Re: WAY OT: Gas-Gouging Greenspan


"McDuck" <wallymcduckDELETEME@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:q8a3i15l7t6d23elgn48i7qck2mruf2do0@xxxxxxxxxx
> On Fri, 9 Sep 2005 00:21:02 -0700, "Marcello" <marcello@xxxxxxxxxx>
> quacked:
>
>>
>>"McDuck" <wallymcduckDELETEME@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>news:jp72i1t8hfsgqefgnpqsa75t53vqg6gg24@xxxxxxxxxx
>
>>>
>>> This is just nuts. Why are you discussing 100% taxation? I clearly was
>>> discussing some middle level, as I very clearly stated. But, just for
>>> the record, you are even wrong at 100%. The Soviet Union had
>>> expansion, for example, with 100% taxation. Now, such rates are
>>> foolish, but they do not preclude expansion. Expansion can come from
>>> borrowed money. It need not come from internal savings. Indeed, most
>>> expansion comes from borrowed money most of the time.
>>
>>Your point about the Soviet Union is intriguing but the discussion is on
>>the
>>after tax spendable dollars being used for expansion. Naturally there are
>>other means for economic expansion, but if there is 100% taxation then
>>there
>>is 0% spendable after tax equity for expansion, which means there is no
>>possible way to have a resulting expansion via spendable after tax
>>dollars.
>>I would have hoped the point of analyzing data on a scale would have been
>>clear to you, but perhaps you are of the belief then that the economy
>>would
>>not expand/retract with any change in tax rate? If so, then let's just
>>end
>>the discussion now because you make Al Gore look conservative by nature.
>>
>>
> I'm sure by rates you mean tax revenues. We reduced rates in 1986
> without reducing revenues. I agree that if you tax away all equity,
> you do not have equity finance. But that was not your original
> statement --- you said no expansion at 100% rates, which you now agree
> was not what you meant. fine. I accept your revised statement. And, I
> repeat, I made clear that I was not dealing with cases at the extreme
> but with cases actually on someone's political agenda --- raising
> taxes some but not radically (like going back to the Clinton rates of
> 1993).

I think we are going in circles here. But going back to the scale, its only
logical to suggest that on a scale where the bottom of the scale has the
smallest rate and the top has the largest rate then along the lines
throughout the middle you will have changes depending on where you are in
the scale...and this is the whole point. Perhaps a minor change would have
near insignificant effects, however this does not refute that going up and
down the scale the effects are present.


>
>>>
>>> And it is hard to image any jobs being created at zero taxation, since
>>> that means no government, which means chaos.
>>
>>Yes, clearly you miss the concept of theoretical example for the basis of
>>conclusive scaled assumptions, a common practice of theoretical
>>mathematics
>>and economics.
>
> Not mathematics. Mathematicians are not noted for making
> counter-factual assumptions (that was my major, by the way). But I
> agree that some economists make silly assumptions about a world
> without taxes and make pronouncements about such a world without
> reference to reality. I'd think we could agree that is not a good
> thing.
>
> <snip>
>>> Do you have any evidence for these counterfactual claims? If you look
>>> at history, you will see that some tax cuts resulted in lower growth,
>>> and some resulted in higher growth. And some tax increases reduced
>>> growth, and some increased growth.
>>
>>Only with consideration for other economic factors such as inflation and
>>interest rates. It is easy to search the short US history and find data
>>to
>>prove counter conclusive sides because so many factors attribute to a
>>national economy...but this is not an argument against basic principals,
>>of
>>which you seem so willing to overlook.
>
> Well, I do agree that one cannot refute a theory conclusively from a
> look at history, due, as you say, to the multiplicity of factors
> affecting an economy. But your theory (as best I understand it), at
> most, suggests a tendency without any claim about its magnitude. If
> the magnitude is trivially small, the theory has no practical
> significance. And if the effect is too small to show up consistently
> in history, then we know at least something about the magnitude b/c if
> it were really large, it would show up.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> And your theory is messed up. Many rich people do not spend all of
>>> their money on expanding businesses. They buy stuff --- stuff such as
>>
>>Ah yes, yet another with a complete misunderstanding of how the rich use
>>their money. To reiterate an old point, unless the rich are putting their
>>money under their mattresses for safe keeping, it is going back into the
>>economy. Whether the rich choose to invest, expand, spend, or even put
>>money directly into a savings account, all are factors that increase the
>>flow of the economy by exponential factors. If you don't yet have an
>>understanding of how even the most simplest of economic concepts is
>>derived,
>>then how can you spend time making any claims instead of researching out
>>what you clearly don't understand.
>
> What? If your point is that money circulates, fine. Money from poor
> and middle class also circulates. And money from government spending
> also circulates. I thought you were arguing that we should have lower
> taxes on the rich or lower taxes in general. Now, I do not understand
> what you mean by "factors that increase the flow of the economy by
> exponential factors." Is this some metaphor? Or is it just gibberish.
> It certainly is not a coherent economic statement.
>

You are overlooking that government money spent on paying back the debt does
not circulate. You had made statements regarding the fact that if the rich
receive tax breaks and do not invest the money that it does not help the
economy which could not be more incorrect. You can call it names all you
like, but it won't make you right.



>
> <snip>
>
>>>>
>>>>Yes but it does mean that on a sliding scale the more taxes there are
>>>>the
>>>>more harmful they will be...and visa versa. While taxes are essential
>>>>for
>>>>our society, raising taxes while federal spending is out of hand is
>>>>ludicrous.
>>>
>>> No, just the opposite is true. If government spending is up, then
>>> taxes should go up. Otherwise the government borrows for current
>>
>>Well, more specifically, if government spending is up, tax "revenue"
>>should
>>be up...not necessarily tax rates. There is a clear line between the two
>>that you are overlooking.
>
> I did not overlook that point --- I said "taxes" should go up, not tax
> rates. You are the one who has been casual about that distinction (see
> above).
>

No, I have been saying from the start that tax revenues should not even be
the issues at all, as with some control over outlays (federal spending) we
could have enough to pay for all our necessary programs and still have lower
tax revenue requirements.



> <snip>
>>
>>And not at all what I am saying. On one line we have the issue of using
>>debt, and on the other we have the issue of decreasing the size of
>>government. You are meshing the two together to suggest I am making an
>>argument that I clearly am not. Again, whether its intention or mistaken
>>on
>>your part, either way its wrong.
>
> Actually, I was trying to separate those issues. But if we are agreed
> that they are separate issues, fine. that was my point. If I
> misunderstood your point, I'm sorry for that.
>
> <snip>
>>>
>>> You seem to think that the public sector is too large, or that
>>> spending is out of control. I don't think the percentage of GDP in the
>>> US going to the public sector is clearly too large --- one of the
>>> lowest in the industrial world. Now, I don't think you should just
>>> pick a percentage --- spending should reflect needs and potential
>>> social and economic gains. But historically, we have been in the low
>>> 20s since WW II and are now dropping, not going up.
>>
>>Yet you claim our debt is problematic and that the next generations will
>>have to pay. Doesn't seem to be a constant argument you are offering
>>here.
>>
>>
>
> Fully consistent, but I agree some additional comment is useful. Our
> tax revenues as a percentage of GDP are dropping far more sharply than
> our spending.

Or in other words, our spending is outgrowing our revenues, but to elaborate
the point further, our spending is much more of the problem (and filled with
so much waste it makes it the more obvious solution).





.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Atheists: Americas most distrusted minority
    ... Jsoh, after I've excvhanged my money for the softweare, it became Bill ... Gates' money, and thus he can pass it on to his heirs, give it a way, or ... Its a valuable part of the economy when it belongs to Bill Gates. ... Sure, but the boat tax was a particularly dumb tax, and really, the ...
    (rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated)
  • Re: WAY OT: Gas-Gouging Greenspan
    ... but they do not preclude expansion. ... >after tax spendable dollars being used for expansion. ... without taxes and make pronouncements about such a world without ... affecting an economy. ...
    (alt.sports.football.pro.ne-patriots)
  • Re: Why do I smell bacon when Dems say "Stimulus"
    ... :are going to need a tax cut, ... :taxes cut permenent. ... :economy and burst the housing bubble. ... One have only look at the money flow chart to ...
    (sci.military.naval)
  • Re: OT- stimulus humor
    ... The claim is that money in little drabs is just ... created jobs in turn add to the tax base and solidify the system. ... WW II "jump started" the economy, ...
    (alt.sports.baseball.bos-redsox)
  • Re: 1911 Reference Book Cites The Single Tax
    ... The "worth" is based on the absolute amount of money he can take home ... LVT as unique tax are as insane as the suicidal bombers or libertarians. ... use them to do direct investments in infrastructure the economy will be ... Wall Street is gambling not production. ...
    (sci.econ)
Loading