Greetings, and welcome to the World Affairs Board!
The World Affairs Board is the premier forum for the discussion of the pressing geopolitical issues of our time. Topics include military and defense developments, international terrorism, insurgency & COIN doctrine, international security and policing, weapons proliferation, and military technological development.
Our membership includes many from military, defense, academic, and government backgrounds with expert knowledge on a wide range of topics. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so why not register a World Affairs Board account and join our community today?
"will" is too strong; i'd affix "generally" in front of it, and add further qualifiers, "at the national level", "especially on the wealthy".
a lot of small exceptions; clinton raised marginal rates on the wealthy but also significantly enlarged tax credits/shelters for the middle class (the Roth IRA, for instance). truman cut taxes for low-income folks and reduced payroll taxes.
So, do you believe that my money is mine first or someone else's first?
If the dems were truly pragmatic when it comes to taxes, they would have let the Bush tax cuts lapse in 2010.
it's precisely that they -didn't- which shows they were pragmatic, both politically and economically. there's nothing like the GOP's base ideology of tax cuts uber alles-- no 'higher taxes, all the time please' equivalent.
and raising taxes in a recession is a bad idea. the deal made this year, while not all it could be, was better timing.
There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov
So, do you believe that my money is mine first or someone else's first??
ah yes, the ideological argument.
your money is yours first, of course, with the full realization that you, as a citizen of the Republic, have an obligation to the rest of the nation-- obligations which you and your fellow citizens decide upon through duly-elected representatives.
There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov
So, in your view, by how much would taxes need to be cut for the laffer curve to apply? Seeing as you can now borrow at negative real rates anyway (thanks to the Fed) are you suggesting that taxes could have been cut further?
there's just so much economic misunderstanding here that my head hurts.
what i meant by the laffer curve statement is that at our current tax rates, a further reduction in taxes will NOT generate enough economic activity/economic efficiency to make up for the loss of revenue.
the reverse also applies; an increase in taxes will not diminish economic activity/efficiency enough to actually reduce revenue.
when the marginal tax rate is approximately 60%, then the laffer curve begins to apply-- reducing taxes will have a noticeable positive impact on economic activity/efficiency. at rates of 70-80%, further taxation will actually reduce revenue.
There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov
your money is yours first, of course, with the full realization that you, as a citizen of the Republic, have an obligation to the rest of the nation-- obligations which you and your fellow citizens decide upon through duly-elected representatives.
Well, I happen to have an ideology or two so sure, I often take positions based upon them.
And granting that I have the obligations you describe, who's going to generally decrease them - Dems or Repubs?
what i meant by the laffer curve statement is that at our current tax rates, a further reduction in taxes will NOT generate enough economic activity/economic efficiency to make up for the loss of revenue.
I was referring to the Bush tax cuts that I quoted you as referring to... and the answer? Well it's clear since you endorse the Fed rigging the bond market and everything else so that you can have an negative real borrowing rate anytime you want that the size of debts or the amount the tax levied on the people need never be reduced. I presume you would not accept that as true? So given that real wages are falling (so presumably Krugman is wrong about individuals savings), that more people are on food stamps than ever before, but yet that stock market is at an all time high and bond yields near all time lows... when does the man on street get some Bernanke 'magic money'?
"I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world no longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men."
And on a related note, Boehner all but says Romney's personality lost the election. I don't know if I buy that. But he is right that a majority of Americans "think Washington has a spending problem".
But he is right that a majority of Americans "think Washington has a spending problem".
think we've mentioned this a time or three but it's akin to the "Congress sucks except for my Congressman" problem. when asked what they would cut, huge majorities put SS/medicare/medicaid off limits, and instead want to raise taxes on the wealthy and cut military spending.
"conservatism with liberal characteristics", indeed...
There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov
think we've mentioned this a time or three but it's akin to the "Congress sucks except for my Congressman" problem. when asked what they would cut, huge majorities put SS/medicare/medicaid off limits, and instead want to raise taxes on the wealthy and cut military spending.
"conservatism with liberal characteristics", indeed...
On your basic point--NIMBY economics--I agree. The people will never take an objective, what's-best-for-the-country position. The only bad spending is the spending that benefits someone else. I recognize that in myself even as I argue for what's best for the country. Our economic system needs a thorough Roto-Rootering, but God forbid we should inconvenience anyone to do it. We'll just keep sailing along until it clogs up. Brace yourself for significant inflation. :)
To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education - Plato
On your basic point--NIMBY economics--I agree. The people will never take an objective, what's-best-for-the-country position. The only bad spending is the spending that benefits someone else. I recognize that in myself even as I argue for what's best for the country. Our economic system needs a thorough Roto-Rootering, but God forbid we should inconvenience anyone to do it. We'll just keep sailing along until it clogs up. Brace yourself for significant inflation. :)
Wait up there, Hoss :) - I've advocated things that I'm ideologically opposed to (higher taxes) or cuts to things I'm personally invested in (government space exploration) in order to address the problems in spending I see. We're not ALL NIMBYs. :)
Our economic system needs a thorough Roto-Rootering, but God forbid we should inconvenience anyone to do it.
it's a self-correcting issue, for the most part. realistically, debt will probably stabilize at approximately 85-95% of GDP, somewhat lower than the norm in western europe (which makes sense, we have better demographics, better higher education/tech base, access to natural resources, and immigration).
there will be no disaster, no greece-like event-- we produce rather more than luxury olive oils and tourism.
as for significant inflation...yeah, i've heard this since 2008/2009. this definitely will not happen in the short-term and there's a high probability of not happening in the medium-term, 10 years or so. i've literally bet my house on it for the last 3 years; quite a few people were telling me to buy when rates were 4.90% in mid-2009 as it was down from 6%+ a year or so earlier!
i got it several weeks ago for 2.75%. sorry, couldn't help the personal brag...:)
There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov
as for significant inflation...yeah, i've heard this since 2008/2009. this definitely will not happen in the short-term and there's a high probability of not happening in the medium-term, 10 years or so.
Yeah, IF you ignore energy and food prices. Have fun with that.
Tweet
Comment