Degenerate's Tax the Rich Fixation

[OohPooPahDoo]

In anticipation of the standard retort that previous U.S. economies have grown under higher tax rates, please explain the economic theory which supports this alleged correlation and why we shouldn't raise taxes on the rich to 90% or even 100% in order to reap even greater tax revenues.

You're asking for theoretical proof of historical fact?

There's no alleged correlation - the economy did, in fact, boom under the Clinton tax rates. That's an actual correlation.

As to raising rates to 90% or 100% to reap greater tax revenues, don't you think that's a bit absurdly high? Why do you want to essentially set a cap on salaries? Seems like not a good idea to me.

 

[SniperFire]

Tax the rich is simply a ruse he used to win election.

It makes almost no difference.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Glad I gave you a chuckle, but let's get back to linear logic:

1. Define "stagnant capital" and why it would be more efficiently used by poor people buying food and basic products.

Money that sits in bank accounts and isn't loaned out.

 

[martybegan]

Raising taxes on the rich was the cornerstone of President Obama’s reelection campaign. “If we’re serious about reducing the deficit,” Obama told a rally in Columbus, Ohio, on election day, “we’ve got to ask the wealthiest Americans to go back to the tax rates they paid when Bill Clinton was in office.”

But just how much deficit reduction would Obama’s tax hikes on the rich necessarily accomplish?

Nothing, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Letting tax rates rise to Clinton era levels for those families making over $250,000 a year would only raise $824 billion over ten years. That is not even enough revenue to undo the sequester that Obama promised “will not happen” during his final debate with Mitt Romney....

How much deficit reduction would Obama

It has other impacts besides the direct revenue:

1. It's an historical fact that growth (+ GDP) is higher when tax rates are higher; the reason is its "redistributive effect," a vital component in modern econmies, the world over. Money at the top tends to stagnate, whereas when it's re-distributed it moves rapidly through the economy, in what are called "high monetary velocity points." Increase growth by a percentage point or two, and the impact on revenue is substantial.

2. The calculation focuses only on income from Labor (about 2/3rds) and ignores the impact on income from Capital (1/3) which also need to be increased at the same time, progressively.

FWIW

Correlation does not automatically imply causation. There are other factors that could have been at work besides taxation.

 

[DiamondDave]

Yes and no. I do not advocate a rate increase on the middle class (lower and middle; upper middle, yes), but support policies that would increase pay, and with it revenue from lower and middle earners. I would, given the power, also raise the rate on the top earning brackets, and eliminate differentiation on types of income; in essence, I'd want all income, whether from Labor, Capital or C Corps, taxed similarly.

So Do I In fact I think that all income regardless of its source should be taxed at a flat rate of 10% no deductions, no tax credits just 10% off the top.

Doesn't work for two reasons:

1. 10% is not sufficient; it would need to be north of 30%, currently;

2. No redistributive effect, which would fast-track us to a dual society, akin to South American economies.

Uhhh.. no..

1) We do not take in anywhere close to 30% of all wages earned now...
2) We need to SLASH the budget (well, if the Senate would pass a budget that the house gives them)
3) The total income of all American citizens was something like 8T in 2007... A fair guestimate (since we don't have that info from the census or other agency from last year that I can find) for currently would be probably in the 9T-9.5T area... a 20% flat tax on that would be 1.8T-2T from just income tax alone (not counting the other revenues the government brings in from corp tax, gas tax, etc).. after cutting the budget drastically, I am sure we could calculate a rate 20% or under that pays for expenses AND starts paying off debt
4) The government does not exist to redistribute.. it exists to protect the freedom of citizens... and that includes the freedom to fail that goes hand in hand with the freedom to succeed.. You advocate for only subjective equal treatment, like so many others.. but when you can treat someone ELSE unequally, you will gladly do it if it benefits you... and you are they type of person that makes me sick

 

[martybegan]

In anticipation of the standard retort that previous U.S. economies have grown under higher tax rates, please explain the economic theory which supports this alleged correlation and why we shouldn't raise taxes on the rich to 90% or even 100% in order to reap even greater tax revenues.

You're asking for theoretical proof of historical fact?

There's no alleged correlation - the economy did, in fact, boom under the Clinton tax rates. That's an actual correlation.

As to raising rates to 90% or 100% to reap greater tax revenues, don't you think that's a bit absurdly high? Why do you want to essentially set a cap on salaries? Seems like not a good idea to me.

Again, correlation, not causation.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Glad I gave you a chuckle, but let's get back to linear logic:

1. Define "stagnant capital" and why it would be more efficiently used by poor people buying food and basic products.

Money that sits in bank accounts and isn't loaned out.

You might want to stick with Bob the Builder.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

So Do I In fact I think that all income regardless of its source should be taxed at a flat rate of 10% no deductions, no tax credits just 10% off the top.

Doesn't work for two reasons:

1. 10% is not sufficient; it would need to be north of 30%, currently;

2. No redistributive effect, which would fast-track us to a dual society, akin to South American economies.

Uhhh.. no..

1) We do not take in anywhere close to 30% of all wages earned now...
2) We need to SLASH the budget (well, if the Senate would pass a budget that the house gives them)
3) The total income of all American citizens was something like 8T in 2007... A fair guestimate (since we don't have that info from the census or other agency from last year that I can find) for currently would be probably in the 9T-9.5T area... a 20% flat tax on that would be 1.8T-2T from just income tax alone (not counting the other revenues the government brings in from corp tax, gas tax, etc).. after cutting the budget drastically, I am sure we could calculate a rate 20% or under that pays for expenses AND starts paying off debt
4) The government does not exist to redistribute.. it exists to protect the freedom of citizens... and that includes the freedom to fail that goes hand in hand with the freedom to succeed.. You advocate for only subjective equal treatment, like so many others.. but when you can treat someone ELSE unequally, you will gladly do it if it benefits you... and you are they type of person that makes me sick

So setting the standards for weights and measures "protects freedom" or are you just not in agreeance with that COngressional power?

 

[Wacky Quacky]

It has other impacts besides the direct revenue:

1. It's an historical fact that growth (+ GDP) is higher when tax rates are higher; the reason is its "redistributive effect," a vital component in modern econmies, the world over. Money at the top tends to stagnate, whereas when it's re-distributed it moves rapidly through the economy, in what are called "high monetary velocity points." Increase growth by a percentage point or two, and the impact on revenue is substantial.

There is no such evidence of this. Revenue as a % of GDP falls between about 15% to 20% regardless of what the tax rate is. This also kills the conservative argument that the government collects more revenue when taxes are lower.

 

[Katzndogz]

Democrats are too stupid to understand economic growth and its relationship to revenue.

They are like thieves who can't imagine working for money and see only who to steal from to increase their income.

 

[DiamondDave]

Hahahahahahaha ...

No; I didn't make it up. It's a vital component in tax policy, in every modern economy in the world, and known to economists as "redistributive effect," which I'll explain right after this:

Right wing fear-mongering firms focus group-tested "wealth redistribution," and came up with that gem, which exploits ignorance of the many minutia in political economics. And it's kinda laughable, since we do not tax wealth, per se. We tax incomes, which benefit from the redistributive effect, increasing wealth, especially for the wealthy.

Back to redistibutive effect, from progressive taxes on income: it mobilizes stagnant capital and moves it back through the economy, creating some momentum on its way back to the top, where it always goes in the end. Thing begin to happen, such as more investor, banking and consumer confidence, with the money flowing around at higher monetary velocity points, greatly improving earnings, especially of the most well off. So the extra few precentage points on their incomes north of $320,000 (about) is easily eclipsed by earnings increases of just 5% or 10%, which is a low average when the economy is growing by 4 or more percent, annually, which higher rates of redistribution have always paralleled, if not more. In the end, the net more, since slightly less of a much bigger number is more than 100% of a lower number, quite often.

And here's why: Lower earners are not paid more when companies do better. They're paid based on labor markets and wage minimums, which do not suddenly improve based on earnings. But higher wage earners and company owners do make more as profits and the economy grow, with bonuses, profit sharing or their S/LL Corp just doing better. And even a saint (S Corp seeing a nice spike in business) might up their worker(s) pay when they're doing better, but ot in parallel with the owner's increase, nor even close.

In re: "fairness," I leave that to preists and philosophers. I merely focus on what's best policy, economically.

Does that clear it up for you?

Lower income earners should be paid on how a company does?? OK, then I guess they get paid less when a company does NOT perform well??

A 'workers' wage is what the market will bear... most ANYONE can flip a burger, sweep a floor, put 2 pieces of something together, or ring on a register... there is ZERO reason to pay 'high' wages when that person can be replaced by your average 18 year old HS graduate.. you want more $$ as a 'low wage earner', DO SOMETHING TO ACTUALLY WARRANT IT

You simply focus on what is 'best' for your goal.. and it, as evidenced by your posts, has nothing to do with equal treatment by government under law

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Democrats are too stupid to understand economic growth and its relationship to revenue.

They are like thieves who can't imagine working for money and see only who to steal from to increase their income.

Did the Clinton era rates hurt the economy in the 90's?

 

[DiamondDave]

Raising taxes on the rich was the cornerstone of President Obama’s reelection campaign. “If we’re serious about reducing the deficit,” Obama told a rally in Columbus, Ohio, on election day, “we’ve got to ask the wealthiest Americans to go back to the tax rates they paid when Bill Clinton was in office.”

But just how much deficit reduction would Obama’s tax hikes on the rich necessarily accomplish?

Nothing, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Letting tax rates rise to Clinton era levels for those families making over $250,000 a year would only raise $824 billion over ten years. That is not even enough revenue to undo the sequester that Obama promised “will not happen” during his final debate with Mitt Romney....

How much deficit reduction would Obama

824 billion over 10 years = nothing


Wow. That's some new kinda math.

Nothing compared to Obamalama's spending increases

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Raising taxes on the rich was the cornerstone of President Obama’s reelection campaign. “If we’re serious about reducing the deficit,” Obama told a rally in Columbus, Ohio, on election day, “we’ve got to ask the wealthiest Americans to go back to the tax rates they paid when Bill Clinton was in office.”

But just how much deficit reduction would Obama’s tax hikes on the rich necessarily accomplish?

Nothing, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Letting tax rates rise to Clinton era levels for those families making over $250,000 a year would only raise $824 billion over ten years. That is not even enough revenue to undo the sequester that Obama promised “will not happen” during his final debate with Mitt Romney....

How much deficit reduction would Obama

824 billion over 10 years = nothing


Wow. That's some new kinda math.

Nothing compared to Obamalama's spending increases

The article says its nothing according to the CBO. Kinda - not true - as the rest of the article reveals. Its amazing how you can value journalism that lies to your face.

 

[Koios]

Glad I gave you a chuckle, but let's get back to linear logic:

1. Define "stagnant capital" and why it would be more efficiently used by poor people buying food and basic products.

2. Assuming you want to raise taxes on the wealthy, where is your maximum "monetary velocity" point and how did you calculate it?

3. Haven't we mimicked a "redistributive effect" (through borrowing) over the past four years? How has that worked out?

4. You still haven't answered where "additional capital" is supposed to come from.

Note: I am deliberately ignoring Rope-a-Dope's post.

1. Capital that resides with individuals and has low monetary velocity.

2. It's calculated by how many hands it moves through and and how quickly. High monetaray velocity points are with lower and middle income earners, since they spend it back into the economy almost instantaneously and with, by and large, retailers, where monetary velocity is higher as well.

3. Yes, but not in sustainable ways, since rather than moving the money back through, we coerce its movement in ways that are costly and diminish the value of the US Dollar, namely increasing the money-supply.

4. True. Let me make amends: it comes from the Fed, aka "printing" money. It's not actually printed, since hard currecy is a mere convenience. Most of the money supply is virtual, and increases with discount rates and lower interest that spurs more borrowing. We've had to do this, since we've abandoned the organic method, that higher wages and redistributive tax policy create, since no urging is needed by the Fed. Borrowing, and with it the money-supply, just organically rise with the growth in the economy. And with capital in parallel with the economy, the strength of our currecy improves.

Does that help?

 

[Katzndogz]

Democrats are too stupid to understand economic growth and its relationship to revenue.

They are like thieves who can't imagine working for money and see only who to steal from to increase their income.

Did the Clinton era rates hurt the economy in the 90's?

If we had a poor economy to begin with it would have been devastated. Increasing taxes does not cause prosperity. In prosperous times, increased taxes is bearable but increasing taxes, does not cause economic growth.

Let's jump off the fiscal cliff and see how well it works.

 

[DiamondDave]

824 billion over 10 years = nothing


Wow. That's some new kinda math.

Nothing compared to Obamalama's spending increases

The article says its nothing according to the CBO. Kinda - not true - as the rest of the article reveals. Its amazing how you can value journalism that lies to your face.

Funny.. I am not the one who referenced the article.. but do try and keep up

It is simple math.. the amount of increased revenue from taxing the 'rich' like he says, will NOT keep up with any spending projections I have seen ANYWHERE... it is NOT possible... so there will indeed be either MORE tax increases on MORE people or in MORE areas... or the deficit and debt will go thru the roof

Or do you need it even simpler for your dumb ass??

 

[DiamondDave]

Democrats are too stupid to understand economic growth and its relationship to revenue.

They are like thieves who can't imagine working for money and see only who to steal from to increase their income.

Did the Clinton era rates hurt the economy in the 90's?

Do we have a tech boom?? Did Clinton make the tech boom because of his tax policies??

Hint: The answer to both is NO

 

[martybegan]

Nothing compared to Obamalama's spending increases

The article says its nothing according to the CBO. Kinda - not true - as the rest of the article reveals. Its amazing how you can value journalism that lies to your face.

Funny.. I am not the one who referenced the article.. but do try and keep up

It is simple math.. the amount of increased revenue from taxing the 'rich' like he says, will NOT keep up with any spending projections I have seen ANYWHERE... it is NOT possible... so there will indeed be either MORE tax increases on MORE people or in MORE areas... or the deficit and debt will go thru the roof

Or do you need it even simpler for your dumb ass??

or to be simpler for our progressive friend, how does a yearly tax increase of $80 Billion dollars pay for a $1,000 Billion yearly deficit?

 

[Koios]

It has other impacts besides the direct revenue:

1. It's an historical fact that growth (+ GDP) is higher when tax rates are higher; the reason is its "redistributive effect," a vital component in modern econmies, the world over. Money at the top tends to stagnate, whereas when it's re-distributed it moves rapidly through the economy, in what are called "high monetary velocity points." Increase growth by a percentage point or two, and the impact on revenue is substantial.

There is no such evidence of this. Revenue as a % of GDP falls between about 15% to 20% regardless of what the tax rate is. This also kills the conservative argument that the government collects more revenue when taxes are lower.

There is in fact quite a lot of historical data. Here's merely one article on it, of many ...

Tax Cuts Don't Lead to Economic Growth, a New 65-Year Study Finds - Derek Thompson - The Atlantic