Wordle - daily game
- islander - May 11, 2024 - 7:49am
Today in History
- black321 - May 11, 2024 - 7:42am
Bug Reports & Feature Requests
- KurtfromLaQuinta - May 11, 2024 - 7:29am
What Did You See Today?
- KurtfromLaQuinta - May 11, 2024 - 7:24am
May 2024 Photo Theme - Peaceful
- KurtfromLaQuinta - May 11, 2024 - 7:22am
NYTimes Connections
- Coaxial - May 11, 2024 - 6:37am
2024 Elections!
- black321 - May 11, 2024 - 6:35am
Israel
- rgio - May 11, 2024 - 6:30am
NY Times Strands
- Bill_J - May 11, 2024 - 6:25am
The All-Things Beatles Forum
- Bill_J - May 11, 2024 - 6:17am
USA! USA! USA!
- R_P - May 10, 2024 - 10:51pm
Joe Biden
- R_P - May 10, 2024 - 9:46pm
Beer
- ScottFromWyoming - May 10, 2024 - 8:58pm
It's the economy stupid.
- thisbody - May 10, 2024 - 3:21pm
What the hell OV?
- thisbody - May 10, 2024 - 3:15pm
Oh dear god, BEES!
- R_P - May 10, 2024 - 3:11pm
Tornado!
- miamizsun - May 10, 2024 - 2:49pm
The 1960s
- kcar - May 10, 2024 - 2:49pm
Upcoming concerts or shows you can't wait to see
- thisbody - May 10, 2024 - 2:49pm
Photography Forum - Your Own Photos
- KurtfromLaQuinta - May 10, 2024 - 11:38am
Climate Change
- R_P - May 10, 2024 - 10:08am
Name My Band
- GeneP59 - May 10, 2024 - 9:35am
Things You Thought Today
- GeneP59 - May 10, 2024 - 9:28am
Radio Paradise Comments
- GeneP59 - May 10, 2024 - 9:25am
Marko Haavisto & Poutahaukat
- thisbody - May 10, 2024 - 7:57am
Artificial Intelligence
- miamizsun - May 10, 2024 - 6:51am
Living in America
- Proclivities - May 10, 2024 - 6:45am
Virginia News
- Red_Dragon - May 10, 2024 - 5:42am
China
- miamizsun - May 10, 2024 - 5:30am
Outstanding Covers
- Steely_D - May 10, 2024 - 12:56am
Democratic Party
- R_P - May 9, 2024 - 3:06pm
RP on HomePod mini
- RPnate1 - May 9, 2024 - 10:52am
Interesting Words
- Proclivities - May 9, 2024 - 10:22am
• • • The Once-a-Day • • •
- oldviolin - May 9, 2024 - 9:40am
Surfing!
- oldviolin - May 9, 2024 - 9:21am
Positive Thoughts and Prayer Requests
- islander - May 9, 2024 - 7:21am
Breaking News
- maryte - May 9, 2024 - 7:17am
Guns
- Red_Dragon - May 9, 2024 - 6:16am
Song of the Day
- miamizsun - May 9, 2024 - 5:44am
The Obituary Page
- Coaxial - May 8, 2024 - 6:46pm
Spambags on RP
- Steely_D - May 8, 2024 - 2:30pm
Suggestion for new RP Channel: Modern / Family
- Ruuddie - May 8, 2024 - 11:46am
Vinyl Only Spin List
- rgio - May 8, 2024 - 8:35am
Trump
- ColdMiser - May 8, 2024 - 7:45am
Gaming, Shopping, and More? Samsung's Metaverse Plans for...
- alexhoxdson - May 8, 2024 - 7:00am
SLOVENIA
- novitibo - May 8, 2024 - 1:38am
Reviews and Pix from your concerts and shows you couldn't...
- haresfur - May 7, 2024 - 10:46pm
Eclectic Sound-Drops
- Manbird - May 7, 2024 - 10:18pm
Farts!
- KurtfromLaQuinta - May 7, 2024 - 9:53pm
The RP YouTube (Google) Group
- oldviolin - May 7, 2024 - 8:46pm
Dialing 1-800-Manbird
- oldviolin - May 7, 2024 - 8:35pm
What Are You Going To Do Today?
- Manbird - May 7, 2024 - 7:55pm
Russia
- R_P - May 7, 2024 - 1:59am
Mixtape Culture Club
- KurtfromLaQuinta - May 6, 2024 - 8:51pm
Politically Uncorrect News
- oldviolin - May 6, 2024 - 2:15pm
What can you hear right now?
- maryte - May 6, 2024 - 2:01pm
Other Medical Stuff
- kurtster - May 6, 2024 - 1:04pm
Rock Mix not up to same audio quality as Main and Mellow?
- rp567 - May 6, 2024 - 12:06pm
Music Requests
- black321 - May 6, 2024 - 11:57am
NASA & other news from space
- NoEnzLefttoSplit - May 6, 2024 - 11:37am
Global Warming
- NoEnzLefttoSplit - May 6, 2024 - 9:29am
Tales from the RAFT
- NoEnzLefttoSplit - May 6, 2024 - 9:19am
Food
- DaveInSaoMiguel - May 6, 2024 - 4:17am
The Abortion Wars
- thisbody - May 5, 2024 - 3:27pm
Those Lovable Policemen
- R_P - May 5, 2024 - 3:12pm
Ukraine
- thisbody - May 5, 2024 - 12:33pm
volcano!
- geoff_morphini - May 5, 2024 - 9:55am
Tesla (motors, batteries, etc)
- miamizsun - May 5, 2024 - 6:16am
Favorite Quotes
- Isabeau - May 4, 2024 - 5:21pm
Anti-War
- R_P - May 4, 2024 - 3:24pm
Iran
- Red_Dragon - May 4, 2024 - 12:03pm
Live Music
- oldviolin - May 4, 2024 - 11:18am
SCOTUS
- Steely_D - May 4, 2024 - 8:04am
The Dragons' Roost
- GeneP59 - May 3, 2024 - 3:53pm
RightWingNutZ
- islander - May 3, 2024 - 11:55am
|
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 |
|
|
|
|