Thought, you might have some related data at hand.
okie wrote:I challenge you: without resorting to your 'theories' of economics, find me some real-world evidence that raising the minimum wage hurts employment, jobs, and the poor in general.
I'm afraid that would be a futile effort on okie's part, although there is such evidence. But when I pointed you to it in your "Minimum Wage" thread, you never bothered to dignify it with a response. What's the point of asking for evidence if you'll ignore the answers anyway?
Joe from Chicago says anecdotal evidence does not count. If I saw the wind blow trees down on my farm, and concluded there would likely be less trees than before, I suppose my observation of the trees blowing down does not count, that I would need empirical evidence by hiring tree counters to go count every tree before and after these observations to prove my assumption, which is merely nothing more than common sense. Common sense is not acceptable on this forum, is that right, Joe?
Here I am, as "okie," and I make a simple observation that is so obviously true, and all the holier than thou libs jump on me and demand all this evidence to prove the obvious. Why should I waste my time with absolute idiots? Yes, idiots.
Quote:True, you have no sympathy for oil companies, and apparently see no impact on their shareholders and on their oil production, some of which may be marginal. As I asserted at the beginning of this thread, such an attitude is blind to the realities of economics. Liberals see oil companies as an entity unto themselves with no impact or connection to the common man, which is ignorance personafied.
There is only one connection between oil companies and the 'common man,' and that's the fact that the common man pays the oil companies large amounts of monies every year, and that's it. The 'common man' doesn't own stock in oil companies and doesn't profit from their profits. You are greatly mistaken if you think that the 'common man' enjoys the same profits from oil companies as the, say, extremely rich or even somewhat rich do.
When your company is profiting 5-10 Billion dollars a quarter, and your taxes go up by 3 billion dollars a year, you don't have to raise prices.
You shouldn't talk about the 'realities of economics' unless you are prepared to study and get into an in-depth discussion of economics, because your understanding of Oil Company profits and their connection to the average American seems incomplete and incorrect.
Cycloptichorn
Joe from Chicago says anecdotal evidence does not count. If I saw the wind blow trees down on my farm, and concluded there would likely be less trees than before, I suppose my observation of the trees blowing down does not count, that I would need empirical evidence by hiring tree counters to go count every tree before and after these observations to prove my assumption, which is merely nothing more than common sense. Common sense is not acceptable on this forum, is that right, Joe?
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:True, you have no sympathy for oil companies, and apparently see no impact on their shareholders and on their oil production, some of which may be marginal. As I asserted at the beginning of this thread, such an attitude is blind to the realities of economics. Liberals see oil companies as an entity unto themselves with no impact or connection to the common man, which is ignorance personafied.
There is only one connection between oil companies and the 'common man,' and that's the fact that the common man pays the oil companies large amounts of monies every year, and that's it. The 'common man' doesn't own stock in oil companies and doesn't profit from their profits. You are greatly mistaken if you think that the 'common man' enjoys the same profits from oil companies as the, say, extremely rich or even somewhat rich do.
When your company is profiting 5-10 Billion dollars a quarter, and your taxes go up by 3 billion dollars a year, you don't have to raise prices.
You shouldn't talk about the 'realities of economics' unless you are prepared to study and get into an in-depth discussion of economics, because your understanding of Oil Company profits and their connection to the average American seems incomplete and incorrect.
Cycloptichorn
I reduced the subjects to this one, cyclops, because it illustrates so perfectly your total ignorance of real world economics. We can debate all the points, but I think they are getting to the point of redundancy.
For starters, oil companies pay thousands if not millions of property owners royalties for oil and gas production from those properties, which includes the a very high number of the common man. In fact it includes my parents and most of their neighbors in just one community of thousands of communities. These people are not rich people, but many are very poor farmers and people that work in town to support the ability to retain an acreage or farm. Without the royalties, they would have been broke long ago. Much royalty is paid to mineral lease holders in the form of descendants of land owners, whereby the land may have been sold without the mineral rights.
Secondly, oil companies employ countless people for all kinds of jobs, many being good paying technical jobs, like geologists, geophysisists, etc. Additionally, many service companies, such as Schlumberger, employ thousands of people to service well sites, refineries, etc. Add truck drivers and the thousands of other jobs relative to the oil industry.
Thirdly, think of all the 401Ks and retirement funds with oil company stocks.
Fourthly, think of the 10s of thousands of retirees from oil company related jobs.
Cyclops, you should be embarrassed to post such absolute economical nonsense and drivel that the oil companies have no connection to the common man besides ripping him off for the overpriced gasoline. My patience is running short with such outright, blatant ignorance of reality.
I am beginning to think I underestimated the stupidity and one dimensional thinking of liberals.
Your reliance on the 'laffer curve' is a common fallacy amongst those on the right; not the idea of the curve itself, per se, but the assumption that we are on the wrong side of the curve at all, always, no matter what the situation. You never seem to consider that the point where taxation will actually harm impulses to work is a far, far higher rate of taxation then we currently enjoy, because people still have to work for a living - and still desire to make the most money possible - under any tax level.
You didn't counter any of my other arguments, because yours were factually incorrect, yet it is the Liberals who are stupid. You would have a hard time defending this in front of any objective observer.
I would like to see an argument laid out by you, showing exactly why you think it is wrong to repeal tax breaks to companies which clearly don't need them as they are profiting record amounts each quarter.
Cycloptichorn
Cycloptichorn wrote:
You didn't counter any of my other arguments, because yours were factually incorrect, yet it is the Liberals who are stupid. You would have a hard time defending this in front of any objective observer.
I would like to see an argument laid out by you, showing exactly why you think it is wrong to repeal tax breaks to companies which clearly don't need them as they are profiting record amounts each quarter.
Cycloptichorn
We can discuss the wisdom of repealing tax breaks another time, cyclops. The point of this discussion is whether the tax breaks affect the common man. Clearly, they do. Without even addressing the subject of direct employees and employees of companies that benefit from or service oil companies, let us look at the company stock. To use the hated anecdotal evidence, I own stock in oil companies as part of a retirement fund, and I know personal acquaintances that do. None of these people are more than basically common people, financially, they started with little or nothing and worked hard all their lives either in a trade or with a degreed profession. Obviously, cyclops, and I am not a financial person, but most funds own stock in various sectors of the market as a diversified investment portfolio, and energy stocks are an important part of that package. The profits of those companies obviously influence directly the value of the stocks as well as the dividends paid. Cyclops, what really is your purpose of arguing against the obvious here?
With sufficient time, I can go back and argue the other points if you wish. Apologies for my use of the word, "stupid."
Cycloptichorn wrote:Your reliance on the 'laffer curve' is a common fallacy amongst those on the right; not the idea of the curve itself, per se, but the assumption that we are on the wrong side of the curve at all, always, no matter what the situation. You never seem to consider that the point where taxation will actually harm impulses to work is a far, far higher rate of taxation then we currently enjoy, because people still have to work for a living - and still desire to make the most money possible - under any tax level.
A point that bears repeating. There really is no way of knowing where we are on the Laffer Curve (if there is such a thing) -- a point that Arthur Laffer himself has all but conceded.The Laffer Curve itself does not say whether a tax cut will raise or lower revenues. Revenue responses to a tax rate change will depend upon the tax system in place, the time period being considered, the ease of movement into underground activities, the level of tax rates already in place, the prevalence of legal and accounting-driven tax loopholes, and the proclivities of the productive factors. [i]If the existing tax rate is too high--in the "prohibitive range" shown above--then a tax-rate cut would result in increased tax revenues.[/i]
(Emphasis added). Thus, if tax rates are too high, then lowering them, according to Laffer, will result in higher revenues. But Laffer doesn't give any formula for determining whether a tax is too high or not. So we can only guess if lowering tax rates will increase or decrease tax revenues. Supply-siders always assume that we are on the "bad" side of the curve, where cutting taxes increases revenues, without considering that we may actually be on the "good" side, where cutting taxes decreases revenues.
okie wrote:Joe from Chicago says anecdotal evidence does not count. If I saw the wind blow trees down on my farm, and concluded there would likely be less trees than before, I suppose my observation of the trees blowing down does not count, that I would need empirical evidence by hiring tree counters to go count every tree before and after these observations to prove my assumption, which is merely nothing more than common sense. Common sense is not acceptable on this forum, is that right, Joe?
This is some kind of joke, right? I respond to each one of the points that you raised in your post and all you can do is address one of mine -- and in a response to Thomas, not me. Look, okie, if you're not up to the intellectual rigors of this discussion, then admit it and we'll both move on. Otherwise, I have no interest in engaging in any kind of serious exchange of ideas if that exchange is going to be entirely one-sided. You made some claims that are completely baseless, and I patiently explained why they are baseless. If all you can do is come back with this pathetic response, then I don't know why you even bothered to waste your time. You certainly wasted mine.
No worries. You're my favorite Conservative on here - a little word play doesn't hurt my feelings!
Cycloptichorn
We don't need to speculate. The highest marginal income tax rate in US history was 92% for incomes over $400,000 in 1952-53, and the rate was above 90% for the period from 1950 to 1963. In that time period, the US GDP rose from $293.8 B (2005 dollars) to $617.7 B, an increase of about 211%. Taking a broader perspective, the top marginal tax rate was above 70% for the period from 1936 to 1980, during which time the GDP rose from $83.8 B (2005 dollars) to $2,789.5 B, an increase of around 3,329% (GDP figures from here -- download with MS Excel).
Now, to be fair, that's just the top marginal tax rate. The effective rates were, at all times, substantially less. If the tax were truly a confiscatory 100% on all wages, then we would expect somewhat different results. But since no one is proposing such a rate, and no such rate has ever been imposed, the most that we can do is look at how people reacted to changes in the marginal rates. And, from the historical evidence, it seems quite clear that economic output, in general, was not adversely affected by high marginal tax rates.
but it would seem that recent tax breaks by Bush bringing higher revenues seem to indicate the rates are still on the high side of optimum.
okie wrote:Well for starters, what about the economic expansion in the 80's after top marginal tax rates were lowered.
Without more evidence, that is simply confusing correlation with causation.Quote:
Well, a relationship is at least indicated. We can argue exactly what and how much at another time.
Quote:okie wrote:I am not an economist so I will leave the official empirical studies up to those that are.
Admirable self-restraint.
Thanks.
Quote:okie wrote:Beyond that, there is plenty of anecdotal evidence going back to childhood.
Anecdotal evidence isn't evidence.
I disagree with that, and further, it may be worth quite alot in some cases, or almost nothing in some cases. It is evidence, sometimes more direct than in other cases, and it varies as to its worth, but that can be debated in each instance.
Quote:okie wrote:Pay a man per bale of hay and you get alot more hay in the barn than if you pay by the hour.
Not necessarily. Piecework wages aren't always a more efficient solution than hourly wages.
Agreed to an extent, but it depends on which one of the exchange you refer to, the employee or the employer, but my example argues the existence of an incentive to work relative to the rewards received as part of human nature. This principle should be self evident.
Quote:okie wrote:Whether it is the employer or the government preventing rewards for harder work make little difference. Over the past few years, I recall many conversations with people that said, the promotion and pay raise did me no good because the tax deductions more than offset the raise. In an instance or two, I recall the person turned down the promotion and raise, in part because of that reason.
If that's true, then it's quite clear that you were talking to complete idiots. Unless the marginal tax rate on the amount of the proposed raise was 100%, an increase in wages will always lead to the employee receiving more money. To be sure, they might conclude that the extra effort involved in the new job was not worth the net amount of the wage increase, but that's not the same thing as saying that they would actually make less money, because of taxes, if they took the raise.
A valid point, but the key to the equation is what you point out that taxes can reach a threshold where effort expended is simply not worth the comparable increase in return. I beleive this factor is real and does happen, including my anecdotal examples.
Quote:It is evidence. If you think it isn't worth alot, then that is your argument, but it is worth something to the people that make decisions based on it.okie wrote:I have also known of people very successful at a business that decided to quit or do something else, thus selling, because of higher marginal tax rates.
Again, your anecdotal evidence is not evidence.
Quote:I think it is very relevant, because that is an example at the end of the spectrum wherein individuals ability to reap personal profits through harder work is negated, so the people tend to do the minimum to get by, and the economy suffers greatly. It proves a principle of human nature.okie wrote:The answer to this debate basically relies on simple common sense. Why do capitalistic economies thrive better than state owned economies?
That's an irrelevant question.
Quote:okie wrote:Using your noggin a little, Joe, what would happen to economic output if the tax rate was 100%? I think the answer should be obvious. It would plummet. Okay, what would happen to it if it was 90%? More speculation enters, but probably plummet not as completely, but very severely.
We don't need to speculate. The highest marginal income tax rate in US history was 92% for incomes over $400,000 in 1952-53, and the rate was above 90% for the period from 1950 to 1963. In that time period, the US GDP rose from $293.8 B (2005 dollars) to $617.7 B, an increase of about 211%. Taking a broader perspective, the top marginal tax rate was above 70% for the period from 1936 to 1980, during which time the GDP rose from $83.8 B (2005 dollars) to $2,789.5 B, an increase of around 3,329% (GDP figures from here -- download with MS Excel).
Now, to be fair, that's just the top marginal tax rate. The effective rates were, at all times, substantially less. If the tax were truly a confiscatory 100% on all wages, then we would expect somewhat different results. But since no one is proposing such a rate, and no such rate has ever been imposed, the most that we can do is look at how people reacted to changes in the marginal rates. And, from the historical evidence, it seems quite clear that economic output, in general, was not adversely affected by high marginal tax rates.
okie wrote:Consider the scenarios for 80%, 60%, and so forth. You end up with a curve, where the effects may be more subtle at the lower numbers, but to pretend there would be no effect is just economic ignorance. It does not take an economist to figure this out.
No. Indeed, it is much better if you're not an economist in order to figure that out.
okie wrote:To argue the curve would be flat from 0 to 100% marginal tax rate would be an utterly preposterous position to take.
What you're describing, of course, is the Laffer Curve, which isn't worth the napkin that it was first written on.
I was aware of that. Trickle down economics is another term wherein politicians on each side of the fence take potshots at it. Take the terms and names out of the discussion, Joe, and the fact is there is a curve and there is a benefit of job creators higher upon the ladder giving jobs to job seekers a bit lower on the ladder. It isn' rocket science to figure out that hardly any poverty sticken people provide jobs.
joefromchicago wrote:okie wrote:Joe from Chicago says anecdotal evidence does not count. If I saw the wind blow trees down on my farm, and concluded there would likely be less trees than before, I suppose my observation of the trees blowing down does not count, that I would need empirical evidence by hiring tree counters to go count every tree before and after these observations to prove my assumption, which is merely nothing more than common sense. Common sense is not acceptable on this forum, is that right, Joe?
This is some kind of joke, right? I respond to each one of the points that you raised in your post and all you can do is address one of mine -- and in a response to Thomas, not me. Look, okie, if you're not up to the intellectual rigors of this discussion, then admit it and we'll both move on. Otherwise, I have no interest in engaging in any kind of serious exchange of ideas if that exchange is going to be entirely one-sided. You made some claims that are completely baseless, and I patiently explained why they are baseless. If all you can do is come back with this pathetic response, then I don't know why you even bothered to waste your time. You certainly wasted mine.
It is not a joke, Joe. I don't think you should eliminate all Anecdotal evidence. My tree example shows why it should not be eliminated. Now, if you go count the trees and certify the count by an official, trained tree counter, then I suppose that is as ironclad proof as possible, but anecdotal evidence is worth something.
Give me time to go back and address all your points.
okie wrote:Well for starters, what about the economic expansion in the 80's after top marginal tax rates were lowered.
Without more evidence, that is simply confusing correlation with causation.
okie wrote:I am not an economist so I will leave the official empirical studies up to those that are.
Admirable self-restraint.
okie wrote:Beyond that, there is plenty of anecdotal evidence going back to childhood.
Anecdotal evidence isn't evidence.
okie wrote:Pay a man per bale of hay and you get alot more hay in the barn than if you pay by the hour.
Not necessarily. Piecework wages aren't always a more efficient solution than hourly wages.
okie wrote:Whether it is the employer or the government preventing rewards for harder work make little difference. Over the past few years, I recall many conversations with people that said, the promotion and pay raise did me no good because the tax deductions more than offset the raise. In an instance or two, I recall the person turned down the promotion and raise, in part because of that reason.
If that's true, then it's quite clear that you were talking to complete idiots. Unless the marginal tax rate on the amount of the proposed raise was 100%, an increase in wages will always lead to the employee receiving more money. To be sure, they might conclude that the extra effort involved in the new job was not worth the net amount of the wage increase, but that's not the same thing as saying that they would actually make less money, because of taxes, if they took the raise.
okie wrote:I have also known of people very successful at a business that decided to quit or do something else, thus selling, because of higher marginal tax rates.
Again, your anecdotal evidence is not evidence.
okie wrote:The answer to this debate basically relies on simple common sense. Why do capitalistic economies thrive better than state owned economies?
That's an irrelevant question.
okie wrote:Using your noggin a little, Joe, what would happen to economic output if the tax rate was 100%? I think the answer should be obvious. It would plummet. Okay, what would happen to it if it was 90%? More speculation enters, but probably plummet not as completely, but very severely.
We don't need to speculate. The highest marginal income tax rate in US history was 92% for incomes over $400,000 in 1952-53, and the rate was above 90% for the period from 1950 to 1963. In that time period, the US GDP rose from $293.8 B (2005 dollars) to $617.7 B, an increase of about 211%. Taking a broader perspective, the top marginal tax rate was above 70% for the period from 1936 to 1980, during which time the GDP rose from $83.8 B (2005 dollars) to $2,789.5 B, an increase of around 3,329% (GDP figures from here -- download with MS Excel).
Now, to be fair, that's just the top marginal tax rate. The effective rates were, at all times, substantially less. If the tax were truly a confiscatory 100% on all wages, then we would expect somewhat different results. But since no one is proposing such a rate, and no such rate has ever been imposed, the most that we can do is look at how people reacted to changes in the marginal rates. And, from the historical evidence, it seems quite clear that economic output, in general, was not adversely affected by high marginal tax rates.
okie wrote:Consider the scenarios for 80%, 60%, and so forth. You end up with a curve, where the effects may be more subtle at the lower numbers, but to pretend there would be no effect is just economic ignorance. It does not take an economist to figure this out.
No. Indeed, it is much better if you're not an economist in order to figure that out.
okie wrote:To argue the curve would be flat from 0 to 100% marginal tax rate would be an utterly preposterous position to take.
What you're describing, of course, is the Laffer Curve, which isn't worth the napkin that it was first written on.
Thus, if tax rates are too high, then lowering them, according to Laffer, will result in higher revenues. But Laffer doesn't give any formula for determining whether a tax is too high or not. So we can only guess if lowering tax rates will increase or decrease tax revenues. Supply-siders always assume that we are on the "bad" side of the curve, where cutting taxes increases revenues, without considering that we may actually be on the "good" side, where cutting taxes decreases revenues.
okie wrote:joefromchicago wrote:okie wrote:Joe from Chicago says anecdotal evidence does not count. If I saw the wind blow trees down on my farm, and concluded there would likely be less trees than before, I suppose my observation of the trees blowing down does not count, that I would need empirical evidence by hiring tree counters to go count every tree before and after these observations to prove my assumption, which is merely nothing more than common sense. Common sense is not acceptable on this forum, is that right, Joe?
This is some kind of joke, right? I respond to each one of the points that you raised in your post and all you can do is address one of mine -- and in a response to Thomas, not me. Look, okie, if you're not up to the intellectual rigors of this discussion, then admit it and we'll both move on. Otherwise, I have no interest in engaging in any kind of serious exchange of ideas if that exchange is going to be entirely one-sided. You made some claims that are completely baseless, and I patiently explained why they are baseless. If all you can do is come back with this pathetic response, then I don't know why you even bothered to waste your time. You certainly wasted mine.
It is not a joke, Joe. I don't think you should eliminate all Anecdotal evidence. My tree example shows why it should not be eliminated. Now, if you go count the trees and certify the count by an official, trained tree counter, then I suppose that is as ironclad proof as possible, but anecdotal evidence is worth something.
Give me time to go back and address all your points.
Actually, your example shows why anecdotal evidence should be eliminated.
In your example, you assume that the total amount of trees available is "all trees standing on my farm". Let's say you had 100 trees. Then you see the wind blowing down three trees on your farm, and deduce that the total amount of trees on your farm will now be reduced by three percent.
I would say that assumption is correct, because you have knowledge of all parameters.
Now let's assume that the total amount of trees available is "all trees standing on all farms in the world". After seeing the wind blow down three trees on your farm, you would deduce that all farms in the world must have lost three percent of their trees due to the wind.
I would say that assumption is invalid, because you have a very limited knowledge about all the parameters involved.
In the first case, you didn't rely on anecdotal evidence, but on knowledge about all the parameters. In the second case, you didn't have knowledge about all the parameters, and instead relied on anecdotal evidence.
A strong case for the elimination of anecdotal evidence from the discussion.
