Quote:
|
Originally Posted by roachboy
i could just as easily correlate the number of letters in your posts with the fluctuations of the price of oil, present it in a little graphic and make the same claims about it. that you can plot two lines and juxtapose them, and claim they both are "real world data" means nothing, ace. you should know this. i'm surprised that you're even trying to make these claims float.
|
I am confused by your response. Perhaps, if you were more specific I would understand. First, are you questioning the fact that there is no correlation between high marginal tax rates and taxes collected as a percent of GDP? That was the point of the Hauser's graphic. Some people think high marginal tax rates are justifiable because of increased tax revenues. Hauser's graphic suggests that GDP growth leads to higher tax revenues. Some people justify their interest in rolling back the Bush tax cuts because they think that when Bush lowered high marginal tax rates on the "rich" that it adversely affected taxes collected and GDP (or the strength of the economy). Perhaps there are good reasons to support the roll-back of Bush's tax cuts, but perhaps this common reason given is not a good reason.
I think there is evidence that suggests that wealthy people, i.e. Warren Buffet can amass big increases in net worth, while not being impacted by marginal tax rates. Are you questioning this evidence?
Quote:
as for what's not there---read host's or dc's posts above.
look at the blog entry linked above--all operating at a level of reduced information, but enough to show that the lines hauser draws are more interesting for the process of isolating them than they are for what they say, particularly in relation to each other, and even more as the basis for the claims that are reproduced in the wsj edito by some guy.
|
I looked at their posts and the links, and found nothing that countered the conclusions I made relative to Hauser's data. That is why I asked you to help me see it.
Quote:
on your more curious claims:
supply side exists as a body of pseudo-theory, that is real-world information.
the performance of american neoliberal regimes influenced by supplyside has been abysmal. there's already information in the thread--nice objective seeming graphics, if you like, that makes that case. ignoring it and repeating that "supply side is real world data" is meaningless.
everything is real-world data.
your posts are. my posts are. everything anyone writes is. all information in the world. not necessarily information about the world, but in it.
there's a difference.
|
My understanding of "supply-side" seems different from yours. In my view there is clearly a "suppl-side" sweet spot when it comes to tax policy. There is a range where it has a big impact and a range where it would have no impact.
Again, I ask what would your behavior be under a 100% marginal tax rate compared to a 10% marginal tax rate. If your employer offered you overtime at 1.5 times your normal salary, but after taxes your net take home from that effort was $0, what would you do? what would you do if it were 90%. If we lived in a situation where productive people face 100% marginal rate wouldn't production reach a theoretical peak much sooner at a 100% marginal tax rate situation compared to a 10% rate? Would that be good or bad for GDP? Then if taxes collected as a percentage of GDP always averaged about 20%, would that be good or bad for tax revenues?
You can certainly help me understand your objections to Hauser and to my views regarding supply side, or you can repeat how I lack objectivity, logic, reason, or whatever you think about me personally. Your choice, just keep in mind, I don't care what you think about me, I am interested in the argument.
Also, it was the author of the WSJ editorial who introduced "Hauser's Law", I think it is the author who wants to elevate Hauser's graphic. I don't see that as the issue. To me the point is the lack of correlation between marginal tax rates and taxes collected as a percentage of GDP.