Quote:
|
Originally Posted by loquitur
No, it's not an issue of bias. It's an issue of having had an awareness of multiple factors going on at the same time, as distinct from readin about something and reconstructing it. The conclusions gleaned from the latter process are highly dependent on the reader's choice of sources and assignment of significance.
|
The statistics I quoted are valid.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by loquitur
And btw, Will, by your logic the Bush I tax hike should have triggered prosperity like the Clinton tax hike did. But it didn't. In fact it was partly responsible for Bush's loss in '92 and partly responsible for the 91-92 slowdown.
|
Bush had to clean up the massive debt that Reagan had amassed (something like $220B, which is paltry compared to today). But, if you remember, he decision to raise taxes falls on the collective shoulders of the Democratic Congress. Reagan's policies had created a more partisan air in Congress and with it Democratically controlled, Bush 1 was basically screwed either way.
1990-1991? The S&L market collapsed due to what I would consider the eventual fault of capitalism (but that's for another thread). The fact is that the late 80s/early 90s recession was technically worse than the great depression, but somehow the effect was no where near as bad.
I'm not sure how you can expect the tax hikes to perform miracles.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by loquitur
As far as the total tax burden thing goes: what the federal government has been doing with SS money is reprehensible. But if it treats SS contributions as taxes, which it does now and always has, then it's fair to consider them as taxes when assessing how much gets taken out of the economy as taxes. The money flows out of private hands anyway, and is part of the gross burden no matter how you slice it. If people have an incentive to plan their affairs (which most people do) and the ability to do so effectively (which rises as you go up the income ladder) then there is certainly a correlation between top rate and total tax burden. It's not totally linear, of course, but it's there.
The other thing is, people (me included) who think SS is getting a raw deal from the govt should be screaming about taking the thing out of the govt's hands, where politicians can put their hands on it, and putting it into regulated investment accounts where it can't be touched. People would be MUCH better off with mandatory retirement contribution accounts and a choice of vehicles than with the current Ponzi scheme. At the very least, if you have a superstitious belief that retirement MUST be handled by the govt, you should be agitating to take it off the regular budget. Right now the govt is stealing from future generations.
|
If you'd like we can study what happened to SS under Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton, and Dubuyuh. That may shed some light on your concerns about it's mismanagement.