Obama birth announcement in Honolulu found
- Thread starter MonsterMark
- Start date
Deville, your little carton is exceedingly ignorant...
A: Congress controls the purse strings, not the executive branch. Democrats were in control during Regan's, Bush Sr.'s and the past two years of Dubya's presidencies, as well as the first two years of the Clinton presidency.
B: The full effects of the fiscal policies under a given president aren't fully known until well after their presidency; sometimes as much as a decade after, according to some experts...
C: Tax cuts (1/2 of what is defined as fiscal conservatism) have been proven to increase tax revenue at the national level in this country, while tax increases do the opposite (It's called the Laffer Curve). That pretty well leaves only the area of government spending that could have caused those deficits then, doesn't it. Now who controls government spending? I would refer you back to point 'A'.
D: There was never a surplus under Clinton. It was a "projected" surplus that was reached by cooking the books; just like Clinton's friend's at Enron did...
A: Congress controls the purse strings, not the executive branch. Democrats were in control during Regan's, Bush Sr.'s and the past two years of Dubya's presidencies, as well as the first two years of the Clinton presidency.
B: The full effects of the fiscal policies under a given president aren't fully known until well after their presidency; sometimes as much as a decade after, according to some experts...
C: Tax cuts (1/2 of what is defined as fiscal conservatism) have been proven to increase tax revenue at the national level in this country, while tax increases do the opposite (It's called the Laffer Curve). That pretty well leaves only the area of government spending that could have caused those deficits then, doesn't it. Now who controls government spending? I would refer you back to point 'A'.
D: There was never a surplus under Clinton. It was a "projected" surplus that was reached by cooking the books; just like Clinton's friend's at Enron did...
TheDude
Dedicated LVC Member
Quit your crying.
Frogman
Dedicated LVC Member
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2005
- Messages
- 6,914
- Reaction score
- 1
Crying or not, Shagdrum's facts are correct, though.
It isn't crying...
All comedy has to have an element of truth to be funny. This cartoon can only vaguely and broadly resemble the truth to someone very ignorant in politics and how government works.
Most of the people who frequent the political section of this forum are not that ignorant in those areas (including you), so I would imagine it isn't very funny to them, for the very reasons I pointed out...
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
There isn't a scintilla of an atom of anything in Shag's post that even remotely comes close to being on the verge of approaching the brink of crying, and you know it.
Marcus
Dedicated LVC Member
There are so many factors that affect tax revenues that the Laffer Curve becomes meaningless. It's nothing but a thought experiment that can never be tested in the real world, let alone proven.
But even if we eliminate all other factors and assume that it is accurate for the sake of argument, there's something that you're not taking into account: The LEFT side of the Laffer Curve. If we're sitting anywhere to the left of the peak of the curve, tax increases will increase revenue, and tax cuts will indeed reduce revenue. With that established, I would argue that we're FAR to left of the peak.
Conservative tout Kennedy's tax cuts as "proof" that tax cuts increase revenue, but since the top marginal rate before the cut was over 90%, I'd say that qualifies as far to the right of the peak anyway. Big DUH there.
As for monetary policies taking years to have an effect, well, that may be so, but again, it's impossible to eliminate other factors. Clinton increased taxes and the economy soared, but you'll all be the first to point to internet bubble, and you would be correct. Likewise, Bush's tax cuts didn't increase revenues for the first three years (2001-2004), and saw moderate increases after that, but we have the housing bubble to thank for that. Recent tax revenues have leveled off, and may be on the verge of dropping. In any case, the Bush tax cuts never came anywhere near to paying for themselves, and they never will. In fact, you'll be hard pressed to prove that tax cuts pay for themselves at any time history without considering other non-related factors.
That is why I was very specific in stating that tax cuts have been proven to increase tax revenue at the national level in this country. I probably should have added the word "historically" to make that a bit clearer...
Every time tax cuts have been attempted on the national level (at least in the past fifty years), tax revenues have increased. That would strongly suggest that we were on the right side of the Laffer Curve, and would further suggest that we are most likely still on the right side, unless we are at the equilibrium point.
You are right that there are other factors that affect tax revenue, but that doesn't mean it can't be proven well enough for the purposes of this argument. This isn't a scientific experiment, where only empirical observations from experiments that eliminate all other possible variables are allowed. It is a political and economic debate. In that context, you cannot rightly expect all variables to be eliminated to prove or disprove a theory.
So, to say that those other factors effectively make the Laffer Curve meaningless is to effectively raise the burden of proof to the standard of a scientific experiment in a laboratory, which is not appropriate to this discussion.
If you can't prove or disprove a social science theory adequately unless you eliminate all other variables, then you must throw our every social science theory; political, economic, sociological, etc. etc.
I am curious how you connect the housing bubble to the increased tax revenue, but not Bush's tax cuts (at least in part).
Every time tax cuts have been attempted on the national level (at least in the past fifty years), tax revenues have increased. That would strongly suggest that we were on the right side of the Laffer Curve, and would further suggest that we are most likely still on the right side, unless we are at the equilibrium point.
You are right that there are other factors that affect tax revenue, but that doesn't mean it can't be proven well enough for the purposes of this argument. This isn't a scientific experiment, where only empirical observations from experiments that eliminate all other possible variables are allowed. It is a political and economic debate. In that context, you cannot rightly expect all variables to be eliminated to prove or disprove a theory.
So, to say that those other factors effectively make the Laffer Curve meaningless is to effectively raise the burden of proof to the standard of a scientific experiment in a laboratory, which is not appropriate to this discussion.
If you can't prove or disprove a social science theory adequately unless you eliminate all other variables, then you must throw our every social science theory; political, economic, sociological, etc. etc.
I am curious how you connect the housing bubble to the increased tax revenue, but not Bush's tax cuts (at least in part).
Marcus
Dedicated LVC Member
What else would I be talking about except national taxes?
You're gonna need to be more specific if you're gonna make such a bold statement.
Was there still an increase when inflation is taken into account (current vs. constant dollars)?
Were all taxes lowered or were some raised, such as when Reagan lowered income taxes but increased payroll taxes? In other words, are you counting overall receipts or only those which were actually lowered?
How about as a percentage of GDP, which gives a perspective on the general state of the economy at the time and is a truer indicator of growth than raw dollars?
How does the revenue growth compare to previous years when taxes were higher? In other words, what was trend up to that point and how was it affected?
Show me the numbers. Because simply saying "tax cuts have been proven to..." is proof by assertion (sorry, no wikipedia link).
Here, this should get you started (Excel or Excel reader needed):
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy08/sheets/hist01z3.xls
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy08/sheets/hist01z2.xls
It's time to kill this myth that tax cuts pay for themselves. It's never happened before, it will never happen in the future.
The only people saying anything about taxes "paying for themselves" are those opposed to tax cuts. In fact, this link debunks that myth...
Attempts to debunk solid theories often involve first mischaracterizing them as straw men. Critics often erroneously define supply-side economics as the belief that all tax cuts pay for themselves. They then cite tax cuts that have not fully paid for themselves as conclusive proof that supply-side economics has failed.
However, supply-side economics never contended that all tax cuts pay for themselves. Rather the Laffer Curve (upon which much of the supply-side theory is based) merely formalizes the common-sense observations that:
Whether or not a tax cut recovers 100 percent of the lost revenue depends on the tax rate's location on the Laffer Curve. Each tax has a revenue-maximizing rate at which future tax increases will reduce revenue. (This is the peak of the Laffer Curve.) Only when tax rates are above that level will reducing the tax rate actually increase revenue. Otherwise, it will replenish only a portion of the lost revenue.
How much feedback revenue a given tax cut will generate depends on the degree to which taxpayers adjust their behavior. Cutting sales and property tax rates generally induces smaller feedback effects because taxpayers do not respond by substantially expanding their purchases or home-buying. Income taxes have a higher feedback effect. Nobel Prize-winning economist Ed Prescott has shown a strong cross-national link between lower income tax rates and higher work hours. Investment taxes have the highest feedback effects because investors quickly move to avoid higher-taxed investments. Not surprisingly, history shows that higher investment taxes deeply curtail investment and consequently raise little (if any) new revenue.
Yet, using the standard set by some, even a hypothetical tax cut that provides real tax relief to millions of families and entrepreneurs and creates enough new income to recover 95 percent of the estimated revenue loss would be considered a "failure" of supply-side economics and thus merit a full repeal.
However, supply-side economics never contended that all tax cuts pay for themselves. Rather the Laffer Curve (upon which much of the supply-side theory is based) merely formalizes the common-sense observations that:
1. Tax revenues depend on the tax base as well as the tax rate;
2. Raising tax rates discourages the taxed behavior and therefore shrinks the tax base, offsetting some of the revenue gains; and
3. Lowering tax rates encourages the taxed behavior and expands the tax base, offsetting some of the revenue loss.
If policymakers intend cigarette taxes to discourage smoking, they should also expect high investment taxes to discourage investment and income taxes to discourage work. Lowering taxes encourages people to engage in the given behavior, which expands the base and replenishes some of the lost revenue. This is the "feedback effect" of a tax cut.2. Raising tax rates discourages the taxed behavior and therefore shrinks the tax base, offsetting some of the revenue gains; and
3. Lowering tax rates encourages the taxed behavior and expands the tax base, offsetting some of the revenue loss.
Whether or not a tax cut recovers 100 percent of the lost revenue depends on the tax rate's location on the Laffer Curve. Each tax has a revenue-maximizing rate at which future tax increases will reduce revenue. (This is the peak of the Laffer Curve.) Only when tax rates are above that level will reducing the tax rate actually increase revenue. Otherwise, it will replenish only a portion of the lost revenue.
How much feedback revenue a given tax cut will generate depends on the degree to which taxpayers adjust their behavior. Cutting sales and property tax rates generally induces smaller feedback effects because taxpayers do not respond by substantially expanding their purchases or home-buying. Income taxes have a higher feedback effect. Nobel Prize-winning economist Ed Prescott has shown a strong cross-national link between lower income tax rates and higher work hours. Investment taxes have the highest feedback effects because investors quickly move to avoid higher-taxed investments. Not surprisingly, history shows that higher investment taxes deeply curtail investment and consequently raise little (if any) new revenue.
Yet, using the standard set by some, even a hypothetical tax cut that provides real tax relief to millions of families and entrepreneurs and creates enough new income to recover 95 percent of the estimated revenue loss would be considered a "failure" of supply-side economics and thus merit a full repeal.
While there are some relevant questions in all that, there is also some obfuscation in there, too.
Looking at trends is a very relevant point and that is in both the tables in the lower part of this post.
The best tax to look at is income tax, as that is where most tax revenue comes from, and where the effects of a tax cut are going to show the most dramatic effect. everything else is secondary. That last table shows the huge difference in tax revenue from income taxes vs all other taxes.
Well, the only three times I can remember that taxes were cut for an economic stimulus were Kennedy's tax cuts, Reagan's (specifically 1981) and Dubya's. I am specifically referring to those three.
Kennedy has been discussed and is not at issue. I think the one that will come into question is Reagan's. Here some relevant info...
Between 1980-1990 tax revenue increased more then $1 trillion dollars.
You can see the longer term trends in this graph:
When looking at that info it is important to remember that for fiscal policy (which encompasses taxes and government spending), the effects of a given policy take years to fully materialize (as opposed to monetary policy).
Also, when tax cuts have been used to stimulate the economy, it is usually in the midst of a recession.
**I think we have officially hijacked this thread.:shifty:
Tricky-Dick
Well-Known LVC Member
TheDude
Dedicated LVC Member
Shhhh, DeVille thinks political actions work like a "light switch"!
At least I think, peanut gallery boy.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
TheDude
Dedicated LVC Member
You imply I'm being childish by replying with a "what grade are we in" jab? Really, now.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
It's called illustrating the absurd by using absurdity.
Rush is right, the left have no sense of humor.
Tricky-Dick
Well-Known LVC Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tricky-Dick
Shhhh, DeVille thinks political actions work like a "light switch"!
"All morons hate it when you call them a moron." - Holden Caulfield
Nice Signature Deville...you hit it right on the head!
Originally Posted by Tricky-Dick
Shhhh, DeVille thinks political actions work like a "light switch"!
"All morons hate it when you call them a moron." - Holden Caulfield
Nice Signature Deville...you hit it right on the head!
TheDude
Dedicated LVC Member
It's called illustrating the absurd by using absurdity.
Rush is right, the left have no sense of humor.
Comfort emotes are great, aren't they.
TheDude
Dedicated LVC Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tricky-Dick
Shhhh, DeVille thinks political actions work like a "light switch"!
"All morons hate it when you call them a moron." - Holden Caulfield
Nice Signature Deville...you hit it right on the head!
You can have that one, I understand you fellas like to dish it, but then cry when it's given back, no worries. Must be a "right" thing.
TheDude
Dedicated LVC Member
Edit: Double Post.