Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » How Today's Conservatism Lost Touch with Reality (Page 3)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4   
Author Topic: How Today's Conservatism Lost Touch with Reality
PSRT
Member
Member # 6454

 - posted      Profile for PSRT   Email PSRT   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
When I hear the phrase 'terrible policy', I assume the writer actually means a highly unpopular, radical policy with substantial effect. You seem to mean a policy of which you disagree.
I do not claim that policies I disagree with are terrible. I claim that policies which the evidence shows will have a demonstrably negative effect on a significant number of people are terrible. I disagree with such policies BECAUSE they are terrible, I do not call them terrible BECAUSE I disagree.

I have no idea how you got "I disagree, therefore its terrible," out of what I've written.

[ June 24, 2011, 06:16 PM: Message edited by: PSRT ]

Posts: 2152 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by PSRT:
I do not claim that policies I disagree with are terrible. I claim that policies which the evidence shows will have a demonstrably negative effect on a significant number of people are terrible.

Raising Federal income taxes has a demonstrably negative effect on a significant number of people.

Do you find that policy 'terrible'?

Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Blayne Bradley
Member
Member # 2550

 - posted      Profile for Blayne Bradley   Email Blayne Bradley   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
That's blatantly false.

Its like saying taxes on beer or cigs has a negative affect on people because it costs them more money to buy cigarattes.

This sense of self entitlement to every cent of your dollar except what you "begrudgingly" give the Fed is the most idiotic part of the American pioneer mindset.

The police that protect your fights cost money, the fire fighters cost money, the roads, especially interstate highways and railways cost a certain amount of money, postal service to ALL americans cost money, healthcare to all americans will cost money, the regulatory agencies and institutions like the ones that protect the cleanliness of your water, the health of your air and the internal makeup of your food that you eat from restaurantes and acquire from the store cannot be done for free, and cannot be reasonably expected to come at the same level of service for all people without the government being there to collect taxes.

Everything that makes it attractive for businesses to work and operate in the USA required taxes to pay for the public good, you cannot find a single example of an company or executative who made their money from a complete vacuum.

Posts: 389 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Raising Federal income taxes has a demonstrably negative effect on a significant number of people.

Do you find that policy 'terrible'?

I also disagree with this statement, unless you abuse the word "significant" to really mean a small group of wealthy people.

Restoring Reagan Tax Rates would require the wealthy to pay more than they pay today, and would have a net beneficial effect compared to where we are today.

Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ehhh. I'm not terribly wealthy. But I know that my taxes would be higher under Reagan tax rates. Given how I am strapped and struggling to make ends meet now, a tax rate would probably force me to sell my truck and buy something used for around $4000. This would eliminate the note on my truck and allow me to pay the higher taxes. Other alternatives would be to quit purchasing alcohol and meat, end all cable television and home phone service, or work an extra week out of the year. All of these seem pretty bad, maybe not "terrible" [Smile] but pretty bad.

Of course the wealthy will probably raise prices on whatever they are into. That probably won't help me alot.

The good news is that the government will have more money to spend [Smile] Hopefully they will put it all into eliminating the deficit.

The pain of higher taxes is always spread across the board, I think that should be evident. No matter who you try to target, like "the rich".

Posts: 3264 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Viking_Longship
Member
Member # 3358

 - posted      Profile for Viking_Longship   Email Viking_Longship       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The police that protect your fights cost money, the fire fighters cost money, the roads, especially interstate highways and railways cost a certain amount of money, postal service to ALL americans cost money, healthcare to all americans will cost money, the regulatory agencies and institutions like the ones that protect the cleanliness of your water, the health of your air and the internal makeup of your food that you eat from restaurantes and acquire from the store cannot be done for free, and cannot be reasonably expected to come at the same level of service for all people without the government being there to collect taxes.

For a developed nation we don't get much in services or pay much in taxes to begin with. Having said that we could do all of those things and still pay less in taxes, or at least not borrow, were we not maintaining a vast military machine far in excess of what we require for national security.
Posts: 5765 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Blayne Bradley
Member
Member # 2550

 - posted      Profile for Blayne Bradley   Email Blayne Bradley   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'ld say the adverse effects of say defaulting on the deficit on the middle and lower class far outway the harm the upper middle and rich class will face with slightly higher taxes.

My parents have a home business with something like 50% taxes and doing fine.

Posts: 389 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Viking_Longship
Member
Member # 3358

 - posted      Profile for Viking_Longship   Email Viking_Longship       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I would define a 'terrible' policy as one which is very radical and that the overwhelming majority of people (90%+) would disagree with that would substantially effect America.

A policy doesn't have to be unpopular to be terrible. A mutual defense treaty with Tawian, India, Ukraine or Georgia would be popular but could oblige us to fight a nuclear power in a war that won't do anything for our security.

Invading Iraq, and the way we went about it, was terrible policy but wasn't opposed by anywhere near 90%.

Posts: 5765 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Grant:
Ehhh. I'm not terribly wealthy. But I know that my taxes would be higher under Reagan tax rates. Given how I am strapped and struggling to make ends meet now, a tax rate would probably force me to sell my truck and buy something used for around $4000. This would eliminate the note on my truck and allow me to pay the higher taxes. Other alternatives would be to quit purchasing alcohol and meat, end all cable television and home phone service, or work an extra week out of the year. All of these seem pretty bad, maybe not "terrible" [Smile] but pretty bad.

Except that there are good odds, at that point, that your income would increase significantly faster under those tax rates than it does now, because it would be more profitable for people with money to get the deduction for paying you better that it would be for them to use that money to offer you loans instead.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
Except that there are good odds, at that point, that your income would increase significantly faster under those tax rates than it does now, because it would be more profitable for people with money to get the deduction for paying you better that it would be for them to use that money to offer you loans instead.

That sounds neat but you will have to lay it out in a little more detail for me to buy it. Which deductions are you mentioning?
Posts: 3264 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
PSRT
Member
Member # 6454

 - posted      Profile for PSRT   Email PSRT   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Raising Federal income taxes has a demonstrably negative effect on a significant number of people.

Do you find that policy 'terrible'?

Depends on how the policy is implemented. If you raise the marginal rate on top income earners, and apply that revenue to certain areas, there is a demonstrably positive effect for the vast majority of the population, and no meaningful negative impact virtually the rest of the population. Its possible, with a poorly designed income tax hike or poorly placed revenues, for some or even many people to be negatively impacted, but the evidence overwhelmingly favors very high marginal tax rates on the top several percent of earners as a means of supporting a healthy, wealthy, population.

Just as a note, "demonstrable," in my previous post would mean that the hike in income taxes would have to significantly negatively alter the life style of the people being taxed. Taking 10,000 vs taking 9,000 from someone earning 40,000 a year is demonstrably negative, but taking 110,000 instead of 100,000 from someone earning 1,000,000 a year isn't. (all else held equal).

[ June 25, 2011, 08:41 AM: Message edited by: PSRT ]

Posts: 2152 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Grant:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
Except that there are good odds, at that point, that your income would increase significantly faster under those tax rates than it does now, because it would be more profitable for people with money to get the deduction for paying you better that it would be for them to use that money to offer you loans instead.

That sounds neat but you will have to lay it out in a little more detail for me to buy it. Which deductions are you mentioning?
Business expenses. Payroll is a business expense, so money spent on on it is not part of profits, thus not subject to the company's income taxes.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ken_in_sc
Member
Member # 6462

 - posted      Profile for ken_in_sc   Email ken_in_sc       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Tax revenue and tax rates form a J shaped curve. Whether reducing tax rates increases or reduces revenue depends on where we are on that curve. No body knows where we are on that curve until after the fact. However, historically, every time we have reduced tax rates, tax revenue has gone up. However, government spending went up faster. I think a flat tax with no exemptions of around 15% is probably right. Back in the 50s when the highest marginal rate was 90%, nobody paid it. There were too many legal ways to avoid it. That's what lobbyists are paid for.
Posts: 159 | Registered: May 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
However, historically, every time we have reduced tax rates, tax revenue has gone up.
That's outright untrue. Revenues didn't improve under Regan until after he raised taxes again, they improved when Clinton raised taxes, they never recovered after Bush cut taxes.

quote:
Back in the 50s when the highest marginal rate was 90%, nobody paid it.
Nobody paying it, overall would be the point. First of all, it helps avoid bidding wars for executive compensation because diminishing returns means that disproportionate salaries and golden parachutes are not as attractive. It also means that people seek to avoid it by using their money in ways that avoid having it count as taxable income- preferably in ways that provide differed income. Which is to say capital investment (business expenses) Instead of taking the money as income today, they were more likely to put it into business growth and salaries so that long term returns would be larger.

When taxes are too low, they encourage prioritizing short term-high profit investments, particularly in high return areas like debt-based financial instruments instead of long term, steady returns that help to directly create wealth.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
However, historically, every time we have reduced tax rates, tax revenue has gone up.
For a more thorough discussion about why (and when) that is untrue, see the artcle in PolyFactCheck.
Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
ken_in_sc, I believe it is a very profound thing that you could write "historically, every time we have reduced tax rates, tax revenue has gone up."

Pyr points out correctly that your statement is untrue, but I also suspect that you relied on trusted sources to reach that conclusion. So think about why you trust the sources that have mislead you about a very important issue? And if they have mislead you on that score, what other things may they have mislead you about?

Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ken_in_sc:
Tax revenue and tax rates form a J shaped curve. Whether reducing tax rates increases or reduces revenue depends on where we are on that curve. No body knows where we are on that curve until after the fact. However, historically, every time we have reduced tax rates, tax revenue has gone up.

Actually, that's a misinterpretation of the Laffer curve. Revenues don't directly rise after a tax decrease. Instead, growth increases. And after the growth has increased for a period of time tax revenue may meet or exceed what it would have been at the previously higher rate. There are however a lot of caveats to all of that.

In general, lower tax rates will increase growth. That's good. But clearly if you decrease taxes without decreasing spending you fall into deficit spending. At that point you haven't really lowered taxes. Instead you've merely deferred them (with interest) to a future time.

Look at the present case. Obama has lowered taxes far more than Bush ever did and at the same time increased Federal spending to record levels. So, it's become the worst of both worlds. We have the illusion of low taxes, but we don't even have high growth (or even moderate growth) to compensate. The current situation is not sustainable.

I personally would like to see a moderate increase in taxes, a significant reduction in tax deductions, coupled with an increase in the SS and Medicare retirement age (to the 70 or greater range) and a significant decrease in discretionary spending.

[ June 27, 2011, 10:52 AM: Message edited by: JWatts ]

Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Actually, that's a misinterpretation of the Laffer curve. Revenues don't directly rise after a tax decrease. Instead, growth increases.
You say that as if it were true, but history frequently provides proof that it is not true. Growth was higher after Clinton raised taxes than it was after Bush II lowered them.
Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
At that point you haven't really lowered taxes. Instead you've merely deferred them (with interest) to a future time.
That's completely unsubstantiated. You've provided baseline investment opportunities, but unless your objective is to defund the economy, nothing is deferred, you've simply ensured a private sector revenue source to be used for future growth.

Right now we're seeing slow growth and record profits at the same time. The deficit isn't the problem, the problem is that the money created be the deficit is flowing almost directly into corporate accounts so that they don't need to hire anyone or increase their production to attract it from consumers, and taxes are low enough on them that there's no hot-potato effect encouraging them to spend it.

The net change in private sector assets, by the simple rules of arithmetic, has to be equal to the inverse change in public sector assets. Government Account Balance + Private Account (+ Foreign Account Balance) = 0.

It's no accident that every government surplus that we've ever run has been followed relatively quickly be an economic crash, even if we managed to delay this one for about a decade through excessive amounts of private sector debt.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Greg Davidson:
quote:
Actually, that's a misinterpretation of the Laffer curve. Revenues don't directly rise after a tax decrease. Instead, growth increases.
You say that as if it were true, but history frequently provides proof that it is not true. Growth was higher after Clinton raised taxes than it was after Bush II lowered them.
That doesn't contradict what he said. It's possible (bizarre but conceivable) that increasing taxes decreases REVENUE and yet increases GROWTH. [Confused]
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Greg Davidson:
quote:
Actually, that's a misinterpretation of the Laffer curve. Revenues don't directly rise after a tax decrease. Instead, growth increases.
You say that as if it were true, but history frequently provides proof that it is not true. Growth was higher after Clinton raised taxes than it was after Bush II lowered them.
Well, a thoughtful person might consider that there are multiple contributing factors to the economy and that the effective marginal tax rate is merely one of those. And indeed that's probably why I used the phrase "In general, lower tax rates will increase growth.".

I would also add that the Bush I tax increases, the Clinton tax increases, the Bush II tax decreases and the Obama tax decreases have been fairly moderate and unlikely to greatly affect the rate of growth of the US economy.

The Reagan tax cuts were (at a marginal level) far greater and encouraged a large amount of wealth to move from tax protected, low growth accounts to more economically productive areas.

Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Okay, it would be nice to see some data inform this speculation. Cutting marginal tax rates should increase growth by some level, but if so, we would also expect to growth decline by some level when marginal tax rates are raised. If the switches between Bush I, Clinton and Bush II are too small to have a measurable impact, and if we are really concerned about the deficit/debt, then we should immediately push marginal tax rates at least up to the Clinton levels.
Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Blayne Bradley
Member
Member # 2550

 - posted      Profile for Blayne Bradley   Email Blayne Bradley   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Except in general lower taxes have never increased growth in a significant fashion. At least on a "whole", I see constant historical examples of Great Powers spurring growth but only through state intervention and direction of resources to that sector through a complex system of financial incentives, tariffs, subsidies and taxation.

Excluding military spending from the equation right now you have most of the world operating with consumption based economies and resource scarcity; as in Firms produce a product, people buy product, company hires people to make more product, costs go down, derivatives are made, more people have more money so they buy more economy growths and government skims a little off the top.

Right now in this enviroment if you want to increase growth then people need more demand for goods and services. Right now thinking seems to be that if a company has lower expenses that means they'll have more income in which to hire people.... But there isn't going to be an appreciable increase in demand just by a few companyes hiring 10,000 here or there.

You have millions of people with significant debts, millions out of work, taxes in the US and Canada are already fairly dang low for most industrialized countries.

Republican proposals and Canadian Conservative Work-Arounds are all tackling the wrong part of the problem, they are trying to do efficiency gaining acts of cost cutting rather then fighting the root problem. A relative tumbling of American quality and innovation in your service based economy.

[Whereas Canadian Conservatives are aiming for a resource extraction based economy and cutting spending on infrastructure and investment in R&D and education which will lead to primitivization of Canadian competition]

The Neokeynesian Semi Hayekian solution in this case would be to increase demand by the government instead of shoring up businesses here and there with trimmings would be instead to buy the private debt of all citizens and clearing their credit ratings, paying for mortgages etc.

You'ld have certain a huge shortterm/boom/bubble of growth again for a little while before it bursts for sure and get you out of the current crisis potentially buying you enough time to restructure and put in a more permanent solution, but is still the wrong solution.

Right now you need to cut back on spending and raise revenues, from there you work on increasing social and work mobility through progressive social programs.

For example, instead of bailouts they could have spent a fraction of that money on paying 80% of the working wage straight to the laid off employees to help them find new jobs, or pay for their education to newer better jobs if they're willing to return to school and give credits.

You would thus have: Businesses less likely to be motivated by perverse price signals and work on more sane market symbols ie, no longer operating under the assumption "if we fail we'll just be bailed out." Workers with increased mobility through social support will be more easily enabled to find better quality jobs, forcing companies who want to get top notch workers to offer better incentives (because workers are no longer forced to accept whatever comes along first and can pick and choose without threat of foreclosure, confiscations, starvation etc).

Increased emphasis on educational investment will allow for longterm growth by outputting more and better quality people in the workforce, increasing GDP per capita through productivity gains.

Thus, economic sectors will perform in a more healthy fashion, the standard of living will go up as companies need to compete more to acquire the best and the brightest (mandating less regulation even!), the number of best and brightest will gradually increase through educational long term strategic investment and the economy will grow covering the costs of the investment.

This investment, covering all things from free or low cost education (did you know that for 100$ of semester you can become professionally certified in just about any vocational field or craft in Quebec?), light rail, improved public transportation (increasing public mobility, enabling people to acquire better jobs without the pain and cost of moving to new locations, etc) etc.

The biggest problem is Globalism, in someways its fantastic in terms of potential at least long term regarding humanities ability to cooperate and integrate with each other making the world smaller and improving everyone etc.

But is problematic in the short term because the ones most benefiting are globalist multinational corporations who can easily evade taxation, regulations, workers rights, operating costs etc through arbitrage.

If everyone had a similar standard of living and standardization the problem would be minimal, but right now the cost differences are so huge between production in say Vietnam versus the States that it plays havok with market signals.

Many people are taking the wrong lessons from this and think the solution is to reduce our own standard of living just to bring said ****ty jobs back to our country and destroy the middle class in the process. Wrong lesson, we need to "think smarter" not "harder/longer", the US virtually has no competitiveness regarding manufacturing because anyone and anywhere else can do it cheaper for varying but roughly on par levels of quality.

It is time to make significant strives upwards in the production chain, tariffs ultimately hurt your ability to be competitive, let industries die, or better yet make them die earlier it'll only speed up the process.

But the focus on education and you'll have a better trained more flexible workforce able to adapt to changing market circumstances, this is where state intervention is key.

Euthanasize failing sectors and actively help the shift to newer higher quality sectors, produce less better then more crappier.

Laissez faire can't work in a global setting where various countries have the government playing an active role in the economy beefing up their competitiveness.

You want the State playing a role in helping speed along the economy being able to adapt to changing world circumstances, it can play less of role when the world is more on par with you and market signals in one country become on par with others, diminishing the effect.

Posts: 389 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Greg Davidson:
If the switches between Bush I, Clinton and Bush II are too small to have a measurable impact, and if we are really concerned about the deficit/debt, then we should immediately push marginal tax rates at least up to the Clinton levels.

No we should cut spending down to a 1950 to 1970 level.
Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Would you also attempt to reduce the population to that level?
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
Would you also attempt to reduce the population to that level?

And technology level, productivity, and workforce participation rates, not to mention reinstating worker protection rules and priming the system with a level of spending comparable to the 40's before that. And even then, you'd still have to adopt the same tax policies to get similar performance.

A far bigger deal overall would be getting relative worker compensation levels back to the same rate per unit of output as they were in the 50's, rather than the current practice of increasing productivity and reducing relative compensation at the same time.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I don't know how accurate this is, or what other variables have been excluded, but here is a graph of historical tax rates since 1960: Graph
quote:
Since the 1960s, the total federal tax rate has fallen for low earners, risen for relatively high earners and fallen significantly for very high earners.

Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Blayne Bradley
Member
Member # 2550

 - posted      Profile for Blayne Bradley   Email Blayne Bradley   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by JWatts:
quote:
Originally posted by Greg Davidson:
If the switches between Bush I, Clinton and Bush II are too small to have a measurable impact, and if we are really concerned about the deficit/debt, then we should immediately push marginal tax rates at least up to the Clinton levels.

No we should cut spending down to a 1950 to 1970 level.
As long as the spending cut is the non-r&d military spending.
Posts: 389 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
And here is a visual comparison of spending to GDP since 1902, broken out by 'major function': Graph
Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by DonaldD:
And here is a visual comparison of spending to GDP since 1902, broken out by 'major function': Graph

Nice graph but I wish it would contain spending on debt interest and it's comensurate growth.
Posts: 3264 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Your Google-fu is not strong, Padawan?
Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Google-fu?" "Padawan?"

You're mixing mythos there, Donald. And that's worse than mixing metaphors. [Smile]

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by DonaldD:
Your Google-fu is not strong, Padawan?

LOL, the force is not strong in this one today, I'm taking enough time from work on the forum.
Posts: 3264 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
Would you also attempt to reduce the population to that level?

I was referring to spending as a percentage of GDP, of course, but I always forget some of you always attempt to demonize the opposition rather than understand them.
Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It was fortunate that you specified spending levels down to 1950, since apparently that is our current level of gross receipts as compared to GDP. [Smile]
Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by JWatts:
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
Would you also attempt to reduce the population to that level?

I was referring to spending as a percentage of GDP, of course, but I always forget some of you always attempt to demonize the opposition rather than understand them.
Give me a decade of deficits at the level we ran in the 40's and I'll let you follow it up with the levels of 50's and 60's in a heartbeat.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
Give me a decade of deficits at the level we ran in the 40's and I'll let you follow it up with the levels of 50's and 60's in a heartbeat.

I see no reason that the US government should be deficit spending at a level equal to what was required to fight WW2. Though President Obama is probably on a path to be a second to the WW2 deficit expenditures.

[ June 28, 2011, 03:52 PM: Message edited by: JWatts ]

Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by JWatts:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
Give me a decade of deficits at the level we ran in the 40's and I'll let you follow it up with the levels of 50's and 60's in a heartbeat.

I see no reason that the US government should be deficit spending at a level equal to what was required to fight WW2. Though President Obama is probably on a path to be a second to the WW2 deficit expenditures.
You can't ride a wave without first creating the wave.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
You can't ride a wave without first creating the wave.

I have a brilliant idea [Smile]

Why don't we reintroduce the draft? [Big Grin]

Alleviate unemployment. Skill training and all that.

Posts: 3264 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Grant:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
You can't ride a wave without first creating the wave.

I have a brilliant idea [Smile]

Why don't we reintroduce the draft? [Big Grin]

Alleviate unemployment. Skill training and all that.

That would be one way, though not very productive overall in the short term. Make it a domestic infrastructure oriented draft, and I'm all ears. Declare "war" of degraded and outdated infrastructure and we can take care of two problems at once.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1