Religion, Economics and Obama

[Polk]

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.

Revenue was falling before the 2003 cuts because there was an initial (and larger) round of cuts in 2001. Saying "well, revenue went up after" doesn't help your argument, since if the economy is going, revenue will go up if rates are exactly the same.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Sta·kha·nov·ite   [stuh-kah-nuh-vahyt, -kan-uh-] Show IPA
noun
1.
a worker in the Soviet Union who regularly surpassed production quotas and was specially honored and rewarded.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The question is where does that maxima sit.

obviously, since our economy is, for example, twice China's or 100 times Vietnam's we can collect a ton more revenue. So the real question is how to get maximum growth.

The answer is: more capitalism and lower taxes. The higher the taxes the lower the growth since the government wastes money and does not invent new products.

 

[Rshermr]

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.

Why is it that cons always post without links??? Because they are posting drivel.

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?

Untrue, as you may know. Or you may be stupid, and not know. But, if that is what you would like us to believe, get your head out of the con sites and quit posting dogma long enough to find nonpartisan proof. You know, not dem not repub, independent. Oh, hell, you probably do not know.

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

that is because you are a con tool. You would not understand that the downgrade was because of tea party repubs. But if I am wrong, again, you may want to post a link or two. Though I know you will not, because you just post dogma. You do not argue your points.

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?

And again, no links. Because con dogma is simply another way of saying lies. No one impartial would even touch that sentence. Pure drivel.

Here, Freedombecki, this may help:
"A new study has found that the lower a person's level of intelligence the more likely they are to be drawn to conservatism"
http://www.politicususa.com/conservatism-stupidity-racism.html

sorry to be so hard on you. You are a con tool, and that is an illness. Kinda like alcoholism. Not your fault at all. We should all pity you, not try so hard to correct you.

 

[Rshermr]

Polk, you read my statement wrong, apparently. You said:

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.

I did not say that no economist use the model. What I said was that Politicalchic was completely wrong when she said "all knowledgeable economists" believe the laffer curve concept. Because, you see, I am certain that there is NO validity to that statement. If you go out and spend time looking at economists discussions of the laffer curve, as I have, you will find very few who believe in its validity. And, if you look at history, you will find no proof of it's validity that I am aware of.

 

[Rshermr]

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.

PoliticalChic just attacks. She is incapable of rational argument. Those who try to discuss a subject with her will find that she can not debate, because she has no facts. She deals entirely in personal attacks and posting of conservative dogma. That is her game. Then, she repeats it.

 

[Rshermr]

So, politichic the con tool, says:
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. Yes, which worked well for Bush 2. Went from a surplus to a HUGE deficit in no time. Good thinking, Politicalchic.

b. Liberals believe, as I have proven in this thread and others, that taxation is for the purpose of material equality. for the repubs, it is for income distribution from the middle class to the wealthy. Which is why the wealthy have gotten more so, while the middle class has seen little change. And why the middle class has shrunk, while the number below the poverty level have increased.
There is no constitutional basis for this...and, in fact, it is counter to the beliefs of the Founders.
Really??? Any proof of that. Or just more con dogma.

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.
Wow, copy and paste is working well for you. How about this. Our highest levels of economic growth and employment were in the 1950's and 1960's, when tax rates were over 70% most of that time.

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...n_&_Trust_Co.

Great, more copy and paste. And you are telling a partial story with partial facts.

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.
But that is complete nonsense, of course. Because you are a con, or is it a libertarian. Your statement about gov taxation being theft is kind of libertarian, is it not, politicalchic. Maybe you can name a libertarian country, PoliticalChic. But of course, you can not, as there are none, were none, and will be none. But then, you are a con tool. So you post con drivel.
And yes, PC, I do like red, thank you.
__________________

 

[expat_panama]

...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...

Revenue was falling before the 2003 cuts because there was an initial (and larger) round of cuts in 2001. Saying "well, revenue went up after" doesn't help your argument, since if the economy is going, revenue will go up if rates are exactly the same.

Full circle.

We're back to a religious emotional attachment to a strict orthodoxy defended with one "yes-but" after another. Our situation is that there can never be a shared observation that could possibly persuade a true believer to ever question his 'god'.

We've seen how the loony left can cling to their Marxism even when it totally destroys their nation, and there are still many in Russia that fight to bring back the 'good old days'. I once heard a Marxist say the fact none of Marx's prophesies came true is proof of how very far into the future Marx could see. We've got that same creed today grasped by America's loonies saying Obama just needs four more years--

--because he had no idea what he was promising for the economy back in '08 because Bush fooled us all because Bush is so stupid.

 

[PoliticalChic]

...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...

Revenue was falling before the 2003 cuts because there was an initial (and larger) round of cuts in 2001. Saying "well, revenue went up after" doesn't help your argument, since if the economy is going, revenue will go up if rates are exactly the same.

Full circle.

We're back to a religious emotional attachment to a strict orthodoxy defended with one "yes-but" after another. Our situation is that there can never be a shared observation that could possibly persuade a true believer to ever question his 'god'.

We've seen how the loony left can cling to their Marxism even when it totally destroys their nation, and there are still many in Russia that fight to bring back the 'good old days'. I once heard a Marxist say the fact none of Marx's prophesies came true is proof of how very far into the future Marx could see. We've got that same creed today grasped by America's loonies saying Obama just needs four more years--

--because he had no idea what he was promising for the economy back in '08 because Bush fooled us all because Bush is so stupid.

"I once heard a Marxist say the fact none of Marx's prophesies came true is proof of how very far into the future Marx could see."


An interesting variation of 'it wasn't tried long enough' or 'they didn't practice pure Marxism.'


It seems that the number of IQ points remains fixed, but must be divided by an ever increasing global population.

 

[expat_panama]

... 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.

Revenue was falling before the 2003 cuts because there was an initial (and larger) round of cuts in 2001. Saying "well, revenue went up after" doesn't help your argument, since if the economy is going, revenue will go up if rates are exactly the same.

Full circle.

We're back to a religious emotional attachment to a strict orthodoxy defended with one "yes-but" after another. Our situation is that there can never be a shared observation that could possibly persuade a true believer to ever question his 'god'.

We've seen how the loony left can cling to their Marxism even when it totally destroys their nation, and there are still many in Russia that fight to bring back the 'good old days'. I once heard a Marxist say the fact none of Marx's prophesies came true is proof of how very far into the future Marx could see. We've got that same creed today grasped by America's loonies saying Obama just needs four more years--

--because he had no idea what he was promising for the economy back in '08 because Bush fooled us all because Bush is so stupid.

"I once heard a Marxist say the fact none of Marx's prophesies came true is proof of how very far into the future Marx could see."


An interesting variation of 'it wasn't tried long enough' or 'they didn't practice pure Marxism.'


It seems that the number of IQ points remains fixed, but must be divided by an ever increasing global population.

lol!

Seems that way, but imho the barrier to understanding isn't lack of intelligence but rather lack of character. Ross Perot was once explaining how when he hired he valued character over intellegence and that without character the intelligence was actually a liability. Obama's very successful, intuitive and quick to grasp opportunities. He's a very intelligent reprobate.

 

[Rshermr]

... 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.

Full circle.

We're back to a religious emotional attachment to a strict orthodoxy defended with one "yes-but" after another. Our situation is that there can never be a shared observation that could possibly persuade a true believer to ever question his 'god'.

We've seen how the loony left can cling to their Marxism even when it totally destroys their nation, and there are still many in Russia that fight to bring back the 'good old days'. I once heard a Marxist say the fact none of Marx's prophesies came true is proof of how very far into the future Marx could see. We've got that same creed today grasped by America's loonies saying Obama just needs four more years--

--because he had no idea what he was promising for the economy back in '08 because Bush fooled us all because Bush is so stupid.

"I once heard a Marxist say the fact none of Marx's prophesies came true is proof of how very far into the future Marx could see."


An interesting variation of 'it wasn't tried long enough' or 'they didn't practice pure Marxism.'


It seems that the number of IQ points remains fixed, but must be divided by an ever increasing global population.

lol!

Seems that way, but imho the barrier to understanding isn't lack of intelligence but rather lack of character. Ross Perot was once explaining how when he hired he valued character over intellegence and that without character the intelligence was actually a liability. Obama's very successful, intuitive and quick to grasp opportunities. He's a very intelligent reprobate.

Interesting, expat. You call a sitting us president a reprobate. I would say that makes you unamerican. Calling any president a reprobate, be he dem or repub. shows your character. But then, that is your opinion. And you know how much your opinion is worth, eh, dipshit.

 

[Polk]

...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...

Revenue was falling before the 2003 cuts because there was an initial (and larger) round of cuts in 2001. Saying "well, revenue went up after" doesn't help your argument, since if the economy is going, revenue will go up if rates are exactly the same.

Full circle.

We're back to a religious emotional attachment to a strict orthodoxy defended with one "yes-but" after another. Our situation is that there can never be a shared observation that could possibly persuade a true believer to ever question his 'god'.

We've seen how the loony left can cling to their Marxism even when it totally destroys their nation, and there are still many in Russia that fight to bring back the 'good old days'. I once heard a Marxist say the fact none of Marx's prophesies came true is proof of how very far into the future Marx could see. We've got that same creed today grasped by America's loonies saying Obama just needs four more years--

--because he had no idea what he was promising for the economy back in '08 because Bush fooled us all because Bush is so stupid.

Absolutely no emotion or religion needed. That the same percentage of a larger pie is going to result in a larger portion each year is math.

 

[Polk]

And you don't need to take my word for it. Statistics produced by your own people show the same thing.

 

[expat_panama]

...Obama's very successful, intuitive and quick to grasp opportunities. He's a very intelligent reprobate.

Interesting, expat. You call a sitting us president a reprobate. I would say that makes you unamerican...

LOL!! You're joking right? I mean, like--
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4CzteDucRHo&feature=channel&list=UL]Hillary Clinton - I am Sick & Tired (Right to Protest) - YouTube[/ame]

...shit.

Whatever you say, you're obviously far more expert than me on that stuff than I'll ever be. That's fine, you can wallow and be king of that mountain --it's still a free country-- and I'll stick to working on character and money 'cuz those are things I enjoy.

 

[expat_panama]

...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.

...there can never be a shared observation that could possibly persuade a true believer...

...That the same percentage of a larger pie is going to result in a larger portion each year is math.

There's a lack of clarity there. Let's focus. The question is whether rate cuts have raised revenue.

• Please tell me if you can imagine sometime somewhere that revenue increased after tax rates were lowered from an excessively extreme burden.
  .
• Please describe what possible observation would there be that we could make together that would convince you that this has ever happened in real life.

 

[Polk]

You would be really hard pressed to find a situation where it ever happened in real life. There is only one standard, and it's totally objective: increases in real revenues. You'll notice that it's never happened. Reagan's tax cuts didn't do it. Neither of Bush's tax cuts did it.

And when you stop to think about it, the whole idea that current the rates are current levels will increase revenues makes no sense. If it really did that, why isn't there a broad bipartisan agreement on further cuts? After all, incumbents benefit from cutting taxes AND it would allow the government to be able to spend more money on things. It would a massive free buffet. Of course, the real world doesn't work that way.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

...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...

Exactly. The crazy left also constantly begin their economic comparative data at 2009. Thereby almost any economic indicator they use - the result is that we are doing great.

 

[Widdekind]

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

Pres. Obama complained that wealthy hedge-fund managers paid lower (effective) tax rates "than their secretaries, and that's not fair". A flat-rate tax, on the sale of all goods (including stock, which are titles to businesses) and services (including labor) would, therefore, be "fair" (and much simpler).

 

[expat_panama]

...The question is whether rate cuts have raised revenue. Please tell me if you can imagine sometime somewhere that revenue increased after tax rates were lowered from an excessively extreme burden...

You would be really hard pressed to find a situation where it ever happened in real life...

The request was to imagine --as with a mere hypothetical case. Please suppose a king on an island that demanded the fruits of everyone's labors, and then think what would logically follow.

In 'real life' it's actually it's an age old dilemma. Louis XVII (iirc) said taxation was the art of plucking the goose for the most down and least squawk. That gang eventually lost their heads over tax'n'spending (as it were...) and after the chaos of zero taxes Napoleon rose to have access to far greater funding than the royalists ever saw. The USSR had a 100% rate that failed and was replaced by a regime that was able to cover the gov't payroll by dropping the 100% rate.

...Please describe what possible observation would there be that we could make together that would convince you that this has ever happened in real life...

...There is only one standard, and it's totally objective: increases in real revenues. You'll notice that it's never happened...

Please help me follow your thoughts here and say what do you mean by 'real revenue'. If we're talking about total federal revenue changes over time adjusted for inflation, please show how current revenues are less than they were say, three decades ago in real $.

 

[Rshermr]

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

Pres. Obama complained that wealthy hedge-fund managers paid lower (effective) tax rates "than their secretaries, and that's not fair". A flat-rate tax, on the sale of all goods (including stock, which are titles to businesses) and services (including labor) would, therefore, be "fair" (and much simpler).

Keep pushing that right wing concept. Over and over and over and over. Just what a paid shill would do.