Here is Politifact's piece on Warren Buffett's column from this week. Plenty of data and facts to examine...if you are willing, of course.
9 comments:
6Kings
said...
As we have pointed out many times, taxes on the rich won't even make a dent on deficits. In fact, I just ran the numbers from Buffets facts and even taxing the mega rich at 80% does very little. Why, because it isn't a revenue problem we are having - it is spending. I have shown you numbers multiple times and yet you ignore it. Oh, every bit of tax revenue helps I am sure but guess what, government is extremely inefficient and irresponsible with money - a FACT. Heck, they just gave a hundred million to Hamas this week. We could have made 100 American citizens millionaires but we would rather push our tax dollars to Hamas controlled terror zone in Gaza. Thanks for investing in terrorism Obama!
There exists robust empirical evidence that taxes impede economic activity. In conventional economics, only the magnitude of the negative impact of taxes on economic output is debated, not the existence of such an effect.
Wait, didn't you just say this: We hear a lot of garbage from the right about how higher taxes will lead to lack of investment and job losses.
And then this from the article: Instead of picking one historic event that happens to fit your preferred theory, a more reasonable approach is to investigate all historical periods where taxes increased or decreased. This has been done by former Obama advisor Christina Romer and her husband David Romer. They also take into account the causes of tax increases.1 They find that tax increases tend to reduce economic growth, stating that “tax increases appear to have a very large, sustained, and highly significant negative impact on output,” as “an exogenous tax increase of one percent of GDP lowers real GDP by almost three percent.” Similar results have been obtained by Harvard economist Alberto Alesina using a different methodology.2
Oh, and this: Profit taxes lower the amount of capital available for reinvestment. The negative effect of corporate income taxes on business investments has been confirmed by numerous studies, such as a recent one conducted by Harvard economist Andrei Shleifer and co-authors.9
Seems to me, you are getting hammered by a lot of evidence but maybe you can ignore it too.
BUT you are right in one regard in that the Tax Code needs work because it is a mess and not fair to all.
because it isn't a revenue problem we are having - it is spending.
Then how do you account for the Bush Tax Cuts lowering revenue by $1.3T from 2001 to 2011?
Seems to me, you are getting hammered by a lot of evidence but maybe you can ignore it too
#3-Projection/Flipping.
The fact is that all of the evidence points to tax cuts making things worse. By all means, look at the various points in history when we had higher taxes and then compare it to our growth. How did we do under Clinton? How did we do in the post WWII era?
How ironic that you should bring up your favorite slice of slanted truthiness, Politifact and how it doesn't let facts get in the way of liberal narrative!
As for the topic at hand, revenue is off, as might be expected during a recession - by about 3 points of GDP. Spending on the other hand is up 7 points of GDP over what could be considered sustainable. I'll grant you that revenue could come up (not just by sticking to the rich until your heart is content) - but not as much as spending has to come down.
Then how do you account for the Bush Tax Cuts lowering revenue by $1.3T from 2001 to 2011?
Fed Receipts 2001: 1,991 B Fed Receipts 2010: 2.162 B (Current Dollars)
from www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/historicals
I don't see 8.5% growth as losing 1.3 T. Where did you get that number?
But why do you continue to bring up the revenue side when we are pointing out spending is at historical unprecedented numbers. In fact, all your posts continue to hammer on tax as a solution yet you apparently haven't looked at the numbers. Why aren't you dealing with the elephant in the room - Spending. Not a Revenue Problem - Again
If Congress, rather than borrowing or cutting spending, raised income taxes by the $1.3 trillion necessary to pay for 2010 deficit spending, it would need to more than double income tax collections. In fact, income tax revenue would need to increase by 144% to cover the overspending.
If Obama convinced Congress to simply tax small business owners and investors who make $250,000 or more per year to pay off the deficit, their rates would have to rise to levels that are not even possible. The top two rates would need to rise to 132% and 142%, which is, of course, more than they earn.
But the real jolt for tax-cutting opponents was that the 03 Bush tax cuts also generated a massive increase in federal tax receipts. From 2004 to 2007, federal tax revenues increased by $785 billion, the largest four-year increase in American history. According to the Treasury Department, individual and corporate income tax receipts were up 40 percent in the three years following the Bush tax cuts. And (bonus) the rich paid an even higher percentage of the total tax burden than they had at any time in at least the previous 40 years.
Fact is, tax cuts work. There may be diminishing returns and they may not be a panacea but they are never a bad thing UNLESS you have some fantasy about government being better able to use your money - something that is laughable on its face. Fact is, spending more than revenue always creates deficits and more debt. Fact is, this recession isn't caused by tax policy nor is is fixable by tax policy. Government has to stop meddling, reduce spending, and GET the F@#$ out of the way.
Jaxon left that number in a comment from a previous post. You'd have to Jaxon the source but I do trust him/her.
I insist on bringing up the revenue side because it's a third of the problem. The other two thirds are spending. So, again we have #3-Projection/Flipping. I have mentioned that spending cuts AND revenue are going to need to be addressed. Can't help it if you don't listen.
Government has to stop meddling, reduce spending, and GET the F@#$ out of the way.
I insist on bringing up the revenue side because it's a third of the problem. The other two thirds are spending.
Here's the deal. No one who opposes increasing taxes believes that the increased revenue will really be used to bring the budget into balance. So, using your formula, the way to build credibility about balancing the budget (let alone planning for surpluses) is to cut spending (as you note, 2/3rds of the solution) first. That would establish bona fides that Congress (both parties) and the President are serious about this. At which point, I personally believe most objection (but clearly not all) to increasing taxes would dissolve.
I'd go along with this idea and I think it might actually work. I have no problem whatsoever addressing ALL of the sacred cow spending programs and that's really what has to happen if we are to make any serious headway. Defense, Medicare, Social Security...that's the place to start and, unfortunately, where all the contention will be.
Hmm, I find myself agreeing with Mark here, amazingly enough. Of course, Mark's agreeing with Juris, too. If it wasn't so freaking hot that I refuse to go outside unnecessarily, I'd make sure to grab an umbrella to keep droppings from flying pigs from ruining my day.
9 comments:
As we have pointed out many times, taxes on the rich won't even make a dent on deficits. In fact, I just ran the numbers from Buffets facts and even taxing the mega rich at 80% does very little. Why, because it isn't a revenue problem we are having - it is spending. I have shown you numbers multiple times and yet you ignore it. Oh, every bit of tax revenue helps I am sure but guess what, government is extremely inefficient and irresponsible with money - a FACT. Heck, they just gave a hundred million to Hamas this week. We could have made 100 American citizens millionaires but we would rather push our tax dollars to Hamas controlled terror zone in Gaza. Thanks for investing in terrorism Obama!
Now to address your idiotic screed about taxes.
Fools errand with taxing the rich.
There exists robust empirical evidence that taxes impede economic activity. In conventional economics, only the magnitude of the negative impact of taxes on economic output is debated, not the existence of such an effect.
Wait, didn't you just say this:
We hear a lot of garbage from the right about how higher taxes will lead to lack of investment and job losses.
And then this from the article:
Instead of picking one historic event that happens to fit your preferred theory, a more reasonable approach is to investigate all historical periods where taxes increased or decreased. This has been done by former Obama advisor Christina Romer and her husband David Romer. They also take into account the causes of tax increases.1 They find that tax increases tend to reduce economic growth, stating that “tax increases appear to have a very large, sustained, and highly significant negative impact on output,” as “an exogenous tax increase of one percent of GDP lowers real GDP by almost three percent.” Similar results have been obtained by Harvard economist Alberto Alesina using a different methodology.2
Oh, and this:
Profit taxes lower the amount of capital available for reinvestment. The negative effect of corporate income taxes on business investments has been confirmed by numerous studies, such as a recent one conducted by Harvard economist Andrei Shleifer and co-authors.9
Seems to me, you are getting hammered by a lot of evidence but maybe you can ignore it too.
BUT you are right in one regard in that the Tax Code needs work because it is a mess and not fair to all.
because it isn't a revenue problem we are having - it is spending.
Then how do you account for the Bush Tax Cuts lowering revenue by $1.3T from 2001 to 2011?
Seems to me, you are getting hammered by a lot of evidence but maybe you can ignore it too
#3-Projection/Flipping.
The fact is that all of the evidence points to tax cuts making things worse. By all means, look at the various points in history when we had higher taxes and then compare it to our growth. How did we do under Clinton? How did we do in the post WWII era?
How ironic that you should bring up your favorite slice of slanted truthiness, Politifact and how it doesn't let facts get in the way of liberal narrative!
As for the topic at hand, revenue is off, as might be expected during a recession - by about 3 points of GDP. Spending on the other hand is up 7 points of GDP over what could be considered sustainable. I'll grant you that revenue could come up (not just by sticking to the rich until your heart is content) - but not as much as spending has to come down.
Then how do you account for the Bush Tax Cuts lowering revenue by $1.3T from 2001 to 2011?
Fed Receipts 2001: 1,991 B
Fed Receipts 2010: 2.162 B
(Current Dollars)
from www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/historicals
I don't see 8.5% growth as losing 1.3 T. Where did you get that number?
But why do you continue to bring up the revenue side when we are pointing out spending is at historical unprecedented numbers. In fact, all your posts continue to hammer on tax as a solution yet you apparently haven't looked at the numbers. Why aren't you dealing with the elephant in the room - Spending. Not a Revenue Problem - Again
If Congress, rather than borrowing or cutting spending, raised income taxes by the $1.3 trillion necessary to pay for 2010 deficit spending, it would need to more than double income tax collections. In fact, income tax revenue would need to increase by 144% to cover the overspending.
If Obama convinced Congress to simply tax small business owners and investors who make $250,000 or more per year to pay off the deficit, their rates would have to rise to levels that are not even possible. The top two rates would need to rise to 132% and 142%, which is, of course, more than they earn.
But the real jolt for tax-cutting opponents was that the 03 Bush tax cuts also generated a massive increase in federal tax receipts. From 2004 to 2007, federal tax revenues increased by $785 billion, the largest four-year increase in American history. According to the Treasury Department, individual and corporate income tax receipts were up 40 percent in the three years following the Bush tax cuts. And (bonus) the rich paid an even higher percentage of the total tax burden than they had at any time in at least the previous 40 years.
Fact is, tax cuts work. There may be diminishing returns and they may not be a panacea but they are never a bad thing UNLESS you have some fantasy about government being better able to use your money - something that is laughable on its face. Fact is, spending more than revenue always creates deficits and more debt. Fact is, this recession isn't caused by tax policy nor is is fixable by tax policy. Government has to stop meddling, reduce spending, and GET the F@#$ out of the way.
Where did you get that number?
Jaxon left that number in a comment from a previous post. You'd have to Jaxon the source but I do trust him/her.
I insist on bringing up the revenue side because it's a third of the problem. The other two thirds are spending. So, again we have #3-Projection/Flipping. I have mentioned that spending cuts AND revenue are going to need to be addressed. Can't help it if you don't listen.
Government has to stop meddling, reduce spending, and GET the F@#$ out of the way.
Good lord...
I insist on bringing up the revenue side because it's a third of the problem. The other two thirds are spending.
Here's the deal. No one who opposes increasing taxes believes that the increased revenue will really be used to bring the budget into balance. So, using your formula, the way to build credibility about balancing the budget (let alone planning for surpluses) is to cut spending (as you note, 2/3rds of the solution) first. That would establish bona fides that Congress (both parties) and the President are serious about this. At which point, I personally believe most objection (but clearly not all) to increasing taxes would dissolve.
I'd go along with this idea and I think it might actually work. I have no problem whatsoever addressing ALL of the sacred cow spending programs and that's really what has to happen if we are to make any serious headway. Defense, Medicare, Social Security...that's the place to start and, unfortunately, where all the contention will be.
Hmm, I find myself agreeing with Mark here, amazingly enough. Of course, Mark's agreeing with Juris, too. If it wasn't so freaking hot that I refuse to go outside unnecessarily, I'd make sure to grab an umbrella to keep droppings from flying pigs from ruining my day.
Another economist take on the Buffet editorial:
Numbers
Post a Comment