Reality shows its liberal bias again.
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 05:29:12 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  Reality shows its liberal bias again.
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Reality shows its liberal bias again.  (Read 2691 times)
Landslide Lyndon
px75
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,624
Greece


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: June 03, 2011, 06:47:27 AM »
« edited: June 03, 2011, 07:10:28 AM by Landslide Lyndon »

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2011/06/03/republicans_dont_believe_taxes_are_lower_under_obama.html

When House Republicans met with President Obama earlier this week to discuss the debt ceiling, The Hill reports GOP members engaged in a lot of "eye-rolling" over his assertion that taxes are lower today than they've been in decades.

Rep. Terry Lee (R-NE): "He made a comment like the tax rate is the lightest, even more than Reagan."

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA): "We learned we had the lowest tax rates in history ... lower than Reagan!"

Of course, as Jed Lewison points out, total federal tax revenues as a percentage of GDP averaged 18.2% during Reagan's presidency, reaching a low point of 17.3% in 1984. During Obama's term, total federal tax revenue as a percentage of GDP have averaged 14.9%.
Logged
Liberté
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 707
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: June 03, 2011, 06:49:43 AM »

I doubt Lee or Issa particularly care about anything that doesn't serve their corporate donors, but taxes for those in the lowest brackets are about the same as they were in the 1980s. Many poor and working class folk like myself legitimately struggle to meet our tax burden.
Logged
memphis
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,959


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: June 03, 2011, 10:36:49 PM »

I doubt Lee or Issa particularly care about anything that doesn't serve their corporate donors, but taxes for those in the lowest brackets are about the same as they were in the 1980s. Many poor and working class folk like myself legitimately struggle to meet our tax burden.
Incorrect. The marginal rates may be similar, but there are so many more credits today. Working class people generally receive money through the earned income tax credt, child tax credit, etc. Of course, they do pay a lot in highly regressive payroll taxes, but even those have been slashed as of late.
Logged
Liberté
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 707
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: June 03, 2011, 10:41:26 PM »

I doubt Lee or Issa particularly care about anything that doesn't serve their corporate donors, but taxes for those in the lowest brackets are about the same as they were in the 1980s. Many poor and working class folk like myself legitimately struggle to meet our tax burden.
Incorrect. The marginal rates may be similar, but there are so many more credits today. Working class people generally receive money through the earned income tax credt, child tax credit, etc. Of course, they do pay a lot in highly regressive payroll taxes, but even those have been slashed as of late.

I'm not sure what your socioeconomic class is, but my last job was changing tires day in and day out. Trust me when I say that the view on the ground is that the tax burden is crushing, no matter how many loopholes almost none of us actually exploit.
Logged
Ban my account ffs!
snowguy716
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,632
Austria


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: June 03, 2011, 11:02:07 PM »

I doubt Lee or Issa particularly care about anything that doesn't serve their corporate donors, but taxes for those in the lowest brackets are about the same as they were in the 1980s. Many poor and working class folk like myself legitimately struggle to meet our tax burden.
Incorrect. The marginal rates may be similar, but there are so many more credits today. Working class people generally receive money through the earned income tax credt, child tax credit, etc. Of course, they do pay a lot in highly regressive payroll taxes, but even those have been slashed as of late.

I'm not sure what your socioeconomic class is, but my last job was changing tires day in and day out. Trust me when I say that the view on the ground is that the tax burden is crushing, no matter how many loopholes almost none of us actually exploit.

Imagine the crushing burden if poor and middle class people actually had to pay the full price of driving on the roads that the government builds.  There'd be a lot less drivers out there... and certainly fewer tires to be changed.

Logged
Liberté
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 707
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: June 03, 2011, 11:07:08 PM »

I doubt Lee or Issa particularly care about anything that doesn't serve their corporate donors, but taxes for those in the lowest brackets are about the same as they were in the 1980s. Many poor and working class folk like myself legitimately struggle to meet our tax burden.
Incorrect. The marginal rates may be similar, but there are so many more credits today. Working class people generally receive money through the earned income tax credt, child tax credit, etc. Of course, they do pay a lot in highly regressive payroll taxes, but even those have been slashed as of late.

I'm not sure what your socioeconomic class is, but my last job was changing tires day in and day out. Trust me when I say that the view on the ground is that the tax burden is crushing, no matter how many loopholes almost none of us actually exploit.

Imagine the crushing burden if poor and middle class people actually had to pay the full price of driving on the roads that the government builds.  There'd be a lot less drivers out there... and certainly fewer tires to be changed.

I'm not arguing for a 'conservative' economic policy, Snowguy. I'm saying that maybe taxes are unpopular among my class for a reason, and that the Republicans tap into something genuine - layered and filtered through their narrow agenda - when they crusade against them. We're not stooges. And if that's the case, and I'm right, then just maybe it's time to start feeling out for alternatives.
Logged
Liberté
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 707
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: June 03, 2011, 11:24:27 PM »
« Edited: June 03, 2011, 11:31:40 PM by Liberté »

I am curious, however, as to your secrets that allow you to post for 36 straight hours on this forum at one time, and yet provide absolutely nothing of intrinsic value.  Please tell.

"Nothing of intrinsic value". Yes, I do believe that is the standard theory of value economists hold to today. Thanks for reminding me.

But, I dunno. I thought that maybe trying to examine a new style of politics for the Republicans might appeal to your famous pseudo-political independence (not that it's ever been reliable). Or that perhaps asking what I consider to be a probing question of a political perspective rapidly gaining in popular currency might be worth pursuing. Or, maybe, looking at history from another perspective and trying to find something in there.

But no. I'm adding nothing of value. Much better prognostications of hopeless doom-and-gloom - until the Republicans take office! The speed with which the economy will recover then is going to give me rug-burn.
Logged
Badger
badger
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,258
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: June 06, 2011, 09:00:16 AM »

I am curious, however, as to your secrets that allow you to post for 36 straight hours on this forum at one time, and yet provide absolutely nothing of intrinsic value.  Please tell.

"Nothing of intrinsic value". Yes, I do believe that is the standard theory of value economists hold to today. Thanks for reminding me.

But, I dunno. I thought that maybe trying to examine a new style of politics for the Republicans might appeal to your famous pseudo-political independence (not that it's ever been reliable). Or that perhaps asking what I consider to be a probing question of a political perspective rapidly gaining in popular currency might be worth pursuing. Or, maybe, looking at history from another perspective and trying to find something in there.

But no. I'm adding nothing of value. Much better prognostications of hopeless doom-and-gloom - until the Republicans take office! The speed with which the economy will recover then is going to give me rug-burn.

Sam oversteps with the snark and gets burned by Ziggy Liberte.

This is going to be a good week I can tell. Smiley
Logged
Grumpier Than Uncle Joe
GM3PRP
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,081
Greece
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: June 06, 2011, 02:00:27 PM »

I wonder if Lunar deleted Spade's original post or Spade did?
Logged
krazen1211
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,372


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: June 06, 2011, 02:03:54 PM »

Someone forgot to consider state/local taxes.
Logged
King
intermoderate
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,357
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: June 06, 2011, 02:48:28 PM »

Someone forgot to consider state/local taxes.

And that's clearly under the federal government's control.
Logged
krazen1211
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,372


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: June 06, 2011, 02:57:13 PM »

Someone forgot to consider state/local taxes.

And that's clearly under the federal government's control.

In terms of unfunded mandates, it partially is.

For the people who don't make enormous amounts of money, federal taxes don't exist in a vacuum.
Logged
tpfkaw
wormyguy
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,118
United States


Political Matrix
E: -0.58, S: 1.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: June 06, 2011, 03:27:34 PM »

Tax revenues as a % of GDP going down =/= rate of taxation going down
Logged
King
intermoderate
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,357
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: June 06, 2011, 03:56:47 PM »

Tax revenues as a % of GDP going down =/= rate of taxation going down

Interesting thesis.  By all means, please continue.
Logged
tpfkaw
wormyguy
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,118
United States


Political Matrix
E: -0.58, S: 1.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: June 06, 2011, 03:57:47 PM »

Tax revenues as a % of GDP going down =/= rate of taxation going down

Interesting thesis.  By all means, please continue.



Logged
King
intermoderate
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,357
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: June 06, 2011, 04:04:09 PM »

Tax revenues as a % of GDP going down =/= rate of taxation going down

Interesting thesis.  By all means, please continue.



Damn a graph show the rate of taxation going down and lower today than in the 1980s.  So sad to see such an interesting idea go down in flames so quickly.
Logged
tpfkaw
wormyguy
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,118
United States


Political Matrix
E: -0.58, S: 1.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: June 06, 2011, 06:37:40 PM »

Tax revenues as a % of GDP going down =/= rate of taxation going down

Interesting thesis.  By all means, please continue.



Damn a graph show the rate of taxation going down and lower today than in the 1980s.  So sad to see such an interesting idea go down in flames so quickly.

Well actually that's just the top rate, but you may note that it's considerably lower (28% vs. 35%), at the end of Reagan's term.  You probably should work on your perception skills and cut down on the snark when it just makes you look incredibly fuccing dumb.
Logged
Liberté
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 707
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: June 06, 2011, 06:40:28 PM »
« Edited: June 06, 2011, 06:58:53 PM by Liberté »

Tax revenues as a % of GDP going down =/= rate of taxation going down

Interesting thesis.  By all means, please continue.



Damn a graph show the rate of taxation going down and lower today than in the 1980s.  So sad to see such an interesting idea go down in flames so quickly.

Well actually that's just the top rate, but you may note that it's considerably lower (28% vs. 35%), at the end of Reagan's term.  You probably should work on your perception skills and cut down on the snark when it just makes you look incredibly fuccing dumb.

It doesn't look like that graph includes Reagan's massive hike with regards to Social Security premiums. Add that in and the tax rate slightly increases from 1979 to 1989.
Logged
tpfkaw
wormyguy
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,118
United States


Political Matrix
E: -0.58, S: 1.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: June 06, 2011, 06:56:58 PM »

Tax revenues as a % of GDP going down =/= rate of taxation going down

Interesting thesis.  By all means, please continue.



Damn a graph show the rate of taxation going down and lower today than in the 1980s.  So sad to see such an interesting idea go down in flames so quickly.

Well actually that's just the top rate, but you may note that it's considerably lower (28% vs. 35%), at the end of Reagan's term.  You probably should work on your perception skills and cut down on the snark when it just makes you look incredibly fuccing dumb.

It doesn't look like that graph includes Reagan's massive hike with regards to Social Security premiums. Add that end and the tax rate slightly increases from 1979 to 1989.

Well payroll tax is partially capped so the rate would still probably be lower for people in the top bracket (and lower than under Carter for people in the lower brackets too) but that wasn't really my point with posting that chart, the point I was making that the average rate of taxation and tax collection as a % of GDP have no significant correlation.  It's possible that the average rate of taxation is lower now than under Reagan but quoting tax collection as % of GDP numbers would not prove that.
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,770


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: June 07, 2011, 08:01:03 AM »

You realize that the tax rate on the top bracket =/= average tax rate?
Logged
tpfkaw
wormyguy
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,118
United States


Political Matrix
E: -0.58, S: 1.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: June 07, 2011, 08:14:38 AM »

You realize that the tax rate on the top bracket =/= average tax rate?

This is getting tedious...

that wasn't really my point with posting that chart, the point I was making that the average rate of taxation and tax collection as a % of GDP have no significant correlation.

Since I think we can all agree that the average rate of taxation does not stay constant over that period.
Logged
Ban my account ffs!
snowguy716
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,632
Austria


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: June 07, 2011, 02:01:25 PM »

The point isn't to try and collect a greater amount of taxes as a part of GDP.  It is to try and set the tax rate at a level that will best create economic growth for the middle class.

A 70% top tax rate might not increase revenue as a percentage of GDP... but it might, by reducing the tax burden on the poor and middle class and raising it on the rich, spur GDP growth so that revenues greatly increase while reliance on government services shrinks thanks to a prosperous middle class that can afford things for themselves.
Logged
Badger
badger
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,258
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: June 08, 2011, 09:25:25 AM »

Hauser's "Law" is the most misused piece of economic psuedo-analysis out there, cited by proponents of flat taxes and low top rates to assert that budget deficits may be affected by spending and everything else under the sun, but certainly not lowered top rates. Even Rand Paul cited it in a Daily Show interview (but that's probably no surprise.

First off, Hauser cited his theory (let's cut the bunk of calling it a "Law"; that's a label attached by its proponents only and not economists at large) in 1993. I wonder how Clinton's subsequent tax policies and its undeniable (by the sane) contribution to eliminating huge deficits would've affected his analysis.

Secondly, this "Law" was resurrected by a Wall St. Journal editorial 3 years ago titled: "You Can't Soak the Rich". See where this is going?

Unfortunately, this "Law" doesn't stand up to simple scrutiny as seen here. Also enjoy the additional following short analysis (link provided to original article to observe the actual charts referenced below).

http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/79495/lying-chart-the-day-classic-edition

"Ubiquitous libertarian anti-tax pundit Veronique de Rugy pulls out the old hackneyed Republican line that tax revenues can't go above 19 percent. She even has a chart!

I've seen versions of this dating back two decades. Part of the scam is a simply visual trick familiar to anybody who read "How To Lie With Statistics" -- you scale the chart to make a major change appear tiny. De Rugy's chart, one which the scale of federal tax revenue goes from an absurd o to 100, seems to show little change, thus proving the supply-side claim that increasing marginal tax rates is self-defeating. Here's a chart showing the range of revenue within a reasonable scale:


As you can see, the swings are fairly dramatic. De Rugy's chart purports to show that reducing the top marginal tax rate produced no real change in revenue. But of course the first Reagan tax cuts in 1981 caused revenue to plummet. The top marginal tax rate was also reduced in 1986, but that was accompanied by equally large reductions in tax expenditures, and the whole reform was not designed to reduce revenue.

Meanwhile, the tax hikes by George W. Bush and Bill Clinton -- which supply-siders claimed would not increase revenue -- were followed by a massive spike in revenue. And then the tax cuts by George W. Bush -- which supply-siders claimed would not reduced revenue by very much -- were followed by a massive, 5% of GDP drop in  revenue, which receded to 2% of revenue at the peak of the 2000s economic cycle."
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: June 09, 2011, 12:17:44 AM »
« Edited: June 09, 2011, 12:26:21 AM by Torie »

Yes, there is a lot of hype and disingenuous data presentation going on here, but somehow we keep avoiding doing the heavy lifting. Sure, if you jack up tax rates, revenues in the short term will increase. And sometimes the economic cycle is doing its own thing, and then there are tax changes, and each side rushes to claim the cause and effect agents as their own, which may, or may not, be reality.  

The heavy lifting is the longer term effects of tax policy, after markets have had time to adjust, and seek lower cost venues, all things considered, if there are any.  The government inflating the currency really helps its balance sheet, in the short term, and then the music stops.

 So unless we are talking about cross national studies of different economic policies, and the results, and the effect of tax policy longer term, and how that policy compared to competitors, and when and why one could deviate from the crowd on the upside, and when not, most of this noise just doesn't do much for me.

Thanks for listening.

Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.057 seconds with 12 queries.