If Canadian politics is leading indicator for the US, the republicans are in trouble
- Thread starter nitro
- Start date
The project was Laffer approved. He of the Lafffer Curve legend. The go-to guy for all things supply side. Go to gbw-trading's own thread and see for yourself:
http://www.elitetrader.com/et/index...re-turning-kansas-into-a-smoking-ruin.285208/
Are you just pretending to be daft? Suddenly when things go sideways it's all about the nuance, eh?
It's always about nuance, dopey. Context is everything. I'll go read gwb's thread before I comment more on this to ensure that I don't misquote something.
The National Post's take on Harper's loss...
So at the risk of bringing the discussion of that thread into this one, a couple of key phrases from the opening article:
It's one thing to enact targeted cuts in tax rates during an economic upswing, when such a policy can add fuel to job generation. It's quite another to do so blindly during a slump, when cuts in state services undermine efforts at recovery.
As I just said earlier, I am in favor of tax cuts but not blind tax cuts all enacted at once cutting all income to obligations. Pretty much echoed what I said exactly. Reducing personal income tax rates doesn't seem to be the problem, but eliminating tax on business income (pass through) was rather overkill. Reducing sales taxes at the same time wasn't very intelligent either. In fact, if you look at the majority of "fair tax" proposals suggested by conservative groups, they don't suggest getting rid of sales tax - but raising it to offset income tax reductions.
At any rate, this is what you suggest is a model of supply side economics? Slashing revenue all at once across the board? The Laffer curve demonstrates that lowering tax rates results in higher government income, but it is only limited to the rate of taxation. It is not uniformly applied across the board to all tax incidences, and cannot be used in aggregate (or should not). I get that Laffer was a part of this plan in Kansas, but that just means the guy decided to take a working theory and use Kansas as an experiment to see if he could extend that theory across all taxation incidence in general. And, not surprisingly, it failed.
But this doesn't have anything to do with the conservative version of "utopia" from a tax standpoint - and you're a fucking idiot for suggesting it is. No conservative worth his salt, or any Libertarian for that matter, ever says there should be ZERO tax. I challenge you to find someone who says that and is sane.
The primary focus on most alternative tax plans is lowering income tax, but paying for that through increased sales tax, etc - with the thought being that taxes become more "fee based", that is, you use a service or you buy something and you pay tax. It's a choice, not a forced imposition.
It probably wouldn't hurt if you did a quick refresher on Supply Side Economics before misrepresenting it like you've been doing.
Last edited:
So if I understand you correctly, what you are telling Laffer is:
I don't know if you understand it correctly - I'm inclined to believe otherwise. So let me try to be as clear as possible.
It would appear that Laffer took a working model and tried to apply it far more broadly than intended and it failed. But regardless, this isn't my view of utopia - and never was.
Meanwhile, according to one of your earlier threads, Keynesian economics is a "scam." Because:
Keynesian economics IS faulty, executed in the way most fiscal policy is carried out. So what's your point? If you want to debate that (because you've failed on this front) lets do so. Point me to the thread you're going off of (remember, my telepathy is down).
Oh, so now it's about the execution. Meanwhile supply-side looks flawed from the get-go:
https://www.google.ca/search?q=supp...fe_rd=cr&ei=SaknVrKmJuSM8Qexq53YBA&gws_rd=ssl
Who knew?