The next big cuts in Washtington

[KaskadskyjKozak]

You don't like admitting you were wrong?

 

Does anybody?

 

true, Jay's weaving has just gotten particularly irksome lately.

 

like your "double taxation bollocks" now that you think it should be treated like income

 

 

 

are you ever happy?

[Hugh Conway]

Had a nice surf session today w/the new made by me longboard... so yes.

 

Regarding the US and it's politics, it's generally fucked trending towards really fucked, so no, on that front

[KaskadskyjKozak]

 

Regarding the US and it's politics, it's generally fucked trending towards really fucked, so no, on that front

 

Cool, we can agree on something: estamos fudidos.

 

[tvashtarkatena]

so all you can tell from the plot is that there's never been a time when taxing whoever happens to be defined as rich enough to pay at the top marginal rate generated a significant increase in Uncle Sam's revenue as a share of GDP. As you indicated - no magic bullet.

 

That's because you didn't include WW2 in your data:

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=205

marginal rates (your site)

http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.php

tax revenue as 20.9% of GDP in 1944, up from 13.3% of GDP in 1943. Marginal rate went from 88% to 94%. You'll also notice how far the top bracket fell in that time period as well. Similar occured earlier in the century when the top bracket went from 7% to 77% in 3 years

 

I realize though that "facts" are uncomfortably at odds with your ideology.

 

 

 

If the relationship between top marginal rates and revenues is a simple function of marginal rates and income thresholds then every cut in top marginal rates should result in a proportionate reduction in tax revenues, and should never lead to an increase - right?

 

There's a reason that the Euro's like broad consumption taxes in addition to high marginal rates, because they figured out that there's not enough aggregated income in whatever income threshold they deem wealthy to cover the bills.

 

 

 

You're actually quite thick when you get right down to it. ADHD? I don't know...who cares (other than Billcoe)?

 

In any case, 10 minutes on the NYT budget balancer immediately reveals that all the doomsday talk about the necessity of 'overhauling entitlements' is, as we would expect, utter bullshit. It's the umpteenth round of the Right's ideological agenda, slightly rebranded for an even dumber America. Rub your knob all you want about European marginal tax rates and marginal/GDP ratios with all the 'outlier' data removed, but the numbers for OUR budget and its competing fix-it proposals speak pretty clearly for themselves.

 

Ah, when politics dresses up like science. Ah sho loves me some BULLSHIT!

Edited April 15, 2011 by tvashtarkatena

[prole]

Ah, when politics dresses up like science.

 

Neoclassical Economics in a nutsack.

[tvashtarkatena]

Ah, when politics dresses up like science.

 

Neoclassical Economics in a nutsack.

 

JayB has sophistry issues. He can't debate his way out of a nutsack, because he can't seem to remember what the topic of debate is. For example, here we've got an American budget balancing calculator, with all the proposals levied so far to to address the problem, that clearly illustrates the various options (and there are many) for getting rid of the deficit...and he hauls out a marginal European graph of herring catches per fortnight ratios. As if Europe was one country. And that country was us. Or something like that. Maybe.

 

Include taxing the rich (duh) as part of the solution and he responds with a graph that shows that such taxation won't get rid of the entire deficit (um...OK...duh). It's like arguing with an 8 year old.

 

It's really not his fault. He needs a Unified Theory of Economics with fewer than three parameters to avoid brain-stall.

Edited April 15, 2011 by tvashtarkatena

[tvashtarkatena]

"Tell me about the bunnies, George."

[ivan]

"marginal European graph of herring catches per fortnight ratios"

 

 

clearly, pat, you were schooled in the english school of debate which puts as prime an emphasis on insult as explanation.

[tvashtarkatena]

It's both a joy and a weakness.

 

I have little patience for people who can't get to the fucking point, I'll admit. STFU and say something, already.

[prole]

It's an ideologue's dilemma. As the contradictions of one's thought in practice become more destructive, more untenable as neoliberalism so obviously has, the "rational minded" are forced to the kind of statistical gymnastics and more obscure cherry-picking Jay's famous for to support their theses. You almost have to have a kind of pitying respect for these types as the real players have abandoned all pretense of scientific justification in favor of the smash-and-grab disaster capitalist approach.

[Phil K]

Hey cool- my page has a link to The Heritage Foundation at the bottom. And they've got a plan to get us out of debt and secure our freedumbs,and bury the librul agenda forever. And a picture of Saint Ronnie! Y'all be sure and donate now.

[tvashtarkatena]

I instinctively trust any movement that categorizes folks as 'pinheads' and 'patriots'. Why wouldn't anyone?

Edited April 15, 2011 by tvashtarkatena

[tvashtarkatena]

I love the Mandaterz central idea: the kooks from my district voted my crazy ass in, so everybody in the country must feel the same way.

 

Too bad their own party members don't even vote with them.

 

Kind of a weak Mandate, that.

 

What is strong is thare ability to stop up the congressional flow of normal work and raise a stink in the process. Thare basically the political equivalent of an impacted turd finally set free to go South.

[Doug]

Tea Party protest in Bellevue in front of Factoria Cinemas!!! Join the Party!!! Join the movement!!!

[tvashtarkatena]

As predicted:

GOP ready to raise debt limit

 

Basic negotiation dynamics in action.

 

[prole]

Viva la status quo.

 

Or slightly crappier.

[ivan]

god in heaven, even ben stein thinks taxes should be raised!

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/04/17/sunday/main20054719.shtml?tag=cbsnewsSectionContent.13

[KaskadskyjKozak]

god in heaven, even ben stein thinks taxes should be raised!

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/04/17/sunday/main20054719.shtml?tag=cbsnewsSectionContent.13

 

and cutting programs. both.

[prole]

We know how much you love that.

[Jim]

god in heaven, even ben stein thinks taxes should be raised!

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/04/17/sunday/main20054719.shtml?tag=cbsnewsSectionContent.13

 

and cutting programs. both.

 

Here's a few places to consider starting - click on the graphic.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/13/opinion/13arquilla.html?_r=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

 

[j_b]

Can you point to the spike in revenues under policy conditions that best approximate that set of policies?

 

Quit cheating! Not only your chart conveniently omits the huge rise in gov revenue during WW2, which demonstrates beyond any doubt that more revenue is generated by increasing tax rates, but revenue as a share of GDP includes ALL revenue like individual taxes but also corporation taxes and social insurance taxes. This is what the Hauser curve look likes when you take out social insurance taxes (blue curve):

 

 

from here: Hauser and WSJ lying with Charts

 

ergo as the marginal and corporate tax rates have gone down during the last 50 years, social insurance taxes have gone up by a huge amount to offset the decrease in individual and corporate tax revenue. Note the increase in revenue from individual taxes in the early 50's and in the 90's, as should be expected. Are you people so incompetent that you feel compelled to regurgitate Hoover Institution propaganda? Calling it a "law" doesn't make right wing drivel any more credible.

[JayB]

Draw a regression plot on the blue line and it will definitely have a downward slope, the upper line will be flat - add the two up and you still have a line that slopes downwards despite the wild variations in the top marginal rate and the income threshold it applies to.

 

The lesson here should be that since 1950, people with lots of money have proven very adept at shielding their income from taxation when they've had an incentive to do so. It's not clear to me what would everyone thinks would magically change if top marginal rates were increased while we retained all of the exemptions - other than very wealthy people spending more on tax attorneys. What's even more puzzling is all of the erstwhile progressives getting aggro over tax reforms that would actually increase effective tax rates on high incomes via eliminating deductions and dropping marginal rates.

 

The bottom line is that if you want to finance a generous welfare state - you have to make like Willy Sutton and go where the money is - which is the middle of the income range. That's what the Euros do, and they use broad, flat consumption taxes like the VAT to do it. It's also why income taxes constitute a far lower percentage of their total tax take than ours, despite all of the hyperventilating here about how progressive their tax system is vis-a-vis the US.

 

 

"In 1965, before the VAT spread across the European community, average tax burden of EU15 reached 27.7 percent of the GDP versus 24.7 percent in America. In 2006, the average tax burden for 15 developed European countries reached 39.8 percent. In United States, where VAT has not been introduced, average tax burden in 2006 remained close to the level of 1960s – at 28 percent of the GDP. The immediate consequence of VAT introduction in Europe was a surge in government spending. From 1965 to 2006, average government spending (as a share of the GDP) in the European Union increased by 17 percentage points while in America it increased by 7 percentage points...In 2007, taxes on goods and services presented about 4.7 percent of the US GDP; about three times less the level in Sweden (12.9 percent of the GDP) and four times less the level in Denmark (16.3 percent of the GDP).

 

 

 

 

 

This whole discussion leaves out any consideration of the dynamic effects of tax rates on long term growth, the long term impact of taxing income vs consumption on savings, investment, and production, etc...

[j_b]

You claimed that increases in tax rates didn't result in significant increases in federal revenue, which is patently false despite your long winded diatribe.

[j_b]

Draw a regression plot on the blue line and it will definitely have a downward slope, the upper line will be flat - add the two up and you still have a line that slopes downwards despite the wild variations in the top marginal rate and the income threshold it applies to.

 

what's this nonsense about? How many times have you been caught red-handed feeding us neoliberal propaganda as if it were the gospel? You are quite some bullshit artist, that's for sure.

[j_b]

The lesson here should be that since 1950, people with lots of money have proven very adept at shielding their income from taxation when they've had an incentive to do so.

 

spare us the BS. I have been pointing at tax evasion and tax heavens for years on this board without even a single acknowledgement of the problem on your part. Clearly, the wealthy don't need any incentive to avoid taxation since tax evasion has hardly been greater than today even though the marginal tax rate is at a ~70 year low.

 

It's not clear to me what would everyone thinks would magically change if top marginal rates were increased while we retained all of the exemptions

 

What is very clear to me is that you keep making stuff up. Nobody that I can remember stated they wanted to retain all of the exemptions.

 

other than very wealthy people spending more on tax attorneys. What's even more puzzling is all of the erstwhile progressives getting aggro over tax reforms that would actually increase effective tax rates on high incomes via eliminating deductions and dropping marginal rates.

 

because we can raise way more revenue by INCREASING the marginal tax rate AND eliminating deductions, and banning the use of tax heavens (including those existing within the US). There is no "law" that magically says that these actions are mutually exclusive despite regressive think tanks making stuff up that you uncritically regurgitate within these pages.