|
|
On November 13 2012 06:51 NeMeSiS3 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2012 06:49 kmillz wrote:On November 13 2012 06:36 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On November 13 2012 06:32 Souma wrote:On November 13 2012 06:29 DeepElemBlues wrote:On November 13 2012 06:17 Souma wrote:On November 13 2012 06:15 DeepElemBlues wrote:On November 13 2012 06:11 Souma wrote:
^ That is incorrect. While we received higher tax revenue in absolute terms, as a % of GDP tax revenues were about average. Clinton saw record tax revenue during his tenure, you know, when we had 40% tax rates and the economy boomed. It is actually entirely correct, and you are as usual entirely incorrect. % of GDP > absolute numbers is a bad joke. Mr. Romney will win in a landslide calling me incorrect. % of GDP is the only thing that matters. Of course we'll get more absolute GDP over time. It's called having a higher population, having more jobs, etc. People like you, with your kind of thinking, being in charge of this country, is why we have had 8% (or more) unemployment for 3 years. And why the debt rose as much in 4 years as it rose in the previous 8. % of GDP is absolutely meaningless next to absolute terms. Bills do not come in percentages of GDP, and they are not paid in percentages of GDP. Playing in the la-la land of percentages of GDP is part of how we added ~11 trillion to the debt in 12 years. Take your percentage of GDP from the Clinton years and put it in the Bush years and congratulate yourself on the lower GDP and lower revenues you would have gotten. You prefer a prettier percentage on a screen or a piece of paper and worse actual results, that's fine. lol, people like us is why we're even recovering from the shit people like you put us in. % of GDP is the ONLY thing that matters. Why do you think we talk about unemployment by %? Why do you think we talk about government spending as a % of GDP? Debt as a % of GDP is the critical observance. Absolute terms, who the hell cares. If you have $2 trillion worth of revenue now, what does it matter 10 years down the road when spending remains at a steady 20% of GDP and GDP is 20% higher than what it is right now? On the other hand, I would love 20% in tax revenue, no matter what the year is. The fact you're both referring to eachother as "people like you or people like us" is absurdly hilarious and sad at the same time. Lol I like this better than saying Republicans or Democrats  reminds me of late 50's dialogue. "People like you ain't welcome in parts with people like us, ye see?"
Aww...it just went from being funny to sad again.
|
On November 13 2012 06:51 NeMeSiS3 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2012 06:49 kmillz wrote:On November 13 2012 06:36 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On November 13 2012 06:32 Souma wrote:On November 13 2012 06:29 DeepElemBlues wrote:On November 13 2012 06:17 Souma wrote:On November 13 2012 06:15 DeepElemBlues wrote:On November 13 2012 06:11 Souma wrote:
^ That is incorrect. While we received higher tax revenue in absolute terms, as a % of GDP tax revenues were about average. Clinton saw record tax revenue during his tenure, you know, when we had 40% tax rates and the economy boomed. It is actually entirely correct, and you are as usual entirely incorrect. % of GDP > absolute numbers is a bad joke. Mr. Romney will win in a landslide calling me incorrect. % of GDP is the only thing that matters. Of course we'll get more absolute GDP over time. It's called having a higher population, having more jobs, etc. People like you, with your kind of thinking, being in charge of this country, is why we have had 8% (or more) unemployment for 3 years. And why the debt rose as much in 4 years as it rose in the previous 8. % of GDP is absolutely meaningless next to absolute terms. Bills do not come in percentages of GDP, and they are not paid in percentages of GDP. Playing in the la-la land of percentages of GDP is part of how we added ~11 trillion to the debt in 12 years. Take your percentage of GDP from the Clinton years and put it in the Bush years and congratulate yourself on the lower GDP and lower revenues you would have gotten. You prefer a prettier percentage on a screen or a piece of paper and worse actual results, that's fine. lol, people like us is why we're even recovering from the shit people like you put us in. % of GDP is the ONLY thing that matters. Why do you think we talk about unemployment by %? Why do you think we talk about government spending as a % of GDP? Debt as a % of GDP is the critical observance. Absolute terms, who the hell cares. If you have $2 trillion worth of revenue now, what does it matter 10 years down the road when spending remains at a steady 20% of GDP and GDP is 20% higher than what it is right now? On the other hand, I would love 20% in tax revenue, no matter what the year is. The fact you're both referring to eachother as "people like you or people like us" is absurdly hilarious and sad at the same time. Lol I like this better than saying Republicans or Democrats reminds me of late 50's dialogue. "People like you ain't welcome in parts with people like us, ye see?"
first as tragedy, then as farce
|
On November 13 2012 06:38 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2012 06:17 DeepElemBlues wrote:On November 13 2012 06:12 TheTenthDoc wrote:On November 13 2012 06:08 DeepElemBlues wrote:On November 13 2012 06:02 TheTenthDoc wrote:On November 13 2012 05:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 13 2012 05:18 TheTenthDoc wrote:On November 13 2012 05:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 13 2012 03:31 NicolBolas wrote:On November 13 2012 02:53 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
I'd recommend listening to more than one source. It's doubly good advice if you ever plan on accusing the other side of living in a cocoon (pot kettle black).
I don't doubt that Krugman's a smart guy who knows his stuff, but he also lets his politics go before his economics. For example he changed his stance on China's currency after Romney started pushing for calling China a 'currency manipulator'. More recently he's advocating going over the fiscal cliff rather than strike a deal (he wants winner take all). He didn't say that. He said that Obama should be willing to go the fiscal cliff route if the Republicans aren't willing to make meaningful compromises. That is, he's saying that we shouldn't let them hold the country hostage and give in to everything they want. He's using strange and contradictory logic. Reps are bad for their brinkmanship and so Obama and the Dems should counter with brinkmanship of their own. Reps are bad for not compromising but Dems should go "not far at all" in meeting Rep demands. Reps are holding the economy hostage by not striking a deal yet the "fiscal cliff isn’t really a cliff" and that going over it isn't an immediate worry. To me it often sounds like he's advocating scorched-earth politics - kill the other guy even if it hurts the common good: More important, however, is the point that a stalemate would hurt Republican backers, corporate donors in particular, every bit as much as it hurt the rest of the country. Really? It is more important to hurt Republican backers than help the rest of the country? Well, if the Republican backers continue to push for things like the Bush tax cuts (which were disastrous for the country's long term health), then yes. It may make more sense to hurt Republican backers even if it dampens the overall economic outlook for a few years, especially since the Republican backers will lobby like hell for that not to happen anyway. I'm not sure I agree with his assessment regarding the fiscal cliff, but it's not contradictory with his overall views that Republicans holding the primary power over national economic policy is going to be awful for the economy. By what measures are you judging the Bush tax cuts to be 'disastrous'? Also, are you referring to all the Bush tax cuts or just the portions Dems don't like? As in, they caused tepid-at-best economic growth and crushingly expanded the deficit (they were pitched as government revenue-neutral). The composite cuts should really be repealed, and it's a measure of how obnoxious the "middle-class" rhetoric is that they became the "baseline" in Washington for anybody at all. I mean, by what metric were they "successful?" I don't think you know what tepid means... also, I don't think you know what "long-term" means. Look at GDP growth from 2000-2003 and then from 2003-2008, I think that might be a metric you want to look at. Also, the unemployment rate. That might be another metric. It is a mystery of mental gymnastics as to how record tax revenues crushingly expanded the deficit. It might be understandable if tax cuts lowered tax revenue, but when revenue came in at larger levels after the cuts than before, there might just be another explanation for higher deficits, one that you seem to have almost unbelievably failed to mention... Well, for one thing, tax revenues didn't regain their 2000 peak until 2006. As of 2008, total federal tax revenue/GDP wasn't at its 2000 peak. And the "long term" is more in the generational accounting level of government than anything. http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/downchart_gr.php?year=2000_2008&view=1&expand&units=b&fy=fy11&chart=F0-fed&bar=0&stack=1&size=m&title&state=US&color=c&local=s Well, first of all, "Total direct revenue" is not the same as federal tax revenues. Here's a chart of that, which does indeed only surpass 2000 in 2006 (it almost is equal in 2005). http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/revenue_chart_1990_2010USb_13s1li011mcn_10f_Federal_Revenue_By_TypeSecond of all, there's no indication that the Bush tax cuts resulted in a markedly better economy than would have occurred without them. If you look at the % change in GDP from 1970-2010, the changes during Bush's first term and the first half of his second term are nothing exceptional. http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp-growthI ask again: by what metric were the tax cuts successful? It's not relative GDP growth. It's not jobs growth. They didn't shrink government.Edit: I mean, I suppose by the metric of "lowering taxes" they were successful.
The only other way to justify tax cut would be that it increase private investment, so that is the metric you are searching for (crowding out effect and whatnot).
|
I entered this thread a conservative leaning towards libertarian. Christian as well.
I took the Pew quiz and got Post-modern. Success for the liberals here?
I become more and more fond of farv and sami each day.
|
On November 13 2012 06:53 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2012 06:38 TheTenthDoc wrote:On November 13 2012 06:17 DeepElemBlues wrote:On November 13 2012 06:12 TheTenthDoc wrote:On November 13 2012 06:08 DeepElemBlues wrote:On November 13 2012 06:02 TheTenthDoc wrote:On November 13 2012 05:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 13 2012 05:18 TheTenthDoc wrote:On November 13 2012 05:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 13 2012 03:31 NicolBolas wrote:
[quote]
He didn't say that. He said that Obama should be willing to go the fiscal cliff route if the Republicans aren't willing to make meaningful compromises. That is, he's saying that we shouldn't let them hold the country hostage and give in to everything they want. He's using strange and contradictory logic. Reps are bad for their brinkmanship and so Obama and the Dems should counter with brinkmanship of their own. Reps are bad for not compromising but Dems should go "not far at all" in meeting Rep demands. Reps are holding the economy hostage by not striking a deal yet the "fiscal cliff isn’t really a cliff" and that going over it isn't an immediate worry. To me it often sounds like he's advocating scorched-earth politics - kill the other guy even if it hurts the common good: More important, however, is the point that a stalemate would hurt Republican backers, corporate donors in particular, every bit as much as it hurt the rest of the country. Really? It is more important to hurt Republican backers than help the rest of the country? Well, if the Republican backers continue to push for things like the Bush tax cuts (which were disastrous for the country's long term health), then yes. It may make more sense to hurt Republican backers even if it dampens the overall economic outlook for a few years, especially since the Republican backers will lobby like hell for that not to happen anyway. I'm not sure I agree with his assessment regarding the fiscal cliff, but it's not contradictory with his overall views that Republicans holding the primary power over national economic policy is going to be awful for the economy. By what measures are you judging the Bush tax cuts to be 'disastrous'? Also, are you referring to all the Bush tax cuts or just the portions Dems don't like? As in, they caused tepid-at-best economic growth and crushingly expanded the deficit (they were pitched as government revenue-neutral). The composite cuts should really be repealed, and it's a measure of how obnoxious the "middle-class" rhetoric is that they became the "baseline" in Washington for anybody at all. I mean, by what metric were they "successful?" I don't think you know what tepid means... also, I don't think you know what "long-term" means. Look at GDP growth from 2000-2003 and then from 2003-2008, I think that might be a metric you want to look at. Also, the unemployment rate. That might be another metric. It is a mystery of mental gymnastics as to how record tax revenues crushingly expanded the deficit. It might be understandable if tax cuts lowered tax revenue, but when revenue came in at larger levels after the cuts than before, there might just be another explanation for higher deficits, one that you seem to have almost unbelievably failed to mention... Well, for one thing, tax revenues didn't regain their 2000 peak until 2006. As of 2008, total federal tax revenue/GDP wasn't at its 2000 peak. And the "long term" is more in the generational accounting level of government than anything. http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/downchart_gr.php?year=2000_2008&view=1&expand&units=b&fy=fy11&chart=F0-fed&bar=0&stack=1&size=m&title&state=US&color=c&local=s Well, first of all, "Total direct revenue" is not the same as federal tax revenues. Here's a chart of that, which does indeed only surpass 2000 in 2006 (it almost is equal in 2005). http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/revenue_chart_1990_2010USb_13s1li011mcn_10f_Federal_Revenue_By_TypeSecond of all, there's no indication that the Bush tax cuts resulted in a markedly better economy than would have occurred without them. If you look at the % change in GDP from 1970-2010, the changes during Bush's first term and the first half of his second term are nothing exceptional. http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp-growthI ask again: by what metric were the tax cuts successful? It's not relative GDP growth. It's not jobs growth. They didn't shrink government.Edit: I mean, I suppose by the metric of "lowering taxes" they were successful. The only other way to justify tax cut would be that it increase private investment, so that is the metric you are searching for.
On the other side of the coin, the only way to justify raising taxes would be that it increases tax revenue...which isn't always the case (capital gains tax) and then if there is no tangible benefit to it, why do it just for the purposes of fairness? Why take more money if the people get less back? I mean is this just some myth (that raising the capital gains tax has historically lowered the tax revenue generated) or does this hold any real merit?
|
On November 13 2012 06:55 mordek wrote:
I entered this thread a conservative leaning towards libertarian. Christian as well.
I took the Pew quiz and got Post-modern. Success for the liberals here?
I become more and more fond of farv and sami each day.
Zeez words, zees ideas, zey vill control you all one day 
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
anyway in case people are still talking about taxes, rather than whatever it is... nvm
this is a recent paper talking about the case for a higher tax rate
http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~saez/diamond-saezJEP11opttax.pdf
have not read it whole but it's pretty much the standard reference for people for tax increase. personally i would not follow them and say there is no effect on growth from tax cuts. it really depends on the actual business side of things. how innovation is going, how competitiveness is going, not merely tax/labor cost competition but what positive things people are doing and how to foster those positive things.
|
On November 13 2012 06:48 oneofthem wrote:
the big problem with top rate cut is twofold. first, it does nothing for the economy. if you are cutting taxes, cut middle class and marginal corporate tax. create another bracket at say 600k-1m and tax that heavier. you are likely discouraging unproductive career choices and getting more engineers and doctors. both of which are in short supply.
then, because revenue has been cut, you either have to shift that burden onto the rest of the economy, which is very bad. or even worse, cut necessary services and perpetuate the partial decay of the undesirable portion of society. even if you do not care for these people, it will lead to more expensive problems down the road.
You are wrong, top rate cuts stimulate investment because of the simple concept of net present value of future cash flows. In the current paradigm, raising the marginal tax rates on individuals has a high probability to entice job creators to move outside of the US, thereby exiting the tax system altogether. Cuts in marginal tax rates stimulate the reverse; there have been plenty of studies done to show that there is a "sweet spot" for tax rates that maximize revenue by balancing these two behaviors. Note that political class warfare agendas are not a possible "mover" for either curve; yet this is what has been driving the tax agenda.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
I really do not care about raising tax rates. Close the damn deductions for the top bracket. Effective tax rate is the only thing that matters.
|
On November 13 2012 07:00 oneofthem wrote:anyway in case people are still talking about taxes, rather than whatever it is... nvm this is a recent paper talking about the case for a higher tax rate http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~saez/diamond-saezJEP11opttax.pdfhave not read it whole but it's pretty much the standard reference for people for tax increase.
Peter Diamond is great, I'll have to give that a read through. I still consider it an absolute crime that he was not allowed to be appointed to the federal reserve, just another reason to hate Richard Shelby.....
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On November 13 2012 07:01 Maxyim wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2012 06:48 oneofthem wrote:
the big problem with top rate cut is twofold. first, it does nothing for the economy. if you are cutting taxes, cut middle class and marginal corporate tax. create another bracket at say 600k-1m and tax that heavier. you are likely discouraging unproductive career choices and getting more engineers and doctors. both of which are in short supply.
then, because revenue has been cut, you either have to shift that burden onto the rest of the economy, which is very bad. or even worse, cut necessary services and perpetuate the partial decay of the undesirable portion of society. even if you do not care for these people, it will lead to more expensive problems down the road. You are wrong, top rate cuts stimulate investment because of the simple concept of net present value of future cash flows. In the current paradigm, raising the marginal tax rates on individuals has a high probability to entice job creators to move outside of the US, thereby exiting the tax system altogether. Cuts in marginal tax rates stimulate the reverse; there have been plenty of studies done to show that there is a "sweet spot" for tax rates that maximize revenue by balancing these two behaviors. Note that political class warfare agendas are not a possible "mover" for either curve; yet this is what has been driving the tax agenda.
yes, tax evasion is something the analysis fails to take into account. taking that into account, it would not suggest lowering taxes as a policy matter. that is only the conclusion if you don't want to do anything against tax evasion.
some simple measures to stop tax evasion would be, like, not allowing them access to u.s. markets if they evade taxes. apply this to europe as well.
|
On November 13 2012 07:06 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2012 07:01 Maxyim wrote:On November 13 2012 06:48 oneofthem wrote:
the big problem with top rate cut is twofold. first, it does nothing for the economy. if you are cutting taxes, cut middle class and marginal corporate tax. create another bracket at say 600k-1m and tax that heavier. you are likely discouraging unproductive career choices and getting more engineers and doctors. both of which are in short supply.
then, because revenue has been cut, you either have to shift that burden onto the rest of the economy, which is very bad. or even worse, cut necessary services and perpetuate the partial decay of the undesirable portion of society. even if you do not care for these people, it will lead to more expensive problems down the road. You are wrong, top rate cuts stimulate investment because of the simple concept of net present value of future cash flows. In the current paradigm, raising the marginal tax rates on individuals has a high probability to entice job creators to move outside of the US, thereby exiting the tax system altogether. Cuts in marginal tax rates stimulate the reverse; there have been plenty of studies done to show that there is a "sweet spot" for tax rates that maximize revenue by balancing these two behaviors. Note that political class warfare agendas are not a possible "mover" for either curve; yet this is what has been driving the tax agenda. yes, tax evasion is something the analysis fails to take into account. taking that into account, it would not suggest lowering taxes as a policy matter. that is only the conclusion if you don't want to do anything against tax evasion.
I think that you have the wrong definition of tax evasion, my friend.
On November 13 2012 07:06 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2012 07:01 Maxyim wrote:On November 13 2012 06:48 oneofthem wrote:
the big problem with top rate cut is twofold. first, it does nothing for the economy. if you are cutting taxes, cut middle class and marginal corporate tax. create another bracket at say 600k-1m and tax that heavier. you are likely discouraging unproductive career choices and getting more engineers and doctors. both of which are in short supply.
then, because revenue has been cut, you either have to shift that burden onto the rest of the economy, which is very bad. or even worse, cut necessary services and perpetuate the partial decay of the undesirable portion of society. even if you do not care for these people, it will lead to more expensive problems down the road. You are wrong, top rate cuts stimulate investment because of the simple concept of net present value of future cash flows. In the current paradigm, raising the marginal tax rates on individuals has a high probability to entice job creators to move outside of the US, thereby exiting the tax system altogether. Cuts in marginal tax rates stimulate the reverse; there have been plenty of studies done to show that there is a "sweet spot" for tax rates that maximize revenue by balancing these two behaviors. Note that political class warfare agendas are not a possible "mover" for either curve; yet this is what has been driving the tax agenda. some simple measures to stop tax evasion would be, like, not allowing them access to u.s. markets if they evade taxes. apply this to europe as well.
The penalty for tax evasion is fines and imprisonment.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On November 13 2012 07:07 Maxyim wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2012 07:06 oneofthem wrote:On November 13 2012 07:01 Maxyim wrote:On November 13 2012 06:48 oneofthem wrote:
the big problem with top rate cut is twofold. first, it does nothing for the economy. if you are cutting taxes, cut middle class and marginal corporate tax. create another bracket at say 600k-1m and tax that heavier. you are likely discouraging unproductive career choices and getting more engineers and doctors. both of which are in short supply.
then, because revenue has been cut, you either have to shift that burden onto the rest of the economy, which is very bad. or even worse, cut necessary services and perpetuate the partial decay of the undesirable portion of society. even if you do not care for these people, it will lead to more expensive problems down the road. You are wrong, top rate cuts stimulate investment because of the simple concept of net present value of future cash flows. In the current paradigm, raising the marginal tax rates on individuals has a high probability to entice job creators to move outside of the US, thereby exiting the tax system altogether. Cuts in marginal tax rates stimulate the reverse; there have been plenty of studies done to show that there is a "sweet spot" for tax rates that maximize revenue by balancing these two behaviors. Note that political class warfare agendas are not a possible "mover" for either curve; yet this is what has been driving the tax agenda. yes, tax evasion is something the analysis fails to take into account. taking that into account, it would not suggest lowering taxes as a policy matter. that is only the conclusion if you don't want to do anything against tax evasion. I think that you have the wrong definition of tax evasion, my friend.
it is functional tax evasion and not a part of economically productive behavior. a simple expansion of sovereign power against private capital is sufficient.
|
On November 13 2012 06:55 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2012 06:53 WhiteDog wrote:On November 13 2012 06:38 TheTenthDoc wrote:On November 13 2012 06:17 DeepElemBlues wrote:On November 13 2012 06:12 TheTenthDoc wrote:On November 13 2012 06:08 DeepElemBlues wrote:On November 13 2012 06:02 TheTenthDoc wrote:On November 13 2012 05:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 13 2012 05:18 TheTenthDoc wrote:On November 13 2012 05:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
He's using strange and contradictory logic.
Reps are bad for their brinkmanship and so Obama and the Dems should counter with brinkmanship of their own.
Reps are bad for not compromising but Dems should go "not far at all" in meeting Rep demands.
Reps are holding the economy hostage by not striking a deal yet the "fiscal cliff isn’t really a cliff" and that going over it isn't an immediate worry.
To me it often sounds like he's advocating scorched-earth politics - kill the other guy even if it hurts the common good:
[quote]
Really? It is more important to hurt Republican backers than help the rest of the country? Well, if the Republican backers continue to push for things like the Bush tax cuts (which were disastrous for the country's long term health), then yes. It may make more sense to hurt Republican backers even if it dampens the overall economic outlook for a few years, especially since the Republican backers will lobby like hell for that not to happen anyway. I'm not sure I agree with his assessment regarding the fiscal cliff, but it's not contradictory with his overall views that Republicans holding the primary power over national economic policy is going to be awful for the economy. By what measures are you judging the Bush tax cuts to be 'disastrous'? Also, are you referring to all the Bush tax cuts or just the portions Dems don't like? As in, they caused tepid-at-best economic growth and crushingly expanded the deficit (they were pitched as government revenue-neutral). The composite cuts should really be repealed, and it's a measure of how obnoxious the "middle-class" rhetoric is that they became the "baseline" in Washington for anybody at all. I mean, by what metric were they "successful?" I don't think you know what tepid means... also, I don't think you know what "long-term" means. Look at GDP growth from 2000-2003 and then from 2003-2008, I think that might be a metric you want to look at. Also, the unemployment rate. That might be another metric. It is a mystery of mental gymnastics as to how record tax revenues crushingly expanded the deficit. It might be understandable if tax cuts lowered tax revenue, but when revenue came in at larger levels after the cuts than before, there might just be another explanation for higher deficits, one that you seem to have almost unbelievably failed to mention... Well, for one thing, tax revenues didn't regain their 2000 peak until 2006. As of 2008, total federal tax revenue/GDP wasn't at its 2000 peak. And the "long term" is more in the generational accounting level of government than anything. http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/downchart_gr.php?year=2000_2008&view=1&expand&units=b&fy=fy11&chart=F0-fed&bar=0&stack=1&size=m&title&state=US&color=c&local=s Well, first of all, "Total direct revenue" is not the same as federal tax revenues. Here's a chart of that, which does indeed only surpass 2000 in 2006 (it almost is equal in 2005). http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/revenue_chart_1990_2010USb_13s1li011mcn_10f_Federal_Revenue_By_TypeSecond of all, there's no indication that the Bush tax cuts resulted in a markedly better economy than would have occurred without them. If you look at the % change in GDP from 1970-2010, the changes during Bush's first term and the first half of his second term are nothing exceptional. http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp-growthI ask again: by what metric were the tax cuts successful? It's not relative GDP growth. It's not jobs growth. They didn't shrink government.Edit: I mean, I suppose by the metric of "lowering taxes" they were successful. The only other way to justify tax cut would be that it increase private investment, so that is the metric you are searching for. Show nested quote +On the other side of the coin, the only way to justify raising taxes would be that it increases tax revenue...which isn't always the case (capital gains tax) and then if there is no tangible benefit to it, why do it just for the purposes of fairness? Why take more money if the people get less back? I mean is this just some myth (that raising the capital gains tax has historically lowered the tax revenue generated) or does this hold any real merit? No it's not. You are wrong, top rate cuts stimulate investment because of the simple concept of net present value of future cash flows. In the current paradigm, raising the marginal tax rates on individuals has a high probability to entice job creators to move outside of the US, thereby exiting the tax system altogether. Cuts in marginal tax rates stimulate the reverse; there have been plenty of studies done to show that there is a "sweet spot" for tax rates that maximize revenue by balancing these two behaviors. Note that political class warfare agendas are not a possible "mover" for either curve; yet this is what has been driving the tax agenda.
You are talking about Laffer curse and you are wrong there are no "sweat spot" or let's say there is a sweat spot but it change every day, every night, from countries to countries, for multiple reasons.
There are two justification behind tax cut : Offer or demand.
On the offer side, tax cut are suppose to create job by helping investment, but it based on the idea that tax cut actually prevent investment (as I said, the crowding out effect) something that seems to be wrong (there is a crowding out effect for sure, but it's so small).
On the other side, tax cut higher revenues of people who buy more, and so tax cut help aggregated demand. This is a keynesian idea (yes really, but he think that the fiscal multiplier is less interesting that other multiplier) and economist usually think that Reagan's tax cut (or the Reaganomics overall) worked because of this kind of keynesian effect and not because of the impact it had on offer.
|
so if liberals agree that taxing the shit out of cigarettes and fast-food will discourage those behaviors, why don't they apply that logic to the economy as a whole?
it is self-evident that cutting taxes, on any group, will stimulate the economy.
|
On November 13 2012 07:09 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2012 07:07 Maxyim wrote:On November 13 2012 07:06 oneofthem wrote:On November 13 2012 07:01 Maxyim wrote:On November 13 2012 06:48 oneofthem wrote:
the big problem with top rate cut is twofold. first, it does nothing for the economy. if you are cutting taxes, cut middle class and marginal corporate tax. create another bracket at say 600k-1m and tax that heavier. you are likely discouraging unproductive career choices and getting more engineers and doctors. both of which are in short supply.
then, because revenue has been cut, you either have to shift that burden onto the rest of the economy, which is very bad. or even worse, cut necessary services and perpetuate the partial decay of the undesirable portion of society. even if you do not care for these people, it will lead to more expensive problems down the road. You are wrong, top rate cuts stimulate investment because of the simple concept of net present value of future cash flows. In the current paradigm, raising the marginal tax rates on individuals has a high probability to entice job creators to move outside of the US, thereby exiting the tax system altogether. Cuts in marginal tax rates stimulate the reverse; there have been plenty of studies done to show that there is a "sweet spot" for tax rates that maximize revenue by balancing these two behaviors. Note that political class warfare agendas are not a possible "mover" for either curve; yet this is what has been driving the tax agenda. yes, tax evasion is something the analysis fails to take into account. taking that into account, it would not suggest lowering taxes as a policy matter. that is only the conclusion if you don't want to do anything against tax evasion. I think that you have the wrong definition of tax evasion, my friend. expansion of sovereign power against private capital
yes, sing me your sweet songs oh oneofthem
|
On November 13 2012 07:11 sc2superfan101 wrote:
so if liberals agree that taxing the shit out of cigarettes and fast-food will discourage those behaviors
but they don't, really... Here you go thinking that people are rational economic actors
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On November 13 2012 07:11 sc2superfan101 wrote:
so if liberals agree that taxing the shit out of cigarettes and fast-food will discourage those behaviors, why don't they apply that logic to the economy as a whole?
it is self-evident that cutting taxes, on any group, will stimulate the economy.
It's all relative. How would cutting taxes for someone who's sitting on mountains of money going to further stimulate the economy when they already have more money than they can handle?
On the flip side, raising taxes on cigarettes and fast food will mainly hit the middle class and lower income families who cannot always spare the extra money.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
think of it this way. if back in the colonial age you were allowed access to say the chinese opium market, without paying taxes, does that count as something a sovereign country can do something about? sureeee. apply that to the u.s. and european consumer market. you want access? pay up. the positive externalities provided by the government in those areas in protecting and fostering those societies isn't free.
|
On November 13 2012 07:12 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2012 07:11 sc2superfan101 wrote:
so if liberals agree that taxing the shit out of cigarettes and fast-food will discourage those behaviors, why don't they apply that logic to the economy as a whole?
it is self-evident that cutting taxes, on any group, will stimulate the economy. It's all relative. How would cutting taxes for someone who's sitting on mountains of money going to further stimulate the economy when they already have more money than they can handle? On the flip side, raising taxes on cigarettes and fast food will mainly hit the middle class and lower income families who cannot always spare the extra money.
investment is driven by savings.
the myth of a Scrooge McDuck type swimming around in his gold is... well... a myth.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
