Mizrah wrote:I honestly do not understand the aversion to high taxes. Under a nice socialist system, it can help create a wonder society, especially if there is a homogeneous population.
There isn't...
Advertisement
by Shnercropolis » Fri Jan 04, 2013 1:38 pm
Mizrah wrote:I honestly do not understand the aversion to high taxes. Under a nice socialist system, it can help create a wonder society, especially if there is a homogeneous population.
by Shnercropolis » Fri Jan 04, 2013 1:42 pm
by Shnercropolis » Fri Jan 04, 2013 1:45 pm
by Obamacult » Fri Jan 04, 2013 1:46 pm
Sociobiology wrote:Free Soviets wrote:needs better specification. are the standards of living in the equal society above the level where increases in wealth no longer lead to significant gains in health and happiness? because if so, then fuck yeah, i'll take the equality. because, you see, even if you aren't immediately opposed to that sort of disparity, high levels on inequality directly cause a whole host of social and economic problems. and worse, lock in those bad outcomes for the next generation.
here is a source for your claim
http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson.html
Base CPI for 1960 = 30.0
Current CPI for 2012 = 230.0
Welfare spending in 1960 = 8.65 Billion
Inflation adjusted cost of welfare in 1960 = 230/30 * 8.65 = $66 billion in welfare spending (inflation adjusted dollars).
In contrast, welfare spending last year topped $700 billion.
For the mathematically challenged -- this represents an increase of 10 fold -- inflation adjusted dollars!
Of course, everyone is free to challenge the CPI index from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the numbers for welfare. I will provide evidence to counter this as well.
by The Emerald Dawn » Fri Jan 04, 2013 1:47 pm
by The Joseon Dynasty » Fri Jan 04, 2013 1:47 pm
Grave_n_idle wrote:EnragedMaldivians wrote:I'm honestly mesmerised by the number of people who so grossly misinterpret the Laffer Curve. In some circumstances it is possible that too high a taxation rate could be reducing Government revenue. It does not mean that Government revenue will always be increased by lowering taxation or that it can never be increased by raising taxes. Fucking hell.
True story.
People also act like it's static - like once you've realised your break-even point, that's some kind of stationary point.
by Shnercropolis » Fri Jan 04, 2013 1:48 pm
by The Emerald Dawn » Fri Jan 04, 2013 1:51 pm
by Sociobiology » Fri Jan 04, 2013 2:03 pm
Obamacult wrote:
Here is the rebut to your subjective source.Indeed, Wilkinson is an unabashed leftist who uses selective data and criteria to promote canned leftwing bias.http://spiritleveldelusion.blogspot.com/2010/04/20-questions-for-richard-wilkinson-kate.html
[/quote]Also, I challenged you earlier to retract your claim that welfare had not increase 8-10 fold since 1964 -- and that challenge remains unanswered despite the facts I presented below in an earlier post:Base CPI for 1960 = 30.0
Current CPI for 2012 = 230.0
Welfare spending in 1960 = 8.65 Billion
Inflation adjusted cost of welfare in 1960 = 230/30 * 8.65 = $66 billion in welfare spending (inflation adjusted dollars).
In contrast, welfare spending last year topped $700 billion.
For the mathematically challenged -- this represents an increase of 10 fold -- inflation adjusted dollars!
Of course, everyone is free to challenge the CPI index from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the numbers for welfare. I will provide evidence to counter this as well.
by Obamacult » Fri Jan 04, 2013 2:26 pm
Enadail wrote:1) Do most people become rich because others spend money on products/services they provide, directly or indirectly?
Enadail wrote:2) Do services provided by taxation allow people to save a portion of their income that would otherwise be spent on privatized services? (I know you'll obfuscate this point, so follow it up with: are private services typically more expensive then public services?)
Enadail wrote:3) If I save $100 because of something, which I then spend on something else, does someone else not benefit due to whatever saved me that money?
Empirical Studies on the Effects of Taxes on Economic Growth (Reference, Method/Data, Effects, Summary of Findings)
1 Ergete Ferede & Bev Dahlby, The Impact of Tax Cuts on Economic Growth: Evidence from the Canadian Provinces, 65 National Tax Journal 563-594 (2012). Canadian provinces (1977-2006) Negative Reducing corporate income tax 1 percentage point raises annual growth by 0.1 to 0.2 points.
2 Karel Mertens & Morten Ravn, The dynamic effects of personal and corporate income tax changes in the United States, American Economic Review (forthcoming) (2012). U.S. Post-WWII exogenous changes in personal and corporate income taxes Negative A 1 percentage point cut in the average personal income tax rate raises real GDP per capita by 1.4 percent in the first quarter and by up to 1.8 percent after three quarters. A 1 percentage point cut in the average corporate income tax rate raises real GDP per capita by 0.4 percent in the first quarter and by 0.6 percent after one year.
3 Norman Gemmell, Richard Kneller, & Ismael Sanz, The Timing and Persistence of Fiscal Policy Impacts on Growth: Evidence from OECD Countries, 121 Economic Journal F33-F58 (2011). 17 OECD countries (Early 1970s to 2004) Negative Taxes on income and profit are most damaging to economic growth over the long run, followed by deficits, and then consumption taxes.
4 Jens Arnold, Bert Brys, Christopher Heady, Åsa Johansson, Cyrille Schwellnus, & Laura Vartia, Tax Policy For Economic Recovery and Growth, 121 Economic Journal F59-F80 (2011). 21 OECD countries (1971 to 2004) Negative Corporate taxes most harmful, followed by taxes on personal income, consumption, and property. Progressivity of PIT harms growth. A 1 percent shift of tax revenues from income taxes (both personal and corporate) to consumption and property taxes would increase GDP per capita by between 0.25 percent and 1 percent in the long run. Corporate taxes, both in terms of the statutory rate and depreciation allowances, reduce investment and productivity growth. Raising the top marginal rate on personal income reduces productivity growth.
5 Robert Barro & C.J. Redlick, Macroeconomic Effects of Government Purchases and Taxes, 126 Quarterly Journal of Economics 51-102 (2011). U.S (1912 to 2006) Negative Cut in the average marginal tax rate of one percentage point raises next year’s per capita GDP by around 0.5%.
6 Christina Romer & David Romer, The macroeconomic effects of tax changes: estimates based on a new measure of fiscal shocks, 100 American Economic Review 763-801 (2010). U.S. Post-WWII (104 tax changes, 65 exogenous)
Negative Tax (federal revenue) increase of 1% of GDP leads to a fall in output of 3% after about 2 years, mostly through negative effects on investment.
7 Alberto Alesina & Silvia Ardagna, Large changes in fiscal policy: taxes versus spending, in Tax Policy and the Economy, Vol. 24 (Univ. of Chicago Press, 2010). OECD countries (fiscal stimuli and fiscal adjustments, 1970 to 2007) Negative Fiscal stimuli based upon tax cuts more likely to increase growth than those based upon spending increases. Fiscal consolidations based upon spending cuts and no tax increases are more likely to succeed at reducing deficits and debt and less likely to create recessions.
8 International Monetary Fund, Will it hurt? Macroeconomic effects of fiscal consolidation, in World Economic Outlook: Recovery, Risk, and Rebalancing (2010). 15 advanced countries (170 fiscal consolidations over the last 30 years) Negative 1% tax increase reduces GDP by 1.3% after two years.
9 Robert Reed, The robust relationship between taxes and U.S. state income growth, 61 National Tax Journal 57-80 (2008). U.S. states (1970-1999, 5 year panels) Negative Robust negative effect of state and local tax burden. Multi-year panels mitigate misspecified lag effects, serial correlation, and measurement error.
10 N. Bania, J. A. Gray, & J. A. Stone, Growth, taxes, and government expenditures: growth hills for U.S. states, 60 National Tax Journal 193-204 (2007). U.S. states Negative Taxes directed towards public investments first add then subtract from GDP.
11 Young Lee & Roger Gordon, Tax Structure and Economic Growth, 89 Journal of Public Economics 1027-1043 (2005). 70 countries (1980 - 1997, cross-sectional and 5 year panels) Negative Reducing corporate income tax 1 percentage point raises annual growth by 0.1 to 0.2 points.
12 Randall Holcombe & Donald Lacombe, The effect of state income taxation on per capita income growth, 32 Public Finance Review 292-312 (2004). Counties separated by state borders (1960 to 1990) Negative States that raised income taxes averaged a 3.4% reduction in per capita income.
13 Marc Tomljanovich, The role of state fiscal policy in state economic growth, 22 Contemporary Economic Policy 318-330 (2004). U.S. states (1972 to 1998, multi-year panels) Negative Higher tax rates negatively affect short run growth, but not long run growth.
14 Olivier Blanchard & Robert Perotti, An Empirical Characterization Of The Dynamic Effects Of Changes In Government Spending And Taxes On Output, 107 Quarterly Journal of Economics 1329-1368 (2002). U.S. Post-WWII (VAR/event study) Negative Positive tax shocks, or unexpected increases in total revenue, negatively affect private investment and GDP.
15 F. Padovano & E. Galli, E., Tax rates and economic growth in the OECD countries (1950-1990), 39 Economic Inquiry 44-57 (2001). 23 OECD countries (1951 to 1990) Negative Effective marginal income tax rates negatively correlated with GDP growth.
16 Stefan Folster & Magnus Henrekson, Growth effects of government expenditure and taxation in rich countries, 45 European Economic Review 1501-1520 (2001). Rich countries (1970 to 1995) Negative Tax revenue as a share of GDP negatively correlated with GDP growth.
17 M. Bleaney, N. Gemmell & R. Kneller, Testing the endogenous growth model: public expenditure, taxation, and growth over the long run, 34 Canadian Journal of Economics 36-57 (2001). OECD countries (1970 to 1995) Negative Distortionary taxes reduce GDP growth. Consumption taxes are not distortionary.
18 R. Kneller, M. Bleaney & N. Gemmell, Fiscal Policy and Growth: Evidence from OECD Countries, 74 Journal of Public Economics 171-190 (1999). OECD countries (1970 to 1995) Negative Distortionary taxes reduce GDP growth.
19 Howard Chernick, Tax progressivity and state economic performance, 11 Economic Development Quarterly 249-267 (1997). U.S. states (1977 to 1993) Negative Progressivity of income taxes negatively affects GDP growth.
20 Enrique Mendoza, G. Milesi-Ferretti, & P. Asea, On the Effectiveness of Tax Policy in Altering Long-Run Growth: Harberger’s Superneutrality Conjecture, 66 Journal of Public Economics 99-126 (1997). 18 OECD countries (1965-1991, 5 year panels) None Estimated effective tax rates on labor and capital harm investment, but effect on growth is insignificant. Effective consumption taxes increase investment, but not growth. Overall tax burden levels have no effect on investment or growth.
21 Stephen Miller & Frank Russek, Fiscal structures and economic growth: international evidence, 35 Economic Inquiry 603-613 (1997). Developed and developing countries Negative Tax-financed spending reduces growth in developed countries, increases growth in developing countries.
22 John Mullen & Martin Williams, Marginal tax rates and state economic growth, 24 Regional Science and Urban Economics 687-705 (1994). U.S. states (1969 to 1986) Negative Higher marginal tax rates reduce GDP growth.
23 William Easterly & S. Rebelo, Fiscal Policy and Economic Growth: An Empirical Investigation, 32 Journal of Monetary Economics 417-458 (1993). Developed and developing countries None Effects of taxation difficult to isolate empirically.
24 Reinhard Koester & Roger Kormendi, Taxation, Aggregate Activity and Economic Growth: Cross-Country Evidence on Some Supply-Side Hypotheses, 27 Economic Inquiry 367-86 (1989). 63 countries Negative Controlling for average tax rates, increases in marginal tax rates reduce economic activity. Progressivity reduces growth.
25 Jay Helms, The effect of state and local taxes on economic growth: a time series-cross section approach, 67 Review of Economics and Statistics 574-582 (1985). U.S. states (1965 to 1979) Negative Revenue used to fund transfer payments retards growth.
26 Claudio J. Katz, Vincent A. Mahler & Michael G. Franz, The impact of taxes on growth and distribution in developed capitalist countries: a cross-national study, 77 American Political Science Review 871-886 (1983). 22 developed countries None Taxes reduce saving but not growth or investment.
by Sociobiology » Fri Jan 04, 2013 2:30 pm
Obamacult wrote:The challenge has been issued to Sociobiology and any others who seek to discredit the myriad facts, logic and empirical evidence I have presented throughout this thread with anything other than inane retorts, fallacious, strawman, and red herring arguments.
I eagerly await the strawman card, the Hitler card, the red herring card and other fallacious arguments devoid of any shred of substantive, valid and reliable evidence refuting any of my graphs or assertions
by Obamacult » Fri Jan 04, 2013 2:32 pm
Sociobiology wrote:Obamacult wrote:
Here is the rebut to your subjective source.Indeed, Wilkinson is an unabashed leftist who uses selective data and criteria to promote canned leftwing bias.http://spiritleveldelusion.blogspot.com/2010/04/20-questions-for-richard-wilkinson-kate.html
you want me to respond to a blog, critiquing a book I did not use as a source? Why?Also, I challenged you earlier to retract your claim that welfare had not increase 8-10 fold since 1964 -- and that challenge remains unanswered despite the facts I presented below in an earlier post:
Sociobiology wrote: I challenge you to source your claim.
I can list numbers I pull out of my ass as well.
I don't, because I know what evidence is.
Also you leave out important things like change in GDP, what counts as welfare spending, how much has the population changed in that time, ect.
by The New World Order of George H W Bush » Fri Jan 04, 2013 2:33 pm
by Obamacult » Fri Jan 04, 2013 2:40 pm
Sociobiology wrote:Obamacult wrote:The challenge has been issued to Sociobiology and any others who seek to discredit the myriad facts, logic and empirical evidence I have presented throughout this thread with anything other than inane retorts, fallacious, strawman, and red herring arguments.
I can't discredit something that has no credit to begin with. Also I didn't discredit your source, Your other source did.I eagerly await the strawman card, the Hitler card, the red herring card and other fallacious arguments devoid of any shred of substantive, valid and reliable evidence refuting any of my graphs or assertions
I don't have to refute an unsourced graph or unfounded assertion, Just point out that that is what they are, because those things are NOT evidence.
Base CPI for 1960 = 30.0
Current CPI for 2012 = 230.0
Welfare spending in 1960 = 8.65 Billion
Inflation adjusted cost of welfare in 1960 = 230/30 * 8.65 = $66 billion in welfare spending (inflation adjusted dollars).
In contrast, welfare spending last year topped $700 billion.
I'll try to make it easy for the mathematically challenged -- this represents an increase of 10 fold inflation adjusted dollars!
Sources:
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spe ... ding_Chart
ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/cpi/cpiai.txt
by Sociobiology » Fri Jan 04, 2013 2:41 pm
Obamacult wrote:Socialist EU wrote:
I noticed one of his sources cited an increase in welfare without specifying what aspect of welfare the Cato institute was talking about. If it's health spending, blame highly inflated prices for drugs ect,(through patent and copyright monopolies) [1] which, in reality, is an increase in corporate welfare spending. Of course healthcare in the US could be reformed, given the political will.[2]
I also understand that Social Security in the US is self-sustaining until 2030, of course, a system where the unions offer unemployment benefit would be helpful as workers wouldn't be at the behest of a bureaucratic state. More work sharing would help too. Britain's unions have a history of doing this during Victorian times, and during the 1920s, workers in the CPGB (Communists), demanded work sharing!
Notes
1. 'Prospects for 2013' CEPR, originally New Left Project by Dean Baker.
http://www.cepr.net/index.php/op-eds-&- ... s-for-2013
2.How Global Trade Can Rein in Health Costs, CEPR originally CNN Money by Dean Baker and Jagdish Bhagwati
http://www.cepr.net/index.php/op-eds-&- ... alth-costs
Social security benefits exceeded revenues........... in 2010! (I know the following source is the neocon NY Times, but forgive me, it was all I had.)http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/25/business/economy/25social.html?_r=0
Moreover, the article states that this isn't a problem because the social security trust fund has $2.6 trillion in the 'bank'.
But in reality, this is money that the government owes itself.
Hence, it is about as valuable as the IOU's that Lloyd Christmas' was touting around Aspen.
by The Joseon Dynasty » Fri Jan 04, 2013 2:45 pm
Obamacult wrote:Sociobiology wrote:
you want me to respond to a blog, critiquing a book I did not use as a source? Why?Sociobiology wrote: I challenge you to source your claim.
I can list numbers I pull out of my ass as well.
I don't, because I know what evidence is.
Also you leave out important things like change in GDP, what counts as welfare spending, how much has the population changed in that time, ect.
My sources are the Bureau of Labor statistics CPI indexand governmentspending.comftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/cpi/cpiai.txt
If the numbers lie, then provide your own.
If the source's argument don't ring true, then provide your counter-argument.
In sum, your personal opinion devoid of any factual, logical or empirically supported arguments, while appreciated, is not valid and reliable evidence.
by Shnercropolis » Fri Jan 04, 2013 2:46 pm
by Sociobiology » Fri Jan 04, 2013 2:56 pm
by Sociobiology » Fri Jan 04, 2013 2:57 pm
Obamacult wrote:Again, what specifically do you challenge as incorrect in the following data and facts? In summary, I stated that welfare spending (in inflation adjusted dollars) expanded at least 8 fold since the early 1960's -- you rejected this challenge by saying that the increase was in nominal dollars and I subsequently rebutted your argument.
So again, my challenge to you is provide the factual data to support your claim that I am a 'bullshitter'
and the argument below is bullshit:Base CPI for 1960 = 30.0
Current CPI for 2012 = 230.0
Welfare spending in 1960 = 8.65 Billion
Inflation adjusted cost of welfare in 1960 = 230/30 * 8.65 = $66 billion in welfare spending (inflation adjusted dollars).
In contrast, welfare spending last year topped $700 billion.
I'll try to make it easy for the mathematically challenged -- this represents an increase of 10 fold inflation adjusted dollars!
Sources:
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spe ... ding_Chart
ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/cpi/cpiai.txt
Numbers generally don't lie,
by Grave_n_idle » Fri Jan 04, 2013 2:58 pm
The Joseon Dynasty wrote:Grave_n_idle wrote:
True story.
People also act like it's static - like once you've realised your break-even point, that's some kind of stationary point.
More importantly, the Laffer curve considers an aggregated "average" of the tax rate over all income brackets (since it considers the change in marginal utility of labour when the tax rate changes, holding all else constant), so its relevance in a discussion concerned with a progressive tax system is questionable.
I'm not sure how it's being used to justify anything, really.
by Sociobiology » Fri Jan 04, 2013 2:59 pm
Obamacult wrote:Again, what specifically do you challenge as incorrect in the following data and facts?
by Obamacult » Fri Jan 04, 2013 3:11 pm
Sociobiology wrote: You don't bother to read your sources do you?
because the article does claim this, it says
"This year, the {social security} system will pay out more in benefits than it receives in payroll taxes"
which means it is paying out more than a single source of revenue, it is not "exceeded revenues" as you claim. And all this is according to your own source.
Sociobiology wrote: Moreover, the article states that this isn't a problem because the social security trust fund has $2.6 trillion in the 'bank'.
Sociobiology wrote: which it has done dozens of time in the past and successfully paid off making this next claim false.
Sociobiology wrote: Also were does the article say "It is not a problem" because every person quoted refers to it as a problem to be fixed, only one is there any reference to not a problem, was Greenspan saying we don't have to cut benefits until the reserve fund dries up. Which is obviously a reassurement to the many people who are living on those benefits, that they will not start starving.
The drawdown of Social Security and HI trust fund reserves and the general revenue transfers into SMI will result in mounting pressure on the Federal budget. In fact, pressure is already evident. For the sixth consecutive year, the Social Security Act requires that the Trustees issue a "Medicare funding warning" because projected non-dedicated sources of revenues—primarily general revenues—are expected to continue to account for more than 45 percent of Medicare's outlays, a threshold breached for the first time in fiscal year 2010.
Lawmakers should address the financial challenges facing Social Security and Medicare as soon as possible. Taking action sooner rather than later will leave more options and more time available to phase in changes so that the public has adequate time to prepare. Social Security Trust Fund
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Aadhirisian Puppet Nation, Camtropia, Eahland, Elejamie, GMS Greater Miami Shores 1, Pale Dawn, The ElvenShires, The Two Jerseys, Zurkerx
Advertisement