FROM 2012 INTO 2013 POLITICS THREAD

Re: THE 2012 POLITICS THREAD

Incorrect, Az. If poor people paid more taxes they'd have skin in the game and more attuned to government.

 

Re: THE 2012 POLITICS THREAD

Yeah, I get the concept--I've gotten it since I first learned about the good ole Laffer curve in freshman economics decades ago--slash income taxes for upper incomes and businesses, means more income for them, which actually ends meaning more income tax revenue for us, win win for everybody, yeah!!

Problem is the real world empirical evidence tells us it doesn't work. Whenever it's tried, the impact on govt budgets ends up being wildly soaring deficits and debt, not revenue. The notion that we can magically get more tax money by cutting taxes, although it sounds wonderful, has been well debunked by history.

You wanna know why Romney didn't give the answer you wanted last night? Perhaps because he knew Obama had the easy comeback--"Yeah, that's the same damn thing Bush/Cheney told us. And what happened instead?"

 

Re: THE 2012 POLITICS THREAD

The Laffer curve assumes that a lower tax rate will drive more income. I am not saying that. I am saying that if you can increase income, you can lower tax rates and still make more or equal revenue.

If I make $100, you can tax me at 10% and I will pay $10. however, if I make $200, you can take me a 9% and make $18. Lower tax rate, more revenue. Obviously that is overly simplified, but that's the point I am trying to make.

I don't think you can look at tax policy alone and say that raising or lower tax rates will drive economic growth or drive revenue all by itself.

You have to improve the economy AND adjust tax rates.

 

Re: THE 2012 POLITICS THREAD

You are aware that this country did just fine without a federal income tax for its first 137 years, aren't you?

 

Re: THE 2012 POLITICS THREAD

My tax rate hasn't gone up. Only down.

 

Re: THE 2012 POLITICS THREAD

Right, but it's a Republican mantra that reducing tax rates, especially among the wealthiest, in and of itself drives economic growth. That's been shown repeatedly not to be true. Things are much more complicated than that. If it were all about tax rates, Silicon Valley would be in Mississippi. On the other hand, just because taxes are high doesn't automatically mean your schools and roads are great.

Clearly, there's always a sweet spot, that's always changing, and always difficult to find, on when raising or changing tax rates spurs or inhibits growth, and on when raising or changing tax rates spurs or inhibits deficit reduction.

 

Re: THE 2012 POLITICS THREAD

Economics (my major) is fairly simple on paper, but there are major assumptions, like in the Laffer curve that someone will actually earn more income, or on the supply demand curve that there is perfect information.

Cutting taxes while increasing expenditures (hello Reagan, Bush 43)? Death to the economy, as borne out by our recent history. "Supply side" economics sounds good, but has not been effective.

What's most effective for the economy? Avoiding deficit spending.

Also, the President cannot enact legislation by himself nor "create" jobs by himself.

 

Re: THE 2012 POLITICS THREAD

By 'did just fine,' do you mean the average annual wage in 1850, which was $300? Or the average annual lifespan, which was less than 40?

Surely our prosperity and health and the improvement in the general welfare since then is attributable in some small way to federal taxes? Even if only to secure our national defense.

 

Re: THE 2012 POLITICS THREAD

It also seems to be a rule of thumb that putting a little money in more people's pockets does a lot more for the economy than putting a lot of money in a few. The theory being, someone who isn't swimming in money will spend those extra couple of bucks, thus priming the economic pump, where someone with a lot of money MIGHT spend it or "create jobs," but also might just put in it his pocket for later.

 

Re: THE 2012 POLITICS THREAD

Well, when you've got free labor to build the country it's a little easier to keep costs down.

 

Re: THE 2012 POLITICS THREAD

You've got to keep money moving. That's a constant.
So the more the One-Percenters keep it to themselves, the less the middle class gets to play with it.

 

Re: THE 2012 POLITICS THREAD

What were federal revenues at the start and end of the Reagan administration? Here's a hint: They nearly doubled.