Higher taxes for the rich?

[Shnercropolis]

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...

[Mizrah]

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...

There isn't what?

[Shnercropolis]

There isn't...

There isn't what?

A homogeneous population.

[Mizrah]

There isn't what?

A homogeneous population.

Unfortunately.

[Shnercropolis]

Why not just a 50% tax on everybody that makes more than $30000 a year?

[Obamacult]

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

Here is the rebut to your subjective source.

http://spiritleveldelusion.blogspot.com/2010/04/20-questions-for-richard-wilkinson-kate.html

Indeed, Wilkinson is an unabashed leftist who uses selective data and criteria to promote canned leftwing bias.

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.

[Mizrah]

Why not just a 50% tax on everybody that makes more than $30000 a year?

You read my mind!

[The Emerald Dawn]

A homogeneous population.

Unfortunately.

Diversity is strength, uniformity leads to stagnation.

[The Joseon Dynasty]

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.

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.

[Shnercropolis]

Unfortunately.

Diversity is strength, uniformity leads to stagnation.

Duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuune!

[The Emerald Dawn]

Diversity is strength, uniformity leads to stagnation.

Duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuune!

The spice flows, BITCHES!

[Sociobiology]

here is a source for your claim
http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson.html

Here is the rebut to your subjective source.

http://spiritleveldelusion.blogspot.com/2010/04/20-questions-for-richard-wilkinson-kate.html

Indeed, Wilkinson is an unabashed leftist who uses selective data and criteria to promote canned leftwing bias.

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:

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.

[/quote]

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.

[Obamacult]

1) Do most people become rich because others spend money on products/services they provide, directly or indirectly?

Within a capitalist society, people become rich by providing goods and services in a free, competitive peaceful and voluntary marketplace. This is a merit based society. Of course, most of these firms fail, but that is the beauty of the system -- it efficiently and fairly allocates societal resources based on the merit of satisfying the needs and wants of citizens in a peaceful and voluntary society. If one firm gains too much power, or another firm tries to use coercion to undermine this system -- government has a role to smack down the offender because only government has the guns and gavels. But far more often consumers decide who stays and who goes.

Indeed, of the 50+ private sector firms that faced anti-trust action in the last 100 years, virtually all of them were lowering prices and/or increasing quality to the consumer before government passed judgment against them. IN reality, their inferior competitors lobbied government to undermine the efficient firm, thereby actually undermine private citizens and consumers living standards.

http://mises.org/daily/436

A constitutional system that forbades government from intervening in the bedroom, church, and marketplace will make bribery absolute since government has no role influencing religion, economics, or culture. Government protects everyone's life, liberty, private property and enforces legal contracts equally.

In contrast, within a statist society, a far higher percentage of wealth, good, and services is allocated by political operatives for political reasons. Hence, those receiving the most most gain it by coercive means because they are more politically connected than their competitors. MOreover, government is always susceptible to bribery and influence peddling in a quid pro quo system of preferential tax and regulatory favors for votes and special interest votes.

The most severe form of this cronism or political economy is when the 50.1% use government mechanisms to plunder the minority. Also, regulations are largely ineffective because private sector actors and firms always capture or form a back room duopoly with government politicians and bureaucrats.

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?)

There is always some return on tax dollars, but it is always less than 100% for the simple reason that all tax dollars must be gained by coercive means. Also, government is shown to be uncompetitive and its policies economically unsustainable --

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

. IN this case, the waste, inefficiency and corruption represent a survival level threat to the Republic.

If government was effective at satisfying consumer and societal wants and needs, it wouldn't need to tax -- it could provide the goods and services it disengeniously claims that society needs and only it can provide by peaceful and voluntary means.

Which begs the question, if government was so effective at satisfying wants and needs:

1) why must it tax, why must it use coercive means?

2) if it believes that the private sector cannot provide these wants and needs -- then why must it undermine private sector competition by onerous regulations and taxation. ANd in many cases, outlaw private competition?

3) virtually every instance when the private sector competes against a government laden with incredible artificial politically induced advantages --- the private sector always outperforms with less money.

So, private services would be far less expensive, if government was forced to compete on a level playing field without coercion.

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?

YOu forget that I don't save $100 because I have to pay taxes that provide far less of a return. As I stated, if government can provide goods and services more economically than the private sector OR if government is the only entity to provide these services -- then why must it use coercion to both fund these role and deny private sector actors from competing against government?

Lastly, when government taxes or otherwise plunders society of $100 in the first place -- it has not freed any money since government is totally dependent on the private sector for its funding.

Hence, your argument that government spending 'frees money for the private sector' is fallacious.

Society has $200 of wealth - government takes $100 by coercive means -- government actors now have $100 and the private sector now has $100. We haven’t freed up anything by this coercive transfer. Most likely, the government money will go to politically connected uses that by definition are economically unsustainable because they wouldn’t have needed government plunder in the first place to overcome competition and satisfy consumer preferences in a free, peaceful and merit based society.

If you deny this dynamic, note the overwhelming emprical evidence supporting the argument that government spending undermines economic output:

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.

[Sociobiology]

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.

[Obamacult]

Here is the rebut to your subjective source.

http://spiritleveldelusion.blogspot.com/2010/04/20-questions-for-richard-wilkinson-kate.html

Indeed, Wilkinson is an unabashed leftist who uses selective data and criteria to promote canned leftwing bias.

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:

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 index

ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/cpi/cpiai.txt

and governmentspending.com

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.

[The New World Order of George H W Bush]

how about =% and cuts to spending?

[Obamacult]

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.

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, if you have them, produce them for scrutiny instead of personal opinion.

[Sociobiology]

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

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.

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.

which it has done dozens of time in the past and successfully paid off making this next claim false.

Hence, it is about as valuable as the IOU's that Lloyd Christmas' was touting around Aspen.

see previous

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 Joseon Dynasty]

you want me to respond to a blog, critiquing a book I did not use as a source? Why?

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 index

ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/cpi/cpiai.txt

and governmentspending.com

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.

You're comparing apples and oranges, mate.

Real GDP for the United States in 1960 was $2,830.9 billion, for a population of 179.323 people.

Real GDP for the United States in 2011, adjusted for inflation, was $13,153.9 billion, for a population of 311.592 people.

So, assuming a static population, welfare spending increased more-or-less proportionally with GDP. But since the population actually almost doubled in that time, increased spending on social services would have been necessary.

Indeed, in terms of welfare spending as a percentage of GDP, the United States is one the lowest among developed countries.

So you're complaining why?

[Shnercropolis]

how about an i% increase in negabinary taxes, with an emphasis on optional numbers?

expected income surpasses c.

[Sociobiology]

double

[Sociobiology]

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.

now prove it is adjusted for population change
then prove it is using a consistent and valid definition of "wellfare"
Then prove it gets its data from a reliable source, and correctly quoted.
Only then can you even begin to claim you have relevant data.

Also I did not claim it was in nominal dollars, so strawman, again.

I repeat
"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."

So again, my challenge to you is provide the factual data to support your claim that I am a 'bullshitter'

every single unsourced chart you post, and unsourced number you post is evidence for you being 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

two broken links are not sources.
The burden of proof is on you to prove your positive claim, All I have to do is show they are unfounded by the sources, or that you provided no source.
thus according to the burden of proof, they are bullshit.

Numbers generally don't lie,

but the people providing the number can lie very easily. That is why it is up to you as the person providing the numbers to source them from reliable relevant data.

[Grave_n_idle]

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.

Because it's usually cited by people who don't really understand the math.

[Sociobiology]

Again, what specifically do you challenge as incorrect in the following data and facts?

What part of
"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."
do you not understand?

[Obamacult]

__________________________

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.

Dude, social security by itself is now represents a further drag on the economy because taxes from other than social security FICA will have to start paying into the system to support the system . This means that tax revenue normally spent on defense, law, education, welfare, medicare, etc. will have to be plundered to pay for social security benefits.

Moreover, approximately 40% of the budget is government health care and social security. NO trifling matter. MOre ominous, if that is possible, is the fact that the federal government was forced to fund its operations with over 40% borrowed money further increasing the long term debt burden.


Not a very promising development, more so when you consider that the population demographics is highly unfavorable to this ponzie scheme.

It ain't going to get better and if your young, this bankrupt system is generational theft.

Moreover, the article states that this isn't a problem because the social security trust fund has $2.6 trillion in the 'bank'.

Do you realize that the money has already been spent ?


Hence, the only way that this accounting trick can be provided to social security benefits is by borrowing (increasing our debt further), onerous taxation (undermines overall societal growth, or printing money (debasing the currency).

Did you ever see Dumb and Dumber?

A perfect analogy to this so-called trust fund is to think the suit case of IOU's that Lloyd Christmas was carrying around Aspen.

which it has done dozens of time in the past and successfully paid off making this next claim false.

True, but the time of reckoning is upon us. If we are lucky, we will end up like Greece or Argentina. If not, lights out Irene if you are a young person.

You are essentially screwed, the math doesn't lie.

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

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.

Remember I provided the source, the NYTimes, an unabashed leftwing source that will put a more positive spin on a failed government program.

IN reality, every objective, independent thinking and rational actor understands that these entitlements represent a survival level threat to the Republic within our lifetime.

IF your young, your screwed, you just don't know it yet.

And this assessment from the leftwingers at the Social Security Trust Fund. Even the lefties (Solis, Sebelius, Geithner, et al) are starting to run scared:

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

Source: http://www.ssa.gov/oact/trsum/index.html