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.
What investment are we getting when those savings are sitting in the Cayman Islands or Switzerland?
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.
I thought the whole point of a debt economy was that this wasn't true.
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
The review of the literature clearly shows that the answer to the question posed in the title of this chapter is 'very effective'. Increasing cigarette and other tobacco taxes will lead to significant reductions in the use of these products, resulting from reductions in the frequency of use by continuing users, as well as reductions in the prevalence of use. Given this evidence, higher tobacco taxes are likely to be the single most effective policy option for reducing the public health toll from tobacco. When combined with other tobacco control activities, which could be funded by earmarked tobacco taxes, even larger reductions in youth and adult tobacco use could be achieved.
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 is not self-evident that cutting taxes on a group permanently will be healthy for the economy (though in the short term, some numbers may go up, yes).
The best way to show this is to do a thought experiment where you cut taxes to 0% and see what happens to the economy. I think you'd agree it won't be "stimulated" in the right way. The Laffer curve is just that-a curve, with a peak in the middle. It's not a line.
Edit: I would argue that the peak is the point at which the government is effectively fulfilling its obligations to the citizens, but there's no easy way to define it.
Edit2: Heck, even temporary tax cuts to 0% are clearly a terrible idea.
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.
Investment is driven by anticipations. If people thinks there is a good opportunity to invest, with controlled risk and % of profit that is higher than the % of interest, then they will invest, wheither it is by investing their savings or through debt.
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.
What investment are we getting when those savings are sitting in the Cayman Islands or Switzerland?
the money doesn't just sit there. if it did they would just bury it.
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.
What investment are we getting when those savings are sitting in the Cayman Islands or Switzerland?
the money doesn't just sit there. if it did they would just bury it.
Not all of it sits there, no, but when, at any given time, 26% of the world's wealth is in offshore accounts, it's obvious that it's not nearly being put to efficient use.
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.
What investment are we getting when those savings are sitting in the Cayman Islands or Switzerland?
the money doesn't just sit there. if it did they would just bury it.
When people say Romney has 20 million in Swiss bank accounts they mean that 20 million dollars is sitting their doing nothing. Just like how Apples mountain of cash is just sitting their, doing nothing. Banks these days are also sitting on massive reserves. There is lots of money going nowhere at this point in time.
the money is in anticipation of a tax holiday, hedge against euro apocalypse, ammo for the next wave of speculative bidding etc.
for paying wages corporations rely on commercial papers. investment capital in most things in the u.s. is prohibitive because of how saturated everything is by entrenched big interests. i do think the corporate tax rate and a lot of regulation should be cut. medical cost should be severely cut by a public option. however, there is no reason to have the kind of inequality and separation of productivity and pay we see today.
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.
What investment are we getting when those savings are sitting in the Cayman Islands or Switzerland?
the money doesn't just sit there. if it did they would just bury it.
Not all of it sits there, no, but when, at any given time, 26% of the world's wealth is in offshore accounts, it's obvious that it's not nearly being put to efficient use.
well then the burden of proof would be upon you to show how you or anyone else could spend it more efficiently (and that their money is not being spent efficiently).
and then you would have to justify taking other people's money for the "greater good" of spending it more efficiently, while refraining from giving the government justification to spend everyone's money more efficiently. why should the rule of efficiency apply to the rich and not everyone else?
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.
What investment are we getting when those savings are sitting in the Cayman Islands or Switzerland?
the money doesn't just sit there. if it did they would just bury it.
Not all of it sits there, no, but when, at any given time, 26% of the world's wealth is in offshore accounts, it's obvious that it's not nearly being put to efficient use.
well then the burden of proof would be upon you to show how you or anyone else could spend it more efficiently (and that their money is not being spent efficiently).
and then you would have to justify taking other people's money for the "greater good" of spending it more efficiently, while refraining from giving the government justification to spend everyone's money more efficiently. why should the rule of efficiency apply to the rich and not everyone else?
That doesn't need to be justified; it's called "taxes", which we already have.
The only question is about percentages. There's nothing particularly magical or special about the current tax brackets. They're just what taxes are currently. The current taxes are not "no taxes" such that increasing taxes on the rich means that taxes stop applying to everyone else.
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.
What investment are we getting when those savings are sitting in the Cayman Islands or Switzerland?
the money doesn't just sit there. if it did they would just bury it.
Not all of it sits there, no, but when, at any given time, 26% of the world's wealth is in offshore accounts, it's obvious that it's not nearly being put to efficient use.
well then the burden of proof would be upon you to show how you or anyone else could spend it more efficiently (and that their money is not being spent efficiently).
and then you would have to justify taking other people's money for the "greater good" of spending it more efficiently, while refraining from giving the government justification to spend everyone's money more efficiently. why should the rule of efficiency apply to the rich and not everyone else?
The "burden of proof" as you say has been demonstrated multiple times throughout this thread. I am not going to rehash old arguments now. The original argument was why higher tax rates on the rich would not be a burden on the economy compared to the burdening effects on consumers through tax hikes on cigarettes and fast food. I merely explained, in general, why that is. If you want specifics, you can just scroll back through paralleluniverse's posts on why trickle-down economics is a hoax.
And who says I don't hold the government to certain efficiency standards? That is obvious. Government should be as efficient as it can be. Anything less and they're not doing their job correctly.
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.
What investment are we getting when those savings are sitting in the Cayman Islands or Switzerland?
the money doesn't just sit there. if it did they would just bury it.
Not all of it sits there, no, but when, at any given time, 26% of the world's wealth is in offshore accounts, it's obvious that it's not nearly being put to efficient use.
well then the burden of proof would be upon you to show how you or anyone else could spend it more efficiently (and that their money is not being spent efficiently).
and then you would have to justify taking other people's money for the "greater good" of spending it more efficiently, while refraining from giving the government justification to spend everyone's money more efficiently. why should the rule of efficiency apply to the rich and not everyone else?
That doesn't need to be justified; it's called "taxes", which we already have.
The only question is about percentages. There's nothing particularly magical or special about the current tax brackets. They're just what taxes are currently. The current taxes are not "no taxes" such that increasing taxes on the rich means that taxes stop applying to everyone else.
when you have made redistribution the justification for your taxation, you:
1) deny any claim to be doing so for any good (other than punishing the rich, rewarding the poor) 2) lose any ability to determine percentages. (what is good for 1% is good for 100%)
taxation is an inherent drain on the economy. it just happens to be a necessary one. only by recognizing this can we discuss percentages with any kind of intellectual honesty.
not to mention that there is a very real reason why people put their money in offshore accounts and not here, and contrary to popular belief, it isn't because they are greedy and unpatriotic.
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.
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).
Second 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.
I 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.
Edit2: "Putting money in people's pockets" is another way they were successful. I don't think either of those are compelling reasons to make (or preserve) fiscal policy, however, just like I don't think the fact that Social Security puts more money into people's pockets than if we reformed it means we shouldn't reform social security.
Lowering taxes was largely the point of the Bush tax cuts. Its how the country wanted to spend the surplus. In '03 the tax cuts were accelerated (put in place quicker) to act as a stimulus.
Its hard to say if the Bush tax cuts did any good since we don't know what economic growth would have been without them. Comparing the '00's to previous decades is a bit unfair given different economic circumstances (war, rising commodity prices). Though I won't argue that they didn't work as well as intended.
For the most part Dems like the Bush tax cuts just as much as the Reps. The Dems just don't like the tax cuts for the rich portions. But I think they're only partially right about that - the low tax rates on cap gains haven't hurt the government's budget (source) and so I see no reason to raise those rates.
On November 13 2012 07:43 oneofthem wrote: because they don't want to pay taxes, i.e. to support the very society that enables their business operations.
then how is the answer to raise taxes, effectively making it even more unattractive to keep their money here?
inb4 someone says we should force them to keep their money here. (Soviet Union ftw!)
On November 13 2012 07:43 oneofthem wrote: because they don't want to pay taxes, i.e. to support the very society that enables their business operations.
then how is the answer to raise taxes, effectively making it even more unattractive to keep their money here?
um, you do something about their ability to keep taxes in those havens. are you telling me fucking cayman islands is more powerful than the united states and europe combined?
On November 13 2012 07:43 oneofthem wrote: because they don't want to pay taxes, i.e. to support the very society that enables their business operations.
then how is the answer to raise taxes, effectively making it even more unattractive to keep their money here?
You do whatever is needed to increase economic growth, if the country has a strong economy the rich will want to invest in it regardless of the rates (okay maybe something like 80% is a bit too high). It is what will result in growth that people are really debating.
![[image loading]](http://acrossthestreetnet.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/velocity.png?w=604&h=362)
EPT
