi, someone as idiotic as UW & Ron understands nothing about what is going on in the marketplace. They haven’t seen the stories on this blog about the states placing bans on price optimization schemes by numerous companies. Allstate was the first caught in the scheme and yes, modelers and actuaries thought them up. Modeling is bad enough, but price optimization is downright theft. These dudes should be prosecuted.
Agent,
So, your answer to the question: “Can you name one insurance company who has received regulatory approval for implementing Price Optimization?” is that post? I will infer that your answer is a resounding NO!
In addition, this must mean that you are conceding that Price Optimization schemes have been officially repudiated by all states in which they were filed? Can you now please stop stating that insurance companies are utilizing this practice? If they are, please provide proof.
Hey Ron, insurance companies didn’t think they needed to ask permission to do Price Optimization. They just started doing it until the complaints piled up and they were caught red handed. No rate filings involved, just do a computer program and they were good to go.
Agent,
Assuming you are against Price Optimization schemes and have yet to prove that any state regulator has approved them as an acceptable part of rating, indicates you favor government regulation over free market principles.
Who is the pro-government person again?
Agent, maybe if you, I and the entire agency force decided to work for free, that would allow us to sell more Travelers auto policies.
lonestar, I have 4 other standards besides Travelers and we spread it around. Progressive pays less than Travelers and we only put dufus drivers with tickets and accidents with them. They have their place and the others have their place.
I’m all for lowing corporate tax rates but only if corporate welfare is eliminated for all getting it with the exception of small businesses and family farm subsidiaries. Would like to see cut off with revenues of $2 million or more.
Also believe job growth reports should only include permanent job that pay a living wage. Any jobs paying wages where employees can still qualify for government programs should not be counted.
Lowered tax rates and accurate stats on the labor force are ‘pesky things’ for liberals. Please be mindful of their feelings when you post such common sense ideas!
Yogi, I think the word liberal needs to be defined to include somebody, who wants things given to them without working for it or doing anything to earn it like acquiring an education or developing additional job skills. That would include those people wanting $15 per hour minimum wage so they can have careers as crew people at McDonald’s or some other low end job that don’t require much in the way of job skills (the jobs that use to be temp jobs for high school kids, collage students and housewives looking to make a few bucks while their children were in school).
Most people making some dough, have made sacrifices like working their way thru college (some over 10+ years) as they had to pay for it themselves while supporting themselves and their family. Many have sacrificed time spent with their spouses, children, other family and friends just to put themselves in a position to earn more. Why should those whom made these kinds of sacrifices be forced to subsidize others who don’t.
Those seeking $15 per hour should be careful what they wish for; the real beneficiaries will be unions whose contracts have clauses which peg their wage rates and bennies to the level of the minimum wage.
The trouble with Socialism is similar to the trouble with minimum wage hikes; you will eventually run out of jobs at that wage level.
The reverse of a minimum wage hike needs to occur. Why? Illegal immigrants are doing that in violation of the minimum wage laws and are taking most of the unskilled jobs from US citizens. So, setting a low or zero minimum wage will increase starting level jobs, to help people get started in their careers. But that would ruin the liberals dreams of binding low skilled workers to them to enable them to stay in power…. e.g. Detroit, Chicago, LA, Newark, Baltimore, ….
This is moronic. We could actually punish companies that break minimum wage laws, but that helps people so you’re against it. 55 percent of minimum wage earners are 25+. These jobs are not for people entering the market and getting rid of that won’t change that. It would marginally increase youth employment but would harm millions of other workers.
Yogi, saw an interesting political cartoon today which sums it up perfectly. NY Restaurant owner says to employees. I have good news and bad news for you. The good news is that you will now be making $15 per hour. The bad news is that I have to cut your hours.
We have pretty accurate stats on the labor force; now stats that back up your nonsense, that’s a different story.
You are reaching Agent-level delusion and incompetence lately.
If the stats are put out by oBama admin, you cant believe them He has that new math that skews everything from traditional math. Like everyone will pay $2500 less on their health insurance when the reality is we are paying at least $2500 or more.
Besides, Minn wage jobs are entry level for High Schoolers who cant find jobs because people are trying to support their families on them. He has done nothing to stop the flow of higher paying jobs out of the country.
FFA,
The stats are put out by the Department of Labor who are government employees, not political appointees. They have been calculating statistics the same way for decades.
The outflow of higher paying jobs started well before President Obama and no previous presidents did anything about it either. Not saying he shouldn’t have, but, even if he had a phenomenal idea, Congress would have stopped it anyway.
Unfortunately, there are many adults who work minimum wage jobs, sometimes multiple minimum wage jobs, just to make ends meet. These are the people who are getting Medicaid, food stamps, and/or other assistance from the government. Sometimes it’s their own fault, but other times they may not have had the opportunities for education and/or training as others.
After mt dealings last week with Medicare – 4 hours of getting transferred for a simple question that never got answered – someone probably just made the numbers up because no one in Medicare really wants to work nor do they give a darn.
Further proof Universal Health Care would just be nothing but a pain the the a@#.
And yes Ron, no one has done a thing about it (Exporting Jobs). Now Obama wants this Pacific Trade Agreement in place. All that will do is export more jobs.
So, yet again, when things don’t show what they want them to show the right-wingers create a conspiracy theory. Yes, the BLS, with offices all over the US, and a huge staff of people collecting price data and wage data, and jobs data, etc., and a huge number of stores giving price data, and unemployment offices reporting numbers, and many businesses contacted for survery, are dismissing that, and putting out fake numbers. Somehow, they have been able to also convince independent places, like Gallup and right-wing Rasmussen to also put out fake data every week, which basically tracks their data, in order to keep the fraud going. When it comes to inflation data, which uneducated right-wingers also whined about, they convinced all the same groups, as well as MIT and Google to release fraudulent data matching theirs.
Or, just maybe, conservatives don’t operate in reality, and believe every moronic story they hear on right-wing BS media outlets.
FFA,
You seem like an intelligent, reasonable person. I am not sure why I need to keep repeating myself. However, my Universal Health Care plan would eliminate Medicare, Medicaid and the VA health systems. I want to get the government out of health care administration and give it to private companies. The government sole role would be to collect taxes and distribute premiums.
Ron, with the PPACA, they have proven they can not even do that (distribute premiums). They would just take the money and sent it to those that dont deserve it.
Completely out is Govts role in health care.
FFA,
So, your proposal would eliminate Medicaid, Medicare and the VA and leave the masses to the mercy of profit driven private companies with no guarantees of coverage and/or acceptability?
Sounds like a great plan that would leave you and your wife in an even more difficult situation.
Ron, the way it was is better then they way it is. My Market Place HMO will not cover her paid meds at all. None. Zip. As the HMO says, the Market Place Dictates coverage. But women get FREE Birth Control.
My Ideal plan would leave Medicare / caide in tact pre ACA as that was working – Needs help, but it worked.
Yes, put the Healthcare back into profit motive. Resurrect what was know as ICHIP in IL (it worked but needed help) Give it the help it needs.
Remove the Cobra Limitation and force the carrier into rolling it into some sort of personal plan like they used to in the Mid 80’s. The HIPPA Law had something to do with taking that away from we the people. I was new in the biz and do not recall all the details of that. But I know that the Govt expanded the regs and we the people suffered. That brought the Group Experience Rating to be (as opposed to individual experience rating) and screwed the majority of people in groups. It also brought hiring discrimination into play as Employers would not hire based on health history as it would bump up the entire group costing all employees more if they hired someone in the pre x crowd. Which the brought more litigation as people that didnt get hired based on health sued for discrimination.
Of course the dumbest thing with the PPACA is the open enrollment all at once. Who in their right mind would even think one web site can handle all that traffic at the same time?
UW, I’m from IL. What that means is that I question everything the Govt puts out no matter what side of the Isle it came from. I dont trust any of them to do whats right by the people and to fudge what ever to make them selves look better then they are. Thats the norm in IL and has nothing to do with party affiliation.
Left or right leaning, it just dont matter. No trust at all. They are just liars.
A tale of domestic violence that will make your stomach turn…
In April, 2014 the father of my Gr Children beat the crap out of my daughter. He punched in her pass door window with such force that glass was embedded in her face as she was trying to start the car. He grabbed onto the door jam and held on as she took off. He eventually fell off and she ran his leg over. Police involved, the whole shot. He was charged.
I was informed yesterday that a law suite was filed and Progressive is paying him over $20,000 even though injuries incurred during the commission of a crime are excluded.
Sad, FFA. Who would have paid had he entered the car and severely injured her or killed her? What justification does the adjustor for Progressive have for someone doing a criminal deed against your daughter and paying them? Do Police investigations or reports matter anymore?
I pleaded with Progressive to not pay this one. They just seem to support the perpetrators of domestic violence. Disgusts me through and through.