What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

Status
Not open for further replies.
Patman said:
Of course why is this wrong on its face? (edit: not the curve, but the 50-70% dealie) It assumes that the gov't can spend money faster than those who aren't the government. Something we generally believe to be false. The gov't gets money every time it passes through a tax system. The proportion of money held by gov't may be higher, but the total that goes through their hands will be lower because it takes them time to spend it. The money goes through the private sector faster and the gov't collects its nickel or whatever, but the frequency it goes through the private sector means they get more of those shiny nickels.

edit: The gov't only gets money when money is moved by the private sector. To assume that a lower end person moves the money faster through transfer payments (as often happens in welfare gov't situations) assumes the gov't can efficiently off-load their take-in the first place
Click to expand...

I'm not arguing that we need to maximize tax revenue (indeed, Diamond himself argues that the maximum federal tax rate should probably not be more than 49.9% from a general health of the economy standpoint).. I'm merely refuting fishy's (and most GOP shills') assertion that we're constantly and permanently on the right side of the inflection point of the laffer curve rather than the left.
 
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

unofun said:
Thus we conclude that raising the top tax rate is very likely to result in revenue increases."
Click to expand...

So what? that's totally consistent with what I said. I said that actual revenue increase is less than expected revenue increase. I still used the word revenue "increase."

The curve you published is also consistent: the expected revenue increase is generally the tangent line to the curve, since the curve always has negative inflection, it rises more slowly than the tangent line. Again consistent.

So very kind of you to provide the research that demonstrates that my statement was indeed accurate. Quite surprising, actually, that you would do so in the name of "refuting" it, you actually supported it.
 
FreshFish said:
So what? that's totally consistent with what I said. I said that actual revenue increase is less than expected revenue increase. I still used the word revenue "increase."
Click to expand...

I put the farking direct quote from you in my post.

when they raise tax rates, revenue would decline,
Click to expand...

Decline = increase. Got it... :rolleyes:
 
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

ScoobyDoo said:
Yes, job growth is weak proof. Always has been. While, on the other hand the stock market is all the proof we ever need.
Click to expand...

What else is going on in that state? Increasing the price of labor isn't going to create an increase in the quantity of demand for that labor. There are other things happening, they've just been ignored by the reporter. Add to that, the economist quoted works for a notoriously liberal think tank, and we don't know what factors he used to come to his conclusion about any cause-effect relationship. There's so much missing from that article presented by those academic masterminds at Time Magazine.
 
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

St. Clown said:
What else is going on in that state? Increasing the price of labor isn't going to create an increase in the quantity of demand for that labor. There are other things happening, they've just been ignored by the reporter. Add to that, the economist quoted works for a notoriously liberal think tank, and we don't know what factors he used to come to his conclusion about any cause-effect relationship. There's so much missing from that article presented by those academic masterminds at Time Magazine.
Click to expand...

Same things are missing from the Supply Side Reagan Tax Cut Religion and the idea that the stock market has anything to do with job growth or the economy of real people.
 
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

It seems to make sense that when the economy is doing well, you can afford to raise taxes. It's time to cut taxes when the economy is in the toilet.

Sadly, many of our political masters do the opposite.
 
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

ScoobyDoo said:
Same things are missing from the Supply Side Reagan Tax Cut Religion and the idea that the stock market has anything to do with job growth or the economy of real people.
Click to expand...

You really are just a pull quote, aren't you?
 
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

St. Clown said:
You really are just a pull quote, aren't you?
Click to expand...

In my long observations of these threads, I'd say he's a sarcasm troll. He'll often put his views out there by citing an article that agrees with his position, then flip the discussion into snarky attacks on the opposing viewpoint instead of defending his own opinions - in essence, "my opinion is valid because yours sucks". Or, as we saw during the entire 2012 election cycle, he'll sarcastically declare that Obama/Democrats are "doomed" while dryly claiming that Romney/Republicans are awesome and will save the country. :p
 
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

FadeToBlack&Gold said:
Or, as we saw during the entire 2012 election cycle, he'll sarcastically declare that Obama/Democrats are "doomed" while dryly claiming that Romney/Republicans are awesome and will save the country. :p
Click to expand...

You think they won't? Only Rick Perry had the guts to send the National Guard to the border. The true solution to the immigration problem. If we're lucky they'll start shooting like someone in another thread suggested. With such grand solutions like that there can be no question the GOP is the party of solutions and the Democrats are the party of moral and economic decay.
 
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

Some authors are arguing the the human race is splitting into two camps.
Those who make decisions based on feelings
Those who make decisions based on results.
 
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

joecct said:
Some authors are arguing the the human race is splitting into two camps.
Those who make decisions based on feelings
Those who make decisions based on results.
Click to expand...

Everybody thinks this, where "results" is their side and "feelings" is the other side. It's just another way to say "me good, you bad."
 
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

joecct said:
Some authors are arguing the the human race is splitting into two camps.
Those who make decisions based on feelings
Those who make decisions based on results.
Click to expand...

If so, that split has been going on for centuries. I can't recall who wrote "Life is a comedy to those who think and a tragedy to those who feel" but it wasn't someone recent.


What I find far more worrisome today is the growing number of people who think "good intentions" are sufficient in and of themselves.



EDIT: the quote seems to be widely attributed to Horace Walpole, who lived in the 1700s.
 
Last edited:
Kepler said:
Everybody thinks this, where "results" is their side and "feelings" is the other side. It's just another way to say "me good, you bad."
Click to expand...

Witness last night's execution in Arizona. The "feelers" are worried that it took 2 hrs. The "resultants" see that he's dead.

Give you another one. When regulations get in the way of accomplishing the mission, F the regulations.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top