US Income Inequality: Top !% Take Home 24% of US Income

[loosecannon]

Please post an empirical econometric study demonstrating a causal link between income tax cuts and higher revenues. Arthur Laffer, the intellectual father of supply side economics never did. Several economists such as Greg Mankiw in fact empirically disproved it.

Correlation is not causality.

The facts are as stated. Sorry.

Nope.

In a recent article in Grant's Interest Rate Observer, Jim Grant noted there have been 11 major tax increases since WWII. In every case, GDP was higher in a year or two. By our logic, tax increases cause the economy to grow.

GDP always grows, whether you raise or lower taxes. It is a product of inflation and economic expansion. Not tax rates. In fact there must be 30 other factors that also effect the outcome of the equation and there is no means to discern causality with so many drivers effecting a singular outcome.

Unless of course you had 1000s of examples to study spanning 1000s of years. Then you might be able to build such a causative claim based on processes of elimination.

 

[The Rabbi]

Please post an empirical econometric study demonstrating a causal link between income tax cuts and higher revenues. Arthur Laffer, the intellectual father of supply side economics never did. Several economists such as Greg Mankiw in fact empirically disproved it.

Correlation is not causality.

The facts are as stated. Sorry.

Nope.

In a recent article in Grant's Interest Rate Observer, Jim Grant noted there have been 11 major tax increases since WWII. In every case, GDP was higher in a year or two. By our logic, tax increases cause the economy to grow.

OK. Go ahead. Raise taxes. Triple them and watch GDP soar.

 

[loosecannon]

OK. Go ahead. Raise taxes. Triple them and watch GDP soar.

GDP won't soar even if we eliminate taxes altogether!

Taxation rates simply are not what drives GDP!

Throw a dollar out the window and if the stock market rallies tomorrow you can claim that throwing away money was the cause. If it falls you can claim throwing away money is the problem.

THAT is the gist of your argument!

 

[The Rabbi]

OK. Go ahead. Raise taxes. Triple them and watch GDP soar.

GDP won't soar even if we eliminate taxes altogether!

Taxation rates simply are not what drives GDP!

Throw a dollar out the window and if the stock market rallies tomorrow you can claim that throwing away money was the cause. If it falls you can claim throwing away money is the problem.

THAT is the gist of your argument!

No, the argument is pretty simple: When you decrease people's incentive to work and earn money by taking more of then they won't work as hard. When you raise the cost of doing business, less business gets done.
The experience in the states is instructive. MI, NJ, and CA all raised taxes of one kind or another over the last 20 years. All of those states are economic basket cases.

 

[loosecannon]

OK. Go ahead. Raise taxes. Triple them and watch GDP soar.

GDP won't soar even if we eliminate taxes altogether!

Taxation rates simply are not what drives GDP!

Throw a dollar out the window and if the stock market rallies tomorrow you can claim that throwing away money was the cause. If it falls you can claim throwing away money is the problem.

THAT is the gist of your argument!

No, the argument is pretty simple: When you decrease people's incentive to work and earn money by taking more of then they won't work as hard. When you raise the cost of doing business, less business gets done.
The experience in the states is instructive. MI, NJ, and CA all raised taxes of one kind or another over the last 20 years. All of those states are economic basket cases.

But that argument is sheer nonsense! And that isn't even the argument you have been asserting!

MI, NJ, and CA all raised taxes of one kind or another over the last 20 years.

AND ALL OF THOSE STATES HAVE RECORDED HIGHER OBESITY RATES!!!!!!!!!

Coincidence? I think not!

 

[The Rabbi]

GDP won't soar even if we eliminate taxes altogether!

Taxation rates simply are not what drives GDP!

Throw a dollar out the window and if the stock market rallies tomorrow you can claim that throwing away money was the cause. If it falls you can claim throwing away money is the problem.

THAT is the gist of your argument!

No, the argument is pretty simple: When you decrease people's incentive to work and earn money by taking more of then they won't work as hard. When you raise the cost of doing business, less business gets done.
The experience in the states is instructive. MI, NJ, and CA all raised taxes of one kind or another over the last 20 years. All of those states are economic basket cases.

But that argument is sheer nonsense! And that isn't even the argument you have been asserting!

MI, NJ, and CA all raised taxes of one kind or another over the last 20 years.

AND ALL OF THOSE STATES HAVE RECORDED HIGHER OBESITY RATES!!!!!!!!!

Coincidence? I think not!

Actually I don't think CA does.
But the state you live in does have significantly lower IQ scores.
Ask me how I know.

 

[loosecannon]

No, the argument is pretty simple: When you decrease people's incentive to work and earn money by taking more of then they won't work as hard. When you raise the cost of doing business, less business gets done.
The experience in the states is instructive. MI, NJ, and CA all raised taxes of one kind or another over the last 20 years. All of those states are economic basket cases.

But that argument is sheer nonsense! And that isn't even the argument you have been asserting!

MI, NJ, and CA all raised taxes of one kind or another over the last 20 years.

AND ALL OF THOSE STATES HAVE RECORDED HIGHER OBESITY RATES!!!!!!!!!

Coincidence? I think not!

Actually I don't think CA does.
But the state you live in does have significantly lower IQ scores.
Ask me how I know.

iow you admit that all your BS about lowering taxes = greater growth and tax revenues is bunk.

Thank you, now please put that shit to rest once and for all.

 

[The Rabbi]

But that argument is sheer nonsense! And that isn't even the argument you have been asserting!



AND ALL OF THOSE STATES HAVE RECORDED HIGHER OBESITY RATES!!!!!!!!!

Coincidence? I think not!

Actually I don't think CA does.
But the state you live in does have significantly lower IQ scores.
Ask me how I know.

iow you admit that all your BS about lowering taxes = greater growth and tax revenues is bunk.

Thank you, now please put that shit to rest once and for all.

I know;
1) Lowering taxes increases economic activity and thus revenue to the gov't.
2) The opposite is also true.
3) You are a ninny.

 

[loosecannon]

I know;
1) Lowering taxes increases economic activity and thus revenue to the gov't.
2) The opposite is also true.
3) You are a ninny.

No you don't. You just believe that shit, which makes it possible but not probable. You are almost always wrong.

 

[Toro]

The facts are as stated. Sorry.

Nope.

In a recent article in Grant's Interest Rate Observer, Jim Grant noted there have been 11 major tax increases since WWII. In every case, GDP was higher in a year or two. By our logic, tax increases cause the economy to grow.

GDP always grows, whether you raise or lower taxes. It is a product of inflation and economic expansion. Not tax rates. In fact there must be 30 other factors that also effect the outcome of the equation and there is no means to discern causality with so many drivers effecting a singular outcome.

Unless of course you had 1000s of examples to study spanning 1000s of years. Then you might be able to build such a causative claim based on processes of elimination.

I keep going back to this graph

With the exception of the Great Depression, US GDP per capita has grown over the long term by about 2% per year, no matter what the tax rate. The rate of taxation was much lower 100 years ago yet we grow as fast as we did then. That doesn't mean tax rates are irrelevant - that's not true. Generally, lower rates of tax AND spending are better. However, it appears that the level of tax rates have played only a minor part in GDP growth, or at least they have below a certain level thus far.

But that's not point. My point is that cuts in US income taxes do not "pay for themselves." There is no empirical evidence that this is the case. The graph above shows that it is a canard to merely reference rising economic growth after cutting taxes since growth has continued when taxes went up as well. There is evidence that cutting corporate income taxes and other taxes such as resource royalties does increase overall tax revenues. There is also evidence that cutting income taxes (and increasing tax evasion penalties) increases government revenues in the emerging countries. But there is no evidence that income tax cuts pay for themselves in the US. At least I've never seen it. I could change my mind if someone posted the evidence.

 

[The Rabbi]

Nope.

In a recent article in Grant's Interest Rate Observer, Jim Grant noted there have been 11 major tax increases since WWII. In every case, GDP was higher in a year or two. By our logic, tax increases cause the economy to grow.

GDP always grows, whether you raise or lower taxes. It is a product of inflation and economic expansion. Not tax rates. In fact there must be 30 other factors that also effect the outcome of the equation and there is no means to discern causality with so many drivers effecting a singular outcome.

Unless of course you had 1000s of examples to study spanning 1000s of years. Then you might be able to build such a causative claim based on processes of elimination.

I keep going back to this graph

With the exception of the Great Depression, US GDP per capita has grown over the long term by about 2% per year, no matter what the tax rate. The rate of taxation was much lower 100 years ago yet we grow as fast as we did then. That doesn't mean tax rates are irrelevant - that's not true. Generally, lower rates of tax AND spending are better. However, it appears that the level of tax rates have played only a minor part in GDP growth, or at least they have below a certain level thus far.

But that's not point. My point is that cuts in US income taxes do not "pay for themselves." There is no empirical evidence that this is the case. The graph above shows that it is a canard to merely reference rising economic growth after cutting taxes since growth has continued when taxes went up as well. There is evidence that cutting corporate income taxes and other taxes such as resource royalties does increase overall tax revenues. There is also evidence that cutting income taxes (and increasing tax evasion penalties) increases government revenues in the emerging countries. But there is no evidence that income tax cuts pay for themselves in the US. At least I've never seen it. I could change my mind if someone posted the evidence.

I've cited empirical evidence. You choose to ignore it. Not my problem.

 

[mdn2000]

Who said, "no taxes", will not grow the economy. That is dumb.

Get rid of tax, environmental lawsuits, any fee by government agency, and the economy grows astronomically.

People and their economic theories, morons.

People claim that lowering taxes will not make a difference, when did they lower the tax 90%, never, theory does not mean a thing, they lower tax a fraction of total GDP and surprise, nothing happens, or it goes up, with so many other factors, but move that tax a tiny bit and the experts can prove it made no difference, they are right, the tiny tax cuts we receive have no effect.

We need big tax cuts, not Bush tax cuts but massive life changing tax cuts.

Government employees, Politicians, Lawyers, teachers, everyone who gets a government check needs no tax break.

Us who work, including the rich, deserve a massive life changing keep the government out of our money law.

 

[Foxfyre]

The bottom line is really pretty simple.

If you see the government as the owner of the country and as the appropriate seat of power, you want government to allocate the assets and you don't care how big or powerful or intrusive the government becomes.

If you see the people as the owner of the country, particularly their own property, you want government to be no bigger, more powerful, more intrusive than it absolutely has to be in order to secure the rights of the people, provide for the common defense, and promote the general welfare (meaning for everybody, not a favored few.)

If you like the way the government has been spending the people's money, you favor giving the government the money and letting them spend it as they see fit.

If you think the people spend their own money more wisely than the government spends it for them, you favor giving the government less money.

If you wallow in resentment of the rich and think you would feel better about yourself if they are taking down several notches, you want the government to confiscate as much of their property as it can get.

If you understand that major philanthropy, venture capital, investment capital, and most of the jobs come directly or indirectly from the 'rich', you don't want the government to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. And you appreciate that America is a land where the lowliest of the low can realistically aspire to become rich.

 

[loosecannon]

If you understand that major philanthropy, venture capital, investment capital, and most of the jobs come directly or indirectly from the 'rich', you don't want the government to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. And you appreciate that America is a land where the lowliest of the low can realistically aspire to become rich.

This hasn't been true since 1913.

Capitalists using their own capital have not been the engine of growth in the US since the Federal Reserve was founded. ALL "capital" is now injected into the system via debt, making the only real engine of growth the Federal Reserve and the banking cartel.

"Investors" today are more often than not plowing borrowed capital into completely non productive investment vehicles that do nothing at all to create jobs or stimulate economic growth.

And the poor everywhere can "aspire to become rich". But even in the US your odds of winning the lottery are much better than your odds of becoming a billionaire from scratch.

 

[Foxfyre]

If you understand that major philanthropy, venture capital, investment capital, and most of the jobs come directly or indirectly from the 'rich', you don't want the government to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. And you appreciate that America is a land where the lowliest of the low can realistically aspire to become rich.

This hasn't been true since 1913.

Capitalists using their own capital have not been the engine of growth in the US since the Federal Reserve was founded. ALL "capital" is now injected into the system via debt, making the only real engine of growth the Federal Reserve and the banking cartel.

"Investors" today are more often than not plowing borrowed capital into completely non productive investment vehicles that do nothing at all to create jobs or stimulate economic growth.

And the poor everywhere can "aspire to become rich". But even in the US your odds of winning the lottery are much better than your odds of becoming a billionaire from scratch.

There is nothing wrong with responsible debt used to build capital. Right now the problem is that federal policy has encouraged irresponsible borrowing and in the wake of the consequences for that has infused such uncertainty into the system along with attempts to implement unacceptable certainty that most investment capital is frozen and unavailable to those who need to borrow it. Until that situation is fixed there is unlikely to be any significant improvement in the economy.

As the economy sits stagnant, assets depreciate and every passing day sees more real property sliding under water. But those holding capital aren't going to risk it in the face of an uncertainty tax policy, threatened unacceptable regulation and costs built into the healthcare overhaul, and ambiguous regulation that can make or break a business.

Unless the government changes its tune and emphasis soon, we will see more and more of that capital and assets diverted overseas at the cost of millions more American jobs. We need policy and regulation that makes it profitable and favorable to keep business and industry here in the USA. The Obama administeration doesn't seem to understand that. Nor do those who support it. They just want to punish the rich and can't seem to grasp the simple fact that you can't reduce the wealth of the rich without hurting the poor.

 

[Toro]

GDP always grows, whether you raise or lower taxes. It is a product of inflation and economic expansion. Not tax rates. In fact there must be 30 other factors that also effect the outcome of the equation and there is no means to discern causality with so many drivers effecting a singular outcome.

Unless of course you had 1000s of examples to study spanning 1000s of years. Then you might be able to build such a causative claim based on processes of elimination.

I keep going back to this graph

With the exception of the Great Depression, US GDP per capita has grown over the long term by about 2% per year, no matter what the tax rate. The rate of taxation was much lower 100 years ago yet we grow as fast as we did then. That doesn't mean tax rates are irrelevant - that's not true. Generally, lower rates of tax AND spending are better. However, it appears that the level of tax rates have played only a minor part in GDP growth, or at least they have below a certain level thus far.

But that's not point. My point is that cuts in US income taxes do not "pay for themselves." There is no empirical evidence that this is the case. The graph above shows that it is a canard to merely reference rising economic growth after cutting taxes since growth has continued when taxes went up as well. There is evidence that cutting corporate income taxes and other taxes such as resource royalties does increase overall tax revenues. There is also evidence that cutting income taxes (and increasing tax evasion penalties) increases government revenues in the emerging countries. But there is no evidence that income tax cuts pay for themselves in the US. At least I've never seen it. I could change my mind if someone posted the evidence.

I've cited empirical evidence. You choose to ignore it. Not my problem.

No you haven't. If you think you have, you don't know what empirical evidence is.

 

[The Rabbi]

I keep going back to this graph

With the exception of the Great Depression, US GDP per capita has grown over the long term by about 2% per year, no matter what the tax rate. The rate of taxation was much lower 100 years ago yet we grow as fast as we did then. That doesn't mean tax rates are irrelevant - that's not true. Generally, lower rates of tax AND spending are better. However, it appears that the level of tax rates have played only a minor part in GDP growth, or at least they have below a certain level thus far.

But that's not point. My point is that cuts in US income taxes do not "pay for themselves." There is no empirical evidence that this is the case. The graph above shows that it is a canard to merely reference rising economic growth after cutting taxes since growth has continued when taxes went up as well. There is evidence that cutting corporate income taxes and other taxes such as resource royalties does increase overall tax revenues. There is also evidence that cutting income taxes (and increasing tax evasion penalties) increases government revenues in the emerging countries. But there is no evidence that income tax cuts pay for themselves in the US. At least I've never seen it. I could change my mind if someone posted the evidence.

I've cited empirical evidence. You choose to ignore it. Not my problem.

No you haven't. If you think you have, you don't know what empirical evidence is.

Hey, go ahead and move to Sweden or Denmark so you can see what high taxes do to an economy. If that's too far try Detroit.

 

[loosecannon]

Well he hasn't posted empirical evidence of causation, which is THE critical point.

 

[Toro]

I've cited empirical evidence. You choose to ignore it. Not my problem.

No you haven't. If you think you have, you don't know what empirical evidence is.

Hey, go ahead and move to Sweden or Denmark so you can see what high taxes do to an economy. If that's too far try Detroit.

Non sequitur.

 

[The Rabbi]

No you haven't. If you think you have, you don't know what empirical evidence is.

Hey, go ahead and move to Sweden or Denmark so you can see what high taxes do to an economy. If that's too far try Detroit.

Non sequitur.

Deflection.
based on your point, you could never show any causal relationship between any economic policy decision and what happens in the economy.