it's not a tax

webmost

Here is what happened on January 1, 2015 :

Top Medicare tax went from 1.45% to 2.35%
Top Income tax bracket went from 35% to 39.6%
Top Income payroll tax went from 37.4% to 52.2%
Capital gains tax went from 15% to 28%
Dividends tax went from 15% to 39.6%
Estate tax went from 0% to 55%

All these taxes were passed by a Democrat super majority as part of the Affraudable Care Act.

STEPHANOPOULOS: "But you reject that it’s a tax increase?"
OBAMA: "I absolutely reject that notion."

Liberal apologists please explain to me now how this is either George Bush's fault, or racism. Me, I gotta go to work to scrape up more taxes.

MorganGeo

Most of these tax increases won't affect met. It's above my pay grade. LOL

raisindot

Snopes is your friend.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/whathappened.asp

Note the use of the word "top" in all of these statement. Pushing aside the fact that many of these claims aren't even true, most of the increases that are true only affect the richest Americans--those making $250,000 or more. And some only affect those with combined incomes of $450,000 or more. If you're making this level amount of income per year, then I'd gladly switch income levels with you--I'd certainly be willing to pay a few more points of taxes to be making that much money. But, personally, I don't care one whig about the 1%ers paying more. Since no matter what the government does, they always find ways to avoid taxes, whether it's domiciling assets in offshore hedge funds (like Mitt Romney and Jeb Bush) or using any variety of tax shelters.

If you care about 1%ers having to pay more, all the power to you. I couldn't care less for the crocodile tears of Trumps, Koches and Adelsons. These higher taxes have gone a long way toward reducing the federal deficit to a level below what it was at the end of the Bush era

In any case, what you posted is one of those common Internet myth items, just like the Mrs. Fields cookies recipes. Meaning that much of it is just plain wrong. These increases had nothing to do with the Affordable Care Act, but were passed as part of the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, which was passed as part of the fiscal cliff legislation of that time. 40 Republications supported its passage in the Senate and 85 Republicans voted for it in the House, which by then had already gone over to the Republicans. Many of these increases are the result of Congress letting the Bush era billionaire handouts expire. The payroll tax hike is the result of the expiration of Obama's temporary payroll tax cuts--part of the stimulus the Republicans hated so much.

In any case, Republicans have owned the House since 2010. Show me one significant piece of omnibus tax reform legislation they brought to a full House vote during that time that demonstrates their attempts to roll back these increases.You won't find one. If conservative voters were all fired up about these taxes, maybe they should have replaced their Representatives with candidates who reflected their point of view, instead of re-electing the incumbents who didn't heed their call. At the moment, I don't see Tea Party members representing the majority of House and Senate Republicans. You want to blame that on Democrats, too?

jgibv

raisindot:

Snopes is your friend.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/whathappened.asp

Note the use of the word "top" in all of these statement. Pushing aside the fact that many of these claims aren't even true, most of the increases that are true only affect the richest Americans--those making $250,000 or more. And some only affect those with combined incomes of $450,000 or more. If you're making this level amount of income per year, then I'd gladly switch income levels with you--I'd certainly be willing to pay a few more points of taxes to be making that much money. But, personally, I don't care one whig about the 1%ers paying more. Since no matter what the government does, they always find ways to avoid taxes, whether it's domiciling assets in offshore hedge funds (like Mitt Romney and Jeb Bush) or using any variety of tax shelters.

If you care about 1%ers having to pay more, all the power to you. I couldn't care less for the crocodile tears of Trumps, Koches and Adelsons. These higher taxes have gone a long way toward reducing the federal deficit to a level below what it was at the end of the Bush era

In any case, what you posted is one of those common Internet myth items, just like the Mrs. Fields cookies recipes. Meaning that much of it is just plain wrong. These increases had nothing to do with the Affordable Care Act, but were passed as part of the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, which was passed as part of the fiscal cliff legislation of that time. 40 Republications supported its passage in the Senate and 85 Republicans voted for it in the House, which by then had already gone over to the Republicans. Many of these increases are the result of Congress letting the Bush era billionaire handouts expire. The payroll tax hike is the result of the expiration of Obama's temporary payroll tax cuts--part of the stimulus the Republicans hated so much.

In any case, Republicans have owned the House since 2010. Show me one significant piece of omnibus tax reform legislation they brought to a full House vote during that time that demonstrates their attempts to roll back these increases.You won't find one. If conservative voters were all fired up about these taxes, maybe they should have replaced their Representatives with candidates who reflected their point of view, instead of re-electing the incumbents who didn't heed their call. At the moment, I don't see Tea Party members representing the majority of House and Senate Republicans. You want to blame that on Democrats, too?

jgibv likes this post

Ken Light

raisindot:

If you care about 1%ers having to pay more, all the power to you. I couldn't care less for the crocodile tears of Trumps, Koches and Adelsons. These higher taxes have gone a long way toward reducing the federal deficit to a level below what it was at the end of the Bush era

This is foolish. Those people primarily employ people. And in the case of the top payroll tax, that's the people that employ the most people. And you know what those people are very very good at? Retaining their wealth and making it grow. Guess how they do that here? They fire you. So you can read the list as:

Odds you get fired went from 1.45% to 2.35%
Odds you get fired went from 35% to 39.6%
Odds you get fired went from 37.4% to 52.2%
Odds you get fired went from 15% to 28%
Odds you get fired went from 15% to 39.6%
Odds you get fired went from 0% to 55%

Rain

Ken Light

Also you should snopes yourself if you're talking about the "1%" like that. For f**k's sake, that's 3 million people. For perspective, that's approximately the total number of native americans living in the US as of the 2010 census (just googled that, weird coincidence, right?). That 1% is not all Trumps, clearly, and that's a heck of a lot of people to hate and be so angry at.

Gray4lines

I wouldn't call $250,000 and up rich. Yeah, it's a lot. But depending on where you live... paying over half in income taxes blows. Heck, paying a third blows. I'm sure there are many who are relatively close to the cutoff that can't swing big time tax deductions like the super rich, but are caught in the same ridiculous bracket. Not to mention dividends and cap gains tax on stuck like retirement funds, although I suppose many of those are deferred taxes or have other tax-related subsidies.

raisindot

Ken Light:

raisindot:

If you care about 1%ers having to pay more, all the power to you. I couldn't care less for the crocodile tears of Trumps, Koches and Adelsons. These higher taxes have gone a long way toward reducing the federal deficit to a level below what it was at the end of the Bush era

This is foolish. Those people primarily employ people. And in the case of the top payroll tax, that's the people that employ the most people. And you know what those people are very very good at? Retaining their wealth and making it grow. Guess how they do that here? They fire you. So you can read the list as:

Odds you get fired went from 1.45% to 2.35%
Odds you get fired went from 35% to 39.6%
Odds you get fired went from 37.4% to 52.2%
Odds you get fired went from 15% to 28%
Odds you get fired went from 15% to 39.6%
Odds you get fired went from 0% to 55%

That's a wonderful bit of sophistry. Most of the jobs lost in the Dubya Bush administration came at a time where taxes were significantly LOWER than they are now. In fact, most of the job losses during the Great Recession occurred when the Dubya era tax breaks to billionaires and the Obama payroll tax cuts were still in effect. The highest rate of job growth and economic growth since 2008 has occurred over the past two years--during the time the Bush-era billionaire tax breaks were no longer in effect and the wealthy pay more. The stock market has reached record levels in spite of the fact that capital gains taxes are now higher for the Romneys of the world who make all of their income through capital gains rather than salaried income. In fact, despite these higher tax rates, the income gap between the rich and the poor has never been greater. The wealthy--even those who aren't 1%ers--are doing quite well, particularly if they are stock investors.

Higher corporate tax rates cause some businesses to cut employees or move jobs offshore, but more often the cost of labor, materials and transportation has a much greater influence. In spite of the complaining that US corporate tax rates are too high, the U.S. has experienced 57 straight months of private sector job growth. Many of these jobs are in the manufacturing sector, where U.S. companies are rehiring laid off assembly line workers because rising labor costs in Asia make it more economically advantageous to have these jobs in the U.S. So, the argument that raising personal income taxes on the wealthy causes job losses or stifles growth is completely--and historically--bogus.

Ken Light

raisindot:

Ken Light:

raisindot:

If you care about 1%ers having to pay more, all the power to you. I couldn't care less for the crocodile tears of Trumps, Koches and Adelsons. These higher taxes have gone a long way toward reducing the federal deficit to a level below what it was at the end of the Bush era

This is foolish. Those people primarily employ people. And in the case of the top payroll tax, that's the people that employ the most people. And you know what those people are very very good at? Retaining their wealth and making it grow. Guess how they do that here? They fire you. So you can read the list as:

Odds you get fired went from 1.45% to 2.35%
Odds you get fired went from 35% to 39.6%
Odds you get fired went from 37.4% to 52.2%
Odds you get fired went from 15% to 28%
Odds you get fired went from 15% to 39.6%
Odds you get fired went from 0% to 55%

That's a wonderful bit of sophistry. Most of the jobs lost in the Dubya Bush administration came at a time where taxes were significantly LOWER than they are now. In fact, most of the job losses during the Great Recession occurred when the Dubya era tax breaks to billionaires and the Obama payroll tax cuts were still in effect. The highest rate of job growth and economic growth since 2008 has occurred over the past two years--during the time the Bush-era billionaire tax breaks were no longer in effect and the wealthy pay more. The stock market has reached record levels in spite of the fact that capital gains taxes are now higher for the Romneys of the world who make all of their income through capital gains rather than salaried income. In fact, despite these higher tax rates, the income gap between the rich and the poor has never been greater. The wealthy--even those who aren't 1%ers--are doing quite well, particularly if they are stock investors.

Higher corporate tax rates cause some businesses to cut employees or move jobs offshore, but more often the cost of labor, materials and transportation has a much greater influence. In spite of the complaining that US corporate tax rates are too high, the U.S. has experienced 57 straight months of private sector job growth. Many of these jobs are in the manufacturing sector, where U.S. companies are rehiring laid off assembly line workers because rising labor costs in Asia make it more economically advantageous to have these jobs in the U.S. So, the argument that raising personal income taxes on the wealthy causes job losses or stifles growth is completely--and historically--bogus.

Now I see why you think the way you do: you try and tie these things together in time. You can't, though, it's wrong. You absolutely cannot look at two variables like taxes and economic growth at the same point in time and determine the relationship between the two. The effects of taxes on the economy are NOT immediate. They take time to take a toll because the powers that be tend to turn the heat up slowly on us so we don't jump out of the pot. Slow, small magnitude manipulation, slow and small effect and definitely, without a doubt, nowhere near immediate.

It's akin to saying "During the time when I weighed 300 pounds I had cut my caloric intake to 85% of normal! Now that I'm 175 and in great shape, I'm back to my normal eating habits. Clearly calories aren't related to weight."

jlmarta

Believe what Snopes says?? I think not.....


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2695832/posts

jd50ae

Taxes under CLINTON 1999

Single making 30K - tax $3,157.50

Single making 50K - tax $7,262.50

Single making 75K - tax $14,262.50

Married making 60K - tax $6,585.00

Married making 75K - tax $9,426.50

Married making 125K - tax $23,426.50


Taxes under BUSH 2008

Single making 30K - tax $2,756.25

Single making 50K - tax $6,606.25

Single making 75K - tax $12,856.25

Married making 60K - tax $5,512.50

Married making 75K - tax $7,762.50

Married making 125K - tax $19,462.50


And now for something completely different.
Slick Willy and Barnie and Fannie and Freddie: As ranking member of the House Financial Services Committee, Frank blocked tightened oversight over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, saying in 2003, “These two entities … are not facing any kind of financial crisis,” and, “I want to roll the dice a little bit more in this situation towards subsidized housing.” More than any other factor, the 2008 financial meltdown was caused by pushing these government-sponsored enterprises to encourage housing loans to risky borrowers. I believe Bush inherited this mess.


And let us not forget: Clinton road in and immediately took credit for the good position his predecessor left hm. What was his name.... And then he left the mess he created for your favorite whipping boy.


And it was LBJ that opened the doors for our SS money to be squandered on sooooo many things contrary to what it was supposed to be used for.

raisindot

Ken Light:

raisindot:

Ken Light:

raisindot:

If you care about 1%ers having to pay more, all the power to you. I couldn't care less for the crocodile tears of Trumps, Koches and Adelsons. These higher taxes have gone a long way toward reducing the federal deficit to a level below what it was at the end of the Bush era

This is foolish. Those people primarily employ people. And in the case of the top payroll tax, that's the people that employ the most people. And you know what those people are very very good at? Retaining their wealth and making it grow. Guess how they do that here? They fire you. So you can read the list as:

Odds you get fired went from 1.45% to 2.35%
Odds you get fired went from 35% to 39.6%
Odds you get fired went from 37.4% to 52.2%
Odds you get fired went from 15% to 28%
Odds you get fired went from 15% to 39.6%
Odds you get fired went from 0% to 55%

That's a wonderful bit of sophistry. Most of the jobs lost in the Dubya Bush administration came at a time where taxes were significantly LOWER than they are now. In fact, most of the job losses during the Great Recession occurred when the Dubya era tax breaks to billionaires and the Obama payroll tax cuts were still in effect. The highest rate of job growth and economic growth since 2008 has occurred over the past two years--during the time the Bush-era billionaire tax breaks were no longer in effect and the wealthy pay more. The stock market has reached record levels in spite of the fact that capital gains taxes are now higher for the Romneys of the world who make all of their income through capital gains rather than salaried income. In fact, despite these higher tax rates, the income gap between the rich and the poor has never been greater. The wealthy--even those who aren't 1%ers--are doing quite well, particularly if they are stock investors.

Higher corporate tax rates cause some businesses to cut employees or move jobs offshore, but more often the cost of labor, materials and transportation has a much greater influence. In spite of the complaining that US corporate tax rates are too high, the U.S. has experienced 57 straight months of private sector job growth. Many of these jobs are in the manufacturing sector, where U.S. companies are rehiring laid off assembly line workers because rising labor costs in Asia make it more economically advantageous to have these jobs in the U.S. So, the argument that raising personal income taxes on the wealthy causes job losses or stifles growth is completely--and historically--bogus.

Now I see why you think the way you do: you try and tie these things together in time. You can't, though, it's wrong. You absolutely cannot look at two variables like taxes and economic growth at the same point in time and determine the relationship between the two. The effects of taxes on the economy are NOT immediate. They take time to take a toll because the powers that be tend to turn the heat up slowly on us so we don't jump out of the pot. Slow, small magnitude manipulation, slow and small effect and definitely, without a doubt, nowhere near immediate.

It's akin to saying "During the time when I weighed 300 pounds I had cut my caloric intake to 85% of normal! Now that I'm 175 and in great shape, I'm back to my normal eating habits. Clearly calories aren't related to weight."

If this is your claim, you're going against just about the entire Republican party, which, for decades, has insisted that tax cuts stimulate economic growth and tax hikes stifle it. You yourself did the same thing in your arguments above, when you claim that personal income tax hikes will increase the odds of layoffs. You're making a prediction that depends on a time series event to correlate it (note I say correlate, not prove. Personally, I don't believe personal income tax policy has any effect whatsoever on the economy or jobs. Most Republicans believe otherwise). You can't have it both ways. Tax hikes or tax cuts either cause job gains or losses or they don't, and time and job growth numbers are the only ways you can correlate the two.

Now, if you want to say that these tax hikes are unfair, burden the rich, represent taxation without representation, give the gummint too much money, take away your cigar money, and are a liberal plot to weaken America, well, that's pretty much what Webmost stated at the start of this thread. I buy that as a totally legitimate POV, even though I disagree with it. But inherent in this argument is one that says higher taxes destroy America. The only way for a looney liberal to refute that argument is to provide data that says this isn't true. Otherwise it's just another "Argument Clinic."

Boy, it's been quite a while since there's been a real political cage fight around here. Until this one the best could be done was to necro the Puro rant. Keep the fur flying!

90+ Irishman

Not to come in and play Devil's Advocate but why does it HAVE to be just one way or the other. Why does it HAVE TO be raising taxes stifles economy and tax breaks stimulate it. What is being discussed is any incredibly complex and very very layered and complicated system involving rg billions of people, thousands of roles and billions of dollars. Maybe I'm just being naive but I don't think something that complicated can be summed up in such a neat and clean way as; if this happens this is the result. The more complicated the system the more difficult it is to truly discern the effects of making a change in a single area of it. The only part that bugs me is the pounding your fist on the desk stating with conviction that "it MUST be this way or the other"..... To me that seems far too limiting for such a complex and multivariabled system. But hey what do I know, this is the first time I've ever posted in a political thread

Ken Light

raisindot:

Ken Light:

raisindot:

Ken Light:

raisindot:

If you care about 1%ers having to pay more, all the power to you. I couldn't care less for the crocodile tears of Trumps, Koches and Adelsons. These higher taxes have gone a long way toward reducing the federal deficit to a level below what it was at the end of the Bush era

This is foolish. Those people primarily employ people. And in the case of the top payroll tax, that's the people that employ the most people. And you know what those people are very very good at? Retaining their wealth and making it grow. Guess how they do that here? They fire you. So you can read the list as:

Odds you get fired went from 1.45% to 2.35%
Odds you get fired went from 35% to 39.6%
Odds you get fired went from 37.4% to 52.2%
Odds you get fired went from 15% to 28%
Odds you get fired went from 15% to 39.6%
Odds you get fired went from 0% to 55%

That's a wonderful bit of sophistry. Most of the jobs lost in the Dubya Bush administration came at a time where taxes were significantly LOWER than they are now. In fact, most of the job losses during the Great Recession occurred when the Dubya era tax breaks to billionaires and the Obama payroll tax cuts were still in effect. The highest rate of job growth and economic growth since 2008 has occurred over the past two years--during the time the Bush-era billionaire tax breaks were no longer in effect and the wealthy pay more. The stock market has reached record levels in spite of the fact that capital gains taxes are now higher for the Romneys of the world who make all of their income through capital gains rather than salaried income. In fact, despite these higher tax rates, the income gap between the rich and the poor has never been greater. The wealthy--even those who aren't 1%ers--are doing quite well, particularly if they are stock investors.

Higher corporate tax rates cause some businesses to cut employees or move jobs offshore, but more often the cost of labor, materials and transportation has a much greater influence. In spite of the complaining that US corporate tax rates are too high, the U.S. has experienced 57 straight months of private sector job growth. Many of these jobs are in the manufacturing sector, where U.S. companies are rehiring laid off assembly line workers because rising labor costs in Asia make it more economically advantageous to have these jobs in the U.S. So, the argument that raising personal income taxes on the wealthy causes job losses or stifles growth is completely--and historically--bogus.

Now I see why you think the way you do: you try and tie these things together in time. You can't, though, it's wrong. You absolutely cannot look at two variables like taxes and economic growth at the same point in time and determine the relationship between the two. The effects of taxes on the economy are NOT immediate. They take time to take a toll because the powers that be tend to turn the heat up slowly on us so we don't jump out of the pot. Slow, small magnitude manipulation, slow and small effect and definitely, without a doubt, nowhere near immediate.

It's akin to saying "During the time when I weighed 300 pounds I had cut my caloric intake to 85% of normal! Now that I'm 175 and in great shape, I'm back to my normal eating habits. Clearly calories aren't related to weight."

If this is your claim, you're going against just about the entire Republican party, which, for decades, has insisted that tax cuts stimulate economic growth and tax hikes stifle it. You yourself did the same thing in your arguments above, when you claim that personal income tax hikes will increase the odds of layoffs. You're making a prediction that depends on a time series event to correlate it (note I say correlate, not prove. Personally, I don't believe personal income tax policy has any effect whatsoever on the economy or jobs. Most Republicans believe otherwise). You can't have it both ways. Tax hikes or tax cuts either cause job gains or losses or they don't, and time and job growth numbers are the only ways you can correlate the two.

Now, if you want to say that these tax hikes are unfair, burden the rich, represent taxation without representation, give the gummint too much money, take away your cigar money, and are a liberal plot to weaken America, well, that's pretty much what Webmost stated at the start of this thread. I buy that as a totally legitimate POV, even though I disagree with it. But inherent in this argument is one that says higher taxes destroy America. The only way for a looney liberal to refute that argument is to provide data that says this isn't true. Otherwise it's just another "Argument Clinic."

Boy, it's been quite a while since there's been a real political cage fight around here. Until this one the best could be done was to necro the Puro rant. Keep the fur flying!

No no, you got my argument wrong. I was arguing your interpretation of your evidence, not your claim. I was saying your interpretation of your evidence was flawed and thus doesn't support your claim. I never once refuted your claim after you made it, though it was counter to mine so I suppose inherently I did prior to it.

And I don't give a rat's *** what the Republican Party or most republicans think. I'm a free-thinking, independent voter. If the dems are so loony lately I look republican it should only serve demonstrate how terrible that side of the things is, if anything, and certainly not indicate my affiliation.

Amos Umwhat

jd50ae:

Taxes under CLINTON 1999

Single making 30K - tax $3,157.50

Single making 50K - tax $7,262.50

Single making 75K - tax $14,262.50

Married making 60K - tax $6,585.00

Married making 75K - tax $9,426.50

Married making 125K - tax $23,426.50


Taxes under BUSH 2008

Single making 30K - tax $2,756.25

Single making 50K - tax $6,606.25

Single making 75K - tax $12,856.25

Married making 60K - tax $5,512.50

Married making 75K - tax $7,762.50

Married making 125K - tax $19,462.50


And now for something completely different.
Slick Willy and Barnie and Fannie and Freddie: As ranking member of the House Financial Services Committee, Frank blocked tightened oversight over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, saying in 2003, “These two entities … are not facing any kind of financial crisis,” and, “I want to roll the dice a little bit more in this situation towards subsidized housing.” More than any other factor, the 2008 financial meltdown was caused by pushing these government-sponsored enterprises to encourage housing loans to risky borrowers. I believe Bush inherited this mess.


And let us not forget: Clinton road in and immediately took credit for the good position his predecessor left hm. What was his name.... And then he left the mess he created for your favorite whipping boy.


And it was LBJ that opened the doors for our SS money to be squandered on sooooo many things contrary to what it was supposed to be used for.

So, is the implication that whatever happens under one presidency doesn't manifest itself until the next president takes office? Each inherits the sins or successes of his predecessor?

raisindot

90+ Irishman:

Not to come in and play Devil's Advocate but why does it HAVE to be just one way or the other. Why does it HAVE TO be raising taxes stifles economy and tax breaks stimulate it. What is being discussed is any incredibly complex and very very layered and complicated system involving rg billions of people, thousands of roles and billions of dollars. Maybe I'm just being naive but I don't think something that complicated can be summed up in such a neat and clean way as; if this happens this is the result. The more complicated the system the more difficult it is to truly discern the effects of making a change in a single area of it. The only part that bugs me is the pounding your fist on the desk stating with conviction that "it MUST be this way or the other"..... To me that seems far too limiting for such a complex and multivariabled system. But hey what do I know, this is the first time I've ever posted in a political thread

Yours is by far, the most intelligent, thoughtful and level-headed opinion expressed on this topic so far. :

raisindot

Ken Light:

No no, you got my argument wrong. I was arguing your interpretation of your evidence, not your claim. I was saying your interpretation of your evidence was flawed and thus doesn't support your claim. I never once refuted your claim after you made it, though it was counter to mine so I suppose inherently I did prior to it.

And I don't give a rat's *** what the Republican Party or most republicans think. I'm a free-thinking, independent voter. If the dems are so loony lately I look republican it should only serve demonstrate how terrible that side of the things is, if anything, and certainly not indicate my affiliation.

Jeez, if I got your argument wrong I apologize. Not even sure what your argument was anymore. This ain't exactly the the Oxford Debating Society around here.

pelirrojo

raisindot:

This ain't exactly the the Oxford Debating Society around here.

I dated a conservative girl last winter... needless to say, things didn't work out. The smile and nod routine doesn't work so well when there's only 2 people involved in the conversation. I was touted as the "liberal" boyfriend to her parents. Went over like a lead balloon. I did give her dad some cigars though, so he still likes me. As a wise man once said, "If you end up with a boring miserable life because you listened to your mom, your dad, your teacher, your priest, or some guy on television telling you how to do your sh!t, then you deserve it." Also, "I'm no saint though, nor a judge. Rock that sh!t good and hard, and on your way out, wipe your d!ck on the curtains." Wait, what were we talking about? Oh, taxes. You boys can have fun with that.

90+ Irishman

raisindot:

90+ Irishman:

Not to come in and play Devil's Advocate but why does it HAVE to be just one way or the other. Why does it HAVE TO be raising taxes stifles economy and tax breaks stimulate it. What is being discussed is any incredibly complex and very very layered and complicated system involving rg billions of people, thousands of roles and billions of dollars. Maybe I'm just being naive but I don't think something that complicated can be summed up in such a neat and clean way as; if this happens this is the result. The more complicated the system the more difficult it is to truly discern the effects of making a change in a single area of it. The only part that bugs me is the pounding your fist on the desk stating with conviction that "it MUST be this way or the other"..... To me that seems far too limiting for such a complex and multivariabled system. But hey what do I know, this is the first time I've ever posted in a political thread

Yours is by far, the most intelligent, thoughtful and level-headed opinion expressed on this topic so far. :

As much as I wish it I simply don't believe that anything in life is as ever cut and dry as we would like it to be and while it would be nice to have everything meat and tidy and either falling into X or Y, there is no such thing and it just ends up as a mixture of the two. Life is so much messier than anything else we will ever know and trying to say that this action will have this specific reaction when working with billions of people in an emotionally and financially charged extremely complex system seems naive to me. Thank you for the kind words though, I don't think its because I'm level headed and wise or something but rather because I'm such a bad cynic.

Gray4lines

90+ Irishman:

raisindot:

90+ Irishman:

Not to come in and play Devil's Advocate but why does it HAVE to be just one way or the other. Why does it HAVE TO be raising taxes stifles economy and tax breaks stimulate it. What is being discussed is any incredibly complex and very very layered and complicated system involving rg billions of people, thousands of roles and billions of dollars. Maybe I'm just being naive but I don't think something that complicated can be summed up in such a neat and clean way as; if this happens this is the result. The more complicated the system the more difficult it is to truly discern the effects of making a change in a single area of it. The only part that bugs me is the pounding your fist on the desk stating with conviction that "it MUST be this way or the other"..... To me that seems far too limiting for such a complex and multivariabled system. But hey what do I know, this is the first time I've ever posted in a political thread

Yours is by far, the most intelligent, thoughtful and level-headed opinion expressed on this topic so far. :

As much as I wish it I simply don't believe that anything in life is as ever cut and dry as we would like it to be and while it would be nice to have everything meat and tidy and either falling into X or Y, there is no such thing and it just ends up as a mixture of the two. Life is so much messier than anything else we will ever know and trying to say that this action will have this specific reaction when working with billions of people in an emotionally and financially charged extremely complex system seems naive to me. Thank you for the kind words though, I don't think its because I'm level headed and wise or something but rather because I'm such a bad cynic.

Economists have devoted much time studying this exact thing in regards to all kinds of behavior. "Do people work less if taxes increase (supply side of labor)" demand hasnt been studied alot, as in "do employers stop hiring if taxes increase?" Lots more study in macroeconomics on individual consumption decisions as they relate to taxes and monetary policy. "If taxes increase, do I spend the same amount or different of money on stuff?" Holding "all else constant" we expect taxes to have the obvious effect...more tax slower growth, less tax more growth, because consuption drives the economy, not govt spending (read into government multiplier) but, In short, you are absolutely right and it's a pain in the ass to model our complicated tax structure and consider the relevant direct and indirect effects.

raisindot

Gray4lines:

Economists have devoted much time studying this exact thing in regards to all kinds of behavior. "Do people work less if taxes increase (supply side of labor)" demand hasnt been studied alot, as in "do employers stop hiring if taxes increase?" Lots more study in macroeconomics on individual consumption decisions as they relate to taxes and monetary policy. "If taxes increase, do I spend the same amount or different of money on stuff?" Holding "all else constant" we expect taxes to have the obvious effect...more tax slower growth, less tax more growth, because consuption drives the economy, not govt spending (read into government multiplier) but, In short, you are absolutely right and it's a pain in the ass to model our complicated tax structure and consider the relevant direct and indirect effects.

Totally true. While it is easier to "prove" cause and effect of things like taxes in very small, local sample sizes, it's nearly impossible to "prove" such things at macro levels. For example, if a bunch of companies leave your state and say the reason for it is because state corporate taxes are too high, then that's something you can use to bolster an argument that higher taxes drive some companies out of state (even if it's likely that other reasons--lower labor costs, lower land and energy costs, etc. also contribute to these kinds of decisions). Likewise, it's pretty well known that many snowbirds from the northeast live a little longer in Florida each year so they can establish residency in FL so they can avoid paying their home state income taxes. This kinds of causes and effect can be "proven" through interviews with people. But, given that most people and companies in higher-tax states don't move, the best you can say is that "some people/companies move".

But it's damn near impossible to "prove" that any policy, or economic data causes anything else when you're looking at the whole country. For example, some economists are saying that lower oil prices will stimulate consumer spending, and that the better than expected YOY retail season is proof of this. But maybe this increase in spending is due to the fact that more people found jobs in 2014 than in 2013, or that aggressive price cutting by panicked retailers encouraged people to spend more than they might have otherwise. Or that fears of terrorism or other doomsday scenarios made people decide they should spend the nest egg now. Who the hell really knows?

Gray4lines

raisindot:

Gray4lines:

Economists have devoted much time studying this exact thing in regards to all kinds of behavior. "Do people work less if taxes increase (supply side of labor)" demand hasnt been studied alot, as in "do employers stop hiring if taxes increase?" Lots more study in macroeconomics on individual consumption decisions as they relate to taxes and monetary policy. "If taxes increase, do I spend the same amount or different of money on stuff?" Holding "all else constant" we expect taxes to have the obvious effect...more tax slower growth, less tax more growth, because consuption drives the economy, not govt spending (read into government multiplier) but, In short, you are absolutely right and it's a pain in the ass to model our complicated tax structure and consider the relevant direct and indirect effects.

Totally true. While it is easier to "prove" cause and effect of things like taxes in very small, local sample sizes, it's nearly impossible to "prove" such things at macro levels. For example, if a bunch of companies leave your state and say the reason for it is because state corporate taxes are too high, then that's something you can use to bolster an argument that higher taxes drive some companies out of state (even if it's likely that other reasons--lower labor costs, lower land and energy costs, etc. also contribute to these kinds of decisions). Likewise, it's pretty well known that many snowbirds from the northeast live a little longer in Florida each year so they can establish residency in FL so they can avoid paying their home state income taxes. This kinds of causes and effect can be "proven" through interviews with people. But, given that most people and companies in higher-tax states don't move, the best you can say is that "some people/companies move".

But it's damn near impossible to "prove" that any policy, or economic data causes anything else when you're looking at the whole country. For example, some economists are saying that lower oil prices will stimulate consumer spending, and that the better than expected YOY retail season is proof of this. But maybe this increase in spending is due to the fact that more people found jobs in 2014 than in 2013, or that aggressive price cutting by panicked retailers encouraged people to spend more than they might have otherwise. Or that fears of terrorism or other doomsday scenarios made people decide they should spend the nest egg now. Who the hell really knows?

Haha, thats why I am not doing Macro! Sometimes you can aggregate up and sometimes not! Although I suppose there are statistical methods to control fpr regionality and other factors. Economically and model wise it all comes down to if you think youve included all the important factors (probably never, but sometimes pretty good). I honestly don't know a lot ab modern macro models so I can't say too much. I only know the foundational models in that realm.

raisindot

Gray4lines:

Haha, thats why I am not doing Macro! Sometimes you can aggregate up and sometimes not! Although I suppose there are statistical methods to control fpr regionality and other factors. Economically and model wise it all comes down to if you think youve included all the important factors (probably never, but sometimes pretty good). I honestly don't know a lot ab modern macro models so I can't say too much. I only know the foundational models in that realm.

Hell, even the economists don't agree. For example, how do you define a recession? The U.S, gummint interpretation is three or more months in a row of negative GDP. Recessions end when GDP rises for three straight months. But that's meaningless, because job losses tend to continue for months after a recession technically ends. For example, the recession of 2001 technically lasted from March to September 2001. But net job growth was negative in 2001 and 2002 and it wasn't until 2004 that total year job growth exceeded 100,000. Technically, the "Great Recession" started in December 2007 and ended in June 2009, but the huge job losses didn't start until 2008 and net job growth figures didn't turn positive until 2010. For most people (myself included), what constitutes the length and severity and human toll of a recession goes way beyond GDP data.

Gray4lines

raisindot:

Gray4lines:

Haha, thats why I am not doing Macro! Sometimes you can aggregate up and sometimes not! Although I suppose there are statistical methods to control fpr regionality and other factors. Economically and model wise it all comes down to if you think youve included all the important factors (probably never, but sometimes pretty good). I honestly don't know a lot ab modern macro models so I can't say too much. I only know the foundational models in that realm.

Hell, even the economists don't agree. For example, how do you define a recession? The U.S, gummint interpretation is three or more months in a row of negative GDP. Recessions end when GDP rises for three straight months. But that's meaningless, because job losses tend to continue for months after a recession technically ends. For example, the recession of 2001 technically lasted from March to September 2001. But net job growth was negative in 2001 and 2002 and it wasn't until 2004 that total year job growth exceeded 100,000. Technically, the "Great Recession" started in December 2007 and ended in June 2009, but the huge job losses didn't start until 2008 and net job growth figures didn't turn positive until 2010. For most people (myself included), what constitutes the length and severity and human toll of a recession goes way beyond GDP data.

I think you just have to be careful what measures you use and what you are trying to glean from the data. Points are well taken though! Not to mention the importance of the BLS measure of employment, unemployment, and participation particularly after a recession and when job growth increases.

90+ Irishman

Gray4lines:

raisindot:

Gray4lines:

Haha, thats why I am not doing Macro! Sometimes you can aggregate up and sometimes not! Although I suppose there are statistical methods to control fpr regionality and other factors. Economically and model wise it all comes down to if you think youve included all the important factors (probably never, but sometimes pretty good). I honestly don't know a lot ab modern macro models so I can't say too much. I only know the foundational models in that realm.

Hell, even the economists don't agree. For example, how do you define a recession? The U.S, gummint interpretation is three or more months in a row of negative GDP. Recessions end when GDP rises for three straight months. But that's meaningless, because job losses tend to continue for months after a recession technically ends. For example, the recession of 2001 technically lasted from March to September 2001. But net job growth was negative in 2001 and 2002 and it wasn't until 2004 that total year job growth exceeded 100,000. Technically, the "Great Recession" started in December 2007 and ended in June 2009, but the huge job losses didn't start until 2008 and net job growth figures didn't turn positive until 2010. For most people (myself included), what constitutes the length and severity and human toll of a recession goes way beyond GDP data.

I think you just have to be careful what measures you use and what you are trying to glean from the data. Points are well taken though! Not to mention the importance of the BLS measure of employment, unemployment, and participation particularly after a recession and when job growth increases.

Better solution.... Say Fvck it and pour yourself a bourbon and light up an ISOM and mumble under your breath "some recession" : P

Amos Umwhat

90+ Irishman:

raisindot:

90+ Irishman:

Not to come in and play Devil's Advocate but why does it HAVE to be just one way or the other. Why does it HAVE TO be raising taxes stifles economy and tax breaks stimulate it. What is being discussed is any incredibly complex and very very layered and complicated system involving rg billions of people, thousands of roles and billions of dollars. Maybe I'm just being naive but I don't think something that complicated can be summed up in such a neat and clean way as; if this happens this is the result. The more complicated the system the more difficult it is to truly discern the effects of making a change in a single area of it. The only part that bugs me is the pounding your fist on the desk stating with conviction that "it MUST be this way or the other"..... To me that seems far too limiting for such a complex and multivariabled system. But hey what do I know, this is the first time I've ever posted in a political thread

Yours is by far, the most intelligent, thoughtful and level-headed opinion expressed on this topic so far. :

As much as I wish it I simply don't believe that anything in life is as ever cut and dry as we would like it to be and while it would be nice to have everything meat and tidy and either falling into X or Y, there is no such thing and it just ends up as a mixture of the two. Life is so much messier than anything else we will ever know and trying to say that this action will have this specific reaction when working with billions of people in an emotionally and financially charged extremely complex system seems naive to me. Thank you for the kind words though, I don't think its because I'm level headed and wise or something but rather because I'm such a bad cynic.

I definetly agree with these sentiments, this is why I keep saying that the answers do not lie with either Dems or Reps, liberals or conservatives, but rather with discerment and compromise. I wish some group would come forward with ideas that benefit the greatest portion of the country with both Freedom and security, and reasonable security should not cost unreasonable loss of Freedom. Capitalization of F in Freedom is deliberate.

raisindot

Amos Umwhat:

I definetly agree with these sentiments, this is why I keep saying that the answers do not lie with either Dems or Reps, liberals or conservatives, but rather with discerment and compromise. I wish some group would come forward with ideas that benefit the greatest portion of the country with both Freedom and security, and reasonable security should not cost unreasonable loss of Freedom. Capitalization of F in Freedom is deliberate.

That's right up there with Irish's and Gray4line's comments as the most sensible, balanced and well reasoned comments on this topic. But then again, you're always the voice of common sense in these cage fights, Amos.