Is the Liberal Political Mind one dimensional?

Thomas wrote:

No, it's a logical problem on your part. Suppose you claimed you can kill with milk. Your evidence is a story where you once poisoned someone with arsenic-fortified milk. I think we agree that in this case, you haven't proven your point. The killing happened not because of anything related to your claim about milk, but because of an additional element you introduced in your example.

Let me make this clear so we have no further misunderstandings. My criticism of the Laffer Curve is based on two general points: (1) the Curve does not take into account all of the factors that would affect tax rates, nor does it take into account most of the factors that would be affected by tax rates; and (2) because it measures only one relationship -- that between tax rates and tax revenues -- it is largely useless as a tool for analyzing real-world policy.

Now, if the real world doesn't operate the way that Laffer would predict, that is certainly not a problem with my argument. My position, after all, accomodates all of the empirical problems that Laffer ignores. So your original hypothetical about the restaurant isn't a criticism of my argument, it merely points out some of the things that Laffer left out of his. As for you milk example, I have no idea what you're trying to say.

Thomas wrote:

Your argument about the Laffer curve has a similar logical problem. Your claim is that the Laffer curve is wrong as economic theory. Your evidence introduces an important extra factor -- reputation -- that's negligible in the systems the Laffer curve talks about.

My "important extra factor" is just one thing (among many) that Laffer's theory doesn't consider. If Laffer was attempting to describe real world economic behavior, then his failure to consider such factors is most definitely a problem for his argument, not for mine. On the other hand, if all he was doing was engaging in a thought experiment, then the Curve has some value -- but only as a thought experiment.

Thomas wrote:

Ergo, you haven't proven your point about the Laffer curve. At most, you have shown that it doesn't apply to restaurants.

If you want to consider reputational factors as playing a part in the relationship between tax rates and tax revenues, then you're free to do so. We can call that the Thomastheorie. But don't kid yourself into thinking that you're describing Laffer's theory, because you're not. Laffer's theory holds not only that nations cannot successfully implement a 100% tax rate, but that restaurants can't either. If the Thomastheorie holds otherwise, then it is contrary to Laffer.

0 Replies

okie.

The laffer curve is tax rates and tax revenues.

Tax revenue is not equivalent to the economy.

You are arguing that since Joe said A affects B then he must agree that A also affects Z. There is no logical reason that he must or that you can claim that B = Z since by their very definitions Z can not equal Z.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

So now you admit any tax will have some sort of impact on the economy, but you continue to deny a relationship between tax rates and tax revenues.

Let me repeat: your failure to understand my argument does not constitute an admission on my part that you're right.

I never denied that tax rates have some relationship to tax revenues. In fact, I think it's pretty obvious that there is a relationship. I just don't necessarily think that it is the same relationship that Laffer posited. If you think that Laffer is right, then you're free to do so. Just don't fool yourself into thinking that, because you think he's right, that means he must be right.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

okie.

The laffer curve is tax rates and tax revenues.

Tax revenue is not equivalent to the economy.

You are arguing that since Joe said A affects B then he must agree that A also affects Z. There is no logical reason that he must or that you can claim that B = Z since by their very definitions Z can not equal Z.

Here is Joe's quote:

Quote:

I'll save you some time: any tax will have some sort of impact on the economy and on economic behavior.

To set the record straight, I think we all agree that tax rates obviously affect tax revenues. When I made the statement that Joe had admitted tax rates affected the economy, but not tax revenues, I worded it wrong. What I meant was that he is not yet admitting tax rates affect the revenues through the effect upon the economy. We all obviously admit tax rates affect the revenues directly. In other words, the tax rate being A, economy being B, C being tax revenues, then A x B = C. Joe now admits a change in A affects B, and a change in A affects C directly, but apparently he does not yet admit that part of the change in B as it affects C is not due in part to the change in A.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

parados wrote:
okie.

The laffer curve is tax rates and tax revenues.

Tax revenue is not equivalent to the economy.

You are arguing that since Joe said A affects B then he must agree that A also affects Z. There is no logical reason that he must or that you can claim that B = Z since by their very definitions Z can not equal Z.

Here is Joe's quote:

Quote:
I'll save you some time: any tax will have some sort of impact on the economy and on economic behavior.

To set the record straight, I think we all agree that tax rates obviously affect tax revenues. When I made the statement that Joe had admitted tax rates affected the economy, but not tax revenues, I worded it wrong. What I meant was that he is not yet admitting tax rates affect the revenues through the effect upon the economy. We all obviously admit tax rates affect the revenues directly. In other words, the tax rate being A, economy being B, C being tax revenues, then A x B = C. Joe now admits a change in A affects B, and a change in A affects C directly, but apparently he does not yet admit that part of the change in B as it affects C is not due in part to the change in A.

Um, not so much. You posit a direct relationship, when in fact there is no such relationship. Your algebraic equation needs 15 other factors added into it in order to have any shot of resembling reality.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Joe and cyclops, just because there are many other factors affecting tax revenues, the economy, etc., does not mean one cannot establish a relationship or a curve between two factors. Your argument that it cannot be done or should not be done is silly. Scientists do this all the time. Thomas has already dispatched the silly argument that it can't be done.

One important area of this practice is medicine, where experiments test the effect of medicines on patients, wherein it is impossible to create exact same conditions and influences in all patients. Obviously, there are always other factors involved in the environment of each patient. And if you wish to apply it to laboratory rats, the same could be said about it. It isn't a perfect science, but the science of medicine, and I think the study of economics also allows us to conclude certain trends, relationships, and curves do exist even though it would be difficult to assign ironclad values to those trends or curves, but instead informed approximations.

The reason the curve may change slightly in shape or values with time, is due to other economic conditions, but nobody should deny the obvious relationship of the influence of tax rates on both the economy and final tax revenues, which is a product of both the economy and tax rates.

If you really want a bad example of plotting a minor influence against an effect, take the CO2 argument, wherein manmade CO2 is a very, very minor factor compared to many other factors affecting the climate, but so-called scientists are attempting to isolate that factor as the only one that is driving a very, very small climatic shift. That to me is really bad science. At least with the economy, tax rates and the economy are major players in the equation.

0 Replies

Quote:

Scientists do this all the time.

Sure, with respects to Global Warming, in which case you argue against the point you are currently attempting to make. I've seen you do it plenty of times.

Quote:

but nobody should deny the obvious relationship of the influence of tax rates on both the economy and final tax revenues

That's because the relationship isn't obvious! While they are factors of the same equation - the economy - raising taxes or lowering them doesn't neccessarily produce the same result every time, because the system is highly complex and difficult to view as a whole, let alone understand as a whole.

So while you say that there is a relationship between the two - okay, taxation is a part of the economic picture. But you can't make a single prediction on the effects of changing that level of taxation and what it will do to society, not without exaggerating taxes up to unbeleivable levels.

So it isn't actually useful for anything, and one certainly can't make claims about lowering taxes to raise revenue or anything silly like that.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
Scientists do this all the time.

Sure, with respects to Global Warming, in which case you argue against the point you are currently attempting to make. I've seen you do it plenty of times.

Quote:
but nobody should deny the obvious relationship of the influence of tax rates on both the economy and final tax revenues

That's because the relationship isn't obvious! While they are factors of the same equation - the economy - raising taxes or lowering them doesn't neccessarily produce the same result every time, because the system is highly complex and difficult to view as a whole, let alone understand as a whole.

So while you say that there is a relationship between the two - okay, taxation is a part of the economic picture. But you can't make a single prediction on the effects of changing that level of taxation and what it will do to society, not without exaggerating taxes up to unbeleivable levels.

So it isn't actually useful for anything, and one certainly can't make claims about lowering taxes to raise revenue or anything silly like that.

Cycloptichorn

The relationship isn't obvius to the liberal mind, cylclops, because such a relationship is not one dimensional, proving the title of this thread. I do admit to other factors, but tax rates are a huge factor in the economy, obviously affecting all facets of it, including home buying, stocks, retail sales, construction, investments, you name it.

If you can convince me that man-made CO2 is as important a player in the climate as tax rates are on the economy, I would buy your argument.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

In other words, the tax rate being A, economy being B, C being tax revenues, then A x B = C.

A rather simplistic equation, but not out of character for you, okie.

okie wrote:

Joe now admits a change in A affects B, and a change in A affects C directly, but apparently he does not yet admit that part of the change in B as it affects C is not due in part to the change in A.

Not according to your equation. If A x B = C, then B has no effect upon C independent of A.

0 Replies

Quote:

The relationship isn't obvius to the liberal mind, cylclops, because such a relationship is not one dimensional, proving the title of this thread.

Hmm, well, it isn't an 'obvious relationship' because it is not immediately obvious that changing x will make a change in y; changing tax policy in x fashion does not neccessarily make economy y change accordingly, but according to a whole host of different factors, can have wildly different results.

So it isn't an 'obvious' relationship, but a subtle and difficult to understand relationship. This is problematic for you, I feel, because it keeps you from making grand claims about the economy based upon levels of taxation.

I would remind you that there isn't a lot of historical data supporting your theory...

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

okie wrote:
In other words, the tax rate being A, economy being B, C being tax revenues, then A x B = C.

A rather simplistic equation, but not out of character for you, okie.

okie wrote:
Joe now admits a change in A affects B, and a change in A affects C directly, but apparently he does not yet admit that part of the change in B as it affects C is not due in part to the change in A.

Not according to your equation. If A x B = C, then B has no effect upon C independent of A.

You forgot that B is derived by another equation before it can be plugged into this equation, wherein B is partially determined by A. I pointed out already, and you also agreed, that B is affected by A. If you let the economy without the influence of tax rates be D, then B might be derived as follows: B = D/A

Perhaps if you wish to eliminate solving B before solving the equation I previously wrote (A x B = C), I could forget creating the D, and I should have written the first equation more accurately as something similar to A x B/A = C.