He isn't very funny for a Laffer.

The thing I always wanted to ask Laffer and other conservatives is this: Why do they always assume that we're on the right (shaded in the picture) side of the curve? Why do they never assume that we're in the left side?

I've not gotten a satisfactory response yet.

RexTalionis: [i1212.photobucket.com image 631x416]

The thing I always wanted to ask Laffer and other conservatives is this: Why do they always assume that we're on the right (shaded in the picture) side of the curve? Why do they never assume that we're in the left side?

I've not gotten a satisfactory response yet.

Doesn't that appear to show that about 50% is optimum?

I pick the Peterbilt. Odds are it won't make it to you.

FTFA: renowned economist Arthur Laffer

Now THAT is a laugher.

/I believe several economists not known for silliness or liberality determined the highest marginal tax bracket that didn't cause economic problems was 83%

Why exactly is he endorsing one of them? If one of them will create more revenue than the other, i'd like to see the "work."

"Mr. Gingrich's tax proposal is not revenue-neutral, nor should it be," Laffer writes. "If there's one truism in fiscal policy, it's this: Wasteful spending will always rise to the level of revenues. Whether you're in Greece, Washington, D.C., or California, overspending is a prosperity killer of the first order. Mr. Gingrich's flat tax proposals - along with his proposed balanced budget amendment - would put a quick stop to overspending and return America to fiscal soundness.

Yeah, because look how having revenue less than expenditures has caused us to decrease our expenditures.

Open your eyes, idiot.

RexTalionis: The thing I always wanted to ask Laffer and other conservatives is this: Why do they always assume that we're on the right (shaded in the picture) side of the curve? Why do they never assume that we're in the left side?

Because fark you libtard, that's why.

I'd prefer to be hit by a Mack truck. I just like that bulldog hood ornament.

Being hit by a Kenworth or being hit by a Peterbilt?

/neither one is the grill of my dreams

TheOnion: Open your eyes, idiot.

Couldn't be a Republican economist then, could he?

I was hit by a Peterbilt last October on I95.

RexTalionis: I was hit by a Peterbilt last October on I95.

And you are here to tell the tale so it couldn't be too bad.


/glad you are okay

GAT_00: TheOnion: Open your eyes, idiot.

Couldn't be a Republican economist then, could he?

Hmmm? I don't think one's political leanings have any bearings on his statement

TheOnion: GAT_00: TheOnion: Open your eyes, idiot.

Couldn't be a Republican economist then, could he?

Hmmm? I don't think one's political leanings have any bearings on his statement

WOOOOOSH

And yet, magically, they both benefit the rich more than anyone else.

(new window)

(new window)

(new window)

I'm sure Obama won't mention this fact at all during the debates.

Here's something I heard one morning that I found kind of interesting/maddening. It was on NPR just ahead of the SC primaries.
S.C. Voters Have 2 Days To Make Up Their Minds (new window)

LIASSON: But Romney hasn't won everyone here. Over at the community table, Bill Bailey is having breakfast with a group of old friends - all working-class conservative Republicans.
BILL BAILEY: I've made up my mind, I think. I'm going with Newt. I'll be honest with you. I don't trust Romney. I'm just having a bad feeling about him.
LIASSON: Bailey has a problem with Romney's background.
BAILEY: We need someone to look out for the small people.
LIASSON: Why don't you think Romney would look out for the small people?
BAILEY: I just don't.
AL MOESSNER: He's not one of them.
BAILEY: He is not one of the small people.
LIASSON: When you heard that he only pays 15 percent on his taxes, what did you think of that?
BAILEY: I didn't like it.
(SOUNDBITE OF LAUGHTER)
LIASSON: Why?
BAILEY: Because I have to pay - what little bit I make - I have to pay probably up to 28 to 30 percent.

First, no way "working class" Bill Bailey actually pays an effective rate of 28 or 30 percent in Federal income tax. Marginal rate, maybe, but his effective rate is most likely comfortably less than 15%.
Now, if you asked Bill Bailey what he thought of the capital gains tax - if he could tell you what it is - what are the odds he'd say, much as his favorite conservative radio host says, that it should be cut or repealed entirely? Honestly if you asked about the policies that lead to Romney paying that rate, most working class Bill Baileys would have it so Romney payed much closer to 0% than 15% in Federal income taxes.

As for Gingrich, the "looking out for the small people" candidate, he's happy to tell you that he doesn't want to raise Romney's taxes above 15% - he'd like to make YOURS 15%. Which, of course, would be a significant tax increase for poor, working class (Bill Bailey Republicans included) and most middle class wage earners. Conveniently, it would be a huge tax savings for Mr. Gingrich.

As for Romney, he's not dodging taxes, he's paying a rate he calls "legal and fair". "Legal", I agree - he's following the rules under the current system. "Fair" is another question and of course, debatable. The idea of a flat tax makes a lot less sense to me than a progressive tax where you pay higher percentages the more you make. Yes it sucks when your taxes go up, but you do make more money. I guess I appreciated paying much lower taxes when I was right out of HS/in college, where my current tax rate would have had a much more damaging and significant impact on my overall finances, so paying a higher rate as my income goes up doesn't make me all red in the face from anger. Adam Smith wasn't referring to income taxes but I think it applies, "It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion". Not that I'm rich, mind you.

What's somewhat maddening isn't that *I* think tax rates should be progressive and *Republicans* think they should be flat, it's that some working class Republicans seem to think they should be progressive but would vote for them to be flat.

tl:dr lower rates/less deductions, fine, but keep a progressive/marginal rate structure

//and the "poor people don't pay taxes" crapola is d/t benefits for poor people that were shifted to be refundable tax credits, at the behest of (mostly) "Conservatives", that affect people who have little in the way of income, and only includes federal income tax, not most payroll tax, local tax, etc

randomjsa: If you tax all the people who make 10 million a year or more for 100% of their income, that's 250 billion a year.

That's a good start.

OgreMagi: I'm waiting for someone to explain rationally why it would be ok for the government to take every dime someone owns for no other reason than they want to.

He was being hyperbolic, so I responded in kind. But yes, we need to raise rates on the upper brackets. And create some new brackets at the very top as well.

RexTalionis: [i1212.photobucket.com image 631x416]

The thing I always wanted to ask Laffer and other conservatives is this: Why do they always assume that we're on the right (shaded in the picture) side of the curve? Why do they never assume that we're in the left side?

I've not gotten a satisfactory response yet.

Conservative = right. If we were on the left, we'd be liberals, and we can't have that.

(makes as much sense as anything else on the Curve)

BojanglesPaladin: Dusk-You-n-Me: But yes, we need to raise rates on the upper brackets. And create some new brackets at the very top as well.

WHY?

Seriously. Why?

It would have a negligable impact on tax revenue. and do nothing to help the economy.

Explain to me why taxing the rich a little or a lot more will increase anyone's salary or produce more jobs.

Maybe we all want to try something different.

Maybe, just maybe, money spent on infrastructure and research and development creates new business opportunities ripe for exploitation?

Perhaps addressing the worst of the inequity in education as it varies from rich to poor districts returns high dividends for the country.

And perhaps because tax rates are near all time lows, those that can afford more should pay more.

They'll get it all back when the money cycles back to the top. When those at the top keep most of their money out of the normal business cycle by keeping wages low, investing in paper instead of production, it's up to the government to make sure that money keeps flowing back down to the bottom.

bugontherug: CBS News just reported that Mittens' favorability among independents has dropped from the 40's, to 23%.

Romney now has Newt's main weakness, but not Newt's strengths.

What are Newt's strengths again?

theknuckler_33: Their whole argument is that the only two known points are at 0% tax rate and 100% tax rate. The shape of the curve is unknown. It is drawn as a parabola for convenience. I don't think too many people, liberals included argue for a 50% top tax rate, but RexTalionis still has a valid point. The optimal rate is not known yet conservatives or supply-side zealots always believe that we are on the non-optimal side closer to the 100% rate.

Yes, exactly, that was my issue with the proponents of increasing government revenue purely by instituting tax cuts.

Obviously, the chart I drew in 5 minutes in GIMP wasn't meant to be to scale, but meant to be used in abstract only. Not sure why people got caught up by the chart itself.