AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › You Can't Soak the Rich
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

You Can't Soak the Rich

post #1 of 120
5/20/08 at 6:55am
Thread Starter 
WSJ

Quote:
The chart nearby, updating the evidence to 2007, confirms Hauser's Law. The federal tax "yield" (revenues divided by GDP) has remained close to 19.5%, even as the top tax bracket was brought down from 91% to the present 35%. This is what scientists call an "independence theorem," and it cuts the Gordian Knot of tax policy debate.

The data show that the tax yield has been independent of marginal tax rates over this period, but tax revenue is directly proportional to GDP. So if we want to increase tax revenue, we need to increase GDP.

What happens if we instead raise tax rates? Economists of all persuasions accept that a tax rate hike will reduce GDP, in which case Hauser's Law says it will also lower tax revenue. That's a highly inconvenient truth for redistributive tax policy, and it flies in the face of deeply felt beliefs about social justice. It would surely be unpopular today with those presidential candidates who plan to raise tax rates on the rich if they knew about it.

[CENTER][/CENTER]

[LEFT]A nice bit of information that stops people from arguing about minutia in one area of tax policy versus another.[/LEFT]

It would appear that regardless of rate, regardless of loopholes and who is taking advantage of them, no matter the circumstances and the reaction of people to them, you aren't going to get more than 20% of GDP out of people. If you let certain tax cuts expire, they will cease the activity or switch to another loophole that gains another benefit.

Thoughts?

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #2 of 120
5/20/08 at 7:33am
Those little wiggles around 20% are significant, huge in fact, considering our deficit...
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #3 of 120
5/20/08 at 8:18am
Therefore the WSJ and their "scientific financial/economic theory" is a moot point. Oh, and the WSJ is calling this "scientific financial/economic theory" Hauser's Law, which, if I recall correctly, is called circular reasoning.

The Urinal hast speaketh, thou shalt listeneth.

Economics

[CENTER]
Quote:
Economics is the branch of social science that studies the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services.

[/CENTER]

Social sciences

[CENTER]
Quote:
Social Sciences is the field of sciences concerned with the studies of the social life of human groups and individuals, including economics, geography, history, political science, psychology, social studies, and sociology.

[/CENTER]

In other words, the ephemeral, the subjective, the emotional, the irrational, the etceteras, ...

Hmm, and what was the price of a barrel of oil today? $127/barrel.

Oh, and the beginning part, about Boyle's Law, this person is clueless. The ideal gas law is a superset of Boyle's Law, but of course the ideal gas law isn't associated with some person's name. Must brand ridiculous idea with a person's name.

Equation of state

Now, where is that Excel spreadsheet I have with all the relevant data such as tax rates, GDP, federal tax receipts, ..., I know it's either on my hard drive or a flash drive, ..., oh it's right over here.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #4 of 120
5/20/08 at 8:36am
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.
Reply
Reply
post #5 of 120
5/20/08 at 9:07am
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.

Oh! what a tangled web we weave
When first we practice to deceive!
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #6 of 120
5/20/08 at 9:20am
And since physics doesn't have all the answers, I hereby invoke the "God in the Gaps" scientific theory of economics.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #7 of 120
5/20/08 at 9:50am


I'm no fan of the vapid Miss Hilton, but even so, I prefer this over an image of Bill Gates emerging from a swimming pool in speedos to prove my point.
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #8 of 120
5/20/08 at 9:52am
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

And since physics doesn't have all the answers, I hereby invoke the "God in the Gaps" scientific theory of economics.

If all the world's economists were laid end to end...
it would be a good thing.
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #9 of 120
5/20/08 at 10:01am
Quote:
Originally Posted by shetline View Post



I'm no fan of the vapid Miss Hilton, but even so, I prefer this over an image of Bill Gates emerging from a swimming pool in speedos to prove my point.

It's a direct quote from the WSJ editorial that started this thread.

I somehow find comparing the hard sciences with economics strangely very funny.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #10 of 120
5/20/08 at 11:24am
I see. Apparently when we don't like what something tells us, then we just dismiss it is "not real science".



See, this is why ad hominem is a fallacy, because you aren't arguing against the argument, you are arguing against the arguer. You dismiss the source as not being "real" scientist or as the whole discipline as not being "real science" or for being based in Alabama or being from the WSJ or whatever.

The problem is that the argument might be right whether the arguer is Bozo the Clown or Satan or Stephen Hawking or Mother Teresa. That's why you don't argue against the arguer.

However, I understand that it's easier and more convenient because is saves you the time and effort of actually thinking.
Reply
Reply
post #11 of 120
5/20/08 at 11:44am
Quote:
Originally Posted by sslarson View Post

I see. Apparently when we don't like what something tells us, then we just dismiss it is "not real science".



See, this is why ad hominem is a fallacy, because you aren't arguing against the argument, you are arguing against the arguer. You dismiss the source as not being "real" scientist or as the whole discipline as not being "real science" or for being based in Alabama or being from the WSJ or whatever.

The problem is that the argument might be right whether the arguer is Bozo the Clown or Satan or Stephen Hawking or Mother Teresa. That's why you don't argue against the arguer.

However, I understand that it's easier and more convenient because is saves you the time and effort of actually thinking.

I already supplied the definitions, if you don't like it, then shovel (sh)it!

An empty argument is still an empty argument, and PS it is an editorial in the WSJ. Do you have a clue, why yes, you have a raging clue.

The relationship isn't constant and has no theoretical basis, therefore it isn't science, it's magic!

And anything you post is suspect from the get go! Is that an ad hominem attack? No, not when your posts are all bias with intent.

Have a nice day.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #12 of 120
5/20/08 at 12:03pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

I already supplied the definitions, if you don't like it, then shovel (sh)it!

An empty argument is still an empty argument, and PS it is an editorial in the WSJ. Do you have a clue, why yes, you have a raging clue.

The relationship isn't constant and has no theoretical basis, therefore it isn't science, it's magic!

And anything you post is suspect from the get go! Is that an ad hominem attack? Nn, not when your posts are all bias with intent.

Have a nice day.



Better cleanup that spittle all over your keyboard and monitor.
Reply
Reply
post #13 of 120
5/20/08 at 12:11pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by sslarson View Post



Better cleanup that spittle all over your keyboard and monitor.

OK, I did, Nn has been corrected to No, TYVM!
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #14 of 120
5/20/08 at 12:16pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by sslarson View Post

I see. Apparently when we don't like what something tells us, then we just dismiss it is "not real science".



See, this is why ad hominem is a fallacy, because you aren't arguing against the argument, you are arguing against the arguer. You dismiss the source as not being "real" scientist or as the whole discipline as not being "real science" or for being based in Alabama or being from the WSJ or whatever.

The problem is that the argument might be right whether the arguer is Bozo the Clown or Satan or Stephen Hawking or Mother Teresa. That's why you don't argue against the arguer.

However, I understand that it's easier and more convenient because is saves you the time and effort of actually thinking.

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.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #15 of 120
5/20/08 at 12:29pm
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.

Further if economics were a hard science, there would be immutable quantitative laws.

I could (as could everyone else) apply these universal immutable scientific laws to the stock market, and everyone would become trillionaires. It would be on as solid a ground as gravity, otherwise I could fly unaided.

[CENTER]



[/CENTER]
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #16 of 120
5/25/08 at 6:36am
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.
"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch
"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox
Reply
"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch
"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox
Reply
post #17 of 120
5/25/08 at 7:53am
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.

While I would like some sort of reform with taxes that encumber the rich a little more, I do disagree with your assessment of a second Depression. We're not even in a recession yet, let alone a depression. To achieve a recession we have to have a period of two quarters of negative GDP growth. We haven't even had one yet. We're certainly in a slow period, but after the fast burn of the past 7 years in housing, it was going to happen.
Reply
Reply
post #18 of 120
5/25/08 at 9:08am
  • e1618978
  • will burn in the Fiery Pit of Hell.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardeeharhar View Post

Those little wiggles around 20% are significant, huge in fact, considering our deficit...

I agree that they are significant, but that isn't the point. Is there any correlation at all between tax rates and tax revenue? i.e. is R = C * GDP?

Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

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.

Which countries? And your numbers don't seem to match the graphed figures.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #19 of 120
5/25/08 at 9:17am
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

I agree that they are significant, but that isn't the point. Is there any correlation at all between tax rates and tax revenue? i.e. is R = C * GDP?

The graph isn't sufficient to see that, we would need to see all tax rates...
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #20 of 120
5/25/08 at 9:41am
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

Which countries?

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.

Quote:
And your numbers don't seem to match the graphed figures.

I got my figures from this. Look at the second table, which has revenues as a % of GDP over the years.
Reply
Reply
post #21 of 120
5/25/08 at 10:34am
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.

Look at the second table, minimum revenues = 16.3% of GDP (2004 = Bush tax cuts 35% top tax bracket), maximum = 20.9% of GDP (2000 = Clinton 39.6% top tax bracket).

maximum - minimum = 4.6% of GDP and if GDP = $14 Trillion, then 4.6% of $14 Trillion = $644 Billion, not exactly chump change if you ask me.

Anyway, we would still be robbing Peter (the guilty rich) to pay Paul (the middle class).

The data is quite clear, there is no constant or theoretical relationship between federal revenues and GDP, and there never has been, the WSJ is just clearly full of shit, but then again, when has that not been a constant and theoretical relationship;

WSJ = Full of steaming hot dog shit as usual.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #22 of 120
5/25/08 at 10:43am
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.


Hammer on the head of the nail! You get the award for putting things quite simply and in a nutshell. That's why I've said the current administration and anyone who follows their policies must go! Before we end up as a nation nose first in the ground!
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #23 of 120
5/25/08 at 10:50am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Hammer on the head of the nail! You get the award for putting things quite simply and in a nutshell. That's why I've said the current administration and anyone who follows their policies must go! Before we end up as a nation nose first in the ground!

We're supposedly fighting a war on two fronts, so where's the wartime economy? Bush's piss poor fiscal policies have wrecked our economy for the next 40 years. And I happen too think the neocon artists did this on purpose. When they update the dictionaries, next to the word deficit spending, there won't be a definition, just a picture of Bush.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #24 of 120
5/25/08 at 10:51am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Silviar View Post

While I would like some sort of reform with taxes that encumber the rich a little more, I do disagree with your assessment of a second Depression. We're not even in a recession yet, let alone a depression. To achieve a recession we have to have a period of two quarters of negative GDP growth. We haven't even had one yet. We're certainly in a slow period, but after the fast burn of the past 7 years in housing, it was going to happen.

What do you think will happen if at the end of the year gas is at $6.00 a gallon and still climbing? Oil powers everything! From the plastic in your computer keyboard to the delivery truck that comes to your grocery store! Now put this together with everything else going on. Wake up man! If this is allowed to continue unchecked we ( The middle class ) will be in what my Dad used to say is " A serious pickle ".
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #25 of 120
5/25/08 at 10:52am
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

We're supposedly fighting a war on two fronts, so where's the wartime economy? Bush's piss poor fiscal policies have wrecked our economy for the next 40 years. And I happen to think the neocon artists did this on purpose. When they update the dictionaries, next to the word deficit spending, there won't be a definition, just a picture of Bush.

If there's any cosmic justice at all!
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #26 of 120
5/25/08 at 12:13pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Look at the second table, minimum revenues = 16.3% of GDP (2005 = Bush tax cuts 35% top tax bracket), maximum = 20.9% of GDP (2000 = Clinton 39.6% top tax bracket).

maximum - minimum = 4.6% of GDP and if GDP = $14 Trillion, then 4.6% of $14 Trillion = $644 Billion, not exactly chump change if you ask me.

I'm not following your point here.

Quote:
The data is quite clear, there is no constant or theoretical relationship between federal revenues and GDP, and there never has been, the WSJ is just clearly full of shit, but then again, when has that not been a constant and theoretical relationship;

WSJ = Full of steaming hot dog shit as usual.

Now I'm really not following you. There's most definitely a relationship between revenues and GDP over time. Here's a project for you that's right up your alley: Run a correlation between GDP and revenues using those data from the CBO. There are tables that include each. Then tell me how close to 1.0 it is. My guess is that it's at least .90.

That part of what the WSJ says is true. What's bogus is the idea that, by cutting taxes, you can increase GDP enough to actually make up for the reduced revenues from those tax cuts.
Reply
Reply
post #27 of 120
5/25/08 at 12:39pm
Numbers don't lie. Liars do numbers.

Quote:
"There's something wrong with the numbers," said ShadowStats subscriber Harry Seitz, a retiree in Davie, Fla. "Over the years, (Williams) has essentially been proven correct."

By Williams' estimation, the government's calculation that unemployment was 5 percent in April and that inflation was 4 percent and economic growth 2 percent over the last year, is fantasy. It might even be disinformation.

An update e-mailed to ShadowStats subscribers at the beginning of the month warned darkly that "GDP (gross domestic product) and Jobs Data Appear Rigged" and "Despite Manipulated Data, the Recession Deepens."

By his reckoning, the economy shrank 2.5 percent in the year that ended in March, unemployment is really 13 percent and year-over-year inflation is 7.5 percent.

Government economic data are "out of touch with common experience. That's why people used to believe the numbers but no longer do," Williams said during an interview in his modest one-bedroom apartment near Lake Merritt.

Be sure to check the table below of his findings.
Reply
Reply
post #28 of 120
5/25/08 at 1:15pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

What do you think will happen if at the end of the year gas is at $6.00 a gallon and still climbing? Oil powers everything! From the plastic in your computer keyboard to the delivery truck that comes to your grocery store! Now put this together with everything else going on. Wake up man! If this is allowed to continue unchecked we ( The middle class ) will be in what my Dad used to say is " A serious pickle ".

I don't understand your point (which is not unusual.)

How will 'soaking the rich' with taxes lower the price of oil?
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #29 of 120
5/25/08 at 1:25pm
Did anyone RTFA? The point of the article was that if we want to increase the amount of money the government collects the best way to do that would be to concentrate on those things that grow the GDP rather than increase taxes on the rich. Which is obvious to anyone that is a free thinker and spazzing out after reading the topic of the thread.
Reply
Reply
post #30 of 120
5/25/08 at 2:03pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mydo View Post

Did anyone FTFA? The point of the article was that if we want to increase the amount of money the government collects the best way to do that would be to concentrate on those things that grow the GDP rather than increase taxes on the rich. Which is obvious to anyone that is a free thinker and spazzing out after reading the topic of the thread.

It's the usual WSJ nonsense defending tax cuts. This time, instead of just directly claiming tax cuts increase revenues, they're saying tax cuts don't reduce revenues. If Republican economics is economic creationism, this is just like intelligent design: They've backed down from their original ridiculous claim and are now trying to package the same ideas by making them appear more sensible.
Reply
Reply
post #31 of 120
5/25/08 at 4:23pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

I'm not following your point here.

Now I'm really not following you. There's most definitely a relationship between revenues and GDP over time. Here's a project for you that's right up your alley: Run a correlation between GDP and revenues using those data from the CBO. There are tables that include each. Then tell me how close to 1.0 it is. My guess is that it's at least .90.

That part of what the WSJ says is true. What's bogus is the idea that, by cutting taxes, you can increase GDP enough to actually make up for the reduced revenues from those tax cuts.

Revenues(R): Mean = 18.28%, Median = 18.05%, Sigma = 0.982%, and via linear regression Revenues = 0.1838*GDP (R^2 = 0.9867)
Outlays(O): Mean = 20.64%, Median = 20.60%, Sigma = 1.335%, and via linear regression Revenues = 0.2014*GDP (R^2 = 0.9901)

Both R and O follow roughly a normal distribution.

My point is that neither is a constant and that there is no theoretical relationship, otherwise R^2 = 1, and Sigma = 0.

We can say that they are approximately constant, and that each (R and O) appear to roughly follow a norman distribution about their respective means/medians/linear regression curves.

But note that R (18.38%) != O (20.14%), R - O = -1.76%

So if GDP = $14 Trillion then the deficit is 0.0176*14 = $246.4 Billion, not exactly chump change, if you ask me.

Note also that the ranked min/max (16.3%/20.9%) occurred in only five fiscal years (2004/2000) for R, while the ranked min/max (18.4%/23.5%) occurred over 18 fiscal fiscal years (1983/2000) for O.

From the above I gather that we would need an empirical law for each set of variables we form empirical relationships for , in this case N = 2, so while the WSJ has laid claim to the R relationship, I hereby lay claim to the O curve, and thus I name it after it's creator, our POTUS as;

[CENTER]BUSH'S HIGHWAY TO HELL[/CENTER]
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #32 of 120
5/25/08 at 4:43pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

It's the usual WSJ nonsense defending tax cuts. This time, instead of just directly claiming tax cuts increase revenues, they're saying tax cuts don't reduce revenues. If Republican economics is economic creationism, this is just like intelligent design: They've backed down from their original ridiculous claim and are now trying to package the same ideas by making them appear more sensible.

... we eliminated federal taxes altogether.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #33 of 120
5/25/08 at 4:45pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

It's the usual WSJ nonsense defending tax cuts. This time, instead of just directly claiming tax cuts increase revenues, they're saying tax cuts don't reduce revenues. If Republican economics is economic creationism, this is just like intelligent design: They've backed down from their original ridiculous claim and are now trying to package the same ideas by making them appear more sensible.

I don't read WSJ that much to know if this is their MO or not but you'd have to be an idiot and a fool to not realize that growing GDP is the best way to increase tax revenue. The graph is what is it is. Increasing taxes in some small section of the tax base is meaningless. Unless you're running for office.
Reply
Reply
post #34 of 120
5/25/08 at 5:10pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mydo View Post

I don't read WSJ that much to know if this is their MO or not but you'd have to be an idiot and a fool to not realize that growing GDP is the best way to increase tax revenue. The graph is what is it is. Increasing taxes in some small section of the tax base is meaningless. Unless you're running for office.

So exactly how does one go about growing GDP?

Look at the CBO data, once you plot it you will see that Clinton and the Republican congress were attempting to bring the two curves together (R and O), and it was working, then Dubya came along and scuttled that idea, and from the data appears to have introduced a "stall" of guess how many years? Six and counting. And considering he gave back between $500 and $1,200 per tax return in 2008, it will definitely be seven and counting.

And then go deeper into the data and look at income distributions, the middle class has lost real income in constant dollars, while the highest quintile has been the only quintile to outpace the CPI-U index.

So I say rob Peter to pay Paul, BIGTIME!
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #35 of 120
5/25/08 at 5:12pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mydo View Post

I don't read WSJ that much to know if this is their MO or not but you'd have to be an idiot and a fool to not realize that growing GDP is the best way to increase tax revenue. The graph is what is it is. Increasing taxes in some small section of the tax base is meaningless. Unless you're running for office.

No, the graph isn't what it is. It's misleading because it has one small portion of the tax code, top marginal rates, on the same axis as total revenues which is a massive number. So the one small thing is magnified and the larger thing is diminished. In reality, taxes have a huge impact on, um, taxes.

Or let me say it this way: You'd have to be an idiot to believe that changes in tax law have no effect on taxes. Unless you're a Republican running for office.
Reply
Reply
post #36 of 120
5/25/08 at 5:17pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

I don't understand your point (which is not unusual.)

How will 'soaking the rich' with taxes lower the price of oil?


Go back and read all the posts then read : " Now put this together with everything else going on " in my post. Then sit and contemplate for awhile.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #37 of 120
5/25/08 at 5:39pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

You'd have to be an idiot to believe that changes in tax law have no effect on taxes.

And a fool!
Reply
Reply
post #38 of 120
5/25/08 at 6:50pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

What do you think will happen if at the end of the year gas is at $6.00 a gallon and still climbing? Oil powers everything! From the plastic in your computer keyboard to the delivery truck that comes to your grocery store! Now put this together with everything else going on. Wake up man! If this is allowed to continue unchecked we ( The middle class ) will be in what my Dad used to say is " A serious pickle ".

I hope I don't wake up as a man - I like my boobs. I'm quite aware of the place and effect oil has in American society. But either the complaining will force alternate fuel sources and some changes, or people will suck it up and keep paying the prices. I know what i want, which is why I vote for government members who, I hope, will affect those changes in our government.

In the meantime, I take full advantage of the fact that working for a university means I get free transportation and discounts on everything I purchase except groceries. I drive a car maybe twice a month because I get free train ride right to my work doorstep. I'm very lucky.

I pay attention to the economy more so than the average joe, and I do what I can to affect change. That's all anyone can do.
Reply
Reply
post #39 of 120
5/25/08 at 9:31pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Go back and read all the posts then read : " Now put this together with everything else going on " in my post. Then sit and contemplate for awhile.

So then your lecture on the price of oil actually has nothing to do with the actual topic under discussion?

Good to know.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #40 of 120
5/26/08 at 5:52am
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

No, the graph isn't what it is. It's misleading because it has one small portion of the tax code, top marginal rates, on the same axis as total revenues which is a massive number. So the one small thing is magnified and the larger thing is diminished. In reality, taxes have a huge impact on, um, taxes.

The graph is what it is. The title is correct and the axes are labeled correctly. I might quibble that the y-axis is reused for two different statistics but at least they have the same range, 0-100%. It's only misleading for people that don't know what a marginal tax rate is or a tax revenue normalized to GDP. So it requires something more than typical high school education to understand. But it was published in the WSJ.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

Or let me say it this way: You'd have to be an idiot to believe that changes in tax law have no effect on taxes. Unless you're a Republican running for office.

Of course. We know that from all the other worthless social science experiments that the economist have done. I'm no flat earth man.

Anyway? Want more money for the government to pay for stuff? Grow the GDP!
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › You Can't Soak the Rich