Where is the US economy headed?

@okie,

Predictions? I predict your self-imposed ignorance and your pugnacious personality will get you into trouble, if they haven't already.

BTW, I have heard nothing but scorn for Laffer and his curve for years.

0 Replies

@plainoldme,

Your "former neighbor" outlines her progressive radical politics very clearly. However I found her certainty that the public will embrace the supposed bounty that Warren's added harassment & rule-making will supposedly bring to those served by consumer credit and marketing organizations oddly reminiscent of the equal, but now discredited, certainty that the public will welcome government controlled health care, once it is passed.

The aggressive tactics employed by the administration in making the appointment, which the author applauds so vociferously are in fact an obvious evasion of the advise & consent provisions of the Constitution. I agree that isn't always an obstacle to a crowd of zealous folks who are ever so sure they alone know what is good for the rest of us. Your "former neighbor" appears to illustrate that perverted state of mind very well.

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

okie, Where was your brain trained? 100% tax rate? That's beyond stupid.

It is part of the Laffer Curve. It is math and it is common sense in regard to human behavior.

1 Reply

@plainoldme,

plainoldme wrote:

Quote:
Is Elizabeth Warren another liberal radical?

First of all, shame on you for not knowing who she is. She is the most talked about woman in a positive way in America.

Secondly, you are an extreme conservative radical. You do need someone to balance you out! You are so far right that you count for three individuals.

Well shame on me. In all of my conversations with dozens of people over the past few weeks, I have not even heard her name come up, let alone in a positive way. Could it be that liberal advocacy groups talk about her and thats about it? The probable case is that average hard working citizens out here don't know her and don't care to know her.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

Your "former neighbor" outlines her progressive radical politics very clearly. However I found her certainty that the public will embrace the supposed bounty that Warren's added harassment & rule-making will supposedly bring to those served by consumer credit and marketing organizations oddly reminiscent of the equal, but now discredited, certainty that the public will welcome government controlled health care, once it is passed.

The aggressive tactics employed by the administration in making the appointment, which the author applauds so vociferously are in fact an obvious evasion of the advise & consent provisions of the Constitution. I agree that isn't always an obstacle to a crowd of zealous folks who are ever so sure they alone know what is good for the rest of us. Your "former neighbor" appears to illustrate that perverted state of mind very well.

George, when even liberal Democrats like Chris Dodd question the appointment of this woman to this post, it is a red flag indeed.

George, thanks for being a voice of reason here.

2 Replies

@okie,

But then all your posts are on the Laffer Curve.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

ci, are the principles that influence the Laffer Curve also instrumental in how tax incentives in the income tax code? For example, does the giving of tax breaks for behaving a certain way actually work, such as giving tax credits for going to school or adding energy efficiencies to one's home?

2 Replies

@okie,

Quote:

ci, are the principles that influence the Laffer Curve also instrumental in how tax incentives in the income tax code?

No.
The principles of the Laffer curve have no more to do with tax incentives than they do with the revenue from Lemonade stands.

The Laffer curve is a relationship between taxation and revenues and how one responds to another.
Tax incentives have NOTHING to do with the tax/revenue relationship. Tax incentives are not implemented to try to raise or lower revenues. The revenue from the tax incentive is not the purpose or important to to the reasoning.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

Quote:
ci, are the principles that influence the Laffer Curve also instrumental in how tax incentives in the income tax code?
No.
The principles of the Laffer curve have no more to do with tax incentives than they do with the revenue from Lemonade stands.

Wrong. If you lower tax rates, it encourage people to work harder because they know they will reap more of their profits instead of paying more of it to the government in taxes. Lowering tax rates provides an incentive to increase work and profits, just as incentives for other various behaviors do that by lowering the tax rates for those people that engage in those various behaviors.

Common sense, parados, common sense. If you ever owned and ran a business, you would know this. Have you ever?

3 Replies

@okie,

What's the basis for your claim that people work harder if tax rates are lower?

0 Replies

@okie,

What's the basis for your claim that people work harder if tax rates are lower?

You always seem to have runaway imagination; when will you stop?

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone,
You are demanding proof of a very widely accepted observation of statistical fact.

This is a widely accepted observation, particularly among economists. Indeed it is one of the fundamental differences between European economies and our own. It is a matter that has received much attention in Sweden during the last four years and the positive results achieved by reducing both taxes and welfare payments is the chief reason the Center Right party there is likely to remain in power for another four years.

2 Replies

@georgeob1,

Please provide the "statistical facts." Any reliable, credible, source is fine.

Most workers work at their jobs irregardless of the income tax structure or rate. That "should" be the fundamental truth for most workers. If it isn't, I'd like to see evidence for it.

0 Replies

@okie,

Quote:

Common sense, parados, common sense. If you ever owned and ran a business, you would know this. Have you ever?

If your argument was correct okie, then we would have seen a large decrease in time worked when taxes were raised under Clinton. No such decrease occurred.
We also should have seen an increase in hours worked when Bush lowered taxes. But I doubt you will find that occurred either.

But then your common sense likes to ignore facts, doesn't it okie.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

Quote:

Nonsense. There's lots of evidence that very high tax rates lower economic growth rates while lower rates promote higher economic growth.

What you wrote here isn't a response to what I said, George. Instead, you almost cleverly managed to sidestep addressing what I actually wrote:

Quote:

There's no evidence that 5% raises in taxes causes anyone to work less, let alone to work 'much less.' Can you point to a time in history where this actually happened?

Nothing that you or anyone else has posted has contradicted this at all. 5% changes in tax rates do not significantly affect anyone's behavior patterns at all; and there's no point that you can point to in our history which shows that it does. However, it makes a great deal of difference when it comes to balancing budgets.

Quote:

Added taxes do indeed increase the relative share of economic product taken by the government. However if economic activity is reduced as a result fewer dollars are collected. If economic growth continues, but at a reduced rate, ther net revenue gain for the government may not be much at all.

There's that dang reliance on theory again on your part. Is there any evidence that 5% raises in tax rates leads to reduced economic growth?

The truth is that there is not said evidence. As you well know tax rates are just one of many other factors which affect our economy; this is why the 'laffer curve' is such a piece of **** theory. It confuses people like Okie into thinking that things are simple and that taxes should always be lowered. It even confuses him to the point where he believes that lower tax rates lead to higher revenues for the government... a truly ridiculous proposition.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

For those hard of seeing, understanding, or accepting, I make the following statements about the Laffer curve.

It is obvious that within any particular income range, a 0% tax rate will produce zero fed revenue. It is also obvious that within any particular income range, a 100% tax rate will produce zero fed income after the first year it is applied. It is also obvious that a tax rate some where in between will produce the maximum fed revenue. What is that tax rate within any particular income range that will produce the maximum tax revenue? It appears from the data below that tax rate that will produce maximum tax revenue from any particular income range is less than 40%!

My estimate is that tax rate that will produce maximum tax revenue from any particular income range is a tax rate less than 30%.

Quote:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2051527/posts
Partial History of U.S. Federal Income Tax Rates
Highest and lowest Income Tax Rates 1971 to 2009
...
1971-1981: minimum = 14%; maximum = 70% [CARTER 1977-1981]
1982-1986: minimum = 11%; maximum = 50% [REAGAN 1981-1989]
1987-1987: minimum = 11%; maximum = 38.5%
1988-1990: minimum = 15%; maximum = 33% [BUSH41 1989-1993]
1991-1992: minimum = 15%; maximum = 31%
1993-2000: minimum = 15%; maximum = 39.6% [CLINTON 1993-2001]
2001-2001: minimum = 15%; maximum = 39.1% [BUSH43 2001-2009]
2002-2002: minimum = 10%; maximum = 38.6%
2003-2009: minimum = 10%; maximum = 35%
2009-2010: minimum = 10%; maximum = 35%[OBAMA 2001-2010]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2009/pdf/hist.pdf
Year.......FEDERAL RECEIPTS FINAL FULL YEAR OF TERM
1980......$0.517 trillion [CARTER]
1988….…$0.909 trillion [REAGAN]
1992.......$1.091 trillion [BUSH41]
2000......$2.025 trillion [CLINTON]
2008......$2.521 trillion [BUSH43]
2010.......$2,931[OBAMA] (current estimate for year not end of term)

Year.......FEDERAL OUTLAYS FINAL FULL YEAR OF TERM
1980.......$0.591 trillion [CARTER]
1988….….$1.064 trillion [REAGAN]
1992........$1,.382 trillion [BUSH41]
2000.......$1.789 trillion [CLINTON]
2008.......$2,931 trillion [BUSH43]
2010........$3,399 trillion [OBAMA] (current estimate for year not end of term)

Year………FEDERAL DEFICITS
1980.......$0.074 trillion [CARTER]
1988….….$0.155 trillion [REAGAN]
1992........$0.291 trillion [BUSH41]
2000.......SURPLUS $0.236 trillion [CLINTON]
2008.......$0.410 trillion [BUSH43]
2010........$0.160 trillion [OBAMA] (current estimate for year not end of term)

Year………GROSS FEDERAL DEBT
1980.......$0.909 trillion [CARTER]
1988….….$2.601 trillion [REAGAN]
1992........$4.002 trillion [BUSH41]
2000.......$5.629 trillion [CLINTON]
2008.......$9.654 trillion [BUSH43]
2010.......$10.954 trillion [OBAMA] (current estimate for year not end of term)

ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.cpseea1.txt
Year……TOTAL US CIVIL EMPLOYMENT
1980……………..99 million [CARTER]
1988…………… 115 million [REAGAN]
1992…………….118 million [BUSH41]
2000……………137 million [CLINTON]
2007………..….146 million [BUSH43]
2008………….. 145 million [BUSH43]
2009,……….....140 million [OBAMA]
2010.……………139 million [OBAMA] (as of August 2010 and not final year of term)

Year.…….PERCENT OF CIVILIAN POPULATION EMPLOYED
1980…………………………………….59.2 [CARTER]
1988…………………………………….62.3 [REAGAN]
1992…………………………………….61.5 [BUSH41]
2000…………………………………….64.4 [CLINTON]
2007…………………………………….63.0 [BUSH43]
2008…………………………………….62.2 [BUSH43]
2009…………………………………….59.3 [OBAMA]
2010…………………………………….58.5 [OBAMA] (as of August 2010 and not final year of term)

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

The idea of having a group who keeps investment companies and banks from lying to their clients - whose whole purpose is to prevent the sort of soft fraud which has taken place on Wall Street regularly since the advent of flash and programmatic trading - you think that qualifies as 'harassment?'

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@okie,

Quote:

George, when even liberal Democrats like Chris Dodd question the appointment of this woman to this post, it is a red flag indeed.

Chris Dodd is against her, because he's about to join the banking industry when he retires this year, and doesn't want his allies to be limited. Not hard to figure out.

Quote:

George, thanks for being a voice of reason here.

Unless, that is, he's straightening you up about your wacky Hitler theories. Then he's just another idiot who can't read. Right?

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

The list of bad human behaviors is very long indeed. Shall we have a zealous Presidential advisor appointed to combat all of them? Does government really offer any hope of suppressing them all without enslaving us all?

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

The list of bad human behaviors is very long indeed. Shall we have a zealous Presidential advisor appointed to combat all of them? Does government really offer any hope of suppressing them all without enslaving us all?

Appealing to Extremes is a very poor form of argument, George.

The truth is that we already have many mechanisms in place to combat a wide variety of bad human behaviors; and when we discovered an area in which these behaviors are not being addressed, we are moving to address them. This is an entirely appropriate thing to do. We aren't discussing your personal bad habits, but instead interpersonal transactions - which is well within the purview of the government to regulate.

Why are you against this? You think that banks, investment companies and other financial entities ought to have the right to lie, rig the system so that they make billions off of nothing at all, and commit what amounts to fraud, with no recourse?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Where is the US economy headed?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know