RE: The Failure

RE: The Failure (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

DomKen -> RE: The Failure (10/10/2010 1:08:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY The Macroeconomic Effects of Tax Changes:Estimates Based on a New Measure of Fiscal Shocks By Christina D. Romer and David H. Romer* "This study was done by Christina and David Romer. Christina was President Obama's first chair of his Council of Economic Advisers. David, her husband, is on the recession dating committee of the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), the outfit that everyone relies on to say when recessions start and stop. (The date of this study's release was June 2010. Ms. Romer announced her resignation from Obama's administration in August 2010.) First, a decline of 2.93% of GDP means recession. And even after the recession is over (two and a half years after the tax increase), GDP remains 1.84% below where it would have been without the tax increase. So while the government might collect 1% of GDP more than it used to, GDP becomes smaller. Thus, the government does not really collect as much as it thought it would using "static" scoring of tax changes. In fact, if we put it all together... the result is a Laffer Curve, which I will call the Romer-Laffer Curve. Christina Romer and her husband not only confirmed both the Laffer Curve and the "dynamic" scoring of tax changes, but they effectively specified them for us." The above is not in the article you claim it is from. However this is quote: Finally, we find suggestive evidence that tax increases to reduce an inherited budget deficit do not have the large output costs associated with other exogenous tax increases.

TheHeretic -> RE: The Failure (10/10/2010 1:43:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hippiekinkster It's really sad to see them buy into the whole dogma without question. No, what's really sad is that you believe this poppycock. Now if you have some sort of evidence that we are getting paid, I'd love to hear it. They'd owe me a pretty good check by this point.

Musicmystery -> RE: The Failure (10/10/2010 6:50:17 PM)
Hippiek et al -- Cutting taxes on the wealthy does, in fact, encourage GDP growth. That's why they keep pushing for it--it raises the return on their investment (for whatever enterprises), and in turn their incomes, and the taxes (vs. the rates) they pay. I've pointed this out a couple of times. That part works, and is why conservatives, old and new, will push for it (regardless of economic times, good or bad). What's NOT true is this wealth "trickles-down." Sure, there are stats used to indicate this, but (1) they are not divorced from multiple alternate factors (like increased government spending on military goods) and (2) they ignore the widening gulf between rich and poor that accompany these periods. In short, again, while yes, a rising tide would lift all boats, only the yachts are rising, and that's not the tide--it's just taller yachts.

AnimusRex -> RE: The Failure (10/10/2010 7:05:00 PM)
Not to mention that the question still remains- if lower taxes means higher revenue, does this mean that zero taxes means infinite revenue? At what point does cutting taxes result in less revenue? That question was posed on Bruce Bartlett's website as "Show Me the Bend in the Laffer Curve" and to my knowledge, has never been answered. I would agree that in SPECIFIC instance, when taxes are dampening growth, a cut can produce a burst of revenue; but it has ben exaggerated and distorted wildly out of all reason. Sort of like if one glass of wine is good for health, a bottle a night must be terrific.

luckydawg -> RE: The Failure (10/11/2010 2:58:48 PM)
So does that mean 100% tax would produce unlimited tax revenues?

mnottertail -> RE: The Failure (10/11/2010 3:17:06 PM)
you obviously don't understand the laffer curve, asking a question like that. the laffer curve at present is a 1. (undefined) min max propoposition 2. in arbitrary deltas under the curve 3. with the goal of maximizing revenue 4. over time only 3 has any present validity of argumentation, since it tends towards a tautology.

thishereboi -> RE: The Failure of Conservatism (10/11/2010 4:36:51 PM)
quote: I have to first ask whether it was necessary for you to quote the entirety of both posts so that I had to spend three minutes deleting everything to respond to what you said? Highlight the section you want to reply to and then hit reply. It will only put the highlighted part in quotes and then you can respond without deleting anything.

lockedaway -> RE: The Failure (10/11/2010 4:51:58 PM)
"What's NOT true is this wealth "trickles-down." Sure, there are stats used to indicate this, but (1) they are not divorced from multiple alternate factors (like increased government spending on military goods) and (2) they ignore the widening gulf between rich and poor that accompany these periods. " You are wrong. Wealth does trickle down. The more wealthy people are, the more they pay other people to do their work for them. It is really quite simple. If I'm making money, I pay the guy to mow my yard at $60.00 per cut every week. I pay the dry cleaner. I have the rugs shampooed. I go on vacation. I buy that classic car that I know nothing about and hire a team of people to work on it until it is a 90 point car. Wealth generates wealth and jobs. If I have NO money, I don't do any of that. I mow my own yard, I do my own laundry, etc. etc. That is the way it works for me. That is the way it works for you. When you are dealing with the super-rich, it works on a much grander scale. You refurbish the vintage Hatteras, or DC-3, you buy the apartment complex to start your kid off in business and then the kid hires a dozen people. You buy the business that you think will make you a ba-zillionare and you hire 200,000 employees. The more money you have, the more you will throw it around. That creates wealth. Do all people experience the trickling down of wealth? Of course not. Very few men or women ever rise to a level that the endeavors they create effect people out of their state. Most people don't do shit that effects people in a better way that extends beyond the boundary of their yard. So, wealth trickles down but only for the people that are willing to wake up early enough and find it. A poor man never hired me to do anything. Know your enemy. Liberals lie. Liberals deceive. Liberals fight against liberty and against prosperity. Do NO business with a liberal. Don't rent to them, don't trade with them, don't refer clients to them...nothing. Economic warfare is the only civilized strategy.

lockedaway -> RE: The Failure (10/11/2010 4:57:26 PM)
"Not to mention that the question still remains- if lower taxes means higher revenue, does this mean that zero taxes means infinite revenue? At what point does cutting taxes result in less revenue? " You think you are soooo clever with this question! I don't know what the saturation point is. I don't know if anyone does. But I do know that everything HAS a saturation point. When do you overbuild your house so that you can't get the money out of it that you put in? When do you over tax? When do you under tax? Well...American industry has gone to other countries. Most of the people that left this country did so because it was MORE PROFITABLE to conduct their business abroad. When they cite the reasons why it is more profitable, taxes is always the biggie. We have the highest corporate tax rate in the world. The tax chart is cited earlier in this thread. What the tax chart does NOT include is property taxes and State income tax. The other reason that is often cited is regulation. Well...one issue at a time. If we lowered corporate tax rates to 20% we could probably bring a huge amount of industry back to this country and open up millions of jobs. But we won't do that... Know your enemy. Liberals lie. Liberals deceive. Liberals fight against liberty and against prosperity. Do NO business with a liberal. Don't rent to them, don't trade with them, don't refer clients to them...nothing. Economic warfare is the only civilized strategy.

thornhappy -> RE: The Failure of Conservatism (10/11/2010 7:27:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: thornhappy quote: ORIGINAL: lockedaway Know your enemy. Liberals lie. Liberals deceive. Liberals fight against liberty and against prosperity. Do NO business with a liberal. Don't rent to them, don't trade with them, don't refer clients to them...nothing. Economic warfare is the only civilized strategy. Now THAT was stupid. Honest-to-god-of-your-choice ramlatch bullshit of the first water. first water? wtf? From the gem trade: of the highest quality. It was first used in the 17th century.

thornhappy -> RE: The Failure of Conservatism (10/11/2010 7:32:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lockedaway "Now THAT was stupid. Honest-to-god-of-your-choice ramlatch bullshit of the first water." Stupid? Naawww...not stupid. Liberals want to be a capitalist when it comes to taking your money. Otherwise, liberals denigrate capitalism, conservatism, American exceptionalism, secure borders and most other things that people with a modicum of common sense value. So do not do business with them. Don't go to their stores. Don't buy their products. Don't have liberal dip-shit teachers inculcate your kids with their failed, collectivist, globalist bullshit. Shun them and do business with the people who believe in the same ideals you do; the ideals on which this country was founded. Right. How are you going to determine if your client is liberal? Issue a test? Have your renters show a voter registration card? Shit, do you really think someone's performance or quality of renter has anything to do with a political affiliation? Let me assure you, that doesn't apply to me. Considering that you appear to think a liberal is anything to the left of John Birch, there's a lot of liberals out there. And here folks complain about broad-brushing conservatives.

thornhappy -> RE: The Failure (10/11/2010 7:42:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lockedaway Oh...and remember this, liberals. When the estate tax goes up to 55% the people that inherited the estate (perhaps you or your children) will HAVE TO SELL WHAT THEY INHERITED TO PAY THE TAXES!!! So stupid. Liberalism at work. Remember this too, the people that bought the property that is the subject of the estate PAID TAXES on the income it took to amass the estate to begin with. I'm sure HippiePinko thinks this is fair. But for the rest of you, by the time the government collects the 55% estate tax on the house, they will have collected 20% to 34% on the money it took to buy it and 55% on the bequest. So...75% to 84% of the money used to buy and bequeath the house went to the government. Have a nice day. [image]http://www.collarchat.com/micons/m16.gif[/image] I guess Bill Gates and Warren Buffet are liberals. They both say you shouldn't do away with the estate tax. You also are forgetting that the tax only kicks in on what, after $1,000,000? There's a higher exemption for family farms. BTW, why don't you head on over to the test forum and figure out how to use the quote function.

Musicmystery -> RE: The Failure (10/11/2010 8:08:20 PM)
quote: Wealth does trickle down. Again, only in theory--the data do not support this. But we DO have strong GDP growth for over the past year along with persistent high unemployment.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: The Failure (10/12/2010 8:38:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lockedaway "Not to mention that the question still remains- if lower taxes means higher revenue, does this mean that zero taxes means infinite revenue? He apparently doesnt understand the tautology that the Laffer curve represents. No AR, zero tax rates mean zero revenue and 100% tax rates mean zero revenue. Since some tax rate does produce some revenue, the curve goes up, the curve goes down. So there MUST be a point or points where decreasing taxes increases revenue and vice versa. It is impossible to be ptherwise.

Page: << < prev 4 5 6 7 [8]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875