2012 Presidential Election - The Day after the Aftermath...

[Rover]

When Clinton initially raised tax rates the economy stalled. It didn't take off in the 90's until the capital gains rate was reduced. At the same time, gov't spending was essentially flat.

Kindly point out where the economy stalled here Minny.

http://www.indexmundi.com/united_states/gdp_real_growth_rate.html


Again, what universe are you operating on, and while you're at it, please compare growth rates in the 90's with higher taxes to growth rates in the 2000's with lower taxes and amaze us with your conclusions...

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election - The Day after the Aftermath...

So, why do tax cuts get the credit for 04-07, but they had no effect in the 90s? What evidence do you have to support these two seemingly contradictory beliefs? Why couldnt the economy have similarly grown from 04-07 even in the absence of tax cuts?

What sort of new innovation was around in the 2000's? Nothing significant.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election - The Day after the Aftermath...

The conversation had been about government revenue and economic activity, not corporate earnings. And even if we were, are you seriously arguing that the housing boom didn't have a positive effect on them?

I understand you see yourself as a financier of sorts, but the U.S. economy has more components than mere corporate earnings.

It's still a valid point. How else do you think the aggregate amount of income for the government increased?

 

[joecct]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election - The Day after the Aftermath...

If anyone is in East Lansing, how's the riot going?

 

[unofan]

It's still a valid point. How else do you think the aggregate amount of income for the government increased?

Probably the same way it always does, through a general increase in economic activity, with it taking its share of each transaction at a given rate, otherwise known as a tax. Corporate (edit: income) taxes are less than 10% of the take, so earnings are hardly the driving factor.

Which brings us back full circle. If the govt collects a percentage of economic activity, then increasing the percentage it takes will raise revenue so long as the activity doesn't drop by the same or greater amount. And we're then back to debating which side of the laffer curve you think we're standing on.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election - The Day after the Aftermath...

Probably the same way it always does, through a general increase in economic activity, with it taking its share of each transaction at a given rate, otherwise known as a tax.

Which brings us back full circle. If the govt collects a percentage of economic activity, then increasing the percentage it takes will raise revenue so long as the activity doesn't drop by the same or greater amount. And we're then back to debating which side of the laffer curve you think we're standing on.

What caused economic activity to increase in the first place? In the 90's, it was certainly the World Wide Waste-of-time, now that a significant majority uses it. In the 2000's, which in the early part of the decade saw many feelings of "cash is king", the companies got the cash through market investment, and so things were able to continue.

Obviously the goal is to reach the apex of the inverse parabola. I would not be able to tell you where we are at the present time, although it would not surprise me if we are not at the apex. The things I do believe need to be controlled, though, are inefficient spending and prohibitive environmental regulation. One we have those under control, we can certainly look to see if we can make a change to the income code in order to maximise the amount collected.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election - The Day after the Aftermath...

so we've devolved into another "debate" between causation and correlation?

Rover and Unofan are trying to deny the obvious: there is clearly a strong correlation between lower tax rates and higher tax revenues. The most obvious example, which cannot be denied by any sane rational person (ahem!) is the excise tax on yachts, which was discussed very early in the "Strands in the Tapestry" thread. It could have been a textbook laboratory experiment!

There are also plenty of examples from state income tax and from other countries that are equally clear-cut: Maryland imposed a surcharge on personal income over $1 million in 2009, and had half as many filers in that tax bracket in 2010.


Rather than accept the obvious correlation, they are twisting themselves into knots by trying to deny any possible causation. Have fun with that. At least admit the correlation, have some intellectual integrity rather than be a total sellout to ideology first last and only.

For my part, I would much prefer NOT to have another correlation to add to the long well-established list. Let's not raise tax rates next year, ok? then we won't have to be concerned when real world effects intervene, causing you more cognitive dissonance as you try to argue why something else other than the change in the rates led to reduced revenues.






The US federal income tax can be viewed by some as more correlative and less causative since there are so many other influences involved.

 

[unofan]

What caused economic activity to increase in the first place? In the 90's, it was certainly the World Wide Waste-of-time, now that a significant majority uses it. In the 2000's, which in the early part of the decade saw many feelings of "cash is king", the companies got the cash through market investment, and so things were able to continue.

Obviously the goal is to reach the apex of the inverse parabola. I would not be able to tell you where we are at the present time, although it would not surprise me if we are not at the apex. The things I do believe need to be controlled, though, are inefficient spending and prohibitive environmental regulation. One we have those under control, we can certainly look to see if we can make a change to the income code in order to maximise the amount collected.

I disagree the goal is to hit the apex. Govt is not a business, and it need not maximize revenue. The goal should be to raise sufficient revenue to pay for its expenses. It should also never cross beyond that apex. But there's no reason it needs to hit the apex if it can raise sufficient funds only part way up the curve

 

[unofan]

:there is clearly a strong correlation between lower tax rates and higher tax revenues. The most obvious example, which cannot be denied by any sane rational person (ahem!) is the excise tax on yachts,

Because clearly one's need for income is as elastic as one's desire for yachts. Likewise, renouncing your US citizenship is done as easily as changing one's residence.

You do understand that sales taxes and income taxes are different, right? One impacts the purchase of a given good, the other impacts your ability to purchase any goods.

Finally, if the correlation is as clear as you claim, then the optimal tax rate would necessarily be 0, would it not? After all, less taxes = greater revenue, right?

 

[Slap Shot]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election - The Day after the Aftermath...

President Obama discovers that the Bush tax cuts were a good thing for the middle class!

He's out campaigning that they be extended.

Only 9 years later and finally the MSM is realizing that the Bush tax cuts were actually good for everyone. Gee.

1) It isn't news that Obama wants to extend the cuts for the middle class - it has been talked about going back several months. 2) "Good for everyone" is a statement that means nothing and has no measureable application - certainly not in any way you think it does.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election - The Day after the Aftermath...

1) It isn't news that Obama wants to extend the cuts for the middle class - it has been talked about going back several months. 2) "Good for everyone" is a statement that means nothing and has no measureable application - certainly not in any way you think it does.

Fishy is using it in comparison to before the election when Obama and the MSM said the tax cuts were only good for the rich. It's sort of like the joke of setting up hell to look like a 5-star hotel while you're in purgatory trying to decide where to spend eternity.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election - The Day after the Aftermath...

In the wake of hypercritical conservative talk and a pretty brutal W administration...the GOP is left in tough shape. It was expected that demographics would be a cause for concern...it appears to go far beyond that. In situations like this, usually parties get correct themselves. But I'm not sure if the right's thought leadership will move beyond blaming someone else...which should prolong their plight.

One of many polls shows the hole that the GOP is in right now...Pew:

Obama's approval rating has risen 12 points since August 2011. The approval rating of Republicans in Congress sits at 25 percent, hovering around the 22-percent level it fell to in the wake of the debt ceiling crisis.

The Republican Party's favorable-to-unfavorable split is 36-59. The Democratic Party's is 48-47.

Only 46 percent of Republican voters approve of Republican leaders in Congress. By comparison, 71 percent of Democrats approve of their party's leaders in Congress.

House Speaker John Boehner's favorable-to-unfavorable split sits at 21-40.

More people think Democrats can "do a better job" handling jobs, the economy, Medicare, health care, Social Security and education.

By a 53-33 margin, more Americans think the GOP is "more extreme in its positions."

By a 69-28 margin, Americans support raising tax rates on incomes above $250,000. The only significant spending cuts that voters favor are reductions in Medicare and Social Security benefits to upper-income Americans.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election - The Day after the Aftermath...

If I could buy stock in the Republicans right now, I would. the best time to buy in these cases generally is when things look the bleakest.

Let's revisit in 2014, shall we? If anyone can remember and keep track, I'll say that the Republicans make further gains in State legislatures and Governorships.

At the state level, they are on a very promising trajectory
> Indiana's right-to-work law produced solid increases in employment and wages there
> Kasich's reforms in Ohio seem to be working
> Walker's reforms in Wisconsin are saving school districts hundreds of thousands of dollars in health insurance costs
> the Michigan right-to-work law will also attract some new employers to that state, finally!
> in New Jersey, they just passed a law (and somehow picked up teachers' union support even!) that includes merit pay for teachers, once considered the untouchable third rail of education reform.

I'll also say that the Republicans pick up a few House seats too.

Meanwhile, at the state level, California, Illinois, and Connecticut sink further into the La Brea tarpits of expanded spending and dwindling tax revenues (what happened to all that revenue that increased tax rates was supposed to bring in, Dannel Malloy?? what happened to it all??? what, people changed their behavior after a tax rate increase? gee, who'd ever have expected that to happen! )

Any takers? I'll figure out a way to keep track and get back to you then.

 

[unofan]

If I could buy stock in the Republicans right now, I would. the best time to buy in these cases generally is when things look the bleakest.

Let's revisit in 2014, shall we? If anyone can remember and keep track, I'll say that the Republicans make further gains in State legislatures and Governorships.

At the state level, they are on a very promising trajectory
> Indiana's right-to-work law produced solid increases in employment and wages there
> Kasich's reforms in Ohio seem to be working
> Walker's reforms in Wisconsin are saving school districts hundreds of thousands of dollars in health insurance costs
> the Michigan right-to-work law will also attract some new employers to that state, finally!
> in New Jersey, they just passed a law (and somehow picked up teachers' union support even!) that includes merit pay for teachers, once considered the untouchable third rail of education reform.

I'll also say that the Republicans pick up a few House seats too.

Any takers? I'll figure out a way to keep track and get back to you then.

Picking the gop in an off year election following gerrymandering? You're really going out on a limb there...

 

[FreshFish]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election - The Day after the Aftermath...

Picking the gop in an off year election following gerrymandering? You're really going out on a limb there...

hey, i'm not the one gloating about the irreversible demise of the Republican party forever! You want to tell your buddies they are getting a bit carried away?

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election - The Day after the Aftermath...

hey, i'm not the one gloating about the irreversible demise of the Republican party forever! You want to tell your buddies they are getting a bit carried away?

Not sure if youre referring to me...but if that's the interpretation, its not my intention. I put the country at the top of the priority list. And its no debate that the federal govt is disfunctional. And I see fixing it as this country's top goal. Franklly, others should see this also.

Polls like these show what's really going on. The net message is this...that the GOP cooperates less than the Dems, its positions are more extreme vis a vis those of the country, and its at risk due to soft support. As a pro biz, free trader, fiscal moderate, I'd love to see the GOP be a stronger and more pragmatic yet cooperative fiscal counterweight to the Dems. As i mentioned above, it highlights an opportunity to fix the situation (if only for awhile).

 

[walrus]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election - The Day after the Aftermath...

Polls like these show what's really going on.

Polls like that show you how clueless people are, neither party will make the hard decisions that need to made, both afraid of losing power from their base. Once people figured out they could vote themselves a raise, our country was doomed.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election - The Day after the Aftermath...

Not sure if youre referring to me...but if that's the interpretation, its not my intention. I put the country at the top of the priority list. And its no debate that the federal govt is disfunctional. And I see fixing it as this country's top goal. Franklly, others should see this also.

Polls like these show what's really going on. The net message is this...that the GOP cooperates less than the Dems, its positions are more extreme vis a vis those of the country, and its at risk due to soft support. As a pro biz, free trader, fiscal moderate, I'd love to see the GOP be a stronger and more pragmatic yet cooperative fiscal counterweight to the Dems. As i mentioned above, it highlights an opportunity to fix the situation (if only for awhile).

I think he's more referring to people like Rover, Gurth, and the Nebraskan.

One thing you have to be careful with the poll questions, though, is that even they can be spun to provoke a response. If I were to ask, "What percentage of income should a rich person pay in taxes?", I'm sure I'd get fairly different answers than if I asked, "Should rich people be paying more in taxes?"

The GOP certainly has issues. Even one of the talk radio pundits noted it when Romney was given the GOP nomination that they blew it and lost (yet still spent months supporting his campaign; talk about hypocrisy). It would not surprise me if we were to see the rise of the libertarian party, or some form of it, as a replacement for the GOP, especially amongst the younger generation who, although they like the left-leaning social issues, you'll find are very much for becoming fiscally sound and aren't a bunch of brainless oafs begging for handouts. We need an option for limited government.

 

[Rover]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election - The Day after the Aftermath...

Whenever I start feeling a little bit sorry for Republicans, somebody like Fishy or Flaggy comes along and puts a smile on my face! Thanks guys.

So, what's funnier and more delusional? The notion that tax cuts increase revenue, which begs an answer to uno's question of if that is true the optimal tax rate is zero. Or is it that we are in fact in the middle of a great GOP ascendancy and being outvoted in 5 out of the last 6 Presidential elections is all part of the Master Plan.

To the first point, I'll reiterate to Fishy what the O said to Mittens. The 1980's called and it wants its tax policy back! Nothing more needs to be said.

To the second, any view of GOP recovery has to be viewed in the context of who gets primaried in 2014. That I can't predict but consider this. If Collins calls it a day up in Maine that seat's going Dem. Similarly while I don't expect the Dems to win in SC or TN even if one or both of those incumbents doesn't make it through the party nomination process, in GA Obama did get into the mid 40's on election night. Have another "legitimate rape" apostle take out Chambliss while the Dems run a guy like Barrow for the seat and who knows?

I'd be surprised to see the GOP gain much in the House despite historical precedent. There aren't too many Dems in GOP leaning seats left (one in UT, one in GA, and that's about it) while there's a few GOP'ers left in CA, CO, MI, and NY that are ripe for the picking. Mind you the GOP is at record low unpopularity for a major political party.

Finally the day of reckoning will be in the state houses, where Scott, Kasich, Snyder, Corbett, etc are extremely unpopular due to passing far right wing legislation such as forced ultrasounds, union busting bills, and other nonsense that they didn't run on. Instead of running on a Chris Christie model, which is lets improve my state, they've operated under a I want my own show on Fox like Huckabee model, which will seal their doom.

There's always the libertarian fantasy that disaffected Repubs will drift their way, but like most lib ideas it has no basis in reality. GOP operatives, much like GOP posters, are too delusional. There's always the hope that if only we're more conservative we'll win. I'm going to be real interested in how tax hikes on the house GOP's watch plays out with the Teabagger crowd. Anybody who votes for that will have a big target on their backs from the right.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election - The Day after the Aftermath...

Bobby Jindal comes out clearly and strongly in favor of contraception (i.e., preventive birth control) in an editorial in today's Wall Street Journal.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists announced its support last month for selling oral contraceptives over the counter without a prescription in the United States. I agree with this opinion....I also believe that every adult (18 years old and over) who wants contraception should be able to purchase it.

He also points out how Obama"care" actually makes it harder for people to tend to their own health:

Over-the-counter contraception would be easier to obtain if not for some unfortunate aspects of President Obama's health-care law. One of the most egregious elements of that law is the hampering of Health Savings Accounts, which have become increasingly popular in recent years because they give Americans choices in how to spend their money on health care. By removing the ability of citizens to use their HSAs to purchase over-the-counter medicine tax-free if they don't have a doctor's prescription, President Obama hurt many middle-class families who counted on using their HSA dollars every flu season to take care of their children. Health Savings Accounts should cover over-the-counter purchases, and those should include contraception.