He's targeting the middle class for cuts...dissing the special interests and uber-wealthy. Simplifying tax filing. Repealing some of Bush's cuts. Like what I'm hearing personally. Discuss...

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/09/18/obama.taxplan/index.html

He's targeting the middle class for cuts...dissing the special interests and uber-wealthy. Simplifying tax filing. Repealing some of Bush's cuts. Like what I'm hearing personally. Discuss...

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/09/18/obama.taxplan/index.html

need to see more details but on 1st glance nothing too outrageous....sounds fair 'nuff

Every time someone comes up with a tax cut, it turns out to be pretty meager. $500 per person or $1,000 for each working family? Wow!

Sure, I'd like to have that money, but let's get real. It's not going to change my life. It's barely going to register for most middle class families. It would mean a lot more if I were poor, but if I were poor, I wouldn't be paying much in taxes anyway.

Stuff like this always comes across as ear candy to me. A meaningful tax cut would be to drop the brackets 10%. That I would stand up and cheer for!

Sure, I'd like to have that money, but let's get real. It's not going to change my life. It's barely going to register for most middle class families.

$1000 is slightly more than 2% of the median household income. Not huge, but not insignificant at all. That means many will get 2% or more bump in their after tax incomes, not a 2% change in taxes.

Every time someone comes up with a tax cut, it turns out to be pretty meager. $500 per person or $1,000 for each working family? Wow!

Sure, I'd like to have that money, but let's get real. It's not going to change my life. It's barely going to register for most middle class families. It would mean a lot more if I were poor, but if I were poor, I wouldn't be paying much in taxes anyway.

Stuff like this always comes across as ear candy to me. A meaningful tax cut would be to drop the brackets 10%. That I would stand up and cheer for!
It's all kinda symbolic anyway when it comes to individuals--I think the message he's sending is that the middle class has been getting reamed and he's the candidate to take care of it...the real winner would be if Obama managed to close those corporate loopholes he mentions. Maybe we could get the deficit back down a bit since that's the big money. I like him because he seems to be able to take on these PACS and special interests where most candidates like Hilary seem so beholden to them. IMO the main problem in Washington is PACs and special interests and the candiate that can minimize their influence the most is the man/woman for me.

If elected he wopuld probably revert to the standard Democratic Party tax plan, "Tax 'em all, let God sort 'em out."

If elected he wopuld probably revert to the standard Democratic Party tax plan, "Tax 'em all, let God sort 'em out."

vs the GOP plan of give the rich and corporations as much of the pie as possible?

vs the GOP plan of give the rich and corporations as much of the pie as possible?

funny how the GOP is now synonymous with fiscal irresponsibility...and corruption....and incompetence...and...and

He's targeting the middle class for cuts...dissing the special interests and uber-wealthy. Simplifying tax filing. Repealing some of Bush's cuts. Like what I'm hearing personally. Discuss...

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/09/18/obama.taxplan/index.html

Is that a $500 tax rebate or does $500 get taken off the income? Turning the tax cut into $50? How does he plan to offer a tax cut and universal health care? Is that even realistic? Sounds kinda Bushian...

Is that a $500 tax rebate or does $500 get taken off the income? Turning the tax cut into $50? How does he plan to offer a tax cut and universal health care? Is that even realistic? Sounds kinda Bushian...
They all lie...you just have to pick the one you think will help the country and lie the least.

//Hell...did Bush ever really do anything for the religious right other than a few token gestures?

If elected he wopuld probably revert to the standard Democratic Party tax plan, "Tax 'em all, let God sort 'em out."
You do realize that people do need to pay taxes right, that taxes aren't a BAD evil thing.

//Hell...did Bush ever really do anything for the religious right other than a few token gestures?

he did get two wingnuts on the Supreme Court..that was pretty huge

...
//Hell...did Bush ever really do anything for the religious right other than a few token gestures?

He also packed the DOJ with fundicons... Over 150 from Regent University alone...

He also packed the DOJ with fundicons... Over 150 from Regent University alone...

Well we still have roe v wade and no prayer in schools. None of you here have been prosecuted for blasphemy.

Well we still have roe v wade and no prayer in schools. None of you here have been prosecuted for blasphemy.

Your to-do list is long?

Your to-do list is long?

Don't actually have one but if I did, you'd be right up there at the top. :)

Don't actually have one but if I did, you'd be right up there at the top. :)

Huh? You want to do me?

I hear Sen. Craig is lookin' for some action? NTTAWWT

crazy about it, not crazy about it at all. 500 dollar tax break......that's like pissing in the wind. Basically pandering for votes. It would never pass congress right now, but sounds good. :rolleyes:

funny how the GOP is now synonymous with fiscal irresponsibility...and corruption....and incompetence...and...and

...FMF....


:eek:

funny how the GOP is now synonymous with fiscal irresponsibility...and corruption....and incompetence...and...and

and paying off all our monumental, record breaking admins of debt

besides most Dems plans are like Clinton's Tax the Rich and nowhere near what the levels were under Republicans like Ike

If anybody thinks Hussein, or any other democrat, will cut taxes for anybody then it's time to lay off the crack pipe.

Well we still have roe v wade and no prayer in schools. None of you here have been prosecuted for blasphemy.

How do you stop someone from praying in school?

It's all kinda symbolic anyway when it comes to individuals--I think the message he's sending is that the middle class has been getting reamed and he's the candidate to take care of it...the real winner would be if Obama managed to close those corporate loopholes he mentions. Maybe we could get the deficit back down a bit since that's the big money. I like him because he seems to be able to take on these PACS and special interests where most candidates like Hilary seem so beholden to them. IMO the main problem in Washington is PACs and special interests and the candiate that can minimize their influence the most is the man/woman for me.

On the Titanic. This isn't reform - its just a shifting of costs. Some will argue that placing even more of the tax burden on the backs of the "wealthy" is just progressive, but in fact it is regressive and takes away the incentive to take risks with one's capital, as in starting a new business, hiring more employees, or investing in capital equipment. The gains achieved by doing those things will be lessened due to the additional taxes, and business owners will be much less likely to make those investments.

So $200 grand is now "wealthy"? How did he come up with that benchmark? Ask someone who is making that if they feel "wealthy" and I'd be willing to bet on what the response is.

A $$trillion in loopholes? Nice. But what are they? Doesn't say, does he. But it sounds good.

Want real change? Like mohair said, lower the brackets by 10%. Tax cuts work every time - when taxes go down, treasury income goes up and the economy grows. THis targeted crap that these politicians use is to benefit a constituency and is NOT good economics.

Want re-distribution of wealth? Stop taxing income. Start taxing net worth. That's where the REAL money is.

How do you stop someone from praying in school?

He just wants to force everyone to do it.

So $200 grand is now "wealthy"? How did he come up with that benchmark? Ask someone who is making that if they feel "wealthy" and I'd be willing to bet on what the response is.

Ask a household that makes median income if $200k is alot of money :rolleyes:

Ask a household that makes median income if $200k is alot of money :rolleyes:

You're not doing too badly if you make $200k IMO. Maybe not rich, but better than most.

You're not doing too badly if you make $200k IMO. Maybe not rich, but better than most.

Better than about 98% of households in the USA, in fact. So, more than 98% of a very wealth population (in world terms).

Better than about 98% of households in the USA, in fact. So, more than 98% of a very wealth population (in world terms).

like it did in the 50's when the tax rate on the top tier was around 90%
or the 60s into the 70's when it was around 70%
or like under Clinton when he raised it back up to a paltry 37%

I know myths are really tough to let go, but History shows otherwise

now lets look at how the economy did (for everyone) during the 2 great 'trickle down' periods (Reagan Bush amd W)
gee rich got MUCH richer and everyone else treaded water or sank

damn that history again

why use points of debate that have such glowing failure rates?

like it did in the 50's when the tax rate on the top tier was around 90%
or the 60s into the 70's when it was around 70%
or like under Clinton when he raised it back up to a paltry 37%

I know myths are really tough to let go, but History shows otherwise

now lets look at how the economy did (for everyone) during the 2 great 'trickle down' periods (Reagan Bush amd W)
gee rich got MUCH richer and everyone else treaded water or sank

damn that history again

why use points of debate that have such glowing failure rates?
Yup...it never seems to "trickle down" like the eggheads in finance said it would, does it? I'd say n=2 failures would not be viewed as likely to be successful anytime in the future.

If elected he wopuld probably revert to the standard Democratic Party tax plan, "Tax 'em all, let God sort 'em out."

it would be a real b*tch to pay back that almost 9 trillion dollars we owe...
instead Bush would rather ask congress to raise the debt limit...

sounds like fairly similar economic logic that made his other businesses collapse in short order...your President has a history of economic failures...thinking he can manage any sort of $$ is ludicrous...but then, I expect nothing less from those who follow him.

pissing away national treasury ....is that really what you want? :rolleyes:
somebody's got to pay for it...

Yup...it never seems to "trickle down" like the eggheads in finance said it would, does it? I'd say n=2 failures would not be viewed as likely to be successful anytime in the future.

stricter air quality controls will kill business

stricter environmental regs will kill business

stricter worker safety will kill business

higher minimum wage will kill business

and here I sit in CA which has always lead the nation in all of these and we somehow, someway manage to be the 6th most powerful economy in the world

and all those dang illegal aliens too

If anybody thinks Hussein, or any other democrat, will cut taxes for anybody then it's time to lay off the crack pipe.

Clinton's lowered middle income taxes and raised the tax rate on the upper 5% or so and that was only a decade ago. Dug us out of the huge debt piled up by Reagan and Bush's corporate welfare state

Huh? You want to do me?

I hear Sen. Craig is lookin' for some action? NTTAWWT

I must have confused you, I thought we were speaking of political persecution. So many minds here seem so ready to shift to some pursuit of homosexual inuendo. Oh well, I guess they are one and the same to some. (NTTATWWT)

Clinton's lowered middle income taxes and raised the tax rate on the upper 5% or so and that was only a decade ago. Dug us out of the huge debt piled up by Reagan and Bush's corporate welfare state
Clinton raised taxes by a larger amount than any tax increase in our history. He inherited a growing economy and a downsizing of the military with a much lower military budget. The 400 billion surplus he claimed was due to all the off budget bills he didn't sign into law until the night before he left office. Of course if Gore had been elected, they still would have collected dust so that he could claim an excess. Ever ask yourself why our debt went up the day Bush was sworn in? Probably not. If you don't know what all that means then you need to do some studying on the subject. Not enough room here.

Some will argue that placing even more of the tax burden on the backs of the "wealthy" is just progressive, but in fact it is regressive and takes away the incentive to take risks with one's capital, as in starting a new business, hiring more employees, or investing in capital equipment. The gains achieved by doing those things will be lessened due to the additional taxes, and business owners will be much less likely to make those investments.



Another GOP Myth....tax rates on the wealthy are at now historic lows....if your gonna propogate a myth how about some hard data to substantiate your claims.....oops there isn't any

Clinton raised taxes by a larger amount than any tax increase in our history. He inherited a growing economy and a downsizing of the military with a much lower military budget. The 400 billion surplus he claimed was due to all the off budget bills he didn't sign into law until the night before he left office. Of course if Gore had been elected, they still would have collected dust so that he could claim an excess. Ever ask yourself why our debt went up the day Bush was sworn in? Probably not. If you don't know what all that means then you need to do some studying on the subject. Not enough room here.

the biggest tax cut (73% to 25%) and largest spending spree in the history of our nation
Reagan and Bush Sr reduced money coming in and spent more than the combination of all previous admins

and he also inherited record debt that Reagan refused to acknowledge and Bush Sr. refused to until after his electiuon. By going against his promise of No New taxes he hurt his career, but the lie got him elected.

Clinton raised taxes by a larger amount than any tax increase in our history. He inherited a growing economy and a downsizing of the military with a much lower military budget. The 400 billion surplus he claimed was due to all the off budget bills he didn't sign into law until the night before he left office. Of course if Gore had been elected, they still would have collected dust so that he could claim an excess. Ever ask yourself why our debt went up the day Bush was sworn in? Probably not. If you don't know what all that means then you need to do some studying on the subject. Not enough room here.

where's the proof of this? its the first time I've ever heard it...
don't link me some biased right wing organization's website, either...proof man...
I'll wait here while you go get it. :confused:

Another GOP Myth....tax rates on the wealthy are at now historic lows....if your gonna propogate a myth how about some hard data to substantiate your claims.....oops there isn't any

First, define "wealthy". And it needs to be something more than "Anyone who makes more than me."

How it works:
http://www.econlib.org/LIBRARY/Enc/MarginalTaxRates.html

The CBO talks about tax revenue rising faster than GDP from 2003-2006, coinciding with the Bush tax cuts:
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdoc.cfm?index=8116&type=0

From someone who knows a little bit about the subject, Milton Friedman:http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110002933

From a couple of scholars:http://www.econ.berkeley.edu/~cromer/RomerDraft307.pdf
"The resulting estimates indicate that tax increases are highly contractionary. The effects are strongly significant, highly robust, and much larger than those obtained using broader measures of tax changes. The large effect stems in considerable part from a powerful negative effect of tax increases on investment."

There are lots more, too.

Just remember that it is possible to skew data to meet one's own needs, and its easily seen on both sides of the debate. One has to choose which sides' evidence is more compelling.

My objective here is not to persuade you that your beliefs about tax cuts are immersed in fiction, but rather to show that your claim that there is no evidence supporting the notion that tax cuts spur economic growth is simply wrong.

My objective here is not to persuade you that your beliefs about tax cuts are immersed in fiction, but rather to show that your claim that there is no evidence supporting the notion that tax cuts spur economic growth is simply wrong.
Define economic growth...that is a fairly ambiguous term.

Let's also take this to the extreme--what if we cut taxes to zero? Would that result in a booming economy?

First, define "wealthy". And it needs to be something more than "Anyone who makes more than me."

Let's call it the 2% of the households earning the most money.

Let's call it the 2% of the households earning the most money.
Or as Obama stated anyone making over $200k/yr.

Define economic growth...that is a fairly ambiguous term.

Let's also take this to the extreme--what if we cut taxes to zero? Would that result in a booming economy?

Not ambiguous at all.
A rise in GDP year-over-year.

Cut taxes to zero? I would think that would be disastrous. No means for protection of citizens, no public works, none of the functions of government because there would be no money to pay for it.

The real argument is how much taxation is the appropriate amount? I would never argue that 0% taxation is appropriate any more than I would argue that 100% taxation is appropriate. Somewhere between the two we get essential government services (essential is the truly ambiguous term) and still maintain an incentive to work and invest.

If your taxes were raised to 70%, would you still go to work? How about 80%? 90%? At what point do you say "Sorry, honey. I'm not making the drive on the Boulder Turnpike today, tomorrow or ever again. I'm staying home and riding my bike." My guess would be somewhere between 50 and 100%. When is the disincentive of taxes greater than the incentive of income? I could answer that for me, but I couldn't do the same for you. Therein lies the crux of the debate. If my taxes jumped to 50% or more, I would consider either working less or entering the underground tax-free economy. I believe taxes at those rates are confiscatory and not just for paying for essential government services, but rather to expedite some social engineering ala wealth redistribution.

Not ambiguous at all.
A rise in GDP year-over-year.

Cut taxes to zero? I would think that would be disastrous. No means for protection of citizens, no public works, none of the functions of government because there would be no money to pay for it.

The real argument is how much taxation is the appropriate amount? I would never argue that 0% taxation is appropriate any more than I would argue that 100% taxation is appropriate. Somewhere between the two we get essential government services (essential is the truly ambiguous term) and still maintain an incentive to work and invest.

If your taxes were raised to 70%, would you still go to work? How about 80%? 90%? At what point do you say "Sorry, honey. I'm not making the drive on the Boulder Turnpike today, tomorrow or ever again. I'm staying home and riding my bike." My guess would be somewhere between 50 and 100%. When is the disincentive of taxes greater than the incentive of income? I could answer that for me, but I couldn't do the same for you. Therein lies the crux of the debate. If my taxes jumped to 50% or more, I would consider either working less or entering the underground tax-free economy. I believe taxes at those rates are confiscatory and not just for paying for essential government services, but rather to expedite some social engineering ala wealth redistribution.
I suppose it also depends on how much salary you make to start with. Someone making $100k a year and paying 50% tax may have a reason to complain while someone making $10 million a year and getting taxed at 70% is still making pretty good coin--well past the amount anyone needs to provide for the basic necessities of modern life. The trickle down theories also tend to gloss over the longer term implications of these cuts--while it might show a gain for the short term the deficits often rise and eventually the bill comes due.

Let's call it the 2% of the households earning the most money.

And is that 2% of households earning the most money, as in the top 2% of the top 2% of all wage earners? That would be the top 0.04% of wage earners.

Why not 5%? or 10%? or anyone above median income? THat would seem to be the fairest to me. Anyone who had more than median income is "wealthy" and anyone under median income is "poor."

My point is that these terms mean whatever people want them to mean. In spite of the fact that top 2% sounds impressive, I can tell you that $200k is not wealthy.

And as I said in my other posts, wages are not a very good bogey to measure wealth. Ted Kennedy makes $160,000 as a Senator, but that doesn't buy a nice place on Cape Cod. What kind of wages do you think Bill Gates pulls in? If these politicians really and truly wanted to redistribute wealth and punish "the rich", they would tax net worth, not wages.

And is that 2% of households earning the most money, as in the top 2% of the top 2% of all wage earners? That would be the top 0.04% of wage earners.

Why not 5%? or 10%? or anyone above median income? THat would seem to be the fairest to me. Anyone who had more than median income is "wealthy" and anyone under median income is "poor."

My point is that these terms mean whatever people want them to mean. In spite of the fact that top 2% sounds impressive, I can tell you that $200k is not wealthy.

And as I said in my other posts, wages are not a very good bogey to measure wealth. Ted Kennedy makes $160,000 as a Senator, but that doesn't buy a nice place on Cape Cod. What kind of wages do you think Bill Gates pulls in? If these politicians really and truly wanted to redistribute wealth and punish "the rich", they would tax net worth, not wages.

I guess that's the rub--unless everyone pays a flat percentage of income it'll always be a redistribution of weath to some extent. The tax system is anything but fair to the wealthy, however the wealthy do have much more disposable income than those who make less. Paying more tax is not going to keep them from putting food on the table and maintaining shelter for their families where it might in the case of someone in the lower income brackets.

where's the proof of this? its the first time I've ever heard it...
don't link me some biased right wing organization's website, either...proof man...
I'll wait here while you go get it. :confused:

he'll just come back and say "Man you guy are so mean"

My point is that these terms mean whatever people want them to mean. In spite of the fact that top 2% sounds impressive, I can tell you that $200k is not wealthy.

.

this generalization is HIGHLY dependent on where you live...200K in D.C., New York, or San Diego..ya, not that much $$. 200K in Detroit, the entire state of Alabama, rural Oregon..ya, you're doing pretty damn well.

these things often fail to account for regional differences in cost of living...

First, define "wealthy". And it needs to be something more than "Anyone who makes more than me."

There are lots more, too.

Just remember that it is possible to skew data to meet one's own needs, and its easily seen on both sides of the debate. One has to choose which sides' evidence is more compelling.

My objective here is not to persuade you that your beliefs about tax cuts are immersed in fiction, but rather to show that your claim that there is no evidence supporting the notion that tax cuts spur economic growth is simply wrong.

Alan Reynolds is a senior fellow with the Cato Institute, hardly a neutral source.

Correlation does not equal causation. Brief snap shots are meaningless. Lets looks at tax rates vs economic growth over the last 60 years....my point being that when the rich were taxed much heavier, the economy still grew...

/ wealthy = >250k/year in CA, less in the Red States

My point is that these terms mean whatever people want them to mean. In spite of the fact that top 2% sounds impressive, I can tell you that $200k is not wealthy.


Agreed. Personally, I would really prefer a consumption based tax. Live "light," keep a pile, but spend it and you pay the man. That encourages investment and puts the level of taxation in the hands of the individual.

I read obama (who I really want to like) has proposed rolling back capital gains tax cuts. That irks me to no end. Why oh why do I get taxed on money that I saved, while my neighbor who refi'd their house to buy a ski boat gets a mortgage interest tax break? Seems like we're incentivizing fiscal irresponsibility. That's not to say that maybe there shouldn't be some breakpoint for the trustfunders who can live off of their piles of assets, but for people who are starting from zero and trying to amass the wealth (even those making $200K) necessary to retire in this pensionless age I really really really hate taxes on savings.

I suppose it also depends on how much salary you make to start with. Someone making $100k a year and paying 50% tax may have a reason to complain while someone making $10 million a year and getting taxed at 70% is still making pretty good coin--well past the amount anyone needs to provide for the basic necessities of modern life. The trickle down theories also tend to gloss over the longer term implications of these cuts--while it might show a gain for the short term the deficits often rise and eventually the bill comes due.

$3mm a year is a lot, but why is it right to confiscate someone's earnings simply because he/she makes a lot? Why is his/her money more expendable than someone making $100k?

I believe you are right with your scenario about longer term rise in deficits, but its not from the tax reductions. Tax reductions always - ALWAYS - bring more money into the treasury. WHat do politicians - Democrats and Republicans alike - do when they have more money? They spend it, of course. Then borrow and spend more than they take in, compounding the problem. If they cut taxes and cut spending, and kept them cut, I think we would see a better economy.

$3mm a year is a lot, but why is it right to confiscate someone's earnings simply because he/she makes a lot? Why is his/her money more expendable than someone making $100k?

I believe you are right with your scenario about longer term rise in deficits, but its not from the tax reductions. Tax reductions always - ALWAYS - bring more money into the treasury. WHat do politicians - Democrats and Republicans alike - do when they have more money? They spend it, of course. Then borrow and spend more than they take in, compounding the problem. If they cut taxes and cut spending, and kept them cut, I think we would see a better economy.
It may not be right or fair, but do you disagree that it would be a lot easier to live off $3 million/year than $50k a year?

Alan Reynolds is a senior fellow with the Cato Institute, hardly a neutral source.

Correlation does not equal causation. Brief snap shots are meaningless. Lets looks at tax rates vs economic growth over the last 60 years....my point being that when the rich were taxed much heavier, the economy still grew...

/ wealthy = >250k/year in CA, less in the Red States

In fact, I thought I went to great lengths to state that there are opposing viewpoints on the subject. I think the Cato Institute and Milton Friedman make more sense than Paul Krugman and the Angry Bear blog.

Wealthy is a relative term. I think we agree on that.

/ wealthy = >250k/year in CA, less in the Red States

Well let's say you've got $120K in student loans (not unreasonable... prob had to do some grad school to make that income), and you live in CA, so a home is going to run you what, $600K? You're not a trust funder, so that means you probably don't have the $120K necessary to put 20% down, which means a crappier interest rate. You are also paying state income tax. You are phased out of IRA tax benefits. You are probably working your a$$ off for that cash, meaning if you have kids you're paying for some form of before/after school care for them. But you've got a playa kind of a job, so you have to have nice clothes, cell phone, reasonable means of transpo (though this is probably the easiest to cut).

It's gonna take that MF'r into his mid 40's before he's "ahead" of his high school classmate who went to state U and teaches high school in an affordable community. Unless you count the fact that the teacher will get a pension and healthcare in retirement....

$200K isn't wealthy.

Wealthy is when you have enough assets that you can live comfortably off of the cream.

$200K isn't wealthy.

Wealthy is when you have enough assets that you can live comfortably off of the cream.


My guess is you've never spent much time in the third world.....

nice clothes, nice house, whatever you want to eat, pretty much any vehicle you want to drive, ability to travel some....like I said, >250k is wealthy

live comfortably off of the cream = rich

My guess is you've never spent much time in the third world.....

nice clothes, nice house, whatever you want to eat, pretty much any vehicle you want to drive, ability to travel some....like I said, >250k is wealthy

live comfortably off of the cream = rich

If you have a house, pay your bills on time and put food on the table you are doing OK. If you don't ever have to worry about having enough money you are rich.

How it works:
http://www.econlib.org/LIBRARY/Enc/MarginalTaxRates.html


Ah, so you want to talk marginal tax rates.... which is the tax paid on the LAST dollar of income? And ignore the fact that such a concept ignores how many are affected by that top rate (few, or many?), and when it kicks in (at $50k or $5 million)?

You try to cook the books from the very moment you try to define the terms of what taxes mean. Tax BURDEN (total taxes paid) would be more relevant than marginal tax rates. But of course marginal tax rates make the discussion easier for you, right? Who cares about appropriateness?


The CBO talks about tax revenue rising faster than GDP from 2003-2006, coinciding with the Bush tax cuts:
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdoc.cfm?index=8116&type=0


Correlation is not causation. After all, we know the economy does better under democratic administrations than republican ones. More GDP growth. Look it up. Are you willing to grant causation there? Because if you want to admit that democratic policies cause the higher growth rates....

This discussion is worthless. Moneyman is trying to make a case based on smoke... and you can tell because he does not use the most appropriate term, a term I know he knows.

Laffer curve.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve

And as to how it is used to try to claim we need lower taxes now, not higher.....

http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2007/07/yet-again-tax-c.html

Note how the respected wall street journal will try to torture the data to fit their ideological views.

And from the same guy (economist, U of Oregon) about why tax cuts DON'T pay for themselves?

http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2006/07/tax_cuts_do_not.html

And this berkely guy agrees with him about that graph, and other issues of tax policy from what I have read of him over the years: http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2007/07/most-dishonest-.html

Moneyman is right about one thing, economists can be found to say just about anything. But it takes a long time to find one that will twist the data like the WSJ did in that graph.

Just curious, what do you call a household that earns $50k in California?

Well let's say you've got $120K in student loans (not unreasonable... prob had to do some grad school to make that income), and you live in CA, so a home is going to run you what, $600K? You're not a trust funder, so that means you probably don't have the $120K necessary to put 20% down, which means a crappier interest rate. You are also paying state income tax. You are phased out of IRA tax benefits. You are probably working your a$$ off for that cash, meaning if you have kids you're paying for some form of before/after school care for them. But you've got a playa kind of a job, so you have to have nice clothes, cell phone, reasonable means of transpo (though this is probably the easiest to cut).

It's gonna take that MF'r into his mid 40's before he's "ahead" of his high school classmate who went to state U and teaches high school in an affordable community. Unless you count the fact that the teacher will get a pension and healthcare in retirement....

$200K isn't wealthy.

Wealthy is when you have enough assets that you can live comfortably off of the cream.

nice clothes, nice house, whatever you want to eat, pretty much any vehicle you want to drive, ability to travel some....like I said, >250k is wealthy

$600K = nice house in bay area? Or LA? Or NYC? Nice is relative too....

By that standard all but about the bottom 5% of wage earners are wealthy in America (judging from their girth at my local walmart).

Well let's say you've got $120K in student loans (not unreasonable... prob had to do some grad school to make that income), and you live in CA, so a home is going to run you what, $600K? You're not a trust funder, so that means you probably don't have the $120K necessary to put 20% down, which means a crappier interest rate. You are also paying state income tax. You are phased out of IRA tax benefits. You are probably working your a$$ off for that cash, meaning if you have kids you're paying for some form of before/after school care for them. But you've got a playa kind of a job, so you have to have nice clothes, cell phone, reasonable means of transpo (though this is probably the easiest to cut).

It's gonna take that MF'r into his mid 40's before he's "ahead" of his high school classmate who went to state U and teaches high school in an affordable community. Unless you count the fact that the teacher will get a pension and healthcare in retirement....

$200K isn't wealthy.

Wealthy is when you have enough assets that you can live comfortably off of the cream.
You have absolutely no perspective.

And is that 2% of households earning the most money, as in the top 2% of the top 2% of all wage earners? That would be the top 0.04% of wage earners.

Why not 5%? or 10%? or anyone above median income? THat would seem to be the fairest to me. Anyone who had more than median income is "wealthy" and anyone under median income is "poor."


Why don't we call an IQ of 101 a genius? Probably for similar reasons we don't call $50k rich. Genius is higher than 95-99 percent of the population, and using a similar metric from the middle of the curve seems like a good ballpark starting place when talking about the rich and the middle for income..

Just curious, what do you call a household that earns $50k in California?

My point being that the guy that makes $200K is just a working stiff too. Maybe he can afford dura ace now, but it's still all about keeping that income rolling in.

$50K in the bay area? I call that guy a glutton for punishment. Why put up with the traffic, cost of living, etc. for those wages? Real-world he'd be a lot wealthier living somewhere else.

You have absolutely no perspective.

gimme some.

Economics Teacher: . . . Today we have a similar debate over this. Anyone know what this is? Class? Anyone? Anyone? Anyone seen this before? The Laffer Curve. Anyone know what this says? It says that at this point on the revenue curve, you will get exactly the same amount of revenue as at this point. This is very controversial. Does anyone know what Vice President Bush called this in 1980? Anyone? Something-d-o-o economics. "Voodoo" economics.
--Ben Stein in Ferris Bueller's Day Off

It may not be right or fair, but do you disagree that it would be a lot easier to live off $3 million/year than $50k a year?

because he was a REAL Republican

massive gatherings of wealth create a ruling class that buys off politics and thus compromises our Democracy

it is why we had anti-trust and anti-monopoly laws created

most have been tossed or forgotten and looky, looky at our end result

Teddy was right

the taxation on the top may not be fair to the rich, but it is fair to our Democracy

and funny I never heard the rich really complain about it when the taxation was in the 70% rate (Ike)

this generalization is HIGHLY dependent on where you live...200K in D.C., New York, or San Diego..ya, not that much $$. 200K in Detroit, the entire state of Alabama, rural Oregon..ya, you're doing pretty damn well.

these things often fail to account for regional differences in cost of living...

Yes, national level data does not take those things into account. They don't take low cost areas into account either.

Nor do they take regional variations in wages into account. I know a couple that got $40k on a downpayment for a house in LA to take the jobs they were up for. I got nothing for moving expenses, much less a downpayment. There are lots and lots of variations. But they don't really matter when talking about national tax policy and its effects on economic activity.

National policy is based on national numbers. National economies are measured at the nation level. Any regional variations are smoothed out by the numbers. That's the nature of such large levels of analysis.

Genius is higher than 95-99 percent of the population...

So five guys out of every hundred at line at the DMV (trying to think of somewhere with absolute cross section of people) are geniuses? Like the wealthy, I guess I see the genius as someone a lot rarer, like the 1/10,000 or something like that.

My point being that the guy that makes $200K is just a working stiff too. Maybe he can afford dura ace now, but it's still all about keeping that income rolling in.

$50K in the bay area? I call that guy a glutton for punishment. Why put up with the traffic, cost of living, etc. for those wages? Real-world he'd be a lot wealthier living somewhere else.
You're completely right that most people making 100 grand a year (200k household) are working stiffs like many others. They have no real control over future earnings if they work for a major corporation. Even many 'professionals' are beholden to large clients which may or may not pay them next year. The feeling of uncertainty is natural. But the money they earn gives them a ton of freedom to buy things and do things.

All that being said, people working for $10 an hour have all those problems and not only can they not afford Dura-Ace but they probably can't spend more than a couple hundred bucks on christmas.

I am unmarried and live on roughly 50k in San Francisco. I have a very nice lifestyle. I've also saved about 20% of my income the past couple years. I cannot spend extravagantly but I'm quite comfortable.

I have a very nice lifestyle. I've also saved about 20% of my income the past couple years. I cannot spend extravagantly but I'm quite comfortable.

I can only say savor the moment. Add a spouse and kid and mortgage to that mix... doubt you'd be living in the city. You'd be living across the bay and commuting 75 minutes each way to work.

And keep saving like that. You HAVE to if you want to retire someday.

Personally I was never wealthier than when I was in college making $7.00 an hour at the bike shop and getting pro-form deals from the reps. I got to take home most of my paycheck, overhead was low, and the livin' was EZ.

So five guys out of every hundred at line at the DMV (trying to think of somewhere with absolute cross section of people) are geniuses? Like the wealthy, I guess I see the genius as someone a lot rarer, like the 1/10,000 or something like that.

Don't blame me, blame the IQ test creators. That's how they define it, most commonly. Mensa, a group many know of, takes the top 2% and calls that genius. 5% is from the old days with old tests. 1% is the more modern line, not that researchers use "genius" linked with traditional IQ much anymore. 3 standard deviations out from the mean.

Just remember at the DMV, that weird guy with the dandruff and the polyester shirt and pants, who keeps muttering to himself, he might be the one 6 sigmas out. Or the guy in the feed corn hat for that matter.

Don't blame me, blame the IQ test creators. That's how they define it, most commonly. Mensa, a group many know of, takes the top 2% and calls that genius. 5% is from the old days with old tests. 1% is the more modern line, not that researchers use "genius" linked with traditional IQ much anymore. 3 standard deviations out from the mean.

Just remember at the DMV, that weird guy with the dandruff and the polyester shirt and pants, who keeps muttering to himself, he might be the one 6 sigmas out. Or the guy in the feed corn hat for that matter.

that your average millionnaire drives a Dodge pickup and rarely tells you he's a millionnaire..I knew several millionnaires when I worked in Ak....they'd grab a stool at the local bar in a ripped flannel shirt and dirty jeans..you never know who's who, dr. hoo. :D

that your average millionnaire drives a Dodge pickup and rarely tells you he's a millionnaire.

It is more likely to be a ford f-150, bought used. At least that is what it said in "the millionaire next door".

The key to accumlating wealth is simple: spend less than you make. In other words, only by living below your means can you get richer than you are now.

Just curious, what do you call a household that earns $50k in California?

in the major metro areas 50K Household income is struggling

my household income in San Diego (2 working parents 1 kid, only debt is our house which we own over half of already, 2 cars 96 and 97 paid for) is over 100K and we're just getting by

putting away as much as we can , not going on fabulous vacations, not going backwards

where's the proof of this? its the first time I've ever heard it...
don't link me some biased right wing organization's website, either...proof man...
I'll wait here while you go get it. :confused:
Some of us are old enough to have followed politics back then, and have a memory of events. Like the "off budget" surplus ;) Tell me exactly what part of what I posted that you do not believe.

Some of us are old enough to have followed politics back then, and have a memory of events. Like the "off budget" surplus ;) Tell me exactly what part of what I posted that you do not believe.

How about your first sentence?

Clinton raised taxes by a larger amount than any tax increase in our history.

http://www.factcheck.org/treasury_tax_expert_to_bush_clintons_increase.html

Now comes a thorough study of every tax bill enacted since 1940, showing that the Clinton tax increase was indeed large, but not the largest.

A tax increase in 1942 boosted federal revenues by 71%, for example, as the US geared up for war after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Measured in inflation-adjusted 1992 dollars, Roosevelt's wartime increase amounted to $73 billion a year, while Clinton's increase averaged $35 billion a year (average for the first two years.)

The study said that inflation-adjusted "constant dollars" is probably only the second -best measure of the size of a tax increase. "The single best measure for most purposes is probably the revenue effect as a percentage of GDP." That's Gross Domestic Product, the way we gauge the size of the economy. Clinton's tax increase isn't the biggest by that "best" measure, either. In the period since 1968, the study said, "the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 was the biggest increase." That was the tax increase signed by Ronald Reagan, rescinding some of the effects of his huge tax cut passed the year before.

That 1982 tax increase only slightly exceeded Clinton's in inflation-adjusted dollars ($37 billion a year vs.. $32 billion) but it was much bigger in relation to the size of the economy. The '82 increase amounted to 0.8% of GDP (average for the first two years) while Clinton's was 0.5%.


Perhaps that memory of yours might need a little updating from some other sources, huh?

Ah, so you want to talk marginal tax rates.... which is the tax paid on the LAST dollar of income? And ignore the fact that such a concept ignores how many are affected by that top rate (few, or many?), and when it kicks in (at $50k or $5 million)?

You try to cook the books from the very moment you try to define the terms of what taxes mean. Tax BURDEN (total taxes paid) would be more relevant than marginal tax rates. But of course marginal tax rates make the discussion easier for you, right? Who cares about appropriateness?



Correlation is not causation. After all, we know the economy does better under democratic administrations than republican ones. More GDP growth. Look it up. Are you willing to grant causation there? Because if you want to admit that democratic policies cause the higher growth rates....

This discussion is worthless. Moneyman is trying to make a case based on smoke... and you can tell because he does not use the most appropriate term, a term I know he knows.

Laffer curve.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve

And as to how it is used to try to claim we need lower taxes now, not higher.....

http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2007/07/yet-again-tax-c.html

Note how the respected wall street journal will try to torture the data to fit their ideological views.

And from the same guy (economist, U of Oregon) about why tax cuts DON'T pay for themselves?

http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2006/07/tax_cuts_do_not.html

And this berkely guy agrees with him about that graph, and other issues of tax policy from what I have read of him over the years: http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2007/07/most-dishonest-.html

Moneyman is right about one thing, economists can be found to say just about anything. But it takes a long time to find one that will twist the data like the WSJ did in that graph.

Why is it that if an onerous tax rate affects just a few, it's no big deal? Where is the sense of "fairness" I keep hearing about?

Imagine that - a left-leaning blog, written by a left-leaning economist, supports tax increases. In addition, you link to a couple of academics who share the same view.

The economist who writes the blog, at the very top of the page, links to a Paul Krugman article. That tells me something right there. Much as every time I open the WSJ editorial page, I'm pretty sure of what I'm going to get.

Let's look at the WSJ example of the Laffer curve. The blogger says the example is worthless (and it probably is) but then draws his own line without doing the work. He says: "I haven't actually run the regression, but it looks clear to me that revenues rise with tax rates,"

Now I could take that graph and draw a couple of lines myself, but they would be just as useless as either of those two. But using countries as data points without accounting for differences in economies, culture, politics seems to me to be missing some very, very important information.

I can take returns from three different asset classes - say the Russell 2000, Lehman Brothers Aggregate, and the National Council of Real Estate Investment Fiduciaries - and plot their returns and their sd's over varying time periods and draw varying curves. However, I would never be so bold as to put them in the perspective that they should all be considered as similar and draw conclusions from that, as both curve artists have done. Those three asset classes bear no resemblance to each other and in fact have very, very low and negative correlations. But in the graph from your blogger, the US economy is given as much weight as Iceland and Luxembourg.

You are a highly educated man, and I am certain that you have a mastery of using statistical measures to draw conclusions. You know, and I know, that data can be tortured to such an extent that it will finally succumb to say whatever its torturer wants it to say.

I don't think your supporting data is better than mine, but I know you have the ability to overwhelm mine out of sheer volume. I have studied this a great deal and have reached my conclusions. You have reached yours.

I don't think your supporting data is better than mine, but I know you have the ability to overwhelm mine out of sheer volume. I have studied this a great deal and have reached my conclusions. You have reached yours.

So, you think tax revenues hit zero at rate of about 33%, and become dramatically negative at higher rates? Because that is what the WSJ graph says. Does that make ANY sense to you at all?

Here are some science geeks making fun of it. http://scienceblogs.com/goodmath/2007/07/a_laughable_laffer_curve_from.php

Here are some math geeks making fun of it: http://forums.xkcd.com/viewtopic.php?t=9613&sid=b526f0ada1cdf698446c816ede28893f

Since you have made up your mind, why not explain that WSJ graph. Explain why at tax rates of about 33% government revenues go to zero... when history says that is FALSE.

As you said, economists can be found on both sides of any issue. But when one side is trying to show things that are empirically false and theoretically insane, then I think most rational people can figure out the arguments should be rejected.

Most.

Oh, and as for your first question about fairness, I suggest you contemplate the difference betwen the concepts of equal and equitable. And link that to the diminishing marginal utility of money as one gets richer. Each extra dollar does less and less to change your life for the better. An extra $1000 to a $30k a year family will make things a lot better, but an extra $1000 to a $300k a year family will be darn near unnoticable in the effect on their lives,

So, you think tax revenues hit zero at rate of about 33%, and become dramatically negative at higher rates? Because that is what the WSJ graph says. Does that make ANY sense to you at all?

Here are some science geeks making fun of it. http://scienceblogs.com/goodmath/2007/07/a_laughable_laffer_curve_from.php

Here are some math geeks making fun of it: http://forums.xkcd.com/viewtopic.php?t=9613&sid=b526f0ada1cdf698446c816ede28893f

Since you have made up your mind, why not explain that WSJ graph. Explain why at tax rates of about 33% government revenues go to zero... when history says that is FALSE.

As you said, economists can be found on both sides of any issue. But when one side is trying to show things that are empirically false and theoretically insane, then I think most rational people can figure out the arguments should be rejected.

Most.

Oh, and as for your first question about fairness, I suggest you contemplate the difference betwen the concepts of equal and equitable. And link that to the diminishing marginal utility of money as one gets richer. Each extra dollar does less and less to change your life for the better. An extra $1000 to a $30k a year family will make things a lot better, but an extra $1000 to a $300k a year family will be darn near unnoticable in the effect on their lives,

Right there in my post I said "The blogger says the example is worthless (and it probably is)". Then I proceeded to disucss how the info used in the example is worthless. Then you ask me if it makes any sense to me at all. Its hard to have a discussion when you make conclusions based on things I did not say, and in fact agreed with your original conclusion.

"Equal and equitable" are not fairness. That was my question. Not "Why is this equal?" and not "Why is this equitable?", because that's not what I wanted to know. I wanted to know how it was fair? Because its not. One class of people are treated differently than another class simply because they have more money. Nothing fair about that in my book.

"Equal and equitable" are not fairness. That was my question. Not "Why is this equal?" and not "Why is this equitable?", because that's not what I wanted to know. I wanted to know how it was fair? Because its not. One class of people are treated differently than another class simply because they have more money. Nothing fair about that in my book.

There is a huge literature studying this issue, usually called "distributive justice", from philosophical, economic, political, psychological etc standpoints. Fair is a question of equity. Sometimes equal is equitable, sometimes it is not.

If there are 8 people and 8 slices of pie, equal is that everyone gets the same size slice. But what if 2 of the people are 2 and 3 years old, and would be quite happy with a small piece? In fact, if they had an equal sized slice they would get sick. And 2 of the others have been MTBing all day and are very hungry. In that case, equal sized slices makes people LESS well off, less happy, less willing to say the division is "fair". In that case, unequal is seen as more "fair".

A google cache of a short essay on the subject from the philosophical perspective: http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:KxWJPhcbnpcJ:web.missouri.edu/~umcasklinechair/on-line%2520papers/distributive%2520justice%2520(handbook).doc


A sociology example or two:

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0007-1315(199112)42%3A4%3C581%3ADJAOIP%3E2.0.CO%3B2-O

http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:MjSQf4xBBXsJ:sociology.fas.nyu.edu/attach/1524+distributive+justice+sociology+jasso&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us&client=firefox-a

A vita from Guellermina Jasso, who did a lot in sociology on distributive justice. Scroll down and look at some of the titles if you want. She's a pretty respected name in the area, which I happen to know, because I know her (though I doubt she remembers me).

There is a huge literature studying this issue, usually called "distributive justice", from philosophical, economic, political, psychological etc standpoints. Fair is a question of equity. Sometimes equal is equitable, sometimes it is not.

If there are 8 people and 8 slices of pie, equal is that everyone gets the same size slice. But what if 2 of the people are 2 and 3 years old, and would be quite happy with a small piece? In fact, if they had an equal sized slice they would get sick. And 2 of the others have been MTBing all day and are very hungry. In that case, equal sized slices makes people LESS well off, less happy, less willing to say the division is "fair". In that case, unequal is seen as more "fair".

A google cache of a short essay on the subject from the philosophical perspective: http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:KxWJPhcbnpcJ:web.missouri.edu/~umcasklinechair/on-line%2520papers/distributive%2520justice%2520(handbook).doc


A sociology example or two:

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0007-1315(199112)42%3A4%3C581%3ADJAOIP%3E2.0.CO%3B2-O

http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:MjSQf4xBBXsJ:sociology.fas.nyu.edu/attach/1524+distributive+justice+sociology+jasso&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us&client=firefox-a

A vita from Guellermina Jasso, who did a lot in sociology on distributive justice. Scroll down and look at some of the titles if you want. She's a pretty respected name in the area, which I happen to know, because I know her (though I doubt she remembers me).


has it right. Who are we to say "punish the wealthy" by taxing them more, that's a crock of shiit3. Personally, we make well over six figures, and I would HARDLY consider us wealthy. here's a little analogy:

Understanding the Tax System and Tax Relief. This is a VERY simple way to understand the tax laws. Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner. The bill for all ten men comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this. The first four men-the poorest-would pay nothing; the fifth man would pay $1; the sixth would pay $3; the seventh $7, the eighth $12; the ninth $18, The tenth man--the richest--would pay $59. That's what they decided to do. The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement--until one day the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers", he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20." So dinner for the ten only cost $80. The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected, they would still eat for free. But what about the other six- the paying customers? How could they divvy up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his "fair" share? The six men realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33, But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth and sixth man would end up being "paid" to eat. So, the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay. And so, the fifth man paid nothing now, the sixth chipped in $2, the seventh paid $5, the eighth paid $9, the ninth paid $12, leaving the tenth man with a balance of $52 instead of $59. EACH of the six was better off than before, and the first four men continued to eat for free. But, once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got a dollar out of the twenty", declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth, "But he got $7!", "yeah, that's right" exclaimed the fifth man, "I only saved a dollar too, it's unfair that he got seven times more than me.!" "That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $7 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!" "Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all, the system exploits the poor!" The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night he didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They're $52 short! And that, boys and girls, journalists and college instructors, is how the tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore.)

There is a huge literature studying this issue, usually called "distributive justice", from philosophical, economic, political, psychological etc standpoints. Fair is a question of equity. Sometimes equal is equitable, sometimes it is not.

If there are 8 people and 8 slices of pie, equal is that everyone gets the same size slice. But what if 2 of the people are 2 and 3 years old, and would be quite happy with a small piece? In fact, if they had an equal sized slice they would get sick. And 2 of the others have been MTBing all day and are very hungry. In that case, equal sized slices makes people LESS well off, less happy, less willing to say the division is "fair". In that case, unequal is seen as more "fair".

A google cache of a short essay on the subject from the philosophical perspective: http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:KxWJPhcbnpcJ:web.missouri.edu/~umcasklinechair/on-line%2520papers/distributive%2520justice%2520(handbook).doc


A sociology example or two:

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0007-1315(199112)42%3A4%3C581%3ADJAOIP%3E2.0.CO%3B2-O

http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:MjSQf4xBBXsJ:sociology.fas.nyu.edu/attach/1524+distributive+justice+sociology+jasso&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us&client=firefox-a

A vita from Guellermina Jasso, who did a lot in sociology on distributive justice. Scroll down and look at some of the titles if you want. She's a pretty respected name in the area, which I happen to know, because I know her (though I doubt she remembers me).
Not right now, but I will. Thanks for the links.

has it right. Who are we to say "punish the wealthy" by taxing them more, that's a crock of shiit3.

I'll just paste the wiki on reasons FOR having progressive taxation. Feel free to paste the reasons against from the wiki if you want balance:


* If the utility gained from income exhibits diminishing marginal returns, as many psychologists assert (see Weber-Fechner law), then for the tax burden to be shared in a utilitarian way the tax-bill must increase non-linearly with income.

* As income levels rise, levels of consumption tend to fall. Thus it is often argued that economic demand can be stimulated by reducing tax burden on lower incomes while raising the burden on higher incomes.

* It is also argued that people with higher income tend to have a higher percentage of that in disposable income, and can thus afford a greater tax burden (this is the “vertical equity” argument). A person making exactly enough money to pay for food and housing cannot afford to pay any taxes without it causing material damage, while someone making twice as much can afford to pay up to half their income in taxes. A tax that actually took all income above some specified subsistence level would imply a marginal tax rate of 100%, a case to which the arguments against progressive taxation apply most strongly (see below).

* Some believe that the wealthy have a disproportionally greater interest in maintaining societal goods typically supported by taxation such as defense and infrastructure, as they have much greater to lose if these fail than do the poor.

* Some supporters of progressive taxation favour increasing taxes on middle class tax-payers, who have inelastic household budgets.

* A progressive tax is an automatic stabilizer in the sense that if a person were to suffer a decrease in wages due to a recession then the money regained by being in a lower tax bracket lessens this blow.

* It is inherent in tax policy that it implements economic and social policy. People who are concerned about a runaway, cancerous character in the global economy, greenhouse gases, etc., see benefits in progressive taxation, both in its braking effect on the economy and in helping shape economic activities towards necessities more effectively than purely monetary or fiscal policies.

I'll just paste the wiki on reasons FOR having progressive taxation. Feel free to paste the reasons against from the wiki if you want balance:


* If the utility gained from income exhibits diminishing marginal returns, as many psychologists assert (see Weber-Fechner law), then for the tax burden to be shared in a utilitarian way the tax-bill must increase non-linearly with income.

* As income levels rise, levels of consumption tend to fall. Thus it is often argued that economic demand can be stimulated by reducing tax burden on lower incomes while raising the burden on higher incomes.

* It is also argued that people with higher income tend to have a higher percentage of that in disposable income, and can thus afford a greater tax burden (this is the “vertical equity” argument). A person making exactly enough money to pay for food and housing cannot afford to pay any taxes without it causing material damage, while someone making twice as much can afford to pay up to half their income in taxes. A tax that actually took all income above some specified subsistence level would imply a marginal tax rate of 100%, a case to which the arguments against progressive taxation apply most strongly (see below).

* Some believe that the wealthy have a disproportionally greater interest in maintaining societal goods typically supported by taxation such as defense and infrastructure, as they have much greater to lose if these fail than do the poor.

* Some supporters of progressive taxation favour increasing taxes on middle class tax-payers, who have inelastic household budgets.

* A progressive tax is an automatic stabilizer in the sense that if a person were to suffer a decrease in wages due to a recession then the money regained by being in a lower tax bracket lessens this blow.

* It is inherent in tax policy that it implements economic and social policy. People who are concerned about a runaway, cancerous character in the global economy, greenhouse gases, etc., see benefits in progressive taxation, both in its braking effect on the economy and in helping shape economic activities towards necessities more effectively than purely monetary or fiscal policies.

it stops a collection of wealth that can be used to corrupt our political system

I'll just paste the wiki on reasons FOR having progressive taxation. Feel free to paste the reasons against from the wiki if you want balance:


* If the utility gained from income exhibits diminishing marginal returns, as many psychologists assert (see Weber-Fechner law), then for the tax burden to be shared in a utilitarian way the tax-bill must increase non-linearly with income.

* As income levels rise, levels of consumption tend to fall. Thus it is often argued that economic demand can be stimulated by reducing tax burden on lower incomes while raising the burden on higher incomes.

* It is also argued that people with higher income tend to have a higher percentage of that in disposable income, and can thus afford a greater tax burden (this is the “vertical equity” argument). A person making exactly enough money to pay for food and housing cannot afford to pay any taxes without it causing material damage, while someone making twice as much can afford to pay up to half their income in taxes. A tax that actually took all income above some specified subsistence level would imply a marginal tax rate of 100%, a case to which the arguments against progressive taxation apply most strongly (see below).

* Some believe that the wealthy have a disproportionally greater interest in maintaining societal goods typically supported by taxation such as defense and infrastructure, as they have much greater to lose if these fail than do the poor.

* Some supporters of progressive taxation favour increasing taxes on middle class tax-payers, who have inelastic household budgets.

* A progressive tax is an automatic stabilizer in the sense that if a person were to suffer a decrease in wages due to a recession then the money regained by being in a lower tax bracket lessens this blow.

* It is inherent in tax policy that it implements economic and social policy. People who are concerned about a runaway, cancerous character in the global economy, greenhouse gases, etc., see benefits in progressive taxation, both in its braking effect on the economy and in helping shape economic activities towards necessities more effectively than purely monetary or fiscal policies.


I will.....

The classical argument against progressive taxation runs as follows:

The diminishing returns argument applies to the fraction of income used for present consumption. As income rises, diminishing returns implies that a smaller and smaller fraction of income will be spent on consumption goods. The remaining income will (of necessity) be used to purchase capital goods. This acts as a form of positive feedback that in turn yields more income for capital spending. Meanwhile (and because) these capital goods induce a decline in the costs of production which has the effect of raising real wages generally and implicitly raising the general standard of living. The income paid back on the capital helps create the disincentive to consume that creates capital spending. Thus, those capitalists who effectively manage their property are rewarded and given control of more (newly created) property, of which they are increasingly less inclined to consume and increasingly more inclined to purchase capital goods and thus further elevate the general standard of living by driving down the costs of production. As they acquire more capital goods, eventually their ownership outstrips their ability to manage and oversee what they own; however, they only control as many capital goods as can be attributed to the income of their prior capital---which previously did not exist. Therefore, their ownership does not negatively contribute to the general standard-of-living relative to counterfactual state of them not purchasing those goods. It would thus be misleading to argue that redistributing their capital may yield further increases in the standard-of-living. Doing so may well cause that effect, but doing so neglects that it was the assumption that redistribution would not happen that induced the accumulation of capital.

— Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk, Karl Marx and the Close of his System, 1896)

Progressive taxes lower savings rates. Thus, some argue against progressive taxation because they believe it shifts the total economic production of society away from capital investments (tools, infrastructure, training, research) and toward present consumption goods--this could happen because high-income earners tend to pay for capital goods (through investment activities) and low-income earners tend to purchase consumables. Smithian and neo-classical growth theory says that spending more on consumption goods and less on capital goods will slow the rise of the standard of living, and possibly even reduce it since capital goods increase future production possibilities.
To put this in neo-classical terms: high-earners have a lower marginal propensity to consume; so shifting the tax-burden away from them will increase the aggregate savings rate, which should increase steady state growth (if the savings rate is initially too low).

Progressive taxes create a work disincentive. Consider again someone who makes twice the minimum required to live on, but pays all income above the minimum living threshold in taxes. Such a person had no monetary incentive at all to try to increase his or her income above the base level[3]. It is presumed that the high-rate earner will therefore not work (because leisure gives higher utility). However, this assumption can be challenged in at least two ways: Firstly, the majority of top-rate tax payers are salary-earners, and have no freedom to set their own hours, and secondly, the assumption that they prefer leisure to work may not apply, in which case they may be as productive when their entire income is taken by the government as when it is not.
Another common argument is that progressive taxation acts as a disincentive to work. In comparing this assumption with the claim that progressive taxes work the other way, and encourage higher participation at the top end, econometric studies are inconclusive. It may be that there is no consistent aggregate effect either way, and that the incentive/disinctive arguments for/against progressive taxation are weak.


Theoretically, there are two contrasting forces at work here. One is a substitution effect whereby work effort is decreased with higher tax rates as the relative gains from engaging in leisure (which is not taxed) increase. The other is an income effect whereby work effort is increased as the worker must work more hours to attain the same wage in the face of higher taxes. It is impossible to predict, a priori, which effect will dominate. The majority of econometric studies on the question suggest that, in aggregate, the two effects roughly cancel out.
Brain drain and tax avoidance. High progressive taxes may encourage emigration because taxes are not internationally harmonized, so very high earners are sometimes able to relocate in order to pay less tax, or find tax havens for their income. Unlike the opposing income effect and substitution effect of leisure which may make tax progressivity neutral in terms of working hours, the emigration rate can only increase with the top rates of tax.
The differential in the higher rates of tax between the United States and Europe are cited as a factor in the "brain drain" of high-earners to America in the 1960s, and is considered an important influence on modern "economic migration".
The increasing energy expended on tax avoidances which occur with greater progressivity produces an increase in the work of accountants and lawyers. Because tax avoidance creates no net wealth this work is unproductive, and can make taxes on the rich less efficient than on the middle class, who have less motivation to exploit tax loopholes.
Justice in representation. Economic equity is sometimes used to argue against progressive taxation, on the grounds of representation being out-of-proportion to taxation: While the top 5% in income in most countries pay over half the taxes[4] they only have 5% of the voting weight. This argument can be reversed into the plutocratic case that if tax is to be progressive it should be accompanied by greater say in elections for those who contribute most. However, it must be noted that those of higher incomes are more likely to serve in public office, as well as helping to finance politicians with whom they share ideological similarities.
Politics of envy. The New York Times in June 2005 ran a high-profile campaign arguing that at the very-high incomes United States tax-payers actually face regressive taxation rates, equating income tax across wage and rental incomes. For instance, they project that if the Bush tax cuts are made permanent:
“By 2015, those making between $80,000 and $400,000 will pay as much as 13.9 percentage points more of their income in federal taxes than those making more than $400,000.” [5]
In response to this, Gregory Mankiw has written to the editor of the New York Times, arguing that wealth condensation is a cyclical phenomenon and that tax rates should not be adjusted to stabilize the share of income going to the top 0.1 percent of earners in boom years and depressions. He closes with another recurring argument against progressive taxes:

“If policy makers' primary goal is … economic prosperity for all, they should avoid focusing on the politics of envy.” [6]

this country functioned quite well for almost a century with such a tax system
(which was one of your (and my) heroes Teddy R)

it was reduced a bit in the 60s but another Republican (Ike) still saw its value and the economy boomed

Reagan gutted it, we saw the results

Clinton popped it up to about 1/2 Ike's level and it dug us out of thhe hole a bit

W gutted it back and here we are again

and we can also see the increasing of $ and political influence and the increase in political corruption coincides

so we have 2 theories

a) supply side (failed 2x now - and that is not including the Great Depression)
b) consumer side (best periods in American economics)

and this realtes to Hoo's #2
* As income levels rise, levels of consumption tend to fall. Thus it is often argued that economic demand can be stimulated by reducing tax burden on lower incomes while raising the burden on higher income

middle class moves their extra $ everywhere

upper class the money tends to only flow laterally

this country functioned quite well for almost a century with such a tax system
(which was one of your (and my) heroes Teddy R)

it was reduced a bit in the 60s but another Republican (Ike) still saw its value and the economy boomed

Reagan gutted it, we saw the results

Clinton popped it up to about 1/2 Ike's level and it dug us out of thhe hole a bit

W gutted it back and here we are again

and we can also see the increasing of $ and political influence and the increase in political corruption coincides

so we have 2 theories

a) supply side (failed 2x now - and that is not including the Great Depression)
b) consumer side (best periods in American economics)

and this realtes to Hoo's #2
* As income levels rise, levels of consumption tend to fall. Thus it is often argued that economic demand can be stimulated by reducing tax burden on lower incomes while raising the burden on higher income

middle class moves their extra $ everywhere

upper class the money tends to only flow laterally
Agree...the anecdotal evidence from the W and Reagan experiments suggests that tax cuts don't work. I'm sure that numbers and figures can be manipulated to prove otherwise, but from what I experienced and saw personally both were/are a failure.

Not right now, but I will. Thanks for the links.

First one is worth reading, at least from my quick skim, to give you some of the basic theoretical ideas and perspectives.

Second one is just a page of an article, third one is just a list of titles. But they should give you an idea of what is out there, and more importantly some search terms if you want to follow up on it.