Higher Taxes on Top 1% Equals Higher Productivity

Discussion in 'Economy' started by JBeukema, Jan 3, 2011.

  1. JBeukema
    Offline

    JBeukema BANNED

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2009
    Messages:
    25,613
    Thanks Received:
    1,703
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    everywhere and nowhere
    Ratings:
    +1,705
  2. MitchMan
    Offline

    MitchMan Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2011
    Messages:
    105
    Thanks Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Ratings:
    +13
    Wonder if that is because Higher taxes on the top 1% pushes more purchasing power into the hands of those in the bottom 99% where actual and efficient consumption really goes on and thereby increases demand which is good for the country? I believe that the immediate problem righ now (not the only problem) is a lack of demand and a production capacity that is only at 71% meaning we have 29% excess production capacity.

    It's laughable, but Reagan bubbleheaded supply siders think that demand is not the problem but that it is a lack of supply that is the problem and they want more windfall tax breaks for the wealthy thinking that they will invest every penny in tax savings into production inspite of the fact that there is a weak demand. Man, they just refuse to get it. Even Milton Friedman said that people don't alter there short term spending patters readily just because they get a bump in income.
     
  3. Oddball
    Offline

    Oddball BANNED Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2009
    Messages:
    41,428
    Thanks Received:
    8,397
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays
    Ratings:
    +8,409
    Why not tell the class how that alchemy comes about?
     
  4. Toro
    Offline

    Toro Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2005
    Messages:
    50,755
    Thanks Received:
    11,052
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    The Big Bend via Riderville
    Ratings:
    +25,081
    A couple of things.

    First of all, does the author show a causal relationship? I skimmed over the beginning part and he does not mention it.

    Second, what matters is not marginal rates but effective rates. Effective rates have never been as high as marginal rates.

    Third, using the recovery from the Depression is spurrious. The drivers of economic recovery in the 30s had little to do with productivity growth.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
    Last edited: Jan 3, 2011
  5. Toro
    Offline

    Toro Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2005
    Messages:
    50,755
    Thanks Received:
    11,052
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    The Big Bend via Riderville
    Ratings:
    +25,081
    Full capacity in this country is not 100%. Full capacity is considered to be around 83%-84%.
     
  6. uscitizen
    Offline

    uscitizen Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    45,941
    Thanks Received:
    4,791
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    My Shack
    Ratings:
    +4,807
    Umm the market in the USA is saturated. Most people spend more than they make.
    There can be no real sales growth without job and or wage growth.
    Increasing income for the top 1% does not create hardly any more sales.
    Increasing income for the bottom 50% is almost a direct corelation of income to sales increases, they spend all they get and then some.
    We spent how much on unimployment ins benefits? Every dime of that rolled right back into the economy.
     
  7. loosecannon
    Offline

    loosecannon Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2007
    Messages:
    4,888
    Thanks Received:
    263
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +264
    That was my first thought too, and I listened to half of it and he didn't demonstrate causation.

    He did point out that the original income tax was reserved for people making over $150K/anum in 2010 dollars and cited a source at wiki for his facts:

    Taxation history of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    His facts are interesting but he generally doesn't support them in the interview.

    edited to add:

    His general thesis that productivity increased faster than wage increases and that increasing wages therefore the most profitable business model seems squishy at best. I am sure there are exceptions, but I don't think that is the rule.
     
    Last edited: Jan 3, 2011

Share This Page