In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
. It is all about taxing the big achievers to finance social justice, equality of results, and an expanding welfare state--growth be damned. Assume businesses will be just fine.
Taxes were much higher in the 50s, 60s and 70s yet mysteriously growth was not damned. conversely, the massive bush tax cuts coincided with generally poor and uneven growth. So maybe the straight line of tax cuts = growth isnt as straight as one might believe
Reagan does represent the electability of conservatives,
in a country that was much whiter and more socially conservative against opponents who make mitt romney machiavelian in their politics and on a political platform that today would be centrist. In other words, Reagen would not have survived his primaries.
Taxes were about as high as they are today in the 50's 60's and 70's, all things considered. Companies were also much more profitable (depending on your measure) and made products that were much more likely to kill you.
. It is all about taxing the big achievers to finance social justice, equality of results, and an expanding welfare state--growth be damned. Assume businesses will be just fine.
Taxes were much higher in the 50s, 60s and 70s yet mysteriously growth was not damned. conversely, the massive bush tax cuts coincided with generally poor and uneven growth. So maybe the straight line of tax cuts = growth isnt as straight as one might believe
Reagan does represent the electability of conservatives,
in a country that was much whiter and more socially conservative against opponents who make mitt romney machiavelian in their politics and on a political platform that today would be centrist. In other words, Reagen would not have survived his primaries.
Taxes were about as high as they are today in the 50's 60's and 70's, all things considered. Companies were also much more profitable (depending on your measure) and made products that were much more likely to kill you.
On August 09 2013 10:51 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Isn't he describing a Public Option, which was killed via "Socialism"
Wait wait wait. Let me get this straight. This Republican is having to defend his votes AGAINST Obamacare? I thought the Republicans in these districts only feared those more right than them...
On August 09 2013 07:56 Wolfstan wrote: I just don't understand the bigotry against the rich in America, why does a vocal minority(?) believe that the average wealthy guy is bad and should be punished with fines/taxes and jail?
Because productivity has been rising while wages have stagnated. The wages for rich have gone up massively so now there's huge wealth disparity.
Another way to say it is that the rich have rigged the system to take the middle class wages for themselves.
Edit: Also, there's massive amount of corruption in our government due to the influx of money in politics. Tons of legal bribery and under-the-table bullshit that makes it more of a corporate oligarchy rather than a democracy. Obviously when rich people have an unfair advantage in a democracy, then it's going to grow class tensions.
There's also things like the financial industry collapsing under their own idiotic and risky ventures and crashing the economy. And republicans think the only way to fix it is to punish poor people and the middle class by getting rid of food stamps and burdening them with more private debt. The wealth of the financial industry has skyrocketed compared to the wealth of CEOs and business owners.
I can keep going. The fact of the matter is that having higher taxes on the wealthy would be better for our budget and economy. But it's really a lot more fun to pose it as wealthy being a bunch of mustache-twirlers. So I'm going to do that.
Hope that clears some things up.
Wages stagnated largely because of a shift from paying employees in taxable wages to tax free benefits (like health insurance).
There's also a recent (i.e. last decade or so) global shift in income going from labor to capital. I'm not sure what the cause of that is, probably some combination of globalization and aging demographics.
On top of that technological changes have favored skilled labor and so productivity and corresponding compensation increases have accumulated there.
As for banks, just repeal Dodd-Frank and replace it with much higher capital requirements
Wages for the middle class stagnated. Wages for the rich skyrocketed and continue to do so. Trying to argue that "oh but they got more benefits" simply doesn't go far enough. The middle class should have more than what it has now, and the reason they don't have it is because of a rigged, corrupt system that massively favors the rich.
Yes, sure, there are other factors. I have no problem with this, because that's all the more reason for policy to try to get a handle on wealth inequality and social mobility. But there's no sign of policy shifting that way. If anything, people like Danglars are all the more obstinate about punishing the poor and coddling the rich.
. It is all about taxing the big achievers to finance social justice, equality of results, and an expanding welfare state--growth be damned. Assume businesses will be just fine.
Taxes were much higher in the 50s, 60s and 70s yet mysteriously growth was not damned. conversely, the massive bush tax cuts coincided with generally poor and uneven growth. So maybe the straight line of tax cuts = growth isnt as straight as one might believe
Reagan does represent the electability of conservatives,
in a country that was much whiter and more socially conservative against opponents who make mitt romney machiavelian in their politics and on a political platform that today would be centrist. In other words, Reagen would not have survived his primaries.
Taxes were about as high as they are today in the 50's 60's and 70's, all things considered. Companies were also much more profitable (depending on your measure) and made products that were much more likely to kill you.
It should be known that the risks of companies doing dangerous things to people actually is much higher now, because companies are larger and can harm so many more people at once. They can even do more damage than their own company is worth, like the BP Oil Spill. This drastically affects the tradeoffs that companies make, often toward more endangerment to society.
So regulation of these things has become far more important, but still has just as many problems with things like regulatory capture.
. It is all about taxing the big achievers to finance social justice, equality of results, and an expanding welfare state--growth be damned. Assume businesses will be just fine.
Taxes were much higher in the 50s, 60s and 70s yet mysteriously growth was not damned. conversely, the massive bush tax cuts coincided with generally poor and uneven growth. So maybe the straight line of tax cuts = growth isnt as straight as one might believe
Reagan does represent the electability of conservatives,
in a country that was much whiter and more socially conservative against opponents who make mitt romney machiavelian in their politics and on a political platform that today would be centrist. In other words, Reagen would not have survived his primaries.
Taxes were about as high as they are today in the 50's 60's and 70's, all things considered. Companies were also much more profitable (depending on your measure) and made products that were much more likely to kill you.
What do you mean by "all things considered"?
Different deductions, credits, brackets, etc. People like to cite the vast difference in marginal rates, but the top 1% paid a pretty similar amount in taxes today as they did back then.
On August 09 2013 07:56 Wolfstan wrote: I just don't understand the bigotry against the rich in America, why does a vocal minority(?) believe that the average wealthy guy is bad and should be punished with fines/taxes and jail?
Because productivity has been rising while wages have stagnated. The wages for rich have gone up massively so now there's huge wealth disparity.
Another way to say it is that the rich have rigged the system to take the middle class wages for themselves.
Edit: Also, there's massive amount of corruption in our government due to the influx of money in politics. Tons of legal bribery and under-the-table bullshit that makes it more of a corporate oligarchy rather than a democracy. Obviously when rich people have an unfair advantage in a democracy, then it's going to grow class tensions.
There's also things like the financial industry collapsing under their own idiotic and risky ventures and crashing the economy. And republicans think the only way to fix it is to punish poor people and the middle class by getting rid of food stamps and burdening them with more private debt. The wealth of the financial industry has skyrocketed compared to the wealth of CEOs and business owners.
I can keep going. The fact of the matter is that having higher taxes on the wealthy would be better for our budget and economy. But it's really a lot more fun to pose it as wealthy being a bunch of mustache-twirlers. So I'm going to do that.
Hope that clears some things up.
Wages stagnated largely because of a shift from paying employees in taxable wages to tax free benefits (like health insurance).
There's also a recent (i.e. last decade or so) global shift in income going from labor to capital. I'm not sure what the cause of that is, probably some combination of globalization and aging demographics.
On top of that technological changes have favored skilled labor and so productivity and corresponding compensation increases have accumulated there.
As for banks, just repeal Dodd-Frank and replace it with much higher capital requirements
Wages for the middle class stagnated. Wages for the rich skyrocketed and continue to do so. Trying to argue that "oh but they got more benefits" simply doesn't go far enough. The middle class should have more than what it has now, and the reason they don't have it is because of a rigged, corrupt system that massively favors the rich.
Yes, sure, there are other factors. I have no problem with this, because that's all the more reason for policy to try to get a handle on wealth inequality and social mobility. But there's no sign of policy shifting that way. If anything, people like Danglars are all the more obstinate about punishing the poor and coddling the rich.
Like I said, wages may have stagnated, but income didn't.
What we should be working with are the underlying problems. Fixing them if they're broken and mitigating their negative affects if they aren't. Blind class warfare of "the game is rigged" and so and so "should" have this or that doesn't get you anywhere.
. It is all about taxing the big achievers to finance social justice, equality of results, and an expanding welfare state--growth be damned. Assume businesses will be just fine.
Taxes were much higher in the 50s, 60s and 70s yet mysteriously growth was not damned. conversely, the massive bush tax cuts coincided with generally poor and uneven growth. So maybe the straight line of tax cuts = growth isnt as straight as one might believe
Reagan does represent the electability of conservatives,
in a country that was much whiter and more socially conservative against opponents who make mitt romney machiavelian in their politics and on a political platform that today would be centrist. In other words, Reagen would not have survived his primaries.
Taxes were about as high as they are today in the 50's 60's and 70's, all things considered. Companies were also much more profitable (depending on your measure) and made products that were much more likely to kill you.
It should be known that the risks of companies doing dangerous things to people actually is much higher now, because companies are larger and can harm so many more people at once. They can even do more damage than their own company is worth, like the BP Oil Spill. This drastically affects the tradeoffs that companies make, often toward more endangerment to society.
So regulation of these things has become far more important, but still has just as many problems with things like regulatory capture.
I don't see what company size has to do with anything. The BP oil spill was one rig. It wouldn't have mattered if the rig was owned by a big or a small company...
And what size are you going off of? The economy and population are bigger today, but in terms of market share companies are smaller today. We broke up the monopolies / oligopolies of the past and that's a good thing. Microsoft is a good example of what most big companies were like back in the day... and it's not a shining example of how things should be.
. It is all about taxing the big achievers to finance social justice, equality of results, and an expanding welfare state--growth be damned. Assume businesses will be just fine.
Taxes were much higher in the 50s, 60s and 70s yet mysteriously growth was not damned. conversely, the massive bush tax cuts coincided with generally poor and uneven growth. So maybe the straight line of tax cuts = growth isnt as straight as one might believe
Reagan does represent the electability of conservatives,
in a country that was much whiter and more socially conservative against opponents who make mitt romney machiavelian in their politics and on a political platform that today would be centrist. In other words, Reagen would not have survived his primaries.
Taxes were about as high as they are today in the 50's 60's and 70's, all things considered. Companies were also much more profitable (depending on your measure) and made products that were much more likely to kill you.
What do you mean by "all things considered"?
Different deductions, credits, brackets, etc. People like to cite the vast difference in marginal rates, but the top 1% paid a pretty similar amount in taxes today as they did back then.
Wait wait wait. Let me get this straight. This Republican is having to defend his votes AGAINST Obamacare? I thought the Republicans in these districts only feared those more right than them...
. It is all about taxing the big achievers to finance social justice, equality of results, and an expanding welfare state--growth be damned. Assume businesses will be just fine.
Taxes were much higher in the 50s, 60s and 70s yet mysteriously growth was not damned. conversely, the massive bush tax cuts coincided with generally poor and uneven growth. So maybe the straight line of tax cuts = growth isnt as straight as one might believe
Reagan does represent the electability of conservatives,
in a country that was much whiter and more socially conservative against opponents who make mitt romney machiavelian in their politics and on a political platform that today would be centrist. In other words, Reagen would not have survived his primaries.
Taxes were about as high as they are today in the 50's 60's and 70's, all things considered. Companies were also much more profitable (depending on your measure) and made products that were much more likely to kill you.
What do you mean by "all things considered"?
Different deductions, credits, brackets, etc. People like to cite the vast difference in marginal rates, but the top 1% paid a pretty similar amount in taxes today as they did back then.
The same source is where I got my data (Tax Policy Center)
Link though this only goes back to '79. A bit more detailed on the other hand.
Edit: Actually, it looks like your source is a report by the 'Wealth for the Common Good' organization why cite the TPC as their source. I'll have to take a look sometime.
. It is all about taxing the big achievers to finance social justice, equality of results, and an expanding welfare state--growth be damned. Assume businesses will be just fine.
Taxes were much higher in the 50s, 60s and 70s yet mysteriously growth was not damned. conversely, the massive bush tax cuts coincided with generally poor and uneven growth. So maybe the straight line of tax cuts = growth isnt as straight as one might believe
Reagan does represent the electability of conservatives,
in a country that was much whiter and more socially conservative against opponents who make mitt romney machiavelian in their politics and on a political platform that today would be centrist. In other words, Reagen would not have survived his primaries.
Taxes were about as high as they are today in the 50's 60's and 70's, all things considered. Companies were also much more profitable (depending on your measure) and made products that were much more likely to kill you.
What do you mean by "all things considered"?
Different deductions, credits, brackets, etc. People like to cite the vast difference in marginal rates, but the top 1% paid a pretty similar amount in taxes today as they did back then.
The same source is where I got my data (Tax Policy Center)
Link though this only goes back to '79. A bit more detailed on the other hand.
Edit: Actually, it looks like your source is a report by the 'Wealth for the Common Good' organization why cite the TPC as their source. I'll have to take a look sometime.
Yea, the data from the TPC isn't complete. It's somewhat of an annoyance of mine.
There is a case to be made for "how" that income is realized in the 2 versions though (low taxes, low avoidance vs high taxes, high avoidance). From the 50s through the 70s, evasion was the best way to realize your higher earnings, and many times that evasion included massive purchasing of assets and materials in their name (sometimes at inflated prices). It was essentially investment (Munis were popular), but it did cause some issues in regards to bubbles (S&L Crisis was part of it apparently). Compare that to now, where the returns for evasion are much less, the effort for realizing higher income can be in other areas, and one of those is apparently rent seeking on wages. Data, like the following graph, corroborate this idea, with CEO incomes skyrocketing even in terms of rich incomes. The issue of course is that the money they are making isn't doing anything for the economy, other than providing consumer credit and as a test subject for new financial instruments.
. It is all about taxing the big achievers to finance social justice, equality of results, and an expanding welfare state--growth be damned. Assume businesses will be just fine.
Taxes were much higher in the 50s, 60s and 70s yet mysteriously growth was not damned. conversely, the massive bush tax cuts coincided with generally poor and uneven growth. So maybe the straight line of tax cuts = growth isnt as straight as one might believe
Reagan does represent the electability of conservatives,
in a country that was much whiter and more socially conservative against opponents who make mitt romney machiavelian in their politics and on a political platform that today would be centrist. In other words, Reagen would not have survived his primaries.
Taxes were about as high as they are today in the 50's 60's and 70's, all things considered. Companies were also much more profitable (depending on your measure) and made products that were much more likely to kill you.
What do you mean by "all things considered"?
Different deductions, credits, brackets, etc. People like to cite the vast difference in marginal rates, but the top 1% paid a pretty similar amount in taxes today as they did back then.
The same source is where I got my data (Tax Policy Center)
Link though this only goes back to '79. A bit more detailed on the other hand.
Edit: Actually, it looks like your source is a report by the 'Wealth for the Common Good' organization why cite the TPC as their source. I'll have to take a look sometime.
Yea, the data from the TPC isn't complete. It's somewhat of an annoyance of mine.
There is a case to be made for "how" that income is realized in the 2 versions though (low taxes, low avoidance vs high taxes, high avoidance). From the 50s through the 70s, evasion was the best way to realize your higher earnings, and many times that evasion included massive purchasing of assets and materials in their name (sometimes at inflated prices). It was essentially investment (Munis were popular), but it did cause some issues in regards to bubbles (S&L Crisis was part of it apparently). Compare that to now, where the returns for evasion are much less, the effort for realizing higher income can be in other areas, and one of those is apparently rent seeking on wages. Data, like the following graph, corroborate this idea, with CEO incomes skyrocketing even in terms of rich incomes. The issue of course is that the money they are making isn't doing anything for the economy, other than providing consumer credit and as a test subject for new financial instruments.
Fair enough. The counter argument would be that CEO's are just more deserving these days (more pay for performance).
CNBC recently had an article on CEO pay (link) and they cited a study that CEO pay in the US wasn't out of line with the rest of the advanced world.
After controlling for firm size, ownership, and board structure, all characteristics that often differ between U.S. and international companies, the gap is reduced, with U.S. executives earning only a 26 percent premium. And when the analysis adjusts for the greater use of stock options and share awards in the U.S., the pay premium is reduced to an economically modest 14 percent. Maybe that would be a nice raise for a European CEO, but it's not likely enough to induce him to cross the Atlantic and emigrate to the U.S.
That's not to say that CEO's everywhere aren't rent seeking on pay though. Insert globalization argument here.
. It is all about taxing the big achievers to finance social justice, equality of results, and an expanding welfare state--growth be damned. Assume businesses will be just fine.
Taxes were much higher in the 50s, 60s and 70s yet mysteriously growth was not damned. conversely, the massive bush tax cuts coincided with generally poor and uneven growth. So maybe the straight line of tax cuts = growth isnt as straight as one might believe
Reagan does represent the electability of conservatives,
in a country that was much whiter and more socially conservative against opponents who make mitt romney machiavelian in their politics and on a political platform that today would be centrist. In other words, Reagen would not have survived his primaries.
Taxes were about as high as they are today in the 50's 60's and 70's, all things considered. Companies were also much more profitable (depending on your measure) and made products that were much more likely to kill you.
What do you mean by "all things considered"?
Different deductions, credits, brackets, etc. People like to cite the vast difference in marginal rates, but the top 1% paid a pretty similar amount in taxes today as they did back then.
The same source is where I got my data (Tax Policy Center)
Link though this only goes back to '79. A bit more detailed on the other hand.
Edit: Actually, it looks like your source is a report by the 'Wealth for the Common Good' organization why cite the TPC as their source. I'll have to take a look sometime.
Yea, the data from the TPC isn't complete. It's somewhat of an annoyance of mine.
There is a case to be made for "how" that income is realized in the 2 versions though (low taxes, low avoidance vs high taxes, high avoidance). From the 50s through the 70s, evasion was the best way to realize your higher earnings, and many times that evasion included massive purchasing of assets and materials in their name (sometimes at inflated prices). It was essentially investment (Munis were popular), but it did cause some issues in regards to bubbles (S&L Crisis was part of it apparently). Compare that to now, where the returns for evasion are much less, the effort for realizing higher income can be in other areas, and one of those is apparently rent seeking on wages. Data, like the following graph, corroborate this idea, with CEO incomes skyrocketing even in terms of rich incomes. The issue of course is that the money they are making isn't doing anything for the economy, other than providing consumer credit and as a test subject for new financial instruments.
Fair enough. The counter argument would be that CEO's are just more deserving these days (more pay for performance).
CNBC recently had an article on CEO pay (link) and they cited a study that CEO pay in the US wasn't out of line with the rest of the advanced world.
After controlling for firm size, ownership, and board structure, all characteristics that often differ between U.S. and international companies, the gap is reduced, with U.S. executives earning only a 26 percent premium. And when the analysis adjusts for the greater use of stock options and share awards in the U.S., the pay premium is reduced to an economically modest 14 percent. Maybe that would be a nice raise for a European CEO, but it's not likely enough to induce him to cross the Atlantic and emigrate to the U.S.
That's not to say that CEO's everywhere aren't rent seeking on pay though. Insert globalization argument here.
Digging through that study referenced by MSNBC shows that the international pay of CEOs only recently climbed to US levels. It's likely that the US is leading the trend, but I'll have to check the effective tax rates on other large economies to compare (Canada first).
I think Johnny hit upon the crux of the issue. I see one side going at it from the side of blind class warfare. The rich earn this much and shouldn't. The rich have earned this much more compared to the poor in the same time period and they shouldn't have. The other approach, which I believe is more sound, is examining any problems that exist that trap wages (such as corporate welfare i.e. government paying their employees alongside their own pay) and problems that raise costs on ordinary Americans (the costs of education, health care, certain parts of taxation and complicated tax policy amongst these).
To respond to some other comments since my last post, I talked about how Democrats in the days of yore, I mean 50 years ago, could talk about taxation as being a drag on growth, yet today that is anathema. If you think this isn't the case, read and respond to the original post here. I don't accept the "Well times have changed" ... coincidentally in ways that make all of that moot.
Reagan could articulate to Americans the policies and views that I share and that most Tea Party members share and get elected. He did this in an environment just as hostile as the political environment today. I question indeed the assertion that his political platform and demographics differed radically to make it unusable. Conservative Republicans haven't held the white house since then but represent a political platform very agreeable and very rational in today's society. That leaves a significant piece of the opposition party stuck in the loop of calling their opponents radicals, irrational idealists, unelectable and doomed. This does help to avoid substantive discussions on the fate of health insurance premiums, out of control entitlements and debt, and immigration policy. In essence, I declare myself the center, the people 50% agreeing are the right, and everybody else that completely disagrees are extremists. I mean these days all you have to do is think to take the same percentage of a rich man's income as you do a poor man's (which may qualify for welfare benefits accorded to the rather destitute) and you're "coddling the rich." Anything that isn't more more more welfare for the poor is known as punishing the poor for their condition. The class warfare demagogues own the language these days so it comes up often
Fair enough. The counter argument would be that CEO's are just more deserving these days (more pay for performance).
Has anyone read Searching for a Corporate Savior:The Irrational Quest for Charismatic CEOs by Rakesh Khurana?
I've read some articles by him and some excerpts from it and it seems a rather interesting read as to why US CEO's are paid so much. But I haven't been able to find it yet short of ordering it online.
One of the big issues he suggests is a refusal to promote inhouse and instead hire a Charismatic CEO with a reputation to 'save the company'- there are only so many of those so it ends up being a closed system of ever more costly CEO's. The same faces just keep circling around the top echelons of corporations.
. It is all about taxing the big achievers to finance social justice, equality of results, and an expanding welfare state--growth be damned. Assume businesses will be just fine.
Taxes were much higher in the 50s, 60s and 70s yet mysteriously growth was not damned. conversely, the massive bush tax cuts coincided with generally poor and uneven growth. So maybe the straight line of tax cuts = growth isnt as straight as one might believe
Reagan does represent the electability of conservatives,
in a country that was much whiter and more socially conservative against opponents who make mitt romney machiavelian in their politics and on a political platform that today would be centrist. In other words, Reagen would not have survived his primaries.
Taxes were about as high as they are today in the 50's 60's and 70's, all things considered. Companies were also much more profitable (depending on your measure) and made products that were much more likely to kill you.
For the record Taxes are at a historical low. They haven't been such a small percentage of our GDP since 1950.
So anyone saying our taxes are what is inhibiting growth is disregarding some pretty simple facts.
I don't see what company size has to do with anything. The BP oil spill was one rig. It wouldn't have mattered if the rig was owned by a big or a small company...
And what size are you going off of? The economy and population are bigger today, but in terms of market share companies are smaller today. We broke up the monopolies / oligopolies of the past and that's a good thing. Microsoft is a good example of what most big companies were like back in the day... and it's not a shining example of how things should be.
You don't see what size has to do with anything? The BP oil spill was an example of externalities being larger than the companies' worth, not the scale problem.
The scale problem is much simpler. One company with, say, poisonous food will poison millions of people all over the world rather than thousands. It's just saying bigger companies make bigger mistakes. That should be pretty intuitive.
Like I said, wages may have stagnated, but income didn't.
What we should be working with are the underlying problems. Fixing them if they're broken and mitigating their negative affects if they aren't. Blind class warfare of "the game is rigged" and so and so "should" have this or that doesn't get you anywhere.
Nothing blind about it. You said technology shifted money from labor to capital. That sounds to me like strengthening unions would really help.
Maybe we could tax capital gains like income. Then we could lower some other taxes. Mitt Romney had a what tax rate? 13%? Meanwhile, republican governors are trying to abolish income taxes on favor of sales taxes because sales taxes are regressive.
And so on and so on. You can just keep doing this. Each of the "fixes" will be attacked as class warfare (or socialist Marxism) in the current political climate. So acting like "class warfare" won't get us anywhere is just incorrect. Any kind of attempt at proper governance is considered un-American and class warfare. Hell, Bloomberg called Warren a socialist for this very reason and they're both democrats.
Edit: Also, because of the corruption in government, both liberals and conservatives feel very cheated by "the elite" so rhetorically it's a very powerful device. The fact that it's true in this case is something to be embraced, not feared.
Edit: Also, because of the corruption in government, both liberals and conservatives feel very cheated by "the elite" so rhetorically it's a very powerful device. The fact that it's true in this case is something to be embraced, not feared.
This a thousand times, have their ever been a presidential candidate that campaigned on ending all lobbying with money or gifts on all level.
In Canada there was a scandal for 3 weeks for 90 000$ of incorrect claimed expenses by one guy in the Senate and a high ranking member of the party gave him 90 000$ to reimburse the governement.
Seriously, 3 billion dollars lobbied last year source. What the hell.
If you want an expert to explain something either pay him via governement consultation that goes and gets an outside expert, or if it means a lot to him he can do it for free; since if I understand corectly that's lobbying too.
On August 09 2013 16:30 Danglars wrote: To respond to some other comments since my last post, I talked about how Democrats in the days of yore, I mean 50 years ago, could talk about taxation as being a drag on growth, yet today that is anathema.
The reason, as you've already been told, is that the levels of taxation today are not the drag on growth that they might have been 50 years ago when they were much higher.
. It is all about taxing the big achievers to finance social justice, equality of results, and an expanding welfare state--growth be damned. Assume businesses will be just fine.
Taxes were much higher in the 50s, 60s and 70s yet mysteriously growth was not damned. conversely, the massive bush tax cuts coincided with generally poor and uneven growth. So maybe the straight line of tax cuts = growth isnt as straight as one might believe
Reagan does represent the electability of conservatives,
in a country that was much whiter and more socially conservative against opponents who make mitt romney machiavelian in their politics and on a political platform that today would be centrist. In other words, Reagen would not have survived his primaries.
Taxes were about as high as they are today in the 50's 60's and 70's, all things considered. Companies were also much more profitable (depending on your measure) and made products that were much more likely to kill you.
For the record Taxes are at a historical low. They haven't been such a small percentage of our GDP since 1950.
So anyone saying our taxes are what is inhibiting growth is disregarding some pretty simple facts.
Part of the reason taxes are the lowest have to do with the bottom dropping out from taxable sources. There are more poor and near-poor families that simply do not and cannot pay taxes. You can either solve that problem or increase rates on the rich.
EPT
