cxhb wrote:Monster Toad wrote:I want an XJ with the CRD swap and a transmission that can handle the torque. Now THAT would be awesome...Strizzo wrote:My wife's 2005 Liberty Sport 3.7 has a 6 speed manual trans.MCarp22 wrote: So Liberty. 3.7 or CRD as a tow vehicle for a miata + aluminum trailer?YES. would have looked harder for one if they were available with a manual trans
you really don't want a vm motori engine.
oldsaw wrote: In reply to Strizzo: Ronald Reagan said it best: "Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so."
the problem with reagan is that he was an idiot and his economic polices pretty much set up our current problems. Tons of spending with no tax reductions.
I really don't think the guy was that great. and I don't know why everyone loves him.
1988RedT2 wrote:ignorant wrote: We need some good campaign finance reform that applies to all. The more people and less corporations/out of state influences, you have in any given election, the better it will work.You and I may not agree on much, but on this point we are in perfect agreement!
Dr. Hess originally floated the idea on here.
ignorant wrote:cxhb wrote:you really don't want a vm motori engine.Monster Toad wrote:I want an XJ with the CRD swap and a transmission that can handle the torque. Now THAT would be awesome...Strizzo wrote:My wife's 2005 Liberty Sport 3.7 has a 6 speed manual trans.MCarp22 wrote: So Liberty. 3.7 or CRD as a tow vehicle for a miata + aluminum trailer?YES. would have looked harder for one if they were available with a manual trans
If we keep "quoting" this, does the picture get smaller...
fast_eddie_72 wrote:ignorant wrote:If we keep "quoting" this, does the picture get smaller...cxhb wrote:you really don't want a vm motori engine.Monster Toad wrote:I want an XJ with the CRD swap and a transmission that can handle the torque. Now THAT would be awesome...Strizzo wrote:My wife's 2005 Liberty Sport 3.7 has a 6 speed manual trans.MCarp22 wrote: So Liberty. 3.7 or CRD as a tow vehicle for a miata + aluminum trailer?YES. would have looked harder for one if they were available with a manual trans
...and smaller
fast_eddie_72 wrote:fast_eddie_72 wrote:...and smallerignorant wrote:If we keep "quoting" this, does the picture get smaller...cxhb wrote:you really don't want a vm motori engine.Monster Toad wrote:I want an XJ with the CRD swap and a transmission that can handle the torque. Now THAT would be awesome...Strizzo wrote:My wife's 2005 Liberty Sport 3.7 has a 6 speed manual trans.MCarp22 wrote: So Liberty. 3.7 or CRD as a tow vehicle for a miata + aluminum trailer?YES. would have looked harder for one if they were available with a manual trans
...and smaller?
fast_eddie_72 wrote:fast_eddie_72 wrote:...and smaller?fast_eddie_72 wrote:...and smallerignorant wrote:If we keep "quoting" this, does the picture get smaller...cxhb wrote:you really don't want a vm motori engine.Monster Toad wrote:I want an XJ with the CRD swap and a transmission that can handle the torque. Now THAT would be awesome...Strizzo wrote:My wife's 2005 Liberty Sport 3.7 has a 6 speed manual trans.MCarp22 wrote: So Liberty. 3.7 or CRD as a tow vehicle for a miata + aluminum trailer?YES. would have looked harder for one if they were available with a manual trans
Even smaller?
Cone_Junky wrote:fast_eddie_72 wrote:Even smaller?fast_eddie_72 wrote:...and smaller?fast_eddie_72 wrote:...and smallerignorant wrote:If we keep "quoting" this, does the picture get smaller...cxhb wrote:you really don't want a vm motori engine.Monster Toad wrote:I want an XJ with the CRD swap and a transmission that can handle the torque. Now THAT would be awesome...Strizzo wrote:My wife's 2005 Liberty Sport 3.7 has a 6 speed manual trans.MCarp22 wrote: So Liberty. 3.7 or CRD as a tow vehicle for a miata + aluminum trailer?YES. would have looked harder for one if they were available with a manual trans
nein
It's an optical delusion.
Big ego wrote:Cone_Junky wrote:neinfast_eddie_72 wrote:Even smaller?fast_eddie_72 wrote:...and smaller?fast_eddie_72 wrote:...and smallerignorant wrote:If we keep "quoting" this, does the picture get smaller...cxhb wrote:you really don't want a vm motori engine.Monster Toad wrote:I want an XJ with the CRD swap and a transmission that can handle the torque. Now THAT would be awesome...Strizzo wrote:My wife's 2005 Liberty Sport 3.7 has a 6 speed manual trans.MCarp22 wrote: So Liberty. 3.7 or CRD as a tow vehicle for a miata + aluminum trailer?YES. would have looked harder for one if they were available with a manual trans
There
ignorant wrote:oldsaw wrote: In reply to Strizzo: Ronald Reagan said it best: "Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so."the problem with reagan is that he was an idiot and his economic polices pretty much set up our current problems. Tons of spending with no tax reductions. I really don't think the guy was that great. and I don't know why everyone loves him.
Don't confuse spending with lack of revenues. From 1980 to 1988 tax income revenue DOUBLED, that Congress continued to spend like drunken sailors is a different issue.
I think the principle is sound if you consider a 10% tax of someones static income is x. if that income becomes greater (some could say a higher GDP = everyone makes more money, and a higher GDP can be had through a cash injection from uncle Sam spending more - Im not saying that, but some would) you get x plus some more. You dont have to reduce taxation, you DO have to make sure theres an environment where everyone can make more. I dont completely disagree, with Ronnie, I just dont think he made sure everything was even on both sides of his equals sign.
z31maniac wrote: Don't confuse spending with lack of revenues. From 1980 to 1988 tax income revenue DOUBLED, that Congress continued to spend like drunken sailors is a different issue.
In 1980, the highest marginal tax rate was 70%. Yes, 70%. When it dropped in '81 to 50% it was a very big deal. But even the Laffer Curve suggests that you can only lower rates to a point. Current top rate is 35%, a far cry from the rate Reagan was working with. Has been at 35% since 2003. Clearly there are many things at play right now that explain the end of this graph, but it would appear that we may be at a point below optimal on the Laffer curve right now.
http://www.topgunfp.com/federal-income-tax-receipts-plummet-in-april/
z31maniac wrote:ignorant wrote:Don't confuse spending with lack of revenues. From 1980 to 1988 tax income revenue DOUBLED, that Congress continued to spend like drunken sailors is a different issue.oldsaw wrote: In reply to Strizzo: Ronald Reagan said it best: "Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so."the problem with reagan is that he was an idiot and his economic polices pretty much set up our current problems. Tons of spending with no tax reductions. I really don't think the guy was that great. and I don't know why everyone loves him.
I meant to say no tax increases... The insane spending started with him.
In reply to fast_eddie_72:
my guess would be that it has something to do with the large number of un/under-employed.
Why does "Top Gun" financial planners have an air force F16 as their logo? Shouldn't it be an F18 these days?
Strizzo wrote: In reply to fast_eddie_72: my guess would be that it has something to do with the large number of un/under-employed.
No doubt has something to do with it. But even at that, what is the unemployment rate right now- 9.6%? That down sloap started before the economic crisis and even adding 9.6% to it doesn't get us to a very good place. But factor in "under-employment". What number to give that- certainly less than the 9.6 since those people have some income. But let's go crazy and call it 10%. So a total of 19.6%. Add 19.6 % to the end of that graph- we're still not in a very good place.
No, Ronald Reagan's Laffer Curve suggests we need to raise taxes. Or at least not cut them.
from what i heard, the smarter investors saw the writing on the wall and started cashing out investments 6 months or more before the "crash", maybe that is an indication of the slowing down of the economy when these people started getting nervous and cutting back on spending.
iirc, some estimates of the total un/under-employment including people who have just given up/left the job market is as high as 20-25%
Strizzo wrote: from what i heard, the smarter investors saw the writing on the wall and started cashing out investments 6 months or more before the "crash",
What would that have to do with tax revenue, other than possibly increasing them due to capital gains from "cashing out"?
Strizzo wrote: iirc, some estimates of the total un/under-employment including people who have just given up/left the job market is as high as 20-25%
Even if 25% are underemployed, you have to apply some factor to that number as they are getting income and are being taxed on it in accordance to our tax laws. In other words, they're not zero. And that is true even if they pay zero in taxes- as that would indicate that the zero level needs to be raised to something larger than zero according to the Laffer curve.
And actually, none if it has any bearing on the tax rate according to the Laffer Curve. The market dictates employment levels and our tax structure should be set accordingly. Laffer does not suggest that higher taxes result in a poor economy with fewer jobs. It suggest that peopel will chose not to work if taxes are too high. We're talking about revenue vs. tax levels. There are a given number of people working, making a given amount of money and there is a point at which revenue is optimal with those given circumstances.
Regan's Laffer curve dictates we need to raise taxes.
In reply to Cone_Junky:
Yes, if you keep quoting an image it will get really small and move closer to the right side of the page. Eventually it will cause display issues, and someone will call and ask why they can't view it on their webTV system from 1996.
Yes, that really happened.
In reply to fast_eddie_72:
but aren't there other studies that suggest raising taxes slows the economy/growth, which results in a poorer economy?
also, if someone was making 120k/year, then got laid off, and is now collecting unemployment that amounts to 30k/year, they're going to be paying a lot less in taxes than they were before.
i don't think that laffer states that people would choose not to work, they might also invest more into pre-tax options, or companies would find other ways to compensate their employees, like stock, or 401k matching
In reply to Tom Heath:
Tom, clicking anywhere to the direct right of the "add post" button results in a premature posting. also, none of the action buttons (quote, link, post picture) work if i use the "reply" button to make a post. 
titter...premature posting...snicker
Strizzo wrote: i don't think that laffer states that people would choose not to work, they might also invest more into pre-tax options, or companies would find other ways to compensate their employees, like stock, or 401k matching
Well, it was always quite vague and never really said anything you could pin down- prompting Bush Sr. to call it "voodoo economics". So it's appropriate to now change our understanding of it to fit whatever point we're trying to make. Having said that, the commonly held understanding of it is pretty much what I said. From Wikipedia: "The curve is constructed by thought experiment. First, the amount of tax revenue raised at the extreme tax rates of 0% and 100% is considered. It is clear that a 0% tax rate raises no revenue, but the Laffer curve hypothesis is that a 100% tax rate will also generate no revenue because at such a rate there is no longer any incentive for a rational taxpayer to earn any income, thus the revenue raised will be 100% of nothing." No incentive for rational taxpayer to earn income means they chose not to work. As to your other point, could be. I wasn't speaking to that. Someone brought up Reagan as a justification for lowering taxes even more than we've already lowered them. I pointed out that Reagan's theories would suggest taxes are too low. Personally, I'm sure you're right and there is an effect on the overall economy. But it's an argument that, much like the Laffer curve offers no guidance. We are in debt and need to get out. If lowering taxes creates a robust economy, but does it at the expense of lower tax revenue, we have taken a step in the wrong direction. Great that we're all getting rich, but a moot point when our nation is bankrupt.
You'll need to log in to post.
