RebKell's Junkie Boards
Board Junkies Forums
 
Log in Register FAQ Memberlist Search RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index

Hardly Seems Fair To Quote Them Now
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » Area 51
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
vanyogan



Joined: 09 Aug 2005
Posts: 9673



Back to top
PostPosted: 11/15/05 12:11 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

womens_hoops wrote:
pilight wrote:
Sending $1 to Washington so they can send 48 cents back to be spent on my local roads and schools is a very poor way to run things.

I don't object to a reasonable amount of tax. I just want to get my money's worth in return for it.


i thought you live in Georgia. It receives back more than it sends to DC. Looks like you got $1.69 for every dollar you sent in 2003.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/347.html#72f0da248998dbf3ec68a110a2e47031

I'm sending money to you. I'd be more than happy to keep it and spend it on my own Minnesota schools and roads if you'd like.


Well that is some interesting data. I see a couple of things, population general has a lot to do with the number, and also economic health. But I think the California number for instance is very deceiving, depending on how the "federal taxes paid" is derived. MOst of the imported goods dollars go through CA I suspect, so they may pay the most federal revenue, but it is actually paid by consumers in the rest of the country. Tough to make sense out of these numbers.

The most interesting thing I see is generally, Federal revenue doubles every ten years and the bastards still can't balance a frigg'n budget.



_________________
http://www.rightnation.us
womens_hoops



Joined: 20 Nov 2004
Posts: 2831



Back to top
PostPosted: 11/15/05 12:11 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:
even though the benefit to Georgians of having military bases and federal buildings in Georgia instead of Minnesota is pretty marginal.


i guess that's why Senators and Congressmen never lobby to keep military bases open in their home districts.

oh wait...


womens_hoops



Joined: 20 Nov 2004
Posts: 2831



Back to top
PostPosted: 11/15/05 12:13 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

vanyogan wrote:
MOst of the imported goods dollars go through CA I suspect, so they may pay the most federal revenue, but it is actually paid by consumers in the rest of the country.


the numbers aren't derived that way.

small states do better because they have disproportionate power (per capita) in the Senate. and because small/red states do a better job of sending the same people back, who then move up the congressional committee structure. thus: farm subsidies, disproportionate highway spending per capita, etc. In short: they're better at getting pork.

vanyogan wrote:
Federal revenue doubles every ten years and the bastards still can't balance a frigg'n budget.


i seem to recall a balanced budget a few years ago.


vanyogan



Joined: 09 Aug 2005
Posts: 9673



Back to top
PostPosted: 11/15/05 12:48 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

womens_hoops wrote:
vanyogan wrote:
MOst of the imported goods dollars go through CA I suspect, so they may pay the most federal revenue, but it is actually paid by consumers in the rest of the country.


the numbers aren't derived that way.

small states do better because they have disproportionate power (per capita) in the Senate. and because small/red states do a better job of sending the same people back, who then move up the congressional committee structure. thus: farm subsidies, disproportionate highway spending per capita, etc. In short: they're better at getting pork.

vanyogan wrote:
Federal revenue doubles every ten years and the bastards still can't balance a frigg'n budget.


i seem to recall a balanced budget a few years ago.


You did, but it was balanced by revenue, not by cutting spending. A great deal of that revenue increase was capital gains from the stock market bubble. No bubble, no revenue. As an example, it is said the market lost a trillion dollars on 9/11. Keeping it simple using a nominal rate of 20%, the government lost 200 billion in revenue on that single day.



_________________
http://www.rightnation.us
pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66772
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 11/15/05 1:09 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

womens_hoops wrote:
pilight wrote:
even though the benefit to Georgians of having military bases and federal buildings in Georgia instead of Minnesota is pretty marginal.


i guess that's why Senators and Congressmen never lobby to keep military bases open in their home districts.

oh wait...



Base closings have a sharp, short term impact. When you're running for office every other year, short term impacts are very important.



_________________
Let us not deceive ourselves. Our educational institutions have proven to be no bastions of democracy.
womens_hoops



Joined: 20 Nov 2004
Posts: 2831



Back to top
PostPosted: 11/15/05 1:14 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

vanyogan wrote:
You did, but it was balanced by revenue, not by cutting spending.


it was also done by keeping discretionary spending in check. Under Clinton, non-defense discretionary spending grew at an annual rate of 1.8%. Under Bush-43, it's grown at an annual rate of 7.1%.

Here's a report from those radical leftists at Cato criticizing the administration's spending.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbb/tbb-0510-26.pdf

some of the increase is "Homeland Security." But non-security spending has grown faster under Bush as well.

http://www.factcheck.org/article139.html

And none of that includes the new $1.2 trillion Medicare Prescription Drug benefit (which will count as non-discretionary). Hope you all are enjoying that one. I know I am.


womens_hoops



Joined: 20 Nov 2004
Posts: 2831



Back to top
PostPosted: 11/15/05 1:16 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:
Base closings have a sharp, short term impact.


military bases and other federal operations employ a lot of people. they work, in part, like New Deal federal jobs programs. you don't even have to get into Keynesian multipliers to see that those things have a substantial effect on a local economy.


p_d_swanson



Joined: 01 Dec 2004
Posts: 9713



Back to top
PostPosted: 11/15/05 1:28 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

womens_hoops wrote:
http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/347.html#72f0da248998dbf3ec68a110a2e47031

I'm sending money to you. I'd be more than happy to keep it and spend it on my own Minnesota schools and roads if you'd like.


Fifteen of the top 16 net recipients of Federal money (Hawai'i ranked 10th) went Republican in last year's presidential election, while 12 of the 14 biggest net contributors to the national coffers (the lone exceptions being Colorado and Nevada) were Blue. Probably just a coincidence...


jammerbirdi



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 21045



Back to top
PostPosted: 11/15/05 1:31 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

womens_hoops wrote:
vanyogan wrote:
You did, but it was balanced by revenue, not by cutting spending.


it was also done by keeping discretionary spending in check. Under Clinton, non-defense discretionary spending grew at an annual rate of 1.8%. Under Bush-43, it's grown at an annual rate of 7.1%.

Here's a report from those radical leftists at Cato criticizing the administration's spending.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbb/tbb-0510-26.pdf

some of the increase is "Homeland Security." But non-security spending has grown faster under Bush as well.

http://www.factcheck.org/article139.html

And none of that includes the new $1.2 trillion Medicare Prescription Drug benefit (which will count as non-discretionary). Hope you all are enjoying that one. I know I am.


Thank you. I'm glad someone has the time to refute the horseshit that's getting flung around here today.



_________________
Every woman who has ever been presented with a career/sex quid pro quo in the entertainment industry should come forward and simply say, “Me, too.” - jammer The New York Times 10/10/17
womens_hoops



Joined: 20 Nov 2004
Posts: 2831



Back to top
PostPosted: 11/15/05 1:38 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

vanyogan wrote:
A great deal of that revenue increase was capital gains from the stock market bubble.


not exactly true. Capital gains taxes make up only about 2-3% of total federal government receipts. People overstate their importance because they are often at play in political campaigns (because rich people get really pissed off about them).

http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=3856&sequence=0

Total federal receipts have fallen since 2000. They bottomed out in 2003 and are now rising again. They fell for two reasons (1) post 9/11 economy, and (2) Bush tax cuts.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/TaxFacts/Tfdb/TFTemplate.cfm?DocID=200&Topic2id=20&Topic3id=23

The tax cuts cost about $250 billion in 2004.

http://www.cbpp.org/4-14-04tax-sum.htm
http://www.ctj.org/pdf/gwbdata.pdf

Without the cuts, real receipts in 2004 would have been just about the same as they were in 2000.




Last edited by womens_hoops on 11/15/05 1:39 pm; edited 1 time in total
vanyogan



Joined: 09 Aug 2005
Posts: 9673



Back to top
PostPosted: 11/15/05 1:39 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

womens_hoops wrote:
vanyogan wrote:
You did, but it was balanced by revenue, not by cutting spending.


it was also done by keeping discretionary spending in check. Under Clinton, non-defense discretionary spending grew at an annual rate of 1.8%. Under Bush-43, it's grown at an annual rate of 7.1%.

Here's a report from those radical leftists at Cato criticizing the administration's spending.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbb/tbb-0510-26.pdf

some of the increase is "Homeland Security." But non-security spending has grown faster under Bush as well.

http://www.factcheck.org/article139.html

And none of that includes the new $1.2 trillion Medicare Prescription Drug benefit (which will count as non-discretionary). Hope you all are enjoying that one. I know I am.


The descretionary spending grew disproportionately on two items, education and unemployment benefits. Add in defense and homeland security and you can account for the increase. So which one of these do you want to cut? I'll cut education and homeland security. How's that?

As for medicare, a great deal of the cost is increasing the benefits to include everybody. Bush campaigned on benefits for people who couldn't afford it. Democrats couldn't have a Republican funding just poor people so the only way to get it done was to concede to the demogogues(D). They insisted that everybody get the benefit. I don't agree with it either, but it was done. Hopefully if people actually take their medication it will have some nebulous positive affect on the overall cost of medicare.



_________________
http://www.rightnation.us
pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66772
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 11/15/05 1:46 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

womens_hoops wrote:
pilight wrote:
Base closings have a sharp, short term impact.


military bases and other federal operations employ a lot of people. they work, in part, like New Deal federal jobs programs. you don't even have to get into Keynesian multipliers to see that those things have a substantial effect on a local economy.



I live in the middle of BRAC paranoia, I drive by Robins AFB several times a week. I've read quite a bit about the effects of base closings. Most of the studies suggest that the negative impact washes out within a decade of the closing.

EDIMGIAFAD



_________________
Let us not deceive ourselves. Our educational institutions have proven to be no bastions of democracy.
womens_hoops



Joined: 20 Nov 2004
Posts: 2831



Back to top
PostPosted: 11/15/05 1:49 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

vanyogan wrote:
The descretionary spending grew disproportionately on two items, education and unemployment benefits.


(This debate would be a little easier if you would provide some sources for these claims. I have tried to do that so you can see for yourself.)

Here is the administration's own budget chart. (You will need Excel to view it.)

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2005/sheets/hist08z8.xls

It shows non-defense discretionary spending growing by about $100 million [edit: ha, ha... i said "million"... oops...] from 2000 till now. Education and employment related stuff accounts for about $20 million of that. It shows substantial growth across almost all categories.


vanyogan



Joined: 09 Aug 2005
Posts: 9673



Back to top
PostPosted: 11/15/05 2:28 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

womens_hoops wrote:
vanyogan wrote:
A great deal of that revenue increase was capital gains from the stock market bubble.


not exactly true. Capital gains taxes make up only about 2-3% of total federal government receipts. People overstate their importance because they are often at play in political campaigns (because rich people get really pissed off about them).

http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=3856&sequence=0

Total federal receipts have fallen since 2000. They bottomed out in 2003 and are now rising again. They fell for two reasons (1) post 9/11 economy, and (2) Bush tax cuts.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/TaxFacts/Tfdb/TFTemplate.cfm?DocID=200&Topic2id=20&Topic3id=23

The tax cuts cost about $250 billion in 2004.

http://www.cbpp.org/4-14-04tax-sum.htm
http://www.ctj.org/pdf/gwbdata.pdf

Without the cuts, real receipts in 2004 would have been just about the same as they were in 2000.


I don't think you can say what revenues would be without the cuts. Most economists agree that without them we would not have the growth economy we have today and thus revenue would be even worse. The other point is 2000 revenue grew by 10%(twice the rate of 1999), that is an anomaly, it's the tail end of an unsustainable economic expansion.

Bush did two things, both proven methods, to get out of recession. He increased spending and cut taxes. If you look at revenue losses in 2001 - 2003, you have have to attribute those to lack of investment and lower capital gains revenue. You said Capital gains is only 3.5%. that is 60 billion dollars in the year 2000 though I suspect that it was alot more than that in 2000, because that's when the market substantially sold off. So you have the remants of a market sell off in 2000-2002 and you have reinvestment begining in 2003 - 2010. If you look at tax cuts, Kennedy cut them in 1961, Reagan in 1981, Bush in 2001, that is roughly 20 years apart. When you have a graduated income tax, taxes go up because incomes go up even if rates remain constant. That is why cutting rates every 20 years is required to stay competitive and stimulate growth.

If you look at the roaring twenties, tax cuts did the job and raising taxes caused the depression. Look it up...

Look at your source's estimates from 2005 - 2010. It has revenue growing from 2.05 trillion to 2.82 trillion in six years. If investors start investing in 2003, there is an income curve that generally extends outward at least three 2 - 5 years. So what you see now is the revenue stream generating income from past investment.



_________________
http://www.rightnation.us
womens_hoops



Joined: 20 Nov 2004
Posts: 2831



Back to top
PostPosted: 11/15/05 3:02 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

vanyogan wrote:
Most economists agree that without them we would not have the growth economy we have today and thus revenue would be even worse.


Really? Hmmm.... that's another memo I missed.

Saying "most economists agree" is sorta like saying "studies show." For either, I'm inclined to ignore it unless it's supported by something, some studies, some sources.

What you are describing, generally, is the Laffer Curve, the foundational theorem of supply-side economics. "Most economists agree" with the basic principle -- namely, that both a 0% tax rate and a 100% tax rate would yield $0 in tax revenues, and that some amounts in the middle will yield positive amounts. Indeed, almost all economists agree with that, because it's just true as a theoretical/mathematical matter.

As an empirical matter, however, no one knows what the shape of the curve is. No one knows what the revenue-maximizing tax rate is. No one even knows if it's shaped like a smooth curve, or if it's bumpy. The whole thing depends on the elasticity of labor supply, which isn't very easy to measure.

If you want to learn about some of these things, you can try these resources for starters:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve
http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj1n1/cj1n1-3.pdf
http://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/review/81/conf/1981section1-3.pdf
http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~nroubini/SUPPLY.HTM

We don't know exactly where we are on the curve, and we don't know whether we're on the uphill or downhill slope. The Blinder paper above suggests that we are on the uphill. But he admits, as any good economist must, that it's very hard to study empirically, and we just don't know with any confidence the value of certain variables.

The claim that "most economists agree" that we are on the downhill, and therefore that EGTRRA actually raised revenues, is silly.


vanyogan



Joined: 09 Aug 2005
Posts: 9673



Back to top
PostPosted: 11/15/05 3:19 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

womens_hoops wrote:
vanyogan wrote:
Most economists agree that without them we would not have the growth economy we have today and thus revenue would be even worse.


Really? Hmmm.... that's another memo I missed.

Saying "most economists agree" is sorta like saying "studies show." For either, I'm inclined to ignore it unless it's supported by something, some studies, some sources.

What you are describing, generally, is the Laffer Curve, the foundational theorem of supply-side economics. "Most economists agree" with the basic principle -- namely, that both a 0% tax rate and a 100% tax rate would yield $0 in tax revenues, and that some amounts in the middle will yield positive amounts. Indeed, almost all economists agree with that, because it's just true as a theoretical/mathematical matter.

As an empirical matter, however, no one knows what the shape of the curve is. No one knows what the revenue-maximizing tax rate is. No one even knows if it's shaped like a smooth curve, or if it's bumpy. The whole thing depends on the elasticity of labor supply, which isn't very easy to measure.

If you want to learn about some of these things, you can try these resources for starters:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve
http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj1n1/cj1n1-3.pdf
http://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/review/81/conf/1981section1-3.pdf
http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~nroubini/SUPPLY.HTM

We don't know exactly where we are on the curve, and we don't know whether we're on the uphill or downhill slope. The Blinder paper above suggests that we are on the uphill. But he admits, as any good economist must, that it's very hard to study empirically, and we just don't know with any confidence the value of certain variables.

The claim that "most economists agree" that we are on the downhill, and therefore that EGTRRA actually raised revenues, is silly.


No it's not silly at all. If you look at reveue as % of GDP in 2000, you have Government taking an excessive amount of GDP. Followed by a recession.

Investors don't care about labor elasticity they care about ROI. Most jobs in this country are generated by small business. Small business has to invest to create a job. Investors can generally choose how much income they receive. Warren Buffet is worth 35-45 billion but he pays himself about 200K in salary. When he does cash in he pays the top capital gain rate not the income tax rate. How in the hell are you going to raise this guys income tax if he doesn't want you to?

Investors invest when the climate is good and they protect their money when the climate is bad. In a global economy it's not enough to get them to invest, you have to get them to invest in America. That is even more incentive to lower income tax rates.



_________________
http://www.rightnation.us
p_d_swanson



Joined: 01 Dec 2004
Posts: 9713



Back to top
PostPosted: 11/15/05 3:38 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

vanyogan wrote:
Small business has to invest to create a job. Investors can generally choose how much income they receive. Warren Buffet is worth 35-45 billion but he pays himself about 200K in salary. When he does cash in he pays the top capital gain rate not the income tax rate. How in the hell are you going to raise this guys income tax if he doesn't want you to?

Investors invest when the climate is good and they protect their money when the climate is bad. In a global economy it's not enough to get them to invest, you have to get them to invest in America. That is even more incentive to lower income tax rates.


Perhaps inadvertently, you've just provided a solid case for transforming the income tax into a wealth tax...


womens_hoops



Joined: 20 Nov 2004
Posts: 2831



Back to top
PostPosted: 11/15/05 3:39 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Vany, your response is more jingoism than economic analysis (much less empirical economic analysis).

You are saying that taxes create disincentives to work and investment. We all know that. The question is whether, in this case, the (revenue-increasing) effect of reducing those disincentives outweighed the (revenue-decreasing) effect of the lower rates themselves.

It may or may not have -- I don't really know.

vanyogan wrote:
No it's not silly at all.


what is silly is for you to say that most economists agree with you. I take it that you don't actually spend much time studying economics or talking to economists.


vanyogan



Joined: 09 Aug 2005
Posts: 9673



Back to top
PostPosted: 11/15/05 4:12 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

womens_hoops wrote:
Vany, your response is more jingoism than economic analysis (much less empirical economic analysis).

You are saying that taxes create disincentives to work and investment. We all know that. The question is whether, in this case, the (revenue-increasing) effect of reducing those disincentives outweighed the (revenue-decreasing) effect of the lower rates themselves.

It may or may not have -- I don't really know.

vanyogan wrote:
No it's not silly at all.


what is silly is for you to say that most economists agree with you. I take it that you don't actually spend much time studying economics or talking to economists.


1920's tax rate cuts:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/images/B_1544_chart-5.gif

Higher rates don't raise revenue:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/images/B_1544_chart-4.gif

Rich paid more in the 20's:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/images/B_1544_chart-5.gif

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/images/bg1443cht1.gif

Rich paid more under Kennedy Tax cuts:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/images/B_1544_chart-6.gif

Full paper:
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/BG1544.cfm

As for the reference on unemployment benefits and education spending on increasing dicresionary spending, your document doesn't show that.

I found it but don't remember where. Anyway a couple of years back I looked at it and the largest $ items % change were unemployment benefits, education, and homeland security.



_________________
http://www.rightnation.us
womens_hoops



Joined: 20 Nov 2004
Posts: 2831



Back to top
PostPosted: 11/15/05 4:30 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

suffice it to say: the views of the uber-conservative Heritage Foundation do not necessarily reflect the views of most economists.

vanyogan wrote:
As for the reference on unemployment benefits and education spending on increasing dicresionary spending, your document doesn't show that.


I'm not sure what you mean. It doesn't show unemployment benefits, but that's because those aren't discretionary expenditures -- they are part of the "entitlement" side of the budget.

http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=4916&sequence=5

The White House document shows that total non-defense discretionary increased from 320 in 2000 to 418 in 2004. Total "education, employment, and social services" spending accounted for about 22.

1 from Agriculture. 15 from transportation. 5 from community development. 15 from "health." 5 from housing assistance. 6 from veteran's benefits. 6 from "general government."

You said that unemployment and education accounted for most/all of the increase in non-security, non-defense discretionary expenditures. Unemployment benefits don't even count as discretionary expenditures, and education, by the White House's own numbers, accounted for only about 20%.

Either the White House is lying, or you're wrong.




Last edited by womens_hoops on 11/15/05 4:32 pm; edited 1 time in total
vanyogan



Joined: 09 Aug 2005
Posts: 9673



Back to top
PostPosted: 11/15/05 4:31 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

The myth of deficit spending woes:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/loader.cfm?url=/commonspot/security/getfile.cfm&PageID=74361

By historical standards, the deficit as a percent of GDP is still pretty low. Ironically the lowest deficit per gdp period was the 1970's. SO no thanks if we have to put up with the 1970's economy, the "malaise" I believe is what Carter called it. Obviously the hyper inflation kept deficits down. I Blame Nixon's wage price freezes and the Arab Oil Embargo for much of the "malaise", in all honesty Carter's butt was cooked before he raised his right hand. Cool

Here is a picture of U.S. economic health vs Europe in 2004.

http://new.heritage.org/Research/Budget/loader.cfm?url=/commonspot/security/getfile.cfm&PageID=75508



_________________
http://www.rightnation.us
vanyogan



Joined: 09 Aug 2005
Posts: 9673



Back to top
PostPosted: 11/15/05 4:35 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

womens_hoops wrote:
suffice it to say: the views of the uber-conservative Heritage Foundation do not necessarily reflect the views of most economists.

vanyogan wrote:
As for the reference on unemployment benefits and education spending on increasing dicresionary spending, your document doesn't show that.


I'm not sure what you mean. It doesn't show unemployment benefits, but that's because those aren't discretionary expenditures -- they are part of the "entitlement" side of the budget.

http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=4916&sequence=5

The White House document shows that total non-defense discretionary increased from 320 in 2000 to 418 in 2004. Total "education, employment, and social services" spending accounted for about 22.

1 from Agriculture. 15 from transportation. 5 from community development. 15 from "health." 5 from housing assistance. 6 from veteran's benefits. 6 from "general government."

You said that unemployment and education accounted for most/all of the increase in non-security, non-defense discretionary expenditures. Unemployment benefits don't even count as discretionary expenditures, and education, by the White House's own numbers, accounted for only about 20%.

Either the White House is lying, or you're wrong.


The Heritage Foundation may have provided the data but the data doesn't lie. Dismissing their numbers is a cop out. If they are wrong on the data, show me...

Unemployment may be nondescretionary, but not when congress extends benefits which they did more than once. At any rate, the cost increases dramatically when you you go into a recession and it's significant.



_________________
http://www.rightnation.us


Last edited by vanyogan on 11/15/05 4:40 pm; edited 1 time in total
womens_hoops



Joined: 20 Nov 2004
Posts: 2831



Back to top
PostPosted: 11/15/05 4:37 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

vanyogan wrote:
The Heritage Foundation may have provided the data but the data doesn't lie.


I could just as easily respond: Alan Blinder may have provided the data, but the data doesn't (actually "don't") lie.

But that would be retarded.

and if you really think that something like this:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/images/B_1544_chart-4.gif

counts as "data," then...


womens_hoops



Joined: 20 Nov 2004
Posts: 2831



Back to top
PostPosted: 11/15/05 4:47 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

vanyogan wrote:
Unemployment may be nondescretionary, but not when congress extends benefits which they did more than once.


wrong again.

Federal budgeting has two halfs: entitlement spending and discretionary spending. Unemployment benefits always fall under the entitlement half even when they are extended or augmented at Congress's "discretion."

Whether something counts as discretionary spending is an arbitrary accounting concept. The drug benefit, eg, was a discretionary decision in the common senses of the words, but it counts as an entitlement increase, not a discretionary increase.


vanyogan



Joined: 09 Aug 2005
Posts: 9673



Back to top
PostPosted: 11/15/05 4:57 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

womens_hoops wrote:
vanyogan wrote:
The Heritage Foundation may have provided the data but the data doesn't lie.


I could just as easily respond: Alan Blinder may have provided the data, but the data doesn't (actually "don't") lie.

But that would be retarded.

and if you really think that something like this:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/images/B_1544_chart-4.gif

counts as "data," then...


If you are going to say the data is wrong, then prove it.

RE:

History of top tax rates:
http://www.ctj.org/pdf/regcg.pdf

and:

Even in 1918, however, only 5 percent of the population paid income taxes and yet the income tax funded one-third of the cost of the war.

The economy boomed during the 1920s and increasing revenues from the income tax followed. This allowed Congress to cut taxes five times, ultimately returning the bottom tax rate to 1 percent and the top rate down to 25 percent and reducing the Federal tax burden as a share of GDP to 13 percent. As tax rates and tax collections declined, the economy was strengthened further.

In October of 1929 the stock market crash marked the beginning of the Great Depression. As the economy shrank, government receipts also fell. In 1932, the Federal government collected only $1.9 billion, compared to $6.6 billion in 1920. In the face of rising budget deficits which reached $2.7 billion in 1931, Congress followed the prevailing economic wisdom at the time and passed the Tax Act of 1932 which dramatically increased tax rates once again. This was followed by another tax increase in 1936 that further improved the government's finances while further weakening the economy. By 1936 the lowest tax rate had reached 4 percent and the top rate was up to 79 percent. In 1939, Congress systematically codified the tax laws so that all subsequent tax legislation until 1954 amended this basic code. The combination of a shrunken economy and the repeated tax increases raised the Federal government's tax burden to 6.8 percent of GDP by 1940.
http://www.treas.gov/education/fact-sheets/taxes/ustax.shtml






_________________
http://www.rightnation.us
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » Area 51 All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Page 2 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB 2.0.17 © 2001- 2004 phpBB Group
phpBB Template by Vjacheslav Trushkin