Religion, Economics and Obama

[PoliticalChic]

The religion of taxation...

1. You’ve heard of the guy who claimed he broke up with his girlfriend due to religious differences: she wouldn’t treat him like a god.
Oh…you too?

2. Generally, one identifies a religion as based on a deep personal faith, rather than testable, observable facts. When filtered through the Liberal perspective, the concept of taxation becomes a religious function.


3. The Laffer Curve is accepted by all knowledgeable economists, professional or avocational, as a graphic representation of revenue accrued due to taxation.

a. “In economics, the term Laffer curve refers to a hypothetical representation of the relationship between government revenue raised by taxation and all possible rates of taxation. It illustrates the concept oftaxable income elasticity – that taxable income will change in response to changes in the rate of taxation.” Laffer curve - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




4. Dr. Tim Groseclose, economics professor, explains the Laffer Curve in this 5 minute video:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ayad5mbSSrU]Prager University: Do High Taxes Raise More Money? - YouTube[/ame]




5. According the study, the point at which revenue ceases to increase is the 33% tax rate.

a. One study of the United States between 1959 and 1991 placed the revenue-maximizing tax rate (the point at which another marginal tax rate increase would decrease tax revenue) between 32.67% and 35.21% Hsing, Y. (1996), "Estimating the Laffer curve and policy implications", Journal of Socio-Economics 25 (3): 395–401, doi:10.1016/S1053-5357(96)90013-X, http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S105353579690013X,




6. A noted Liberal, Barack Obama, commented that the revenue purpose of taxation was secondary to the “fairness” function.

a. [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YoqkOrA4tEs]Obama Taxes are for fairness - YouTube[/ame]




7. Now…since there is no objective definition of what is “fair” from the Leftists who use the terminology, I suggest that it is a term of art more appropriate to a religion, i.e., it is based on a deep personal faith. But…our Leftist friends bridle at the very though of religion dictating government policy!! So….where does this leave us?

a. The unspoken assumption is that there is something morally wrong with inequalities. Where is the explanation of what would be a ‘fair share’ for the wealthy to give up? Irving Kristol, as editor of ‘Public Interest,’ wrote to professors who had written about the unfairness of income distribution, asking them to write an article as to what a ‘fair distribution’ would be; he has never gotten that article. Irving Kristol, “Neoconservative: the Autobiography of an Idea,” p. 166



8. Who is to decide what is fair, and what is too much? Some religions suggest tithing, and government demands taxes.

a. Joseph gathered very much grain: It seems it was customary for Pharaoh to take 10% of the grain in Egypt as a tax. Essentially, Joseph doubled the taxes over the next seven years (Genesis 41:34 mentions one-fifth, that is, 20%). So, in the Old Testament, 20% seems a maximum.




9. So….what is the reason to choose the Liberal religious decree for the rate of taxation, over that of any other religion? Perhaps we should allow the economists to decide, rather than the 'priesthood.'


Ohhhhooommmmmm.......

 

[expat_panama]

...religion as based on a deep personal faith, rather than testable, observable facts. When filtered through the Liberal perspective, the concept of taxation becomes a religious function...

Agreed.

Let's also keep in mind something all good salespeople understand well, the fact that human nature is to make decisions on an emotional level and then mold reason and observation so as to justify the emotional decision.

Sure, we all like to tell ourselves that we're reasonable and in control of our emotions, but grown-ups know observable results trump belief. The crazy left may run with child-like binges screeming "I want!" and "No fair!", but the rest of us calmly compare 2012 to 2008 and review choices...

 

[Polk]

Love the cherry-picking. In the line right before talking about the one study you cite, it's noted that the average result in the literature, according to The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, is a revenue-maximizing rate of 70%.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Love the cherry-picking. In the line right before talking about the one study you cite, it's noted that the average result in the literature, according to The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, is a revenue-maximizing rate of 70%.

"Major findings show that the bellshaped Laffer curve is statistically significant and that the revenue-maximizing tax rate is between 32.67% and 35.21%. The increase in the maximum personal income tax rate from 31% to 36% in the Budget Reconciliation Bill recently passed by the Congress is expected to push the U.S. position on the Laffer curve toward the maximum point and may reduce income tax revenue collected from the highest income group."
ScienceDirect.com - Journal of Socio-Economics - Estimating the laffer curve and policy implications

 

[Polk]

I'm glad you've found one study that supports your position. Now get back to us when you've considered the myriad other studies that don't go your way.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I'm glad you've found one study that supports your position. Now get back to us when you've considered the myriad other studies that don't go your way.

1. "Now get back to us..."

The use of "us" is reserved for royalty, newspaper editorial writers, and those with a tapeworm.
Get better soon.

2. Now, let's discuss fools who descend to the use of the phrase "cherry picking."

It generally represents one with an anemic argument, who is looking for some way to blunt a telling fact, or quote.


In actuality, it fails to have any real import, unless the source has a dozen or so other facts that were ignored in order to choose the single one quoted.
Obviously, this is not the case....so your use of same fails.


3. I hope the above proves instructive to you, and aids in in polishing your writing skills.


4. You may continue, though, to open your mouth when it is necessary to change feet.

 

[Rshermr]

So Politicalchic, as she is wont to do, starts out a thread with a bold faced lie. She says:

The Laffer Curve is accepted by all knowledgeable economists, professional or avocational, as a graphic representation of revenue accrued due to taxation.

Truth is, few actual economists believe in the Laffer curve. A quick google search would prove that. For instance:
Laughing at the Laffer Curve

Via the IGM Forum:

Question B: A cut in federal income tax rates in the US right now would raise taxable income enough so that the annual total tax revenue would be higher within five years than without the tax cut.
The resultant answers were: Not sure, 5%, Strongly Disagree, 38%, Disagree, 33%, Agree And Strongly Agree, 0%
http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2012/06/laughing-at-the-laffer-curve.html

This is a group of economists who regularly discuss and vote on economic issues. But you said all, PC, which is a complete lie. Why would you lie, PC. Would it be to sell a concept that you have no valid proof for??
So, starting with that, what is left is simply more dogma from the right, and accusations made in the form of attacks. No valid statements anywhere, which is how it works with PoliticalChic.

By the way, the tax rate paid by companies has very little to do with the actual rate, as deductions actually do make a difference, PC. Actual rate paid is what matters, and that is well under 20%.

The laffer curve. You have got to be kidding.

And Ann Coulter. Anyone who would post her quote would have to be not just nuts, but bat shit nuts.

 

[Polk]

What telling fact? You've found a single study that supports your position. The bulk of the research literature says something radically different. Your response has been to pretend that literature doesn't exist.

 

[PoliticalChic]

What telling fact? You've found a single study that supports your position. The bulk of the research literature says something radically different. Your response has been to pretend that literature doesn't exist.

Another empty post.

 

[Polk]

So Politicalchic, as she is wont to do, starts out a thread with a bold faced lie. She says:

The Laffer Curve is accepted by all knowledgeable economists, professional or avocational, as a graphic representation of revenue accrued due to taxation.

Truth is, few actual economists believe in the Laffer curve. A quick google search would prove that. For instance:

This is a group of economists who regularly discuss and vote on economic issues. But you said all, PC, which is a complete lie. Why would you lie, PC. Would it be to sell a concept that you have no valid proof for??
So, starting with that, what is left is simply more dogma from the right, and accusations made in the form of attacks. No valid statements anywhere, which is how it works with PoliticalChic.

By the way, the tax rate paid by companies has very little to do with the actual rate, as deductions actually do make a difference, PC. Actual rate paid is what matters, and that is well under 20%.

The laffer curve. You have got to be kidding.

And Ann Coulter. Anyone who would post her quote would have to be not just nuts, but bat shit nuts.

The panel you linked to didn't say that those surveyed think the Laffer Curve is false (I don't know if anyone really believes that, noting the idea had been around for centuries before Laffer slapped his name on it). The panel (rightly) rejected the belief that current tax rates fall beyond the revenue-maximizing rate.

 

[Polk]

What telling fact? You've found a single study that supports your position. The bulk of the research literature says something radically different. Your response has been to pretend that literature doesn't exist.

Another empty post.

Go ahead, link to the same study again, and shout "this proves all the other studies wrong". Maybe a few fools will believe you if you do it enough times.

 

[freedombecki]

The religion of taxation...

1. You’ve heard of the guy who claimed he broke up with his girlfriend due to religious differences: she wouldn’t treat him like a god.
Oh…you too?

2. Generally, one identifies a religion as based on a deep personal faith, rather than testable, observable facts. When filtered through the Liberal perspective, the concept of taxation becomes a religious function.


3. The Laffer Curve is accepted by all knowledgeable economists, professional or avocational, as a graphic representation of revenue accrued due to taxation.

a. “In economics, the term Laffer curve refers to a hypothetical representation of the relationship between government revenue raised by taxation and all possible rates of taxation. It illustrates the concept oftaxable income elasticity – that taxable income will change in response to changes in the rate of taxation.” Laffer curve - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




4. Dr. Tim Groseclose, economics professor, explains the Laffer Curve in this 5 minute video:

Prager University: Do High Taxes Raise More Money? - YouTube




5. According the study, the point at which revenue ceases to increase is the 33% tax rate.

a. One study of the United States between 1959 and 1991 placed the revenue-maximizing tax rate (the point at which another marginal tax rate increase would decrease tax revenue) between 32.67% and 35.21% Hsing, Y. (1996), "Estimating the Laffer curve and policy implications", Journal of Socio-Economics 25 (3): 395–401, doi:10.1016/S1053-5357(96)90013-X, http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S105353579690013X,




6. A noted Liberal, Barack Obama, commented that the revenue purpose of taxation was secondary to the “fairness” function.

a. Obama Taxes are for fairness - YouTube




7. Now…since there is no objective definition of what is “fair” from the Leftists who use the terminology, I suggest that it is a term of art more appropriate to a religion, i.e., it is based on a deep personal faith. But…our Leftist friends bridle at the very though of religion dictating government policy!! So….where does this leave us?

a. The unspoken assumption is that there is something morally wrong with inequalities. Where is the explanation of what would be a ‘fair share’ for the wealthy to give up? Irving Kristol, as editor of ‘Public Interest,’ wrote to professors who had written about the unfairness of income distribution, asking them to write an article as to what a ‘fair distribution’ would be; he has never gotten that article. Irving Kristol, “Neoconservative: the Autobiography of an Idea,” p. 166



8. Who is to decide what is fair, and what is too much? Some religions suggest tithing, and government demands taxes.

a. Joseph gathered very much grain: It seems it was customary for Pharaoh to take 10% of the grain in Egypt as a tax. Essentially, Joseph doubled the taxes over the next seven years (Genesis 41:34 mentions one-fifth, that is, 20%). So, in the Old Testament, 20% seems a maximum.




9. So….what is the reason to choose the Liberal religious decree for the rate of taxation, over that of any other religion? Perhaps we should allow the economists to decide, rather than the 'priesthood.'


Ohhhhooommmmmm.......

As I understand it, the Obamacare Bill that nobody was supposed to read, just pass, carried the highest tax hike in the history of the world. Now, Obama wants more money to support his free and wreckless spending binges aimed at quid-pro-quo to his Democrat associates and Democrat voters?

And also as I understand it, to date, Obama has received two international downgrades in monetary confidence in this nation.

The leftists explainations have not yet met with people who see their taxes hiked to pay for Obamacare. It's already starting to take effect, even written as poorly as the USSC acknowledged when allowing the Bill to stand.

For some reason, I don't believe a thing Obama is saying anymore.

He lied about Obamacare being a tax calling it something else, when the USSC cut through the crap and said "It's a tax."

He tells foreign countries America is bad, was part of the crew that held a boot to banks' necks for not making bad loans to Democrat base flakes, and now he wants our ear for more lies?

If we believe Obama at this point, we're stupid.

End the credibility problem between Obama's mouth and reality. Vote Republican.

 

[PoliticalChic]

What telling fact? You've found a single study that supports your position. The bulk of the research literature says something radically different. Your response has been to pretend that literature doesn't exist.

1. It is not my position.
It is that of economists who have studied same, and evidence based on previous governmental policy.


2. In an article from 1965 entitled “Problems Facing Our Socialism,” Barack Obama’s father stated: Theoretically, there is nothing that can stop the government from taxing 100% of income so long as the people get benefits from the government commensurate with their income which is taxed. . . It is a fallacy to say there is a limit (to tax rates), and it is a fallacy to rely mainly on individual free enterprise to get the savings. Barack Obama Sr. "Tax 100% of income." Like Father, Like Son? | Peace . Gold . Liberty | Revolution



3. Let’s examine the kind of thinking of the Left, the kind that supports “there is nothing that can stop the government from taxing 100% of income…” Economist Arthur Laffer states that there are two levels of taxation that produce identical levels of revenue, both producing zero. The first case is obvious: a government tax rate of zero…it takes no money. A 100% tax rate produces the same result: taking everything gives absolutely no incentive to work.

a. Is it possible that there is a gene for Leftist thinking???? And our President inherited it???


4. No? Well, then…how does Mr. Obama, junior justify doubling the capital gains and dividend tax rate to 30 percent from 15 percent today? The motivation, it seems, is the “basic issue of tax fairness:” This is a recurrent theme for Obama. In a 2008 debate between Obama and Hillary Clinton, ABC’s Charles Gibson asked Obama why he would support raising capital-gains taxes given the historical record of government’s losing net revenue as a result. “Well, Charlie, what I’ve said is that I would look at raising the capital-gains tax for purposes of fairness,” Obama replied. This moment revealed that Obama isn’t simply or even primarily interested in raising taxes for economic reasons (e.g., raising revenues or spurring growth). He sees taxes through a moral prism, as an instrument to advance “fairness,” which he takes to mean leveling higher taxes on wealthy Americans in order to decrease income inequality. Liberals, Conservatives and Tax Fairness « Commentary Magazine

 

[Polk]

1. It's not the position of economists, it's the position of the single economist you keep citing over and over.

2. I guess you've been briefed on Obama's secret 100% tax plan. After all, when you move from 35% to 39%, isn't 100% the logical next step, just a short journey over the valley?

3. The word "theoretically" does a lot of heavy lifting in the original sentence. Also, that idea doesn't come from Laffer. It's just a clear statement from the model itself, which long predates him.

4. You act as if there is something morally objectionable about taxes that are based on means other than raising revenue. Vice taxes (tobacco, alcohol) aim to discourage consumption of those products. Inheritance and gift taxes are designed to further the social end of breaking extreme concentrations of wealth.

 

[expat_panama]

...Truth is, few actual economists believe in the Laffer curve. A quick google search would prove that...

Here're the basics:

1. No reveue if the tax rate is zero.
2. No revenue if the tax rate is 100%.
3. Revenue is higher someplace between nothing and 100%.

Please speak up if anyone here disagrees with any of those first three understandings. Here's the kind of picture that's often included:

Economics is funny in that while most people say they're reasonable, many choose doctrines on an emotional level and ignore reality. The way to tell which faction is reality based is to observe how one group creates wealth, and the other group tries to confiscate it.

 

[Polk]

...Truth is, few actual economists believe in the Laffer curve. A quick google search would prove that...

Here're the basics:

1. No reveue if the tax rate is zero.
2. No revenue if the tax rate is 100%.
3. Revenue is higher someplace between nothing and 100%.

Please speak up if anyone here disagrees with any of those first three understandings. Here's the kind of picture that's often included:

Economics is funny in that while most people say they're reasonable, many choose doctrines on an emotional level and ignore reality. The way to tell which faction is reality based is to observe how one group creates wealth, and the other group tries to confiscate it.

The entire academic debate is over what that equilibrium point is. No one disagrees with the premises. The question is where does that maxima sit.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. It's not the position of economists, it's the position of the single economist you keep citing over and over.

2. I guess you've been briefed on Obama's secret 100% tax plan. After all, when you move from 35% to 39%, isn't 100% the logical next step, just a short journey over the valley?

3. The word "theoretically" does a lot of heavy lifting in the original sentence. Also, that idea doesn't come from Laffer. It's just a clear statement from the model itself, which long predates him.

4. You act as if there is something morally objectionable about taxes that are based on means other than raising revenue. Vice taxes (tobacco, alcohol) aim to discourage consumption of those products. Inheritance and gift taxes are designed to further the social end of breaking extreme concentrations of wealth.

Actually...you have finally focused on the heart of the matter!
"...something morally objectionable about taxes that are based on means other than raising revenue."

Yup.


1. It is a major difference between conservatives and liberals.

a. Conservatives believe that taxes are for the purpose of paying for legitimate constitutional requirements. Any extra is to be returned to the citizens via tax cut.

b. Liberals believe, as I have proven in this thread and others, that taxation is for the purpose of material equality.
There is no constitutional basis for this...and, in fact, it is counter to the beliefs of the Founders.



2. The Civil War produced the first tax on personal income: the Revenue Act of 1861. Interestingly, it was called an ‘indirect’ tax, defined as taxing an ‘event:’ a tax on the event of receiving income….therefore it didn’t have to be ‘apportioned,’ merely imposed uniformly throughout all areas “not in rebellion.”

a. The tax was moderately progressive, 3% on all income over $800. This meant that most workers didn’t have to pay any tax. Revenue Act of 1861 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


b. After the war exemptions were increased, and rates lowered, and in 1872, the tax was abolished.

c. But, having had a taste of taking and using free money, politicians passed more than 60 bills designed to reinstate the income tax over the next 20 years.
David G. Davies, “United States Taxes and Tax Policy,” p. 22.



3. Socialist, Populist, and Progressive movements paralleled this move, and this desire based on “taxing the rich.” In 1894, the Democrat-controlled Congress passed a bill that included a flat income tax…but part included taxes on income from real estate and personal property, and this triggered a court challenge as a direct tax infracting the Constitution’s apportionment rule,…

a. Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Company, 157 U.S. 429 (1895), aff'd on reh'g, 158 U.S. 601 (1895), with a ruling of 5–4, was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the unapportioned income taxes on interest, dividends and rents imposed by the Income Tax Act of 1894 were, in effect, direct taxes, and were unconstitutional because they violated the provision that direct taxes be apportioned. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollock_v._Farmers'_Loan_&_Trust_Co.



4. The Progressives were horrified! They had been focused on forcing the “money class” to pay “in proportion to their ability to pay…’ which, essentially was the first half of “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” From each according to his ability, to each according to his need - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



a. The Progressives launched a campaign designed to reverse this decision, and that culminated with the ratification of the 16th Amendment, in 1913.


In short, it is based on taking something from another. Were it not government, it would be called theft.

The purpose of the theft is a mitigation....

....if it is to 'equalize' wealth, some apocryphal 'fairness,'....it is unmitigated theft.

 

[Polk]

I see the ranting about how everyone who doesn't agree with your view of society is a communist has arrived on time.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I see the ranting about how everyone who doesn't agree with your view of society is a communist has arrived on time.

Don't you realize that other folks are as smart, or smarter than you are?

You believe that the fact that, for the third time in this one thread, what you post as a comment or answer is clearly a childish 'is not, is not' post isn't recognized?

I look forward to a higher level of debate, and, at times, yours are such.

These have not been.
If you have no response, just say so...or don't respond at all.

 

[expat_panama]

...Truth is, few actual economists believe in the Laffer curve. A quick google search would prove that...

Here're the basics:

1. No reveue if the tax rate is zero.
2. No revenue if the tax rate is 100%.
3. Revenue is higher someplace between nothing and 100%.

Please speak up if anyone here disagrees with any of those first three understandings. Here's the kind of picture that's often included:

Economics is funny in that while most people say they're reasonable, many choose doctrines on an emotional level and ignore reality. The way to tell which faction is reality based is to observe how one group creates wealth, and the other group tries to confiscate it.

The entire academic debate is over what that equilibrium point is. No one disagrees with the premises...

If that were true then Rshermr would have agreed with the curve and begun talking numbers. He didn't because it isn't. Many on these threads avoid premises talk, refuse to accept the curve at all, and like Rshermr deny the idea that any economist uses the model.

...The question is where does that maxima sit.

--and the answer is seen by looking to see if revenue went up or down after the '03 cuts...

Before the '03 cuts revenue was falling, and then it increased after the rate cuts. Later revenue fell after the Obama taxes. We're on the left side of the peak.