Job Killing Taxes

[JoeNormal]

On the other hand, history is very kind to the theory that lower marginal rates come with higher GDP...

The graph is a reflection of technological and process improvements over time. (And probably inflation.)

No, actually it's pseudo-scientific scam, just like that goofy con that Star posted at http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/taxratesgrowth.jpg . The main difference between Star's chart and mine is not what they say about taxes, but rather the fact that most of know they're both laughable and he doesn't.

I think at the very least the thinkprogress graph shows that lowering taxes does not automatically create growth.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

....a lower top marginal tax rate will result in more growth, and these numbers do show conclusively that history has not been kind to that theory....

On the other hand, history is very kind to the theory that lower marginal rates come with higher GDP...

I would appreciate it if you would replace that which is quoted with what I said.

 

[Rshermr]

I am certain that nothing I could say or link to would in any way change your mind. In any event, it is pointless to argue with anyone who thinks the Reagan or Clinton tax hikes were responsible for the economic growth which followed. I'm pretty sure what I said is accurate, and besides, impartial proof of anything related to economics is hard to ifnd.

Particularly if you do not look for it.

I do not waste my time looking for something that is not there. Anyone who believes that tax hikes are in any way beneficial to growth is clearly out of touch with reality. Sometimes the economy grows IN SPITE OF tax hikes, as it did under Clinton, but that growth was sure as hell not because of those increases.

Well, Wiseacre, I can either believe you or the most renounced economists. And you can't even find evidence to refute what I have said.

 

[Wiseacre]

Particularly if you do not look for it.

I do not waste my time looking for something that is not there. Anyone who believes that tax hikes are in any way beneficial to growth is clearly out of touch with reality. Sometimes the economy grows IN SPITE OF tax hikes, as it did under Clinton, but that growth was sure as hell not because of those increases.

Well, Wiseacre, I can either believe you or the most renounced economists. And you can't even find evidence to refute what I have said.

Don't know many renowned economists who believe raising taxes helps economic growth. Hope you're not going to quote Krugman at me, he's gotta be the most ideologically bent man I know of.

 

[expat_panama]

...history is very kind to the theory that lower marginal rates come with higher GDP...

The graph is a reflection of technological and process improvements over time. (And probably inflation.)

No, actually it's pseudo-scientific scam, just like that goofy con that Star posted at http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/taxratesgrowth.jpg . The main difference between Star's chart and mine is not what they say about taxes, but rather the fact that most of know they're both laughable and he doesn't.

I think at the very least the thinkprogress graph shows that lowering taxes does not automatically create growth.

We all can think anything we want any time, any where, no matter what. It's best to have thoughts that match with things everyone can see.

 

[JoeNormal]

...history is very kind to the theory that lower marginal rates come with higher GDP...

No, actually it's pseudo-scientific scam, just like that goofy con that Star posted at http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/taxratesgrowth.jpg . The main difference between Star's chart and mine is not what they say about taxes, but rather the fact that most of know they're both laughable and he doesn't.

I think at the very least the thinkprogress graph shows that lowering taxes does not automatically create growth.

We all can think anything we want any time, any where, no matter what. It's best to have thoughts that match with things everyone can see.

Show me where I'm wrong.

 

[expat_panama]

...history is very kind to the theory that lower marginal rates come with higher GDP...

...the thinkprogress graph shows that lowering taxes does not automatically create growth... ...Show me where I'm wrong.

Sales work has never been my forte, so I pass on the idea of showing you anything that you've already decided on. However I always welcome new points of view and I'd be grateful if you'd show me on the thinkprogress graph where we can see the date that a change in "growth" follows "lowering taxes".

 

[JoeNormal]

...history is very kind to the theory that lower marginal rates come with higher GDP...

...the thinkprogress graph shows that lowering taxes does not automatically create growth... ...Show me where I'm wrong.

Sales work has never been my forte, so I pass on the idea of showing you anything that you've already decided on. However I always welcome new points of view and I'd be grateful if you'd show me on the thinkprogress graph where we can see the date that a change in "growth" follows "lowering taxes".

The one legitimate gripe you might have of the thinkprogress graph is that the data has been averaged over time to show long range results of growth rather than instantanous results of particular tax rate changes. My point is that those instantaneous changes are not productive in any major way. Now maybe I'm missing something. Here's your chance to impart some wisdom.

 

[expat_panama]

...I would appreciate it if you would replace that which is quoted with what I said.

We all liked everything you put in your original post, and apparently nobody had any desire to contradict any of the many things that you presented there except for that particular sub-part that I selected and repeated for special emphasis and clarity in my response. Unfortunately at this date the USMB webware no longer allows me to edit my earlier posts to include all of your original post as you requested, but if by chance there happens to be something in particular in your original post that you believe is still relevant to our concerns then please share.

Many posters (like myself) prefer reading a quote of only the point of discussion; it saves time and avoids confusion for us. You can quote what you want though because I wouldn't presume to tell you how to write.

 

[expat_panama]

...I'd be grateful if you'd show me on the thinkprogress graph where we can see the date that a change in "growth" follows "lowering taxes".

The one legitimate gripe you might have...

So we agree that the the thinkprogress graph offers no record of a time that a change in "growth" followed "lowering taxes".

On the outside chance that you didn't follow what I was asking for, I can share expamples of a few of the ways of showing it. For example, tax-cuts with Kennedy, Reagan, and GW Bush were followed by economic growth shown by falling unemployment--

while Obama's tax increases were followed by lower employment:

 

[Rshermr]

I do not waste my time looking for something that is not there. Anyone who believes that tax hikes are in any way beneficial to growth is clearly out of touch with reality. Sometimes the economy grows IN SPITE OF tax hikes, as it did under Clinton, but that growth was sure as hell not because of those increases.

Well, Wiseacre, I can either believe you or the most renounced economists. And you can't even find evidence to refute what I have said.

Don't know many renowned economists who believe raising taxes helps economic growth. Hope you're not going to quote Krugman at me, he's gotta be the most ideologically bent man I know of.

Jesus, wiseacre. I don't want you to have to believe what you do not want to. I simply ask that you try to respond with a time when the economy was bad and decreasing taxes helped. Let me explain why you can not: When the economy has been bad, and where things got better, you will probably find that we raised taxes. Not that raising taxes in itself helped. But rather it is what happened with the revenue that was raised. And what was done was stimulus spending. In no case did we decrease taxes with good results.

So, go ahead and believe what you would like to. It just seems certain to me that no man that has a high measure of integrity can go through life believing what befits him.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

...I would appreciate it if you would replace that which is quoted with what I said.

We all liked everything you put in your original post, and apparently nobody had any desire to contradict any of the many things that you presented there except for that particular sub-part that I selected and repeated for special emphasis and clarity in my response. Unfortunately at this date the USMB webware no longer allows me to edit my earlier posts to include all of your original post as you requested, but if by chance there happens to be something in particular in your original post that you believe is still relevant to our concerns then please share.

Many posters (like myself) prefer reading a quote of only the point of discussion; it saves time and avoids confusion for us. You can quote what you want though because I wouldn't presume to tell you how to write.

Thank you but the quote you have me attached to wasn't mine I commented to the post.

 

[itfitzme]

Correlation does not imply causation. You're trying to equate the monetary health and policy over a span where it changed drastically. You're also omitting other variables that would better indicate the reasons why growth can occur under those conditions.

Furthermore, raising the tax rates on the under the current weight of hiring tax burdens, massive debt, etc...isn't going to get you the desired result. The exact opposite. But I say lets do it. Lets tax the 200K plus crowd at 90% and see what happens. If tax revenue goes down and more jobs leave the country, you LOLberals morons have to agree to leave the country for good.

1) Correlation does not PROVE causation. It sure does imply it.

2) A failure of correlation proves no causation.

 

[itfitzme]

--and anyone can see that high taxes mean low GDP and low taxes make for high GDP.

...correlation does not imply causation. There are other variables...

...coincidence, not causality.

How come nobody can see the sarcasm --oh, wait a sec.,

--now it's fixed. Everyone should be able to see the sarcasm now.

Seriously, by now everyone has to agree that Star's bar chart and my above graph show opposite correlations and neither shows causality. However, if Star really thinks that everyone's better off if his money goes to the government, then he's free to give everything to the US Treasury through this website.

I miss you're sarcasm every time.

It would be easy to recognize if it wasn't for the unfortunate fact that there really people that stupid.

Maybe a sarcasm smilee would help. or or ?

Or, eventually, I'll clue in on your wit.

 

[expat_panama]

...the quote you have me attached to wasn't mine I commented to the post.

Dang, I made a mistake --and here I was having a perfect no-mistake millennium. Thanks though, knowing what's going on is better than having a perfect record...

 

[JoeNormal]

...I'd be grateful if you'd show me on the thinkprogress graph where we can see the date that a change in "growth" follows "lowering taxes".

The one legitimate gripe you might have...

So we agree that the the thinkprogress graph offers no record of a time that a change in "growth" followed "lowering taxes".

On the outside chance that you didn't follow what I was asking for, I can share expamples of a few of the ways of showing it. For example, tax-cuts with Kennedy, Reagan, and GW Bush were followed by economic growth shown by falling unemployment--

This is pretty much what I thought you were talking about - instantaneous growth changes related to tax rate changes. I call this "juicing the economy". It's a temporary quick fix of the type that our political and corporate leaders have taken a shine to increasingly over the last 30 years. The thing that should matter is long term growth and if anything, that's better in high tax eras.

 

[expat_panama]

...I miss you're sarcasm every time. It would be easy to recognize if it wasn't for the unfortunate fact that there really people that stupid...

--so wonderful to know I'm not the only one with that problem.


Sorry for laughing, but my problem is that if I take the tragedy of human stupidity seriously then I'd probably burst into tears...

 

[expat_panama]

...instantaneous growth changes related to tax rate changes. I call this "juicing the economy". It's a temporary quick fix of the type that our political and corporate leaders have taken...

--or so the party line goes. The actual record of rate changes with tax receipts show the opposite. For example, a rate hike will in fact see a short term increase in revenue while the market readjusts. Likewise, sustainable long term revenue increases follow rate cuts only after a lag time of say, 6 months to a year.


It's all there at Treasury.gov and whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals. Let me know how your perusal goes.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Well, Wiseacre, I can either believe you or the most renounced economists. And you can't even find evidence to refute what I have said.

Saying that high taxes make an economy grow is like saying that pricking a hole in a balloon will make the balloon grow or expand.

If it was true the idea would not seem stupid and absurd and there would be an explanation of how or why it happened.

See why we are 100% positive a liberal will be slow?

 

[JoeNormal]

Well, Wiseacre, I can either believe you or the most renounced economists. And you can't even find evidence to refute what I have said.

Saying that high taxes make an economy grow is like saying that pricking a hole in a balloon will make the balloon grow or expand.

If it was true the idea would not seem stupid and absurd and there would be an explanation of how or why it happened.

See why we are 100% positive a liberal will be slow?

Bad analogy. The economy is neither passive nor homogeneous. If anything, it's more like an intelligent power grid or ecosystem.