Tax The Rich!

[fintstone]

First, ignore the 90s. In the eighties, growth in tax was < growth in GDP. This is a bad start.

I would consider that a good thing. If a decrease in tax results in an increase in GDP...it follows that people are paying less taxes as a percentage but are creating larger revenues. It is not necessary for taxes revenues to grow at a linear rate to GDP. In fact, I would hope it would not. The government's operating costs are not necessarily tied to GDP except artificially....eg Politicians will typically spend any increase in revenues to buy additional votes.

[CamB]

Two things:

(a) the point was, just because GDP goes up doesn't mean the tax take goes up (the fundamental premise underlying supply-side economics) - you are now asserting that this is a good thing, but I think the logical conclusion is that supply side economics won't work; and

(b) regardless of whether government spending should remain constant as a percentage of GDP, generally it does and if you've got a better idea of what it should be related to (population? an inverse relationship to poverty? population age?), then lets hear it.

Basically this boils down to the same issue - less government. Having less government doesn't require lower taxes (but lower taxes can be a positive benefit of less government).

[fintstone]

Originally posted by Superman

On the subject of economists, I have worked with quite a few and rarely met a conservative one. Think about it. Where do economists work? Private businesses do not need them. Generally, economists work for the government. Not as internal anarchists, usually.

Guess you have never met Thomas Sowell then. He graduated magna cum laude from Harvard University, master's in economics from Columbia University and a doctorate in economics from the University of Chicago. Here is his take on the subject:

Part 1 http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/ts20030715.shtml

Part 2 http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/ts20030717.shtml

[fintstone]

Originally posted by Superman

And finally, I just have to point this out: I was just trying to point out in another thread what a twisted logic path has to be followed to conclude that going to Vietnam as a combat soldier is not as good as getting your dad to get you into the Guard, but you guys apparently can twist the facts well enough to reach that conclusion.

What twisted logic path would lead you to believe that if one "fortunate son's" connections got him a flying slot in the ANG, that another's connections did not get him a relatively safe slot in the Navy on a boat instead of being a grunt in the jungle? I remember the time well and it was generally accepted that the navy was the safest route....unless you were a Seal or Navy pilot..all pilots caught heck....even ANG pilots.

[CamB]

From Thomas Sowell:

Another fundamental confusion over tax cuts is confusing lower tax rates with reductions in tax revenues collected by the government. One of the enduring political myths of our generation has been the claim that the rise of federal deficits during the 1980s resulted from President Ronald Reagan's "tax cuts for the rich."

Tax rates were cut. Tax revenues were not. More tax revenue was collected during every year of the two Reagan administrations than had ever been collected in any previous year in the history of the country. Nor was this experience unique.

When John F. Kennedy cut tax rates during the 1960s, tax revenues went up. The whole point was -- and is -- to encourage more economic activity, and more activity generates more tax revenues, even at lower rates. The same thing happened back in the 1920s.

You (and surprisingly, Sowell) need to take inflation into account - inflation was rampant at the time Reagan made the initial cuts (this could be one of the reasons govt spending went up so much), and as income is affected by inflation then the tax base went up and so did tax revenues. This isn't going to happen this time --> inflation is really low.

I'm not really sure who made the following website, but conveniently it has the real tax revenues.

http://www.presidentreagan.info/revenues.cfm

You'll note that from a base year of $312b, the real tax revenues were lower for four years before eventually making it above this level. They then dropped again from another tax cut, and rose again. 1981-1989 saw an increase in real tax revenues of 13%, or about 1.6% per year, or about 2% per year less than GDP.

Finally, from the beloved Cato.org, a fricken huge article. Who gives a crap whether Reagan was any good or not - the question is "do tax cuts pay for themselves". Their answer is about 45% of the way down the page:

Fable 1: The Reagan Administration Relied on "Pie-in-the-Sky" Predictions That Tax Rate Cuts Would Pay for Themselves

Supply-siders predicted their tax cuts would pay for themselves. This was nonsense from day one, because the credible evidence overwhelmingly indicates that revenue feedbacks from tax cuts is 35 cents per dollar, at most. Are we really gullible enough to accept a free dinner while still suffering the indigestion from our "free" lunch? [23]

This is one of the great enduring myths of Reaganomics: that the White House relied on wild supply-side assumptions regarding the revenue impact of the tax cuts. The Reagan administration never assumed that the tax cuts would pay for themselves. In fact, "America's New Beginning: A Program for Economic Recovery," the White House budget plan released on February 18, 1981, included a table entitled "Direct Revenue Effects of Proposed Tax Reductions." [24] That table predicted a huge $700 billion revenue loss from the tax cuts through 1986, as shown in Table 4.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-261.html

The second article focused pretty much solely on whether the (income)rich really are rich, and whether taxing them more really is fair. I'm trying really hard to find lots of sympathy for this new, abused minority - the "rich but not really". I'll direct you to the (surely equal in number) homeless people who fall through the cracks in your welfare system.

I spent 20 mins looking up stuff Sowell has written. Other than his apparent belief that there can be enough economic growth to increase tax revenues from a lower tax rate, I agree with his outlook on the world and views on economics (he writes about it!), except to the extent that I have a different social conscience and thus tolerance for paying tax.

[speeder]

Originally posted by fintstone
What twisted logic path would lead you to believe that if one "fortunate son's" connections got him a flying slot in the ANG, that another's connections did not get him a relatively safe slot in the Navy on a boat instead of being a grunt in the jungle? I remember the time well and it was generally accepted that the navy was the safest route....unless you were a Seal or Navy pilot..all pilots caught heck....even ANG pilots.

I've let this one slip before w/ you, but since you brought it up again, I'm going to disagree w/ your premise of the "safe Navy boat going up the river/Mekong Delta".....

Huh?

The Navy was a safer place if you were on an aircraft carrier, not a river boat, for chrissakes!

I will check w/ my surrogate big brother when he comes to visit CA. this weekend, he was an 18 y.o. Marine in Viet Nam in 1969/70. He is an extremely intelligent person who knows his Viet Nam pretty well, if he agrees w/ you I will publicly eat crow on this board. I will put $$ right now that he calls you FOS. Guys on river boats were sitting ducks, that's how you get shot multiple times in 4 months.

Your assertion that Kerry enlisted in the Navy and volunteered to go to Viet Nam in 1967 for the purpose of bolstering a political career 20-30 years down the line, gambling on not getting killed, (which he missed by seconds and inches, as the old saying goes), doesn't deserve a response but I'll give you one anyways:

Lick Bush. (Again).

[Moneyguy1]

Don't forget...a lot of us "Coasties" were on them there river craft as well....

[speeder]

So Bob, Was that considered a nice, cushy gig in Viet Nam? Safe duty, like guarding Texas from the Viet Cong?

[island911]

So Denis, just to be clear; you're saying Kerry enlisted in the Navy and volunteered to go to Viet Nam in 1967, for purpose OTHER THAN bolstering a political career 20-30 years down the line?

[fintstone]

Originally posted by speeder
[B]I've let this one slip before w/ you, but since you brought it up again, I'm going to disagree w/ your premise of the "safe Navy boat going up the river/Mekong Delta".....

Huh?

The Navy was a safer place if you were on an aircraft carrier, not a river boat, for chrissakes!

I will check w/ my surrogate big brother when he comes to visit CA. this weekend, he was an 18 y.o. Marine in Viet Nam in 1969/70. He is an extremely intelligent person who knows his Viet Nam pretty well, if he agrees w/ you I will publicly eat crow on this board. I will put $$ right now that he calls you FOS. Guys on river boats were sitting ducks, that's how you get shot multiple times in 4 months.

Kerry did not enlist to command a Mekong Delta River boat. He enlisted before they even existed..Feb 1966. In Feb '66, the "swift" boats were water taxies designed for use in the Gulf of Mexico. they were later modified for Vietnam duty. Kerry's first duty was on a guided missile frigate, The USS Gridley. Ask Bro how dangerous those were as opposed to other duty. Better get your crow spoon ready.