Texas_tea
Well-Known Member
Trouble brewing .... really ... like going into Syria for no real reason when China ... our debt holder is warning against it ... not to mention Iran and Russia!
-
Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum
Another Racist remark by Harry Reid
- Thread starter steveox
- Start date
Werbung:
not that this notion of blundering into Syria is a trivial but the trouble thats brewing is far bigger.
Texas_tea
Well-Known Member
Yes it is ... and it is all intentional and connected!
TheJPRD
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2012
- Messages
- 417
Thank you for your kind and affectionate reply. hahaha I didn't give you a counter-argument, lefty, because you provided no argument, just a lot of babble. You posted a lot of numbers, and gave no context, no raw data, no background, and no explanation. I was very pleased to note the first link you provided below. The Tax Policy Center does maintain a good bit of raw data. The link you provided was to a table of "Tax Receipts" by year. Those data are in my database. The relevant comparison is "Tax Rate versus Tax Receipts"! There were many levels of Tax Rates, depending upon the years being analyzed. For instance, in 2000, with Bill Clinton still in office, the highest Tax Rate was 39.6% on yearly incomes of $288,350 and above for married couples filing jointly. The Tax Receipts in that year were $2,o25.2 billion. The Bush Tax cut began taking place thereafter, and in 2001 the highest Tax Rate was 39.1%, 38.6% in 2002, and finally down to 35% of incomes of $311,950 in 2003. In Bush's last two years, 2007 and 2008, Tax Receipts had climbed to $2,500+ billion. Note that middle-class Tax Rates were also cut along with the highest earners. When comparing two variables to determine whether one has an effect on the other, linear regression is often the best mathematical tool. I performed such an analysis on Tax Rate versus Tax Receipts for the years 2000-2012. Guess what the analysis concluded??? Using the actual data, regression indicates that as the Tax Rate went DOWN, the Tax Receipts went UP! The source for Tax Receipts was the same link you provided below from the Tax Policy Center. The source for Tax Rates is at
http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm. Note that you must change the year in order to access the rates for the year you want.
How you conclude that I feel there's no deficit spending is beyond me. I said no such thing. I made no claims whatever about Obama's spending or deficits. If you're looking for a fight over Democrats versus Republicans on the issues of spending and deficits, you won't get it from me. On the other hand, if you want to argue what is and is not sound economic policy related to spending. taxes, and deficits, I'll be pleased to educate you.
I'm making one point, that being that increasing Tax Rates does not often result in increased Tax Receipts. Analysis has proven that there's a range in which the highest Tax Rate should be maintained in order to maximize Tax Receipts. Raising Tax Rates in the middle of a continuing recession and high unemployment is INSANITY!
I did read them, and as explained above, the data from the first link you posted was already in my database.
OldTrapper
Well-Known Member
More distraction which is what you are best at. The original post you are whining about had to do only with revenue v spending. If you want to expand that to some irrelevant point, then do so. However, just cease your ********* of acting as if you had made some informed intelligent observation.
There is nothing about the economy, or policy, you could educate me on. What you could do is expand your ********* meter to satisfy your own ego. If you want to discuss Rothbard, Keynes, Friedman, Smith, whomever, I would be more then pleased to accommodate what I am certain would be a distortion of their theories.
Strange how Laffer (Laffer Curve) has even argued that their is a limit to how low taxes can be placed, and still maintain a higher revenue stream. Stockman has even argued as to how lower taxes has not met the needs of the country especially when mixed with the tax loopholes given to special groups to curry favor. Even Reagan's tax cuts were balanced with eliminating of the tax loopholes, and subsequently raising taxes 11 times.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-31/stockman-warns-of-crash-of-fed-fueled-bubble-economy.html
YAWN.
TheJPRD
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2012
- Messages
- 417
Distracting from what? IF there was a point to your post, I assume it was that both Democrats and Republicans have been guilty of overspending and accumulating deficits. In support of that point, you provided a list of statistics that made no sense. I wasn’t disputing your point, I was disputing your data, and the meaninglessness of it! The statistics I provided DID make a point. I further provided the data sources and a full explanation of the data and the analytical method used. The analysis showed that during 2000-2012, the lower the tax rates, the higher the total tax receipts. Since you’ve convinced yourself that high taxes are wonderful and result in higher revenues, it appears that nothing factual will change your mind.
WHAT do you think “Revenues” are, lefty?? Could they be….. TAXES?? If you believe that an analysis of one of the main topics of your post is “irrelevant”, would only a mindless acceptance of your numbers be relevant?
I have to agree with the first sentence above. I don’t think you could be educated. If you want to discuss individual, economic theories, I’m ready when you are. However, unless you can upgrade your education fast, you may not be prepared to support the claims of how/if/why those theories have or have not been successful in actual practice. Theories are fine, but only when they’ve been applied successfully as defined can they be evaluated in a worthwhile way.
I don’t think that’s strange at all. Laffer’s a smart economist. I agree with him. In the full analyses I conducted on the entire history of US Federal tax rates versus total tax receipts, there are definitely tax rates that are more or less applicable depending upon economic conditions. In general, history has shown that the highest tax rate should be maintained between 25% and 42% depending on the nation’s economic conditions and unemployment. NOW is NOT the time for higher rates! As for tax loopholes, I’m generally opposed to them. Some of them have become politically impossible to eliminate, however, for instance “Home Mortgage Deduction”. Others like farm subsidies and credits and energy-exploration allowances have their place, but their place should be based on need, and they should then be eliminated. Unfortunately, when the government institutes a program, it almost never goes away.
Oh, you were asleep when you made this post? That explains everything.
OldTrapper
Well-Known Member
Kindly point out where I said that higher taxes were wonderful. However, having said that, it is amazing as to how the economy grew, the middle class grew, etc., when the taxes were at their highest rate. Then as taxes on the wealthy were lowered under Reagan the middle class began to shrink, wages became stagnant, and income inequality grew.
http://www.shmoop.com/reagan-era/economy.html
But the expansion of stockownership to nearly 30% of American households still left more than two-thirds of the country shut out of direct benefits from the great bull market of the Age of Reagan. For the 70% of American households that still lacked any stake at all in the stock market, the Reagan economy was not quite so lustrous as it seemed to those enjoying the fruits of rising equity values. Real wages, which had increased steadily from 1945 to 1972 but then stalled through the stagflation era, remained flat through the 1980s as well. Unemployment declined from the atrocious highs of the late 1970s and early 1980s, but the high-paying blue-collar industrial jobs that had been the mainstay of the midcentury economy continued to disappear. (It's important to note that this process began long before Reagan came into office, however.) In short, the economic outlook for middle- and working-class families who depended on wages for their incomes was somewhat better than it had been during the bleak 1970s, but still significantly worse than it had been during the 1950s and '60s.
The uneven distribution of benefits from the Reagan boom reflected a growing trend toward what has been called the "financialization" of the American economy. As the financial sector displaced industrial manufacturing as the dominant economic force in American society, the gains from growth came to accrue almost entirely to those with major investments in the market, while individuals dependent solely upon wages and salaries found it harder and harder to get ahead. During Ronald Reagan's presidency, the wealthiest one-fifth of American households (those who naturally owned the most stock) saw their incomes increase by 14%. Meanwhile, the poorest one-fifth (who presumably owned no stock) endured an income decline of 24%, while the incomes of the middle three-fifths of American families stayed more or less flat. This uneven pattern represented a marked departure from the earlier economic expansions of the 1940s, '50s, and '60s, which had generated smaller returns for investors but raised income levels across all classes of society.
As to your "chimp" site it was good enough for the monkeys like you I suspect. However, it did not go into great detail as you claim. Nor did it prove anything of what I posted to be in error, or meaningless. As to your claim that record tax receipts were accrued under Bush, well, that is true for only one year:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...llespie-touts-bush-record-taxes-job-creation/
In 2007, tax revenues represented 18.5 percent of GDP. That's high by historical standards but hardly a record. It only ties for 16th place going back to 1934, and within the 14-year stretch between 1996 and 2009 it only rises to 7th place.
So if Gillespie's point is that Bush's tax cuts led to record revenues, they did -- for 2007 at least -- but that was a record aided by a the largest, non-recession economy in American history.
Is there a point where you will actually show the numbers to be in error, or should we just read more of your mindless drivel as usual.
NO economic theory has ever been proven to be true, or even feasible. They are great for the intelligentsia to sit around in parlor to act as if they actually know something, however, in reality they are meaningless ideas. Now, if you actually want to discuss one just start the ball rolling. Afterall, YOU are the one who feels he is the "educator".
Ahhh, but we are not there now are we, and ones like you think they should be even lower. Then you would argue that closing the loopholes would be to increase the tax rate, and whine that it should not be done.
Only that you are boring, know little of what you speak of, and in general prove nothing save for the fact that you have an ideological bent that would be impossible for you to discard.
do you at least accept that along with a high marginal rate that there were many more deductions that rendered the marginal rate unpaid ?
and oddly enough this coincided with the decline of American education coupled with much improvement elsewhere. and lets not forget that unions had priced labor out of the market driving production of the increasingly commodity manufacturing elsewhere. we failed to remain the innovators and disrupted our former ability to m maintain technical advantage which allowed labor to get top dollar.
benefits are not distributed, they are earned.
you really need to rethink your conspiracy theory that working folks got torpedoed. rich people will not stop looking for ways to make money. they will find a way as they always have and will earn the fruits of this labor. those expecting a life to be handed to them will generally be disappointed.
OldTrapper
Well-Known Member
If you are referring to marginal rates v effective rates, then yes. However, the greater amount of deductions lies with the wealthiest Americans, and not the average worker. That is why Buffet pays an effective rate of 16%. Romney paid an effective rate of 14%, Obama paid an effective rate of 18%, and you probably paid a marginal rate of 25%.
Ahhhh, the union myth again. Unions had little to do with the rise in the cost of goods, or the loss of jobs. Even any honest steel manufacturing CEO will tell you that. It all had to do with the greed of the corporation, the cheap labor offshore, and the "illegal dumping" of cheap goods on the US market through trade agreements lobbied for by the corporations. Then you had the influx of illegal labor, and the importation fo cheap foreign labor through programs like the H1B visa's. You do understand that 40% of the illegals here today came here legally, right?
As to innovation, we are still the number one in innovation. However, we have done nothing to prevent foreign corporations, and even governments, from stealing that technology, reverse engineering the technology, or by just giving it to them.
You would have a hard time proving that.
When rich people can afford to buy the legislators, and the legislation, which benefits only them, and not the people, it is not a conspiracy. And it is the fool that believes that has not occurred in the US.
As an example, should I take you back to slightly recent history and show you how Cargill, a major producer of Fructose, was able to have a tariff on sugar implemented thus making Fructose cheaper, and sugar higher?
That's what lobbyests are for.
I paid more like 11% as I have deduction to lower my marginal rate to that effective rate. As those of more humble means have lower marginal rates and they opted to spend their free earnings then its not surprising that they qualified for fewer deductions. But the simple fact is that movement of marginal rates and deductions historically not altered revenue. Nobody paid 80% when it was 80%.
you have! in the same breath said unions make little difference AND cheap labor. Do you really not see the oxymoron here ? And you continue to ignore the reason for imported talent.
we used to be far and away the leader and had big, jumps. no more. lots of reasons the largest of which I doubt you would guess.
while its true that there are those who are paid who do not earn it, you would find it impossible to prove otherwise.
and I would point you to crony capitalism so loved bythe Whigs (you know like Lincoln) and their love of canals and rail that were always over budget and fail to deliver the benefits claimed. yeah, I've heard about it.
OldTrapper
Well-Known Member
Then why all the whining by the right wingers over the tax rate on the wealthy? Obviously lowering their tax rate created no jobs for the average American.
And just using your lack of grammar abilities, I would say your deduction has nothing to do with your work.
Well, I see a ***** wrote the comment. As to the reason for the imported "talent", it is the same as using illegals. It is the same as having the worker being replaced training his replacement (another violation of law I might add). It is the one thing you would never admit to, GREED.
Since we still are, what should I guess at?
http://upstart.bizjournals.com/news...kings-us-innovation-on-the-rise.html?page=all
http://www.brookings.edu/research/reports/2013/02/patenting-prosperity-rothwell
BTW, do you want me to explain to you how corporations steal the patents of others simply because they can?
http://www.economist.com/news/busin...many-firms-prefer-secrecy-can-you-keep-secret
Unearned benefits are just that, unearned yet given. Look it up.
Or defense contractors of today, big oil, corporations like Romneys Bain Capital. Then too, you seem to want to ignore plutocracy, oligarchy, corporatism, all of which were opposed by the Founders who preferred an autarky.
the whining has to do with the Big Lie that it would make any difference. my marginal rate was 28%, my effective 11%. no tricks, just normal deductions. my brother paid no income tax, got autided every year as a result. never a problem. why ? he deals in real estate, pays lots of real estate a d capital gains but no income. no tricks, just normal deductions. if you pay more its only that you choose to. you really need to quit the conspiracy theories. there is a reqson OWS faded into the junk heap of silliness.
Obama is in favor of broadening the tax base while also raising tax rates. A doubly whammy. Three problems here:
1. There were so many one-off factors helping the economy back then that teasing out the impact of tax rates is especially tough. As former Bain Capital executive Edward Conard notes in his book, Unintended Consequences: “The United States was prosperous for a unique set of reasons that are impossible to duplicate today, including a decade-long depression, the destruction of the rest of the world’s infrastructure, a failure of potential foreign competitors to educate their people, and a highly restricted supply of labor. … It seems to me anyone who makes comparisons between today’s economy and that of the old without fully disclosing their differences is deceiving their readers.”
2. In rich, multifaceted analysis of Diamond-Saez, AEI economists Aparna Mathur, Sita Slavov, and Michael Strain point out that Diamond and Saez assume sharply raising tax rates have no long-term impact on taxpayer behavior and the economy since, well, those effects are hard to measure. But economists agree those long-term effects are important. America benefits greatly from people who take risks and make career choices in hopes of striking it rich. “Significantly reducing that possibility by hitting those individuals with extremely high income taxes is of first-order importance in determining the optimal top tax rate,” Mathur, Slavov, and Strain argue.
3. In a 2010 e21 analysis, Arpit Gupta looked at some of the literature examining the macro, long-term impact of tax hikes:
A clever resolution is suggested by a set of papers by Raj Chetty, an economist at Harvard. Chetty points out that the micro estimates rely on instantaneous adjustment to higher tax rates, and typically focus on short durations after law changes. However, a variety of factors may combine to make the behavior responses to tax cuts a more long-run effect. People face costs in switching jobs or entering the job force. They may simply be unaware of tax changes or lazy. Any of these plausible frictions are compatible with large long-term effects of tax cuts that are difficult to capture in micro data.
This distinction is important, because policymakers are generally interested in the economy-wide and durable impacts of tax increases, rather than their short-term impacts. Macro estimates, which use economy-wide data, may be better suited to answer this question.
In a separate paper, Chetty and coauthors develop new techniques to capture broader responses to taxation while looking at firm-level data in Denmark. They are able to obtain a set of estimates that suggest that the work disincentives of taxes, properly computed, are closer to the higher macro estimates (though lower than some estimates Prescott prefers). These figures would suggest that a sizable portion of the Europe-America income difference can be accounted for by differences in marginal tax rates.
Sadly, public discussion of this issue has been far more simplistic. The Obama Administration and other progressives have argued that because growth was high in the ‘90s and ‘50s; the higher tax rates of those periods can be revisited with few consequences. This coarse argument relies on decade-level generalizations, and ignores the difficult of isolating the effects of tax cuts from the noise of other economic activity.
These concerns and caveats should be not be waved away because they inconveniently stand in the way of certain egalitarian goals. Let me end with Mathur, Slavov, and Strain who come to this conclusion:
Diamond and Saez ignore long-term behavioral responses, assume more equality is a better social welfare function, assign no social value to the marginal dollar of consumption for the rich, and use a short-run behavioral response predicated in part on less evasion and more enforcement to compute an answer of 73 percent. Consequently, we can be pretty sure that the answer is significantly less than that. Further, we find the suggestion that the government should take more than half of a citizen’s income in taxes to be unpalatable.
1. There were so many one-off factors helping the economy back then that teasing out the impact of tax rates is especially tough. As former Bain Capital executive Edward Conard notes in his book, Unintended Consequences: “The United States was prosperous for a unique set of reasons that are impossible to duplicate today, including a decade-long depression, the destruction of the rest of the world’s infrastructure, a failure of potential foreign competitors to educate their people, and a highly restricted supply of labor. … It seems to me anyone who makes comparisons between today’s economy and that of the old without fully disclosing their differences is deceiving their readers.”
2. In rich, multifaceted analysis of Diamond-Saez, AEI economists Aparna Mathur, Sita Slavov, and Michael Strain point out that Diamond and Saez assume sharply raising tax rates have no long-term impact on taxpayer behavior and the economy since, well, those effects are hard to measure. But economists agree those long-term effects are important. America benefits greatly from people who take risks and make career choices in hopes of striking it rich. “Significantly reducing that possibility by hitting those individuals with extremely high income taxes is of first-order importance in determining the optimal top tax rate,” Mathur, Slavov, and Strain argue.
3. In a 2010 e21 analysis, Arpit Gupta looked at some of the literature examining the macro, long-term impact of tax hikes:
A clever resolution is suggested by a set of papers by Raj Chetty, an economist at Harvard. Chetty points out that the micro estimates rely on instantaneous adjustment to higher tax rates, and typically focus on short durations after law changes. However, a variety of factors may combine to make the behavior responses to tax cuts a more long-run effect. People face costs in switching jobs or entering the job force. They may simply be unaware of tax changes or lazy. Any of these plausible frictions are compatible with large long-term effects of tax cuts that are difficult to capture in micro data.
This distinction is important, because policymakers are generally interested in the economy-wide and durable impacts of tax increases, rather than their short-term impacts. Macro estimates, which use economy-wide data, may be better suited to answer this question.
In a separate paper, Chetty and coauthors develop new techniques to capture broader responses to taxation while looking at firm-level data in Denmark. They are able to obtain a set of estimates that suggest that the work disincentives of taxes, properly computed, are closer to the higher macro estimates (though lower than some estimates Prescott prefers). These figures would suggest that a sizable portion of the Europe-America income difference can be accounted for by differences in marginal tax rates.
Sadly, public discussion of this issue has been far more simplistic. The Obama Administration and other progressives have argued that because growth was high in the ‘90s and ‘50s; the higher tax rates of those periods can be revisited with few consequences. This coarse argument relies on decade-level generalizations, and ignores the difficult of isolating the effects of tax cuts from the noise of other economic activity.
These concerns and caveats should be not be waved away because they inconveniently stand in the way of certain egalitarian goals. Let me end with Mathur, Slavov, and Strain who come to this conclusion:
Diamond and Saez ignore long-term behavioral responses, assume more equality is a better social welfare function, assign no social value to the marginal dollar of consumption for the rich, and use a short-run behavioral response predicated in part on less evasion and more enforcement to compute an answer of 73 percent. Consequently, we can be pretty sure that the answer is significantly less than that. Further, we find the suggestion that the government should take more than half of a citizen’s income in taxes to be unpalatable.
Last edited:
Texas_tea
Well-Known Member
Don't forget, B. Hussein Obama, Sr. was a full blown communist who was OK with the government confiscating 100% of ones income as long as it went to the greater good.
Obama, Jr. talked about this in his book written by Bill Ayers "Dreams From my Father".
“there is nothing that can stop the government from taxing 100% of income so long as the people get benefits from the government commensurate with their income which is taxed.”
-B. Hussein Obama, Sr.
via Bill Ayers in the book Obama, Jr. claims to have written "Dreams From My Father"
Werbung:
OldTrapper
Well-Known Member
No conspiracy at all, just reality. GE paid no taxes at all. 60% of corporations pay no taxes at all. In fact, the US is 16th. in the world when it comes to corporate taxes. Yet the right says they are taxed too much.
Not a conspiracy, just reality. And more then likely you, and your brother, have incorporated to enjoy the benefits that the average worker cannot do. I will further bet you whine each year you pay taxes.
BTW, the teabaggers are fading off into oblivion also.
