Class War Illustrated

[The T]

There should be no taxes on incomes in any case....This is the cornerstone of class warfare.

I'd be ok with taxing wealth instead.

Wealth taxes are the worst taxes because they destroy the capital stock. Its better to tax income.

WRONG. it is better to TAX commerce...as the Founders intended.

 

[Toro]

Of course, were spending to ever exceed GDP, then even a 100% tax (assuming gdp remained unchanged) would not be sufficient to balance the budget.

How can government spending exceed GDP?

GDP = C + I + G + NX

 

[JBeukema]

Of course, were spending to ever exceed GDP, then even a 100% tax (assuming gdp remained unchanged) would not be sufficient to balance the budget.

How can government spending exceed GDP?

the same way my spending can exceed my income

 

[Cuyo]

But cuts alone CANNOT balance the budget, period...

If you don't spend money... You don't seem to grasp the basics of what a budget is

Of course you can balance the budget on spending cuts alone. You can also balance the budget with tax increases alone. The only people who say otherwise are strident ideologues with deeply held beliefs not rooted in empiricism.

I should have thrown the word "Feasibly" in. Yes, technically if you eliminate SS and Medicare outlays, but keep the corresponding tax, you could balance the budget. The deficit for FY2010 was $1.42 trillion. Total discretionary spending (which of course includes DoD and all related programs) was $1.36 trillion.

You're going to tell me that saying we can't cut our way out of this makes me a strident ideologue? C'mon man.

 

[Trajan]

If you don't spend money... You don't seem to grasp the basics of what a budget is

Of course you can balance the budget on spending cuts alone. You can also balance the budget with tax increases alone.

Currently yes. You'll allow me to stretch the meaning of 'tax increase' to include ending loopholes?

Of course, were spending to ever exceed GDP, then even a 100% tax (assuming gdp remained unchanged) would not be sufficient to balance the budget.

thats another reason why laffer is right.

 

[Cuyo]

Of course, were spending to ever exceed GDP, then even a 100% tax (assuming gdp remained unchanged) would not be sufficient to balance the budget.

How can government spending exceed GDP?

the same way my spending can exceed my income

I believe he's pointing out that GDP, by definition, includes government spending; Even if that money is borrowed.

 

[Trajan]

There should be no taxes on incomes in any case....This is the cornerstone of class warfare.

It's also how they fund American colonialism and the bloated military, but I don't suppose you have a problem with that.

Nah, I can vouch that Oddball does have a problem with it... But that's where the diversion from the Republican playbook seems to end.

so, whats this ideological argument you want to purse, I told you what my yardstick was. I assume you don't want to pursue that ...so?

 

[Cuyo]

It's also how they fund American colonialism and the bloated military, but I don't suppose you have a problem with that.

Nah, I can vouch that Oddball does have a problem with it... But that's where the diversion from the Republican playbook seems to end.

so, whats this ideological argument you want to purse, I told you what my yardstick was. I assume you don't want to pursue that ...so?

uhh... Permalink me the post you want a response to? We're kinda all over the place at this point

 

[JBeukema]

Of course you can balance the budget on spending cuts alone. You can also balance the budget with tax increases alone.

Currently yes. You'll allow me to stretch the meaning of 'tax increase' to include ending loopholes?

Of course, were spending to ever exceed GDP, then even a 100% tax (assuming gdp remained unchanged) would not be sufficient to balance the budget.

thats another reason why laffer is right.

fail

the laffer's premise resides in the red

we were dealing with the blue
the laughable curve is a grossly simplistic caricature of behavioral economics

 

[JBeukema]

How can government spending exceed GDP?

the same way my spending can exceed my income

I believe he's pointing out that GDP, by definition, includes government spending; Even if that money is borrowed.

Then what the hell use is GDP?

Replace it with whatever fancy term means 'wealth actually generated'

 

[Cuyo]

the same way my spending can exceed my income

I believe he's pointing out that GDP, by definition, includes government spending; Even if that money is borrowed.

Then what the hell use is GDP?

Replace it with whatever fancy term means 'wealth actually generated'

If I'm not mistaken, C I G and Nx are Consumption, Investment, Government spending, and Net Exports; So it's usefulness for the point you're trying to make is probably none.

The metric of G as a percentage of GDP is simply to gauge what percentage of total wealth moving activities involves the government vs the private sector.

You're looking for total wages, plus investment and, presumably, plus gifts, inheritence, etc - Just money changing hands. I'm sure there's a vehicle for measuring that, but I couldn't tell you what it is. Toro prolly could.

My guess is that we're a long, looooooooooong way from G even approaching whatever that number is.

 

[JBeukema]

I'm sure we are. I was simply pointing out that 'you can balance the budget purely through tax hikes' is not law- it's not necessarily true under all circumstances

 

[Cuyo]

I'm sure we are. I was simply pointing out that 'you can balance the budget purely through tax hikes' is not law- it's not necessarily true under all circumstances

Actually, you've got me curious and I'm trying to find the answer. We're obviously quite far from that happening (simple math can tell you that), but maybe not as far as I initially thought.

According to 2008 census data, there were about 121 million non-farm wage earners. Be conservative and say $25,000 a year, you get a little over $3 trillion. That's less than last year's budget.

Obviously that's a very conservative estimate but it's not the blip on the radar, fraction of a percent that I had initially expected by any means.

 

[JBeukema]

Perhaps, Cuyo, there's a reason that measure is not well-known or spoken about?

 

[Foxfyre]

I'm sure we are. I was simply pointing out that 'you can balance the budget purely through tax hikes' is not law- it's not necessarily true under all circumstances

You are correct. You CAN balance any budget by cutting sufficient spending to do so. It might not be the best, most effective, or even the legal way to do it, but you can do it.

You cannot necessarily balance any budget by raising taxes, however, IF the budgeted amount exceeds the available taxes there are to collect.

In both cases you also have to factor in the seemingly unrelated human response and behavior to both spending cuts and tax increases as that can affect the net effect of the cuts or tax increases and can considerably change the numbers.

Example: If your tax increase is say on the widget industry and that causes widget manufacturers to flee the country to more tax friendly environments, the loss of the taxes you WERE getting coupled with the cost of increased unemployment could wipe out any projected increased revenues from the increased taxes and could even result in even fewer reveues and a more imbalanced budget.

It is far more complicated than just increasing taxes or cutting spending.

 

[Cuyo]

Perhaps, Cuyo, there's a reason that measure is not well-known or spoken about?

Maybe so.

I'm gonna continue looking into that later, there must be something I'm doing wrong. With marginal tax rates as low as they are, and so many people not paying any at all, you'd think the deficit would be astoundingly higher than it actually is from that little preliminary exercise I just did.

 

[Cuyo]

You're a WELFARE Brat, aren't you? Live off the dole do you?

Thank you for deducting reputation from this loser.

 

[Trajan]

Nah, I can vouch that Oddball does have a problem with it... But that's where the diversion from the Republican playbook seems to end.

so, whats this ideological argument you want to purse, I told you what my yardstick was. I assume you don't want to pursue that ...so?

uhh... Permalink me the post you want a response to? We're kinda all over the place at this point

that cause you're a rodent......

you mentioned it first I think here...

http://www.usmessageboard.com/3417209-post87.html

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Remind us again how you are not an anarchist, reverend?

Now there wouldn't be an ulterior motive in your pretty little Table O' Crap, would there?

He's pointing out (correctly) the direction our discourse is being pushed. Rather than so immediately calling it 'crap,' you should take an honest look at it and revisit who the dopes getting your votes are really advocating for. It's actually quite obvious - Not you.

As one who understands economics, I am a staunch advocate for incentive to investment. Tax incentives for the wealthy are one of the smartest things any economy can ever do.

"The Republican proposal, HR1, actually proposes cuts in the Head Start program that would mean:

* 218,000 children from low income families will lose Head Start/Early Head Start services;
* 16,000 Head Start/Early Head Start classrooms will close;
* 55,000 Head Start/Early Head Start teachers and staff will lose their jobs;
* 150,000 low-income families and their children will lose assistance in paying for child care.

They say they need to make these cuts because we must "tighten our belts" to cut spending because "America is broke."

But at the very same time they voted to cut Head Start, the Republicans voted to continue $4 billion worth of subsidies to Big Oil."

Earth to Boner...Come In!​

​

 

[The T]

You're a WELFARE Brat, aren't you? Live off the dole do you?

Thank you for deducting reputation from this loser.

Translation: "DAMN! I've been FOUND OUT"