I would like to see analysis from more than one source before making any conclusions. And, this analysis was admittedly static, when we know that all tax policies tend to be non static.
Originally posted by normbenign I would like to see analysis from more than one source before making any conclusions. And, this analysis was admittedly static, when we know that all tax policies tend to be non static.
Static - as in the noise the prevents someone receiving a signal. Yes, I see your problem. Too much static. Ought to sympathise really. Don't.
Originally posted by finnegan Static - as in the noise the prevents someone receiving a signal. Yes, I see your problem. Too much static. Ought to sympathise really. Don't.
Static as opposed to dynamic. Tax rates create incentives, and incentives create movement, changes in behavior.
Static analysis of tax increases almost always overestimates what will be collected. Conversely, static analysis of tax reductions almost always overestimates losses of revenue.
Originally posted by normbenign Static as opposed to dynamic. Tax rates create incentives, and incentives create movement, changes in behavior.
Static analysis of tax increases almost always overestimates what will be collected. Conversely, static analysis of tax reductions almost always overestimates losses of revenue.
If lower tax rates create incentives, then why is the 1 percent sitting on its money with the lowest rates its had since the 1920s? They are actually waiting for government to do something - ironically.
In any case, I wasn't looking at revenue. I was looking at comparative rates between economic classes.
Originally posted by normbenign Static as opposed to dynamic. Tax rates create incentives, and incentives create movement, changes in behavior.
Static analysis of tax increases almost always overestimates what will be collected. Conversely, static analysis of tax reductions almost always overestimates losses of revenue.
I guess that's why Reagan increased taxes shortly after the big cut in 1981, as losses in revenue were bigger than expected.
Originally posted by KazetNagorra I guess that's why Reagan increased taxes shortly after the big cut in 1981, as losses in revenue were bigger than expected.
Well, Reagan was initially the victim of his own ideology. He really believed in the Laffer Curve theory that if you lowered taxes you would stimulate the economy to generate revenues which would more than offset the tax reductions. The result was a double-dip recession, so Reagan borrowed from Keynes and spent like crazy to save the economy before 1984's election. Keynes basically saved his ass. Of course, his deficit by 1984 had exceeded all of the prior deficits combined, going back to G. Washington. But what's a few inconsistencies when "America is back?"
Originally posted by Kunsoo If lower tax rates create incentives, then why is the 1 percent sitting on its money with the lowest rates its had since the 1920s? They are actually waiting for government to do something - ironically.
In any case, I wasn't looking at revenue. I was looking at comparative rates between economic classes.
With an administration as openly hostile to capitalism as Obama's it is entirely understandable that people are sitting on their money.
Originally posted by normbenign With an administration as openly hostile to capitalism as Obama's it is entirely understandable that people are sitting on their money.
But at least we can agree that Say's Theorem is dead, because even though Obama has handed this people the largest cache of money they've ever had, they still hate him and perhaps they're on strike or something.
But it's not the case. Large numbers of millionaires have actually been asking for government intervention, and until they see it, they won't invest. The anti-government ideology is really just for the little people. The rich don't take it seriously.
Originally posted by Kunsoo Well, Reagan was initially the victim of his own ideology. He really believed in the Laffer Curve theory that if you lowered taxes you would stimulate the economy to generate revenues which would more than offset the tax reductions. The result was a double-dip recession, so Reagan borrowed from Keynes and spent like crazy to save the economy before 1984's e ...[text shortened]... ined, going back to G. Washington. But what's a few inconsistencies when "America is back?"
The recession in the early 1980s was caused by a sharp contraction of the money supply by the Fed. This was deemed necessary to reduce structural inflation, but it certainly contributed to the deficit. Even Reagan's expansionary fiscal policy (which was somewhat inadvertent) couldn't offset the Fed's actions (which he approved of).
Originally posted by no1marauder The recession in the early 1980s was caused by a sharp contraction of the money supply by the Fed. This was deemed necessary to reduce structural inflation, but it certainly contributed to the deficit. Even Reagan's expansionary fiscal policy (which was somewhat inadvertent) couldn't offset the Fed's actions (which he approved of).
It was also his initial cut-backs and tax breaks. The first thing he did was to nix the small business administration.
Originally posted by normbenign With an administration as openly hostile to capitalism as Obama's it is entirely understandable that people are sitting on their money.
Please explain how Obama has bben hostile towards capitalism. Since it appears as though he has been extremely friendly towards capitalism as it is implemented in this country.
Originally posted by Kunsoo But at least we can agree that Say's Theorem is dead, because even though Obama has handed this people the largest cache of money they've ever had, they still hate him and perhaps they're on strike or something.
But it's not the case. Large numbers of millionaires have actually been asking for government intervention, and until they see it, they won't i ...[text shortened]... vernment ideology is really just for the little people. The rich don't take it seriously.
Sad to say but Obama has been a lot of talk and has done little to change the gross inequalities in the nation.
Originally posted by Kunsoo But at least we can agree that Say's Theorem is dead, because even though Obama has handed this people the largest cache of money they've ever had, they still hate him and perhaps they're on strike or something.
But it's not the case. Large numbers of millionaires have actually been asking for government intervention, and until they see it, they won't i ...[text shortened]... vernment ideology is really just for the little people. The rich don't take it seriously.
perhaps they're on strike or something
Yeah, Galt's Gulch and all that. It's not going to work.
13 Dec '11 17:53
Gingrich - tax 1% lower than mid class
Back to Top