If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Talking Points Memo)   Study: "tax cuts ≠ economic growth" GOP: "Grrr. Kill it." Dems: "Hey, where'd that study go? Let's republish it." And...scene {bow}   (tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 49
    More: Interesting, GOP, Sander Levin, tax cuts, Democrats, Orrin Hatch, personal incomes, R-UT, economic growths  
•       •       •

6823 clicks; posted to Politics » on 01 Nov 2012 at 6:51 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-11-01 06:53:54 PM
10 votes:
3.bp.blogspot.com

//oblig
2012-11-01 07:34:45 PM
4 votes:

randomjsa: Yet somehow in the lala land of liberalism simply by having the government take money from the private sector and then spend that money... The private sector gets better.

A bit like if I took 50 dollars from you and spent it, somehow things get better for you right?


If you take my fifty bucks and use the government's negotiating position to get what would, at retail, be hundreds of dollars of medicine to treat several people who would otherwise not be able to afford medicine, yes it does. Society in general is improved. However, people like you resolutely refuse to acknowledge the concept of the entire society improving through shared sacrifice.
2012-11-01 07:13:21 PM
4 votes:
I do not understand why NO ONE from Obama's campaign is hammering Romney on this. No one is saying the obvious,that lowering the upper income tax rate for the past 70 years hasn't done a damn thing to help the economy or the middle class.
2012-11-01 06:07:50 PM
4 votes:
Facts: the enemy of conservatives.
2012-11-01 08:35:25 PM
3 votes:

cman: dickfreckle: You gotta love this country. It only took a few years for 50% of the population to conveniently forget what got us here, and that the extension of the cuts only worsens the deficit (especially annoying when it comes from a self-styled "deficit hawk").

What does it take, people? Herbert Hoover? When are you gonna wise up to this bullsh*t?

Meh, keep wrapping turds in a flag and I guess people will keep buying it.

This is not like other elections that we have had before. This has become rather personal for many.

This election SCARES the shiat out of me by the way everyone is acting. Ultrapartisanship reigns supreme. We have thrown out all logic for emotion.

Both Liberals and Conservatives are saying this is the most important election in many, many years. We are cut throat take no farking names kicking ass. Both sides are throwing everything at the farking wall hoping that it will all stick.

This election is insane. fark ALL OF YOU PARTISAN farkS WHO ARE THROWING US SO EVER CLOSER TO CIVIL WAR




Partisanship of Congress

Note how the far-right has slowly extinguished the center-right completely, and is now squeezing the moderate-right. When you mock people for partisanship, make sure you put the blame where the majority of it lies: In the party that has tripled Senate Cloture votes the moment Obama was elected. The party where members will not receive any campaign funding unless they sign a pledge of allegiance to far-right causes.

Democrats have tried and tried and tried to compromise, and been rebuked every single time. "We got 98% of what we wanted", said Boehner 2 years ago. And still his party rejected it, because getting 98% of what they wanted was just. not. enough.
2012-11-01 08:14:08 PM
3 votes:

Hunter_Worthington: So, you might want to call your mom to pick you up from Little League, because you're not in the majors, kid.


Good stuff. Point at a Mankiw clone. Appeal to authority much?

I go to this guy if I'm looking for such staggering insight as

"The results also indicate that the main effect of tax cuts on the government budget is to induce subsequent legislated tax increases"

Truly an unparalleled economic mind. Really, why not just point at Mankiw, who, by the way I've personally worked with and spoken to on these matters and who is the 'economics advisor' to the Romney campaign. Neither Mankiw or Romer study economic theory from a scientific perspective. They operate from a conclusions driven rather than an evidence driven paradigm. They hold a conviction as regards how they FEEL an economic model should behave.

I welcome an honest discussion that includes even the barest evidence of their conclusions. I'm really not impressed by how many text books someone sells. I made good money correcting text books and supporting materials. Up to the point that the publisher would allow it because the author might get butthurt.

Nice try though, logical fallacy and all.
2012-11-01 08:06:22 PM
3 votes:

randomjsa: Yet somehow in the lala land of liberalism simply by having the government take money from the private sector and then spend that money... The private sector gets better.

A bit like if I took 50 dollars from you and spent it, somehow things get better for you right?


Well, actually yes. When done properly, that money will be spent to create things of use. Roads, bridges. My $50 itself won't be able to build a bridge. But my $50 together with millions of others' $50 will be able to build that bridge and that will enable me to move over that river or gorge or bay easier. It will enable many people to move easier. When that happens, then trade is easier to conduct. I now can get my products to more people and thus earn back that $50 and then some.
2012-11-01 07:29:27 PM
3 votes:

randomjsa: A bit like if I took 50 dollars from you and spent it, somehow things get better for you right?


Is it my last 50 dollars or just a tiny fraction of my income and net worth, f*cktard?
2012-11-01 07:28:19 PM
3 votes:

randomjsa: Yet somehow in the lala land of liberalism simply by having the government take money from the private sector and then spend that money... The private sector gets better.

A bit like if I took 50 dollars from you and spent it, somehow things get better for you right?


If you took that 50 bucks and put it toward the debt it might not 'make things better' but it would be the responsible, fiscally conservative thing to do. Pay the bills is not a farking choice. You Repubs helped create the debt, you can help pay it off. No more farking tax cuts until the bills are paid.
2012-11-01 07:23:48 PM
3 votes:

randomjsa: Yet somehow in the lala land of liberalism simply by having the government take money from the private sector and then spend that money... The private sector gets better.

A bit like if I took 50 dollars from you and spent it, somehow things get better for you right?


Yes. Things would be better. It would give a us a brief reprieve from your threadshiatting ways.
2012-11-01 05:41:54 PM
3 votes:

Mentat: Just because it hasn't worked yet doesn't mean it never will. If you let the tax cuts accumulate over time, eventually the wealth will trickle down like Niagara Falls a golden shower.



FTFY.
2012-11-01 03:40:30 PM
3 votes:
You mean the Blessed Job Creators, peace be upon them, might actually just be a bunch of wealth accumulators who want to accumulate more wealth?

I am shocked. Shocked!
2012-11-02 12:25:21 AM
2 votes:

randomjsa: Yet somehow in the lala land of liberalism simply by having the government take money from the private sector and then spend that money... The private sector gets better.

A bit like if I took 50 dollars from you and spent it, somehow things get better for you right?


I should really know better than to reply to you, but here I go anyhow.

Money the Government spends does not just magically vanish into thin air.

1. That spending always becomes someones income. Case in point with Republican talking about defense jobs lost if the sequester comes to pass. That spending is Boeing's income. If the government lowers spending, this lowers demand for their products/services and thus their need for as many employees. But the defense industry works the same as any industry. No matter where you cut. this effect occurs. Granted, some types of spending are more effective than others.

2. Infrastructure spending is not only helps those "job creators" but is in fact VITAL to their ability to make money. Not to mention police to keep everyone from looting all their stuff(case in point... Hurricane Katrina). You could say it works a lot like national defense but on a local level.

3. Even entitlement spending is helpful. Those without much money will spend every damn dollar you give them - which in turn drives consumption and thus demand. It means those "job creators" have more customers. When they have enough business coming in, they will - out of necessity - hire more people. The more people working, the more consumption that occurs and the greater amount of business that is to be had. Its an uplifting spiral.

But the idea of raising taxes on the wealthy is not about enabling more spending. Its about doing the adult thing as PAYING OUR BILLS for what we have already spent and will continue to spend.

Now you somehow think that raising taxes on the wealthy will hinder investment, but that is not so. Let me ask YOU what you would do in this exaggerated scenario.

You have a chance to make $10,000,000. But after taxes(at those insane 90% levels that once existed), you will only get to keep $1,000,000. Do you make that $1,000,000 or do nothing and thus make... nothing?

What is the smart play here? Don't even tell me you would let that chance to make the money slip.

No sane person thinks taxes should be anywhere near 90% for anyone - and likely never will again. But explain how an extra 3% Clinton level top rate is gonna make all the wealthy people just give up on making money. I'd like to hear why they would do that.
2012-11-01 07:29:57 PM
2 votes:

cman: GhostFish: cman: THROWING US SO EVER CLOSER TO CIVIL WAR

You don't actually believe that's a possible outcome, do you?

I do.

Hatred runs deep. Liberals hate Conservatives, conservatives hate Liberals, everyone hates Greens, Libertarians, and Communists.

We are too divided now. Unless something happens that scars us on the scale of 9/11 I cannot see any other outcome except for civil war.


I don't hate conservatives. I think they are a little to wrapped up in their own hatred to be reasoned with, but I don't hate them.

Pity would be a better word.

And some of them do scare me, but more towards "lone wolf" than any organized uprising.
2012-11-01 07:28:53 PM
2 votes:

cman: GhostFish: cman: THROWING US SO EVER CLOSER TO CIVIL WAR

You don't actually believe that's a possible outcome, do you?

I do.

Hatred runs deep. Liberals hate Conservatives, conservatives hate Liberals, everyone hates Greens, Libertarians, and Communists.

We are too divided now. Unless something happens that scars us on the scale of 9/11 I cannot see any other outcome except for civil war.


Let's just let the South secede. Who's with me?

Hell, throw in Utah, Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana along with them. Then we'll build a wall. It'll be AWESOME.
2012-11-01 07:25:18 PM
2 votes:

randomjsa: Yet somehow in the lala land of liberalism simply by having the government take money from the private sector and then spend that money... The private sector gets better.

A bit like if I took 50 dollars from you and spent it, somehow things get better for you right?


Actually it's nothing like that. It would be more like if I took fifty dollars from you, had it broken up into ten dollar bills, and handed those ten dollar bills out to five random homeless people.

As for taking money from the private sector though, that's just bullshiat. There's the obvious government contracts, there's food stamps, there's government employees spending money. It pretty much all goes back into the economy, not flushed down some magical marxist money toilet.
2012-11-01 07:24:01 PM
2 votes:

randomjsa: A bit like if I took 50 dollars from you and spent it, somehow things get better for you right?


Depends on how the money is spent.
2012-11-01 07:14:41 PM
2 votes:

Hunter_Worthington: If you're going to criticize stupid policy, don't be a moron yourself. Wealth "accumulators" gather wealth, and addition wealth through investment, i.e. setting aside surplus money now, to enjoy potentially greater consumption utility in the future. In this matter, under ordinary times, wealth accumulation raises investment, and through that, expectations of future income for everyone, so that a rising tide lifts all boats.


Everything you just said is both somewhat absurd, self-contradictory, and wrong.

Let's go through it piece by piece.

'Wealth "accumulators" gather wealth'
'and addition wealth through investment, i.e. setting aside surplus money now, to enjoy potentially greater consumption utility in the future'

this is contradictory. They're either gathering/saving, or their investing. They can do both, but one thing is the exact opposite of the other.

' In this matter, under ordinary times, wealth accumulation raises investment'

...

What? No. The answer is no. This is both exactly wrong, and exactly what the published study disproves.

' and through that, expectations of future income for everyone, so that a rising tide lifts all boats.'

Again, no. Please google 'marginal propensity to consume'. Read about it. Understand it. Then come back with at least a basic understanding of macroeconomics.
2012-11-01 07:10:22 PM
2 votes:

Hunter_Worthington: If you're going to criticize stupid policy, don't be a moron yourself. Wealth "accumulators" gather wealth, and addition wealth through investment, i.e. setting aside surplus money now, to enjoy potentially greater consumption utility in the future. In this matter, under ordinary times, wealth accumulation raises investment, and through that, expectations of future income for everyone, so that a rising tide lifts all boats.


The fact that companies are sitting on over 5 trillion in liquid assets says that they're not investing it. They're putting the cash in a coffee can and burying it in the backyard.
2012-11-01 07:02:01 PM
2 votes:

eraser8: I wondered whether Fox "News" would run this story.

They did. With a predictable slant: Author of study appearing to back Democratic tax policy is a Democratic donor

Could they be any more predictable?


And Limbaugh keeps crowing about "liberal mainstream media".

/FOX is not a news center, it's a propaganda channel
2012-11-01 07:00:55 PM
2 votes:

eraser8: I wondered whether Fox "News" would run this story.

They did. With a predictable slant: Author of study appearing to back Democratic tax policy is a Democratic donor

Could they be any more predictable?


There is no such thing as "truth" anymore. Hell, there really aren't even any facts, either. This will be the downfall of our nation. That's a fact.
2012-11-01 07:00:39 PM
2 votes:

jasimo: mrshowrules: Funny how no one is refuting any of the facts or supporting information or event he conclusion of the study.

here it is: Link

Here is the conclusion it after all the stupid facts/data and such:

Concluding Remarks
The top income tax rates have changed considerably since the end of World War II. Throughout
the late-1940s and 1950s, the top marginal tax rate was typically above 90%; today it is 35%.
Additionally, the top capital gains tax rate was 25% in the 1950s and 1960s, 35% in the 1970s;
today it is 15%. The average tax rate faced by the top 0.01% of taxpayers was above 40% until
the mid-1980s; today it is below 25%. Tax rates affecting taxpayers at the top of the income
distribution are currently at their lowest levels since the end of the second World War.
The results of the analysis suggest that changes over the past 65 years in the top marginal tax rate
and the top capital gains tax rate do not appear correlated with economic growth. The reduction in
the top tax rates appears to be uncorrelated with saving, investment, and productivity growth. The
top tax rates appear to have little or no relation to the size of the economic pie.
However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of
income at the top of the income distribution. As measured by IRS data, the share of income
accruing to the top 0.1% of U.S. families increased from 4.2% in 1945 to 12.3% by 2007 before
falling to 9.2% due to the 2007-2009 recession. At the same time, the average tax rate paid by the
top 0.1% fell from over 50% in 1945 to about 25% in 2009. Tax policy could have a relation to
how the economic pie is sliced-lower top tax rates may be associated with greater income
disparities.


I'm gonna put that on a t-shirt

/Every reasonable person should memorize the salient facts in that paragraph and break them out every time some imbecile starts yelling about how Obama wants to hurt the "job creators"
//Rage


It seems to me that if the 1950s were so great to the GOP, why not start with the tax code of the 50s?
2012-11-01 06:59:40 PM
2 votes:

meat0918: Moody's did it first(well, earlier)

Summary: "Spending by the top 5 percent of households seems much more closely tied to business- cycle issues than it does to tax-cut issues."


Exactly. How many f*cking Big Macs and Plasma TVs can a 1%er consume?
2012-11-01 06:32:43 PM
2 votes:
Marginal Propensity to Consume versus Marginal Propensity to Save is a Lieberul plot, not real economics.

-The GOP
2012-11-01 05:29:00 PM
2 votes:
Those damn pesky facts and their liberal bias again.
2012-11-01 05:22:38 PM
2 votes:
"This is a completely shocking attempt by the Republicans to censor a nonpartisan analysis because they didn't like the findings," a senior Democratic aide told TPM.

The only thing that is "completly shocking" about this is that someone finds this to be completly shocking.
2012-11-01 04:29:07 PM
2 votes:
Huzzah for the ease with which things are now fished out of the memory hole.
2012-11-02 01:06:13 AM
1 votes:

Hunter_Worthington: smellysocksnshoes: Hunter_Worthington: BMulligan: Funny. I wrote a post that expressed my theory about the alternative identity of someone trolling this thread hard, and it disappeared down the memory hole after posting. Isn't that weird?

It sounds as though you'd wish for a "do-over" for that post. If there was but some word you could use to describe such a function.

Dude- if you get off the computer and stop pretending to be be someone you are not- you can go out and meet a woman- since you are ya know you- she will not be attractive but she will have a vagina- trust me here- vaginas are better than keyboards. And here is the cool thing- you can believe in all the debunked Econ theory you want and still enjoy real life vagina. Just go outside and stop pretending to be someone else. Even fark geeks can experience wonderful, wonderful vulva

I appreciate the input my friend, but before you hand out crude, though no doubt well intended, advice to strangers, you spend some time with your dictionary, and perhaps familiarize yourself with, at least, the rudiments of grammar.


It's an interesting character you've made to be sure, but your profile says you're IN Massachusetts, while your name suggests that you're FROM Worthington, MA, but currently reside in Lougheed, BC.

As entertaining as you are I think I'll have to farkie you in gray until you mature past your Triumph phase and either move more firmly into satire or start playing with the other trolls. Sadly, even if your persona and timing weren't enough to tip most people off, the ideas you propose to champion are absurd enough on their own merit that anyone who knows enough to refute your statements will also know not to take you too seriously in very short order.

In any case, I look forward to your inevitable outing and will be entertained by your lampooning in the meantime.
2012-11-01 10:28:56 PM
1 votes:
What I love about trickle down believers is that generally these same people act like it's a zero sum game when talking about socialism. Taking more from the rich to make sure consumers are more secure could never result in more money for everyone, but somehow taking less from the rich means more for the rest of us.
2012-11-01 09:57:25 PM
1 votes:

Hunter_Worthington: coeyagi: kasmel: Hunter_Worthington: Hunter W. Gathers,
Col. OSI, Commanding

Account created: 2012-10-28 17:28:40

He has the dubious honor of having his profile copypasta'ed in every thread he's been in since his birth.

We don't know much about him... but I suppose that's something.

[25.media.tumblr.com image 500x624]

Well, some Farkers don't get away from their comfort zones much, and operate under the perception that disagreements = trolling, or that their B.A. in Political Science qualifies them to have a valid opinion on Economics (or anything, come to it.). If it weren't for the fact that that sort of thing makes it more difficult to get constructive policy through, it'd be funny.

A bit like hearing a tour guide talk of a far away land, of which she knows nothing and understands even less, really.


No, a simpler formula - Outrageous Comments + Brand new ALT the week of elections = Nobody takes you seriously.
2012-11-01 09:40:06 PM
1 votes:

KhanAidan: Basically, my take is that his research has been pretty good, but his policy recommendations have been a bit more iffy and/or ideologically motivated.


A methodology is only as strong as the conclusions that can be drawn from it. So either his methodology for devising models is flawed or his capacity to derive conclusions through analysis of data based on those models is flawed.

In either case, when those conclusions consistently have an ideological bent, it's relatively safe to assume that there is a bias skewing the results.

Mankiw, more than Romer, has demonstrated the capacity to operate from a microeconomics perspective in terms of risk/reward on a price/value level. But even there his 'insight' leans towards flawed supply side models. His take on 'nominal rigidities', that since a company lowering their prices doesn't necessarily mean that they'll receive the full benefit because their competitors will adjust and while consumers will be able to buy more they won't necessarily buy more from THEM, fails to take into consideration that the larger motivating factor of price changes is demand. Lowering the price of an unwanted product/service will not necessarily spur demand for that product/service. Jiffy Lube can lower the cost of an oil change to $5 if they want, but people aren't necessarily going to go out of their way to get MORE oil changes. Jiffy Lube may benefit for a short time by stealing some business from competitors, but in the long run it's not going to make much difference, and then when they have to raise prices again they're likley to lose both the customers they gained as well as customers they may have kept by not changing their prices at all. By the same token most people are not motivated to buy something just because they can. Which means that whether a company will receive the full benefit of a consumer base for lowering their prices presupposes that people will arbitrarily increase their consumption simply because it's within their economic means to do so.

Anyway. We've gotten off topic. Long story short, I'm not suggesting that Mankiw and Romer are completely without merit. Simply that more often than not their conclusions, and the content of their texts, hold to a particular ideological bent that is neither supported by evidence, nor practically supported by any valid model. I take anything that they may offer with an extra helping of skepticism.
2012-11-01 09:37:53 PM
1 votes:

Hunter_Worthington: MisterTweak: You mean the Blessed Job Creators, peace be upon them, might actually just be a bunch of wealth accumulators who want to accumulate more wealth?

I am shocked. Shocked!

If you're going to criticize stupid policy, don't be a moron yourself. Wealth "accumulators" gather wealth, and addition wealth through investment, i.e. setting aside surplus money now, to enjoy potentially greater consumption utility in the future. In this matter, under ordinary times, wealth accumulation raises investment, and through that, expectations of future income for everyone, so that a rising tide lifts all boats.


That is among the stupidest things I have ever seen committed to text.
2012-11-01 08:55:09 PM
1 votes:

mediablitz: kasmel: Truly an unparalleled economic mind. Really, why not just point at Mankiw, who, by the way I've personally worked with and spoken to on these matters and who is the 'economics advisor' to the Romney campaign. Neither Mankiw or Romer study economic theory from a scientific perspective. They operate from a conclusions driven rather than an evidence driven paradigm. They hold a conviction as regards how they FEEL an economic model should behave.

I welcome an honest discussion that includes even the barest evidence of their conclusions. I'm really not impressed by how many text books someone sells. I made good money correcting text books and supporting materials. Up to the point that the publisher would allow it because the author might get butthurt.

I laughed heartily.



No, he's good.

"They operate from a conclusions driven [paradigm] rather than an evidence driven paradigm."
2012-11-01 08:52:35 PM
1 votes:

Hunter_Worthington: Hunter W. Gathers,
Col. OSI, Commanding


Account created: 2012-10-28 17:28:40
2012-11-01 08:07:54 PM
1 votes:

Isitoveryet: Hunter_Worthington: So, you might want to call your mom to pick you up from Little League, because you're not in the majors, kid.

but you assume that the U.S. or even the global economy uses the Keynesian model and adheres to its principles completely.


www.ericgarland.co
First of all you're going to have to grease the local politicians for the sudden zoning problems that always come up. Then there's the kickbacks to the carpenters, and if you plan on using any cement in this building I'm sure the teamsters would like to have a little chat with ya, and that'll cost ya. Oh and don't forget a little something for the building inspectors. Then there's long term costs such as waste disposal. I don't know if you're familiar with who runs that business but I assure you it's not the boyscouts.


Real world =/= textbooks
2012-11-01 07:32:50 PM
1 votes:
The fact that anyone still buys this supply-side bullshiat astounds me.
2012-11-01 07:31:59 PM
1 votes:
Simple lesson here:

Thou shalt not fark around with the Library of Congress, and all the services they offer. Including CRS.
2012-11-01 07:31:08 PM
1 votes:

cman: I do.

Hatred runs deep. Liberals hate Conservatives, conservatives hate Liberals, everyone hates Greens, Libertarians, and Communists.

We are too divided now. Unless something happens that scars us on the scale of 9/11 I cannot see any other outcome except for civil war.


just as an experiment, (and i realize it will have to be delayed, i doubt you could do it with the election eminent) try turning off the news channels. step away from politics threads.

you very well could be amazed at just how many people could give a flying fark, and...you might just join them. you sound immersed in political bullshiat, and sure that everyone else is too....when most just want a taco and something funny on TV.

in summation, taco.
2012-11-01 07:30:31 PM
1 votes:

cman: GhostFish: cman: THROWING US SO EVER CLOSER TO CIVIL WAR

You don't actually believe that's a possible outcome, do you?

I do.

Hatred runs deep. Liberals hate Conservatives, conservatives hate Liberals, everyone hates Greens, Libertarians, and Communists.

We are too divided now. Unless something happens that scars us on the scale of 9/11 I cannot see any other outcome except for civil war.


You spend too much time online is my guess. Real people in the real world don't deal with different opinions like they do here on FARK. Anonymity and all that.
2012-11-01 07:29:34 PM
1 votes:
The results of the analysis suggest that [...] the top marginal tax rate and the top capital gains tax rate do not appear correlated with economic growth.


That works for me.
2012-11-01 07:23:38 PM
1 votes:

cman: This election SCARES the shiat out of me by the way everyone is acting.


cman, seriously, it's loud, it's annoying, it's tense, it's depressing, all of these things, I know. But it's not imminent civil war bad. Put on your big boy pants and man up just a little.
2012-11-01 07:21:53 PM
1 votes:

randomjsa: Yet somehow in the lala land of liberalism simply by having the government take money from the private sector and then spend that money... The private sector gets better.

A bit like if I took 50 dollars from you and spent it, somehow things get better for you right?


No, but if you told me that I could either a) give that fifty dollars to you or b) spend it to give another person a job, I'd choose b).

Because job creators hate giving money to the government almost as much as I'd hate to give money to you.
2012-11-01 07:14:24 PM
1 votes:

Hunter_Worthington: MisterTweak: You mean the Blessed Job Creators, peace be upon them, might actually just be a bunch of wealth accumulators who want to accumulate more wealth?

I am shocked. Shocked!

If you're going to criticize stupid policy, don't be a moron yourself. Wealth "accumulators" gather wealth, and addition wealth through investment, i.e. setting aside surplus money now, to enjoy potentially greater consumption utility in the future. In this matter, under ordinary times, wealth accumulation raises investment, and through that, expectations of future income for everyone, so that a rising tide lifts all boats.


We're all gonna miss this disinformation campaign of yours after Tuesday.
2012-11-01 07:13:03 PM
1 votes:
At the in-laws a couple weeks ago I stated that there is little to no evidence that tax cuts have ever paid for themselves. Judging by the reaction, you would have sworn I kicked the dog and called my mother-in-law a see you next Tuesday.

/CSB
//Remind me to never inject reason into one of their political discussions again
2012-11-01 07:00:13 PM
1 votes:
Aren't they always screaming bloody murder over social engineering experiments? Can we put this one to rest now that we have 30+ years of conclusive evidence that shows it's a load of bunk?
2012-11-01 06:40:51 PM
1 votes:
Funny how no one is refuting any of the facts or supporting information or event he conclusion of the study.

here it is: Link

Here is the conclusion it after all the stupid facts/data and such:

Concluding Remarks
The top income tax rates have changed considerably since the end of World War II. Throughout
the late-1940s and 1950s, the top marginal tax rate was typically above 90%; today it is 35%.
Additionally, the top capital gains tax rate was 25% in the 1950s and 1960s, 35% in the 1970s;
today it is 15%. The average tax rate faced by the top 0.01% of taxpayers was above 40% until
the mid-1980s; today it is below 25%. Tax rates affecting taxpayers at the top of the income
distribution are currently at their lowest levels since the end of the second World War.
The results of the analysis suggest that changes over the past 65 years in the top marginal tax rate
and the top capital gains tax rate do not appear correlated with economic growth. The reduction in
the top tax rates appears to be uncorrelated with saving, investment, and productivity growth. The
top tax rates appear to have little or no relation to the size of the economic pie.
However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of
income at the top of the income distribution. As measured by IRS data, the share of income
accruing to the top 0.1% of U.S. families increased from 4.2% in 1945 to 12.3% by 2007 before
falling to 9.2% due to the 2007-2009 recession. At the same time, the average tax rate paid by the
top 0.1% fell from over 50% in 1945 to about 25% in 2009. Tax policy could have a relation to
how the economic pie is sliced-lower top tax rates may be associated with greater income
disparities.


The biggest issue the GOP seem to have with this study is the fact that it exists.
2012-11-01 05:31:52 PM
1 votes:
I should probably make some popcorn before this thread hits the politics tab, huh?
2012-11-01 05:30:23 PM
1 votes:
I wondered whether Fox "News" would run this story.

They did. With a predictable slant: Author of study appearing to back Democratic tax policy is a Democratic donor

Could they be any more predictable?
2012-11-01 05:27:15 PM
1 votes:
Ahh, ultrapartisanship, where your side can never be wrong. Never admit defeat. Destroy anything that makes you look bad.
 
Displayed 49 of 49 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report