Obama '08?

@okie,

For someone that once said we need to identify the problem when it comes time to actually identify the problem and what the size is you seem to prefer demagoguery to facts.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

yeah, seems pretty obvious Obama should go off budget for governmental expenditures.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

Quote:

Cyclo has the unpleasant habit of responding not to the point or argument he claims to be addressing,

Not only do you do the same thing, George, it is nothing compared to your complete refusal to provide any evidence whatsoever for any of your arguments.

Quote:

An 11% increase in some category of total income for the population is indeed a substantial thing. However, its occurrence over (say) a two year period would not amount to an unprecedented or even unusual occurrence in even reasonably good economic times.

I'm sure I don't have to point out to you that the economy has to rise 11% on top of 'normal' growth in order for a 4% marginal tax cut to provide revenues which pay for themselves - do I? I mean, this is such an elementary point, that you couldn't possibly have missed it. Right?

Quote:

All three tax cuts were followed by periods of high economic growth and relatively greater prosperity.

The period from 1980-88 saw no greater growth then previous decades, when adjusted for inflation and population - periods in which taxes were much higher. Not that I expect you to be able to respond to this point effectively, for it would mean providing some sort of proof or comparative statistic - which you are either incapable of or uninterested in.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

For someone that once said we need to identify the problem when it comes time to actually identify the problem and what the size is you seem to prefer demagoguery to facts.

You are accusing me of what you are doing. I am on solid facts about illegals. It is far from the only problem, but it is a part of the overall problem, no denying of that, unless of course you wish to demagogue the issue, Parados. Not only are many illegals flying under the radar screen in regard to paying taxes, there is also a very significant problem in terms of costing the taxpayers money for government services that are intended by law only to be available to citizens of the country. The citizens of the State of California can tell you how such expenditures have significantly contributed to the state going broke.

2 Replies

@parados,

Quote:

Suppose we have a 2% inflation rate each year for a 10 year period.
What is $100 of Fed Receipts, obtained at the beginning of those 10 years, worth at the end of those ten years?

That's easy Ican....it's worth $100.

That $100 just buys less things; the cost of goods has gone up. The $100 denomination remains equal to $100. But $100 doesn't buy as much as it did before.

Quote:

Do you think it's worth $100 x (100%-2%)^10 = 100 x 98%^10 = 100 x o.8171 = $81.70?
Do you think it's worth $100 x (100%-(2% x 10) = 100 x 80% = $80.00?
Do you think it's worth $100 x (100%-2%) = 100 x 98% = $98?

I think it's worth $100 actually.

Now, in 1980 new set of tires may have cost $100, but due to inflation in 1988 those tires now cost $120 based on your 2% inflation.

1 Reply

@okie,

Quote:

I am on solid facts about illegals.

yes, of course you are Okie, "Solid Facts" should be your middle name.

0 Replies

@maporsche,

inflation compounds like interest.

2 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

inflation compounds like interest.

Can you ******* believe that people don't know this already?

I never in a million years thought that I would see so many basic errors about how one of the simplest things in our financial system works.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@parados,

understood; so does my $100 tires to $120 tires example. I rounded up by a few cents but that's all.

start of 1980 = 100
start of 1981 = 102
start of 1982 = 104.04
start of 1983 = 106.12
start of 1984 = 108.24
start of 1985 = 110.41
start of 1986 = 112.62
start of 1987 = 114.87
start of 1988 = 117.17
end of 1988 = 119.51

1 Reply

@okie,

Quote:

You are accusing me of what you are doing. I am on solid facts about illegals. It is far from the only problem, but it is a part of the overall problem, no denying of that, unless of course you wish to demagogue the issue, Parados. Not only are many illegals flying under the radar screen in regard to paying taxes, there is also a very significant problem in terms of costing the taxpayers money for government services that are intended by law only to be available to citizens of the country. The citizens of the State of California can tell you how such expenditures have significantly contributed to the state going broke.

So. if you are on solid facts you should be able to provide the following.
1. The number of illegals in the US
2. The number of illegals paying taxes
3. The number of illegals NOT paying taxes
4. How the illegals are avoiding sales tax so they pay no taxes
5. The cost of government services for illegals

You can't claim that illegals cost more until you can show the amount they pay in taxes and the amount they receive in government services. If you can't show those 2 things than you are doing nothing more than demagoguing the issue.

1 Reply

@maporsche,

oops, I didn't see you changed ican's 10 year period to an 8 year period.

1 Reply

@parados,

Good grief, Parados, it is not my job to do what the government is being paid to do, sit around and gather statistics. All I need to know is that the problem is huge, and it is impacting us in this country. That is what I pointed out, and I stand by it. You would have to be blind not to know that.

Read this:

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/immigrationnaturalizatio/a/caillegals.htm

"A new study from the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) examines the costs of education, health care and incarceration of illegal aliens, and concludes that the costs to Californians is $10.5 billion per year."

1 Reply

@parados,

It's cool; I didn't notice that he changed it to a 10 year period; I just remember the 1980 - 1988 time period being used.

0 Replies

@okie,

Quote:

Good grief, Parados, it is not my job to do what the government is being paid to do, sit around and gather statistics.

Of course, your job seems to be to make up statistics rather than gather them.

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

INFLATION EFFECT ON WHAT AMOUNT $100 IN 1980 IS EQUIVALENT TO IN SUBSEQUENT YEARS
Year.......Inflation......Decimal.....1-Decimal.......x $100
..............Rate..........Equiv.........Equiv.........in 1980
...
1988........4.08%.......0.04080......0.95920......$68.12
1987........ 3.66%.......0.03660......0.96340......$71.02
1986........ 1.91%.......0.01910......0.98090......$73.72
1985........ 3.55%.......0.03550......0.96450......$75.15
1984........4.30%.......0.04300 ......0.95700......$77.92
1983........ 3.22%.......0.03220......0.96780......$81.42
1982........ 6.16%.......0.06160......0.93840......$84.13
1981....... 10.35%.......0.10350......0.89650......$89.65

For example, $100 in 1980 would purchase the equivalent of what $68.12 would purchase in 1988.

That fact does not lead to the conclusion that Fed Receipts would have increased as a consequence of the inflation history 1980 to 1988, because Fed Receipts do not increase at specified tax rates because of inflation. Fed Receipts increase at specified tax rates, because the incomes of people and businesses increase. In Reagan's tax reduction case, people and businesses increased their incomes by a greater percentage than their tax rates were reduced. Reagan's reduced tax rates thereby enabled them to earn enough more to pay more taxes than they did before Reagan's tax cuts.

Notes on SILLY:
(1) It is SILLY to claim Fed Receipts increase because of inflation;
(2) It was SILLY when I claimed a 1980 $100 decreases in what it can purchase only by the amount of the average inflation within the year it is spent;
(3) It was SILLY when I converted Parados's electric circuit analogy from a serial resistance circuit to a parallel resistance circuit.

2 Replies

@ican711nm,

Quote:

That fact does not lead to the conclusion that Fed Receipts would have increased as a consequence of the inflation history 1980 to 1988, because Fed Receipts do not increase at specified tax rates because of inflation

Oh yes they do, unless they are being paid in some sort of other type of money then that which the rest of the economy uses. You are 100% incorrect on this issue Ican. I suggest you review some literature on this before making claims like that.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

Quote:

(1) It is SILLY to claim Fed Receipts increase because of inflation

Not entirely silly ican.

For example, many businesses and SS give raises based on cost of living increases. They also charge more for their goods, which brings in more revenue, which leads to higher paying employees.

Salaries tend (or used to) go up with inflation. Therefore taxes collected at the same % as in the past go up as well.

If I make 100k and pay 10% in taxes, I paid $10,000.
If I get a 3% raise in part because of inflation and pay 10% in taxes, I paid $10,300 in taxes.
If inflation was 3%, the $10,300 I paid this year has the same purchasing power as the 10,000 I paid last year.

1 Reply

I've followed several reports about the right-wing convention in Nashville.

Well, the tea-parties are against the socialist Obama, clearly: each delegate being charged $549 per ticket, and an additional $349 to attend a steak and lobster banquet with Palin, surrounded by palm trees and fountains ...

(Ana Puig, a Brazilian-born US citizen, will compare Mr Obama to Latin America’s Marxist dictators, I've read.)

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
An 11% increase in some category of total income for the population is indeed a substantial thing. However, its occurrence over (say) a two year period would not amount to an unprecedented or even unusual occurrence in even reasonably good economic times.

I'm sure I don't have to point out to you that the economy has to rise 11% on top of 'normal' growth in order for a 4% marginal tax cut to provide revenues which pay for themselves - do I? I mean, this is such an elementary point, that you couldn't possibly have missed it. Right?

You may think it an elementary point, but it has no relevance whatever to the question at hand, which was what increase in incomes is required to restore government receipts following a reduction in the marginal tax rate. What, by the way, is the "normal" growth rate for taxable incomes? Comparing real outcomes to postulated imaginary alternatives that don't admit of any beneficial stimulus fron the tax reduction is hardly a meaningful exercise. Right now Federal and state government tax receipts are down directly because of reduced economic activity. Do Democrats use this negative growth data to add to the adverse effect of the higher tax rates they are discussing? No they don't.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
All three tax cuts were followed by periods of high economic growth and relatively greater prosperity.

The period from 1980-88 saw no greater growth then previous decades, when adjusted for inflation and population - periods in which taxes were much higher. Not that I expect you to be able to respond to this point effectively, for it would mean providing some sort of proof or comparative statistic - which you are either incapable of or uninterested in.

Cycloptichorn

A very vague and indefensible statement. Inflation was very high in 1980 and 1981 and the beneficial growth that resulted from taming the inflation of the late 1970s & early 1980s and the economic stimulus of the Reagan tax cuts didn't start until around 1983, though it continued through the 1990s. It is also significant to specify just what "prior decades" you have in mind. The 1970s were a period of very low economic growth and steadily rising inflation. The early 1960s were much better times due in no small part to the Kennedy tax cuts.

I have no doubt that you have found some partisan work that you are willing to cite here as "proof", but that is no reason for me or anyone else to take it seriously or to acknowledge that it proves anything.

Your foot-stomping and childish bullying tactics may serve you well in the circles you presently inhabit. However, don't expect others to give them much credence.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

As opposed to your tactic of never-ending, unsourced and illogical argumentation? Why do you expect anyone to take that seriously?

You have fallen into the same trap that other Conservatives have: you fail to correct for inflation and population growth when you discuss growth numbers. Once again, here's Krugman - a source that you will no doubt blast, but one who you cannot contradict because you don't have the skill or ability to do so -

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/17/reagan-and-revenue/

Quote:

Actually, federal revenues rose 80 percent in dollar terms from 1980 to 1988. And numbers like that (sometimes they play with the dates) are thrown around by Reagan hagiographers all the time.

But real revenues per capita grew only 19 percent over the same period " better than the likely Bush performance, but still nothing exciting. In fact, it’s less than revenue growth in the period 1972-1980 (24 percent) and much less than the amazing 41 percent gain from 1992 to 2000.

Is it really possible that all the triumphant declarations that the Reagan tax cuts led to a revenue boom " declarations that you see in highly respectable places " are based on nothing but a failure to make the most elementary corrections for inflation and population growth? Yes, it is. I know we’re supposed to pretend that we’re having a serious discussion in this country; but the truth is that we aren’t.

Update: For the econowonks out there: business cycles are an issue here " revenue growth from trough to peak will look better than the reverse. Unfortunately, business cycles don’t correspond to administrations. But looking at revenue changes peak to peak is still revealing. So here’s the annual rate of growth of real revenue per capita over some cycles:

1973-1979: 2.7%
1979-1990: 1.8%
1990-2000: 3.2%
2000-2007 (probable peak): approximately zero

Do you see the revenue booms from the Reagan and Bush tax cuts? Me neither.

You are incorrect when you say that the 80's saw higher revenue growth then the 70's. Completely wrong. You only arrive atyour conclusion by failing to adjust for any of the factors involved and pretending that they don't exist.

Please address this point specifically instead of waving your hand at it.

For all that you claim others' arguments aren't credible, you are too lazy to do anything that would give credibility to your own arguments, George, and they are frequently dripping with condescension towards those who hold different opinions then you. These two are not elements which work in harmony with one another - you continually raise points that you are unwilling to defend, almost as if you see yourself as being above having to do so. Where did you get this idea?

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know