fear

[Azazello1313]

 

not much else left

[PPIchamp]

How does Krugman not understand, or refuse to accept because his Liberal ideology forbids it, that cutting taxes increases revenue to the Government.

The Laffer curve!

Hey Paul...I have no Degree but even I can understand this....

-Cutting taxes leaves more money in the pockets of the public.

-Consumers spend more, increasing economic activity.

-Business owners expand, hire more workers.

-Hiring more workers = more people paying taxes = more money for the Government (to throw into the blast furnace).

 

It's worked over and over again.

 

But alas. Facts, logic and history are no match up against Liberal Ideology.

[caddyman]

How does Krugman not understand, or refuse to accept because his Liberal ideology forbids it, that cutting taxes increases revenue to the Government.

The Laffer curve!

Hey Paul...I have no Degree but even I can understand this....

-Cutting taxes leaves more money in the pockets of the public.

-Consumers spend more, increasing economic activity.

-Business owners expand, hire more workers.

-Hiring more workers = more people paying taxes = more money for the Government (to throw into the blast furnace).

 

It's worked over and over again.

 

But alas. Facts, logic and history are no match up against Liberal Ideology.

[Clubfoothead]

The free market solves everything. Unless it makes a bad investment in itself. Then all of a sudden you better have a government big enough to save it from itself.

[Azazello1313]

How does Krugman not understand, or refuse to accept because his Liberal ideology forbids it, that cutting taxes increases revenue to the Government.

The Laffer curve!

Hey Paul...I have no Degree but even I can understand this....

-Cutting taxes leaves more money in the pockets of the public.

-Consumers spend more, increasing economic activity.

-Business owners expand, hire more workers.

-Hiring more workers = more people paying taxes = more money for the Government (to throw into the blast furnace).

 

It's worked over and over again.

 

But alas. Facts, logic and history are no match up against Liberal Ideology.

 

well, kind of but not really. when you cut taxes, it usually results in less revenue. when you raise taxes, it results in more revenue. though there are exceptions (I saw something recently about capital gains rates), I think most experts believe tax rates in the realm that anyone contemplates would either raise or lower revenue as you raise or lower tax rates. BUT....even if we're not at a point where the laffer curve starts sloping downward, and higher taxes mean less revenue, the curve is always bending. higher tax rates equate to lower economic growth, this is a fundamental premise even of keynsian economics. which explains why tax increases never get as much revenue as their advocates hoped for. and tax cuts never lead to as much lost revenue as their critics charge. over time, these differences really compound. here's a great answer from a well-known economist who was asked where the laffer curve bends:

 

"My guess is that that the short-run answer and the long-run answer are quite different. For example, if you raised the top rate from 35 to, say, 60 percent, you might raise revenue in the short run. Over time, however, you would get lower economic growth, so the additional revenues would fall off and eventually decline below what they would have been at the lower rate.... I will pass on offering a specific number, as it would require more time and thought than I can offer just now, but I will opine that I think the long-run answer is actually more important for policy purposes than the short-run answer."

[Clubfoothead]

Two strikes and you are free?

[Ursa Majoris]

why tax increases never get as much revenue as their advocates hoped for. and tax cuts never lead to as much lost revenue as their critics charge.

Equally, tax cuts never get as much revenue as their advocates hope for and tax increases never lead to as much economic slump as their critics charge.

[Yukon Cornelius]

How does Krugman not understand, or refuse to accept because his Liberal ideology forbids it, that cutting taxes increases revenue to the Government.

The Laffer curve!

Hey Paul...I have no Degree but even I can understand this....

-Cutting taxes leaves more money in the pockets of the public.

-Consumers spend more, increasing economic activity.

-Business owners expand, hire more workers.

-Hiring more workers = more people paying taxes = more money for the Government (to throw into the blast furnace).

 

It's worked over and over again.

 

But alas. Facts, logic and history are no match up against Liberal Ideology.

nancy tired that in the 80's ... didnt work out so well.

[Grimm74]

The question is does the velocity of money speed up or slow down when it comes to tax and spend by a government. If it does not or stays the same, I would say lower taxes.

[bushwacked]

The question is does the velocity of money speed up or slow down when it comes to tax and spend by a government. If it does not or stays the same, I would say lower taxes.

 

Well based on the last 10 years of tax cuts, the velocity of money slows down immensely.

[evil_gop_liars]

Well based on the last 10 years of tax cuts, the velocity of money slows down immensely.

 

This.

[Grimm74]

Well based on the last 10 years of tax cuts, the velocity of money slows down immensely.

 

not exactly that easy though... wouldn't you agree?. Anyone here read the the book The Accent of Money?

[bushwacked]

not exactly that easy though... wouldn't you agree?.

 

Sure, but the question was overly simplistic also.

Edited October 30, 2010 by bushwacked

[Chavez]

How does Krugman not understand, or refuse to accept because his Liberal ideology forbids it, that cutting taxes increases revenue to the Government.

The Laffer curve!

 

 

Obviously at some point the Laffer Curve flattens out. Otherwise we'd live in a society where we all paid ZERO in taxes but the government had an INFINITE amount of money.

[Chavez]

FWIW, I came to the conclusion some time ago that all a President can do is not f*ck up a good economy. There ain't much fixing for a bad one.

 

And even that is simplistic - W inherited what at face value was a strong economy. That economy going down the crapper was due to factors completely out of his control.

 

Of course, I'd argue that for the past 25+ yrs, our economy has had fundamental flaws at its base, but no prominent politician can SAY that, becuase it panics the sheeple and more importantly pisses off the plutocrats profiting from the fundementally flawed economic system.

[bushwacked]

And even that is simplistic - W inherited what at face value was a strong economy. That economy going down the crapper was due to factors completely out of his control.

 

Meh, letting an unsustainable mortgage policy through the banks go unabated without regulation, spending trillions of dollars of US taxpayer money on Iraqi welfare, and expanding tax cuts to the most fortunate while expanding the govt. to historic proportions all had a substantial negative impact on the US and world economy, and much of it was not only under his watch, but under his control.

Edited October 30, 2010 by bushwacked

[Chavez]

Meh, letting an unsustainable mortgage policy through the banks go unabated without regulation, spending trillions of dollars of US taxpayer money on Iraqi welfare, and expanding tax cuts to the most fortunate while expanding the govt. to historic proportions all had a substantial negative impact on the US and world economy, and much of it was not only under his watch, but under his control.

9/11 and the Enron/Anderson/Worldcom scandals, which eroded consumer confidence, weren't.

 

The unsustainable mortgage policy was certainly with his purview....but of course, when things are rolling, and business, the government, and 99% general public all think it's just swell, well, there isn't all that much mandate for a president to stand up and make what would have been the most unpopular (and correct) decision of probably the past 40 yrs, is there?

 

I dislike W as much as, probably more than, the next guy. I lay the war in Iraq almost solely at his feet. But economically, what he stepped into office with was a pretty good thing. Even thought it was obvious with hindsight - and probably pretty obvious with foresight - that it was going to take a MAJOR dump somewhere down the line, asking a sitting president to put the brakes on an economy that's rolling along to everyone's pleasure is just NOT a political reality, even thought it is probably the RIGHT thing for a president to do.

 

The last president I can think of who would have had the guts to make the move, and the weight to make it stick, would probably be Ike. Maybe LBJ.

[Ursa Majoris]

FWIW, I came to the conclusion some time ago that all a President can do is not f*ck up a good economy. There ain't much fixing for a bad one.

How then do we explain Switzerland? It never seems to need fixing. Is it simple discipline, avoiding the lunatic splurges like mortgages for all and throwing billions at 18 year old geeks with computers that lead to all time highs and all time lows?

[Clubfoothead]

So we are going to go with Laffer? It's a bell curve which technically means that half of everything I say is correct and half of everything Az says is correct and if he and I could just meet in the middle, utopia. You can argue it supports lower taxes, but what all it really says is that the optimal tax is somewhere beteen 0 and 100%. Well no $hit. It's a theory. If you took Laffer curve and applied it towards immigration reform the only solution to illegal Mexicans is to nuke Mexico. That might solve illegal Mexicans but I'm probably not going to Pt. Aransas on vacation again for a few half-lives while the radiation dissipates.

 

What I find most amusing is the right acting like fear mongering for votes is a cheap shot. That's some funny $hit there. Hang on, I'm going to go add another teaspoon of yellow cake uranium to my cup of coffe and then I'll brb to finish this post...