The Local is not responsible for content posted by users.
9 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 > »    Reply to this topic

Taxation! Why less is more.

Roy E
post 7.Mar.2006, 12:20 AM
Post #16
Joined: 23.Nov.2005

QUOTE (Kang)
I don't know squat about Economics and I know this.


Are you really, really, really sure about that?

US unemployment is 4.7% (Jan 2006) - and that's with over 11 million illegals in the country and oil at $60.00 a barrel.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm
Go to the top of the page
+
*Littlefair*
post 7.Mar.2006, 12:23 AM
Post #17


QUOTE (FR)
Because I get enough in real life so I don't need the virtual.


oooo now thats what we liike to here youu get some. I need no sex here either so I soon plan an excursion to vegas you are not far are u busy?

I could even crack that tough exterior your next post u would be a VERY different FR. :twisted:
Go to the top of the page
+
FR
post 7.Mar.2006, 12:24 AM
Post #18
Joined: 22.Oct.2005

QUOTE (RoyE)
Are you really, really, really sure about that?

US unemployment is 4.7% (Jan 2006) - and that's with over 11 million illegals in the country and oil at $60.00 a barrel.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm


Unemployment is a ridiculous figure to look at under any circumstance. It is the ratio of the number of people looking for work over the number of people in the work force. If you are not actively looking for work, you don't count as part of the ratio at all. See definition of "discouraged workers". Then take a look at the US Bureau of Labor Statistics methodology to see who else they're leaving out. Even worse is that the household survey on which the unemployment rate is based has never been benchmarked and includes as employed "unpaid family members".
Go to the top of the page
+
*Kodos*
post 7.Mar.2006, 12:26 AM
Post #19


QUOTE (RoyE)
Are you really, really, really sure about that?

US unemployment is 4.7% (Jan 2006) - and that's with over 11 million illegals in the country and oil at $60.00 a barrel.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm


What's the point to this particular salvo? More ammo to keep the tax cuts for the fat cuts?
Go to the top of the page
+
FR
post 7.Mar.2006, 12:27 AM
Post #20
Joined: 22.Oct.2005

QUOTE (Littlefair)
oooo now thats what we liike to here youu get some. I need no sex here either so I soon plan an excursion to vegas you are not far are u busy?

I could even crack that tough exterior your next post u would be a VERY different FR. :twisted:


Are you really going to Vegas? I love it there... especially the Red Rock Canyon National Park, which most people miss because they think the Strip is all there is there.
Go to the top of the page
+
*Kodos*
post 7.Mar.2006, 12:27 AM
Post #21


QUOTE (FR)
Because I get enough in real life so I don't need the virtual.


Face it, LF...she got you there. :wink:
Go to the top of the page
+
*Littlefair*
post 7.Mar.2006, 12:28 AM
Post #22


QUOTE (FR)
Unemployment is a ridiculous figure to look at under any circumstance. It is the ratio of the number of people looking for work over the number of people in the work force. If you are not actively looking for work, you don't count as part of the ratio at all. See definition of "discouraged workers". Then take a look at the US Bureau of Labor Statistics methodology to see who else they're leaving out. Even worse is that the household survey on which the unemployment rate is based has never been benchmarked and includes as employed "unpaid family members".


Stop getting all embarassed you wanna visit or not? :twisted:
Go to the top of the page
+
FR
post 7.Mar.2006, 12:28 AM
Post #23
Joined: 22.Oct.2005

QUOTE (Kang)
What's the point to this particular salvo? More ammo to keep the tax cuts for the fat cuts?


It's no ammo at all, just a little token to keep the emptyheaded consumer happy.
Go to the top of the page
+
*Littlefair*
post 7.Mar.2006, 12:29 AM
Post #24


QUOTE (FR)
Are you really going to Vegas? I love it there... especially the Red Rock Canyon National Park, which most people miss because they think the Strip is all there is there.


Well if you want to strip u can the park sounds nice thouhg.
Maybe you could strip there. :twisted:
Go to the top of the page
+
*Kodos*
post 7.Mar.2006, 12:29 AM
Post #25


QUOTE (FR)
Unemployment is a ridiculous figure to look at under any circumstance. It is the ratio of the number of people looking for work over the number of people in the work force. If you are not actively looking for work, you don't count as part of the ratio at all. See definition of "discouraged workers". Then take a look at the US Bureau of Labor Statistics methodology to see who else they're leaving out. Even worse is that the household survey on which the unemployment rate is based has never been benchmarked and includes as employed "unpaid family members".


Ooooh. Ooooh. Question (serious)! Which do the powers that be factor out of the unemployment equation, those on the dole or those who have been on the dole and kicked off?
Go to the top of the page
+
*Kodos*
post 7.Mar.2006, 12:30 AM
Post #26


QUOTE (FR)
It's no ammo at all, just a little token to keep the emptyheaded consumer happy.


Maybe, for shits and grins, I'll just start randomly quoting the Article 2 of the UCC. :wink:
Go to the top of the page
+
*Littlefair*
post 7.Mar.2006, 12:30 AM
Post #27


QUOTE (Kang)
Face it, LF...she got you there. :wink:


Kang if you really neeed know I have had enough goddam sex in my life to make fr explode with dissaprovl. :twisted:
Go to the top of the page
+
*Kodos*
post 7.Mar.2006, 12:32 AM
Post #28


QUOTE (Littlefair)
Kang if you really neeed know I have had enough goddam sex in my life to make fr explode with dissaprovl. :twisted:


He he he...You said, "sex." laugh.gif
Go to the top of the page
+
Roy E
post 7.Mar.2006, 12:38 AM
Post #29
Joined: 23.Nov.2005

QUOTE (FR)
Unemployment is a ridiculous figure to look at under any circumstance. It is the ratio of the number of people looking for work over the number of people in the work force. If you are not actively looking for work, you don't count as part of the ratio at all. See definition of "discouraged workers". Then take a look at the US Bureau of Labor Statistics methodology to see who else they're leaving out. Even worse is that the household survey on which the unemployment rate is based has never been benchmarked and includes as employed "unpaid family members".


It doesn't much matter how you try to discredit the offical statistics. They are officially recognized. And they'e better than the historical average in spite of all the adversity since the Internet Bubble Crash. These are the numbers that the financial and investment gurus use in their analysis and forecasting - People far wiser than I.

But the US has little to do with this thread. It's about Sweden and Europe. The linked critiques are written by Europeans and contrast EU countries. These links:

Celtic Tiger Devours Scandinavian Model
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/705

The Myth of the Scandinavian Model(2)
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/510

The Myth of the Scandinavian Model (3)
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/626


I really don't understand the obsession with the US in this forum.
It's borderline pathological.
Go to the top of the page
+
*Kodos*
post 7.Mar.2006, 12:45 AM
Post #30


QUOTE (RoyE)
But the US has little to do with this thread. It's about Sweden and Europe. The linked critiques are written by Europeans and contrast EU countries.

I really don't understand the obsession with the US in this forum.
It's borderline pathological.


Ummm...Roy...not to rub your nose in pooh, but this may answer the pathological obsession with the US in this thread.

QUOTE (RoyE)
Lethal Taxes: Why Europe?s Economy Lags Behind America?s

If you really like apple pie, and you could have one-third of a 2 pound pie or half of a 1 pound pie, which would you choose? This grade school math problem is very similar to the problem politicians and economic policymakers face in deciding whether to distribute smaller pieces of a bigger pie, or vice versa. Their decisions tell us much about their real motives.


On a serious note...you really should not discredit our resident Economists (I mean that with absolute respect and sincerity). Aaron and FR really know what they're talking about. If they can debunk the myth, give their work its due. It's not about proving who is right and who is wrong. It's about stating what is right and what is wrong.

People are just responding to your initial post, which happens to deal with comparing Europe's financial viability v. America's.

/Marnie
Go to the top of the page
+

9 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 > » 
Reply to this topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members: