Super democrats want super taxes...

[highsea]

Well, this is welcome news to everyone...

(Reuters) - Democrats want tax hikes to be the first item negotiated in "super committee" deficit-reduction talks, trying to force Republicans to confront an issue at the heart of this year's budget fights, sources told Reuters.

The tough stance by Democratic members of the powerful 12-member congressional panel reflects the party's wariness that Republicans might try to sideline the issue of revenue increases in the negotiations.

"They've raised the idea of doing taxes first," a Republican aide involved in the discussions said on Friday on condition of anonymity.

The panel has the task of finding ways of cutting the U.S. deficit by at least $1.2 trillion over 10 years. If it fails to agree on a plan by November 23, automatic spending cuts will be triggered, beginning in 2013.

<blah blah<

Exclusive: Democrats push tax hikes first in deficit talks | Reuters

I'm the opposite of that North Carolina Governor. I think we need an election this November, not next.

[FJV]

Bah humbug.

[QUOTESuper democrats want super taxes.[/QUOTE]

Suppose I'm Mr evil and I want to screw as much taxes as possible out of the American people.

Of course many would say I would tax close to 100%, but they would be wrong.

Why?, because of the laffer curve.



What this cuve shows is that if I tax 0% I will have zero revenue, however if I tax 100% I will also have zero revenue, because working will be pointless.

From this it follows that there must exist at least one rate in between where tax revenue would be a maximum.

And that is the rate I would tax if I would wanna screw as much taxes as possible out of the American people. Raising taxes above that level would be pointless, because revenue would drop. Lowering taxes below that level would also drop revenue.

So even a complete bastard who is only interested win getting the most revenue will never tax past the optimal point if he's competent. "Super taxes" close to 100% would defeat that purpose.

IMHO the best case you can make is that democrats want to tax on the maximum point on the Laffer curve, and others want to tax below that.

Not as a strong emotional point as [QUOTESuper democrats want super taxes.[/QUOTE] though.

[dalem]

a) Dems don't "believe" in the Laffer curve.
b) Dems aren't raising taxes to raise revenue - they are raising taxes because they want redistribution.

-dale

[astralis]

dale,

a) Dems don't "believe" in the Laffer curve.

not sure where you get this. economists of all stripes believe in some form of the laffer curve, the argument is where the arc bends.

b) Dems aren't raising taxes to raise revenue - they are raising taxes because they want redistribution.

again, not sure how you assign priority. there's a hodgepodge of proposals out there, some of which seem symbolic, others not so much.

IE the buffett rule would be symbolic more than anything else, whereas rescinding the bush tax cuts would raise revenue on a much larger scale.

[Roosveltrepub]

a) Dems don't "believe" in the Laffer curve.
b) Dems aren't raising taxes to raise revenue - they are raising taxes because they want redistribution.

-dale

That is untrue. it's like me saying republicans believe the curve kicks in at 15 percent. I think it ironic the curve shown would point to 50 percent as the drop off not 20

How about we raise taxes or at least eliminate loophole because we are running a 30 percent deficit after the grand republican cuts last yr? We are redistributing wealth and we have been. We have collected in excess of 2 trillion more than was needed in social security taxes the last 25 yrs and we are still running a 30 percent deficit. Seems to me all those cuts in taxes without cuts in spending but instead majir programs like prescription coverage and two wars were a generational redistribution of wealth and it needs to stop. Either we eliminate the safety net or riase somones taxes....the american people are hardly divided on which they prefer and you have to live in a bubble to deny that.

[FJV]

b) Dems aren't raising taxes to raise revenue - they are raising taxes because they want redistribution.

You get to redistribute the largest amount of money when you tax at the maximum revenue point on the Laffer curve.

If your goal you is to redistribute the largest amount of money possible then you are by definition interested in the Laffer curve.

PS
If you were saying democrats are too stupid to choose the optimal strategy to reach their goal, you might have had a point. But you didn't

[editec]

Rasing taxes now is bad economic policy.

Cutting spending now is likewise bad economic policy.

Our obsession with the bringing down the national debt now is a terrible mistake.

Back in 36, FDR's New Deal policy was helping. Unemplyment was on its way down. Economic activity was rising

Then FDR elected to try to pay down the nation debt.

Unemplyment started to go back up again.

If it hadn't been for the government infusing capital into the economy when it started massive deficit spending for WWII, we might still be in that depression.

We are in a period where trillions of dollars in unrealized equity, both stock values, and real estate values, vanished as prices crashed.

But the debts associated with acquiring those equities still exists.

Naturally people and corporations are working on bring their debts in line with their equity positions. Hence the consumers are not spending, and the busineses are not seeking to maximize profits, but instead they are seeking to protect their holdings

So reducing the amount of money in circulation is a stupid stupid stupid economic policy.

And both parties are signing onto this policy. The Rs want to cut social services, the Ds want to raise taxes.

Idiots.

[astralis]

editec,

good luck with that message in this forum, i've been saying the same thing for the last, oh, three years or so.

it's amazing how many people do not understand the concept/effect of de-leveraging.

[editec]

All we can do is keep pointing out the obvious.

Our leaders are either ecomplete idiots or their agenda is not what they claim it is.

[editec]

The laffer curve works only when the economy is functional operating within some boundaries of economic activity.

Geezeus! How hard is that to understand?

The economy is NOT a science project where the the same actions will always result in the same reactions.

Why?

Because economy is in a constantly changing state (plus the players are responding to any change made to it, too) and what might work under one circumstance is exactly the wrong thing to do under other circumstances.

Basically those of you with some dogmatic economic policy proposals are missing the point of what a macroeconomy really is.

It's' l like some of you are saying whenever you drive your car either always apply the breaks or always give it more gas.

Economics is social science, not a physical science.

[dalem]

dale,

not sure where you get this. economists of all stripes believe in some form of the laffer curve, the argument is where the arc bends.

I'm not talking about economists, I'm talking about pols and pundits. I've heard many of them talk about 70%, 80%, even 90% for the wealthiest brackets - I don't think that's a good Laffer curve for that bracket, do you?

again, not sure how you assign priority. there's a hodgepodge of proposals out there, some of which seem symbolic, others not so much.

IE the buffett rule would be symbolic more than anything else, whereas rescinding the bush tax cuts would raise revenue on a much larger scale.

I'm simply making the point that revenue isn't the dem's 1st priority compared to what they think of as "fairness" and other silly concepts.

-dale

[dalem]

So reducing the amount of money in circulation is a stupid stupid stupid economic policy.

You call QE I and II a reduction of money in circulation? And the trillion new dollars have done exactly what for this economy?

-dale

[astralis]

dale,

I've heard many of them talk about 70%, 80%, even 90% for the wealthiest brackets - I don't think that's a good Laffer curve for that bracket, do you?

your original assertion is that "dems don't believe in the laffer curve"; now it is "i've heard many of them talk about 70%, 80%, even 90% for the wealthiest brackets".

yet how much of this was talk and how much of it was actually serious? as far as i know, the only one which has really been debated at any length is returning rates to clinton-era levels, and raising the capital gains tax to income tax levels. given that quite a few blue dog dems disagree with even that, i'm not sure how you come to the conclusion that "dems don't believe in the laffer curve".

[dalem]

dale,



your original assertion is that "dems don't believe in the laffer curve"; now it is "i've heard many of them talk about 70%, 80%, even 90% for the wealthiest brackets".

yet how much of this was talk and how much of it was actually serious? as far as i know, the only one which has really been debated at any length is returning rates to clinton-era levels, and raising the capital gains tax to income tax levels. given that quite a few blue dog dems disagree with even that, i'm not sure how you come to the conclusion that "dems don't believe in the laffer curve".

They treat taxes as something to be reduced reluctantly from 100% as opposed to raised reluctantly from 0%.

-dale

[astralis]

They treat taxes as something to be reduced reluctantly from 100% as opposed to raised reluctantly from 0%.

-dale

i see. in short, you believe blue-dog dems, New Dems/DLC, etc are all the same as Bernie Sanders.