Tax Cuts and Revenue

[Scataphagos]

Laffer made a simple but brilliant observation. There is a level of taxation that maximizes tax revenues. Too high and you choke off growth. Too low and you don't gt enough money.

Progressives hate this concept because their aim is not economic efficiency but power and control.

Laffer has stated his view of "best tax rate and tax policy"... and that is...

11% Flat Personal Income/Capital Gains Tax
11% Flat Corporate Income Tax

ZERO EXEMPTIONS except for "no income tax on the 1st ______ of income" to accommodate the poor." But EVERYBODY would get that exemption.

Can one imagine what a boost to the economy that would be?

But of course, as AAA has stated, progressive tax rates are all about power and control. AMERICA IS BEING STRANGLED ECONOMICALLY AND SOCIALLY BY LEFTISTS/PROGRESSIVES!!

:>(

 

[Ricter]

Laffer made a simple but brilliant observation. There is a level of taxation that maximizes tax revenues. Too high and you choke off growth. Too low and you don't gt enough money.

Progressives hate this concept because their aim is not economic efficiency but power and control.

No progressives hate the concept. The difference of opinion centers on what is "too high" or "too low".

 

[Tsing Tao]

How would the consideration of other variables not support my argument, that tax cuts may or may not increase revenue depending on the influence of other variables?

No, your specific argument/post to the inflation rates during the various presidencies. If you overlay that with real wage growth, It is possible that you might find the truth about which data set is the worst.

 

[Ricter]

No, your specific argument/post to the inflation rates during the various presidencies. If you overlay that with real wage growth, It is possible that you might find the truth about which data set is the worst.

So? Overlay it with recessions and expansions then, too.

 

[Tsing Tao]

So? Overlay it with recessions and expansions then, too.

Fine. If real income is rising, that's a good thing. If it is declining (as it is now) it is not a good thing - whether in a recession or not.

The inflation story is only half of it.

 

[Ricter]

Fine. If real income is rising, that's a good thing. If it is declining (as it is now) it is not a good thing - whether in a recession or not.

The inflation story is only half of it.

I agree.

Yes, I know. The inflation stats I posted were in reply to jem's claim (half implied, half not) that inflation was low during Bush and is high during Obama.

 

[Tsing Tao]

I agree.

Yes, I know. The inflation stats I posted were in reply to jem's claim (half implied, half not) that inflation was low during Bush and is high during Obama.

I do not agree with Jem's assertion that inflation was low under Bush - at all. But if real income was rising, then it was outpacing inflation and it was "less of a bad thing" than we have now.

 

[Trader666]

But if real income was rising, then it was outpacing inflation and it was "less of a bad thing" than we have now.

Not to mention:

Since mid-2007 the U.S. population has grown by 17.2 million, according to the Census Bureau, but we have 374,000 fewer jobs since a November 2007 peak and are 10 million jobs shy of where we should be.
http://online.wsj.com/articles/mort...-time-scandal-of-part-time-america-1405291652

 

[Ricter]

I do not agree with Jem's assertion that inflation was low under Bush - at all. But if real income was rising, then it was outpacing inflation and it was "less of a bad thing" than we have now.

But we know the main factors that drove that income growth, and so we know why that income growth has stalled. (I'm just going along with that last assertion, since I have not looked at US mean real income per capita in a while).

 

[jem]

no... you miss the point because you do not understand the papers or you have not read them. Perhaps you did not understand the vernacular.

A baseline is "the best assessment of the
world absent the proposed regulation or policy
action."

http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/eerm.nsf/vwAN/EE-0568-05.pdf/$file/EE-0568-05.pdf



I have read many of these papers to which you refer. Every single paper that I have read attempts to show the tax cuts did not increase revenue by baselining to a fantasy model world.


Go ahead... link to the papers of you econ buddies or anyone other paper you like... lets read them.
No method exists that can say that can accurately say the tax cuts did not increase revenue... when the big tax cuts went 4 for 4. 4 tax cuts... followed by 4 increases in revenue.
I will bet what you econ friends are doing are baselining to a fantasy world... whether you understand what they do or not.

There is another even more crazy method and that is where they state the tax cuts did not increase revenue because they claim receipts went down as a percent of gdp.
Which of course is a complete torture of language. percent of gdp has nothing to do with whether revenues went up. As I stated before we are not trying to maximize govt tax revenues.

You've totally missed the point! Revenues went up, but it wasn't because of the tax cuts. You have fallen hook line and sinker for what is called the post hoc fallacy. And I happen to know you are way smarter than that. I don't know anything about "baselining" to a model of the U.S. economy, whatever that is. All of my information comes from reading the writings of economists or from personal conversation with them. And, of course, from doing my own thinking about what I have learned..