quote:

ORIGINAL: thornhappy

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

The primary impetus comes from increasing the after tax value of investment opportunities, which increases investment. Thats why capital gains tax rate reductions have the biggest impact, as proven by prior capital gains reductions (including that staunch conserative Bill Clinton) and increases (1986 Tax Reform).

The last I heard, it was about 50/50 - it didn't have that effect every time.

I remember when folks said these reductions would result in great benefits to the taxpayer, since so many people owned stocks.  What wasn't mentioned was the fact that most of that stock was in 401ks.  If you had a whopping bunch of stock you benefited and that usually meant you were rich.  Much of that "investment" was in vacation homes, boats, etc.

The only tax credit I saw (in the tech industry) that changed corporate investment was the R&D tax credit.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

These are not really myths or facts but debatable viewpoints.
1. It was Obama decision to feed the banksters, The economic stimulus bad design and so on....
2. Only fool without any common sense would believe the health care bill does not increase health spending.
3. Tax cut stimulates the economy (ask any economist).
4. Debt servicing takes somewhere 600 billion/year. The money would definitely help to create jobs and stimulate economy.

This is an interesting debate between "keynesian clowns" and fiscal conservative reformers. the clowns just "saved the economy". How real it was will be seen very soon.

Starting with point 1, no. Bush's Treasury secretary begged--literally--for this.

Of course Paulson begged for it. It still took a Democrat controlled Congress to write and pass it. The GOP delayed and nearly defeated it. too bad they lost.

Point 2 is more complex than that. Health care costs are spiraling ever upward. The status quo is unsustainable. Yet we do nothing.


Correct, the spiraling increase of costs is unsustainable. But nothing needs to be "Done" to stop the rate of growth. The market for health care will reach an equilbrium just like the market for any other product or service. You cant fool mother nature.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
IOW the Laffer curve, the foundation of all supply side economics, is completely without real world evidence and anyone supporting supply side economics is a liar and ideologue.

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy
Point 2 is more complex than that. Health care costs are spiraling ever upward. The status quo is unsustainable. Yet we do nothing.


Correct, the spiraling increase of costs is unsustainable. But nothing needs to be "Done" to stop the rate of growth. The market for health care will reach an equilbrium just like the market for any other product or service. You cant fool mother nature.

quote:

ORIGINAL: AnimusRex

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
IOW the Laffer curve, the foundation of all supply side economics, is completely without real world evidence and anyone supporting supply side economics is a liar and ideologue.

I guess pointing out (again) that even economists who created the Laffer curve have repudiated it is a waste of time.

But maybe we just need to patiently explain it, every time, time after time after time.

Thinking you can cut taxes and raise revenue is the ultimate free lunch scam, a way of getting something for nothing, a magic pony that no one has to pay for.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jeffff

You spend a great deal of time spouting stuff. You spend very little documenting the shit you spew.

How do you ever expect to challenge anyones thinking?


Jeff

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jeffff

You had no trouble putting the link up from the Cato institute. It was an Op-Ed piece. If you wish to sway people, engage them.

I can read, I can understand what I read. You spout and run. If you are looking for respect, earn it.

Luckydawg down played your 65% quote. It was 9% off. Why should I believe anything you type? Your career is in economics? Why should I believe that.

This is the fucking internet. Put up or be mocked for a fool.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jeffff

Sound and fury, signifying nothing.



Jeff

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jeffff

Thats a nice Op-Ed piece. The premise seems to be that people who cheat on their taxes at a higher percentage won't cheat at a lower percentage?


Jeff

It has nothing to do with "Cheating". When tax rates are lowered the incentive to use and the cost effectiveness of tax shelters are reduced. Thats a minor impact though. The primary impetus comes from increasing the after tax value of investment opportunities, which increases investment. Thats why capital gains tax rate reductions have the biggest impact, as proven by prior capital gains reductions (including that staunch conserative Bill Clinton) and increases (1986 Tax Reform).

quote:

ORIGINAL: eyesopened

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jeffff

Thats a nice Op-Ed piece. The premise seems to be that people who cheat on their taxes at a higher percentage won't cheat at a lower percentage?


Jeff

It has nothing to do with "Cheating". When tax rates are lowered the incentive to use and the cost effectiveness of tax shelters are reduced. Thats a minor impact though. The primary impetus comes from increasing the after tax value of investment opportunities, which increases investment. Thats why capital gains tax rate reductions have the biggest impact, as proven by prior capital gains reductions (including that staunch conserative Bill Clinton) and increases (1986 Tax Reform).

So let's see if I can understand this.  If it costs me $.20 to make a donut and I sell a donut at $1.20  people with lots of money will prefer to eat toast at home.  If I reduce the price of my donut to $.75 I'll make up the shortfall in profits by creating volume sales.  Then if I sell donuts by the dozen at say $2.00 a dozen, the really wealthy people will buy up donuts by dozen more often than eat toast at home.  If I discover that selling below cost to make up in volume causes me to be late on my equipment lease, I can just buy a photocopier to make copies of the money I need.  Is that how it works? 

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jeffff

You spend a great deal of time spouting stuff. You spend very little documenting the shit you spew.

How do you ever expect to challenge anyones thinking?


Jeff

If something is "documentable" (eg the effect of tax cuts on revenues), ive already done it.
Your relatively new, at least to me. You should be aware that RMLs constant refrain of "document" is because he was already unable to respond to, and therefore ignored the documenation or played the ad hominen game.

If something takes years of education and experience to learn and understand (eg the thread on tax cuts and credits) then I do my best to describe it in laymans terms. It isnt "documentable" in a CM thread, there are plenty of textbooks if you someone wants to spend the time.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jeffff

You spend a great deal of time spouting stuff. You spend very little documenting the shit you spew.

How do you ever expect to challenge anyones thinking?


Jeff

If something is "documentable" (eg the effect of tax cuts on revenues), ive already done it.
Your relatively new, at least to me. You should be aware that RMLs constant refrain of "document" is because he was already unable to respond to, and therefore ignored the documenation or played the ad hominen game.

If something takes years of education and experience to learn and understand (eg the thread on tax cuts and credits) then I do my best to describe it in laymans terms. It isnt "documentable" in a CM thread, there are plenty of textbooks if you someone wants to spend the time.

If you don't want to take the time to document your opinions, then they are just opinions, not facts as you present them.

What you spout is not a fact just because you say it is or because your clone profiles applaud you, which, by the way, is getting kind of sad and pathetic.

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: eyesopened

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jeffff

Thats a nice Op-Ed piece. The premise seems to be that people who cheat on their taxes at a higher percentage won't cheat at a lower percentage?


Jeff

It has nothing to do with "Cheating". When tax rates are lowered the incentive to use and the cost effectiveness of tax shelters are reduced. Thats a minor impact though. The primary impetus comes from increasing the after tax value of investment opportunities, which increases investment. Thats why capital gains tax rate reductions have the biggest impact, as proven by prior capital gains reductions (including that staunch conserative Bill Clinton) and increases (1986 Tax Reform).

So let's see if I can understand this.  If it costs me $.20 to make a donut and I sell a donut at $1.20  people with lots of money will prefer to eat toast at home.  If I reduce the price of my donut to $.75 I'll make up the shortfall in profits by creating volume sales.  Then if I sell donuts by the dozen at say $2.00 a dozen, the really wealthy people will buy up donuts by dozen more often than eat toast at home.  If I discover that selling below cost to make up in volume causes me to be late on my equipment lease, I can just buy a photocopier to make copies of the money I need.  Is that how it works? 

wtf are you talking about and what does it have to do with stimulating investments by increasing their value?

quote:

ORIGINAL: eyesopened

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: eyesopened

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jeffff

Thats a nice Op-Ed piece. The premise seems to be that people who cheat on their taxes at a higher percentage won't cheat at a lower percentage?


Jeff

It has nothing to do with "Cheating". When tax rates are lowered the incentive to use and the cost effectiveness of tax shelters are reduced. Thats a minor impact though. The primary impetus comes from increasing the after tax value of investment opportunities, which increases investment. Thats why capital gains tax rate reductions have the biggest impact, as proven by prior capital gains reductions (including that staunch conserative Bill Clinton) and increases (1986 Tax Reform).

So let's see if I can understand this.  If it costs me $.20 to make a donut and I sell a donut at $1.20  people with lots of money will prefer to eat toast at home.  If I reduce the price of my donut to $.75 I'll make up the shortfall in profits by creating volume sales.  Then if I sell donuts by the dozen at say $2.00 a dozen, the really wealthy people will buy up donuts by dozen more often than eat toast at home.  If I discover that selling below cost to make up in volume causes me to be late on my equipment lease, I can just buy a photocopier to make copies of the money I need.  Is that how it works? 

wtf are you talking about and what does it have to do with stimulating investments by increasing their value?

wtf have you been talking about?  How does your examples lower the deficit? (which was the subject of this thread)  You are saying that if we lower taxes on the wealthy they will not hide money in tax shelters, report more income and put more money into investments.  How does that reduce the deficit?  If you spend more than you earn, you go into debt.  Even and idiot like me can understand that.  The investments don't create a base for tax revenue.  Reporting more income and then taking more deductions doesn't increase tax revenue.  You can hide your money either before tax as an adjustment or after tax as a credit, the revenue remains the same.   The reporting of more income but taking other tax deductions is no different than the government being thrilled with selling below cost but in increased volume.  It's a joke but one you didn't recognize.   Show me one example of someone increasing their investments and how that increased tax revenue.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Actually, Keynesian economics aren't the problem--the implementation is the problem.

Everybody's cool with expansionary policies. But when good times call for contractionary policies, we continue the expansionary policies, making the next recession all the more challenging, and continually pushing deficits.

Democrats and Republicans alike are at fault. Keynes has never had his approach fairly played out.