Nederland / The Netherlands
- R_P - May 23, 2024 - 10:03am
It's the economy stupid.
- kurtster - May 23, 2024 - 9:56am
Israel
- R_P - May 23, 2024 - 9:56am
USA! USA! USA!
- R_P - May 23, 2024 - 9:34am
NY Times Strands
- ptooey - May 23, 2024 - 8:59am
Music News
- Beaker - May 23, 2024 - 8:30am
RP Daily Trivia Challenge
- ScottFromWyoming - May 23, 2024 - 8:24am
Wordle - daily game
- JrzyTmata - May 23, 2024 - 8:24am
Interviews with the artists
- Beaker - May 23, 2024 - 8:12am
NYTimes Connections
- ScottFromWyoming - May 23, 2024 - 7:24am
Radio Paradise Comments
- Coaxial - May 23, 2024 - 5:06am
Today in History
- DaveInSaoMiguel - May 23, 2024 - 3:39am
Photography Forum - Your Own Photos
- KurtfromLaQuinta - May 22, 2024 - 8:51pm
Science is bullsh*t
- GeneP59 - May 22, 2024 - 4:16pm
Things You Thought Today
- oldviolin - May 22, 2024 - 4:12pm
Maarjamaa
- oldviolin - May 22, 2024 - 3:32pm
Gotta Get Your Drink On
- ScottFromWyoming - May 22, 2024 - 3:25pm
Bug Reports & Feature Requests
- jarro - May 22, 2024 - 11:19am
New Music
- R_P - May 22, 2024 - 9:18am
May 2024 Photo Theme - Peaceful
- Isabeau - May 22, 2024 - 7:56am
Trump
- rgio - May 22, 2024 - 4:44am
Coffee
- haresfur - May 22, 2024 - 12:12am
Rock mix sound quality below Main and Mellow?
- theirongiant - May 21, 2024 - 2:23pm
Most played: what's the range? Last 30 days? 90?
- theirongiant - May 21, 2024 - 2:20pm
Dialing 1-800-Manbird
- oldviolin - May 21, 2024 - 11:59am
Name My Band
- Isabeau - May 21, 2024 - 10:27am
• • • The Once-a-Day • • •
- Isabeau - May 20, 2024 - 2:16pm
What Did You See Today?
- Steely_D - May 20, 2024 - 1:24pm
Baseball, anyone?
- ScottFromWyoming - May 20, 2024 - 12:00pm
Mixtape Culture Club
- ColdMiser - May 20, 2024 - 7:50am
Shawn Phillips
- Isabeau - May 20, 2024 - 6:20am
The Corporation
- Red_Dragon - May 20, 2024 - 5:08am
Positive Thoughts and Prayer Requests
- GeneP59 - May 19, 2024 - 4:08pm
What can you hear right now?
- GeneP59 - May 19, 2024 - 4:07pm
China
- Isabeau - May 19, 2024 - 2:22pm
What Makes You Laugh?
- Isabeau - May 19, 2024 - 2:18pm
TV shows you watch
- Steely_D - May 19, 2024 - 1:13am
Music library
- nightdrive - May 18, 2024 - 1:28pm
The Obituary Page
- DaveInSaoMiguel - May 18, 2024 - 4:18am
Paul McCartney
- miamizsun - May 18, 2024 - 4:06am
Virginia News
- Steely_D - May 18, 2024 - 2:51am
Gnomad here. Who farking deleted my thread?
- Red_Dragon - May 17, 2024 - 5:59pm
The Dragons' Roost
- triskele - May 17, 2024 - 4:04pm
Upcoming concerts or shows you can't wait to see
- ScottFromWyoming - May 17, 2024 - 1:43pm
DIY
- black321 - May 17, 2024 - 9:16am
Other Medical Stuff
- kurtster - May 16, 2024 - 10:00pm
Your Local News
- Proclivities - May 16, 2024 - 12:51pm
Alexa Show
- thisbody - May 16, 2024 - 12:15pm
Joe Biden
- Steely_D - May 16, 2024 - 1:02am
Climate Change
- R_P - May 15, 2024 - 9:38pm
Strange signs, marquees, billboards, etc.
- KurtfromLaQuinta - May 15, 2024 - 4:13pm
how do you feel right now?
- KurtfromLaQuinta - May 15, 2024 - 4:10pm
What the hell OV?
- oldviolin - May 15, 2024 - 12:38pm
Song of the Day
- oldviolin - May 15, 2024 - 11:50am
NASA & other news from space
- Beaker - May 15, 2024 - 9:29am
Artificial Intelligence
- thisbody - May 15, 2024 - 8:25am
Human Rights (Can Science Point The Way)
- miamizsun - May 15, 2024 - 5:50am
Play the Blues
- Steely_D - May 15, 2024 - 1:50am
Animal Resistance
- R_P - May 14, 2024 - 6:37pm
2024 Elections!
- R_P - May 14, 2024 - 6:00pm
Fascism In America
- Red_Dragon - May 14, 2024 - 4:27pm
punk? hip-hop? metal? noise? garage?
- thisbody - May 14, 2024 - 1:27pm
Social Media Are Changing Everything
- Red_Dragon - May 14, 2024 - 8:08am
Internet connection
- ai63 - May 14, 2024 - 7:53am
Congress
- Red_Dragon - May 13, 2024 - 8:22pm
Ukraine
- R_P - May 13, 2024 - 5:50pm
What The Hell Buddy?
- oldviolin - May 13, 2024 - 1:25pm
Surfing!
- KurtfromLaQuinta - May 13, 2024 - 1:21pm
Bad Poetry
- oldviolin - May 13, 2024 - 11:38am
See This Film
- Red_Dragon - May 13, 2024 - 8:35am
Podcast recommendations???
- ColdMiser - May 13, 2024 - 7:50am
News of the Weird
- Red_Dragon - May 13, 2024 - 5:05am
Those Lovable Policemen
- R_P - May 12, 2024 - 11:31am
Vinyl Only Spin List
- kurtster - May 12, 2024 - 9:16am
The All-Things Beatles Forum
- Steely_D - May 12, 2024 - 9:04am
|
Index »
Radio Paradise/General »
General Discussion »
History - lather, rinse, repeat.
|
Page: Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next |
Lazy8
Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana Gender:
|
Posted:
Apr 20, 2011 - 1:24pm |
|
aflanigan wrote:Whoa. The crash of tax collections that accompanied the burst of the dot com bubble led to the recession that followed, according to the link you cite? This suggests to me that we need to boost income tax revenues to spur economic recovery. Thanks for the confirmation!
Here's the actual paragraph: Beginning in April 1997, the Dot Com Stock Market Bubble created an excessive number of new millionaires as investors swarmed to participate in Internet and "tech" company initial public offerings or private capital ventures, which in turn, inflated personal income tax collections. Unfortunately, like the vaporware produced by many of the companies that sprang up to exploit the investor buying frenzy, the illusion of prosperity could not be sustained and tax collections crashed with the incomes of the Internet titans in the bursting of the bubble, leading to the recession that followed. I suppose you could play games with this awkwardly-worded statement, but I think your time would be better spent reading the article and absorbing what it points out: that the only reliable way to boost tax revenue is to have a rising GDP. Raising tax rates (as the article you linked to recommends) won't increase the fraction of GDP we capture in taxes—at least it never has. Or is this time different?
|
|
aflanigan
Location: At Sea Gender:
|
Posted:
Apr 20, 2011 - 12:22pm |
|
Lazy8 wrote:...and this is the history that tax increase advocates either can't or will not absorb, and Republicans seem too witless to explain. It's a very inconvenient truth. Whoa. The crash of tax collections that accompanied the burst of the dot com bubble led to the recession that followed, according to the link you cite? This suggests to me that we need to boost income tax revenues to spur economic recovery. Thanks for the confirmation!
|
|
islander
Location: West coast somewhere Gender:
|
Posted:
Apr 19, 2011 - 4:09pm |
|
oldslabsides wrote: How much can it be increased? How much is sustainable? We do - by the way - live on a finite rock.
I know, I'm grabbing at the wheel and trying steer the thread into the ditch. pessimist: Richard is working on our exit strategy (and he really is that huge!).
|
|
Red_Dragon
Location: Dumbf*ckistan
|
Posted:
Apr 19, 2011 - 3:36pm |
|
islander wrote: If we look at the data from both sides we can see that adjustments to the marginal rate and the following delta in revenues are not closely coupled (we can show both increases and decreases following tax hikes and cuts). So maybe this isn't the point we should be arguing. We need to find a way to increase economic activity on all fronts *and* have a sane and equitable tax policy to fund the needs of our society. All the crap going on in DC now addresses neither of these. How much can it be increased? How much is sustainable? We do - by the way - live on a finite rock. I know, I'm grabbing at the wheel and trying steer the thread into the ditch.
|
|
islander
Location: West coast somewhere Gender:
|
Posted:
Apr 19, 2011 - 2:48pm |
|
beamends wrote:My God man, steady on, that's dangerously close to saying balancing the budget is a good idea to paraphrase CC - That's crazy talk.
|
|
beamends
|
Posted:
Apr 19, 2011 - 2:46pm |
|
islander wrote: Although that is true, what I'm really saying is that we can point to events that show all four conditions (+taxes/+revenues, +taxes/-revenues, -taxes/+revenues, -taxes/-revenues) at different periods in time. So maybe taxes aren't really a lever for revenues. Maybe it would make more sense to set taxes at a level that will cover expenditures, then work to control expenditures as much as possible.
My God man, steady on, that's dangerously close to saying balancing the budget is a good idea
|
|
islander
Location: West coast somewhere Gender:
|
Posted:
Apr 19, 2011 - 2:44pm |
|
cc_rider wrote:What? Are you implying the same set of data can be analyzed in different ways and produce different results and conclusions? That is crazy talk, man.
Although that is true, what I'm really saying is that we can point to events that show all four conditions (+taxes/+revenues, +taxes/-revenues, -taxes/+revenues, -taxes/-revenues) at different periods in time. So maybe taxes aren't really a lever for revenues. Maybe it would make more sense to set taxes at a level that will cover expenditures, then work to control expenditures as much as possible.
|
|
cc_rider
Location: Bastrop Gender:
|
Posted:
Apr 19, 2011 - 2:31pm |
|
islander wrote:If we look at the data from both sides we can see that adjustments to the marginal rate and the following delta in revenues are not closely coupled (we can show both increases and decreases following tax hikes and cuts). So maybe this isn't the point we should be arguing. We need to find a way to increase economic activity on all fronts *and* have a sane and equitable tax policy to fund the needs of our society. All the crap going on in DC now addresses neither of these.
What? Are you implying the same set of data can be analyzed in different ways and produce different results and conclusions? That is crazy talk, man.
|
|
islander
Location: West coast somewhere Gender:
|
Posted:
Apr 19, 2011 - 2:26pm |
|
Lazy8 wrote: romeotuma wrote:Go read it, then look at the pretty colored graphs. Now look at all the areas that show revenue growth (some of them as brief as two years!) that followed tax increases. Now look at the other areas of revenue growth that didn't follow tax increases. Sure are a lot of them, aren't there? Guess those don't compute. Now look at the regions of revenue growth that started well before the tax increases (particularly the 1968 10% tax surcharge) and disappeared after they were imposed. Look also at the regions where a decline in revenue preceded a tax decrease (the end of the dot-com bubble, for instance). The 1991 tax increases that were supposed to be responsible for the Clinton era revenue climb had almost no effect for the first three years they were enacted (OK, revenue dropped slightly at first, then climbed the dot-com bubble). Tax cuts must be powerful indeed if they can reduce revenue before they're enacted! These tweaks to marginal tax rates are Congress tinkering in reaction to events in the economy, not causative factors. Another interesting area is the period from 1950-1963. Crawford ends his red band at 1953 (he uses a 1% decrease in a top marginal rate of 92% to signal a period following a tax cut) when taxes remained essentially flat thru the period. This is not the monotonic function he's pretending it is. Keep in mind that the general trend (since WW2) has been to decrease the top marginal tax rates, so any phenomenon is going to appear associate with falling taxes. The above article isn't serious analysis, it's the economic equivalent of quote mining. The red swaths on the graph are trying to obscure the fundamental truth of Hauser's Law: income tax top brackets ranged between 92% and 28% over the period represented by the graph. If revenue correlated directly to top marginal rate it would jump out of that graph like a stripper out of a birthday cake. It doesn't. Hauser's Law remains a valid and important observation of the lack of coupling between marginal tax rates and revenue. It's still inconveniently true. If we look at the data from both sides we can see that adjustments to the marginal rate and the following delta in revenues are not closely coupled (we can show both increases and decreases following tax hikes and cuts). So maybe this isn't the point we should be arguing. We need to find a way to increase economic activity on all fronts *and* have a sane and equitable tax policy to fund the needs of our society. All the crap going on in DC now addresses neither of these.
|
|
Lazy8
Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana Gender:
|
Posted:
Apr 19, 2011 - 1:50pm |
|
romeotuma wrote:Go read it, then look at the pretty colored graphs. Now look at all the areas that show revenue growth (some of them as brief as two years!) that followed tax increases. Now look at the other areas of revenue growth that didn't follow tax increases. Sure are a lot of them, aren't there? Guess those don't compute. Now look at the regions of revenue growth that started well before the tax increases (particularly the 1968 10% tax surcharge) and disappeared after they were imposed. Look also at the regions where a decline in revenue preceded a tax decrease (the end of the dot-com bubble, for instance). The 1991 tax increases that were supposed to be responsible for the Clinton era revenue climb had almost no effect for the first three years they were enacted (OK, revenue dropped slightly at first, then climbed the dot-com bubble). Tax cuts must be powerful indeed if they can reduce revenue before they're enacted! These tweaks to marginal tax rates are Congress tinkering in reaction to events in the economy, not causative factors. Another interesting area is the period from 1950-1963. Crawford ends his red band at 1953 (he uses a 1% decrease in a top marginal rate of 92% to signal a period following a tax cut) when taxes remained essentially flat thru the period. This is not the monotonic function he's pretending it is. Keep in mind that the general trend (since WW2) has been to decrease the top marginal tax rates, so any phenomenon is going to appear associate with falling taxes. The above article isn't serious analysis, it's the economic equivalent of quote mining. The red swaths on the graph are trying to obscure the fundamental truth of Hauser's Law: income tax top brackets ranged between 92% and 28% over the period represented by the graph. If revenue correlated directly to top marginal rate it would jump out of that graph like a stripper out of a birthday cake. It doesn't. Hauser's Law remains a valid and important observation of the lack of coupling between marginal tax rates and revenue. It's still inconveniently true.
|
|
Lazy8
Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana Gender:
|
Posted:
Apr 19, 2011 - 12:47pm |
|
...and this is the history that tax increase advocates either can't or will not absorb, and Republicans seem too witless to explain. It's a very inconvenient truth.
|
|
aflanigan
Location: At Sea Gender:
|
|
Jennnn
Gender:
|
Posted:
Jan 11, 2005 - 3:56pm |
|
|
|
phineas
|
Posted:
Jan 11, 2005 - 3:45pm |
|
|
|
Jennnn
Gender:
|
Posted:
Jan 11, 2005 - 3:40pm |
|
|
|
steeler
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
|
Posted:
Jan 11, 2005 - 3:25pm |
|
|
|
gandalfbmg
Location: Thankfully now a little more than 3 mi from Paradise (Missouri) Gender:
|
Posted:
Jan 11, 2005 - 3:19pm |
|
|
|
steeler
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
|
Posted:
Jan 11, 2005 - 3:09pm |
|
|
|
rgj13
Location: The City Gender:
|
Posted:
Jan 11, 2005 - 3:09pm |
|
|
|
gandalfbmg
Location: Thankfully now a little more than 3 mi from Paradise (Missouri) Gender:
|
Posted:
Jan 11, 2005 - 3:07pm |
|
|
|
|