The ultimate vindication of Republican supply-side economics

[stans]

Our economy would boom if BO eliminated the corporate tax altogether as Ireland proved by just lowering it. Its the ultimate vindication of supply-side economics

From 1995 to 2000 GDP rate growth ranged between 7.8 and 11.5%. The rate then slowed to between 4.4 to 6.5% from 2001 to 2007. During that period the Irish GDP rose dramatically to equal then eventually surpass that of all but one state in Western Europe. Although the GDP does not represent the standard of living, and the GNP remained lower than the GDP, in 2007 the GNP achieved the same level as of some other Western European countries.[citation needed]

[edit] Causes[edit] TaxMany economists credit Ireland's growth to a low corporate taxation rate (10 to 12.5 percent throughout the late 1990s),

During 2001 and 2003 taxes were lowered in the US. In 2008 the US almost had a financial collapse with one of major investment banks (IB) going bankrupt, one being bought for a song by another IB, while the rest of the major IB's were rescued by the government. This and common sense proves that lowering taxes will cause a financial collapse to ensue. Ignore 9-11 and two wars that the US initiated, massive fraud in the housing market, a change of leadership in the house of representatives, and any other laws that might have an economic effect on the US. Lowering taxes is what caused it.

Can you explain how lowering taxes caused a financial collapse 6 years later. Be very specific here. And keep in mind that we lowered taxes only on income only at certain levels. Also that some of the tax cuts, like the tax on investment income, produced more revenue for the government, not less.

Read what I quoted and read everything that I wrote, carefully. Also read the last line in post #55 of this thread. Then think about it. You completely missed my point.

 

[Big Fitz]

Our economy would boom if BO eliminated the corporate tax altogether as Ireland proved by just lowering it. Its the ultimate vindication of supply-side economics.

Your premise is exactly the part of Cain's 9-9-9 plan that seems intuitive to me.....

Unless you change the constitution to freeze a national sales tax AND income taxes at 9%, it is our doom to do it.

 

[The Rabbi]

During 2001 and 2003 taxes were lowered in the US. In 2008 the US almost had a financial collapse with one of major investment banks (IB) going bankrupt, one being bought for a song by another IB, while the rest of the major IB's were rescued by the government. This and common sense proves that lowering taxes will cause a financial collapse to ensue. Ignore 9-11 and two wars that the US initiated, massive fraud in the housing market, a change of leadership in the house of representatives, and any other laws that might have an economic effect on the US. Lowering taxes is what caused it.

Can you explain how lowering taxes caused a financial collapse 6 years later. Be very specific here. And keep in mind that we lowered taxes only on income only at certain levels. Also that some of the tax cuts, like the tax on investment income, produced more revenue for the government, not less.

Read what I quoted and read everything that I wrote, carefully. Also read the last line in post #55 of this thread. Then think about it. You completely missed my point.

This is the last line of Post 55:

This and common sense vindicate Republican supply-side economics

Which I agree with.
Your answer here seems to be, Take what I wrote at face value and don't ask for any proof because I am right.
And that answer seeems to be, Everything else--wars, 9/11, elections, is irrelevant because the cut in taxes is what caused the collapse. Nothing else mattered.
I think that is called Begging the Question in logic.

 

[itfitzme]

But it makes as much intuitive sense to say that, "given lower taxes, the company president will take the extra profits and pay for a membership at the country club while you work."

Duh!!!

Thanks for the link.

One might say, "A business owner will work more if taxes are higher because he want the money." "A women, who's husband is making more money because of a tax cut, will stop working." "Raise taxes, and the business owner works more"

You really think tax hikes increase economic activity?

That is too simple of a question. How much, at what point in the business cycle? What happens to the taxes?

The economy is a huge feedback system with multiple markets that are all different.

For the most part, when every thing is in the middle, I don't think they do anything. It all adjusts. A modest increase in taxes just adjusts out as if the money supply had changed. A modest decrease in taxes and it does the same.

The problem is that there are some systematic errors in the functioning of the economy and the crash was 70 years in the making. Why it took so long is quite a wonder.

Tax cuts are the least effective way to improve things. At best, they create a temporary boost during one particular point in the business cycle, on the way up. If output is near the max, they are not going to make it more max. If demand is not their, they are not going to create demand. And on the way down, the problem is structural.

 

[The Rabbi]

Do you have even a clue what you are talking about? Your post is a jumble of misinformation and poorly thought out ideas.
We can start with, do you think the purpose of tax cuts is to put more money into people's hands to stimulate demand?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

But it makes as much intuitive sense to say that, "given lower taxes, the company president will take the extra profits and pay for a membership at the country club while you work."

Duh!!!

Thanks for the link.

One might say, "A business owner will work more if taxes are higher because he want the money." "A women, who's husband is making more money because of a tax cut, will stop working." "Raise taxes, and the business owner works more"

You really think tax hikes increase economic activity?

That is too simple of a question. How much, at what point in the business cycle? What happens to the taxes?

The economy is a huge feedback system with multiple markets that are all different.

For the most part, when every thing is in the middle, I don't think they do anything. It all adjusts. A modest increase in taxes just adjusts out as if the money supply had changed. A modest decrease in taxes and it does the same.

The problem is that there are some systematic errors in the functioning of the economy and the crash was 70 years in the making. Why it took so long is quite a wonder.

Tax cuts are the least effective way to improve things. At best, they create a temporary boost during one particular point in the business cycle, on the way up. If output is near the max, they are not going to make it more max. If demand is not their, they are not going to create demand. And on the way down, the problem is structural.

What happens to the taxes? Usually they're wasted.
At what point in the cycle do you feel a tax hike increases economic activity?
Do you really feel government spending is a more effective way to improve things?

 

[editec]

One instance proves ABSOLUTELY nothing in economics. A much stronger economic process might generate the alleged improvement in Ireland's economy negating your argument. You need multiple instances which you can either average out or compare the number of times events resulted as you hypothesized.

How many instances would you like?

Ireland's economy was a shambles from WW2 to the 1990s when they started cutting taxes. The economy bloomed when they did so.
Slovenia was another ex-commie country until they simplified the tax code and reduced regulation. They became a very fast growing country.
Ditto with Latvia.

Germany post war had relatively low taxes until the 1970s, when they went up to pay for generous social spending. After that time their economic growth slowed.
We could go on and on with example after example. If you penalize something, you get less of it. If you tax profit you get less profit. This is pretty obvious.

And you credit the CELTIC tiger entirely to its tax stucture?

 

[The Rabbi]

How many instances would you like?

Ireland's economy was a shambles from WW2 to the 1990s when they started cutting taxes. The economy bloomed when they did so.
Slovenia was another ex-commie country until they simplified the tax code and reduced regulation. They became a very fast growing country.
Ditto with Latvia.

Germany post war had relatively low taxes until the 1970s, when they went up to pay for generous social spending. After that time their economic growth slowed.
We could go on and on with example after example. If you penalize something, you get less of it. If you tax profit you get less profit. This is pretty obvious.

And you credit the CELTIC tiger entirely to its tax stucture?

And you think taxes have no effect at all on behavior? :

 

[regent]

Maybe the problem with economics is there are few laws, real laws like the law of gravity. Tax cuts at one time may be beneficial and at another tme a disaster. Economics may be the softest of the soft sciences, because there are so many variables attatched. Someone once said: if all economists were laid end to end they would not reach a conclusion? And after all the recessions America and the world have been through there is still no manual, no blueprint, no sure method of treatment and many have been tried. Well I should qualify that, it seems most politicians have an answer to our economic well-being.

 

[Flopper]

Our economy would boom if BO eliminated the corporate tax altogether as Ireland proved by just lowering it. Its the ultimate vindication of supply-side economics.

In recent decades, corporate tax revenue has plunged, falling from about 6 percent of gross domestic product in the 1950′s to less than 2 percent today, due to a proliferation of corporate tax breaks and the use of offshore tax havens. According to the Congressional Budget Office, in fact, corporate tax receipts as a share of corporate profits have hit their lowest point in 40 years:

U.S. Corporate Tax Rate Plunges To 40 Year Low Of 12.1 Percent | ThinkProgress

The real problem is not the rates. It's a combination of high rates with a slew of credits and deductions that lower the actual tax. Large multinationals often pay no tax while small businesses get screwed. Cut the rates and eliminate some of the credits and deductions.

 

[itfitzme]

But it makes as much intuitive sense to say that, "given lower taxes, the company president will take the extra profits and pay for a membership at the country club while you work."

Duh!!!

Thanks for the link.

One might say, "A business owner will work more if taxes are higher because he want the money." "A women, who's husband is making more money because of a tax cut, will stop working." "Raise taxes, and the business owner works more"

You really think tax hikes increase economic activity?

That is too simple of a question. How much, at what point in the business cycle? What happens to the taxes?

The economy is a huge feedback system with multiple markets that are all different.

For the most part, when every thing is in the middle, I don't think they do anything. It all adjusts. A modest increase in taxes just adjusts out as if the money supply had changed. A modest decrease in taxes and it does the same.

The problem is that there are some systematic errors in the functioning of the economy and the crash was 70 years in the making. Why it took so long is quite a wonder.

Tax cuts are the least effective way to improve things. At best, they create a temporary boost during one particular point in the business cycle, on the way up. If output is near the max, they are not going to make it more max. If demand is not their, they are not going to create demand. And on the way down, the problem is structural.

What happens to the taxes? Usually they're wasted.
At what point in the cycle do you feel a tax hike increases economic activity?
Do you really feel government spending is a more effective way to improve things?

Are you a fucking lunatic? I never said anything remotely close to what your making up.

 

[itfitzme]

small businesses get screwed. /QUOTE]

Now there is a reasonable looking abduction. When the Bush tax cuts went into effect, the ATM was so screwed up that people working on 1099 were paying higher taxes. And the worse part was that with the rising cost of living, wages were not all that much anyways.

 

[stans]

The problem is that there are some systematic errors in the functioning of the economy and the crash was 70 years in the making. Why it took so long is quite a wonder.

Glass-Steagall was enacted in 1933 at 5% and was emasculated in 1996-7 to 25% and fully repealed in 1999.

Mr. Weill Goes To Washington - The Long Demise Of Glass-Steagall | The Wall Street Fix | FRONTLINE | PBS

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That is too simple of a question. How much, at what point in the business cycle? What happens to the taxes?

The economy is a huge feedback system with multiple markets that are all different.

For the most part, when every thing is in the middle, I don't think they do anything. It all adjusts. A modest increase in taxes just adjusts out as if the money supply had changed. A modest decrease in taxes and it does the same.

The problem is that there are some systematic errors in the functioning of the economy and the crash was 70 years in the making. Why it took so long is quite a wonder.

Tax cuts are the least effective way to improve things. At best, they create a temporary boost during one particular point in the business cycle, on the way up. If output is near the max, they are not going to make it more max. If demand is not their, they are not going to create demand. And on the way down, the problem is structural.

What happens to the taxes? Usually they're wasted.
At what point in the cycle do you feel a tax hike increases economic activity?
Do you really feel government spending is a more effective way to improve things?

Are you a fucking lunatic? I never said anything remotely close to what your making up.

I didn't make anything up.
So no answers?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Glass-Steagall was enacted in 1933 at 5% and was emasculated in 1996-7 to 25% and fully repealed in 1999.

Huh?

And careful with the quote function.

 

[stans]

Can you explain how lowering taxes caused a financial collapse 6 years later. Be very specific here. And keep in mind that we lowered taxes only on income only at certain levels. Also that some of the tax cuts, like the tax on investment income, produced more revenue for the government, not less.

Read what I quoted and read everything that I wrote, carefully. Also read the last line in post #55 of this thread. Then think about it. You completely missed my point.

This is the last line of Post 55:

This and common sense vindicate Republican supply-side economics

Which I agree with.
Your answer here seems to be, Take what I wrote at face value and don't ask for any proof because I am right.
And that answer seeems to be, Everything else--wars, 9/11, elections, is irrelevant because the cut in taxes is what caused the collapse. Nothing else mattered.
I think that is called Begging the Question in logic.

You just said that you agree that common sense enters into making an economic conclusion. When I see someone using "common sense" or "intuition", I see giant flashing red lights saying, "I don't have a realistic argument, or any argument for that matter", so I completely ignore their argument in coming to a conclusion. Ifitzme gave an excellent example of intuition gone awry when a few posts earlier he cited Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity where it has been shown in every experiment in the last 106 years that all space-time observations previously since the beginning of time are imprecise and completely disagree with reality.

Clue 1) I started a completely new topic without starting a new thread. Something's wrong here.

Clue 2) Compare the paragraph that I specifically quoted to the paragraph that I wrote. Both were trying to use an argument to get to a conclusion. What's the difference between the two? The quoted paragraph came to a conclusion based on a 12 year period without any discussion or consideration of external events, such as, was there a change of government during that time and other questions most likely could have been asked and refuted by someone familiar with the topic, namely the author trying to substantiate his argument.

I made a statement and came to a conclusion that was obviously and purposely incorrect. But then I listed a number of very potent economic events that I said to ignore, that could have, and in fact did lead to the economic collapse. You completely agreed that they did. The author of the quoted paragraph just stated his opinion without giving much thought to the validity of his argument. The whole irony went completely over your head

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Read what I quoted and read everything that I wrote, carefully. Also read the last line in post #55 of this thread. Then think about it. You completely missed my point.

This is the last line of Post 55:

This and common sense vindicate Republican supply-side economics

Which I agree with.
Your answer here seems to be, Take what I wrote at face value and don't ask for any proof because I am right.
And that answer seeems to be, Everything else--wars, 9/11, elections, is irrelevant because the cut in taxes is what caused the collapse. Nothing else mattered.
I think that is called Begging the Question in logic.

You just said that you agree that common sense enters into making an economic conclusion. When I see someone using "common sense" or "intuition", I see giant flashing red lights saying, "I don't have a realistic argument, or any argument for that matter", so I completely ignore their argument in coming to a conclusion. Ifitzme gave an excellent example of intuition gone awry when a few posts earlier he cited Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity where it has been shown in every experiment in the last 106 years that all space-time observations previously since the beginning of time are imprecise and completely disagree with reality.

Clue 1) I started a completely new topic without starting a new thread. Something's wrong here.

Clue 2) Compare the paragraph that I specifically quoted to the paragraph that I wrote. Both were trying to use an argument to get to a conclusion. What's the difference between the two? The quoted paragraph came to a conclusion based on a 12 year period without any discussion or consideration of external events, such as, was there a change of government during that time and other questions most likely could have been asked and refuted by someone familiar with the topic, namely the author trying to substantiate his argument.

I made a statement and came to a conclusion that was obviously and purposely incorrect. But then I listed a number of very potent economic events that I said to ignore, that could have, and in fact did lead to the economic collapse. You completely agreed that they did. The author of the quoted paragraph just stated his opinion without giving much thought to the validity of his argument. The whole irony went completely over your head

Ifitzme gave an excellent example of intuition gone awry when a few posts earlier he cited Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity where it has been shown in every experiment in the last 106 years that all space-time observations previously since the beginning of time are imprecise and completely disagree with reality.

You and Ifitzme think that the Theory of Relativity means "all space-time observations previously since the beginning of time are imprecise and completely disagree with reality"?

You didn't take very many science classes, did you?

 

[stans]

That's one of the main reasons why it took seventy years. "Huh" read the refernce and you'll understand why.

What do you mean "Careful with the quote function"? Am I doing something mechanically wrong?

 

[stans]

Ifitzme gave an excellent example of intuition gone awry when a few posts earlier he cited Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity where it has been shown in every experiment in the last 106 years that all space-time observations previously since the beginning of time are imprecise and completely disagree with reality.

You and Ifitzme think that the Theory of Relativity means "all space-time observations previously since the beginning of time are imprecise and completely disagree with reality"?

Don't assign my writings to Ifitzme. What, exactly, is wrong with my statement?

 

[The Rabbi]

Our economy would boom if BO eliminated the corporate tax altogether as Ireland proved by just lowering it. Its the ultimate vindication of supply-side economics.

In recent decades, corporate tax revenue has plunged, falling from about 6 percent of gross domestic product in the 1950′s to less than 2 percent today, due to a proliferation of corporate tax breaks and the use of offshore tax havens. According to the Congressional Budget Office, in fact, corporate tax receipts as a share of corporate profits have hit their lowest point in 40 years:

U.S. Corporate Tax Rate Plunges To 40 Year Low Of 12.1 Percent | ThinkProgress

The real problem is not the rates. It's a combination of high rates with a slew of credits and deductions that lower the actual tax. Large multinationals often pay no tax while small businesses get screwed. Cut the rates and eliminate some of the credits and deductions.

That's a lie. Corp tax receipts have varied from 6.8% in 1940 to 20.9 in 1944 (and were 20.6 in 2000), to 14% in 2008. So your thesis is undermined by your faulty information. That's what you get for citing Think Progress and other brain-dead leftist institutions.
Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary