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

You Can't Soak the Rich - Page 2

post #41 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

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

Good to know.

Always amazed at the effect those blinders you wear allow you to only read what you want.
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 #42 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by Silviar View Post

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.


Well I work for a university also and I'm not aware of anyone Classified, Faculty, or administrative that gets that treatment there. So lucky you! We get a discounts on some items in the school store but that's about it.

Also wouldn't be funny if oil prices drop just before the election ( like they did in 2006 ). You see I don't believe this is just supply and demand. I believe the price is being manipulated by several factors ( including OPEC not liking us and our current role in the middle east ). Mostly right now it's just greed. Making that profit while they can. Yes we're running out of oil and that will be a big factor in the future. That's not what's behind the big surges in price we're seeing now.

However I'm hopeful that this will respark the wave of conservation that was started and then forgotten in the 70's the last time we had a wakeup call from the middle east. In that case they might be pricing themselves right out of the market for their biggest customer. Which would please me to no end.

Sorry I didn't realize about your boobs and I wouldn't want you to go without them either!
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 #43 of 120
Well I'm guessing who the McCains would favor if he becomes president.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/....ap/index.html


" Heiress to a large Arizona beer distributorship, Cindy McCain's worth has been estimated at more than $100 million. Her assets, as listed in McCain's personal financial disclosure, are vast. But presidential and senatorial financial disclosures only require assets to be listed in broad ranges, and many of hers are valued at simply "over $1 million."

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 #44 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by mydo View Post

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.

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!

Yeah, like right now, with $4/gallon gas, rising food and transportation costs, and increased layoffs, U.S. auto industry cutting back due to high fuel prices, the housing market crisis, lower valuation of the U.S. dollar versus other currencies, etceteras.

And why not plot the actual aggregate tax rate for all actual taxpayers, since GDP is the aggregate sum of all goods and services (e. g. everyone contributes to GDP).

Or why not plot the lowest tax bracket? Which varied from 22.2% (1952-53) to 10% (2007).

Or why not plot each on separate Y-Axes, such that the range of each covers the same vertical ground.

But in the end who cares if one variable (highest theoretical tax bracket) has no relationship to another variable (GDP), or if any tax bracket bares no relationship to GDP, for that matter. The only thing that does matter is total revenues taken from an aggregate of several incremental tax brackets.

So since no single tax bracket mirrors GDP, I say soak the rich for all they have, rob Peter to pay Paul, better them then me.
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 #45 of 120
I guess you're right. You could plot any tax vs the ratio of tax revenue to GDP and it would all show nothing. Flat is flat. But then don't pretend (or run for president on the idea) that that increasing taxes on the rich has anything to do with paying for stuff and everything to do with taking something from someone because you don't think they should have it.


Forget all of it though. What do you really want? You want a tax policy that maximizes money coming in? A tax policy that grows the GDP the fastest? A tax policy that makes our country more fair?
post #46 of 120
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.

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.

That is, unless you're BRussell, arguing that tax cuts during the Kennedy, Reagan and Bush administrations didn't stimulate the economy and produce more revenue in the long term.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #47 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

That is, unless you're BRussell, arguing that tax cuts during the Kennedy, Reagan and Bush administrations didn't stimulate the economy and produce more revenue in the long term.

These so called tax cuts did not produce more revenue in the long term, the data itself doesn't support your erroneous statement. Each time there's a tax cot, it causes a lag in the federal revenue stream, after the lag is over (typically a few years), the revenue curve returns to it's trajectory prior to the tax cuts (i. e. it isn't steeper except when it's in it's temporary recovery cycle).

The source of my data you ask?

Budget of the United States Government: Historical Tables Fiscal Year 2009

Tables 1.1 and 1.2, years included 1952-2010.

Revenue = 0.18431*GDP Period 1952-1981 (R^2 = 0.995)
Revenue = 0.17937*GDP Period 1952-1993 (R^2 = 0.998) (Reagan-Bush years added)
Revenue = 0.18978*GDP Period 1952-2001 (R^2 = 0.993) (Clinton years added)
Revenue = 0.18264*GDP Period 1952-2009 (R^2 = 0.993) (Bush years added, note last two FY are overly optimistic estimates IMHO given current events not taken into account in these estimates)
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 #48 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

These so called tax cuts did not produce more revenue in the long term, the data itself doesn't support your erroneous statement. Each time there's a tax cot, it causes a lag in the federal revenue stream, after the lag is over (typically a few years), the revenue curve returns to it's trajectory prior to the tax cuts (i. e. it isn't steeper except when it's in it's temporary recovery cycle).

The source of my data you ask?

Budget of the United States Government: Historical Tables Fiscal Year 2009

Tables 1.1 and 1.2, years included 1952-2010.

Revenue = 0.18431*GDP Period 1952-1981 (R^2 = 0.995)
Revenue = 0.17937*GDP Period 1952-1993 (R^2 = 0.998) (Reagan-Bush years added)
Revenue = 0.18978*GDP Period 1952-2001 (R^2 = 0.993) (Clinton years added)
Revenue = 0.18264*GDP Period 1952-2009 (R^2 = 0.993) (Bush years added, note last two FY are overly optimistic estimates IMHO given current events not taken into account in these estimates)


Yes, it reduces revenue in the short term, until the economic stimulus kicks in, which expands the tax base. Or, do you believe the economy grew on its own, totally independent of tax policy?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #49 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Or, do you believe the economy grew on its own, totally independent of tax policy?




Quote:
That is, unless you're BRussell, arguing that tax cuts during the Kennedy, Reagan and Bush administrations didn't stimulate the economy and produce more revenue in the long term.

BRussell and every other Republican and conservative economist - not to mention neutral or liberal - inside or outside of the Bush administration that I've repeatedly cited saying that tax cuts don't produce more revenue in the long term.
post #50 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Yes, it reduces revenue in the short term, until the economic stimulus kicks in, which expands the tax base. Or, do you believe the economy grew on its own, totally independent of tax policy?

The numbers I've cited above are irrefutable with respect to federal revenues. The numbers don't lie, they fully refute your first sentence, increased tax rates lead to increased federal revenues, decreased tax rates lead to decreased federal revenues. Federal receipts never fully recover from tax cuts, that's what the data shows, that's been a truism going back to 1981.

Where do you think most (if not all) of these federal revenue ends up eventually? Most of it ends up back in the private sector, after going through a few sets of hands. Heck, do I also need to post the same relationship for outlays?

Revenue = 0.18264*GDP Period 1952-2009 (R^2 = 0.993)
Outlays = 0.20222*GDP Period 1952-2009 (R^2 = 0.995)

Outlays > Revenues: 0,20222 - 0,18264 = 0.01958 = 1.958%

So if GDP = $14 Trillion then 0.01958*14 = $274.12 Billion which has had a larger effect on GDP growth than any of the numerous smaller changes in the individual income tax code have ever had.
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 #51 of 120
SDW trotting out the same malarkey that he was trounced on months ago.
post #52 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post




BRussell and every other Republican and conservative economist - not to mention neutral or liberal - inside or outside of the Bush administration that I've repeatedly cited saying that tax cuts don't produce more revenue in the long term.

You are truly amazing in your ability to both ignore historical facts and use strawman tactics in debating this issue. No economist, Democrat, Republican---no one---can change what has happened.

I've cited three times in recent history where the following happened:

1. We had a slowing economy/recession.
2. Cuts were implemented.
3. Within two years, the recession ended.
4. Revenue returned to previous levels and then got even higher....all with much lower tax rates.

It doesn't seem to matter how I say it...you ignore the other half of the tax revenue equation. It's simply not just about the tax rate. It's about the total tax base, the "pie" if you will. We enact tax cuts to stimulate the economy and grow the tax base. Revenue clearly falls initially, until the stimulus takes effect. As with any major economic policy, there is a 2+ year lag time before results are seen.

The results are undeniable, BRussell. Any person--economist or no---that claims revenue doesn't go up in the long term simply is not taking into account the effect tax cuts have on total tax base.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #53 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

The numbers I've cited above are irrefutable with respect to federal revenues. The numbers don't lie, they fully refute your first sentence, increased tax rates lead to increased federal revenues, decreased tax rates lead to decreased federal revenues. Federal receipts never fully recover from tax cuts, that's what the data shows, that's been a truism going back to 1981.

That is perhaps the most factually wrong statement ever made on Appleinsider. The numbers, friend, in fact prove exactly what I've been saying. Revenue doubled during Reagan's presidency, even given substantially lower tax rates. Do I really need to go post this data for you?
Quote:
Where do you think most (if not all) of these federal revenue ends up eventually? Most of it ends up back in the private sector, after going through a few sets of hands. Heck, do I also need to post the same relationship for outlays?

No it doesn't. You're not accounting for waste, bureaucracy, fraud, misappropriation, etc. And really...if you believe this...you're essentially arguing that tax increases stimulate the economy. Good luck with that one.

Quote:

Revenue = 0.18264*GDP Period 1952-2009 (R^2 = 0.993)
Outlays = 0.20222*GDP Period 1952-2009 (R^2 = 0.995)

Outlays > Revenues: 0,20222 - 0,18264 = 0.01958 = 1.958%

So if GDP = $14 Trillion then 0.01958*14 = $274.12 Billion which has had a larger effect on GDP growth than any of the numerous smaller changes in the individual income tax code have ever had.

If I have this right, you're arguing that government spending actually created the majority GDP growth? Wow.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #54 of 120
Tax cuts can and, generally, do lead to greater growth. The evidence for this is really no debatable.

Some summary reading/viewing:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YsB_rnzBA08

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3015

A key statement (which pro-tax folks like to forget):

Quote:
Changes in marginal income tax rates cause individuals and businesses to change their behavior. As tax rates rise, taxpayers reduce taxable income by working less, retiring earlier, scaling back plans to start or expand businesses, moving activities to the underground economy, restructuring companies, and spending more time and money on accountants to minimize taxes.

In other words, people (particularly the rich) don't idly sit by and let their money be taken.

Or, put more succinctly and eloquently: "You Can't Soak the Rich"


Here's more:

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3059
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=4374


This one is particularly important because it exposes the faulty assumptions of "static scoring" (i.e., people will not change their behavior if we raise tax rates) vs. "dynamic scoring" (i.e., people will change their behavior if we raise tax rates):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATDzKSOQCi8


This is common sense. Look at what's happening with rising gas prices...people are adjusting their behavior to use less gas. The same applies to taxes.
post #55 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

You are truly amazing in your ability to both ignore historical facts and use strawman tactics in debating this issue. No economist, Democrat, Republican---no one---can change what has happened.

I've cited three times in recent history where the following happened:

1. We had a slowing economy/recession.
2. Cuts were implemented.
3. Within two years, the recession ended.
4. Revenue returned to previous levels and then got even higher....all with much lower tax rates.

It doesn't seem to matter how I say it...you ignore the other half of the tax revenue equation. It's simply not just about the tax rate. It's about the total tax base, the "pie" if you will. We enact tax cuts to stimulate the economy and grow the tax base. Revenue clearly falls initially, until the stimulus takes effect. As with any major economic policy, there is a 2+ year lag time before results are seen.

The results are undeniable, BRussell. Any person--economist or no---that claims revenue doesn't go up in the long term simply is not taking into account the effect tax cuts have on total tax base.

Right, it doesn't matter that the experts - even those with heavy incentives to agree with you - all agree with me and disagree with you, as I've cited probably a dozen times here over the years. The Republican economists explicitly say it's nonsense and tax cuts don't pay for themselves. It's like creationism, or global warming: You're a me-generation guy on the internet and therefore your opinion is the same all the experts.

Yes, recessions end and revenues go back up when there are tax cuts. It also happens when there are tax increases. Or when there are no tax changes.
post #56 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by sslarson View Post

Tax cuts can and, generally, do lead to greater growth. The evidence for this is really no debatable.

Some summary reading/viewing:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YsB_rnzBA08

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3015

A key statement (which pro-tax folks like to forget):



In other words, people (particularly the rich) don't idly sit by and let their money be taken.

Or, put more succinctly and eloquently: "You Can't Soak the Rich"


Here's more:

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3059
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=4374


This one is particularly important because it exposes the faulty assumptions of "static scoring" (i.e., people will not change their behavior if we raise tax rates) vs. "dynamic scoring" (i.e., people will change their behavior if we raise tax rates):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATDzKSOQCi8


This is common sense. Look at what's happening with rising gas prices...people are adjusting their behavior to use less gas. The same applies to taxes.

I say bullsh!t to the libertarian stink tank called the Cato Institute, I say bullsh!t to the neocon artists Laffer Curve. I've shown the data, refute the government's own data or STFU!

[CENTER]
Neo-Laffer Curve (theoretical)


Neo-Laffer Curve (actual)[/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 #57 of 120
Tax cuts are good, regardless of their effect on receipts.

If they raise receipts, great, all the big spenders in these DC parties can have a shopping spree, or pay down the debt, which needs to happen yesterday. The problem is, when we have a surplus, our congress does not pay the debt, it begins looking for new voting blocs to buy with public money.

If tax cuts lower receipts, great too. Gov't needs to live within a budget like all of us do, not like intoxicated navy staff on shore leave. If receipts slow down to a pain point, then they are going to have to figure out what really matters and where they can trim... just like the proles do outside the Beltway. Wouldn't it be nice if making promises of Christmas for everyone was a campaign loser for a change?

Tax cuts do not cause deficits. Spending more money than you have causes deficits.

It's the number one reason that the GOP and it's base are estranged... And the reason that many of us have left.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #58 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

That is perhaps the most factually wrong statement ever made on Appleinsider. The numbers, friend, in fact prove exactly what I've been saying. Revenue doubled during Reagan's presidency, even given substantially lower tax rates. Do I really need to go post this data for you? No it doesn't. You're not accounting for waste, bureaucracy, fraud, misappropriation, etc. And really...if you believe this...you're essentially arguing that tax increases stimulate the economy. Good luck with that one.


If I have this right, you're arguing that government spending actually created the majority GDP growth? Wow.

You are out of your league here, as you can't even understand the simple metrics I've posted, revenues have always gone up. D'oh!

Increases in federal revenue for different presidential terms (note this is the net increase so that 100% equals a doubling of revenue) (i. e. 100% +100% (baseline number));

Reagan 65.4% (8 years elapsed)
Reagan-Bush 92.6% (12 years elapsed)
Clinton 72.5% (8 years elapsed)
Bush 35.6% (8 years elapsed, note last two years are estimates which IMHO are high due to recent events not accounted for in the original estimates)

Similarly, increases in federal outlays;

Reagan 68.6%
Reagan Bush 107.8%
Clinton 32.2%
Bush 66.8%

So no, you are wrong again, go look at the data yourself.

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.
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 #59 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

I say bullsh!t to the libertarian stink tank called the Cato Institute,




Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

I've shown the data, refute the government's own data

The links I posted include data to back their claims. Given your dismissal based on the source, I'll assume you didn't even bother to read them and formulate a reasoned response to their data and deductions. You could even save some time by only looking at the first video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YsB_rnzBA08) from 1:00 to about 5:30.
post #60 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

Right, it doesn't matter that the experts - even those with heavy incentives to agree with you - all agree with me and disagree with you, as I've cited probably a dozen times here over the years. The Republican economists explicitly say it's nonsense and tax cuts don't pay for themselves. It's like creationism, or global warming: You're a me-generation guy on the internet and therefore your opinion is the same all the experts.

Yes, recessions end and revenues go back up when there are tax cuts. It also happens when there are tax increases. Or when there are no tax changes.

I don't care whom you cite as an "expert," he or she cannot change history. And with your last point, you're essentially saying that tax policy has no impact on the economy. It will do what it will do in your opinion.

I must then ask as I have before:

1. If we raise taxes by say, 25-50%...will it have a negative impact on the economy? If so, why?

2. Putting aside government fiscal health for a moment, would you agree that a total elimination of income taxes for fixed period of time would result in much higher economic growth? Why or why not?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #61 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

Tax cuts are good, regardless of their effect on receipts.

If they raise receipts, great, all the big spenders in these DC parties can have a shopping spree, or pay down the debt, which needs to happen yesterday. The problem is, when we have a surplus, our congress does not pay the debt, it begins looking for new voting blocs to buy with public money.

If tax cuts lower receipts, great too. Gov't needs to live within a budget like all of us do, not like intoxicated navy staff on shore leave. If receipts slow down to a pain point, then they are going to have to figure out what really matters and where they can trim... just like the proles do outside the Beltway. Wouldn't it be nice if making promises of Christmas for everyone was a campaign loser for a change?

Tax cuts do not cause deficits. Spending more money than you have causes deficits.

It's the number one reason that the GOP and it's base are estranged... And the reason that many of us have left.

It's not great if tax cuts lower revenues, because the politicians cutting taxes don't trim spending. Why don't they trim spending? Because they claim that tax cuts don't lose revenues, so they don't need to cut spending! They can cut taxes, increase revenues, and therefore ignore spending.

And here's what I really don't get: You guys say that you got estranged from the GOP because they didn't keep spending in line with tax cuts - but that's not new, they've never done that. Under the Reagan plan, taxes were cut and spending was increased (because tax cuts increase revenues, so you don't need to hold spending down). Under Bush's plan, taxes were cut and spending was increased (because... well you know). It was exactly the same thing. The reason the base is down on the GOP is Iraq, not spending. They've never cared about spending because the politicians push this economic creationism that tax cuts increase revenues.
post #62 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by sslarson View Post






The links I posted include data to back their claims. Given your dismissal based on the source, I'll assume you didn't even bother to read them and formulate a reasoned response to their data and deductions. You could even save some time by only looking at the first video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YsB_rnzBA08) from 1:00 to about 5:30.

I don't read, or listen to, gibberish, 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 #63 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I don't care whom you cite as an "expert," he or she cannot change history. And with your last point, you're essentially saying that tax policy has no impact on the economy. It will do what it will do in your opinion.

I must then ask as I have before:

1. If we raise taxes by say, 25-50%...will it have a negative impact on the economy? If so, why?

2. Putting aside government fiscal health for a moment, would you agree that a total elimination of income taxes for fixed period of time would result in much higher economic growth? Why or why not?

1. Lame and weak comeback. Why you ask? Because the aggregate tax rate has never changed by such an amount, your numbers are at least an order of magnitude higher than the historical record.

2. An anarchist's argument, no government infrastructure, means no armed forces, no everything else that the federal government provides as services to the nation. Don't know where you're going with this absurd and impossible line of reasoning.
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 #64 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

I don't read, or listen to, gibberish, TYVM.

Thank you for publicly admitting your adherence to a policy of wilful ignorance.

Your credibility just took a nose-dive.
post #65 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by sslarson View Post

Thank you for publicly admitting your adherence to a policy of wilful ignorance.

Your credibility just took a nose-dive.

You're credibility sunk to the bottom right from the get go. So there.
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 #66 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

You are out of your league here, as you can't even understand the simple metrics I've posted, revenues have always gone up. D'oh!

Increases in federal revenue for different presidential terms (note this is the net increase so that 100% equals a doubling of revenue) (i. e. 100% +100% (baseline number));

Reagan 65.4% (8 years elapsed)
Reagan-Bush 92.6% (12 years elapsed)
Clinton 72.5% (8 years elapsed)
Bush 35.6% (8 years elapsed, note last two years are estimates which IMHO are high due to recent events not accounted for in the original estimates)

Similarly, increases in federal outlays;

Reagan 68.6%
Reagan Bush 107.8%
Clinton 32.2%
Bush 66.8%

So no, you are wrong again, go look at the data yourself.

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.

Frank, it is you who are utterly out of your league. Yes, revenues increased. But here is the question: Would they have continued to if the economy continued to contract instead of expand? Of course not, at least not at the rate they did. Revenue is directly tied to economic growth. More economic growth means more revenue. This is irrefutable.

Also, just come out and say it, Frank: You think economic growth is created mostly through government spending. Of course, you therefore believe that we should spend infinitely more to create economic growth. To support that spending, we need higher taxes. This puts you squarely in the Tax and Spend Liberal category.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #67 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Frank, it is you who are utterly out of your league. Yes, revenues increased. But here is the question: Would they have continued to if the economy continued to contract instead of expand? Of course not, at least not at the rate they did. Revenue is directly tied to economic growth. More economic growth means more revenue. This is irrefutable.

Also, just come out and say it, Frank: You think economic growth is created mostly through government spending. Of course, you therefore believe that we should spend infinitely more to create economic growth. To support that spending, we need higher taxes. This puts you squarely in the Tax and Spend Liberal category.

Speak to the numbers or STFU! And what do the numbers say, you ask? That Republican administrations have, and continue to use, flawed fiscal policies.
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 #68 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I don't care whom you cite as an "expert," he or she cannot change history.

I know you don't care about "experts."

Quote:
And with your last point, you're essentially saying that tax policy has no impact on the economy. It will do what it will do in your opinion.

I must then ask as I have before:

1. If we raise taxes by say, 25-50%...will it have a negative impact on the economy? If so, why?

Sure, if you take money out of the economy it will negatively impact growth. On the other hand, when that money is spent it will have a positive impact on economic growth, especially if it's spent on things like building projects and wars and such that put that money back into jobs and purchases. But on balance, economic growth will be higher when taxes are lower.

Quote:
2. Putting aside government fiscal health for a moment, would you agree that a total elimination of income taxes for fixed period of time would result in much higher economic growth? Why or why not?

Sure, for the same reason as above: people would spend the money and invest it and do all kinds of things that would help economic growth.

But none of that changes the fact that you aren't going to increase growth enough to overcome the loss in revenues that the tax cuts produced. The "experts" (that I know you like to put in quotes and don't believe) say that when you cut taxes by X, you increase economic growth by some fraction of X, which increases revenues by some smaller fraction of X. The problem is, you can't get a bigger X than you started with. That the economic creationism.
post #69 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Speak to the numbers

I love how you try to give the appearance of reasoned debate by saying "show me the numbers", but then dismiss data-laden articles (as "gibberish") that run counter to your claims because of who the source is.



Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

or STFU!

You sure like to say that a lot.

I suspect you're a "know-it-all" drunk.
post #70 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by sslarson View Post

I love how you try to give the appearance of reasoned debate by saying "show me the numbers", but then dismiss data-laden articles (as "gibberish") that run counter to your claims because of who the source is.





You sure like to say that a lot.

I suspect you're a "know-it-all" drunk.

... comment.
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 #71 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Speak to the numbers or STFU! And what do the numbers say, you ask? That Republican administrations have, and continue to use, flawed fiscal policies.

I have spoken to the numbers. And you've ignored them. You've also ignored the rest of the post. Typical.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #72 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I have spoken to the numbers. And you've ignored them. You've also ignored the rest of the post. Typical.

Present some information, other than your opinion, as I have done, otherwise STFU!

Oh, and were you right or wrong about Reagan "doubling federal revenue?" A simple yes or no will suffice, and remember I've already posted the government's own numbers which disprove your specious claim, TYVM.

So it is you that have ignored my posts, every time I prove you wrong, SOP for you.
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 #73 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

Sure, for the same reason as above: people would spend the money and invest it and do all kinds of things that would help economic growth.

It only helps growth if the efficiency of the tax payer is greater than the government. This may in general be true to a point, but beyond that point (say for infrastructure or defense -- or any spending that requires a long outlook) the government will by necessity be more efficient...

Basically, let the people have enough freedom to drive short term growth, and use the government to ensure long term sustainability...
"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 #74 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

I know you don't care about "experts."

It depends on the expert and it depends on what he/she is being asked.

Quote:

Sure, if you take money out of the economy it will negatively impact growth.

Thank you. Good.

Quote:
On the other hand, when that money is spent it will have a positive impact on economic growth, especially if it's spent on things like building projects and wars and such that put that money back into jobs and purchases. But on balance, economic growth will be higher when taxes are lower.

Yes, it will have SOME impact, but the damage done will be far greater because it will kill economic growth. You're proceeding under the assumption that revenue would continue to be healthy, and it wouldn't. See your own answer above.

Quote:

Sure, for the same reason as above: people would spend the money and invest it and do all kinds of things that would help economic growth.

Which in turn would lead to....

Quote:

But none of that changes the fact that you aren't going to increase growth enough to overcome the loss in revenues that the tax cuts produced.

But that's false. It's proven false. It's been shown that even with vastly lower rates, revenue recovers and goes much higher. So the "experts" are 100% wrong.

Quote:

The "experts" (that I know you like to put in quotes and don't believe) say that when you cut taxes by X, you increase economic growth by some fraction of X, which increases revenues by some smaller fraction of X. The problem is, you can't get a bigger X than you started with. That the economic creationism.

Except, we have gotten a bigger "X." It's happened several times now. I've already explained, the error that is made relates not just to increasing economic growth, but to what the impact on revenue would have been had the economy continued in a downward trend.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #75 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardeeharhar View Post

or any spending that requires a long outlook) the government will by necessity be more efficient...

...use the government to ensure long term sustainability...



Wow. I'm still catching my breath from laughing so hard at that.

Whew.

That's priceless.

Plus you owe me a new monitor and keyboard because there's no way they'll ever be the same after all of the Coke I just spit all over them.

The only thing the government appears to be more efficient at than private individuals or the market seems to be killing people.
post #76 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by sslarson View Post



Wow. I'm still catching my breath from laughing so hard at that.

Whew.

That's priceless.

Plus you owe me a new monitor and keyboard because there's no way they'll ever be the same after all of the Coke I just spit all over them.

The only thing the government appears to be more efficient at than private individuals or the market seems to be killing people.

The proof is in the pudding -- people, corporations included, don't act for their long term survival -- it isn't instinctual, if you will... Libertarian economic philosophy, for some bizarre reason, ignores the century of psychological economic wisdom, which effectively shows that humans are irrational choosers that care less about long term goals than the immediate reward. Any economic system that ignores these features by design is doomed to failure from the get go. And so you have libertarian economic theory...
"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 #77 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

But that's false. It's proven false. It's been shown that even with vastly lower rates, revenue recovers and goes much higher. So the "experts" are 100% wrong.

No it isn't. No it hasn't been. No it has not. No, they are not.
"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 #78 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

when that money is spent it will have a positive impact on economic growth, especially if it's spent on things like ... wars

The "war helps the economy" thing is a myth. A fallacy. It is false (just like the "natural disasters help the economy" thing) and the sooner we put it to rest, we'll be one (baby) step closer to ending wars.
post #79 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardeeharhar View Post

The proof is in the pudding

Yes it is...but it doesn't prove what you are claiming.


Quote:
Originally Posted by hardeeharhar View Post

-- people, corporations included, don't act for their long term survival

Of course they do. Stop spouting such foolishness.

Now, I'll admit that not everyone thinks long term. There is certainly evidence of this in things like the relatively widespread support for larger, more powerful and more invasive government, higher taxes, minimum wage laws, government price-controls, calls for "windfall" profit taxes on oil companies, government-run health care and so.
post #80 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

It depends on the expert and it depends on what he/she is being asked.



Thank you. Good.



Yes, it will have SOME impact, but the damage done will be far greater because it will kill economic growth. You're proceeding under the assumption that revenue would continue to be healthy, and it wouldn't. See your own answer above.



Which in turn would lead to....



But that's false. It's proven false. It's been shown that even with vastly lower rates, revenue recovers and goes much higher. So the "experts" are 100% wrong.



Except, we have gotten a bigger "X." It's happened several times now. I've already explained, the error that is made relates not just to increasing economic growth, but to what the impact on revenue would have been had the economy continued in a downward trend.

So let me ask you a few questions:

First, the government was taking in more revenues at the end of Reagan's term than at the beginning, say, 1981 to 1988, right? (I looked it up and it was about 600 billion in 1981 and 900 b. in 1988.) And the government is taking in more now (2.5 trillion) than it was in 2001 (2 trillion), right? I think that is the basis for your argument that tax cuts increase revenues, right? (The first table here has those numbers.)

OK, now let me ask you:

1. Does the economy ever come out of recession without tax cuts, or even with tax increases, or does it just stay in recession? If it does go back to growing, even without tax cuts, why?

2. Cinton raised taxes rather than cutting them. How much did revenues grow during the Clinton years - what were 1993 revenues and what were 2000 revenues? Is that more or less revenue growth than Reagan or Bush have had? What about revenue growth during the Nixon-Ford years of 1969 to 1976 - more or less growth than Reagan and Bush's tax cut years?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › You Can't Soak the Rich