Taxation

[iNow]

3 minutes ago, waitforufo said:

So you two are claiming that stimulus injected into the economy by George W. Bush was responsible for the economic recovery?  

We're saying your claim that Obama is the primary driver of the debt is untrue. He drastically LOWERED the deficit, which drastically LOWERS the growth of debt that began well before he entered office. Had congress not been so obstinate, we likely could have moved to a surplus and consequently LOWERED the debt, too.

I'm saying also that, despite your aspersions that our growth was too slow... "the slowest recovery since the great depression" I believe were your actual words... we in reality did quite well, especially as compared to our peers. We were a model of recovery, even though we all would have liked to have done even better than we did. 

We're saying that your magic potion of tax cuts has been tested and your claims demonstrated to be untrue. In some marginal areas, reductions in taxes help. That's not the case here. Those who had money to invest didn't. Giving them a few more dollars via additional tax cuts on top of the thousands/millions of dollars they already had (yet were choosing not to spend) would not have resulted in a drastically different outcome as you keep asserting.

In your attempt to keep us divided and different, you're merely spinning webs of deceit. Whether you believe these untruths are are just trying keep us separate, I don't care. It's irrelevant.

I'm trying to tell you we're not as different as you like to suggest, but we must first at least be respectful of certain facts. If, however, we can't even agree on the temperature measured by a thermometer or that 2+2=4, then you're clearly not here interacting with us in good faith and it's frankly not worth the effort.

[swansont]

11 minutes ago, waitforufo said:

So you two are claiming that stimulus injected into the economy by George W. Bush was responsible for the economic recovery?  

Um, what? Where did this come from?

I may have to rescind my parenthetical comment about having a clue. Do you seriously have a reading comprehension problem, or are you deliberately trolling here? I'm not coming up with a third option.

I have to agree with iNow that it's clear you are not interacting in good faith.

 

[Phi for All]

We're paying $10,000 annually per person for privatized healthcare in the US. Canada is under $5000, but I just use this as a single-payer system example close to home. What I'd really like to know is why we can't have a MUCH better single-payer system than Canada (which we may spend an extra 25% to get), one that pays the doctor groups like the professionals they are within 30 days (might cost another 20% but it'd be worth it to have their support), and simply start it all off by using Medicare as the framework as Bernie Sanders suggests? It seems to me it would be a great use of public funds to reduce the horrible administrative costs involved when you have so many payers dealing with so many doctor groups. This is the kind of situation taxes are meant for, imo, where huge savings can be had among a huge portion of the population simply because we decide, as a People, to set aside profit as the prime motivation, and focus instead on the health of the nation. 

Would it be so bad to spend under $8000 per person, have better capitalized doctor groups, and cover many more people with needed healthcare (if Medicare was our national insurer, I personally don't think it would cost this much)? We know by now that a health insurance risk pool is necessary, but it's a horrible scenario to use for-profit models on since nobody can place a value on health the way we can with possessions and even life. Why are we shunning the solutions that help so many, save money for all, increase the level of service, just because it will increase taxes? Why don't smart People prefer paying $8000 in taxes for better healthcare, instead of paying $10,000 through their employer's private insurance?

[CharonY]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Um, what? Where did this come from?

My guess it is based on his earlier assumption that all deficits are caused by spending and  that all spending is stimulative. However, he did not take into account that deficits are also caused by reduced income (e.g. tax cuts) and not all government spending is stimulative. In a paper from 1990 Aschauer ( Contemporary Economic Policy 8(4):30-46 ) showed that:

Quote

The paper utilizes annual data to support the hypothesis. It finds that output "multipliers" for government non-military investment significantly exceed unity while multipliers for government consumption and military investment lie below unity.

I.e. military spending (which saw quite an increase under Bush) is mostly non-stimulative, or potentially disruptive (when the multiplier is below one).

[Ten oz]

We can argue all the theoretical economic tax strategies out there but most have been tried. We have had numerous rounds of federal tax cuts and numerous states have gone through tax overhauls; it doesn't help. One cannot point to a country which thrived and blossomed into a top economy in the world by cutting govt services and protections or taxes individually. In the U.S. those states with lower taxes have no economic advantage over those with higher taxes despite all the rhetoric. Business thrives in high taxes of San Francisco and New York City. Which isn't to say taxes are singularly responsible for NYC's or San Fran's success but they serve as clear examples that disprove the cries about business being choked by taxes. There is no state tax in Neveda, Wyoming, and other states so why aren't businesses moving to those states? If lower lower taxes, less regulation, and less govt were truly integral to a successful economy South Dakota and Tennessee should eclipse California and New York in the numbers successful businesses. 

[waitforufo]

On 9/14/2017 at 8:02 AM, CharonY said:

My guess it is based on his earlier assumption that all deficits are caused by spending and  that all spending is stimulative. However, he did not take into account that deficits are also caused by reduced income (e.g. tax cuts) and not all government spending is stimulative. In a paper from 1990 Aschauer ( Contemporary Economic Policy 8(4):30-46 ) showed that:

I.e. military spending (which saw quite an increase under Bush) is mostly non-stimulative, or potentially disruptive (when the multiplier is below one).

I did not say that "all deficits are caused by spending and  that all spending is stimulative."  I said that all deficit spending is stimulative.  The stimulative effect of deficit spending is basic keynesian economics.  Tax cuts are also stimulative.  Again basic Keynesian economics.  The only exception to that is one time tax rebates.  Milton Friedman won the Nobel prize in Economics for showing that one time tax rebates are not spent but saved.  I really can't believe you people are arguing against Keynesian economics. Keynesian economics is at the center of all politically liberal economic thought.  

If military spending is mostly non-stimulative, why did WWII not make the great depression worse?  Why do recessions almost always follow the end of wars?   

 

 

 

[iNow]

You only managed to go two posts without once more unnecessarily and divisively inserting the word liberal into your comments.

[Ten oz]

7 minutes ago, waitforufo said:

I did not say that "all deficits are caused by spending and  that all spending is stimulative."  I said that all deficit spending is stimulative.  The stimulative effect of deficit spending is basic keynesian economics.  Tax cuts are also stimulative.  Again basic Keynesian economics.  The only exception to that is one time tax rebates.  Milton Friedman won the Nobel prize in Economics for showing that one time tax rebates are not spent but saved.  I really can't believe you people are arguing against Keynesian economics. Keynesian economics is at the center of all politically liberal economic thought.  

If military spending is mostly non-stimulative, why did WWII not make the great depression worse?  Why do recessions almost always follow the end of wars?   

 

 

 

Give us an example of the Milton Friedman model working long term (over a decade) in a country or even a province or state. Keynesian principles have been attempted numerous times and you are totally ignoring the outcomes in favor of a entirely theoretical perspective. 

[swansont]

25 minutes ago, waitforufo said:

If military spending is mostly non-stimulative, why did WWII not make the great depression worse?  

That's not what the quote said. So this is based on a straw man.

[waitforufo]

8 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Give us an example of the Milton Friedman model working long term (over a decade) in a country or even a province or state. Keynesian principles have been attempted numerous times and you are totally ignoring the outcomes in favor of a entirely theoretical perspective. 

You are typing nonsense.  Milton Friedman noted an exception to Keynesian economics in the case of one time tax rebates showing that they were not stimulative because people simply saved the money for things like emergencies.  If the people believe tax cuts are long term they are stimulative.  If you don't believe that, your argument isn't with me, it's with the Nobel prize committee.  

Keynesian economics is the entire basis for government monetary and fiscal policy.  What planet do you live on.  

So if you don't agree with John Maynard Keynes are you a proponent of Friedrich Hayek and the Chicago School of Economics?

32 minutes ago, iNow said:

You only managed to go two posts without once more unnecessarily and divisively inserting the word liberal into your comments.

What I stated was a simple fact.  I don't see how it was divisive.  

[iNow]

I know

[Ten oz]

15 hours ago, waitforufo said:

You are typing nonsense.  Milton Friedman noted an exception to Keynesian economics in the case of one time tax rebates showing that they were not stimulative because people simply saved the money for things like emergencies.  If the people believe tax cuts are long term they are stimulative.  If you don't believe that, your argument isn't with me, it's with the Nobel prize committee.  

Keynesian economics is the entire basis for government monetary and fiscal policy.  What planet do you live on.  

So if you don't agree with John Maynard Keynes are you a proponent of Friedrich Hayek and the Chicago School of Economics?

 

Milton Freidman died in 2006. He have no idea what he would think of the current state of our econmy or taxation. You do not speak for him. You speak for yourself. You are not a noble winner. It is pointless to bring up the work of others less you plan to explain how you'd like to see them implimented. BTW,  Barrack Obama has a Noble too. I doubt you think that makes him and his positions beyond reproach? Obama's Noble is a useless factiod to this discussion and doesn't add or subtract anything. Either you believe  taxes are too high and should be cut or not. That is what the President and Congress is currently negotiating. Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell can't simple stand on the floor and state "Milton Freidman has a Noble" over and over again and hope policy materializes. Policy must be written and rhetorically complaining about Obama's deficits and self actualization are nonstarters as they fail to recommend an alternative. In my opinion your behavior on this topic is indicative of the struggles conservatives in the U.S. Congress has had legislatively since gaining control of all the branches of govt. They spent years rhetorically complaining just to complain without honestly considering alternatives. They knew they hated the ACA but never actually wrote an alternative, they knew they hated DACA but never came up with a solution, they knew Obama was too weak towards Iran, Assad, Kim Jong-un, and etc but never bothered to imagine policies which would achieve better outcomes, and etc. What would you like to see done regarding taxes??? That should be an easy question to answer on the 6th page of a Taxation thread.

[waitforufo]

2 hours ago, Ten oz said:

Milton Freidman died in 2006. He have no idea what he would think of the current state of our econmy or taxation. You do not speak for him. You speak for yourself. You are not a noble winner. It is pointless to bring up the work of others less you plan to explain how you'd like to see them implimented. BTW,  Barrack Obama has a Noble too. I doubt you think that makes him and his positions beyond reproach? Obama's Noble is a useless factiod to this discussion and doesn't add or subtract anything. Either you believe  taxes are too high and should be cut or not. That is what the President and Congress is currently negotiating. Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell can't simple stand on the floor and state "Milton Freidman has a Noble" over and over again and hope policy materializes. Policy must be written and rhetorically complaining about Obama's deficits and self actualization are nonstarters as they fail to recommend an alternative. In my opinion your behavior on this topic is indicative of the struggles conservatives in the U.S. Congress has had legislatively since gaining control of all the branches of govt. They spent years rhetorically complaining just to complain without honestly considering alternatives. They knew they hated the ACA but never actually wrote an alternative, they knew they hated DACA but never came up with a solution, they knew Obama was too weak towards Iran, Assad, Kim Jong-un, and etc but never bothered to imagine policies which would achieve better outcomes, and etc. What would you like to see done regarding taxes??? That should be an easy question to answer on the 6th page of a Taxation thread.

You seem to think that we had no medical insurance before ACA.  You seem to think that we did not have immigration law before that unconstitutional executive edict DACA.  You seem to think that someone other than the president is responsible for foreign policy. You are obviously completely ignorant on the subject of economics.  I clearly stated my opinion on taxes.  I want less.  Much less.  How could you have possibly missed that from my posts?  

[Ten oz]

32 minutes ago, waitforufo said:

.  I want less.  Much less.  How could you have possibly missed that from my posts?  

And I have repeatedly ask you for examples of countries or even states where less, much less, taxeshave benefited the economy.

[iNow]

1 hour ago, waitforufo said:

You seem to think that we had no medical insurance before ACA.

At least 47 million people, in fact, did not. 

[swansont]

2 hours ago, waitforufo said:

 You seem to think that we did not have immigration law before that unconstitutional executive edict DACA.  

When did SCOTUS rule on this?

[John Cuthber]

2 hours ago, waitforufo said:

I clearly stated my opinion on taxes.  I want less.  Much less.

Everyone wants less tax.

We also want better provision of things like roads and hurricane relief.

Some of us realise we can't have both.
 

I'm an outsider from across the pond and there's something I always wonder about. Perhaps you can explain it.

Why are you so proud of a healthcare system that costs  twice as much, but gives worse outcomes?

[Ten oz]

44 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

Everyone wants less tax.

We also want better provision of things like roads and hurricane relief.

Some of us realise we can't have both.
 

I'm an outsider from across the pond and there's something I always wonder about. Perhaps you can explain it.

Why are you so proud of a healthcare system that costs  twice as much, but gives worse outcomes?

I don't think anyone is proud about that. I think Republicans and their supporters invested a lot of intellectual and emotional energy in being combative as possible toward various policies  without any honest consideration for good governance. Now that they are responsible for making decisions switching gears is tough. Neither the executive or legislative branches actually had a replace for the ACA ready for debate despite the all leaders of each having campaigned on replacing the ACA. I think that is very telling. It exposes just how empty their rhetoric was. We are now seeing this play out with taxes. POTUS wants tax cuts. He says the biggest tax cuts in history yet has no specific ideas of what they will look like or whether they'd impact deficits. During the years of campaigning for the White House Trump never actually thought up an executable policy. Ditto Paul Ryan who has sold himself as a budget hawk for most of his political career. Turns out backseat driving doesn't prepare one to actually drive.

[John Cuthber]

Perhaps "proud" was the wrong word, but it seems that many Americans are very defensive of their overpriced, under-performing system.
Is there a reason for that?

[Ten oz]

58 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

Perhaps "proud" was the wrong word, but it seems that many Americans are very defensive of their overpriced, under-performing system.
Is there a reason for that?

Conceding that it is bad would beg to question how to fix it. 

[Outrider]

On 9/12/2017 at 9:16 PM, iNow said:

See also: A real-life example of your ideas, put into practice and failing spectacularly - KANSAS:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/2017/06/07/the-great-kansas-tax-cut-experiment-crashes-and-burns/#ebebb5e5508f

But why do we have to look to Kansas? There are 7 states with no income tax at all. I'm list them along with the number of homeless (per 100,000) in each state and then I will list 7 states with the highest income tax. Why homeless? I think it's a good measure of how a government takes care of the least fortunate among us and it's an easy number to find. 

Wyoming 146

Alaska  261

Florida 163

Nevada 252

S. Dakota 124

Texas 83

Washington 286

Average income tax 0%

Average homeless 187

The number in parentheses is the tax rate.

California 301 (13.3)

Oregon 323 (9.9)

Minnesota 133 (9.8)

New Jersey 99 (8.9)

Iowa 98 (8.9)

Vermont 179 (8.9)

New York 437 (8.8)

Average income tax 9.7%

Average homeless 224

 

[MigL]

I think both Phi and John have provided a solution to both cut taxes, and get better value for services.
The Canadian Health Care model provides much more complete coverage as it is universal, and costs half the price.

As with everything else, saying we need more or less  taxation is useless. What we need is better value for our money. And the ACA doesn't seem to provide it.

Should it be scrapped ? Of course.
But only if replaced with a more inclusive, and better managed system. 

[Outrider]

35 minutes ago, MigL said:

As with everything else, saying we need more or less  taxation is useless. What we need is better value for our money.

Thanks MigL that is exactly the point of my post. I'm going to hammer some more on that.

 

39 minutes ago, MigL said:

And the ACA doesn't seem to provide it.

It has been very hard financially on me. I would love to see something better. I will look into the Candian system.

[Ten oz]

39 minutes ago, Outrider said:

But why do we have to look to Kansas? There are 7 states with no income tax at all. I'm list them along with the number of homeless (per 100,000) in each state and then I will list 7 states with the highest income tax. Why homeless? I think it's a good measure of how a government takes care of the least fortunate among us and it's an easy number to find. 

Wyoming 146

Alaska  261

Florida 163

Nevada 252

S. Dakota 124

Texas 83

Washington 286

Average income tax 0%

Average homeless 187

The number in parentheses is the tax rate.

California 301 (13.3)

Oregon 323 (9.9)

Minnesota 133 (9.8)

New Jersey 99 (8.9)

Iowa 98 (8.9)

Vermont 179 (8.9)

New York 437 (8.8)

Average income tax 9.7%

Average homeless 224

 

iNow's link looked at the impact on the state of Kansas to tax cuts and not the per capitia homeless rate around the country. Bit of a bait and switch at work here. When politicians argue taxes the number of homeless people is never the issue. At least not that I have seen. Tax debates normally revolve around jobs and govt budgets.

46 minutes ago, MigL said:

I think both Phi and John have provided a solution to both cut taxes, and get better value for services.
The Canadian Health Care model provides much more complete coverage as it is universal, and costs half the price.

As with everything else, saying we need more or less  taxation is useless. What we need is better value for our money. And the ACA doesn't seem to provide it.

Should it be scrapped ? Of course.
But only if replaced with a more inclusive, and better managed system. 

 

3 minutes ago, Outrider said:

Thanks MigL that is exactly the point of my post. I'm going to hammer some more on that.

 

It has been very hard financially on me. I would love to see something better. I will look into the Candian system.

It is very easy for everyone to agree with MigL's point about spending because on all sides of the political spectrum people feel govt money going towards things they don't argee with is money wasted or mismanaged. As a result all sides feel we need to do better. The rest of MigL's post states we should use the Candian model or keep the ACA in lieu of a superior alternative. The Canadian model won't reduce taxes or direct govt involvement in healthcare.

[Outrider]

3 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

iNow's link looked at the impact on the state of Kansas to tax cuts and not the per capitia homeless rate around the country. Bit of a bait and switch at work here. When politicians argue taxes the number of homeless people is never the issue. At least not that I have seen. Tax debates normally revolve around jobs and govt budgets.

Plenty of jobs in Texas. 

If they had decent jobs they wouldn't be homeless. And budgeting is one of the problems also corruption. No matter how high the taxes if they are not managed well failure will result.

 

53 minutes ago, MigL said:

As with everything else, saying we need more or less  taxation is useless. What we need is better value for our money.

QFT.

Look I'm an old conservative who ditched the republicans years ago because they can't manage a party much less a country. The democrats are only marginally better. We all need too stop settling for less. 

Instead of telling our political parties what we want we need to demand accountability from whoever is in power.

High or low taxes is not a conservative/liberal issue. Regan had both higher capital gains and top income rates than did Obama. And both managed the country very well.