Paul Ryan in Esquire

Two things (before I read the original and follow-up works) ... 1) a change in ranking is not to be sniffed at, but it can obtain without there being a practically significant difference* in achievement; and 2) most class-size reductions/increases that are considered in policy discussions are very small (i.e., from a 24-per-class average to a 26-per-class average) and likely would have very small effects.

*How much better, in absolute terms, is the 5th-ranked linebacker prospect than the 50th-ranked linebacker prospect?

 

Newt knows how he's going to save education costs:

Like many Republicans, he wants to rollback child labor laws. One advantage? Ten year olds can work as their school janitors. And no, I'm not making that part up.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/11/newt-gingrich-thinks-school-children-should-work-as-janitors/248837/

 

And for the Paul Ryan acolalytes out there I throw this out.

Steve Jobs was a very successful capitalist. Apple Computer is one of the most successful corporations in the world. Jobs and Steve Wozniak, the founders had not graduated from college in 1976. Both were college dropouts. Both had been involved in the electronics program at Homestead High. Homestead, which is mile or two from Apple's headquarters, had one of the first electronics programs in the country.

So, what was more important to the creation of Apple, that high school electronics class or low marginal tax rates to properly motivate the two Steves. I would guess the electronics class. Apple was started in 1976 when marginal tax rates were much higher and without that high school program would the two have known how to build a computer?

But when we start to cut education budgets elective courses will be cut back. How many people on this board owe their careers to signing up for a high school journalism class?

 

We're all motivated by marginal tax rates.

 

Some of us BLAME our high school journalism classes for our decision to enter journalism.

 

It's easy to look at Apple's founding and subsequent success and use that to suggest that entrepreneurial activity isn't stifled by high(er) marginal tax rates. But to do so is to ignore the fact that Apple didn't become Apple simply because those two started that company (or took electronics in high school, etc.). Lots of other things happened along the way that made that company a success, and the likelihood of these sort of things happening is shaped by the tax policy regime. No one has ever suggested that you couldn't have an Apple with "higher taxes." What they've argued is that you can't have enough Apples to truly grow an economy.

 

I am looking forward to the day when Blondie throws Chubby out on his ample ass.

 

You are grasping at straws to suggest tax policy shaped Apple's success. Tell me how tax policy helped Apple instead of just stating it as fact.

 

Beat me to it, desk.

 

He didn't say that.

He said you'll get an Apple or two in any tax environment. The question is how do you encourage the development of 10, 20, or 100 Apples.

And, what role does tax policy shape that?

And, you know, here's the other thing. Companies started by young guys like Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, or Michael Dell will be started.

They were able to grasp new technologies before others could/did.

But, they were also young, with little to loose. So, tax policy probably was the last thing on their mind. They had a skill, an idea, and the exuberance of youth.

And, that's great. We need that.

But, we also need the software engineer, at a big company, who's ideas are being overlooked, to leave the comfort of his safe, guaranteed job.

We need people willing to take risks. People willing to invest their life's savings in pursuit of a goal/dream.

And, for that guy, it is a risk/reward assessment.

Tax policy has to be considered when he makes his decision.

 

Things that guy would consider when weighing whether to break out on his own:

1) Health care
2) Health care
3) Health care
4) Health care
5-99) Health care

1,000,000) Whether he keeps 60 or 64 percent of his earnings.

 

You're not wrong about health care.

It's why I've long advocated for divorcing health insurance from employment. (I just don't think a government mandated system -- or at least none of the examples I've heard -- is the answer.)

But, tax policy does impact a businesses chances to turn a profit.

It has to be considered.