[ ]   [ ]   [ ]                        [ ]      [ ]   [ ]

Guns - westslope - Jan 26, 2022 - 10:58pm
 
COVID-19 - westslope - Jan 26, 2022 - 10:40pm
 
Wordle - daily game - Steely_D - Jan 26, 2022 - 10:06pm
 
One small 'beef' i have with RP - BillG - Jan 26, 2022 - 9:50pm
 
In My Room - KurtfromLaQuinta - Jan 26, 2022 - 8:48pm
 
Mixtape Culture Club - KurtfromLaQuinta - Jan 26, 2022 - 7:47pm
 
music that makes you dance with big wavy gestures - R_P - Jan 26, 2022 - 7:00pm
 
Positive Thoughts and Prayer Requests - Red_Dragon - Jan 26, 2022 - 6:38pm
 
Supreme Court: Who's Next? - Red_Dragon - Jan 26, 2022 - 5:31pm
 
King Crimson - miamizsun - Jan 26, 2022 - 5:24pm
 
Neil Young - R_P - Jan 26, 2022 - 12:34pm
 
Submissions is broken - rgio - Jan 26, 2022 - 12:08pm
 
Lyrics that are stuck in your head today... - black321 - Jan 26, 2022 - 11:17am
 
Name My Band - Ohmsen - Jan 26, 2022 - 10:55am
 
Bug Reports & Feature Requests - black321 - Jan 26, 2022 - 10:38am
 
Audio Processing - Azimuth48 - Jan 26, 2022 - 9:55am
 
Photos you haven't taken of other people... - Ohmsen - Jan 26, 2022 - 8:39am
 
RP and Life - Ohmsen - Jan 26, 2022 - 8:28am
 
Movie Quote - Steely_D - Jan 26, 2022 - 8:25am
 
Get the Quote - Ohmsen - Jan 26, 2022 - 8:19am
 
What are you listening to now? - oldviolin - Jan 26, 2022 - 7:35am
 
• • • The Once-a-Day • • •  - Ohmsen - Jan 26, 2022 - 7:22am
 
Today in History - Bill_J - Jan 26, 2022 - 6:41am
 
Best movies ever? - Ohmsen - Jan 26, 2022 - 5:53am
 
Old Time and Folk - Ohmsen - Jan 26, 2022 - 5:25am
 
Radio Paradise Comments - sunybuny - Jan 26, 2022 - 5:16am
 
Won’t support you until - Ohmsen - Jan 26, 2022 - 5:06am
 
Live Concert Streams - Ohmsen - Jan 26, 2022 - 4:44am
 
Best Funk ? - Ohmsen - Jan 26, 2022 - 4:30am
 
Jazz - Ohmsen - Jan 26, 2022 - 4:06am
 
What Did You Do Today? - Steely_D - Jan 25, 2022 - 9:44pm
 
Photography Forum - Your Own Photos - fractalv - Jan 25, 2022 - 8:17pm
 
Tax the Rich! - ScottFromWyoming - Jan 25, 2022 - 3:51pm
 
What is the meaning of this? - oldviolin - Jan 25, 2022 - 2:01pm
 
Russia - R_P - Jan 25, 2022 - 1:28pm
 
Talk Behind Their Backs Forum - VV - Jan 25, 2022 - 1:15pm
 
New Music - R_P - Jan 25, 2022 - 1:04pm
 
Headphones for the hard of hearing? - westslope - Jan 25, 2022 - 12:27pm
 
Got a good recipe you care to share ??? - ScottFromWyoming - Jan 25, 2022 - 11:43am
 
Bitcoin - rgio - Jan 25, 2022 - 5:48am
 
Vinyl Only Spin List - miamizsun - Jan 25, 2022 - 4:50am
 
Europe - Ohmsen - Jan 25, 2022 - 2:16am
 
Things You Thought Today - haresfur - Jan 24, 2022 - 11:14pm
 
Trump - westslope - Jan 24, 2022 - 4:59pm
 
Weather Out Your Window - Manbird - Jan 24, 2022 - 2:34pm
 
Evolution! - R_P - Jan 24, 2022 - 2:11pm
 
Happy Birthday! - Manbird - Jan 24, 2022 - 2:07pm
 
France - Ohmsen - Jan 24, 2022 - 11:07am
 
Joe Biden - Steely_D - Jan 24, 2022 - 9:59am
 
Radio Paradise NFL Pick'em Group - islander - Jan 24, 2022 - 6:53am
 
Germany - westslope - Jan 23, 2022 - 11:24pm
 
Republican Party - Steely_D - Jan 23, 2022 - 7:54pm
 
The Obituary Page - Bill_J - Jan 23, 2022 - 6:20pm
 
The Dragons' Roost - triskele - Jan 23, 2022 - 2:40pm
 
Jimi Hendrix Memorial - Ohmsen - Jan 23, 2022 - 1:52pm
 
Pictures I've taken and like. No promises! - oldviolin - Jan 23, 2022 - 12:34pm
 
Australia and New Zealand Music - NoEnzLefttoSplit - Jan 23, 2022 - 11:45am
 
Counting with Pictures - Proclivities - Jan 23, 2022 - 11:37am
 
Play the Blues - Ohmsen - Jan 23, 2022 - 11:35am
 
The war on funk is over! - Ohmsen - Jan 23, 2022 - 11:22am
 
Classical? - oldviolin - Jan 23, 2022 - 11:16am
 
I play the drums... - Ohmsen - Jan 23, 2022 - 11:01am
 
Jam! (why should a song stop) - Ohmsen - Jan 23, 2022 - 10:12am
 
What Makes You Sad? - geoff_morphini - Jan 23, 2022 - 10:12am
 
The Dragon's Roots - triskele - Jan 22, 2022 - 3:30pm
 
A motivational quote - GeneP59 - Jan 22, 2022 - 11:40am
 
What are you doing RIGHT NOW? - GeneP59 - Jan 22, 2022 - 11:15am
 
Make Scott laugh - Manbird - Jan 22, 2022 - 10:07am
 
ptooey Must Go! - islander - Jan 22, 2022 - 7:59am
 
• • • What Makes You Happy? • • •  - oldviolin - Jan 21, 2022 - 10:42pm
 
Kids say the funniest things - oldviolin - Jan 21, 2022 - 9:42pm
 
Star Trek - Manbird - Jan 21, 2022 - 8:46pm
 
Thank You Radio Paradise. - Manbird - Jan 21, 2022 - 6:14pm
 
DQ (as in 'Daily Quote') - Manbird - Jan 21, 2022 - 4:21pm
 
RightWingNutZ - westslope - Jan 21, 2022 - 4:21pm
 
Index » Radio Paradise/General » General Discussion » History - lather, rinse, repeat. Page: Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Post to this Topic
aflanigan

aflanigan Avatar

Location: At Sea
Gender: Male


Posted: Apr 20, 2011 - 12:22pm

 Lazy8 wrote:
...and this is the history that tax increase advocates either can't or will not absorb, and Republicans seem too witless to explain. It's a very inconvenient truth.

 

Whoa.  The crash of tax collections that accompanied the burst of the dot com bubble led to the recession that followed, according to the link you cite?  This suggests to me that we need to boost income tax revenues to spur economic recovery.  Thanks for the confirmation!
islander

islander Avatar

Location: Seattle
Gender: Male


Posted: Apr 19, 2011 - 4:09pm

 oldslabsides wrote:

How much can it be increased?  How much is sustainable?  We do - by the way - live on a finite rock.

I know, I'm grabbing at the wheel and trying steer the thread into the ditch. 
 
pessimist:
 

Richard is working on our exit strategy (and he really is that huge!). 
Red_Dragon

Red_Dragon Avatar



Posted: Apr 19, 2011 - 3:36pm

 islander wrote:

If we look at the data from both sides we can see that adjustments to the marginal rate and the following delta in revenues are not closely coupled (we can show both increases and decreases following tax hikes and cuts). So maybe this isn't the point we should be arguing. We need to find a way to increase economic activity on all fronts *and* have a sane and equitable tax policy to fund the needs of our society. All the crap going on in DC now addresses neither of these.
 
How much can it be increased?  How much is sustainable?  We do - by the way - live on a finite rock.

I know, I'm grabbing at the wheel and trying steer the thread into the ditch. 
islander

islander Avatar

Location: Seattle
Gender: Male


Posted: Apr 19, 2011 - 2:48pm

 beamends wrote:

My God man, steady on, that's dangerously close to saying balancing the budget is a good idea {#Wink}
 
to paraphrase CC - That's crazy talk.
beamends

beamends Avatar



Posted: Apr 19, 2011 - 2:46pm

 islander wrote:

Although that is true, what I'm really saying is that we can point to events that show all four conditions (+taxes/+revenues, +taxes/-revenues, -taxes/+revenues, -taxes/-revenues) at different periods in time. So maybe taxes aren't really a lever for revenues. Maybe it would make more sense to set taxes at a level that will cover expenditures, then work to control expenditures as much as possible.

 
My God man, steady on, that's dangerously close to saying balancing the budget is a good idea {#Wink}
islander

islander Avatar

Location: Seattle
Gender: Male


Posted: Apr 19, 2011 - 2:44pm

 cc_rider wrote:
What? Are you implying the same set of data can be analyzed in different ways and produce different results and conclusions? That is crazy talk, man.

 
Although that is true, what I'm really saying is that we can point to events that show all four conditions (+taxes/+revenues, +taxes/-revenues, -taxes/+revenues, -taxes/-revenues) at different periods in time. So maybe taxes aren't really a lever for revenues. Maybe it would make more sense to set taxes at a level that will cover expenditures, then work to control expenditures as much as possible.
cc_rider

cc_rider Avatar

Location: Bastrop
Gender: Male


Posted: Apr 19, 2011 - 2:31pm

 islander wrote:
If we look at the data from both sides we can see that adjustments to the marginal rate and the following delta in revenues are not closely coupled (we can show both increases and decreases following tax hikes and cuts). So maybe this isn't the point we should be arguing. We need to find a way to increase economic activity on all fronts *and* have a sane and equitable tax policy to fund the needs of our society. All the crap going on in DC now addresses neither of these.
  What? Are you implying the same set of data can be analyzed in different ways and produce different results and conclusions? That is crazy talk, man.


islander

islander Avatar

Location: Seattle
Gender: Male


Posted: Apr 19, 2011 - 2:26pm

 Lazy8 wrote:
 romeotuma wrote:
Go read it, then look at the pretty colored graphs. Now look at all the areas that show revenue growth (some of them as brief as two years!) that followed tax increases.

Now look at the other areas of revenue growth that didn't follow tax increases. Sure are a lot of them, aren't there? Guess those don't compute.

Now look at the regions of revenue growth that started well before the tax increases (particularly the 1968 10% tax surcharge) and disappeared after they were imposed. Look also at the regions where a decline in revenue preceded a tax decrease (the end of the dot-com bubble, for instance). The 1991 tax increases that were supposed to be responsible for the Clinton era revenue climb had almost no effect for the first three years they were enacted (OK, revenue dropped slightly at first, then climbed the dot-com bubble). Tax cuts must be powerful indeed if they can reduce revenue before they're enacted! These tweaks to marginal tax rates are Congress tinkering in reaction to events in the economy, not causative factors.

Another interesting area is the period from 1950-1963. Crawford ends his red band at 1953 (he uses a 1% decrease in a top marginal rate of 92% to signal a period following a tax cut) when taxes remained essentially flat thru the period. This is not the monotonic function he's pretending it is.

Keep in mind that the general trend (since WW2) has been to decrease the top marginal tax rates, so any phenomenon is going to appear associate with falling taxes.

The above article isn't serious analysis, it's the economic equivalent of quote mining. The red swaths on the graph are trying to obscure the fundamental truth of Hauser's Law: income tax top brackets ranged between 92% and 28% over the period represented by the graph. If revenue correlated directly to top marginal rate it would jump out of that graph like a stripper out of a birthday cake. It doesn't. Hauser's Law remains a valid and important observation of the lack of coupling between marginal tax rates and revenue. It's still inconveniently true.
 
If we look at the data from both sides we can see that adjustments to the marginal rate and the following delta in revenues are not closely coupled (we can show both increases and decreases following tax hikes and cuts). So maybe this isn't the point we should be arguing. We need to find a way to increase economic activity on all fronts *and* have a sane and equitable tax policy to fund the needs of our society. All the crap going on in DC now addresses neither of these.
Lazy8

Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Apr 19, 2011 - 1:50pm

 romeotuma wrote:
Go read it, then look at the pretty colored graphs. Now look at all the areas that show revenue growth (some of them as brief as two years!) that followed tax increases.

Now look at the other areas of revenue growth that didn't follow tax increases. Sure are a lot of them, aren't there? Guess those don't compute.

Now look at the regions of revenue growth that started well before the tax increases (particularly the 1968 10% tax surcharge) and disappeared after they were imposed. Look also at the regions where a decline in revenue preceded a tax decrease (the end of the dot-com bubble, for instance). The 1991 tax increases that were supposed to be responsible for the Clinton era revenue climb had almost no effect for the first three years they were enacted (OK, revenue dropped slightly at first, then climbed the dot-com bubble). Tax cuts must be powerful indeed if they can reduce revenue before they're enacted! These tweaks to marginal tax rates are Congress tinkering in reaction to events in the economy, not causative factors.

Another interesting area is the period from 1950-1963. Crawford ends his red band at 1953 (he uses a 1% decrease in a top marginal rate of 92% to signal a period following a tax cut) when taxes remained essentially flat thru the period. This is not the monotonic function he's pretending it is.

Keep in mind that the general trend (since WW2) has been to decrease the top marginal tax rates, so any phenomenon is going to appear associate with falling taxes.

The above article isn't serious analysis, it's the economic equivalent of quote mining. The red swaths on the graph are trying to obscure the fundamental truth of Hauser's Law: income tax top brackets ranged between 92% and 28% over the period represented by the graph. If revenue correlated directly to top marginal rate it would jump out of that graph like a stripper out of a birthday cake. It doesn't. Hauser's Law remains a valid and important observation of the lack of coupling between marginal tax rates and revenue. It's still inconveniently true.

Lazy8

Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Apr 19, 2011 - 12:47pm

...and this is the history that tax increase advocates either can't or will not absorb, and Republicans seem too witless to explain. It's a very inconvenient truth.
aflanigan

aflanigan Avatar

Location: At Sea
Gender: Male


Posted: Apr 19, 2011 - 10:11am

Poet George Santayana is credited with the aphorism "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it".

The Decade the GOP Hopes You've Forgotten


Jennnn

Jennnn Avatar

Gender: Female


Posted: Jan 11, 2005 - 3:56pm

phineas

phineas Avatar



Posted: Jan 11, 2005 - 3:45pm

Jennnn

Jennnn Avatar

Gender: Female


Posted: Jan 11, 2005 - 3:40pm

steeler

steeler Avatar

Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth


Posted: Jan 11, 2005 - 3:25pm

gandalfbmg

gandalfbmg Avatar

Location: Thankfully now a little more than 3 mi from Paradise (Missouri)
Gender: Male


Posted: Jan 11, 2005 - 3:19pm

steeler

steeler Avatar

Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth


Posted: Jan 11, 2005 - 3:09pm

rgj13

rgj13 Avatar

Location: The City
Gender: Male


Posted: Jan 11, 2005 - 3:09pm

gandalfbmg

gandalfbmg Avatar

Location: Thankfully now a little more than 3 mi from Paradise (Missouri)
Gender: Male


Posted: Jan 11, 2005 - 3:07pm

steeler

steeler Avatar

Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth


Posted: Jan 11, 2005 - 3:05pm

Page: Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next