User Tag List

First 142223242526 Last

Results 231 to 240 of 303

  1. #231
    deplorable basketcase Tellenbach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    MBTI
    ISTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Posts
    3,953

    Default

    Still more evidence to chew on:

    The Bush Capital Gains Tax Cut after Four Years: More Growth, More Investment, More Revenues

    In May 2003, President Bush cut capital gains tax. What's happened in the four years since:

    Total federal revenues increased $740 billion (2003-07), and capital gains tax revenues increased from $55 billion the year before the tax cut (2002) to an estimated $110 billion in 2006 (all figures adjusted for inflation to constant 2006 dollars).
    The rich did not get a huge tax cut from the capital gains cut; in fact, the percentage of income taxes paid by the rich increased from 34 percent to 39 percent from 2002 to 2005 (the most recent year for which data are available).
    The rate of business capital investment has undergone a U-turn — from negative business investment spending in the two years before the tax cut to an average annual increase in business investment of more than 10 percent in the three years after the tax cut.
    The only truly reliable predictor of the future is the past. And here the evidence is fairly straightforward. Over the past 30 years a consistent pattern has emerged: every time the capital gains tax has been cut, capital gains tax revenues have risen. Every time the capital gains tax has been raised, capital gains tax revenues have fallen.
    I'm convinced. Why aren't you?
    Senator Rand Paul is alive because of modern medicine and because his attacker punches like a girl.
    Likes LonestarCowgirl liked this post

  2. #232
    Vaguely Precise Seymour's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/so
    Posts
    1,565

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tellenbach View Post
    Still more evidence to chew on:

    The Bush Capital Gains Tax Cut after Four Years: More Growth, More Investment, More Revenues

    In May 2003, President Bush cut capital gains tax. What's happened in the four years since:


    I'm convinced. Why aren't you?
    Because there is little evidence to support such a conclusion. Looking at capital gains vs economic growth over a long period of time (rather than only examining a brief span of time):



    The data suggests either no relationship, or a very mild correlation. Politifact, for example, claims no correlation. Some studies find a negative correlation between tax cuts and growth. I think it's very difficult to argue that there has, on average, been a significant positive effect, much less that such an effect is sufficient to make up the loss in revenue from a tax cut.

    I think that there's actually some complexity in how best to encourage growth; sometimes the limitations on growth are on the supply side, and sometimes are on the demand side. Plus, one wants a reasonable, relatively steady amount of growth, rather than crazy boom/bust cycles. I feel like those arguing that cutting taxes will always spur grow is a bit like saying that turning up the heat will always make the indoor temperature more comfortable, just because there was that one time it was really cold inside.

  3. #233
    deplorable basketcase Tellenbach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    MBTI
    ISTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Posts
    3,953

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Seymour
    Looking at capital gains vs economic growth over a long period of time (rather than only examining a brief span of time):
    The quotes above mention increased revenue from capital gains tax receipts every time the capital gains tax is cut (that's not in dispute).

    The quotes mention that the rich end up paying more taxes when the capital gains tax is cut; that's not in dispute.

    The quotes mention that investment revenue increases when the capital gains tax is cut; that's not in dispute either.

    What you've set up is a strawman; there are many benefits to cutting the capital gains tax irrespective of economic growth. Tax cuts alone won't spur economic growth when you increase regulations. You need to cut both taxes and regulations to increase growth. (That would be the huge upward spike in GDP you see in the Burman graph from around 1982 to 1986.) Reagan reduced the size of the federal register (book of regulations) in half in addition to cutting the capital gains tax.
    Senator Rand Paul is alive because of modern medicine and because his attacker punches like a girl.

  4. #234
    Lex Parsimoniae Xander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    4,463
    Isn't it time for a colourful metaphor?

  5. #235
    deplorable basketcase Tellenbach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    MBTI
    ISTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Posts
    3,953

    Default

    @Xander I read the article; sorry, it's written by an angry individual who doesn't understand economics and how the situation got to be in the condition he's bemoaning.

    There is an inverse relationship between utility and reward. The most lucrative, prestigious jobs tend to cause the greatest harm. The most useful workers tend to be paid least and treated worst.
    Utter nonsense. Doctors and nurses make a lot of money and they (mostly) deserve every penny they earn. I've never mistreated a minimum wage worker and I don't think I've seen that happen in public either. Maybe this rudeness is a cultural problem in the UK but it's not related at all to economics.

    From 1984 to 2009, the US created 40 million jobs whereas Europe created less than half that number. (from Laffer's Return to Prosperity)
    When there is more job opportunity, there is more competition for labor and when there is more competition for labor, workers get better treatment. The author supports the very policies that create the conditions he's whining about. He's obviously a statist, a big government type and he doesn't understand that socialist policies kill job opportunities and that wealth redistribution creates resentment. He also doesn't understand that a big government bureaucracy requires lots and lots of tax revenue. When businesses are taxes at the rates in European nations, they can no longer afford to raise wages or offer benefits to their workers.

    The best anti-poverty measure he can take is to stay home and never vote again. In the US: this means, never ever vote for a Democrat if you are a leftist; that will be the most patriotic action they can take.
    Senator Rand Paul is alive because of modern medicine and because his attacker punches like a girl.

  6. #236
    Lex Parsimoniae Xander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    4,463

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tellenbach View Post
    09]blah blah Laffer's blah blah blah
    Sorry but you didn't read the article, you just assumed what it said so it'd fit your paradigm. You missed the whole point, in fact. Where's your defence that the best people get promoted? Where's your newly made evidence that the managers which you would put such faith in are actually useful people and not parasitic?

    Of course you just latch on to one convenient section, spin it out of context and then rant on about some author who's said something somewhere. I doubt you realise to what level I couldn't care about whether someone has written a book or not. I have friends who are writers and I have read their material. Getting it published will not make their thinking better or their stories more interesting.

    Now I realise this post is combative and insulting. The thing is, you've been insulting my intelligence since step one and obviously have absolutely no regard for anyone else's thoughts. I really question why you'd bother with a forum such as this.

    You know I think you've inspired a new phrase, anaerobic thinker. Someone who's thoughts have never met the fresh air of the real world.
    Isn't it time for a colourful metaphor?
    Likes Hard liked this post

  7. #237
    deplorable basketcase Tellenbach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    MBTI
    ISTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Posts
    3,953

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Xander
    Sorry but you didn't read the article, you just assumed what it said so it'd fit your paradigm.
    Wrong. I'm a pragmatist who considers real world examples.

    You missed the whole point, in fact.
    Wrong again.

    Where's your defence that the best people get promoted?
    I have never stated this. In a free market system, it's in the best interest of the corporation to promote based on merit; otherwise, you lose out to the competition. If you don't hire the best people, your competition will.

    Where's your newly made evidence that the managers which you would put such faith in are actually useful people and not parasitic?
    It's not faith at all; I'm looking at empirical evidence and noticing very obvious trends. Sure, there are bad managers and it's in the best interest of a company to root out such people since bad managers will result in a less competitive company.

    Of course you just latch on to one convenient section, spin it out of context and then rant on about some author who's said something somewhere.
    That one section is the basis of the entire article, no? The author believes that the rich are bad people and the poor are good people; it's a stupid perspective.

    I doubt you realise to what level I couldn't care about whether someone has written a book or not.
    You're missing the point. Arthur Laffer is the most influential economist in the 2nd half of the 20th century; he's the architect of Reaganomics and his ideas have been vindicated wherever they've been implemented.

    The thing is, you've been insulting my intelligence since step one and obviously have absolutely no regard for anyone else's thoughts. I really question why you'd bother with a forum such as this.
    This is cognitive dissonance rearing its ugly head. You're unwilling to consider the possibility that you are wrong despite mountains of evidence and now you're angry at me for pointing it out. Sorry, but everything I've posted is factual. If you can't handle the truth, then I suggest you stay inside your little bubble.
    Senator Rand Paul is alive because of modern medicine and because his attacker punches like a girl.

  8. #238
    Lex Parsimoniae Xander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    4,463

    Default

    Sod it. I've got a day off.... may as well try to do daycare again.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tellenbach View Post
    Wrong. I'm a pragmatist who considers real world examples.
    Wrong, you're a fundamentalist who considers themselves superior to others because of insecurities in the real world. Oh and by the way, classical denial.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tellenbach View Post
    I have never stated this. In a free market system, it's in the best interest of the corporation to promote based on merit; otherwise, you lose out to the competition. If you don't hire the best people, your competition will.
    So you have no problem at all with the concept that those who are promoted to the top tend to be prone to sociopathic tendencies. This is necessary in your mind? I'm guessing you have nothing to do with management as you seem clueless to their task or contribution to the bottom line. A managers main job is to clear the way for the workforce to get their jobs done. They are supposed to serve the workforce, in many cases, not vice versa.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tellenbach View Post
    It's not faith at all; I'm looking at empirical evidence and noticing very obvious trends. Sure, there are bad managers and it's in the best interest of a company to root out such people since bad managers will result in a less competitive company.
    Why do bad managers result in a bad company? You're under the delusion that a bad manager will be actively detrimental to the company and no counter force will be applied from another sector. If you had any experience of management you'd know that the company tends to do well because of key individuals. Sometimes this includes the manager but it's not required.

    Btw if you're still clamouring for a real world example so you can reduce things down to statistics and other such extrapolations, sorry but I'm not telling as these examples are real world and I'm not going to start name dropping without the permission of the source. If that's not good enough, well I'm sure I'll cry later.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tellenbach View Post
    That one section is the basis of the entire article, no? The author believes that the rich are bad people and the poor are good people; it's a stupid perspective.
    The author is writing an article which postulates that the productivity within an economy does not come from these highly paid sociopaths. You offered no resistance other than to call the person stupid. A little asinine.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tellenbach View Post
    You're missing the point. Arthur Laffer is the most influential economist in the 2nd half of the 20th century; he's the architect of Reaganomics and his ideas have been vindicated wherever they've been implemented.
    Sorry, I'm not religious so I couldn't care less who said it, only if it hangs together when I look at it. I know there's the whole proof of a thousand tests thinking where I should just accept it but I've never been a person to trust other's thinking much. Too many idiots being put on pedestals for being slightly less idiotic than their closest competitors.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tellenbach View Post
    This is cognitive dissonance rearing its ugly head. You're unwilling to consider the possibility that you are wrong despite mountains of evidence and now you're angry at me for pointing it out. Sorry, but everything I've posted is factual. If you can't handle the truth, then I suggest you stay inside your little bubble.
    Oh wonderful. So you go for projection.

    I am frustrated, this is true, because almost every single reasonable person I've ever known would have moderated their position by now. The only one I know who wouldn't have is an ISTJ with the interaction skill of a horny Rancor. He is well known for being about as dense as granite when it comes to these things. He would also not understand how the real world works beyond his current singular theory.

    What you see as "Cognitive Dissonance" is what you get when you consider more than one perspective. That's what keeps me from ever being a fundamentalist or a supporter of an old world way of thinking in complete disregard of current events. To add fuel to your fire, I quite like the coffee party too.
    Isn't it time for a colourful metaphor?

  9. #239

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Xander View Post
    To add fuel to your fire, I quite like the coffee party too.
    The only time I saw any PR information from that group I wasnt sure it wasnt actually some sort of satire or agit prop from the opposition about them, it said "if you make some coffee, I will share it" which I thought, wait a minute, it makes it sound like if someone else is productive, then you will take it from them, which fits the whole tea party propaganda about entitlement and taking others earnings from them etc.

  10. #240
    deplorable basketcase Tellenbach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    MBTI
    ISTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Posts
    3,953

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Xander
    Wrong, you're a fundamentalist who considers themselves superior to others because of insecurities in the real world. Oh and by the way, classical denial.
    I consider myself more rational, not more superior. I make decisions based on real world evidence and I learn from the lessons of history. I've urged you to produce counter examples to make your case but you have failed to do so.

    Let me now list 5 more great capitalists: Walt Disney, Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, Ray Kroc, and Sam Walton. Your turn.

    So you have no problem at all with the concept that those who are promoted to the top tend to be prone to sociopathic tendencies.
    Call me skeptical, but I'd love to see a study that backs up your bold claim.

    Why do bad managers result in a bad company?
    Because bad managers result in a bad work force. If you manage a restaurant and you let the wait staff chew bubble gum or talk on the phone, that harms the business.

    The author is writing an article which postulates that the productivity within an economy does not come from these highly paid sociopaths.
    How did Apple do after they fired Steve Jobs? He's making the argument that leadership doesn't matter and that's obviously a stupid perspective.

    Sorry, I'm not religious so I couldn't care less who said it, only if it hangs together when I look at it.
    No one is asking you to be religious, but to ignore all the evidence because it runs counter to your belief system is a bit irrational. Again, where is the evidence that raising taxes on the rich helps the economy, that raising the minimum wage helps the economy, that raising the capital gains tax helps the economy? I'd love to see the evidence.

    I am frustrated, this is true, because almost every single reasonable person I've ever known would have moderated their position by now.
    I'm very reasonable but you are still wrong. The signs that you are wrong are all over the place: you can't name a single great socialist; you can't provide any evidence that raising taxes help people; you can't provide evidence that big government helps the economy. My question to you would be: why hold such strong beliefs when there is no evidence to back them up? Why hold such strong beliefs when you can't defend them?

    Explain why Greece, Spain, France, and Italy are a mess. Explain why the US has created twice the number of jobs in a 25 year period than Europe despite having a smaller population. Explain why every time the capital gains tax rates have been cut, we've seen increases in capital gains tax revenue? I have the answers to all these questions.
    Senator Rand Paul is alive because of modern medicine and because his attacker punches like a girl.

Similar Threads

  1. Slavery, child labor, organized religion and a free-market economy
    By SolitaryWalker in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 11-22-2013, 11:21 PM
  2. Define capitalism, socialism, free market fundamentalism, communism, etc.
    By ygolo in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 05-14-2012, 06:34 PM
  3. Why your diet may not be working like you want...
    By sdalek in forum Health and Fitness
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 07-03-2007, 08:01 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO