Smithers MINNEAPOLIS

I’d be much more intersted in politics if campaigns were still run the way they were 200 years ago:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/wayoflife/08/22/mf. campaign.slurs.slogans/index.html

Actually, low income people might not like the results of Obama’s plan for a very basic reason; marginal income goes to hire marginal workers. Take that away in taxes (or in fuel costs if Obama gets his windfall profits tax enacted), and watch what happens to the most vulnerable workers.

Yes, poor people have a LOT to fear from Obama’s tax plan, even if they don’t know it yet.

More hate and fear from the right.

That’s only income. It’s missing how he wants to nearly double the rate on capital gains. Also, taxes on dividends would go up and everyone’s favorite…FICA.

Bubba and Dube’

Would either of you like to provide any actual evidence of either of your statements, or are you both simply spewing unsubstantiated garbage?

Also Bubba, explain what it means to be a “marginal worker” to you.

First, the marginal worker is the last guy hired, the first one fired. Lowest skill, most vulnerable guy you’ve got at your company, more or less.

Second the evidence; when Kennedy (1963) and Reagain (1982) cut marginal tax rates, including those for capital gains, tax revenues exploded. The trick was that economic growth more than compensated for a lower tax rate. There are other examples in Russia, Singapore, Ireland, Sweden, and elsewhere.

And of course, if reducing taxes helps the economy, what would raising taxes do? You got it; it takes dollars out of the pocket of the guy/company who would give you a job.

it’s awesome how some folks boil everything down to black and white no matter the situation. Sort of like cut and paste response here, or there, or there, or over yonder…

Reagan (1982) cut marginal tax rates…tax revenues exploded

Great idea! Let’s set the tax rates to 0% and collect infinite revenues! Although, I’m puzzled why Saint Ronny raised taxes several other times during his two terms. Why did he want tax receipts to go down?

To have absolute faith in the Laffer Curve is one thing – to act as though it’s monotonic is willful stupidity.

So Bike Bubba thinks supply-side economics really works, eh? Maybe Bike Bubba would like to explain why the Bush tax cuts have 1) produced deficits, and 2) increasing unemployment rates. Or why the economy expanded so greatly after Clinton’s tax increases while the unemployment rate for non-high school graduates (i.e. marginal workers) steadily declined.

Um, jkruse, the Laffer curve doesn’t predict that. Nice straw man, though.

And Clinton, Jens? Well, remember welfare reform that insisted that those dropouts get jobs or training if they wanted to continue getting a check? Remember a new Congress in 1995 that kept Clinton’s spending in check?

And blaming a 2002 tax cut for a 2007 slowdown in economic growth? I would tend to blame out of control spending (Most Children Left Behind, Medicare drug coverage, and yes, war in Iraq and Afghanistan) for a lot more than I would the tax cuts.

I remember Newt trying to shut down the government and Clinton kicking his ass out back of the Lincoln memorial and then Clinton balanced the budget and we had huge job growth and peeps making a ton of money on the stockmarket.

I don’t remember anything that awesome the last 8 years.

On the Laffer Curve:
According to Nobel prize laureate James Tobin, “[t]he ‘Laffer Curve’ idea that tax cuts would actually increase revenues turned out to deserve the ridicule with which sober economists had greeted it in 1981.”

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

“I know conservatives talk a lot about trickle down economics but I have never seen any evidence that this works.”
Because it doesn’t. That’s why the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. They pocket it. Phoniest economic plan ever. Reagan raised taxes and the economy rebounded. It didn’t help that prior to that he practically invented homelessness by cutting social programs; it actually cost more to deal with the marginally mental ill on the street than it did in the homes. You get what you pay or not pay for.

First, the marginal worker is the last guy hired, the first one fired. Lowest skill, most vulnerable guy you’ve got at your company, more or less.

So let me figure this out. In a previous post you stated that all responsible people have jobs…now you’re suggesting that the “marginal worker” loses his job because of marginal tax policy…please elaborate on your ideas a little further…you seem confused.

Additionally, you have thus far proposed eliminating gov’t regulation and funding of health care, gov’t education, gov’t grants to make college affordable for the kids of the “marginal worker”, social security and medicare, child care subsidies, you’re probably opposed to unemployment insurance, and a host of other things provided through the gov’t. And instead of any of these things, the best thing for your “marginal worker” would to be to take all of the costs associated with these programs and give it to those who might employ that “marginal worker” so that the “marginal worker” can get more “marginal work”? And this will un-”marginalize” that “marginal worker” how? Sounds so good, I think you should volunteer to be a “marginal worker”. What would your Jesus do? Do you really have any evidence that this actually works, or are you talking out of your ass again?

Second the evidence; when Kennedy (1963) and Reagain (1982) cut marginal tax rates, including those for capital gains, tax revenues exploded. The trick was that economic growth more than compensated for a lower tax rate. There are other examples in Russia, Singapore, Ireland, Sweden, and elsewhere.

This is pretty pathetic evidence. It’s no evidence at all. In fact, it doesn’t even answer the original question–it’s simply a continuation of your bloviate nonsense. Considering you’ve cited your friend’s blog to prove your points on how to deliver health care for over 300 million people–among other ridiculous statements of facts based on nonsense, I’m really not surprised. Have you ever wondered why you have to lie to get people to believe what you’re saying? Bubba, go to the back of the class.

Well, remember welfare reform that insisted that those dropouts get jobs or training if they wanted to continue getting a check?

Could you please define “those dropouts” to me, Bubba?

Um, jkruse, the Laffer curve doesn’t predict that. Nice straw man, though.

It wasn’t a strawman, it was sarcasm. You didn’t address the serious portion of my comment – that conservatives insist that every tax cut will always result in increased revenues. Please explain how we transition gracefully from ’serious conservative thought’ to ‘jkruse’s strawman.’

I like how people take complex problems and use simplistic thinking to define them, then use simplistic solutions to solve them. If the world actually worked that way, we would be able to sit around, scratch ourselves and make monkey sex…

Bubba Biker -

Wait, I’m confused. I thought that big cuts in the top marginal tax rate, inheritance tax and capital gains tax spur the economy to greater heights. You mean that sometimes they don’t? Kind of shoots the “The trick was that economic growth more than compensated for a lower tax rate” logic right of the water then.

And then there’s welfare reform that forced all those marginal workers to get jobs even though those rich folks didn’t have extra money to give them jobs because the top marginal tax rate had been increased. Boy, those men and women must have been hustling!

As far as spending increases are concerned, they can be attributed to three sources: defense, Medicare, Medicaid. This isn’t surprising since our military has been in Iraq for years, our population is aging and is without private health insurance. There’s not a lot that could be done about these things. On the other hand, we certainly could have foregone tax cuts during a time of war.

I pity the fool that can’t make time for monkey sex.

Jim R, you’ve accused me of a lot of things that I never said. Certainly not all responsible people have jobs–some can and do lose them through no fault of their own. They do look, however, when they’re out of work, no?

And regarding “tax cuts raise revenue,” that is a common oversimplification of the Laffer curve. That noted, it’s also true that in the recent past, tax cuts have always ended up with higher revenues.

Which simply points out where we are on the Laffer curve–below the optimal point for maximum tax revenues. If you value what the government can do to you, this ought to trouble you. Tax rates are simply too high to generate maximum revenue for the government.

And this brings in that marginal worker again. Let’s take that guy earning a cool million per year and take $100k out of his pocket. Basic logic tells us that he’s going to, vs. the alternative, cut his spending or his investing as a result. Let’s use the stereotypes; say he skips buying a new yacht, or doesn’t put the money into venture capital.

Which, of course, puts a boatmaker or an entrepeneur or two out of work. There is your marginal worker, folks.

tax cuts have always ended up with higher revenues.

No they haven’t.

I win.

Simpletons….

Here’s another simple argument for you apes… The main motivation amonst human apes is to breed. Conservatives can’t find a partner without money and lots of it. They need to be able to afford fancy cars (penis extensions), and lavish their women with jewelry, mini-mcmansions, offer trust funds. They get angry when liberals want to take their sex money and divvy it up to the unshaven masses.

Liberals can’t get a woman because they don’t have anything to offer, other than a bunch of empty promises and how things could be if everyone took care of everyone else. But that don’t get them laid that often. So they need to take the rich guys money away from them, so everyone is middling in poverty, then they differentiate with the women through flowery words and acts that show how “sensitive” they are when in fact they are no better than any other animal, they just want animal sex.

I am bored with both positions and prefer darwinism. May the strongest survive…

skibby – so one more vote for monkey sex then. got it.

Bubba, I’ll even link to the Heritage Society to make my point:

http://www.heritage.org/research/features/budgetch artbook/fed-rev-spend-2008-boc-C1-Federal-Spending -Is-Growing.html

Every tax INCREASE has boosted revenues. The only decreases I see on this curve in the last 30 years occurred in 1982 and 2000.

Fascinating!

Jim R, you’ve accused me of a lot of things that I never said. Certainly not all responsible people have jobs–some can and do lose them through no fault of their own.

Here is your quote on July 11th, Bubba:

my mom, like other mature adults, had a job at the time

You’re right, Bubba, you suggested that mature adults have jobs, and not responsible people. But really, is this really something you want to split hairs about? I mean, what I screwed up quoting was actually more stupid than what I attributed to you. I guess I gave you too much credit.

Nice red herring and avoidance, yet again. When challenged, I’ve yet to see you actually follow through with anything.

@jim r:
1) if government is involved it _will_ go down hill.

2) if it is going down hill, then government _must_ be involved.

That’s it to the argument… why are you bothering with facts, proof, or history?

Tautologies are perfect.

Yeah…you’re right, pcomeau. It’s kind of like the “I don’t believe in Darwinism because it doesn’t contain absolute, fool proof, scientific proofs. But I do believe in a god because I took the leap of faith, and I can’t believe you’re so stupid as to not take the same leap of faith with me” arguement.

Again…you can’t argue logic to an illogical arguement. I don’t know why I bother.

–I made two typos on the word argument in my last post…I feel like an idiot right now.

I am bored with both positions and prefer darwinism. May the strongest survive…

But isn’t persuasive argument a form of fitness?

Get real.

I’m not a macro guy, but I do know that the Laffer curve is a pretty weak model of taxation. Both increasing and lowering tax rates have effects which are difficult to predict beyond the most immediate.

Tax increases almost certainly raise government revenue in the short term. The long-term effects on revenue are generally theoretically ambiguous–raising taxes can increase growth rates as well.

I do know there is a sizeable body of research on Massachusett’s property tax caps enacted in 1980, which were shown to reduce growth in communities constrained by such caps.

Furthermore, this assertion is simply incorrect:
“First, the marginal worker is the last guy hired, the first one fired. Lowest skill, most vulnerable guy you’ve got at your company, more or less.”
Marginal workers are often highly skilled and highly paid. R&D, for example, is often the first to go in a downturn.

I’m curious, Bike Bubba: What makes you think you’re such an expert in economics? What gives you the chutzpah to make such outrageous claims?

I’m curious, Bike Bubba: What makes you think you’re such an expert in economics? What gives you the chutzpah to make such outrageous claims?

“[It's] Econ 101″ – Bubba, ad infinitum

I’m curious, Bike Bubba: What makes you think you’re such an expert in economics? What gives you the chutzpah to make such outrageous claims?

He’s a six sigma black belt, which means he can do anything.

Dude needs to take Econ 102.