Live Music
- oldviolin - Apr 18, 2024 - 3:24pm
What Makes You Laugh?
- oldviolin - Apr 18, 2024 - 2:49pm
Trump
- rgio - Apr 18, 2024 - 2:46pm
Israel
- R_P - Apr 18, 2024 - 2:32pm
Ask an Atheist
- miamizsun - Apr 18, 2024 - 2:29pm
Remembering the Good Old Days
- miamizsun - Apr 18, 2024 - 2:28pm
NY Times Strands
- geoff_morphini - Apr 18, 2024 - 2:20pm
Robots
- miamizsun - Apr 18, 2024 - 2:18pm
Wordle - daily game
- geoff_morphini - Apr 18, 2024 - 2:15pm
NYTimes Connections
- geoff_morphini - Apr 18, 2024 - 10:42am
Song of the Day
- oldviolin - Apr 18, 2024 - 10:22am
The Obituary Page
- ptooey - Apr 18, 2024 - 9:57am
Radio Paradise Comments
- GeneP59 - Apr 18, 2024 - 7:58am
Museum Of Bad Album Covers
- Steve - Apr 18, 2024 - 6:58am
Today in History
- Red_Dragon - Apr 18, 2024 - 6:39am
April 2024 Photo Theme - Happenstance
- haresfur - Apr 17, 2024 - 7:04pm
Europe
- haresfur - Apr 17, 2024 - 6:47pm
Country Up The Bumpkin
- KurtfromLaQuinta - Apr 17, 2024 - 5:23pm
Name My Band
- GeneP59 - Apr 17, 2024 - 3:27pm
What's that smell?
- Isabeau - Apr 17, 2024 - 2:50pm
USA! USA! USA!
- R_P - Apr 17, 2024 - 1:48pm
Business as Usual
- black321 - Apr 17, 2024 - 1:48pm
Things that make you go Hmmmm.....
- dischuckin - Apr 17, 2024 - 1:29pm
Talk Behind Their Backs Forum
- VV - Apr 17, 2024 - 1:26pm
Russia
- R_P - Apr 17, 2024 - 1:14pm
Science in the News
- Red_Dragon - Apr 17, 2024 - 11:14am
Magic Eye optical Illusions
- Proclivities - Apr 17, 2024 - 10:08am
Ukraine
- kurtster - Apr 17, 2024 - 10:05am
Photography Forum - Your Own Photos
- Alchemist - Apr 17, 2024 - 9:38am
Just for the Haiku of it. . .
- oldviolin - Apr 17, 2024 - 9:01am
HALF A WORLD
- oldviolin - Apr 17, 2024 - 8:52am
• • • The Once-a-Day • • •
- oldviolin - Apr 16, 2024 - 9:08pm
Little known information... maybe even facts
- R_P - Apr 16, 2024 - 3:29pm
songs that ROCK!
- thisbody - Apr 16, 2024 - 10:56am
260,000 Posts in one thread?
- oldviolin - Apr 16, 2024 - 10:10am
WTF??!!
- rgio - Apr 16, 2024 - 5:23am
Australia has Disappeared
- haresfur - Apr 16, 2024 - 4:58am
Earthquake
- miamizsun - Apr 16, 2024 - 4:46am
It's the economy stupid.
- miamizsun - Apr 16, 2024 - 4:28am
TV shows you watch
- Manbird - Apr 15, 2024 - 7:28pm
Republican Party
- Isabeau - Apr 15, 2024 - 12:12pm
Vinyl Only Spin List
- kurtster - Apr 14, 2024 - 11:59am
Eclectic Sound-Drops
- thisbody - Apr 14, 2024 - 11:27am
Synchronization
- ReggieDXB - Apr 13, 2024 - 11:40pm
Other Medical Stuff
- geoff_morphini - Apr 13, 2024 - 7:54am
What Did You See Today?
- Steely_D - Apr 13, 2024 - 6:42am
Photos you have taken of your walks or hikes.
- KurtfromLaQuinta - Apr 12, 2024 - 3:50pm
Things You Thought Today
- Red_Dragon - Apr 12, 2024 - 3:05pm
Poetry Forum
- oldviolin - Apr 12, 2024 - 8:45am
Dear Bill
- oldviolin - Apr 12, 2024 - 8:16am
Radio Paradise in Foobar2000
- gvajda - Apr 11, 2024 - 6:53pm
Mixtape Culture Club
- ColdMiser - Apr 11, 2024 - 8:29am
Joe Biden
- black321 - Apr 11, 2024 - 7:43am
New Song Submissions system
- MayBaby - Apr 11, 2024 - 6:29am
No TuneIn Stream Lately
- kurtster - Apr 10, 2024 - 6:26pm
Caching to Apple watch quit working
- email-muri.0z - Apr 10, 2024 - 6:25pm
April 8th Partial Solar Eclipse
- Alchemist - Apr 10, 2024 - 10:52am
Bug Reports & Feature Requests
- orrinc - Apr 10, 2024 - 10:48am
NPR Listeners: Is There Liberal Bias In Its Reporting?
- black321 - Apr 9, 2024 - 2:11pm
Sonos
- rnstory - Apr 9, 2024 - 10:43am
RP Windows Desktop Notification Applet
- gvajda - Apr 9, 2024 - 9:55am
If not RP, what are you listening to right now?
- kurtster - Apr 8, 2024 - 10:34am
And the good news is....
- thisbody - Apr 8, 2024 - 3:57am
How do I get songs into My Favorites
- Huey - Apr 7, 2024 - 11:29pm
Pernicious Pious Proclivities Particularized Prodigiously
- R_P - Apr 7, 2024 - 5:14pm
Lyrics that strike a chord today...
- Isabeau - Apr 7, 2024 - 12:50pm
Dialing 1-800-Manbird
- oldviolin - Apr 7, 2024 - 11:18am
Why is Mellow mix192kbps?
- dean2.athome - Apr 7, 2024 - 1:11am
Musky Mythology
- haresfur - Apr 6, 2024 - 7:11pm
China
- R_P - Apr 6, 2024 - 11:19am
Artificial Intelligence
- R_P - Apr 5, 2024 - 12:45pm
Vega4 - Bullets
- nirgivon - Apr 5, 2024 - 11:50am
Environment
- thisbody - Apr 5, 2024 - 9:37am
How's the weather?
- geoff_morphini - Apr 5, 2024 - 8:37am
Frequent drop outs (The Netherlands)
- Babylon - Apr 5, 2024 - 8:37am
|
Index »
Radio Paradise/General »
General Discussion »
History - lather, rinse, repeat.
|
Page: Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next |
Lazy8
Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana Gender:
|
Posted:
Apr 20, 2011 - 1:24pm |
|
aflanigan wrote: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!
Here's the actual paragraph: Beginning in April 1997, the Dot Com Stock Market Bubble created an excessive number of new millionaires as investors swarmed to participate in Internet and "tech" company initial public offerings or private capital ventures, which in turn, inflated personal income tax collections. Unfortunately, like the vaporware produced by many of the companies that sprang up to exploit the investor buying frenzy, the illusion of prosperity could not be sustained and tax collections crashed with the incomes of the Internet titans in the bursting of the bubble, leading to the recession that followed. I suppose you could play games with this awkwardly-worded statement, but I think your time would be better spent reading the article and absorbing what it points out: that the only reliable way to boost tax revenue is to have a rising GDP. Raising tax rates (as the article you linked to recommends) won't increase the fraction of GDP we capture in taxes—at least it never has. Or is this time different?
|
|
aflanigan
Location: At Sea Gender:
|
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
Location: West coast somewhere Gender:
|
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
Location: Dumbf*ckistan
|
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
Location: West coast somewhere Gender:
|
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 to paraphrase CC - That's crazy talk.
|
|
beamends
|
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
|
|
islander
Location: West coast somewhere Gender:
|
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
Location: Bastrop Gender:
|
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
Location: West coast somewhere Gender:
|
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
Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana Gender:
|
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
Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana Gender:
|
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
Location: At Sea Gender:
|
|
Jennnn
Gender:
|
Posted:
Jan 11, 2005 - 3:56pm |
|
|
|
phineas
|
Posted:
Jan 11, 2005 - 3:45pm |
|
|
|
Jennnn
Gender:
|
Posted:
Jan 11, 2005 - 3:40pm |
|
|
|
steeler
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
|
Posted:
Jan 11, 2005 - 3:25pm |
|
|
|
gandalfbmg
Location: Thankfully now a little more than 3 mi from Paradise (Missouri) Gender:
|
Posted:
Jan 11, 2005 - 3:19pm |
|
|
|
steeler
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
|
Posted:
Jan 11, 2005 - 3:09pm |
|
|
|
rgj13
Location: The City Gender:
|
Posted:
Jan 11, 2005 - 3:09pm |
|
|
|
gandalfbmg
Location: Thankfully now a little more than 3 mi from Paradise (Missouri) Gender:
|
Posted:
Jan 11, 2005 - 3:07pm |
|
|
|
|