[ElJefe]

This talk has been up a few times. Demoncrats are screaming at Romney for lying, but the AEI has this to say:

http://www.american.com/archive/2012/oct...ddle-class

If you include the possibility of dynamic effects, the Romney plan becomes tenable. Empirical evidence indicates dynamic effects are real and significant, especially for high income earners. Prescott had some optimistic estimates, but they do have an impact in the long run.

I had no idea TPC did not include dynamic effects. That really surprised me. The ball for intellectual dishonesty (as far as this is concerned) is now firmly in the other court...

[jammer]

Im in the camp that you should never have wildly optimistic projections. Always project conservatively.

[_GQ_]

(10-08-2012 12:05 PM)jammer Wrote:  

Im in the camp that you should never have wildly optimistic projections. Always project conservatively.

Spoken like a true accountant.

[Hotwheels]

Neither candidates plan is based on reality, so why call out Romney?

[The_CEO]

http://www.examiner.com/article/romney-u...r-the-rich

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PrtNHoyxppE

[ElJefe]

A conservative projection would be that the dynamic effects for labor supply are small as opposed to big.

A projection that there are no dynamic effects is unrealistic cf. Laffer-Curve, Mankiw-Weinzierl, etc.

Accouting is arithmetic. Economics is much, much more.

[Handsome Creepy Eel]

I don't give a damn if his plan is a tax hike on the middle class, I only care about the fact that he considers taxes on the richest too low, and that he has never provided any exact descriptions of which loopholes he would close to supposedly slash the deficit.

What Is Actually Included in Romney’s Tax Plan Wrote:

In order to objectively assess the claims made by the critics, let’s begin by looking closely at the key components of Romney’s proposal:

Reduce statutory income tax rates 20 percent, from 10, 15, 25, 28, 33, and 35 percent to 8, 12, 20, 22.4, and 28 percent.
Reduce the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent.
Repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax for individuals and corporations.
Repeal the estate tax.

Three out of four are outrageous money grabs for the richest, with absolutely no economic benefits for the country, and one (reduction of statutory income tax rates) could arguably be called a stimulus, but at the cost of giving the rich yet another enormous tax cut that they don't need, having already received a decade of Bush tax cuts at the expense of the entire economy and the national budget. These kind of measures have never been proven to either balance the budget or grow the economy. The only difference in this election is that Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush were wise enough to see that it failed, admit the mistake and return things to normalcy. This sensible urge is completely absent from Mitt Romney and most of the Republican Party of the last two decades.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/new...h-20111109
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/new...a-20120928

[jammer]

(10-08-2012 01:12 PM)ElJefe Wrote:  

A conservative projection would be that the dynamic effects for labor supply are small as opposed to big.

A projection that there are no dynamic effects is unrealistic cf. Laffer-Curve, Mankiw-Weinzierl, etc.

Accouting is arithmetic. Economics is much, much more.

Of course, no one ever wants to say what point the laffer curve peaks. We aren't on the wrong side of the Laffer curve at this moment.

[tenderman100]

First of all, Romney would be a fool to get specific about which deductions he would eliminate and loopholes he would close. If he did that he WOULD be incompetent and not fit to hold the office. To do real tax reform requires building both a bipartisan and national consensus, and you can't do that unless you are in power. So people who complain about him NOT doing that are talking out their sphincters.

Second, our tax system as currently constituted is a mess. The subsidies, the AMT, rates that could change on Jan 1 -- it's an unholy nightmare.

Third, we should only be taxed for two reasons, and two reasons only: maintain the commons and maintain a social safety net. All entitlements should be severely means tested. The federal government should not be in the education business, the transportation safety business, the trade promotion business, the green energy funding business. Billions could be cut tomorrow.

Fourth, we should have a constitutional amendment that says we should never have government spending that exceeds a fixed percentage of GDP. I'd like to see 15%, but 18% is OK.

[tenderman100]

(10-08-2012 01:36 PM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

I don't give a damn if his plan is a tax hike on the middle class, I only care about the fact that he considers taxes on the richest too low, and that he has never provided any exact descriptions of which loopholes he would close to supposedly slash the deficit.

What Is Actually Included in Romney’s Tax Plan Wrote:

In order to objectively assess the claims made by the critics, let’s begin by looking closely at the key components of Romney’s proposal:

Reduce statutory income tax rates 20 percent, from 10, 15, 25, 28, 33, and 35 percent to 8, 12, 20, 22.4, and 28 percent.
Reduce the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent.
Repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax for individuals and corporations.
Repeal the estate tax.

Three out of four are outrageous money grabs for the richest, with absolutely no economic benefits for the country, and one (reduction of statutory income tax rates) could arguably be called a stimulus, but at the cost of giving the rich yet another enormous tax cut that they don't need, having already received a decade of Bush tax cuts at the expense of the entire economy and the national budget. These kind of measures have never been proven to either balance the budget or grow the economy. The only difference in this election is that Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush were wise enough to see that it failed, admit the mistake and return things to normalcy. This sensible urge is completely absent from Mitt Romney and most of the Republican Party of the last two decades.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/new...h-20111109
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/new...a-20120928

Rolling Stone. Yeah, right.

[bacon]

fuck obama he raised dividend taxes from 15 to 43% i could look past his terrible government policy but this shit is having me questioning my investment portfolio

http://beginnersinvest.about.com/od/divi...t-2013.htm

[ElJefe]

(10-08-2012 01:57 PM)jammer Wrote:  

Of course, no one ever wants to say what point the laffer curve peaks. We aren't on the wrong side of the Laffer curve at this moment.

Are you being deliberately dimwitted?

The marginal elasticity of labor supply is what determines the dynamic effects on the economy of tax-change. The Laffer Curve is a necessary assumption (f''(x) < 0) that allows you to mathematically derive an approximation for MES. The Laffer curve has also been empirically confirmed.

As far as taxing goes, first of all - you need to discern between rich and high income. Rich = wealth, whereas high income is basically a proxy for high productivity. The most productive people earn the highest income (in a free market economy).

The current tax system is burdensome on upper middle-class, who derive most of their income from employment, ie. the most productive. They are the ones who pay the highest marginal tax rates.

The low tax rate on capital gains instituted by Bush has served to lower the tax rate on guys like Buffet and Romney, because in an effort to reward saving, those who gain the most are those individuals who have saved the most already - the wealthiest. I personally think this is sub-optimal when weighed against the burden of rising public debt.

In your world, you try to tax the rich but only end up taxing the hard working ie the most productive. Taxing income is taxing productivity and causes by definition efficiency losses, the scale of which is uncertain, but certainly significant. I'm not against income taxes, but the tax system would be vastly improved if simplified, and if marginal rates would reduced significantly.

Romney has not proposed raising taxes on wealth (capital gains) as I would like, but he has proposed lowering marginal tax rates, which is a step in the right direction and will provide substantial relief to households who's main problem right now is low savings rates.

It's important to discern between wealth, income and productivity.

As for corporate tax rates: research shows that corporate tax rates are probably among the most important in determining where businesses decide to invest.

25 percent is probably way too high (still above EU average). I'd say 10-15 percent would be more like it.

[ElJefe]

(10-08-2012 02:46 PM)tenderman100 Wrote:  

First of all, Romney would be a fool to get specific about which deductions he would eliminate and loopholes he would close. If he did that he WOULD be incompetent and not fit to hold the office. To do real tax reform requires building both a bipartisan and national consensus, and you can't do that unless you are in power. So people who complain about him NOT doing that are talking out their sphincters.

Second, our tax system as currently constituted is a mess. The subsidies, the AMT, rates that could change on Jan 1 -- it's an unholy nightmare.

Third, we should only be taxed for two reasons, and two reasons only: maintain the commons and maintain a social safety net. All entitlements should be severely means tested. The federal government should not be in the education business, the transportation safety business, the trade promotion business, the green energy funding business. Billions could be cut tomorrow.

Fourth, we should have a constitutional amendment that says we should never have government spending that exceeds a fixed percentage of GDP. I'd like to see 15%, but 18% is OK.

Agreed... the social safety net could be done far cheaper, and if we changed social security from a hand-out/pay-as-you-go fund to a "forced" savings with private accounts, the US could generate the largest investment fund the world has ever seen. It could finance infrastructure (toll-roads, bridges, railroads, you name it), boosting economic growth and earning healthy returns for citizens. Banks could bid to manage funds further spurring economic activity and the funds could be used to provide investment capital for poorer nations (that we liked).

The consitutional amendment is a good idea, but I think it should simply state that total debt should never rise about 5% of GDP except in times of war (requiring State of War being declared by Congress - this War on Terror would not count).

[bacon]

what we need is an economic policy which taxes wallstreet and not regular investors. no one mentions the 1000 lbs gorilla in the room which is the derivative bubble which is $1.5 quadrillion. a mere 1% tax on financial transactions larger than 1 million would do wonders to helping the economy. trust me no one who isnt mega rich would complain.

http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archi...ial-system

[Anon-A-Moose]

I'm of the camp that we need way more taxes. hate me if you want but there are two reasons behind it
1.) I'm of the staunch belief that if you are a have, and there are willing, hard-working have-nots, they deserve to be haves. Call it socialism, it's what I practice in my personal life as well (even though I'm usually broke, if I know someone whose needs are greater than mine and it won't hurt me to help them I will do so because it's morally right.)
2.) Stimulus doesn't work, it will not work, and it never has worked in any real way. Reinvesting the money is far more effective. I don't see why we can't simply have the govt jack up taxes on the companies (who are doing fine) and use the money to employ the unemployed on public works. This worked in the 30s here and in Germany, this has worked in other places, and this makes plain sense--the unemployed work, the companies get more business and more customers, the govt gets more money and work done, and it creates a sense of stability which is necessary for strong economic investment.

Tax cuts ONLY have a stimulating effect if a.) there's incentive to invest already existing and b.) they are temporary or seen as temporary, therefore you have to act soon. I have yet to see any real concrete evidence otherwise.

If you really must cut taxes, give tax breaks for domestic labor and production. Germany figured out that a labor-centered qualitative economy is the most stable system, with some socialist influence but also a free market. If you consider the costs of the impoverished alone, it more than pays for itself.

[tenderman100]

(10-08-2012 04:48 PM)Anon-A-Moose Wrote:  

I'm of the camp that we need way more taxes. hate me if you want but there are two reasons behind it
1.) I'm of the staunch belief that if you are a have, and there are willing, hard-working have-nots, they deserve to be haves. Call it socialism, it's what I practice in my personal life as well (even though I'm usually broke, if I know someone whose needs are greater than mine and it won't hurt me to help them I will do so because it's morally right.)
2.) Stimulus doesn't work, it will not work, and it never has worked in any real way. Reinvesting the money is far more effective. I don't see why we can't simply have the govt jack up taxes on the companies (who are doing fine) and use the money to employ the unemployed on public works. This worked in the 30s here and in Germany, this has worked in other places, and this makes plain sense--the unemployed work, the companies get more business and more customers, the govt gets more money and work done, and it creates a sense of stability which is necessary for strong economic investment.

Tax cuts ONLY have a stimulating effect if a.) there's incentive to invest already existing and b.) they are temporary or seen as temporary, therefore you have to act soon. I have yet to see any real concrete evidence otherwise.

If you really must cut taxes, give tax breaks for domestic labor and production. Germany figured out that a labor-centered qualitative economy is the most stable system, with some socialist influence but also a free market. If you consider the costs of the impoverished alone, it more than pays for itself.

I don't hate you, but I will say this. These ideas are really really dumb.

[ElJefe]

Lulz @ anon

[bacon]

doug stanhope gives some sound advice

[Handsome Creepy Eel]

Quote:

The federal government should not be in the education business, the transportation safety business, the trade promotion business, the green energy funding business.

And externalities? I don't think there is a single country in the world that actually functions like this.