PDA

View Full Version : Zombie Lie



Qtec
11-25-2011, 05:18 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Zombie Lie: Fox, WSJ Still Falsely Claiming Lower Taxes Generate More Revenue

VARNEY: If you think that the way to tackle our debt problem is to raise taxes and cut the military, OK, I suppose this is a good thing. If you think that that will have a good outcome for our debt and our economy, yeah, OK, The Times has a point. I think the exact opposite. The way to fix the debt problem is not with higher taxes and cutting the military, it's to grow the economy. How do you grow the economy? In my opinion, tax reform. Lower rates, fewer deductions, more revenue to the Treasury. Better economy. [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 11/22/11, via Media Matters]

WSJ: "[N]early All Economists Agree That Lower Rates And A More Efficient Tax Code Would Increase Economic Growth And Lead To More Revenues Over Time." In a November 22 editorial titled, <span style='font-size: 14pt'>"Thank You, Grover Norquist:</span> The super committee's failure is rooted in a clash of visions," The Wall Street Journal claimed that "nearly all economists agree that lower rates and a more efficient tax code would increase economic growth and lead to more revenues over time." [The Wall Street Journal, 11/22/11]
<span style='font-size: 14pt'>In Fact, Economists -- Including Bush Advisers -- Reject Claim That Tax Cuts In The Past Have Increased Revenue</span></div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">EPI: Bush Tax Cuts "Added $2.6 Trillion To The Public Debt Over 2001-10." </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Bartlett: Revenue Has Been Historically Low Because "Taxes Were Cut In 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2006." </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Krugman: After Reagan's 1981 Tax Cuts, "Revenues Are Permanently Reduced Relative To What They Would Otherwise Have Been." </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Time: "Tax Cuts Don't Boost Revenues." In a December 2007 article titled, "Tax Cuts Don't Boost Revenues," Time magazine asserted that "economists agree" that the idea that tax cuts raise revenues is "false." </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Bush CEA Chair Mankiw: Claim That Broad-Based Income Tax Cuts Increase Revenue Is Not "Credible." </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Former Bush Economic Adviser Samwick: "Tax Cuts Have Not Fueled Record Revenues." </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The Economist: "No Serious Economist Believes Mr Bush's Tax Cuts Will Pay For Themselves." </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> FactCheck.org: "Revenues Would Have Been Even Higher Without [The Bush Tax Cuts]." </div></div>

link (http://mediamatters.org/research/201111220018)

Nuff said.

Q

LWW
11-25-2011, 06:09 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Zombie Lie: Fox, WSJ Still Falsely Claiming Lower Taxes Generate More Revenue

VARNEY: If you think that the way to tackle our debt problem is to raise taxes and cut the military, OK, I suppose this is a good thing. If you think that that will have a good outcome for our debt and our economy, yeah, OK, The Times has a point. I think the exact opposite. The way to fix the debt problem is not with higher taxes and cutting the military, it's to grow the economy. How do you grow the economy? In my opinion, tax reform. Lower rates, fewer deductions, more revenue to the Treasury. Better economy. [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 11/22/11, via Media Matters]

WSJ: "[N]early All Economists Agree That Lower Rates And A More Efficient Tax Code Would Increase Economic Growth And Lead To More Revenues Over Time." In a November 22 editorial titled, <span style='font-size: 14pt'>"Thank You, Grover Norquist:</span> The super committee's failure is rooted in a clash of visions," The Wall Street Journal claimed that "nearly all economists agree that lower rates and a more efficient tax code would increase economic growth and lead to more revenues over time." [The Wall Street Journal, 11/22/11]
<span style='font-size: 14pt'>In Fact, Economists -- Including Bush Advisers -- Reject Claim That Tax Cuts In The Past Have Increased Revenue</span></div></div>

<span style='font-size: 11pt'><span style="color: #3333FF">This quote doesn't support the idea that the cuts didn't increased revenue ... although treasury receipts support that they did.</span></span>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">EPI: Bush Tax Cuts "Added $2.6 Trillion To The Public Debt Over 2001-10." </div></div>

<span style='font-size: 11pt'><span style="color: #3333FF">Neither does this one:</span></span>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Bartlett: Revenue Has Been Historically Low Because "Taxes Were Cut In 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2006." </div></div>

<span style='font-size: 11pt'><span style="color: #3333FF">This one directly disputes your conclusion:</span></span>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Krugman: After Reagan's 1981 Tax Cuts, "Revenues Are Permanently Reduced Relative To What They Would Otherwise Have Been." </div></div>

<span style='font-size: 11pt'><span style="color: #3333FF">So does this one:</span></span>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> FactCheck.org: "Revenues Would Have Been Even Higher Without [The Bush Tax Cuts]." </div></div>

link (http://mediamatters.org/research/201111220018)

Nuff said.

Q

</div></div>

It's a shame you aren't literate.

cushioncrawler
11-25-2011, 06:30 AM
MINOR FIX.
Tax kuts or tax inkreeces are not a major issue re the ekonomy. However if an ekonomy iz sick then tax kuts kan help fix it, a bit.

MAJOR FIX.
But if an ekonomy iz sick then what iz badly needed iz lots of gov spending -- ie deficit spending, ie a real deficit, ie a nonfunded deficit, not a funded deficit.
Lower taxes kan help.
mac.

Qtec
11-25-2011, 06:57 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">However if an ekonomy iz sick then tax kuts kan help fix it, a bit. </div></div>

As long as the tax cuts go to people who spend the money and not into the bank accounts of the super richer who already have more money than they can spend.

Q

Soflasnapper
11-25-2011, 10:52 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This one directly disputes your conclusion:

Quote:
Krugman: After Reagan's 1981 Tax Cuts, "Revenues Are Permanently Reduced Relative To What They Would Otherwise Have Been."


So does this one:

Quote:
FactCheck.org: "Revenues Would Have Been Even Higher Without [The Bush Tax Cuts]." </div></div>

Really? How so? I can see you denying the quotes are correct in their own conclusions, but surely they support Q's claims, rather than contradicting them. I do not see your point whatsoever in your reply here.

This is extremely simple math, so I'll lay it out for you in general terms.

Say, for a bizarre example, that the tax rate goes from 39.6% to 35.6%, a decrease of 4 points on the rate, and therefore about a 10% cut (slightly more). (I know, hard to imagine, but work with me here!)

It is said, and most agree, that this will have a stimulative effect on the economy, and the economy will grow faster than it otherwise would, yielding a greater income base on which the reduced rate applies, and somewhat offsetting the loss of revenue. This is Keynesian theory 101, btw.

Entirely plausible and likely true, but then the question is the order of magnitude of increased economic growth, to determine whether the increase in the taxable base will be large enough to entirely offset (or more) the dropped rate's tax yield.

Using a coarse model, to get the same revenue from X amount of income taxed at 39.6%, how much Y amount of income will yield the same tax revenue if the tax rate is 36.6%?

Solving, Y = 108% x X. Assuming personal income tracks well with GDP, we'd need an 8% growth to get 8% more income to get the same revenue at this lowered rate. More than 8% growth, if it is supposed to throw off still more revenue than before.

Has the American economy ever shown a real 8% growth year over year? How often? Certainly no such real gdp growth occurred in any of the W years in office, despite his multiple cuttings (and more cuts require still more increase than I've mentioned to equal out the lost revenue). While the Reagan years (briefly) saw such an increase, that wasn't in a 10% tax rate cut time, but a 29% tax rate cut time (70% down to 50%) requiring a still far larger amount of increase than 8% to make up the difference. Certainly, the far higher tax cuts (93% down to 70%, a 25% trim) of the Kennedy years never saw an 8% annual growth rate.

oppomix13
11-25-2011, 10:59 AM
good looking blog !

cushioncrawler
11-25-2011, 02:21 PM
But of course this iz all just wordage.
The real problem iz lack of produktion.
Lack of produktion iz due to lack of employment.
Lack of employment iz due to high non-employment.

The answer iz to get full employment.
Efficient employment of course, not faux-employment like in the ussr.

I dont like the word Growth -- there are better words.

Tax haz little to do with it -- bad theory, bad system -- tax affekts the slicing of the cake, not the size of the cake -- in a proper system.

If tax affekts the size of the cake then what u hav iz a shitty ekonomik and financial system -- krappynomix.
mac.