|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
 Posted: Sat Nov 26, 2011 2:04 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Leon wrote: |
Silly me.... taking basic knowledge for granted.
|
Silly me...actually bothering to read...
| Quote: |
| I want to be very clear here: I am not saying, and no one should think, that high marginal tax rates drive growth. All else being equal, lower marginal tax rates are probably better for growth, though that can flip if they begin driving large deficits or starving important government functions. But what this graph suggests is that marginal tax rates don�t determine growth in either direction. |
Again,
| Quote: |
| As Linden put it, �these numbers do not mean that higher rates necessarily lead to higher growth. |
Explain to me how might taxes on the rich would drive growth and lead to prosperity?
Last edited by Steelrails on Sat Nov 26, 2011 2:33 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 26, 2011 2:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
From your first link
| Quote: |
| I want to be very clear here: I am not saying, and no one should think, that high marginal tax rates drive growth. All else being equal, lower marginal tax rates are probably better for growth |
In other words the fact that marginal tax rates were high when America was experiencing growth had very little to do with America's growth. There were many other factors.
From your second link
| Quote: |
| Now, lots of other factors were at play during these "good times" and "bad times," so we obviously can't pin all of it on income tax rates |
Getting the picture yet? Unless a lot of other factors also change taxing the rich isn't going to do much for the economy...just end up putting more money in goverment's pockets. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 28, 2011 9:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Now, lots of other factors were at play during these "good times" and "bad times," so we obviously can't pin all of it on income tax rates |
Getting the picture yet? Unless a lot of other factors also change taxing the rich isn't going to do much for the economy...just end up putting more money in goverment's pockets. |
Perhaps not, but taxing the rich will avoid medium/long-term Greek/Italian-style fiscal meltdown.
And I don't think restoring Clinton rates will hurt the economy. It might even help it a bit. Yes, taxing the rich 70% might be more dangerous. But honestly, setting a temporary 50% tax rate on the rich for five years to finance very modest relief programs (food stamps and unemployment benefits and maybe even mortgage relief and student loan relief). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 28, 2011 4:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
From your first link
| Quote: |
| I want to be very clear here: I am not saying, and no one should think, that high marginal tax rates drive growth. All else being equal, lower marginal tax rates are probably better for growth |
In other words the fact that marginal tax rates were high when America was experiencing growth had very little to do with America's growth. There were many other factors.
From your second link
| Quote: |
| Now, lots of other factors were at play during these "good times" and "bad times," so we obviously can't pin all of it on income tax rates |
Getting the picture yet? Unless a lot of other factors also change taxing the rich isn't going to do much for the economy...just end up putting more money in goverment's pockets. |
You sure do know how to quote out of context, but not even including a full sentence when you take a quote is impressive. Here is the full quote.
"All else being equal, lower marginal tax rates are probably better for growth, though that can flip if they begin driving large deficits or starving important government functions. But what this graph suggests is that marginal tax rates don�t determine growth in either direction. As Linden concludes, �These numbers do not mean that higher rates necessarily lead to higher growth. But the central tenet of modern conservative economics is that a lower top marginal tax rate will result in more growth, and these numbers do show conclusively that history has not been kind to that theory.�
I didn't include the links for the writing, though just for the graph which clearly illustrates that I was right, we have had the best economic times when we've had higher rates.
And here is the second quote you mangled.
"Now, lots of other factors were at play during these "good times" and "bad times," so we obviously can't pin all of it on income tax rates.
But it is certainly interesting that the two biggest busts and eras of income inequality in US history in the past century have come right after periods with super-low marginal income tax rates--and that the economy boomed and the middle-class prospered in periods with super-high tax rates.
And these facts raise a reasonable question:
Income inequality hit century-peaks right before the Great Depression and our current malaise. Click the chart for a Paul Krugman presentation on this.
Are low marginal tax rates actually BAD for the economy? Far from encouraging sustainable prosperity and growth, do low income tax rates actually help produce "sugar highs"--brief, unsustainable periods of rapid growth and money-making that are then followed by protracted busts? "
Are you getting the picture? My main contention isn't that the high rates are good, but rather that low rates are bad, and the republican idea that lower rates on the rich help the nation is idiocy and outright lies. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
No_hite_pls
Joined: 05 Mar 2007
Location: Don't hate me because I'm right
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 28, 2011 5:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| There is a reason why higher taxes on the rich and lower ones on the middle and lower classes in fact can drive economic growth. The rich tend to save money while the middle class and poor spend it, often on big ticket items like cars, big screen TV's and houses, which spur the economy. Additionally, not all government spending is wasteful. Dollars spent on projects like National Park improvements, highways, bridges, TVA, etc. actually have a return on investment greater than money placed in the savings of the rich. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 28, 2011 5:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
[q.
"All else being equal, lower marginal tax rates are probably better for growth, though that can flip if they begin driving large deficits or starving important government functions. But what this graph suggests is that marginal tax rates don�t determine growth in either direction. As Linden concludes, �These numbers do not mean that higher rates necessarily lead to higher growth. But the central tenet of modern conservative economics is that a lower top marginal tax rate will result in more growth, and these numbers do show conclusively that history has not been kind to that theory.�
d.
"Now, lots of other factors were at play during these "good times" and "bad times," so we obviously can't pin all of it on income tax rates.
But it is certainly interesting that the two biggest busts and eras of income inequality in US history in the past century have come right after periods with super-low marginal income tax rates--and that the economy boomed and the middle-class prospered in periods with super-high tax rates.
And these facts raise a reasonable question:
Income inequality hit century-peaks right before the Great Depression and our current malaise. Click the chart for a Paul Krugman presentation on this.
Are low marginal tax rates actually BAD for the economy? Far from encouraging sustainable prosperity and growth, do low income tax rates actually help produce "sugar highs"--brief, unsustainable periods of rapid growth and money-making that are then followed by protracted busts? "
Are you getting the picture? My main contention isn't that the high rates are good, but rather that low rates are bad, and the republican idea that lower rates on the rich help the nation is idiocy and outright lies. |
Except that none of your links support this idea. They do not say that low rates are bad but that they may be bad. Furthermore at least one states very clearly that under certain circumstances low tax rates could actually be BETTER.
Just as under certain circumstances higher rates could be better.
CORRELATION does not equal CAUSATION (to say nothing of CORROBORATION)
And I'll see your graph and raise you this one.
http://visualizingeconomics.com/2011/04/14/top-marginal-tax-rates-1916-2010/
As we can see the top income tax rates hit their peak at 1945 (when there was a MAJOR WAR GOING ON) and thereafter (mostly) went on a downwards trend. Around 1965 the downward trend accelerated (with a few upwards blips) but the trend is downwards not upwards over the last 50 years.
You'll note that unlike your graph you linked to my graph includes the actual years...hmm wonder why the first graph doesn't show the years? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 28, 2011 5:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
[q.
"All else being equal, lower marginal tax rates are probably better for growth, though that can flip if they begin driving large deficits or starving important government functions. But what this graph suggests is that marginal tax rates don�t determine growth in either direction. As Linden concludes, �These numbers do not mean that higher rates necessarily lead to higher growth. But the central tenet of modern conservative economics is that a lower top marginal tax rate will result in more growth, and these numbers do show conclusively that history has not been kind to that theory.�
d.
"Now, lots of other factors were at play during these "good times" and "bad times," so we obviously can't pin all of it on income tax rates.
But it is certainly interesting that the two biggest busts and eras of income inequality in US history in the past century have come right after periods with super-low marginal income tax rates--and that the economy boomed and the middle-class prospered in periods with super-high tax rates.
And these facts raise a reasonable question:
Income inequality hit century-peaks right before the Great Depression and our current malaise. Click the chart for a Paul Krugman presentation on this.
Are low marginal tax rates actually BAD for the economy? Far from encouraging sustainable prosperity and growth, do low income tax rates actually help produce "sugar highs"--brief, unsustainable periods of rapid growth and money-making that are then followed by protracted busts? "
Are you getting the picture? My main contention isn't that the high rates are good, but rather that low rates are bad, and the republican idea that lower rates on the rich help the nation is idiocy and outright lies. |
Except that none of your links support this idea. They do not say that low rates are bad but that they may be bad. Furthermore at least one states very clearly that under certain circumstances low tax rates could actually be BETTER.
Just as under certain circumstances higher rates could be better.
CORRELATION does not equal CAUSATION (to say nothing of CORROBORATION)
And I'll see your graph and raise you this one.
http://visualizingeconomics.com/2011/04/14/top-marginal-tax-rates-1916-2010/
As we can see the top income tax rates hit their peak at 1945 (when there was a MAJOR WAR GOING ON) and thereafter (mostly) went on a downwards trend. Around 1965 the downward trend accelerated (with a few upwards blips) but the trend is downwards not upwards over the last 50 years.
You'll note that unlike your graph you linked to my graph includes the actual years...hmm wonder why the first graph doesn't show the years? |
Probably because your graph sucks visually, and is confusing to look at? Anyways, this is an inelegant way to do it, looking at graphs and what not, did you look at the raw data in the last link? That's more substantive, but the evidence is in, low tax rates do not help the economy, and when we've had lower rates, it hasn't been good. My links aren't great, I spent 2 minutes looking them up, but there is no evidence that lower rates help the economy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 28, 2011 8:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
[
Probably because your graph sucks visually, and is confusing to look at? . |
Actually it's fairly simple so if you feel qualified to give your opinion on this particular thread you shouldn't have much trouble understanding it. It's certainly much more detailed than the other graph above...but that should only add to the ease of comprehension.
Speaking of the other graph one reason for the person who made the graph only focused on the last 50 years may be because when you go further back (specifically mid-Great depression) the top rate was at 60% and despite rising higher (almost to 80% before WWII interrupted) it didn't do much good. The decade previous it was the Roaring Twenties and the tax rate was quite low then. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 28, 2011 9:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
[
Probably because your graph sucks visually, and is confusing to look at? . |
Actually it's fairly simple so if you feel qualified to give your opinion on this particular thread you shouldn't have much trouble understanding it. It's certainly much more detailed than the other graph above...but that should only add to the ease of comprehension.
Speaking of the other graph one reason for the person who made the graph only focused on the last 50 years may be because when you go further back (specifically mid-Great depression) the top rate was at 60% and despite rising higher (almost to 80% before WWII interrupted) it didn't do much good. The decade previous it was the Roaring Twenties and the tax rate was quite low then. |
I can understand, but it is an ugly confusing poorly designed graph, and would never have been used in an actual magazine and newspaper. Low rates don't benefit the economy, it's a fairly simple point, and until you find something that says that they do, you have nothing. Further more high rates didn't hurt the economy before, if they were so harmful before where is the proof? So you can keep on going on about the graphs and taking quotes out of context, but I'm still waiting for you too disprove my two basic contentions.
Here's some better graphs.
http://www.faireconomy.org/research/TrickleDown.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 28, 2011 10:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
[
Probably because your graph sucks visually, and is confusing to look at? . |
Actually it's fairly simple so if you feel qualified to give your opinion on this particular thread you shouldn't have much trouble understanding it. It's certainly much more detailed than the other graph above...but that should only add to the ease of comprehension.
Speaking of the other graph one reason for the person who made the graph only focused on the last 50 years may be because when you go further back (specifically mid-Great depression) the top rate was at 60% and despite rising higher (almost to 80% before WWII interrupted) it didn't do much good. The decade previous it was the Roaring Twenties and the tax rate was quite low then. |
I can understand, but it is an ugly confusing poorly designed graph, and would never have been used in an actual magazine and newspaper. Low rates don't benefit the economy, it's a fairly simple point, and until you find something that says that they do, you have nothing. Further more high rates didn't hurt the economy before, if they were so harmful before where is the proof? So you can keep on going on about the graphs and taking quotes out of context, but I'm still waiting for you too disprove my two basic contentions.
Here's some better graphs.
http://www.faireconomy.org/research/TrickleDown.html |
Already done.
As for that graph it suffers from the same problem as the first one....it doesn't go back far enough (only 40 years). I suspect that this is by design as going back further reveals that this low tax-low economy correlation is not always the case. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 28, 2011 10:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
[
Probably because your graph sucks visually, and is confusing to look at? . |
Actually it's fairly simple so if you feel qualified to give your opinion on this particular thread you shouldn't have much trouble understanding it. It's certainly much more detailed than the other graph above...but that should only add to the ease of comprehension.
Speaking of the other graph one reason for the person who made the graph only focused on the last 50 years may be because when you go further back (specifically mid-Great depression) the top rate was at 60% and despite rising higher (almost to 80% before WWII interrupted) it didn't do much good. The decade previous it was the Roaring Twenties and the tax rate was quite low then. |
I can understand, but it is an ugly confusing poorly designed graph, and would never have been used in an actual magazine and newspaper. Low rates don't benefit the economy, it's a fairly simple point, and until you find something that says that they do, you have nothing. Further more high rates didn't hurt the economy before, if they were so harmful before where is the proof? So you can keep on going on about the graphs and taking quotes out of context, but I'm still waiting for you too disprove my two basic contentions.
Here's some better graphs.
http://www.faireconomy.org/research/TrickleDown.html |
Already done.
As for that graph it suffers from the same problem as the first one....it doesn't go back far enough (only 40 years). I suspect that this is by design as going back further reveals that this low tax-low economy correlation is not always the case. |
That is not proof, that is one instance. Proof is not made up of one instance, it's made up of historical trends. Maybe you didn't take any statistics classes, but again I keep thinking everyone knows this stuff. To eqaute the failure of the 1930's with taxes rather than the great depression is absurd. Which is why you need too look at data over time. Historical data trends are clear, low taxes don't benefit the economy, higher ones don't damage it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 29, 2011 9:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
[
Probably because your graph sucks visually, and is confusing to look at? . |
Actually it's fairly simple so if you feel qualified to give your opinion on this particular thread you shouldn't have much trouble understanding it. It's certainly much more detailed than the other graph above...but that should only add to the ease of comprehension.
Speaking of the other graph one reason for the person who made the graph only focused on the last 50 years may be because when you go further back (specifically mid-Great depression) the top rate was at 60% and despite rising higher (almost to 80% before WWII interrupted) it didn't do much good. The decade previous it was the Roaring Twenties and the tax rate was quite low then. |
I can understand, but it is an ugly confusing poorly designed graph, and would never have been used in an actual magazine and newspaper. Low rates don't benefit the economy, it's a fairly simple point, and until you find something that says that they do, you have nothing. Further more high rates didn't hurt the economy before, if they were so harmful before where is the proof? So you can keep on going on about the graphs and taking quotes out of context, but I'm still waiting for you too disprove my two basic contentions.
Here's some better graphs.
http://www.faireconomy.org/research/TrickleDown.html |
Already done.
As for that graph it suffers from the same problem as the first one....it doesn't go back far enough (only 40 years). I suspect that this is by design as going back further reveals that this low tax-low economy correlation is not always the case. |
That is not proof, that is one instance. Proof is not made up of one instance, it's made up of historical trends. Maybe you didn't take any statistics classes, but again I keep thinking everyone knows this stuff. To eqaute the failure of the 1930's with taxes rather than the great depression is absurd. Which is why you need too look at data over time. Historical data trends are clear, low taxes don't benefit the economy, higher ones don't damage it. |
The data in my graph also support it. Since 1965 taxes begin to decline sharply...yet there's been some of the best periods of prosperity in that period in the U.S since the start of the century. If high taxes equated to prosperity then as they declined America and Americans should have gotten poorer and poorer. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
No_hite_pls
Joined: 05 Mar 2007
Location: Don't hate me because I'm right
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 29, 2011 10:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Since 1965 taxes begin to decline sharply...yet there's been some of the best periods of prosperity in that period in the U.S since the start of the century. If high taxes equated to prosperity then as they declined America and Americans should have gotten poorer and poorer. |
Not true. The best period for growth in America was between 1945 to 1968 certainly not after 1975. Adjusted for inflation median incomes for Americans have not really changed since 1970 and from 1988 to 2008 there was no increase in median incomes adjusted for inflation. For all the improvements in technology, wages in the states for working Americans have really not increased since the 1970's and working hours have increased.
http://money.cnn.com/2011/02/16/news/economy/middle_class/index.htm |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 30, 2011 3:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| No_hite_pls wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Since 1965 taxes begin to decline sharply...yet there's been some of the best periods of prosperity in that period in the U.S since the start of the century. If high taxes equated to prosperity then as they declined America and Americans should have gotten poorer and poorer. |
Not true. The best period for growth in America was between 1945 to 1968 certainly not after 1975. Adjusted for inflation median incomes for Americans have not really changed since 1970 and from 1988 to 2008 there was no increase in median incomes adjusted for inflation. For all the improvements in technology, wages in the states for working Americans have really not increased since the 1970's and working hours have increased.
http://money.cnn.com/2011/02/16/news/economy/middle_class/index.htm |
I never said the best period I said some of the best periods.
| Quote: |
The stock market was booming throughout the 1980�s and there appeared to be no end in sight. By the last week in August 1987 the market had established its 55th record close of the year. Still the boom continued.
At this rate in only four more months the Reagan bull-market would set a record of expansion for the century, exceeding the surge that lasted from 1924-1929.
As Labor Day approached, the Dow stood at 2722.42 and experts were predicting that it would rise another thousand points within the coming year. |
Bolding mine.
From the book "Reagan revolution"
The flip side of course was that this encouraged wild speculation and junk bond trading galore. Which partly led to the market crashing and Black Monday.
But a lower tax rate had little if anything to do with the crash which is what the thread is about. Simply pointing out that as with the Roaring Twenties a low tax rate is again correlating with a boom period.
It's easy to cherry pick data from the last 40 or 50 years to support a theory (which is all the supporting data say it is anyway). But when we look at the entire last century that theory can appear rather shaky. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BananaBan
Joined: 16 Nov 2011
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 30, 2011 4:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
they should start taxing capital gains more appropriately
mutual funds only benefit the financial advisor hinthint |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
