Obama calls for increase in Federal Gas Tax

[Gipper]

That's not what I've said. Please read before responding.

Really?

You have tried valiantly to make the argument that raising tax rates will automatically raise revenues. You have been proven wrong.

Raising tax rates does NOT automatically raise revenues. Just as lowing tax rates does not automatically raise revenues. Though, I am willing to bet lowering them has a better chance of increasing revenues than does raising them.

Sorry that this is not as black and white as you so desire. Why can't you see the nuance...the many colors.... hahahhahaa.....

 

[GenSeneca]

And further I believe that if every other factor remained invariant, revenue would indeed increase with increased taxes.

Exactly how do you propose that we render every other factor invariant?

 

[Lagboltz]

Exactly how do you propose that we render every other factor invariant?

We certainly can't do that in the real world. A more fruitful approach to maximize revenue would require macroeconomists who understand the major independent variables and their interactions. The idea is not just to maximize tax revenue, but to maximize all government revenue within certain constraints. This is called linear programming. Despite it's name, it is very nonlinear and has been very useful in many areas including economics.

I believe sufficient historical data for the interactions of most variables exists, but I don't know if anyone has done the work. If anyone has, the politicians aren't paying attention to it.

 

[GenSeneca]

We certainly can't do that in the real world.

I agree that if you were capable of eliminating all other variant factors from the equation that the link between rates and revenue would become causative, but you can't, so the link is merely correlative and not causative.

 

[Lagboltz]

I agree that if you were capable of eliminating all other variant factors from the equation that the link between rates and revenue would become causative, but you can't, so the link is merely correlative and not causative.

You are using the wrong word. Causative variables is the phrase they use in causality in economics, not correlative.

 

[PLC1]

Correct.

That has been your argument all along, raising tax rates will have the causal effect of increasing revenue while decreasing them has the opposite effect. You even cherry picked a period in history where tax rates were lowered and revenue as a % of GDP went down as your evidence that higher tax rates = greater revenue as a % of GDP.

If you're now trying to pretend you were not claiming that higher tax rates = greater revenue as a % of GDP, then what argument were you trying to make? Your "smoking gun" was the fact that we went from 20.9% to 19.5% after lowering taxes... What other possible argument could you have been making?

Look again. I said that the B causes A argument is absurd. Rising revenues don't cause higher taxes.

Lagboltz has a better explanation than anyone so far. There are many factors, one of which is the tax rate.

 

[PLC1]

Really?

You have tried valiantly to make the argument that raising tax rates will automatically raise revenues. You have been proven wrong.

Raising tax rates does NOT automatically raise revenues. Just as lowing tax rates does not automatically raise revenues. Though, I am willing to bet lowering them has a better chance of increasing revenues than does raising them.

Sorry that this is not as black and white as you so desire. Why can't you see the nuance...the many colors.... hahahhahaa.....

Yes, really.

Your absurd claim was as follows:

BINGO! Gen just completely destroyed THC's argument. But, will THC accept losing? I am guessing not.

Libs and Dems like to claim cons and Rs think cutting taxes will ALWAYS result in raising GDP and revenues to the treasury...as always they are mistaken, most of us do not believe this. But, libs and Dems ALWAYS believe that raising tax rates will always generate more revenue to the Treasury. You just proved them wrong, but will they ever accept the truth?

When you refuse to accept the truth, what have you become?

When have I ever posted that "cons and Rs think cutting taxes will ALWAYS result in raising GDP"? That is not even close.

and your characterization of "libs and dems" and changing my made up screen name is totally childish.

 

[Gipper]

When have I ever posted that "cons and Rs think cutting taxes will ALWAYS result in raising GDP"? That is not even close.

and your characterization of "libs and dems" and changing my made up screen name is totally childish.

Oh my....you are too much. And you claim you are not a lib. You use the tactics of the left everyday on this board and this post is a PERFECT example.

You completely ignore that you clearly asserted raising rates raises revenue even after Gen completely destroyed your argument. Now you change the subject (typical of lefties) by saying you never said "cons and Rs think cutting taxes will ALWAYS result in raising GDP" which of course, I never accused you of saying. And, by my use of THC1 you again try to change the subject of your failing argument.

If you have any credibility left, admit you were WRONG!

 

[PLC1]

Oh my....you are too much. And you claim you are not a lib. You use the tactics of the left everyday on this board and this post is a PERFECT example.

You completely ignore that you clearly asserted raising rates raises revenue even after Gen completely destroyed your argument. Now you change the subject (typical of lefties) by saying you never said "cons and Rs think cutting taxes will ALWAYS result in raising GDP" which of course, I never accused you of saying. And, by my use of THC1 you again try to change the subject of your failing argument.

If you have any credibility left, admit you were WRONG!

I didn't say that '"cons and Rs think cutting taxes will ALWAYS result in raising GDP", nor do I believe that.

You see, not everyone who disagrees with your POV is the same. When you create a category, give it a label, then lump everyone in it together and ascribe to them the same belief, that's where you lose credibility. Such a philosophy creates spurious straw man sorts of arguments.

"Libs" believe that "cons" think that cutting taxes will ALWAYS result in rising GDP"

I have identified you as a "lib", therefore, you believe that cons" think that cutting taxes will ALWAYS result in rising GDP.

That is a silly syllogism.

 

[GenSeneca]

Lagboltz has a better explanation than anyone so far.

So you're going to hide behind him since you're incapable of defending your own views?

Are you claiming that increasing tax rates results in revenue being a higher % of GDP or not?

If not, then what the hell were you trying to argue?

There are many factors, one of which is the tax rate.

Do you honestly believe the tax rate to be the strongest of all the factors?

 

[GenSeneca]

You are using the wrong word. Causative variables is the phrase they use in causality in economics, not correlative.

My background is in logic, not economics, but the principles remain the same.

Now, are you arguing that raising tax rates will have the effect of increasing revenue as a % of GDP? Yes or No

 

[PLC1]

Let's see if I can clarify some.

The money I have in the bank depends at least in part on the percentage of my income that I deposit there.

Naturally, the gross amount also depends on the ups and downs of my income.

If I put more money into the bank, then I'll have more money there. It's really that simple.

On a national level, if more of the national income, or GDP goes to the federal government, then the federal government will have a higher percentage of the GDP.

Of course, the total gross amount that they have also depends on the ups and downs of national income, or the GDP.

Other factors might include the ability of taxpayers to hide, either legally or illegally, some of their income. The ability to defer taxes via an IRA is yet another factor.

But to argue that collecting more in taxes doesn't result in a higher percentage of the GDP being available to the federal government is absurd, unless you can show that higher taxes results in more deferring of income, more cheating, or more finding hidey holes for income.

 

[GenSeneca]

But to argue that collecting more in taxes doesn't result in a higher percentage of the GDP being available to the federal government is absurd...

So you are arguing that higher tax rates results in revenue being a larger % of GDP, yes?

 

[PLC1]

So you are arguing that higher tax rates results in revenue being a larger % of GDP, yes?

So long as "higher tax rates" really means that, and not higher rates with more ways to deduct incomes. Higher rates would have to mean higher taxes. higher taxes would mean more money going to the government collecting those taxes.

When income tax rates were lowered back in the '80s, we also lost a large number of deductions. Whether that was really a lower tax rate or not depended on what your deductions were. Conversely, should tax rates go up to that level again, and deductions be reinstated, then it would be hard to say whether we had higher taxes or not.

But yes, higher taxes results in a higher percentage of the GDP going to the government.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

So you are arguing that higher tax rates results in revenue being a larger % of GDP, yes?

and you are saying that no matter what rate, from zero to 100 percent, the amount we take in will never change right?