You Can't Soak the Rich

12346»

Comments

  • flounderflounder Posts: 2,674member
    I'd say 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and thus by their close association 9 (I believe around 1/3 or maybe more of the cases of kidney failure are attributable to diabetes).



    Obviously something has to get us all, and obviously not all deaths from these diseases are lifestyle related, but still.



    Smoking makes up a good hunk of 1 through 4.
  • sslarsonsslarson Posts: 923member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Flounder View Post


    I'd say 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and thus by their close association 9 (I believe around 1/3 or maybe more of the cases of kidney failure are attributable to diabetes).



    Obviously something has to get us all, and obviously not all deaths from these diseases are lifestyle related, but still.



    Smoking makes up a good hunk of 1 through 4.



    I'd say you're partly right. Certain "lifestyle choices" (e.g., eating, smoking and exercise habits) contribute to some of the things on the list, but to say that any of them are "lifestyle diseases" entirely or exclusively (which is the implication of the other poster) would be wrong too.



    But...also...these things are decreasing too. For example, from 1994 to 2004 the death rate from coronary heart disease declined 33 percent. Cancer deaths have dropped for last 2-3 years. Some of this is due to treatment, of course, but some is do to voluntary changes in lifestyle factors that contribute to these diseases and deaths bringing into question the hypothesis that we're all (again the implication of the other poster) so focused on the short term that we're killing ourselves. Certainly there are some people that are terribly short-sighted in their life conduct. No one can deny this. But the suggestion that it is intrinsic to all people is foolish. And, again, overall life-expectancy is increasing.
  • flounderflounder Posts: 2,674member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sslarson View Post


    I'd say you're partly right. Certain "lifestyle choices" (e.g., eating, smoking and exercise habits) contribute to some of the things on the list, but to say that any of them are "lifestyle diseases" entirely or exclusively (which is the implication of the other poster) would be wrong too.



    Certainly that's not the best phrase. They're common chronic diseases





    Quote:

    some is do to voluntary changes in lifestyle factors



    Now, I just replied because I happened to have some knowledge, and I'm really not involved in the argument you two are having. However, you really need to back that little nugget up.



    To my knowledge, we are not, as a country, particularly improving on our lifestyle choices. The decrease in the percentage of americans that smoke has stalled the last 4 or 5 years. It's been in the news recently that the rate of childhood obesity has stopped going up, although no one knows if that's real or just a one year blip yet.



    I sure as hell hope it's not just a one year anomaly. A lot of resources have gone into trying to get that trend reversed.
  • sslarsonsslarson Posts: 923member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Flounder View Post


    However, you really need to back that little nugget up.



    To my knowledge, we are not, as a country, particularly improving on our lifestyle choices. The decrease in the percentage of americans that smoke has stalled the last 4 or 5 years. It's been in the news recently that the rate of childhood obesity has stopped going up, although no one knows if that's real or just a one year blip yet.



    I'm not saying that people aren't still making bad choices. Some out of ignorance, some out of laziness. I'm simply saying that, in general, when given correct information, you do see trends of people making better choices.



    You mention the smoking decrease has stalled for a few years. Perhaps. But it's also been on a downward trend for the last 30 or 40 years. Is it going down as fast as we might like? No. Has it stalled? Perhaps. But my point was that people (not all), as a general trend (not all the time), do begin to make longer-perspective (sometimes incorrect and imperfect) choices (whether health related, financially related or whatever) in their lives, which the other poster claims they don't.



    Do we have other, newer, problems (the ill effects of generations of fast-food consumption for example)? Sure. But, I believe, that many (not all) people will make changes based on the new information they get. I've reduced the amount of fast-food I consume. I drink less "sugar water" than a few years ago. I try to manage my cholesterol. I don't exercise as much as I probably should, but I do try to get some in. I see this exact same kind of thing among many people I know (e.g., giving up the satisfaction of the Big Mac today for an extra week of life down the road )
  • @_@ artman@_@ artman Posts: 5,231member
    Richard Fisher, President of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas in a speech yesterday said the US is f@cked to the tune of $99Trillion. That's $330,000/per person.



    Quote:

    Doing deficit math is always a sobering exercise. It becomes an outright painful one when you apply your calculator to the long-run fiscal challenge posed by entitlement programs. Were I not a taciturn central banker, I would say the mathematics of the long-term outlook for entitlements, left unchanged, is nothing short of catastrophic.



    Indeed.



    Seems like an amazingly dire speech coming from a voting member of the FOMC.
  • hardeeharharhardeeharhar Posts: 4,841member
    sslaron,



    your claim is that people naturally have a long term view. they do not -- not fiscally, not for the benefit of their health, not for their mental well being. without government sponsored education initiatives smoking rates, childhood obesity etc would still be as high as they ever were. you certainly have a rosier picture on hand of humanity than the data suggests -- some people will sometimes make decisions about their future, sometimes. it certainly isn't the majority...



    you are right in pointing out that some activities of some corporations (and large scale economic players, such as new home builders) *seem* to be meant to better position these corporations for the future, yet invariably on the whole they do not. the pharmaceutical industry, for instance, is on a boom/bust cycle for the benefit of their shareholders. what you perceive as long term outlook is, in the grand scheme of things, an idealized vision of the future that never comes to pass. well managed corporations RESPOND quickly as opposed to anticipating every event in the future -- a quick response is a more stable solution than being able to predict the future perfectly. swings in industry are chaotic, ie especially with producers of consumer products, predicting exactly the demand of goods is all but impossible without a running tally of what is being bought -- good corporations respond, poor corporations settle for a particular track...



    human activities are focused on the short term benefits because we CANNOT predict the future. This is instinctual -- in a most perverse way, we seek the immediate pleasure now, because we don't know if it will be there in the future.



    as for claims that education is a delayed benefit. this assumes that education prevents us from doing something that would benefit us immediately. it doesn't, education is an immediate benefit. it is the DEGREE which is the delayed benefit, and the shear number of idiots going to college right now are cheapening it because they are following the cultural norm -- in fact, now not going to college is a sacrifice due to the lower social ladder on which you reside during your early twenties... do these people benefit from going to college, possibly. are they thinking about that when they apply? no.
  • sslarsonsslarson Posts: 923member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hardeeharhar View Post


    sslaron,



    your claim is that people naturally have a long term view



    No it isn't.
  • trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,271member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BRussell View Post


    hardee's right, and that's a highly misleading graph, not that I expect any different from a WSJ commentary, which are well-known for their dishonesty about taxes (one example among many).



    And what is this "Hauser's law," is it the new "Laffer curve?"



    Anyway, those two lines are completely different and putting them on the same graph is a classic way to mislead. It has the effect of making a change in one aspect of tax law (the top marginal rate shown by the top line) look larger than massive changes to overall revenues (the % of GDP shown by the bottom line).



    The fact is, different countries do have different revenues as a % of GDP - it's not impossible to have revenues of, say, 30% - or 10% - of GDP. And the US has had different revenue levels at different times, correlated almost perfectly with changes in tax law: revenues decreased from 19-20% of GDP before Reagan's tax cuts, down to 17% after them. Then they went from 17-18% in the early 90s to 20-21% in the late 1990s, sandwiching Clinton's tax increases. Then of course they dropped back down after Bush's tax cuts. Those 2-3% differences are massive, given the size of GDP.



    You are correct that different countries do have different revenues as a % of GDP but you also need to remember that other countries discussed do not have both the federal and state systems to contend with. This graph only shows the federal level.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by addabox View Post


    Dude, nobody thinks economics is a "science". Not scientists, not economists, no one. It's a volatile blend of statistical analysis, game theory, sociology, psychology, wishful thinking, political ideology, selective readings of history, intuition and, frequently, unacknowledged mysticism masquerading as baseline declarations of "reality."



    Confusing economics with science isn't refreshing free thought, it's just a mistake, and the people unwilling to play along aren't "unwilling to think", they're just not persuaded by that kind of sophistry.



    Economics is a branch of social science. It is not a "hard" science but then nether are psychology or sociology which must not be sciences at all either by your reasoning.



    Perhaps we could have BRussell explain it to us since I believe he is quite the practitioner of one of these soft non-sciences.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Aquatic View Post


    Gas went to $4.10 yesterday in my town. If we want a middle class, we need to soak the rich. Period. And it's not "soaking". We simply need to raise their income tax a bit. A second Depression won't help anyone. And it's coming, if Congress doesn't act quick to remove Bush tax cuts and get us out of Iraq.



    It is probably coming and the Democrats will hasten it. The lack of true Republicans will add to the pain as well. The government is playing with our currency since it can't keep creating something from nothing. Tax cuts and war has little to do with it and entitlements and spending will have everything to do with it.



    Depending upon the source, the cost of the war is between half a trillion to trillion (being generous)



    The gap between entitlement costs and estimated revenues is around 50 trillion.



    You tell me which you think will do more harm. Our problem is believing the terrorists in any country are going to cause us harm when it is grandma and grandpa boomer instead who will cause the real mass destruction.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BRussell View Post


    Here's a list of countries and their federal taxation as a % of GDP. It has the US at 11.25 which doesn't seem right, so I don't know what it's including or excluding, but it shows a very wide range.



    It's interesting to me that successful, developed countries invariably have high rates of taxation, whereas no economically successful countries have rates below 10%. They're all places like Sudan and Afghanistan.



    I got my figures from this. Look at the second table, which has revenues as a % of GDP over the years.



    Perhaps what you should look for is this which shows our total taxation and it is not the highest in the world, but is quite high. It is also important to look at DEBT as a percentage of GDP. For every western democracy the percentage is quite high and combined with the coming demographic crash, basically looms as a huge problem. People love pointing at a few select, small nordic countries as example, but are never willing to admit that part of their success is due to not joining the EU, keeping their own currencies at an advantage to the Euro, and also having oil to export to solve a lot of their problems. The United States, for now cannot emulate Norway for example and generate a large trade surplus by having over 50% of our exports be oil.



    Back in a bit...
  • sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 16,215member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by franksargent View Post


    You bet, in fact 100% wrong:



    FY 1981 Revenues = $599.272 Billion

    FY 1989 Revenues = $991.910 Billion



    Multiplier = 991.910/599.272 = 1.65399 (not 2.00 as you claim).



    Source, see previous post to GPO website.



    And I bet you don't know where the above numbers you did post come from do you? Yeah, I thought so, so right here before your very eyes, I'll show you where they did come from;



    FY 1980 Revenues = $517.112 Billion (Jimmy Carter's next to last budget year)

    FY 1990 Revenues = $1,032.190 Billion (George H. W. Bush's first budget year)



    Now I don't make up the rules, the federal government does, so for instance;



    George W. Bush submitted (or will submit) budgets from FY 2002 through FY 2009 (two terms = 8 FY's)

    Bill Clinton submitted budgets from FY 1994 through 2001 (two terms = 8 FY's)

    George H. W. Bush submitted budgets from FY 1990 through 1993 (one term = 4 FY's)

    Ronald Reagan submitted budgets from 1982 through 1989 (two terms = 8 FY's)

    Jimmy Carter submitted budgets from 1978 through 1981 (one term = 4 FY's)



    So you see SDW, no one can claim 10 FY's when they only directly affect 8 FY's (for two terms), and no one can claim 5 FY's when they only directly affect 4 FY's (one term), given the standard definitions used by the U.S. federal government in the budgetary process.



    Do you understand now? \



    Yes, I understand you're an intellectually dishonest hack with mean streak.



    You can't use FY 1981 because FY 1981 started in October of 1980, before Reagan was even fucking elected. Hello? One really needs to use FY 1980 numbers, then compare them to FY 1989 numbers. And gee, guess what. Revenue approximately doubled. Now if you want to give me shit about the multiplier being 1.8 (or whatever) instead of 2.0, go ahead. We're still talking about a massive increase in revenue with drastically lower tax rates, which is the goddamned point.
  • sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 16,215member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BRussell View Post


    At least we're talking in terms of relative revenue growth now. And the most obvious comparisons we have: Clinton's tax increases to Reagan's and Bush's tax cuts - don't support your hypothesis that revenue growth should be higher after tax cuts.



    Uh..yes they do. The data also shows that the economy recovered in spite of Clinton's tax increases. You asked if that could happen, and I said it could.



    Quote:



    You can explain it away as a fluke,



    I wouldn't say it was a fluke, but I also wouldn't say it's typical, historically speaking.



    Quote:

    but then you don't have any examples at all that support your view. If you can find some other comparison that does support your view, I'd like to see it.



    Uh...I have several examples. I have the Kennedy and Reagan tax cuts, both of which resulted in more revenue during the following years. On your end, you have Clinton as an example.



    However, we really need to then get into what caused the recovery and why it occurred given the higher tax rates. You yourself agreed that large tax increases would hurt the economy, and large decreases would help it. You therefore agree, in principal, that tax cuts tend to benefit the economy. The only question is whether or not the resulting economic expansion produces "sufficient" revenue increases. Since we know that when adjusted for inflation, revenue during the Reagan years (OK Franktrollsergeant...1980-1990) increased 20% even with dramatically lower rates, the answer to the question is clear.
  • sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 16,215member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BRussell View Post


    sslarson, the bit about wars increasing growth may be a myth, but I was trying to make a more basic point, that taxes take money out of the economy, which is obviously bad, but that money doesn't just disappear, some of it comes back in the form of salaries, government purchases, etc.



    That's really a silly point. If the amount of money that "came back into the economy" was significantly beneficial (in other words, the tax rate did more good than harm), we raise taxes to much higher levels and not have to worry about it. Of course, you know this is a terrible idea...you said so yourself.







    Quote:
    Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post


    Richard Fisher, President of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas in a speech yesterday said the US is f@cked to the tune of $99Trillion. That's $330,000/per person.







    Indeed.



    Seems like an amazingly dire speech coming from a voting member of the FOMC.



    What amazes me is that people like you are willing to post things like this, but you won't address the underying problem: Entitlements.



    This, in fact, is where we are really screwed financially. We've promised everyone retirement, prescription drugs, medicare, etc...and the bill is coming due. Of course, no one is willing to address these problems, especially those with liberal political beliefs. We're not going to go bankrupt from tax cuts and wars, we're going to go bankrupt from social security and medicare. We simply cannot afford these programs as they currently exist. We need to both reform then and totally change their funding mechanisms.



    I think we should do two things: First, announce a 30 year plan to phase out social security. That way those who are dependent on it will not have a problem, and we can avoid financial disaster. Then, we need to change the funding for both medicare and social security, eliminating the payroll tax and instituting a national sales tax. That would be a start. Now who has the balls to do it?
  • jubelumjubelum Posts: 4,490member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post


    What amazes me is that people like you are willing to post things like this, but you won't address the underying problem: Entitlements.



    This, in fact, is where we are really screwed financially. We've promised everyone retirement, prescription drugs, medicare, etc...and the bill is coming due. Of course, no one is willing to address these problems, especially those with liberal political beliefs. We're not going to go bankrupt from tax cuts and wars, we're going to go bankrupt from social security and medicare. We simply cannot afford these programs as they currently exist. We need to both reform then and totally change their funding mechanisms.



    I think we should do two things: First, announce a 30 year plan to phase out social security. That way those who are dependent on it will not have a problem, and we can avoid financial disaster. Then, we need to change the funding for both medicare and social security, eliminating the payroll tax and instituting a national sales tax. That would be a start. Now who has the balls to do it?



    No one has the balls to do it. The closest we've probably come in my lifetime, or ever will, was the 94 Freshman class. Those days are long gone, as the old conservative stalwarts are even embracing the entitlement trap. Congrats, lefties, you've "won" the argument- not on merits mind you, but by (in a very Bush-war kinda way) slandering and maligning people who don't want to buy votes with public funds. Some pathetic politicians just can't stomach being called "mean-spirited" and "hateful" and the like, even when it is being done for purely political purposes.



    There are not going to be cuts in government for one reason- Pelosi, Schumer, and crew will run out when cuts are proposed and say that anyone who wants the cuts "hates the (young, old, poor, minority, etc.) Just look at the fucking Veterans Bill and how that was spun by the lefties. (the same people that scream about their patriotism being questioned, BTW)



    In the end, we're all going to end up with nothing, in our drive to have everyone else pay for us to have everything. It's really disgusting that this country has been dragged down into this entitlement nightmare. But hey, it's dependency the left wants, and it's what we've gotten. And once amnesty arrives (another new voting bloc right off the showroom floor) look for the entitlement budget to double or more. Hide and watch.



    So many on this board assume that someone will always be there to pull the wagon and pay the tax, no matter how high it goes. If entitlements and giveaways are the way to go, why bother with that silly "work" crap, if all it is going to do is make me a target of serial tax raisers?



    This is what is so sick about the Long March... the main goal is to ride the producers into the ground, demonize them in the process as greedy, and then claim that "they need to contribute more so that you can have free stuff." That is exactly what is coming out of the Democratic leadership.



    You CAN soak the rich. Right before they are forced to lay you off to stay in business. \
  • brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post


    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BRussell


    And the most obvious comparisons we have: Clinton's tax increases to Reagan's and Bush's tax cuts - don't support your hypothesis that revenue growth should be higher after tax cuts.



    Uh..yes they do. The data also shows that the economy recovered in spite of Clinton's tax increases. You asked if that could happen, and I said it could.



    No they don't - the revenue growth was higher after Clinton's tax increases than after Bush's or Reagan's tax cuts.



    Quote:

    I wouldn't say it was a fluke, but I also wouldn't say it's typical, historically speaking.







    Uh...I have several examples. I have the Kennedy and Reagan tax cuts, both of which resulted in more revenue during the following years. On your end, you have Clinton as an example.



    What you don't have is an example of higher revenue growth after tax cuts than tax increases.



    Quote:

    However, we really need to then get into what caused the recovery and why it occurred given the higher tax rates. You yourself agreed that large tax increases would hurt the economy, and large decreases would help it. You therefore agree, in principal, that tax cuts tend to benefit the economy. The only question is whether or not the resulting economic expansion produces "sufficient" revenue increases. Since we know that when adjusted for inflation, revenue during the Reagan years (OK Franktrollsergeant...1980-1990) increased 20% even with dramatically lower rates, the answer to the question is clear.



    SDW, you need to tell me that you understand this point, because it's the crux of this issue: Revenues always grow, because the economy grows, the population grows, inflation occurs, etc. Showing that revenues grow after taxes are cut is not sufficient to prove that those tax cuts caused revenues to grow. It's like giving your kid vitamins at age 5, measuring their height again at age 7, and then saying vitamins made them grow. I hope you'd agree that you can't do that, you have to compare them to kids who did not take vitamins. That's why I'm asking you to show me where taxes were cut and then revenues grew more than when taxes were raised, because the clearest examples we have don't show it.
  • sslarsonsslarson Posts: 923member
    Well SS will eventually have to go. That much is for sure.



    Phased out? Probably the most sensible thing. Just tell anyone born after X year, "You'll continue paying, but you won't get anything out."



    Shorter term some other fixes could be implemented:



    1. Raise the eligibility age

    2. Means-base disbursement of benefits



    These will help us get the albatross off our backs...in about two (maybe three) generations.



    Next eliminate Medicare and Medicaid. Replace them with tax deductions (or direct subsidies for those who absolutely need them) for medical insurance premiums.



    In fact the whole medical insurance thing could dramatically cleaned up and streamlined by simply making premiums tax deductible for everyone and eliminate the things that lock medical insurance to an employer. Make it more like car insurance or home owner's insurance. My employer doesn't provide these for me, I just buy them directly.



    You will unleash massive competition among insurance companies for people's business (like currently exists for, home and life insurance). Oh also stop restricting entry into the insurance business so more competitors will come in and start giving the big, fat, happy, sloppy and lazy incumbents a serious run for their money, driving new levels of productivity and cost reduction.



    And then there's general welfare and warfare spending.



    The warfare spending is pretty straightforward. Stop launching expensive invasions into foreign countries. Bring all of our troops and equipment home. Close all foreign bases. Return to a policy of non-interventionist, armed neutrality (NOTE: for those too dumb to realize it...that is not the same thing as isolationism). That should probably reduce the cash spending by about 50% and debt spending significantly.
  • sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 16,215member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BRussell View Post


    No they don't - the revenue growth was higher after Clinton's tax increases than after Bush's or Reagan's tax cuts.



    So? All recessions are not equal. We've been through this.



    Quote:



    What you don't have is an example of higher revenue growth after tax cuts than tax increases.



    That's an impossible thing to demonstrate, because of the fluid nature of the economy itself. In other words, we'd have to try and approximate what revenue growth would have been without the tax cuts or increases. I don't think that can be done with any degree of accuracy.



    Quote:



    SDW, you need to tell me that you understand this point, because it's the crux of this issue: Revenues always grow, because the economy grows, the population grows, inflation occurs, etc. Showing that revenues grow after taxes are cut is not sufficient to prove that those tax cuts caused revenues to grow.



    Well, you've admitted that tax cuts benefit the economy, which in turn benefits revenue, so I'm not sure what the problem is.



    Quote:



    It's like giving your kid vitamins at age 5, measuring their height again at age 7, and then saying vitamins made them grow. I hope you'd agree that you can't do that, you have to compare them to kids who did not take vitamins. That's why I'm asking you to show me where taxes were cut and then revenues grew more than when taxes were raised, because the clearest examples we have don't show it.



    What you're saying is we need a "control group" so to speak. That's really impossible. We do know, however, that tax cuts generally help economic growth, and tax increases generally hurt it. Again, you yourself agreed several posts ago. You also pointed out that economic growth affects revenue positively. So again, I'm not sure what the problem is. Perhaps it's a matter of perspective. I agree that cutting taxes for express purpose of raising revenue is not a good idea. However, when the economy is slumping, we can cut taxes to help without destroying long term revenue growth. In fact, revenue will actually grow. Is that a reasonable statement?
  • tontontonton Posts: 14,064member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post


    So? All recessions are not equal. We've been through this.



    Yeah the Republican created recessions are more equal than others. Four truths Good. Two truths Bad.
  • franksargentfranksargent Posts: 4,694member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post


    Yes, I understand you're an intellectually dishonest hack with mean streak.



    You can't use FY 1981 because FY 1981 started in October of 1980, before Reagan was even fucking elected. Hello? One really needs to use FY 1980 numbers, then compare them to FY 1989 numbers. And gee, guess what. Revenue approximately doubled. Now if you want to give me shit about the multiplier being 1.8 (or whatever) instead of 2.0, go ahead. We're still talking about a massive increase in revenue with drastically lower tax rates, which is the goddamned point.



    This is done for all presidents, simply because, the previous FY is at time = 0, when Reagan submits his first FY budget that is year one of his FY budget string. So FY 1981 is Carter's last FY budget, that is relative to Reagan's first budget year which was FY 1982.



    So in Reagan's first budget year what do you propose the government use to define GDP and revenue growth. Certainly not FY 1982, because then Reagan would not have any revenue or GDP growth. In your example you use FY 1980, Carter's next to last FY budget, so you want to claim Carter's last FY budget year For Reagan? How is that possible, since Carter submitted his 1981 budget to congress, and before Reagan took office, congress passed all spending bills for FY 1981, Reagan had zero impact on the FY 1981 budget process, thus it is year zero, with respect to Reagan's 8 subsequent budgets.



    Man, I can't believe I'm even having this discussion. Seriously.



    By your math your FY delta is nine fiscal years (1989 - 1980 = 9), so under your seriously flawed logic, each two term president is able to claim nine FY budgets, when in fact they only submit eight FY budgets,



    So Reagan submitted FY budgets from 1982 through 1989, 1989 - 1982 = 7. oops, we need another FY budget to compare Reagan's revenuse and GDP growth.



    Hmm, which additional FY should I choose, or as a matter of fact, what the U.S. federal government uses, there is only one choice, year zero of Reagan's budgets, which occurs immediately before Reagan's first FY budget, thus that FY budget must be taken from the last FY budget of the previous office holder, in this case it was Carter, and his last FY budget was FY 1981.



    So now, lets check the math, 1989 - 1981 = 8. So now tell me how many years did Reagan serve as President, and how many FY budgets did he submit to congress? I'll give you a few hints, it wasn't seven years, it wasn't nine years, and it certainly wasn't ten years (your own number from previous posts for claiming Reagan "doubled" federal revenues).



    I'd say something really mean at this point, but your own ability to never understand has always spoken volumes.



    Note also that you've backed away from your previous number (i. e. 2x), which includes FY 1980 through FY 1990, therein you steal one FY from Carter's budgets and one FY from Bush's (41) budgets. What a n00b.
  • jubelumjubelum Posts: 4,490member
    (edit: not going to bother)
  • brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post


    So? All recessions are not equal. We've been through this.



    Doesn't it worry you that you always have to come up with an external "fluke" explanation (the recession was worse, there was a dot-com bubble, etc.) for why your hypothesis never works?



    Quote:

    That's an impossible thing to demonstrate, because of the fluid nature of the economy itself. In other words, we'd have to try and approximate what revenue growth would have been without the tax cuts or increases. I don't think that can be done with any degree of accuracy.



    That's what those experts try to do, and they don't agree with you.



    Quote:

    Well, you've admitted that tax cuts benefit the economy, which in turn benefits revenue, so I'm not sure what the problem is.



    What you're saying is we need a "control group" so to speak. That's really impossible. We do know, however, that tax cuts generally help economic growth, and tax increases generally hurt it. Again, you yourself agreed several posts ago. You also pointed out that economic growth affects revenue positively. So again, I'm not sure what the problem is. Perhaps it's a matter of perspective. I agree that cutting taxes for express purpose of raising revenue is not a good idea. However, when the economy is slumping, we can cut taxes to help without destroying long term revenue growth. In fact, revenue will actually grow. Is that a reasonable statement?



    Because it doesn't make sense, and the evidence doesn't support, the idea that you could stimulate the economy enough to make up for what you used to stimulate it. From what I've seen, the consensus is that you could perhaps lose 90% of the revenues you used to stimulate the economy, rather than 100%.



    My view (well not my view, but based on what the experts say):

    Cut taxes by $10 billion

    Extra economic stimulation produces $1 billion extra revenue beyond normal revenue growth

    Lose only $9 billion rather than $10 billion in revenues



    Your view:

    Cut taxes by $10 billion

    Extra economic stimulation produces $11 billion extra revenue beyond normal revenue growth

    Lose no revenues, and actually gain $1 billion
Sign In or Register to comment.