Dandin wrote on May 13, 2009 10:45 AM: If all of the BAILOUT funds from the feds were sent to every working US citizen, it would be between 10-20 thousand dollars each. That would jumpstart the economy, stupid! And you would most likely not have seen the foreclosure or economic meltdown. Instead YOUR money was given over to the corporate and banking leaders. Now you know what kind of government you really elected.

Rob L. wrote on May 13, 2009 06:36 AM: John wrote: "One, if in Nevada you were to suddenly make $960 instead of $980 would you stop mining?"

No. But it certainly will A) make me consider how much more I will invest in those mines and B)how much more research I will spend to look at future mines in Nevada. End result: less mining, less employment and less tax revenue. Congrats you just sent another industry on the road out the door.

You also wrote: "Two, If you have the wherewithal to conduct mining operations in both states why wouldn't you? Both are profitable."

Because I probably dont have the wherewithal to conduct operations in both states. Not only is financing harder to come by, supporting multiple facilities is more expensive. If I have to choose, I am going to put my money where it has the greatest return.

I just dont understand how you can argue that higher taxes aren't a disincentive to business. The lack of logic here is just baffling.

Rob L. wrote on May 13, 2009 06:30 AM: "10% unemployment does not equate to 90% employment by a long shot."

You must be using government math if 90 + 10 doesnt equal 100 on your planet. "Underemployment" is a myth used by entitlement seekers who feel that every burger flipper would be making 100K if it werent for those damn evil greedy business owners.

"Your figure on mortgages is pulled out of thin air also. In Vegas, the number is far worse, and over 50% of the homes are so far underwater they cannot be refinanced."

Huh??? Even in Vegas it is still less than 10% and 50% of homes being underwater means nothing and doesnt change the fact that less than 10% are in foreclosure. The only thing coming out of thin air is your thinking apparently.

I would be an angry statistician too if I was as good as you at formulating an argument...

RightWingExtremist wrote on May 12, 2009 08:17 PM: No matter what the arguments are, the fact is that Nevada revenue is down. The state government, swollen in size by the "boom" times, is now faced with all legislators' worst nightmare...drastically reduced funds to spend. So, instead of doing what any intelligent person would do when faced with reduced income, the state wants to do exactly the opposite. They feel the budget needs to remain at the spending levels of 2007. News flash to Carson City. The incoming revenue does not equal the amount from that year. It's much lower. The average citizen, when faced with reduced income, greatly reduces the money they spend. Our legislators have to do the same. Adding or increasing taxes on an already overburdened taxpayer base is NOT the answer. The answer is simple. Cut spending on low-performing and unneeded state programs.

John F wrote on May 12, 2009 06:24 PM: Ummm.....Rob?

Using your example, in Nevada you make $980 after taxes and in Pennsylvania you make $900 after taxes.

Two things:

One, if in Nevada you were to suddenly make $960 instead of $980 would you stop mining? $960 is still greater than $900.

Two, If you have the wherewithal to conduct mining operations in both states why wouldn't you? Both are profitable.

AngryStatistician wrote on May 12, 2009 03:30 PM: Rob L.,

10% unemployment does not equate to 90% employment by a long shot. Go to wikipedia and learn how the fantasy number for unemployment is derived.

When you add all the people that are 'underemployed' the figure is closer to 16%.

Your figure on mortgages is pulled out of thin air also. In Vegas, the number is far worse, and over 50% of the homes are so far underwater they cannot be refinanced.

Things are not as bad as 1930, but they are certainly as bad as they have ever been since that time.

The only stat that looks good is the inflation rate. I doubt that will stay in control though, because when you print a few trillion dollar bills, you have to get that surplus cash out of the system somehow.

Look forward to double digit interest in the next 3-5 years, unless we fall further into a depression.

curious wrote on May 12, 2009 02:39 PM: "Common Sense":

Take the government completely out of the equation; less spending results in a reduction of economic activity.

Espousing less spending means espousing a reduction in jobs. Its just that simple. Moreover, the cycle, of individuals reducing their spending, ultimately results in no one having a job, which means no one, excluding those people who treasure money because they like the feel of it, from having any. Notwithstanding the political consequences, i.e. civil war, the economic consequences are not something anyone wants to witness.

As has been proven repeatedly, the "paradox of savings" is that ultimately, in spite of the fact that on an individual basis savings is "good", when a country raises its savings rates for extended periods, the economy as a whole is damaged, and ultimately, the people who saved are victims just as the people who didn't save are.

Witness the last two years; "good" homeowners purchased homes within their means, and "saved" money for the future. "Bad" homeowners lived beyond their means, and purchased homes which "they couldn't afford". Now, both homeowners are suffering. Not only the homeowner that bought "more" home than they could "afford", but also the homeowner who tried to do the "right" thing and bought within his/her means, and "saved" the rest. Unfortunately, both homeowners now, are very likely suffering because the trickle down effect is that both the "good" and "bad" homeowner has lost their job. Totally independent of their own actions, both are suffering the effects of our interlinked economy.

Whatever you think about government spending, or government wastefulness is really beside the point.
Encouraging people to save money will ultimately cost them more than they will be able to save, if enough people take the same step.

Rob L. wrote on May 12, 2009 01:45 PM: Common Sense wrote: "Too late. It already has collapsed, and it's likely to get worse."

Back away from the ledge dude... It has hardly collapsed. More than 90% of the workforce is employed, more than 90% of mortgages are current and not a single penny was lost by a depositor in a failed bank. If you think this is a collapse, you don't know much about life in 1930.

Rob L. wrote on May 12, 2009 01:38 PM: John F. wrote: "If that's so, why haven't they stopped mining in all the other states that charge them higher taxes?"

Do you really believe that companies do not base where they invest their resources on where they can make the money? I can guarentee you that there is a direct corrolation between tax rates and investment. If I can make $1000 here and pay %2 tax or make a $1000 in Pennsylvania and pay a 10% tax, where is my new mine going?

Rob L. wrote on May 12, 2009 01:26 PM: Of course the assertion that we should stop all spending is absurd. The key is the proper balance of taxes on commerce. Prior to the current budget disaster, government was out of control, it is now untenable. It is bloated beyond all belief and now is the time to take an axe to the budget. A leaner government only providing ESSENTIAL services will make everyones lives better by freeing up more private capital to be put to the highest use.

The discussion should not be which industry isnt taxed enough, it should be what government functions are no longer (or never) served their purpose and end them now. Not another dime from tourists, homeowners or smokers until that happens.

Read All Comments