05-21-2008, 02:23 PM | #41 (permalink) |
Adrift
Location: Wandering in the Desert of Life
|
I would recommend this post from CondeNast Porfolio.com. It takes a good look at Mr. Ranson's article and Mr. Hauser's Law.
http://www.portfolio.com/views/blogs...ts-wsj-edition
__________________
Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so." -Douglas Adams |
05-21-2008, 02:28 PM | #42 (permalink) |
Location: Washington DC
|
Yep...that sums it up.
I particularly agree with the conclusion: Hauser's Law, which is really the Laffer Curve by another name, depends on very Democrat-friendly programs for its validity.Where would Hauser be w/o Social Security/Medicare taxes? Would it be appropriate to rename ace's chart Hauser's Flaw rather than Hauser's Law. I think so.
__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 05-21-2008 at 03:06 PM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost |
05-22-2008, 05:56 AM | #43 (permalink) | |
Junkie
Location: NYC
|
Quote:
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. 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. |
|
05-22-2008, 08:26 AM | #44 (permalink) | |
Junkie
Location: Ventura County
|
To those of you who don't accept Hauser's graph. I agree that you can not perfectly correlate top marginal tax rates with total taxes collected. The complexity of our tax code would not allow for that type of a clear correlation. But, I think there is something to be gained and that is that the top marginal tax rate is not correlated to total taxes collected. Kinda circular, isn't it. Well some believe that if you raise marginal tax rates on the rich, total taxes collected increase. This is clearly false. Hauser's graph shows that. So as Democrats obsess over top marginal rates, you folks know better, Right?
Second, the point of my OP is that you can not "soak" the rich through income tax policy. No one has responded to that yet, in fact many of you have turned tail and have run as far as you can from responding to that point. No one has addressed the issue that a guy like Warren Buffet can accumulate an additional $10 billion in wealth and pay no additional taxes on it. Buffet is not the only one who does it, check in with the Kennedy's, Kerry, Gore, Pelosi, etc., etc., etc. Rich people manage their income tax burden, social security taxes cap and Medicare taxes are an accepted cost but also managed. Let me ask a question, especially for those outraged by CEO salaries. Let's say we have CEO - A who is paid a $4,000,000 per year salary with the same benefits package as all of his employees. He/she pays income tax on $4,000,000 income and pays for what he/she consumes with after tax dollars. Let's say we have CEO - B who is paid $250,000 per year salary, gets the rights to stock options, deferred compensation and other perks, net values of $4,000,000. He/she consumes mostly with pre-tax or non-taxed dollars. Which is better for the government from a tax collection point of view? Don't you actually want CEO taxable income to be high or at least an accurate reflection of their total compensation in current dollars? Here is something on the subject easy to digest. Keep in mind the average Joe's compensation is pretty simple, W2 income where taxes are taken out before Joe gets his portion. CEO's and their companies spend, who knows how much in money, time and other resources to come up with compensation packages that are tax efficient. Quote:
Again, I am beginning to think the value of the information shared is being lost on some of you. For me this exercise was valuable because I think I have a better understanding of Warren Buffet. I think he uses the rules to his maximum advantage, doesn't try to change public perception, actually goes along with public perception, while he smiles all the way to the bank. Goodness, the man is brilliant. Go ahead raise the top marginal income tax rate to 100% if you want.
__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers." Last edited by aceventura3; 05-22-2008 at 08:28 AM.. |
|
05-22-2008, 09:13 AM | #45 (permalink) | |||
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
|
Quote:
Quote:
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:
|
|||
05-22-2008, 01:24 PM | #46 (permalink) | |
Junkie
Location: NYC
|
Actually the S&L market collapsed due to regulatory bungling, bait-and-switch by the federal govt and a few shady operators. I worked on some of the clean up from that mess and it was ugly.
Bush raised taxes because he was politically boxed in. The purported huge debt was not, as a percentage of GDP, all that big. But irrespective of the REASONS, if your theory is that raising taxes leads to prosperity a la Clinton in '93, you still have to explain Bush I. SS is now and has been for many years a Ponzi scheme. Quote:
|
|
05-22-2008, 01:50 PM | #47 (permalink) | |
Location: Washington DC
|
If Hauser can make broad sweeping conclusions in his chart, I wanna do the same:
Call it Dux Deduces...that supply side economics is a FAILED economic theory...each time it was applied (1981-1989, 2001-2008) with massive tax cuts, US national debt as a percent of GDP rose significantly: It is as clear as black and red.... as income tax rates are adjusted down on the top wage earners, national debt increases as percent of GDP. Further supported by a 2005 CBO study (pdf) Quote:
__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 05-22-2008 at 02:02 PM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost |
|
05-22-2008, 02:05 PM | #48 (permalink) | ||
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
05-22-2008, 02:14 PM | #49 (permalink) | |
Alien Anthropologist
Location: Between Boredom and Nirvana
|
Quote:
Nope, never. And which party gives more to those who earn less, it sure isn't the Republicans! They always protect the rich. Hence the oil crisis. Those guys are all Republicans. I could go on & on but I'm certain you are a Republican droogy & it's not worth my time.
__________________
"I need compassion, understanding and chocolate." - NJB |
|
05-22-2008, 02:48 PM | #50 (permalink) | ||
Junkie
Location: Ventura County
|
Quote:
To be clear, all Hauser's graph is showing is that there is no correlation between top marginal income tax rates and tax revenues as a percentage of GDP. However, there is a correlation between tax revenues collected and GDP. If you grow the economy, you can grow government spending without amassing debt. I will give you a hint. If you want to prove something that contradicts the implications of Hauser's graph - you need to show there is no correlation between tax revenues and GDP. Which you can not do. Or, you need to show that high marginal tax rates are more correlated to GDP growth than the inverse. You can not do that either. And since we know you can not do it, please find your most liberal minded, anti-supply side economist and have him or her join the discussion then perhaps we can move away from the humor. "Dux Deduces", ha, ha, ha, you are pretty funny. {added} Just to show I read your link. Here is a tidbit from the CBO analysis: Quote:
__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers." Last edited by aceventura3; 05-22-2008 at 02:56 PM.. |
||
05-22-2008, 02:58 PM | #52 (permalink) |
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
|
correlation is not causation, ace.
you can show correlation between any two variables and even produce a nifty graph that makes it appear o-so-objective. but your entire information source is a wsj editorial. you are defending a hopeless economic theory. this does not speak well to credibility of your arguments. i was hoping to find hauser's paper in which this model was developed, but so far my intermittent net access (one of the real treats of moving house) has gotten in the way--from what i have found, however, i am more than suspicious of everything about the infotainment you provided. so do you have the research behind this ace? have you looked into how the modelling was done, what the methodology was? if so, care to explain it? or post a link? because so far as i can see, all you've got behind your supply-side cant is an editorial that presents NO information that you believe because it fits with your metaphysical understanding of markets. if you don't have the information, and given that anyone can generate correlations using a regression analysis or any number of other relatively simple statistical models, and that no chart bit in a wsj editorial without any reference to method, without any reference to context can possibly be seen by anyone--not even a believer like yourself--to prove fuck all, i don't really see what you've got to be so cocky about, nor do i see on what basis you get to set the criteria for refutation of hauser's "law"--PARTICULARLY given that there is already information in the thread that takes it apart. do let me know when you find that data, ace.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 05-22-2008 at 03:00 PM.. |
05-22-2008, 02:59 PM | #53 (permalink) | ||
Junkie
Location: Ventura County
|
Quote:
Quote:
I am not sure what takes Hauser's chart apart, please show me. All he does is show marginal tax rates (factual data) and tax revenues as a percentage of GDP (factual data).
__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers." Last edited by aceventura3; 05-22-2008 at 03:11 PM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost |
||
05-22-2008, 04:21 PM | #54 (permalink) |
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
|
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.
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. (it's hard to tell much about him, btw, as his company's website requires you to subscribe to find out much of anything about it. they are freer with their press releases, but they're press releases.) 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.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 05-22-2008 at 04:27 PM.. |
05-22-2008, 05:32 PM | #55 (permalink) | |
Junkie
Location: NYC
|
Quote:
The case I worked on had to do with what happens if the govt seizes a bank that it had no legal right to seize - does the old owner get the bank back? a claim for damages? both? up the creek with no paddle? Stuff like that happened, and Congress never considered what might happen if the bureaucrats it was empowering abused their power - which is pretty typical of how government operates; it can't think of everything and usually doesn't. It did keep lawyers occupied, though. Roachboy, is it your position that people don't respond to incentives? At its essence, "supply side" is just a jargon reference to the concept that incentives matter. And they really do. Last edited by loquitur; 05-22-2008 at 05:34 PM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost |
|
05-22-2008, 05:58 PM | #56 (permalink) | |||
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
|
Quote:
I did get that "when will people learn" feeling though, so I get what you're saying. Ultimately the investor does have to take responsibility for his or her investment. Quote:
I still believe my point still stands regarding the change in economic policy under Bush1. Saying that removing supply-side policies didn't work during the 1991 recession is a refusal of looking at the big picture, something you claimed to have a particularly better handle on due to your age and involvement in all this. In all honesty, you probably do know more about it than I do, but I suspect that your normal biases (biases that we all have in one way or another) are coloring your memories a tiny bit. We clearly both come from different schools of thought on the subject. Quote:
|
|||
05-22-2008, 06:16 PM | #57 (permalink) |
Junkie
Location: NYC
|
Actually, Will, our views are sort of mirrors: you think the 93 tax hike caused the subsequent prosperity, and that if not for the S&L crisis the 91 tax hike would have also. My view is that, although both tax hikes were small, so that the effects were marginal, the 91 tax hike did harm the economy; the S&L crisis by itself wasn't enough to do it, but there was an accumulation of things, including the normal cycle of business after 7 years of prosperity. The 93 hike was small, and was so overwhelmed by the huge rush of technology-driven productivity and investment (plus the uptick from the start of the recovery) that it ultimately had almost no effect at all on the larger economy.
|
05-22-2008, 06:23 PM | #58 (permalink) |
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
|
Well the S&L is just the biggest of the causes of the recession. The deficit, unemployment, poor GDP performance, etc. all contributed.
BTW, the totally incoherent thing was me referring to the 1987 stock market collapse, which was technically larger than the crash in 1929. |
05-22-2008, 07:01 PM | #60 (permalink) | |
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
|
Quote:
the celtics are losing, so i'm not going to address the stuff about supply side at the moment. displacement in action, it'd be, methinks.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite |
|
05-23-2008, 11:07 AM | #62 (permalink) |
Junkie
Location: NYC
|
But in the '29 crash it kept dropping, and within two years (or thereabouts) bottomed. The day after the '87 crash the Dow recovered something on the order of 350 points, and there was no economic downturn until years later. That's why it depends what you're measuring.
|
05-24-2008, 08:22 PM | #63 (permalink) | |
Tilted
|
Quote:
You know, I grew up in the late 80's and early 90's, and my grandfather, who I dearly miss, grew up in the 20's and was shipped off to war in Europe at the age of 19. From the stories he told me, I'm surprised a country boy from Arkansas lived long enough to be shipped off to war. Will, the late 80's and early 90's weren't any where near the great depression. It doesn't matter how you measure it. You can lose sight of the forest amongst all the trees. I'm honestly not smart enough to contribute to a discussion about economic theory, but when it comes to my money, I know how to spend it better than the government does. I'm no where near rich, and probably never will be, but I know the same principle would apply if I ever was. Last edited by TheNasty; 05-24-2008 at 08:29 PM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost |
|
05-24-2008, 08:37 PM | #64 (permalink) | |
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
|
Quote:
I was demonstrating that the market in the late 80s was effected greatly, so much so that the tax hike wouldn't and couldn't have compensated for it. I was not suggesting that the 80s recession was tantamount to the 20s depression. Just a quick question: you suggest that you know how to spend your money better than the government... how much would you be willing to spend on the military? Roads? Fire protection? Police? Regulatory bodies like the FDA, which can prevent poisons from being sold in our food? Let's not pretend that the government's jobs are simple. |
|
05-24-2008, 08:55 PM | #66 (permalink) | |
Tilted
|
Quote:
If anyone feels like they aren't being taxed enough and they should contribute more, I doubt the IRS would turn away a personal check. Feel free to make a donation. I'd pay more taxes to support fundamental societal needs like roads, fire protection, and police. Beyond that I want to work for myself, not for the collective. Last edited by TheNasty; 05-24-2008 at 08:58 PM.. |
|
05-24-2008, 09:11 PM | #67 (permalink) |
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
|
I simply was suggesting that if you think you're paying to much taxes, you should be sure you're willing to do without those things your taxes pay for, good and bad.
I'd absolutely LOVE not to pay for the Iraq War. I'd love not paying a certain president's salary. Still, more than that I feel the responsibility of making sure that I contribute to police and fire pensions. I feel the responsibility of paying to make sure that highways are maintained and are safe to drive on. I even feel the responsibility to help build and upkeep local parks and such. |
05-24-2008, 09:16 PM | #68 (permalink) | |
Tilted
|
Quote:
That's ludicrous. |
|
05-24-2008, 10:07 PM | #70 (permalink) | |
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
|
Quote:
Moreover, what constitutes something the government should be doing vs. what it shouldn't? I suspect that my preferred government would look different than yours. We may agree about police, roads, and parks, but what don't we agree on? And what happens if one of us gets our wish? The other would be just as unhappy if not more so under the new government. I'm guessing you're a libertarian (clearly a wild guess), but I'm a democratic socialist. That could make for some awkward concessions on either side. |
|
05-25-2008, 08:04 AM | #71 (permalink) |
Junkie
Location: NYC
|
absolutely right - but then you have to justify vesting power in the government each time you do it. The problem I have with the left-leaners is that they naturally assume every social issue has to have a governmental solution, which is precisely wrong. Some problems might, but deciding which is which requires thought and analysis, not reflexive responses.
|
05-25-2008, 08:15 AM | #72 (permalink) | ||
Location: Washington DC
|
Quote:
Although I wouldnt go as far as to say either group (left or center) believes it applies to "every social issue." Its reinforced to some degree by a recent survey from the Pew Research Center....hell, even a growing number of conservatives have seen the light: Quote:
__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 05-25-2008 at 08:31 AM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost |
||
05-25-2008, 08:30 AM | #73 (permalink) | |
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
|
Quote:
|
|
05-25-2008, 09:59 AM | #74 (permalink) |
Junkie
Location: NYC
|
Is it your assumption that social problems are necessarily remediable by government programs? Are you sure that many government programs don't exacerbate social problems? Are you sure that market forces won't solve many of the problems you perceive without creating sclerotic, inflexible, antidemocratic bureaucracies? Have you considered that many programs place self-perpetuation as a goal ahead of any useful societal purpose? Are you convincingly able to discount the law of unintended consequences, which arises because planning will never be able to anticipate and account for the effects of its implementation?
Will I ever stop asking questions? |
05-25-2008, 10:13 AM | #75 (permalink) | |||||
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
What harmful effects could come from providing libraries to the public? |
|||||
05-25-2008, 12:00 PM | #76 (permalink) | |
Location: Washington DC
|
Quote:
But I would also suggest that the vast majority of the tens of millions of Americans who benefit from these programs every year do so in a responsible manner and quietly go about their lives with a little more dignity until they no longer need a government safety net. I honestly cannot think of any country, any time in history, that cared for its citizens most in need by relying on market forces. What makes you think such an approach would work?
__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 05-25-2008 at 12:13 PM.. |
|
05-25-2008, 02:28 PM | #78 (permalink) |
Location: Washington DC
|
A job with no health insurance wont help with a serious illness of a child....a minimum wage job wont put food on the table.....
Or someone who is living from paycheck to paycheck and recently let go because of downsizing and suddenly finds himself between jobs....how does he pay next month's rent w/o unemployment comp?
__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 05-25-2008 at 02:33 PM.. |
05-25-2008, 02:33 PM | #79 (permalink) | ||
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
05-25-2008, 03:13 PM | #80 (permalink) |
Junkie
Location: NYC
|
will, you keep defaulting back to core govt functions to defend social programs. That's bait-and-switch. Cut it out, it's intellectually dishonest and beneath you.
People born into extreme poverty have been making it out of poverty for a long time, will. Being born poor isn't a lifetime sentence. And putting people in the tender hands of govt isn't the way out, either. Or have the last 40 years of evidence not shown you anything? |
Tags |
dems, note, rich, soak |
|
|