Degenerate's Tax the Rich Fixation

[OohPooPahDoo]

Democrats are too stupid to understand economic growth and its relationship to revenue.

They are like thieves who can't imagine working for money and see only who to steal from to increase their income.

Did the Clinton era rates hurt the economy in the 90's?

If we had a poor economy to begin with it would have been devastated. Increasing taxes does not cause prosperity. In prosperous times, increased taxes is bearable but increasing taxes, does not cause economic growth.

Let's jump off the fiscal cliff and see how well it works.

How will increased rates on people who have their wealth parked on the sidelines hurt the economy?

Don't lower deficits lead to long term prosperity?

 

[jwoodie]

Glad I gave you a chuckle, but let's get back to linear logic:

1. Define "stagnant capital" and why it would be more efficiently used by poor people buying food and basic products.

2. Assuming you want to raise taxes on the wealthy, where is your maximum "monetary velocity" point and how did you calculate it?

3. Haven't we mimicked a "redistributive effect" (through borrowing) over the past four years? How has that worked out?

4. You still haven't answered where "additional capital" is supposed to come from.

Note: I am deliberately ignoring Rope-a-Dope's post.

1. Capital that resides with individuals and has low monetary velocity.

2. It's calculated by how many hands it moves through and and how quickly. High monetaray velocity points are with lower and middle income earners, since they spend it back into the economy almost instantaneously and with, by and large, retailers, where monetary velocity is higher as well.

3. Yes, but not in sustainable ways, since rather than moving the money back through, we coerce its movement in ways that are costly and diminish the value of the US Dollar, namely increasing the money-supply.

4. True. Let me make amends: it comes from the Fed, aka "printing" money. It's not actually printed, since hard currecy is a mere convenience. Most of the money supply is virtual, and increases with discount rates and lower interest that spurs more borrowing. We've had to do this, since we've abandoned the organic method, that higher wages and redistributive tax policy create, since no urging is needed by the Fed. Borrowing, and with it the money-supply, just organically rise with the growth in the economy. And with capital in parallel with the economy, the strenght of our currecy improves.

Does that help?

Good discussion, but:

1. Circular logic? You define capital that resides with individuals as being being "stagnant." This may be true for gold bullion or money stuffed in a mattress, but not for investments, which are the principal source of available capital (see #4).

2. You still haven't addressed where the optimum monetary velocity point is or how to calculate it. Maybe we are already there; if not, how do we know?

3. Although not "organic" in origin, the redistributive effect of our huge entitlement spending should have already increased monetary velocity and economic growth, since the diminution of the dollar has not yet occurred.

4. If Wealth Distribution is an objectionable term, how about Reducing Income Disparity? In either case, the current "tax the rich" environment is not going to induce robust business investment and job growth, which is the only way out of our deficit problem?

 

[Wacky Quacky]

It has other impacts besides the direct revenue:

1. It's an historical fact that growth (+ GDP) is higher when tax rates are higher; the reason is its "redistributive effect," a vital component in modern econmies, the world over. Money at the top tends to stagnate, whereas when it's re-distributed it moves rapidly through the economy, in what are called "high monetary velocity points." Increase growth by a percentage point or two, and the impact on revenue is substantial.

There is no such evidence of this. Revenue as a % of GDP falls between about 15% to 20% regardless of what the tax rate is. This also kills the conservative argument that the government collects more revenue when taxes are lower.

There is in fact quite a lot of historical data. Here's merely one article on it, of many ...

Tax Cuts Don't Lead to Economic Growth, a New 65-Year Study Finds - Derek Thompson - The Atlantic

That just reinforces what I said. Neither tax hikes, nor tax cuts, have much of any effect on economic growth and therefore government revenues.

 

[Wacky Quacky]

Did the Clinton era rates hurt the economy in the 90's?

If we had a poor economy to begin with it would have been devastated. Increasing taxes does not cause prosperity. In prosperous times, increased taxes is bearable but increasing taxes, does not cause economic growth.

Let's jump off the fiscal cliff and see how well it works.

How will increased rates on people who have their wealth parked on the sidelines hurt the economy?

Don't lower deficits lead to long term prosperity?

They do. Too bad increased tax rates won't lead to any noticeable reduction in the deficit.

 

[Uncensored2008]

It has other impacts besides the direct revenue:

1. It's an historical fact that growth (+ GDP) is higher when tax rates are higher;

Your claim is false, in fact it is 180° from actual fact.

the reason is its "redistributive effect," a vital component in modern econmies, the world over.

You know nothing of economies or economics. You're just another lying leftist.

Money at the top tends to stagnate, whereas when it's re-distributed it moves rapidly through the economy, in what are called "high monetary velocity points." Increase growth by a percentage point or two, and the impact on revenue is substantial.

Thanks Lord Keynes;

Say, can you point to "redistribution" as one of the methods Keynes advocates? Can you point to stimulus (which he actually did advocate) actually increasing the velocity of currency?

Say, you seem utterly ignorant of economics, are you per chance Paul Krugman, posting incognito?

2. The calculation focuses only on income from Labor (about 2/3rds) and ignores the impact on income from Capital (1/3) which also need to be increased at the same time, progressively.

Would a capital gains tax of 90% or so encourage investment in facilities and equipment?

 

[Koios]

Glad I gave you a chuckle, but let's get back to linear logic:

1. Define "stagnant capital" and why it would be more efficiently used by poor people buying food and basic products.

2. Assuming you want to raise taxes on the wealthy, where is your maximum "monetary velocity" point and how did you calculate it?

3. Haven't we mimicked a "redistributive effect" (through borrowing) over the past four years? How has that worked out?

4. You still haven't answered where "additional capital" is supposed to come from.

Note: I am deliberately ignoring Rope-a-Dope's post.

1. Capital that resides with individuals and has low monetary velocity.

2. It's calculated by how many hands it moves through and and how quickly. High monetaray velocity points are with lower and middle income earners, since they spend it back into the economy almost instantaneously and with, by and large, retailers, where monetary velocity is higher as well.

3. Yes, but not in sustainable ways, since rather than moving the money back through, we coerce its movement in ways that are costly and diminish the value of the US Dollar, namely increasing the money-supply.

4. True. Let me make amends: it comes from the Fed, aka "printing" money. It's not actually printed, since hard currecy is a mere convenience. Most of the money supply is virtual, and increases with discount rates and lower interest that spurs more borrowing. We've had to do this, since we've abandoned the organic method, that higher wages and redistributive tax policy create, since no urging is needed by the Fed. Borrowing, and with it the money-supply, just organically rise with the growth in the economy. And with capital in parallel with the economy, the strenght of our currecy improves.

Does that help?

Good discussion, but:

1. Circular logic? You define capital that resides with individuals as being being "stagnant." This may be true for gold bullion or money stuffed in a mattress, but not for investments, which are the principal source of available capital (see #4).

2. You still haven't addressed where the optimum monetary velocity point is or how to calculate it. Maybe we are already there; if not, how do we know?

3. Although not "organic" in origin, the redistributive effect of our huge entitlement spending should have already increased monetary velocity and economic growth, since the diminution of the dollar has not yet occurred.

4. If Wealth Distribution is an objectionable term, how about Reducing Income Disparity? In either case, the current "tax the rich" environment is not going to induce robust business investment and job growth, which is the only way out of our deficit problem?

Not really.

1. No

2. Yeah; I did. But it wasn't the answer you'd hoped for.

3. We decreased the redistributive effect when Bush 43 cuts in 2001 and 2003 were signed into law. How are you liking it? Feeling more secure in your job? Wanting to take out a larger mortgage? Buying a new car every couple years?

4. It's not an objectional term, per se. It's a) wrong, and; b) fear-mongering. Income disparity is a product of the lower growth we've experienced since 2000, which has created a labor market that businesses have got to love. They can be selective in hiring people, and offer lower starting salaries. Meanwhile others in the company are less secure-feeling and thus not making higher wage demands. Plus we've allowed the Federal Minimum Wage to fall behind inflation, making it about half of what is was at its peak in the 70s. The result is many working poor, and growth primarily in service jobs that pay so little the workers are not consuming at a level sufficient to drive demand high enough for full employment, which business interests are loathe to have occur. They like high unemployment, for all the reasons I mentioned, and are thus happy to fund think tanks to come up with pseudo-economic theories on how higher wages are bad, which of course ignores history. But the right-wing koolaid-guzzling crowd eats it up, and it's been a windfall for corporate profits. However, it seems folks are starting to come to their senses, in regard to tax policy. Romney's trickle-down redux was an utter failure, garnering him fewer votes even than McCain, who himself lost in an EC landslide. The other myth / fear average Americans need to overcome is fear of higher wage minimums. Their Big Macs and Lattes will not be $20. In fact, much data shows, historically, that higher wage minimums have no effect on inflation, and have even paralleled times when inflation decreased significantly. When more is being bought, economies of scale and competition for the growing demand, come into play, too.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

If we had a poor economy to begin with it would have been devastated. Increasing taxes does not cause prosperity. In prosperous times, increased taxes is bearable but increasing taxes, does not cause economic growth.

Let's jump off the fiscal cliff and see how well it works.

How will increased rates on people who have their wealth parked on the sidelines hurt the economy?

Don't lower deficits lead to long term prosperity?

They do. Too bad increased tax rates won't lead to any noticeable reduction in the deficit.

If you don't think the wealthy will notice it then you should have no problem with the increase.


Funny, too, I'd bet you'd consider an equal amount in spending increases to be "noticeable". Funny how the few savings from cutting public radio is "noticeable" at less than a billion but 800 billion over 10 years isn't "noticeable". You guys have got some real funny math.

 

[Wacky Quacky]

How will increased rates on people who have their wealth parked on the sidelines hurt the economy?

Don't lower deficits lead to long term prosperity?

They do. Too bad increased tax rates won't lead to any noticeable reduction in the deficit.

If you don't think the wealthy will notice it then you should have no problem with the increase.

Missed my point completely.

Deficit = 1.6 trillion
Ending Bush tax cuts = 90 billion

What's the point.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

They do. Too bad increased tax rates won't lead to any noticeable reduction in the deficit.

If you don't think the wealthy will notice it then you should have no problem with the increase.

Missed my point completely.

Deficit = 1.6 trillion
Ending Bush tax cuts = 90 billion

What's the point.

Well hey if 90 billion a year is no big deal to you let's go ahead and increase funding to welfare by 90 billion. Its not "noticeable" according to you so I'm sure you're fine with it.

90 billion is nothing compared to the projected 2014 deficit of 265 billion. THat's only like 1/3 of it, that' aint shit. http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/BudgetTables.pdf

 

[Chris]

The Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest five percent of Americans cost the U.S. Treasury $11.6 million every hour, according to the National Priorities Project. Between 2001 and the current projected end of the Bush tax cut extension, tax cuts for the wealthiest 5 percent will cost the U.S. Treasury $1.184 trillion. If extended through 2021 as gop lawmakers propose, the total cost will exceed $3.2 trillion.

 

[Wacky Quacky]

If you don't think the wealthy will notice it then you should have no problem with the increase.

Missed my point completely.

Deficit = 1.6 trillion
Ending Bush tax cuts = 90 billion

What's the point.

Well hey if 90 billion a year is no big deal to you let's go ahead and increase funding to welfare by 90 billion. Its not "noticeable" according to you so I'm sure you're fine with it.

Yup, I am fine with it. When addressing our nation's financial trouble there are much bigger fish to fry.

90 billion is nothing compared to the projected 2014 deficit of 265 billion. THat's only like 1/3 of it, that' aint shit. http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/BudgetTables.pdf

Okay, I'm not the kind of person to discount the CBO just because I don't like their numbers, but what the fuck are they smoking!

 

[Skull Pilot]

The Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest five percent of Americans cost the U.S. Treasury $11.6 million every hour, according to the National Priorities Project. Between 2001 and the current projected end of the Bush tax cut extension, tax cuts for the wealthiest 5 percent will cost the U.S. Treasury $1.184 trillion. If extended through 2021 as gop lawmakers propose, the total cost will exceed $3.2 trillion.

You mean the bush tax cuts for everyone don't you?

After all you got a tax cut from GWB too you know.

And How many times do you have to be told tat tax cuts don't cost anything?

 

[editec]

But just how much deficit reduction would Obama’s tax hikes on the rich necessarily accomplish?

Nothing, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Clearly then the wealthy's taxes must go up even more than Obama is proposing.

 

[Rozman]

Raising taxes on the rich was the cornerstone of President Obama’s reelection campaign. “If we’re serious about reducing the deficit,” Obama told a rally in Columbus, Ohio, on election day, “we’ve got to ask the wealthiest Americans to go back to the tax rates they paid when Bill Clinton was in office.”

But just how much deficit reduction would Obama’s tax hikes on the rich necessarily accomplish?

Nothing, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Letting tax rates rise to Clinton era levels for those families making over $250,000 a year would only raise $824 billion over ten years. That is not even enough revenue to undo the sequester that Obama promised “will not happen” during his final debate with Mitt Romney....

How much deficit reduction would Obama

824 billion over 10 years = nothing


Wow. That's some new kinda math.

When we are trillions of dollars in debt 824 billion isn't much.
When we have deficit spending like we have we need to balance the budget.
That is if we ever get the Democrat party to pass one.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Raising taxes on the rich was the cornerstone of President Obama’s reelection campaign. “If we’re serious about reducing the deficit,” Obama told a rally in Columbus, Ohio, on election day, “we’ve got to ask the wealthiest Americans to go back to the tax rates they paid when Bill Clinton was in office.”

But just how much deficit reduction would Obama’s tax hikes on the rich necessarily accomplish?

Nothing, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Letting tax rates rise to Clinton era levels for those families making over $250,000 a year would only raise $824 billion over ten years. That is not even enough revenue to undo the sequester that Obama promised “will not happen” during his final debate with Mitt Romney....

How much deficit reduction would Obama

824 billion over 10 years = nothing


Wow. That's some new kinda math.

When we are trillions of dollars in debt 824 billion isn't much.
When we have deficit spending like we have we need to balance the budget.
That is if we ever get the Democrat party to pass one.

Divided by 10 years its actually about 1/3 of the projected deficit in 2014.



If you think 824 billion isn't even worth counting then you should have no problem continuing to fund public broadcasting which uses less than 1 billion, right?


In fact, anything 824 billion or less you should have no problem with, since items that small apparently by your fucked up math don't even add into the total as they count for "nothing" Or is it "not much"? Make up your dumb mind.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Missed my point completely.

Deficit = 1.6 trillion
Ending Bush tax cuts = 90 billion

What's the point.

Well hey if 90 billion a year is no big deal to you let's go ahead and increase funding to welfare by 90 billion. Its not "noticeable" according to you so I'm sure you're fine with it.

Yup, I am fine with it. When addressing our nation's financial trouble there are much bigger fish to fry.

90 billion is nothing compared to the projected 2014 deficit of 265 billion. THat's only like 1/3 of it, that' aint shit. http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/BudgetTables.pdf

Okay, I'm not the kind of person to discount the CBO just because I don't like their numbers, but what the fuck are they smoking!

Hey, we should just pick and choose which CBO numbers we want to use, right? If we don't like the number it must be wrong. They could have saved themselves a lot of research effort if they just asked you what numbers you'd be OK with beforehand

Or should we pretend that 1/3 is an insignificant number when compared to 1 ?


Let me know when you decide which of those two lines we're going down.

Okay, I'm not the kind of person to discount the CBO just because I don't like their numbers,

No, actually, you are that kind of person. You just did exactly that.

 

[Wacky Quacky]

Well hey if 90 billion a year is no big deal to you let's go ahead and increase funding to welfare by 90 billion. Its not "noticeable" according to you so I'm sure you're fine with it.

Yup, I am fine with it. When addressing our nation's financial trouble there are much bigger fish to fry.



Okay, I'm not the kind of person to discount the CBO just because I don't like their numbers, but what the fuck are they smoking!

Hey, we should just pick and choose which CBO numbers we want to use, right? If we don't like the number it must be wrong. They could have saved themselves a lot of research effort if they just asked you what numbers you'd be OK with beforehand

Or should we pretend that 1/3 is an insignificant number when compared to 1 ?


Let me know when you decide which of those two lines we're going down.

Okay, I'm not the kind of person to discount the CBO just because I don't like their numbers,

No, actually, you are that kind of person. You just did exactly that.

Come on, you don't think it's a little far fetched that the CBO thinks the deficit will be reduced by 1.3 trillion within 2 years!?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Yup, I am fine with it. When addressing our nation's financial trouble there are much bigger fish to fry.



Okay, I'm not the kind of person to discount the CBO just because I don't like their numbers, but what the fuck are they smoking!

Hey, we should just pick and choose which CBO numbers we want to use, right? If we don't like the number it must be wrong. They could have saved themselves a lot of research effort if they just asked you what numbers you'd be OK with beforehand

Or should we pretend that 1/3 is an insignificant number when compared to 1 ?


Let me know when you decide which of those two lines we're going down.

Okay, I'm not the kind of person to discount the CBO just because I don't like their numbers,

No, actually, you are that kind of person. You just did exactly that.

Come on, you don't think it's a little far fetched that the CBO thinks the deficit will be reduced by 1.3 trillion within 2 years!?

Far fetched based on what? A review of empirical data, or my gut feewing?

When you're ready to stop picking and choosing which CBO numbers are true and which are false based not on any review of their methods or data - but solely on your desire to have the evidence fit your argument - we can have a rational conversation.

 

[WillowTree]

Raising taxes on the rich was the cornerstone of President Obama’s reelection campaign. “If we’re serious about reducing the deficit,” Obama told a rally in Columbus, Ohio, on election day, “we’ve got to ask the wealthiest Americans to go back to the tax rates they paid when Bill Clinton was in office.”

But just how much deficit reduction would Obama’s tax hikes on the rich necessarily accomplish?

Nothing, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Letting tax rates rise to Clinton era levels for those families making over $250,000 a year would only raise $824 billion over ten years. That is not even enough revenue to undo the sequester that Obama promised “will not happen” during his final debate with Mitt Romney....

How much deficit reduction would Obama

If the asshole was serious about "revenues decreasing the deficit" he let the Bush tax cuts expire on EVERYONE. But no, not this one, he's got to engage in class warfare.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Raising taxes on the rich was the cornerstone of President Obama’s reelection campaign. “If we’re serious about reducing the deficit,” Obama told a rally in Columbus, Ohio, on election day, “we’ve got to ask the wealthiest Americans to go back to the tax rates they paid when Bill Clinton was in office.”

But just how much deficit reduction would Obama’s tax hikes on the rich necessarily accomplish?

Nothing, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Letting tax rates rise to Clinton era levels for those families making over $250,000 a year would only raise $824 billion over ten years. That is not even enough revenue to undo the sequester that Obama promised “will not happen” during his final debate with Mitt Romney....

How much deficit reduction would Obama

If the asshole was serious about "revenues decreasing the deficit" he let the Bush tax cuts expire on EVERYONE. But no, not this one, he's got to engage in class warfare.

That would be detrimental to the economy at this point.