Fate

However, the issue is this: no amount of raising taxes is going to solve the problem

When WWII ended the US had a debt equal to 145% of the GDP.
High taxes and a growing economy helped lower that debt over the next 35 years. Until it began to consistently rise again in the 80s.

What this demonstrates is that your assertions about high taxes are largely wrong.
Moreover in the period after WWII may socialist programs were introduced. The GI Bill, Medicare, the Federal Aid Highway Act, Social Security...
Again, this didn't hamper the economy.
It wasn't till policies on taxation and a pull back on social spending in the 80's that the debt began to once again grow... Despite this thee were economic downturns through the 80s and 90s... so the evidence that low taxation will always goose economic activity is also contradicted.

Some comedian said that Conservatives always say that we have to make sure the rich get to keep most of their money or they won;t invest or work.
But that the poor shouldn't get so much money (from social programs) because they will stop working.
Both notions can't be supported historically.

rickyp wrote:Fate

However, the issue is this: no amount of raising taxes is going to solve the problem

When WWII ended the US had a debt equal to 145% of the GDP.
High taxes and a growing economy helped lower that debt over the next 35 years. Until it began to consistently rise again in the 80s.

Great!

However, you've yet to show that a war-time economy changing over to a peace-time economy fueled by the Marshall Plan, the housing boom, the GI bill, the massive manufacturing sector, etc., is in any way comparable to what we have now.

Pardon me for stating the obvious, but since you CANNOT "get it," I must.

While it is true that the Debt to GDP ratio peaked at 122% in 1946, the ratio has gone crazy since this recession hit:



And, simply put, we cannot continue borrowing 1/8 or more of our spending in perpetuity. Eventually, interest rates will go to their historic levels and maintaining the Debt by paying interest on it will become our #1 issue.

What this demonstrates is that your assertions about high taxes are largely wrong.
Moreover in the period after WWII may socialist programs were introduced. The GI Bill, Medicare, the Federal Aid Highway Act, Social Security...
Again, this didn't hamper the economy.

Sorry, but when did you show that our current fiscal and business climate is like it was in 1946? Please point to that post or close your socialist yapper. Thanks.

It wasn't till policies on taxation and a pull back on social spending in the 80's that the debt began to once again grow... Despite this thee were economic downturns through the 80s and 90s... so the evidence that low taxation will always goose economic activity is also contradicted.

Please show that jacking up taxes will solve our problem or close your socialist yapper. Thanks.

Some comedian said that Conservatives always say that we have to make sure the rich get to keep most of their money or they won;t invest or work.

Oh, well, good point . . .

But that the poor shouldn't get so much money (from social programs) because they will stop working.
Both notions can't be supported historically.

On the other hand, no, it wasn't a good point . . . and you didn't prove it.

Now, THINK ABOUT THIS:

Your whole post was a response to this:

Doctor Fate wrote:However, the issue is this: no amount of raising taxes is going to solve the problem

Hint: YOU NEVER ADDRESSED THE SENTENCED YOU SELECTED FROM MY POST!!!

In other words, please PROVE that raising taxes will solve our "current budget deficit (and associated level of public debt)" (the issue from Danivon's post that I was addressing) or close your socialist yapper.

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Sure, but does "society" decide to work hard? Get educated? Take risks?

As an aggregate of the people within it, yes. And as the social mores of those people shape the expectations on each other, yes.

"Expectations" are not "decisions." One is something that is hoped for or perhaps even anticipated, but is not certain; the other is a course of action or a mandate.

Indeed. But setting the expectations, mores, etc of society provides the background in which decisions are made - and also influence those decisions.

Fate

However, you've yet to show that a war-time economy changing over to a peace-time economy fueled by the Marshall Plan, the housing boom, the GI bill, the massive manufacturing sector, etc., is in any way comparable to what we have now.

The effects of much of this declined through the 60s and 70s. And yet taxes were still high.
By the way, the Marshall Plan - government intervention. The Housing Boom? Fueled by the low interest loans from the GI Bill. (Socialism at work) Manufacturing boom. Aided in part by massive government investment in infrastructure...
All anathema to the current conservative ideals. And yours I presume. But here, you give them credit for fueling an economic revolution.. High taxes and big government/socialism and yet the economy was rosy...
Your head must be exploding from the cognitive dissonance...


Fate

Sorry, but when did you show that our current fiscal and business climate is like it was in 1946

?
Don't have to... Because it isn't the point. (see above anyway)
What you have to prove, and you don't even try, is that the high taxation will always have a deleterious effect. If 90% rates on the highest didn't affect the 50's and almost as high the 60's ... I've made the point that the high taxation had no effect... And that only till the 1980s was the deficit direction changed and that was largely a result of lower taxes...


Fate

In other words, please PROVE that raising taxes will solve our "current budget deficit (and associated level of public debt)"

If you get more revenue, you can attack deficits.
If you spend monies better, the economy will do better. Bernies single payer health insurance would move the 17.5% currently spent on health care down closer to 13 or 14%. And save the average family $5000.
Now, eliminating $5,000 previously spent on health care, would be the same as growing wages for the average family...

Fate

Please show that jacking up taxes will solve our problem or close your socialist yapper. Thanks.

You've got to get more revenue from somewhere.
Your guy wants to take it from average people and give it to the wealthy.And yet he still won't balance the books.
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/10/2 ... -1-report/

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:

Ray Jay wrote:I'm amazed by this, but as far as I can tell, the economic literature does not support my case that higher marginal individual income tax rates would damage the economy.

http://www.epi.org/publication/raising-income-taxes/

As this paper outlines, recent economic research suggests that past reductions in top marginal individual income tax rates have had a statistically insignificant impact on growth and its driving factors—labor supply, savings, investment, and productivity growth. However, they have discernibly widened structural budget deficits and exacerbated income inequality. The policy implications of this research are that increasing top marginal tax rates can raise substantial sums of revenue and potentially dampen the rise of income inequality without unduly restraining economic growth.

Indeed. If you agree that the current budget deficit (and associated level of public debt) is a major issue, then you should look at whether an increase on marginal rates for top earners (along with other reforms to reduce the scope of avoidance) is worth doing.

Flatten and simplify.

Now, RJ has provided an analysis that suggests that part of that ("Flatten") will not help, and I agree on the other part ("simplify").

Do you have an analysis that suggests flat taxes will have beneficial fiscal results. Perhaps we could look at a real case such as the Baltic states which tried it after independence from the USSR.

Of course, they were in a very different position in the 1990s, being effectively new countries getting released from Communism, and and so a transitional economy with a means and opportunity to develop, rather than the USA's mature and more developed economy.

However, the issue is this: no amount of raising taxes is going to solve the problem.

In reality the main way to reduce the impact of debt is to inflate it away. but inflation is very low at present. The other is to have a growing economy. But sudden cuts in spending impact economic growth (and they hit the private sector too).

But now the US and West are in recovery, those should reduce the effect of debt. The key then is to reduce the deficit. If you don't in some way increase the tax take, it becomes a very hard task.

Furthermore, the more taxes go up, the more new ways government comes up for spending and the more waste increases.

So, elect a different Congress. Clearly the GOP are not up to the task of running a country and paying for it.

danivon wrote:Indeed. But setting the expectations, mores, etc of society provides the background in which decisions are made - and also influence those decisions.

Nevertheless, society does not distribute income.

rickyp wrote:Fate

However, you've yet to show that a war-time economy changing over to a peace-time economy fueled by the Marshall Plan, the housing boom, the GI bill, the massive manufacturing sector, etc., is in any way comparable to what we have now.

The effects of much of this declined through the 60s and 70s. And yet taxes were still high.
By the way, the Marshall Plan - government intervention. The Housing Boom? Fueled by the low interest loans from the GI Bill. (Socialism at work) Manufacturing boom. Aided in part by massive government investment in infrastructure...
All anathema to the current conservative ideals. And yours I presume. But here, you give them credit for fueling an economic revolution.. High taxes and big government/socialism and yet the economy was rosy...
Your head must be exploding from the cognitive dissonance...

Nope, by your stupidity. Nothing you've said here is an argument.

Fate

Sorry, but when did you show that our current fiscal and business climate is like it was in 1946

?
Don't have to... Because it isn't the point. (see above anyway)
What you have to prove, and you don't even try, is that the high taxation will always have a deleterious effect. If 90% rates on the highest didn't affect the 50's and almost as high the 60's ... I've made the point that the high taxation had no effect... And that only till the 1980s was the deficit direction changed and that was largely a result of lower taxes...

We've already seen, dozens of times, that no one paid 90%. I don't have to prove anything. You're (sort of) making the claim that raising taxes will solve our economic problems. I'm waiting on proof.

Fate

In other words, please PROVE that raising taxes will solve our "current budget deficit (and associated level of public debt)"

If you get more revenue, you can attack deficits.
If you spend monies better, the economy will do better. Bernies single payer health insurance would move the 17.5% currently spent on health care down closer to 13 or 14%. And save the average family $5000.
Now, eliminating $5,000 previously spent on health care, would be the same as growing wages for the average family...

Bernie is proposing $1.8T a year in new spending. That is 60% of revenues from 2014. Please explain where ALL that money comes from or close your socialist yapper.

Fate

Please show that jacking up taxes will solve our problem or close your socialist yapper. Thanks.

You've got to get more revenue from somewhere.
Your guy wants to take it from average people and give it to the wealthy.And yet he still won't balance the books.
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/10/2 ... -1-report/

You've still not addressed the SINGLE sentence you alleged to have addressed:

Doctor Fate wrote:However, the issue is this: no amount of raising taxes is going to solve the problem

You say I'm wrong, but you cannot muster any evidence to prove that.

Meanwhile, read this brief essay. It blows up everything you're saying.

Or, you can keep popping off with your opinion based on things you learned in socialism class.

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:Indeed. But setting the expectations, mores, etc of society provides the background in which decisions are made - and also influence those decisions.

Nevertheless, society does not distribute income.

No more than markets do. But they both actually do move money around because that's what they are. Societies are groups of people, and markets are made up of people.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:Indeed. But setting the expectations, mores, etc of society provides the background in which decisions are made - and also influence those decisions.

Nevertheless, society does not distribute income.

No more than markets do. But they both actually do move money around because that's what they are. Societies are groups of people, and markets are made up of people.

Agreed. My initial disagreement was with the notion of society "deciding" who should get what. That's not how it works-in anything resembling a "free society."

Doctor Fate wrote:Agreed. My initial disagreement was with the notion of society "deciding" who should get what. That's not how it works-in anything resembling a "free society."

Well, it is not as absolute as that.

But in the aggregate, people do act both as participants in the market, and in politics. And those do decide (whether it is a free society or not) where money goes.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Agreed. My initial disagreement was with the notion of society "deciding" who should get what. That's not how it works-in anything resembling a "free society."

Well, it is not as absolute as that.

But in the aggregate, people do act both as participants in the market, and in politics. And those do decide (whether it is a free society or not) where money goes.

If you mean they "decide" where money goes based on how the spend it, sure. If you mean there is some big pot containing all money which society determines how to distribute, then no.

Is there a point to all this ? It strikes me that everybody knows what everybody else is getting at, so why have you spent several days on such a semantic argument that gets you nowhere ?

Sassenach wrote:Is there a point to all this ? It strikes me that everybody knows what everybody else is getting at, so why have you spent several days on such a semantic argument that gets you nowhere ?

Sassenach wrote:Is there a point to all this ? It strikes me that everybody knows what everybody else is getting at, so why have you spent several days on such a semantic argument that gets you nowhere ?

minutes a day.

I am really looking for when DF shows studies that refute the one RJ found.

danivon wrote:

Sassenach wrote:Is there a point to all this ? It strikes me that everybody knows what everybody else is getting at, so why have you spent several days on such a semantic argument that gets you nowhere ?

minutes a day.

I am really looking for when DF shows studies that refute the one RJ found.

Why should I?

My whole point is that raising them will NOT fund all the crap Bernie wants to give away. Furthermore, neither of the socialist candidates will explain what "fair share" means.

So, RJ found a study. Good for him. I didn't challenge him to find a study.

Furthermore, the author's other works . . . seem like they could be written by Paul Krugman.

Dangerous targets: Why setting a specific deficit reduction target would worsen the economic and fiscal situation
April 30, 2013 | By Josh Bivens, Andrew Fieldhouse, and Ethan Pollack | Issue Brief
Ten-year deficit reduction targets have proliferated in recent years. However, these targets are bad economics and will likely lead to poor policy decisions. A better goal is to stabilize the debt ratio once the economy returns much closer to full employment.
From free-fall to stagnation: Five years after the start of the Great Recession, extraordinary policy measures are still needed, but are not forthcoming
February 14, 2013 | By Josh Bivens, Heidi Shierholz, and Andrew Fieldhouse | Briefing Paper
The economy has gone five years since the beginning of the Great Recession without remotely approaching a full recovery. The top policy priority must be ensuring a rapid return to full employment through proven policy levers—namely, deficit-financed government spending to close the demand shortfall.
A fiscal obstacle course, not a cliff: Economic impacts of expiring tax cuts and impending spending cuts, and policy recommendations
September 18, 2012 | By Josh Bivens and Andrew Fieldhouse | Issue Brief
The focus of economic policy debate has turned to what has been called the “fiscal cliff”—the impact of tax cuts set to expire and spending cuts due to take effect at the end of calendar year 2012. For various reasons, “fiscal cliff” is a poor metaphor. We thus propose a different metaphor: the fiscal obstacle course.
The Ryan budget versus the Budget for All: Exacerbating versus alleviating our serious economic challenges
May 17, 2012 | By Andrew Fieldhouse, Rebecca Thiess, and Ethan Pollack | Briefing Paper
As numeric embodiments of national priorities, budget proposals strip away political rhetoric to reflect underlying policy priorities.

Fieldhouse loves him lots of government spending.