80% tax rate Means prosperity

Quote from MKTrader:

1) You said there was a huge debt bubble from 1896-1932. That is patently false except for the last few years of that period.

2) The tax code was very different pre-'86. No one can deny this. There were legal loopholes that no longer exist and tax evasion was easier. This means charts of marginal tax rates from 1935-1985 (or whatever) that imply some great benefit for today are an apples-to-oranges comparison. The "data" argument goes to your court. We don't know what "the ultra rich" actually paid back then, but it was much less than the top rates in most cases. Without controlling for other factors (i.e., much higher non-Federal taxes, a much less regulated society, thousands of other differences), you can't draw a meaningful conclusion.

Also, that period was far from the "glory days." The Great Depression (which was handled much differently than prior depressions...and lasted much longer), the 1970s stagflation (considered impossible by Keynesians--they had to change their theories), no growth in the stock market from 1929-1954 or 1966-1982.

3) Instead of trolling and being a post whore here, it would do you a world of good to learn other things. Logical fallacies would be a great start. A limited grasp of Latin wouldn't hurt, though you should shore up on your English spelling and grammar first.
More...

1. nope its true. Debt was 300%/GDP
2. you were talking about tax evasion, not about tax evasion code. the tax evasion data is not exist. The tax evasion code like I said you can measure.
3. if you call ppl whores you are out of arguments. you sir, have just been served
 
Quote from JerryAdler:

WSJ: Tax Revenues = 19% of GDP, Regardless of Tax Rates
Weekend Wall Street Journal op-ed, There's No Escaping Hauser's Law, by W. Kurt Hauser (Stanford University, Hoover Institution):

Tax revenues as a share of GDP have averaged just under 19%, whether tax rates are cut or raised. Better to cut rates and get 19% of a larger pie.

Even amoebas learn by trial and error, but some economists and politicians do not. The Obama administration's budget projections claim that raising taxes on the top 2% of taxpayers, those individuals earning more than $200,000 and couples earning $250,000 or more, will increase revenues to the U.S. Treasury. The empirical evidence suggests otherwise. None of the personal income tax or capital gains tax increases enacted in the post-World War II period has raised the projected tax revenues.

Over the past six decades, tax revenues as a percentage of GDP have averaged just under 19% regardless of the top marginal personal income tax rate. The top marginal rate has been as high as 92% (1952-53) and as low as 28% (1988-90). This observation was first reported in an op-ed I wrote for this newspaper in March 1993. A wit later dubbed this "Hauser's Law."

Over this period there have been more than 30 major changes in the tax code including personal income tax rates, corporate tax rates, capital gains taxes, dividend taxes, investment tax credits, depreciation schedules, Social Security taxes, and the number of tax brackets among others. Yet during this period, federal government tax collections as a share of GDP have moved within a narrow band of just under 19% of GDP.

Why? Higher taxes discourage the "animal spirits" of entrepreneurship. When tax rates are raised, taxpayers are encouraged to shift, hide and underreport income. Taxpayers divert their effort from pro-growth productive investments to seeking tax shelters, tax havens and tax exempt investments. This behavior tends to dampen economic growth and job creation. Lower taxes increase the incentives to work, produce, save and invest, thereby encouraging capital formation and jobs. Taxpayers have less incentive to shelter and shift income.


http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2010/11/wsj-hausers-law.html

...
More...

I think that using a constant means of computing it, the actual GDP has been decreasing steadily from about 1986, whereas using the bureau statistics you would get the impression that the GDP has been almost constant (on average) over the period 1986-2011, dropping only a little.
http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data

Wouldn't a constant revenue of 19% of GDP computed by the Bureau's method, which gives a higher GDP, suggest that nominal tax revenue has been rising over that period, relative to the real GDP computed by the 1980 formula? I would think so.

If that's true I'd like to suggest that the increase in nominal tax revenue has not been caused by tax rate decreases but instead by increases in government spending over that same period.

When the inflation rate and GDP calculation methods are being dickered with as well as tax rates, it is beyond my weak, non-economist brain to figure out much of anything. But logically to me it does seem far more likely that any nominal increases in tax revenue since 1986 have been the result of increased Government spending, which I think we all agree raises nominal tax revenues in the absence of an equivalent offsetting reduction in tax rates.

We are bombarded from one side of the political spectrum with the constant mantra that higher tax rates will destroy jobs and lead to lower productivity, but i'm having a very hard time believing it in light of the empirical evidence. I think it takes a giant leap of blind faith to believe "Higher taxes discourage the "animal spirits" of entrepreneurship."

Don't get me wrong though, I love low taxes. I just don't believe that minor changes in tax rate have much at all to do with "discouraging entrepreneurship." I tend to think that a modest increase in the upper marginal tax rate, as has been proposed, might be quite helpful at this juncture in reducing future inflation. I think we all could agree though that what is sorely needed is measured and careful fiscal reform to bring spending in line with revenues. But this is a very difficult time to be cutting -- a time when the private sector is leveraging down, and therefore for stability, the public sector needs to leverage up some. We have boxed ourselves into a corner by getting involved in too many unproductive and expensive wars we could not afford and then closing our eyes while Wall Street and the banking and mortgage industries ran roughshod over the second most important segment of the economy --well, that's if you ignore the porn industry. :D
 
Quote from piezoe:

I think that using a constant means of computing it, the actual GDP has been decreasing steadily from about 1986, whereas using the bureau statistics you would get the impression that the GDP has been almost constant (on average) over the period 1986-2011, dropping only a little.
http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data

Wouldn't a constant revenue of 19% of GDP computed by the Bureau's method, which gives a higher GDP, suggest that nominal tax revenue has been rising over that period, relative to the real GDP computed by the 1980 formula? I would think so.

If that's true I'd like to suggest that the increase in nominal tax revenue has not been caused by tax rate decreases but instead by increases in government spending over that same period.

When the inflation rate and GDP calculation methods are being dickered with as well as tax rates, it is beyond my weak, non-economist brain to figure out much of anything. But logically to me it does seem far more likely that any nominal increases in tax revenue since 1986 have been the result of increased Government spending, which I think we all agree raises nominal tax revenues in the absence of an equivalent offsetting reduction in tax rates.

We are bombarded from one side of the political spectrum with the constant mantra that higher tax rates will destroy jobs and lead to lower productivity, but i'm having a very hard time believing it in light of the empirical evidence. I think it takes a giant leap of blind faith to believe "Higher taxes discourage the "animal spirits" of entrepreneurship."

Don't get me wrong though, I love low taxes. I just don't believe that minor changes in tax rate have much at all to do with "discouraging entrepreneurship." I tend to think that a modest increase in the upper marginal tax rate, as has been proposed, might be quite helpful at this juncture in reducing future inflation. I think we all could agree though that what is sorely needed is measured and careful fiscal reform to bring spending in line with revenues. But this is a very difficult time to be cutting -- a time when the private sector is leveraging down, and therefore for stability, the public sector needs to leverage up some. We have boxed ourselves into a corner by getting involved in too many unproductive and expensive wars we could not afford and then closing our eyes while Wall Street and the banking and mortgage industries ran roughshod over the second most important segment of the economy --well, that's if you ignore the porn industry. :D
More...
" But this is a very difficult time to be cutting -- a time when the private sector is leveraging down, and therefore for stability, the public sector needs to leverage up some."

the downward part of the economic cycle needs to complete itself or the collapse will be much larger in the future. we need to washout the excess debt created since the 2nd world war. the government sector is already to large.

as an aside it is quite obvious that you have been influenced by left wing professors who don't believe that the US has enemies.
 
Quote from failed_trad3r:

1. nope its true. Debt was 300%/GDP
2. you were talking about tax evasion, not about tax evasion code. the tax evasion data is not exist. The tax evasion code like I said you can measure.
3. if you call ppl whores you are out of arguments. you sir, have just been served
More...

A "post whore" is a common internet term. Anway, I'm done. Bludgeoning trolls is like shooting fish in a barrell.
 
Quote from piezoe:

I think that using a constant means of computing it, the actual GDP has been decreasing steadily from about 1986, whereas using the bureau statistics you would get the impression that the GDP has been almost constant (on average) over the period 1986-2011, dropping only a little.
http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data

Wouldn't a constant revenue of 19% of GDP computed by the Bureau's method, which gives a higher GDP, suggest that nominal tax revenue has been rising over that period, relative to the real GDP computed by the 1980 formula? I would think so.

If that's true I'd like to suggest that the increase in nominal tax revenue has not been caused by tax rate decreases but instead by increases in government spending over that same period.

When the inflation rate and GDP calculation methods are being dickered with as well as tax rates, it is beyond my weak, non-economist brain to figure out much of anything. But logically to me it does seem far more likely that any nominal increases in tax revenue since 1986 have been the result of increased Government spending, which I think we all agree raises nominal tax revenues in the absence of an equivalent offsetting reduction in tax rates.

We are bombarded from one side of the political spectrum with the constant mantra that higher tax rates will destroy jobs and lead to lower productivity, but i'm having a very hard time believing it in light of the empirical evidence. I think it takes a giant leap of blind faith to believe "Higher taxes discourage the "animal spirits" of entrepreneurship."

Don't get me wrong though, I love low taxes. I just don't believe that minor changes in tax rate have much at all to do with "discouraging entrepreneurship." I tend to think that a modest increase in the upper marginal tax rate, as has been proposed, might be quite helpful at this juncture in reducing future inflation. I think we all could agree though that what is sorely needed is measured and careful fiscal reform to bring spending in line with revenues. But this is a very difficult time to be cutting -- a time when the private sector is leveraging down, and therefore for stability, the public sector needs to leverage up some. We have boxed ourselves into a corner by getting involved in too many unproductive and expensive wars we could not afford and then closing our eyes while Wall Street and the banking and mortgage industries ran roughshod over the second most important segment of the economy --well, that's if you ignore the porn industry. :D
More...

you're making sense. I also feel changing tax rates from 10 to 11 or from 33 to 32 doesn't do much. That probably because GDP is a function of credit and it doesnt matter if credit is in the hands of a person or the government. it simply gets added to the GDP when spent. ofcourse in the hands of a person the credit can be not spent. and in the hands of the government the credit can be inëfficiently spent. a bigger problem is the debt bubble, that leads to a depression. you can argue the lower tax on the rich since the 1980 fueled partly the ponzi, because the government highered spending in unison. Does that make sense to a keynesian?
 
Quote from zdreg:

" But this is a very difficult time to be cutting -- a time when the private sector is leveraging down, and therefore for stability, the public sector needs to leverage up some."

the downward part of the economic cycle needs to complete itself or the collapse will be much larger in the future. we need to washout the excess debt created since the 2nd world war. the government sector is already to large.

as an aside it is quite obvious that you have been influenced by left wing professors who don't believe that the US has enemies.
More...

Perhaps.
 
First of all, the USA Is Not a Empire and Is not a Democracy.. Is a Law State.. get your fact straight!



And yes.. after 40 or 50 years of economic success, the "Bubble burst" is so normal in a free society. In fact, is during those contraction were a new segment of the society becomes rich ... That's a Fact!.. That's the beauty of capitalism.. everybody can makes money under any circustance..

That's whats make the US a superb country.. Every time there's a crisis, they come back better than ever.. You Know why? Because of their system, they the have the ability to renew their social clases, time after time.. Here in Europe in the 21 century, we still have Kings and Princess and Czars and feudalism!!! what a joke!..

Can you Imagine a Black, Lazy marxist muslim having the chance to run germany or France or Spain?? Only in America!


.. In socialisms, there's never a fucking bubble in the first place..

Do you think internet and computers and microship were "Boombed" to "help" the world or to create personals wealth??...

BTW: what kind of bubble are you talking about in the 19 century?? are you kidding me??



Quote from jueco2005:

Yet during those 2 periods the US experienced the biggest bubbles build ups in history. Especially the 90s tech bubble and the real estate bubble in 00s. Regardless of that, innovation never stops and entrepreneurs keep supplying us with prosperous inventions and opportunities.



I see these years way different.

I see a triumph from democracy over empires. At least an important step. A better world was born after VE in Germany and Japan in 1945. Huge Medical and all kinds of new inventions were possible. Our space age began. Economies and business thrived everywhere.
More...
 
Quote from JerryAdler:

In my view the biggest problem is corporations which pay no tax, or even get a refund from the government when they are making billions. GE is a prime example. GE and Jeffrey Imelt were the largest contributor to the Obama campaign. I don't hear Obama calling for fairness and tax equity for his friends and contributors!

If you want to generate additional revenue, start with collecting taxes at their actual rate, not their effective rate after loopholes and offshore corporate accounts.

The tax code is a joke. Anyone making serious money can reduce their effective rate sometimes to zero. Increasing the rate to 80% on individuals does nothing to solve this problem. It only penalizes the people who can least afford it.
More...

This is one of the beauties of corporatism. to get away with murder.

Some laws dont apply to some people or entities because they are too important. or TBTF
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top