| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
 Posted: Fri May 23, 2008 3:58 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Quote: |
| economics is in a far earlier stage of evolution than physics. Unfortunately, it is often poisoned by political wishful thinking |
This is exactly the problem with economics. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Fri May 23, 2008 5:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
| yawarakaijin wrote: |
still getting dinged 85$ a month for medicare (in B.C) even after paying for our so called "free" healthcare
|
1k/yr for a single person will buy good medical insurance in the US. Unless you're an obese smoker. It is your own damn fault then anyways. |
Eh no, won't buy that great of insurance. I presently pay $745/year for minimal insurance. I also have health-insurance through my university, which costs about $1,200/year. So why do I have both? Because I was diagnosed with cancer when I was 26. Therefore, if I were to drop my minimal insurance, I would be totally screwed if I became unemployed and no longer a student. No insurance company is going to take me on as a single payer due to my medical past. Who cares that I have been asymptomatic since then, healthy weight, don't smoke, etc etc. So there goes 745 bucks a year. Yay. Anyway...
Health care costs in the United states are insane. My out-of-pocket WITH insurance for cancer treatment was over 10K. If I didn't have insurance? About 250K.
Something needs to be done about health-care in this country. While I appreciate all candidates having a plan, I'm skeptical how effective they'd actually be if they were enacted. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stillnotking
Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Location: Oregon, USA
|
| Posted: Fri May 23, 2008 6:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This is total nonsense. Hauser's "Law" is ideological claptrap that is taught in no serious economic program.
Why? It restricts its analysis of taxation to the top income bracket, but it presents total government revenue. What happened in the period of 1950-2008 is that the top marginal rate generally went down, and the tax rates on everyone else generally went up. It is not surprising that overall revenues remained more-or-less flat, therefore. What happened was not some magical interference by the Invisible Hand, but a transfer of the tax burden from the very wealthy to the middle class. Not coincidentally, the middle class has been shrinking and real wages have been declining during the same period.
Hauser's Law joins the Laffer Curve* in the dustbin of right-wing voodoo economic theory. The only people who promote either are the people who, one way or another, benefit by doing so. Like those paragons of objective, scientific analysis at the WSJ editorial page.
Let me ask you, Pluto: Do you genuinely believe that the entire discipline of economics has ignored clear evidence that taxes don't generate revenue, for fifteen years? Really?
*My favorite quote about the Laffer Curve came from my econ professor, who said "The Laffer Curve is relevant to policy in exactly the same way that the melting point of steel is relevant to washing the dishes." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Fri May 23, 2008 6:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
After Reagan's tax cuts government tax revenues went up. The debt increase but a lot of that was cause of spending.
If high taxes are such a good thing then why is overall economic growth in Europe so far behind the US year after year?
If captial gains taxes are increased investors will leave the US stock market and revenues will go down.
This is coming from someone who opposed Bush's tax cuts. It is clear that tax cuts increase growth , I don't know that it is worth not paying down debt but they do increase economic growth |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Fri May 23, 2008 7:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
If high taxes are such a good thing then why is overall economic growth in Europe so far behind the US year after year?
|
may i direct your attention to sweden, norway, and denmark?
France is far behind the US because of its regulations. Same with Germany. The UK's growth has been on par with the US or stronger than it in recent years.
I'd say regulations are a bigger hindrance than taxes are. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sat May 24, 2008 12:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| stillnotking wrote: |
Let me ask you, Pluto: Do you genuinely believe that the entire discipline of economics has ignored clear evidence that taxes don't generate revenue, for fifteen years? Really?
|
I don't think that's what Pluto is arguing. The evidence he presented showed that taxes as a share of GDP was constant as marginal tax rates (presumably) varied. He admits that hidden taxes and the cost of regulation make an exact measurement extremely difficult.
Nevertheless, I'd like to see Pluto vigorously defend Hauser's Law. I lean a little right on economic issues but I believe a flat tax is undesirable. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stillnotking
Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Location: Oregon, USA
|
| Posted: Sat May 24, 2008 3:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| It is clear that tax cuts increase growth , I don't know that it is worth not paying down debt but they do increase economic growth |
Of course. No one would deny that lower taxes are good for the economy. That's completely different from the bill of goods Laffer and Hauser are trying to sell.
Taxes are a necessary evil. Liberals tend to focus on the necessity, conservatives tend to focus on the evil. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jaykimf
Joined: 24 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sat May 24, 2008 9:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Pluto wrote: |
| The nature of capital is that it will avoid anywhere it is treated the harshest, i.e. taxed the most. |
Not true. There are a whole range of factors that determine where capital gets invested, but in general it tends to flow where potential profits are the greatest. (adjusted for risk of course). While it may be true that after tax profits are the main point, it is not true that Tax rates are the primary determinant of after tax profits. Making capital decisions based on tax rates is a case of the tail wagging the dog. Would you rather make 10 million and pay 90% in taxes, or make 100,000 and pay no tax? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jaykimf
Joined: 24 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sat May 24, 2008 9:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| stillnotking wrote: |
Of course. No one would deny that lower taxes are good for the economy. |
Well, If lower taxes mean that education and basic infrastructure are underfunded, than I would deny that they are good for the economy. The problem is not with taxes but with what those taxes are used for. Using tax money to invest in education and infrastructure is smart policy and good for the economy. Wasting trillions of dollars in Iraq is of course another story. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pluto
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Sat May 24, 2008 4:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
To be sure, there are other reasons for economic growth. Low regulation, a high level of education and plurality and toleration all contribute to the economic well-being of a society, too. However, taxes can't be overlooked. There is no question, and many economists agree, that low taxes lead to a stronger more robust economy.
My desire, Stillnotking, was to talk about how to best grow the economy in relation to taxes while keeping whatever government commitments viable. I had no intention of turning this into a left/right flame war. Furthermore, Messrs Hauser and Laffer have provided relevant data and relevant economic models on which to base our decisions. Personal anecdotes with your favorite econ professors and hand waving comments such as "right-wing voodoo economic theory" and "those paragons of objective, scientific analysis at the WSJ editorial page" do nothing to disprove these theories. You also mention the middle class w/o defining the middle class. It would seem that the more than 100M Americans and growing who own stock completely fly in the face of what you posit nor do you show how the middle class are taxed more. As far as the lower income tax bracket is concerned, the 2002 tax cuts brought their rate down to 10%. In fact, all marginal tax rates went down with the 2002 tax cuts. Should they expire, the lower class will again pay 15% on what they earn and the middle class marginal tax rates will go back up, also.
The model that Hauser has presented is not what I would call a law, rather I would call it a theorem; it can still be disproved. Still, there is one historical anecdote. In 1994, the Republicans swept to power in the House of Representatives and were successful in cajoling the Clinton Administration into cutting spending. This was also at the same time of the dot.com boom. The Republican House was effective at getting government spending down to 19%. There was a surplus. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sat May 24, 2008 9:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
spending yes. but were there tax cuts along with the spending cuts? I don't believe there were.
I think we all can agree that cutting overall spending is good. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pluto
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Sat May 24, 2008 10:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bucheon bum wrote: |
spending yes. but were there tax cuts along with the spending cuts? I don't believe there were.
I think we all can agree that cutting overall spending is good. |
I have always argued that spending cuts must accompany tax cuts. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sun May 25, 2008 5:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
If high taxes are such a good thing then why is overall economic growth in Europe so far behind the US year after year?
|
may i direct your attention to sweden, norway, and denmark?
France is far behind the US because of its regulations. Same with Germany. The UK's growth has been on par with the US or stronger than it in recent years.
I'd say regulations are a bigger hindrance than taxes are. |
Well they have one advantage over the US in that the US is actaully pays for its own defense.
Norway has had the benefit of high oil.
The US also had to deal with 9-11. Over the long term the US will still be ahead. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jaykimf
Joined: 24 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sun May 25, 2008 10:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bucheon bum wrote: |
I think we all can agree that cutting overall spending is good. |
Not exactly. I would agree that cutting wasteful or inefficient government spending would be good. Cutting spending on programs of dubious value would be good. It seems to me that many of the tax cut advocates are really anti spending advocates who seem to think that by restricting revenue, the government can somehow be forced to be more efficient and less wasteful; that it can be forced to prioritize its spending and eliminate non-vital programs etc. It would be great if it worked that way, but unfortunately in reality that's not the way it works. It's not the most vital and important programs that get preserved. The programs that get preserved are the ones that have the best lobbyists and that are backed by the most powerful vested interests. I have no problem with with taxes and government spending, IF, it is done efficiently and for purposes that are a real benefit to society, but in reality, it doesn't work that way either. The problem with "cut taxes, cut spending" is that all to often, the baby gets thrown out with the bath water. Using tax dollars to invest in education and infrastructure etc is good for the economy and for society. Giving tax breaks to the rich is of dubious value to society as a whole. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
