Deficit Commission

[Rob's House]

Hmmm...I thought conservatives believed that taxes changed behavior in a significant way? You mean cutting the marginal tax rate won't increase revenue?

That's a laugher!

You're mixing philosophies here but I'll be happy to untangle.

 

"Supply side" theory would indicate that beyond a certain point increasing the marginal tax rate reduces revenue. This has been proven multiple times, most notably in the 20s and 80s. The graph is more of a bell curve (Laffer curve) and it's more of a general theory than a precise measurement. Some conservatives mistakenly assume this relationship is linear.

 

Outsourcing is another issue altogether, and the idea that a slight tax break will offset the financial benefits of exploiting cheap labor for which you're paying pennies on the dollar is not only laughable, it's retarded.

[Peace]

It's impossible to imagine a scenario where the American public would in any way, shape or form support more government spending as an answer to what has already proven to be a disasterous previous attempt to throw money at the unemployment problem.

 

 

The above: That's stupid. My basis: Every election since at least 1930 in this country and just about every election in every democracy.

 

I stand by my comment and may have to put you on the list of people that occasionally just needs the "You're an idiot" post.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Well, how much time on unemployment is enough then? When do you say that thats enough, ever? What do you think that would create if they had unending unemployment benifits?

 

Answer the questions, please.

 

France.

[IDBillzFan]

The above: That's stupid. My basis: Every election since at least 1930 in this country and just about every election in every democracy.

 

I stand by my comment and may have to put you on the list of people that occasionally just needs the "You're an idiot" post.

My comment which you found so stupid was a direct response to Magox's thought about the possibility of another hunk of taxpayer dough being thrown at the unemployment problem. So keeping my comment in context, we apparently both agree that YOU believe the American public would welcome a second multi-billion dollar stimulus bill based on the concept that it will stop the unemployment rate from rising.

 

And I'm the idiot.

[Peace]

My comment which you found so stupid was a direct response to Magox's thought about the possibility of another hunk of taxpayer dough being thrown at the unemployment problem. So keeping my comment in context, we apparently both agree that YOU believe the American public would welcome a second multi-billion dollar stimulus bill based on the concept that it will stop the unemployment rate from rising.

 

And I'm the idiot.

 

You said "It's impossible to imagine a scenario where the American public would in any way, shape or form support more government spending as an answer to what has already proven to be a disasterous previous attempt to throw money at the unemployment problem." and call me an idiot. Keep going against the last 100 years of elections dimwit.

 

This is like talking to conner except you're not a troll. Maybe you'll get it someday.

[pBills]

You're mixing philosophies here but I'll be happy to untangle.

 

"Supply side" theory would indicate that beyond a certain point increasing the marginal tax rate reduces revenue. This has been proven multiple times, most notably in the 20s and 80s. The graph is more of a bell curve (Laffer curve) and it's more of a general theory than a precise measurement. Some conservatives mistakenly assume this relationship is linear.

 

Outsourcing is another issue altogether, and the idea that a slight tax break will offset the financial benefits of exploiting cheap labor for which you're paying pennies on the dollar is not only laughable, it's retarded.

 

 

A 10% difference in tax rate is a big deal.

[TPS]

You're mixing philosophies here but I'll be happy to untangle.

 

"Supply side" theory would indicate that beyond a certain point increasing the marginal tax rate reduces revenue. This has been proven multiple times, most notably in the 20s and 80s. The graph is more of a bell curve (Laffer curve) and it's more of a general theory than a precise measurement. Some conservatives mistakenly assume this relationship is linear.

 

Outsourcing is another issue altogether, and the idea that a slight tax break will offset the financial benefits of exploiting cheap labor for which you're paying pennies on the dollar is not only laughable, it's retarded.

There has never been verifiable proof that Supply-side and the laugher curve theory worked as suggested. Tax cuts were supposed to increase revenues by changing behavior--more investment, more work effort, less tax avoidance, etc. The outcome from tax cuts in the 1980s and the 2000s were deficits, which then creates economic stimulus in the standard Keynesian way.

 

As David Stockman(REagan's budget director) said, Supplyside was a political/economic philosophy used to get tax cuts passed for the rich. It's closer to a religion than an economic theory.

 

As I've posted here quite often, the long run growth rate of real GDP in the US shows very little relation to tax policy changes--tax changes have impacted the distribution of income, the structural deficit, and the composition of output (tax policies that favor certain industries), but not the average real growth rate. The little correlation one can find is actually the reverse--growth was higher under higher marginal rates in the 1960s and 1990s, vs the 1980s and 2000s when marginal rates were cut.

 

tax cuts and small business

Edited December 3, 2010 by TPS

[IDBillzFan]

You said "It's impossible to imagine a scenario where the American public would in any way, shape or form support more government spending as an answer to what has already proven to be a disasterous previous attempt to throw money at the unemployment problem." and call me an idiot. Keep going against the last 100 years of elections dimwit.

What I said was a specific comment about a specific topic. For some reason you find it necessary to be critical of my comment out of context. Which means you either believe another stimulus bill will stop the unemployment rate from rising, or you have the reading comprehension of a mop. Either one seems plausible to me at this point.

[Peace]

What I said was a specific comment about a specific topic. For some reason you find it necessary to be critical of my comment out of context. Which means you either believe another stimulus bill will stop the unemployment rate from rising, or you have the reading comprehension of a mop. Either one seems plausible to me at this point.

 

"It's impossible to imagine a scenario where the American public would in any way, shape or form support more government spending as an answer to what has already proven to be a disasterous previous attempt to throw money at the unemployment problem."

 

Back to the actual topic. The committee had pretty bipartisan support. As many Dems voted for the plans as Reps (5 each). Of course, 4 dumb Dems and 3 dumb Reps voted against it, which hints that even the party that is supposed to care about getting the hard work of fixing the economy done, lacks the balls to actually do it.

 

It may make it to the floor after all. It definitely should.

[Rob's House]

There has never been verifiable proof that Supply-side and the laugher curve theory worked as suggested. Tax cuts were supposed to increase revenues by changing behavior--more investment, more work effort, less tax avoidance, etc. The outcome from tax cuts in the 1980s and the 2000s were deficits, which then creates economic stimulus in the standard Keynesian way.

 

As David Stockman(REagan's budget director) said, Supplyside was a political/economic philosophy used to get tax cuts passed for the rich. It's closer to a religion than an economic theory.

 

As I've posted here quite often, the long run growth rate of real GDP in the US shows very little relation to tax policy changes--tax changes have impacted the distribution of income, the structural deficit, and the composition of output (tax policies that favor certain industries), but not the average real growth rate. The little correlation one can find is actually the reverse--growth was higher under higher marginal rates in the 1960s and 1990s, vs the 1980s and 2000s when marginal rates were cut.

 

tax cuts and small business

Revenues from the top margins increased when cut both in the 80s and the 1920s (and I believe in the 60s too, but i'd have to verify that). The 80s deficits were created by a combination of increased spending and decreased revenues from the lower tax brackets. I never made such a claim in reference to the other decades mentioned.

[Magox]

"It's impossible to imagine a scenario where the American public would in any way, shape or form support more government spending as an answer to what has already proven to be a disasterous previous attempt to throw money at the unemployment problem."

 

Back to the actual topic. The committee had pretty bipartisan support. As many Dems voted for the plans as Reps (5 each). Of course, 4 dumb Dems and 3 dumb Reps voted against it, which hints that even the party that is supposed to care about getting the hard work of fixing the economy done, lacks the balls to actually do it.

 

It may make it to the floor after all. It definitely should.

Paul Ryan and Jeb Hensarling are hardly dumb people.

 

I suggest you look at their solution, which addresses health care costs, this deficit commission plan didn't address it in a meaningful way.

 

Maybe you should look at itbefore you say such silly things.

Edited December 3, 2010 by Magox

[TPS]

Revenues from the top margins increased when cut both in the 80s and the 1920s (and I believe in the 60s too, but i'd have to verify that). The 80s deficits were created by a combination of increased spending and decreased revenues from the lower tax brackets. I never made such a claim in reference to the other decades mentioned.

What you describe is the effect from rising income inequality, which means the top is paying more revenues even if their rates are cut. That's just math. The fact is the rich paid less as a % of their income--because that's what tax cuts do, but revenues increased because their share of income grew. As I said, tax policy has more to do with redistributing income, and less to do with growth.

 

Why would you exclude the 2000s when the same policy was used?

[Rob's House]

What you describe is the effect from rising income inequality, which means the top is paying more revenues even if their rates are cut. That's just math. The fact is the rich paid less as a % of their income--because that's what tax cuts do, but revenues increased because their share of income grew. As I said, tax policy has more to do with redistributing income, and less to do with growth.

 

Why would you exclude the 2000s when the same policy was used?

If you're one who gets hung up on income inequality I don't have anything for you. We can argue about class warfare and income gaps until we're blue in the face and all we're going to prove is that you are more concerned with parity and I'm more concerned with overall prosperity. Doesn't make anyone wrong, just different priorities.

 

You've changed your argument from post to post, but as to the last point of this one I agree, tax policy does have a lot more to do with redistributing income than it does with growth, and to a large extent I have a problem with that.

 

One thing I will tell you that most of the TV talking heads are too far removed from to know is that little guys starting a business from the ground up play hell trying to do it all above board because after all the government entities and agencies take their cut for fees and licensing and taxes and every other hair-brained revenue generating scheme drummed up under the guise of consumer protection, it leaves a scarce little bit for the guy trying to build his dream (and thereby grow the economy) to survive on.

 

Why would you exclude the 2000s when the same policy was used?

It's been a while since I've studied the topic so forgive me if my figures are slightly off, but In the 20s as well as the 80s, the top marginal rate was dropped from over 70%. In the 80s it went to 50% and then to 28%. I forget the figure for the 20s but it was a very significant drop from an exorbinantly high level.

 

In the 2000s the drop in top marginal tax rate was far less dramatic and therefore, if you're using the model of Laffer, would not necessarily have gone from a tax rate of less revenue to one of greater revenue. I also haven't reviewed the change in revenue per bracket for that time so to use that as an example would be to talk out of my ass.

[pBills]

Follow the Will of the People....

 

 

The new poll, conducted by CBS News, found that 53% of adults surveyed prefer the cuts to be extended only for those making less than $250,000, while 26% believe they should be extended for everyone and only 14% want all of the cuts to expire. Extending the cuts only for those making less than $250,000 was the most popular option for Democrats (70%) and independents (47%), while Republicans were more likely to support continuing cuts for all Americans, but by only a 46% to 41% margin over allowing them to expire for those earning more than $250,000. The CBS News poll was conducted Nov. 29-Dec. 1 among 808 adults, and had a margin of error of four percentage points.

 

Other recent polling allowing respondents to choose between extending the cuts for all Americans, extending them for those meeting an income threshold, and extending none of the tax cuts has shown levels of support for extending only some of the tax cuts at or near 50% -- one poll by Gallup showed support slightly lower at 44%, but that poll did not specify at what level of income taxes would be allowed to expire.

[Rob's House]

Follow the Will of the People....

 

 

The new poll, conducted by CBS News, found that 53% of adults surveyed prefer the cuts to be extended only for those making less than $250,000, while 26% believe they should be extended for everyone and only 14% want all of the cuts to expire. Extending the cuts only for those making less than $250,000 was the most popular option for Democrats (70%) and independents (47%), while Republicans were more likely to support continuing cuts for all Americans, but by only a 46% to 41% margin over allowing them to expire for those earning more than $250,000. The CBS News poll was conducted Nov. 29-Dec. 1 among 808 adults, and had a margin of error of four percentage points.

 

Other recent polling allowing respondents to choose between extending the cuts for all Americans, extending them for those meeting an income threshold, and extending none of the tax cuts has shown levels of support for extending only some of the tax cuts at or near 50% -- one poll by Gallup showed support slightly lower at 44%, but that poll did not specify at what level of income taxes would be allowed to expire.

This is why direct democracy would be tyranny. It's rich that 53% think we should extend their tax cuts but raise taxes on those who are doing better than they are.

 

This has more to do with the construct in the heads of simpletons than with logical assesment of economic growth policies. You guys know that raising those taxes will syphon funds out of the hands of small businesses to whom most significant job growth can be attributed while doing virtually nothing to tax the true "fat cats" who are your imagined target. But the idea to stick it to those "rich" guys just gets yall's blood pumping and being emotional little ninniess that you by nature are, can't reason when you get excited.

 

Curious though how when overwhelming majorities said they opposed the travesty known as Obamacare, you guys had no problem forcing that down our throats, but now a slight 53% majority according to a poll and now we should listen to the "will of the [unaffected] people". Or is this just a contrived attempt to point out irony?

Edited December 3, 2010 by Rob's House

[IDBillzFan]

Follow the Will of the People....

Great. Right after we follow the will of the people and extend the tax cuts only for those making less than $250K, we'll follow the will of the people once again and repeal the entire Health Care Law.

 

Wait. What?

[....lybob]

Great. Right after we follow the will of the people and extend the tax cuts only for those making less than $250K, we'll follow the will of the people once again and repeal the entire Health Care Law.

 

Wait. What?

I'm all for it.

[Magox]

Follow the Will of the People....

 

 

The new poll, conducted by CBS News, found that 53% of adults surveyed prefer the cuts to be extended only for those making less than $250,000, while 26% believe they should be extended for everyone and only 14% want all of the cuts to expire. Extending the cuts only for those making less than $250,000 was the most popular option for Democrats (70%) and independents (47%), while Republicans were more likely to support continuing cuts for all Americans, but by only a 46% to 41% margin over allowing them to expire for those earning more than $250,000. The CBS News poll was conducted Nov. 29-Dec. 1 among 808 adults, and had a margin of error of four percentage points.

 

Other recent polling allowing respondents to choose between extending the cuts for all Americans, extending them for those meeting an income threshold, and extending none of the tax cuts has shown levels of support for extending only some of the tax cuts at or near 50% -- one poll by Gallup showed support slightly lower at 44%, but that poll did not specify at what level of income taxes would be allowed to expire.

Fine, then I'm sure you are for repealing the health care bill as well

 

 

“Fifty-nine percent (59%) of those who voted in today’s elections nationwide favor repeal of the national health care bill passed by congressional Democrats in March, including 48% who Strongly Favor it.

 

[Peace]

Paul Ryan and Jeb Hensarling are hardly dumb people.

 

I suggest you look at their solution, which addresses health care costs, this deficit commission plan didn't address it in a meaningful way.

 

Maybe you should look at itbefore you say such silly things.

 

And by making this into a who's shlong is longer contest, we aren't going to make much progress. NO plan is going to be perfect. Not Ryan's (who I like a lot). Not anyones.

[Peace]

Follow the Will of the People....

 

 

 

Not how our form of government works.