Just one more note on this: that tax revenues/GDP fall when taxes are cut and rise when taxes are raised doesn't directly refute Laffer. Laffer's argument presupposes this result; he holds, however, that lowering taxes (down to a point) results in increased GDP and so in elevated tax revenues as an absolute. When the tax rate is lowered, this would naturally and inevitably lower revenues/GDP, but Laffer's argument that this increases GDP and so gives the government a bigger piece of a smaller pie. He's right about that as far as it goes. The question is where the "point" lies in that "down to a point."

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

I mis-typed X instead of Y in my previous post and corrected it...getting lazy. The reason why the graph I posted went to 100 is because it also showed the top tax rate. The fact that revenues went up so dramatically and then leveled off suggests strongly that there is an upper bound on how much government can extract from the economy in taxes before diminishing returns set in.

No, it doesn't suggest that, although that's certain to be true. It doesn't suggest that because we have never, in practice, come near that point of diminishing returns.

0-100 is appropriate when talking about top marginal tax rates. It's not appropriate when talking about mean tax rate overall, nor when talking about revenue/GDP. Mixing the two in a single graph created the optical illusion that you presented. Actually, a comparison between overall mean tax rate and revenue/GDP would be more appropriate. The top marginal tax rate doesn't necessarily reflect the government's taxation of the whole economy. That was particularly true before 1986. One can see a more-or-less comparison between the two from 1986 on, but only because Reagan's tax reform flattened the tax system.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

I am definitely done making extensive posts on this subject. I said what I had to say, and intellectually honest, objective readers can make up their own minds. You have made it clear many times over that you do not fit that description.

The funny thing is, you made this typical gratuitous insult in response to a post where I admitted I had made a mistake. If that doesn't show intellectual honesty and objectivity, what would?

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Just one more note on this: that tax revenues/GDP fall when taxes are cut and rise when taxes are raised doesn't directly refute Laffer. Laffer's argument presupposes this result; he holds, however, that lowering taxes (down to a point) results in increased GDP and so in elevated tax revenues as an absolute. When the tax rate is lowered, this would naturally and inevitably lower revenues/GDP, but Laffer's argument that this increases GDP and so gives the government a bigger piece of a smaller pie. He's right about that as far as it goes. The question is where the "point" lies in that "down to a point."

So cutting taxes reduces GDP...fascinating. It could not be any more clear that you're just making stuff up as you go along.

Originally Posted by James50

You forget you are talking about boomers. Left wing intolerance is on display daily in our culture. I would not call out one side over the other, but the left wing intolerance is easier to identify because of it's overwhelming presence in journalism.

James50

The American media has an overwhelming RIGHT-WING bias. Even NPR is tainted by corporate donors. the MSM constantly regurgitates right-wing framing of issues and takes DC Beltway orthodoxy as reality.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

So cutting taxes reduces GDP...fascinating. It could not be any more clear that you're just making stuff up as you go along.

Argument to Credulity Fallacy.

Originally Posted by James50

You forget you are talking about boomers. Left wing intolerance is on display daily in our culture. I would not call out one side over the other, but the left wing intolerance is easier to identify because of it's overwhelming presence in journalism.

James50

Some things eminently merit intolerance. I have met religious, racial, and sexual bigotry. I have heard people brag about cruelty to animals. Then of course there is the drug of the day and good old drunkenness. But those are for losers. The vices of ruling elites can do great harm to people other than those elites, and the economic ruling elite is generally right-wing in the US, and today it is heavily Boom. Those are the executives over 50.

Technology notwithstanding, the old Seven Deadly Sins (lechery, gluttony, greed, despair, anger, envy, and pride) may be less lethal, but they certainly remain destructive.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Just one more note on this: that tax revenues/GDP fall when taxes are cut and rise when taxes are raised doesn't directly refute Laffer. Laffer's argument presupposes this result; he holds, however, that lowering taxes (down to a point) results in increased GDP and so in elevated tax revenues as an absolute. When the tax rate is lowered, this would naturally and inevitably lower revenues/GDP, but Laffer's argument that this increases GDP and so gives the government a bigger piece of a smaller pie. He's right about that as far as it goes. The question is where the "point" lies in that "down to a point."

Indeed, business subsidies in the form of direct grants with no accountability would have the same effect as tax cuts upon investment and elite consumption. If those were so effective in creating prosperity, then the countries that granted the most such subsidies would have the greatest prosperity. It's been done, as in the latter years of the Weimar Republic, when right-wing politicians raided the treasury to prop up the estates of Junkers. Somehow that failed to prevent or even mitigate the Crash of 1929 in Germany.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

So cutting taxes reduces GDP...fascinating. It could not be any more clear that you're just making stuff up as you go along.

No, there are more effective ways of creating prosperity than cutting taxes for the elite. Increases in wages stimulate consumption (and GDP) more effectively than do tax cuts. Direct expenditures on public projects have a high multiplier when those expenditures put destitute people to work for solid pay.

When destitute people suddenly get a living wage, they usually have much to spend their pay on -- everything from replacing the rags that they have been wearing to getting long-deferred dental work done. A worksite full of such people stimulates much secondary activity -- restaurants, recreation, service stations, auto dealerships, maybe even bookstores. But what happens when people who have everything that they already need get more money? They hoard most of it, but much of what they spend on is simply the bidding-up of luxuries.

But it is all deniable to JPT, whose ignorance extends beyond economics to human nature. After all, everything that Rush Limbaugh and FoX "News" pundits say is truth without qualification.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

So cutting taxes reduces GDP...fascinating. It could not be any more clear that you're just making stuff up as you go along.

"Revenues/GDP" means "revenues DIVIDED BY GDP." It does not mean "revenues AND GDP." Thus: "When the tax rate is lowered, this would naturally lower revenues DIVIDED BY GDP." Which it would. It does not mean "When the tax rate is lowered, this would natural lower revenues and GDP," which is what you apparently misunderstood it to mean.

I'm not making things up, you're failing to read with comprehension.

EDIT: Actually, lowering top marginal tax rate does tend to lower per capita GDP but this is a long-term effect arising from the promotion of concentration of income, which suppresses consumer demand and causes the economy to eventually underperform. That's what happened over the decades from 1980 to the present. Or it's part of what happened. The crushing of organized labor also played a major part, and the promotion of outsourcing, and other pro-capital moves by the government. There is no immediate short-term economy-dampening effect from a tax cut however as far as I'm aware. Also, a tax cut for the middle class or working class doesn't lower GDP either in the short or long-term.

Of course you won't understand any of the above paragraph and will therefore accuse me of "making things up," which is what you do when I say (or when anyone else says) something that you lack the knowledge to comprehend. Plenty of other people here can understand it, though, and will recognize the idea.

Originally Posted by PBrower2A

No, there are more effective ways of creating prosperity than cutting taxes for the elite.

He was accusing me of saying that tax cuts hurt the economy, not merely that they don't help it.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

"Revenues/GDP" means "revenues DIVIDED BY GDP." It does not mean "revenues AND GDP." Thus: "When the tax rate is lowered, this would naturally lower revenues DIVIDED BY GDP." Which it would. It does not mean "When the tax rate is lowered, this would natural lower revenues and GDP," which is what you apparently misunderstood it to mean.

I'm not making things up, you're failing to read with comprehension.

OK, I see what you're saying. I think I missed it because I was expecting an explanation for why revenues as a percentage of GDP have stayed essentially the same even with drastic changes in the top federal tax rate.

EDIT: Actually, lowering top marginal tax rate does tend to lower per capita GDP but this is a long-term effect arising from the promotion of concentration of income, which suppresses consumer demand and causes the economy to eventually underperform. That's what happened over the decades from 1980 to the present. Or it's part of what happened. The crushing of organized labor also played a major part, and the promotion of outsourcing, and other pro-capital moves by the government. There is no immediate short-term economy-dampening effect from a tax cut however as far as I'm aware. Also, a tax cut for the middle class or working class doesn't lower GDP either in the short or long-term.

Of course you won't understand any of the above paragraph and will therefore accuse me of "making things up," which is what you do when I say (or when anyone else says) something that you lack the knowledge to comprehend. Plenty of other people here can understand it, though, and will recognize the idea.

Oh, I understand it well enough. In your mind, 25+ years of strong economic growth, low unemployment and low inflation can be nullified by the fact that we had a big economic downturn in the last few years...despite the fact that the downturn was a result of private sector debt, which has nothing to do with the economic policies you're trying to implicate. Fannie Mae , on the other hand, which was created by your idols during the Great Depression and exists for the purpose of securitizing home mortgages, was at the very core of it.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

"Revenues/GDP" means "revenues DIVIDED BY GDP." It does not mean "revenues AND GDP." Thus: "When the tax rate is lowered, this would naturally lower revenues DIVIDED BY GDP." Which it would. It does not mean "When the tax rate is lowered, this would natural lower revenues and GDP," which is what you apparently misunderstood it to mean.

I'm not making things up, you're failing to read with comprehension.

EDIT: Actually, lowering top marginal tax rate does tend to lower per capita GDP but this is a long-term effect arising from the promotion of concentration of income, which suppresses consumer demand and causes the economy to eventually underperform. That's what happened over the decades from 1980 to the present. Or it's part of what happened. The crushing of organized labor also played a major part, and the promotion of outsourcing, and other pro-capital moves by the government. There is no immediate short-term economy-dampening effect from a tax cut however as far as I'm aware. Also, a tax cut for the middle class or working class doesn't lower GDP either in the short or long-term.

Of course (JPT) won't understand any of the above paragraph and will therefore accuse me of "making things up," which is what (JPT) do(es) when I say (or when anyone else says) something that (he) lack(s) the knowledge to comprehend. Plenty of other people here can understand it, though, and will recognize the idea.

Precisely. There are short-term and long-term effects. Most people recognize that some of the methods that get quick results in cutting costs (like efforts to cut down the travel expenses of a sales force or to defer maintenance) have bad long-term effects. Economic elites often promote policies that result in quick booms and long busts. Prime example: Dubya pushed a corrupt boom in real estate lending and consumer borrowing on the equity in housing... and now we are still trying to get back to where things were in 2002 or so (adjusted for inflation). America still pays for it.

Add to that -- our once-competitive economy has become one in which cartels dominate. Such is not only unjust but also counterproductive. Cartels tend to raise costs of doing business and reduce output... and reduce employment. They also lead to corrupt government because they usually 'need' the government to squeeze out any possible competition, and they buy politicians. Look at most of the GOP.

He was accusing me of saying that tax cuts hurt the economy, not merely that they don't help it.

It all depends upon who the tax cuts are for. The super-rich need no help, but the rest of us do.

Originally Posted by Odin

The American media has an overwhelming RIGHT-WING bias. Even NPR is tainted by corporate donors. the MSM constantly regurgitates right-wing framing of issues and takes DC Beltway orthodoxy as reality.

Historically 80% of news reporters vote democratic. Google: "democrats newspaper journalists" and get back to me.

James50

Originally Posted by James50

Historically 80% of news reporters vote democratic. Google: "democrats newspaper journalists" and get back to me.

James50

Yes, James, but on other occasions you have had no trouble acknowledging that "left wing" and Democrat are no longer synonymns. The media is centrist. Actually it's pretty close to Barack Obama! That makes it hostile to the Tea Party but it doesn't make it leftist.

Originally Posted by James50

Historically 80% of news reporters vote democratic. Google: "democrats newspaper journalists" and get back to me.

James50

But are news reporters more liberal because liberals are attracted to news reporting or are they more liberal because they actually have to research stories they write and are less susceptible to corporatist spin?

I think reporters -- at least the good ones -- look for objectivity and are very skeptical of spin. Conservatives are very good at propaganda, but a good reporter can see past it.

Originally Posted by James50

Historically 80% of news reporters vote democratic. Google: "democrats newspaper journalists" and get back to me.

James50

But newspapers are in decline as a news source, and there are 'conservative' papers. So that's about a wash. AP newswires are so written that they can hardly be spun -- speed and concision make spin impossible. Most of the bias in any news medium comes from analysis. Hint: FoX Newspeak Channel is mostly analysis, and it is about as biased as Pravda was at its worst.

More people view FoX News Channel than read any newspaper or news magazine... and therein what people see is full of right-wing bias and spin.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

But are news reporters more liberal because liberals are attracted to news reporting or are they more liberal because they actually have to research stories they write and are less susceptible to corporatist spin?

I think reporters -- at least the good ones -- look for objectivity and are very skeptical of spin. Conservatives are very good at propaganda, but a good reporter can see past it.

News reporters and camera crews are rarely the source of bias. News reporters generally lack the time in which to spin a story, and camera crews rarely get the time in which to distort an image. Newswires and live feeds of events are far more reliable than what media do with them later. Much of news reporting is also the relaying of official information such as official speeches, decisions of the courts (indictments and verdicts) and casualty lists that can't be spun.

...I think that liberals tend to gravitate to journalism for much the reason that they gravitate toward writing, science, medicine, teaching, government service, and religion: that such activities do not require a world view consistent with the plutocratic values of tycoons and executives. I would suspect that such people as letter carriers and firefighters are more liberal than the average because some big sector attracts hard-nosed conservatives.

But even in business, I would expect such people as accountants and engineers to be more liberal -- really, less right-wing -- than executives and managers.

Originally Posted by James50

Historically 80% of news reporters vote democratic. Google: "democrats newspaper journalists" and get back to me.

James50

That doesn't matter because they won't publish anything that will piss off the higher-ups.

Originally Posted by James50

You forget you are talking about boomers. Left wing intolerance is on display daily in our culture. I would not call out one side over the other, but the left wing intolerance is easier to identify because of it's overwhelming presence in journalism.

James50

Indeed. They certainly weren't tolerant of me when I was young...daring as I did to want things for my life, that didn't fit the SDRR moral paradigm of the era.

The bias in the media is the one that is favorable to the military & financial industry. Sometimes it wears a red tie and complains about gays/immigrants/terrists... and sometimes it wears a blue tie & complains about the guys in red.

Distract, divide, conquer.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Yes, James, but on other occasions you have had no trouble acknowledging that "left wing" and Democrat are no longer synonymns. The media is centrist. Actually it's pretty close to Barack Obama! That makes it hostile to the Tea Party but it doesn't make it leftist.

"Left wing" on this forum has a more radical meaning than most places.

James50

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

But are news reporters more liberal because liberals are attracted to news reporting or are they more liberal because they actually have to research stories they write and are less susceptible to corporatist spin?

Yes.

James50

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

News reporters and camera crews are rarely the source of bias. News reporters generally lack the time in which to spin a story, and camera crews rarely get the time in which to distort an image. Newswires and live feeds of events are far more reliable than what media do with them later. Much of news reporting is also the relaying of official information such as official speeches, decisions of the courts (indictments and verdicts) and casualty lists that can't be spun.

I almost never think reporters are lying. Its all about what is covered and not covered. Ever since Woodward and Bernstein, its been all downhill. Once reporters began to believe the object of journalism was to save the world, the value of their work has deteriorated. The alternative news sources created by the internet have removed the financial underpinnings of the profession and only made things worse.

...I think that liberals tend to gravitate to journalism for much the reason that they gravitate toward writing, science, medicine, teaching, government service, and religion: that such activities do not require a world view consistent with the plutocratic values of tycoons and executives. I would suspect that such people as letter carriers and firefighters are more liberal than the average because some big sector attracts hard-nosed conservatives.

But even in business, I would expect such people as accountants and engineers to be more liberal -- really, less right-wing -- than executives and managers.

OMG! Liberals are everywhere. Its just that they can't seem to consistently win elections that is the problem.

James50

And right on cue, the liberal press plays its role once again. Read this evening's news flash about Tim Pawlenty and see if you can determine the political leanings of the one who wrote it. You will not have to think too long.

Breaking News Alert
The New York Times
Sun, May 22, 2011 -- 8:32 PM ET
-----

Tim Pawlenty Announces Republican Candidacy for President

On the eve of his own planned campaign announcement, Tim Pawlenty released an Internet video declaring that he is running for president because he -- unlike President Obama -- has the courage to face America's challenges.

In another slickly produced video that has become a hallmark of his campaign, Mr. Pawlenty, the former Republican governor of Minnesota, confirmed Sunday night that he would officially begin his bid for his party's nomination in Iowa on Monday.

Yep, nothing but the facts. No agenda in that news flash. Just pure objectivity.

You can't make this stuff up.

James50

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

But are news reporters more liberal because liberals are attracted to news reporting or are they more liberal because they actually have to research stories they write and are less susceptible to corporatist spin?

I think reporters -- at least the good ones -- look for objectivity and are very skeptical of spin. Conservatives are very good at propaganda, but a good reporter can see past it.

People who are left wing go into fields where they think they can "change the world", i.e. influence society in a left wing direction. The media and education are the two biggest avenues, because they know that's how you influence the culture. And they have succeeded to the point where they have created a monoculture in those professions where anyone who thinks differently is driven out or never hired in the first place unless they remain silent.

Boomers are the ones who crossed the line in those professions, and completely abandoned objectivity (in journalism) and free inquiry (in academia) in favor of pure activism, propaganda and indoctrination. They have deliberately cleansed those fields of anything or anyone that contradicts their ideological agenda.