The Election Autopsy

[jem]

I know your are trying as hard as you can to keep yourself perfectly ignorant of economic reality so you can continue to write your leftist bullshit... but I will now try facts and stats...

You understand what a corelation is? (you see I can be a purposely pompus jerk in my writings just like you... if I wish.)

http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikepat...uts-increase-government-revenue/#38c6303548a3

There are two salient points here. First, as the graph illustrates, as tax rates declined, government revenue increased. Second, there is a strong negative correlation between the two. To review, correlation measures the relationship between two sets of data. The scale ranges from negative one to positive one. A correlation of positive one indicates that the two data sets move in concert with each other. A correlation of negative one indicates that as one set of data moves up, or down, the other moves in the opposite direction. Using the data from 1913 through the end of 2011, the correlation between the maximum marginal income tax bracket and total Federal receipts is a negative 0.50. In simple terms, when taxes are cut, Federal revenue has a very strong tendency to rise! And when taxes are raised, government revenue has a strong tendency to fall.

The next time you find yourself engaged in this debate and someone tells you that you that taxes must be raised to pay down the debt, you can refer them to this article. In conclusion, as JFK, Reagan, and George W. Bush understood, reducing taxes has a stimulative effect on economic activity which leads to an increase in government reciepts. You can’t argue with history!

No one has ever questioned that massive borrowing and spending stimulates an economy and results in revenue increases. If that is what your friends at the Cato institute are trying to prove, they may be wasting our time. Stay tuned, because I am quite sure you'll get to experience tax cuts followed by revenue increases during our upcoming Trump administrations stint in D.C.

 

[jem]

wow... I had no idea Keynes said that too.

I have been explaining the 700 percent inflation we have suffered in the last 50 years has been mostly caused by the FED creating money... not by our govt borrowing the money.

thanks for that...
piezoe is a big Federal Reserve and George Soros fan boy.

You can't apply Keynesian economic models with the current Fed "experiment".

 

[piezoe]

I know your are trying as hard as you can to keep yourself perfectly ignorant of economic reality so you can continue to write your leftist bullshit... but I will now try facts and stats...

You understand what a corelation is? (you see I can be a purposely pompus jerk in my writings just like you... if I wish.)

http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikepat...uts-increase-government-revenue/#38c6303548a3

There are two salient points here. First, as the graph illustrates, as tax rates declined, government revenue increased. Second, there is a strong negative correlation between the two. To review, correlation measures the relationship between two sets of data. The scale ranges from negative one to positive one. A correlation of positive one indicates that the two data sets move in concert with each other. A correlation of negative one indicates that as one set of data moves up, or down, the other moves in the opposite direction. Using the data from 1913 through the end of 2011, the correlation between the maximum marginal income tax bracket and total Federal receipts is a negative 0.50. In simple terms, when taxes are cut, Federal revenue has a very strong tendency to rise! And when taxes are raised, government revenue has a strong tendency to fall.

The next time you find yourself engaged in this debate and someone tells you that you that taxes must be raised to pay down the debt, you can refer them to this article. In conclusion, as JFK, Reagan, and George W. Bush understood, reducing taxes has a stimulative effect on economic activity which leads to an increase in government reciepts. You can’t argue with history!

this is a point we have never disagreed on despite your insistence that we have. What we have always disagreed on is the cause of the revenue increase.

I would point out that after the drastic Reagan tax cuts -- and can you believe the man had the nerve to raise the tax rate in the lowest bracket!!!? -- the nation transitioned from the world's largest creditor nation to the world's largest debtor nation. This was caused by tremendous spending on stimulus, military and domestic, and lower revenue than the administration had predicted,** despite a rise in revenue due to the stimulus spending. The marvelous revenue increases caused by, in your opinion, the tax cuts were not sufficient to prevent a gigantic, super colossal deficit. But what is extremely odd, but only if one reasons as you do, is why did the same administration undue some of the cuts and raise taxes. If these cuts were so effective in raising revenue, why would they kill, or in this case wound, the goose that laid the golden egg? I don't suppose you have ever thought about that.

By the time of the drastic Reagan cuts the top marginal rate was obviously --we know from the results-- below the maximum in Art Laffer's curve --malattributed to him, by the way-- and the brackets below, that were collapsed into one ridiculously low bracket, were therefore nowhere near the maximum! (By the way, one, but not you obviously, can make an argument that these drastic tax cuts produce less of a revenue loss when combined with other supply side initiatives, but it seems a hollow argument. For the excess money left with the already wealthy is not spent, but invested. Whereupon its returns are taxed at a lower rate than had the money been left in the middle class as regular income to be spent!)

The overall long term effect of supply side economics is very, very damaging to an economy. And you see the ironic evidence of THAT in the Trump victory!
___________________________
** Hayek, who was smarter than all of them combined, said it was unwise to spend the 'extra' money expected from your tax cuts before it materialized! They should have listened to Hayek.

 

[futurecurrents]

Supply Side stimulus programs - known as Mellon Kennedy Reagan and Bush tax cuts have been followed by an increase in tax revenue for the US govt the last 4 times they happened.

There is no way you can defend that leftist lie.

supply side tax cuts are keynesian.

Keynes “high tax rates defeat their own object,” *which is to collect tax revenue.) Keynes also said “given sufficient time to gather the fruits, a reduction of taxation will run a better chance, than an increase, of balancing the budget.”

Nope, no proof that tax cuts spur the economy in the long run.

 

[futurecurrents]

wow... I had no idea Keynes said that too.

I have been explaining the 700 percent inflation we have suffered in the last 50 years has been mostly caused by the FED creating money... not by our govt borrowing the money.

thanks for that...
piezoe is a big Federal Reserve and George Soros fan boy.

Yeah, borrowing money has no cost.

Do you even listen to yourself crazy man?

 

[ajcrshr]

Nope, no proof that tax cuts spur the economy in the long run.

Laughably ignorant post. Best growth by far in US history was when income taxes were zero.

 

[nitro]

This video should have ten million views. Instead it has 130,000

 

[ajcrshr]

This video should have ten million views. Instead it has 130,000

Really, you are just realizing now that the media was not correctly covering the election? It was obvious they were trying to use their platform to influence instead of inform.

 

[nitro]

Unfortunately the raw election data won't be available for a bit. It is so easy to form hypotheses at the human level. But the raw data is inescapable.

http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/electionresults.shtml

 

[nitro]

Data analysts forget over and over again the most fundamental truism. They do great as long as things fall within one or even two standard deviation of a Gaussian Probability Distribution Functions. They fail miserably at the tails - or, they get the PDF wrong which means they way underestimate the tails. That is why economists are great at getting reasonably close GDP numbers, but they almost always miss the recession. On the other hand, no one listens to the doomsayers because they way over predict recessions.

Going forward, if Democrats continue to put up people that are part of the same social structure as Clinton (republicans think Romney) they will continue to get trashed in US politics.

The center is done. If people want the center to come back, you have to have a middle class that doesn't live in NY, Chicago, LA, DC etc...