Could you please point to a source where it shows the historic relation between tax-burden and economic growth in the US??Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
Printable View
Could you please point to a source where it shows the historic relation between tax-burden and economic growth in the US??Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
The problem in Greece IS the massive government spending. I said in the post you quoted that growth can exist with massive tax burdens, not that it would exist.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
You've got a revenue problem as well as a spending problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...993_-_2008.png
Which may well be true, but doesn't help. The US, and the world, is a very different place compared with 10, 20 or 30yrs ago and returning to policies of the past will not provide solutions in the present.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
I've just been slightly sick in my mouth.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~jskinner/....EconGrowth.pdfQuote:
Originally Posted by Lousada
Page 11 of 26, figure 3A Capital Income Tax Rate vs Per Capital Real GDP Growth (Percent). The slope of the line is negative.
Page 18 of 26, figure 5 Capital Income Tax Rate vs Private Investment/GDP (Percent). The slip of the line is negative.
Quote:
a major tax reform reducing all marginal rates by five percentage points and average tax rates by 2.5 percentage points is predicted to increase longterm growth rates by between 0.2 and 0.3 percentage points.
Quote:
even these modest growth effects can have an important long-term impact on living standards.
So socialism/communisim/collectivism have been tried in the past as well, and for the most part failed. Why go back to them. History is a great teacher. Ignore history at your own peril.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1
You seem, as a lot of right-wing Americans do, to confuse people whose opinions are vaguely left-wing with socialists and communists. It is tiresomely simplistic.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
That's probably just because there was less global competition. Countries like China, South-Korea and India were basically 3rd world countries back then. Now they are serious competitors to the Western economies and their economies grow fast.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
Tax evasion is probably a more serious problem:Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
Greece loses
Great argument. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
Arrows was clearly refering to the closer to free-market solutions that the US employed 10-30 years ago. The logical juxtiposition is socialism/communism. Soft socialism, or "European style" socialism, is still socialism.
You have a sterotype that has slowly played out over this and other converstions of all conservative Americans having exaclty the same viewpoints, and that there is apparently no possible way for those viewpoints to have any merit. From what I have seen the "right-wing Americans" mostly try to debate the points. Whereas the "left-wing Europeans" resort to ad-homonym personal attacks. It is tiresomely simplistic.
I do not think of myself as a socialist. I presume you beg to differ?Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
Nope. Not at all. However you do advocate for some socialistic programs.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
Here's a secret for you, so do I. ;) That's where you are failing to see the nuance in my arguments. I have clearly stated that there is an argument to be made for some government programs. I would just like to see a reasoned well thought out discussion of said programs before we just accept them as "good for society". Yet you just like to lump me into some sort of ignorant, red-neck, right-winger American group and dismiss my arguments out of hand. Presumably because it is easier to do than research, and think about the basis of your philosophy. I notice that I have put up evidence to support my arguments, and I have not heard one peep out of you about said evidence.
That you can plot two aspects in one scatter plot doesn't mean they are causically related. According to my information the dot on the top left that dramatically skews your graph is Korea. The United States should be one of the dots in the lower left. In the upper right are countries like Finland, Norway and Luxembourg. Even though the US has one of the lowest tax-burdens of the OECD, it still has a below average growth rate. I don't think you can conclude from this that tax rates and economic growth are obviously related.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
The quotes you provided are predictions and not actual facts. The facts show that the average GDP growth in 00-05 (that means after Bush tax-cuts) was 1.5%. While the average GDP growth in 90-99 (that means during the Clinton tax-increases) was 2.0%. Again, there does not appear to be a clear causal relationship between economic growth and tax rates.
Indeed, which points to the need for something new. What that is... :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
Coincidentally I just came across the following:
The 1% are the very best destroyers of*wealth the world has ever seen | George Monbiot | Comment is free | The GuardianQuote:
What has happened over the past 30 years is the capture of the world's common treasury by a handful of people, assisted by neoliberal policies which were first imposed on rich nations by Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan. I am now going to bombard you with figures. I'm sorry about that, but these numbers need to be tattooed on our minds. Between 1947 and 1979, productivity in the US rose by 119%, while the income of the bottom fifth of the population rose by 122%. But from 1979 to 2009, productivity rose by 80%, while the income of the bottom fifth fell by 4%. In roughly the same period, the income of the top 1% rose by 270%.
In the UK, the money earned by the poorest tenth fell by 12% between 1999 and 2009, while the money made by the richest 10th rose by 37%. The Gini coefficient, which measures income inequality, climbed in this country from 26 in 1979 to 40 in 2009.
Something to think about.
No-one can do that because there is no direct correlation either way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lousada
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_8UVGnCIfOV.../marginal1.bmp
Higher taxation rates don't hinder growth; lower taxation rates don't encourage it. Likewise Higher taxation rates don't encourage growth; lower taxation rates don't hinder it.
Capital is incredibly efficient at moving itself around an economy according to whatever taxation rules are in place. As a result the bottom line is that high or low taxation rates do nothing either way to affect growth all that much.
I wouldn't necessarily suggest something completely new. I would say let's go with what worked reasonable well, like the US system between 1947 and 1979. As you just pointed out in your article, the productivity in the US rose by 119%. Do you think the tax burden during that time was more or less than it is now? Do you think there were more or less regulations during that time? Sure there were issues in that time, but perhaps the "solutions" didn't really fix anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1
Ohhhh, those rich guys are so damn evil. Let's get them. I fail to see any analysis as to how someone being rich is stealing from me, or even preventing me from gaining wealth on my own.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1
Mr. Monbiot convieniently leaves out the Kennedy tax cuts of 1964 (right in the middle of his "good era"), which dramatically cut taxes on "the rich", and boosted revenues to the government (not necessarily something I would advocate for).
So yeah tax cuts alone may not be the cure all, but I don't really see how they hurt, especially if your stated goal is to boost revenue.
So the ever increasing rate of inequality is of no concern to you as long as you can gain wealth yourself?Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
Why should it be some sort of goal to have equality of results?Quote:
Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1
If I gain wealth, I haven't stolen anything, and there is nothing stopping someone else from doing a similar thing, what is wrong with that?
Put another way ... If I have the motivation, the skills, the know-how, and yes the luck to get ahead, why should I be forced to give away what I have worked for to someone else simply because they have less than I do? How does that benefit anyone in the long run? Taken to it's logical extension, what you are proposing takes away anyone's motivation for innovating, improving, and making advances. How does that benefit society in the long run?
It has nothing to do with inequality, or at least that word that the liberals are trying to float to divide and separage the the country into class warfare.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1
The concern would be the same as existed when monopolies were broken up, sadly Washington does not seem to give a damn about monopolies. That would probalby becausse the Obama administration owes its existence to Wall Street which fundded its existance.
So all the sky-is-falling rhetoric one hears has noting to do with breaking up concerns of too weathy owners as was done early last century but to make the minorities, especially those who floated or waded over in the last ten years loyal Democrats.
I have not proposed "equality of results". I'm raising a personal concern that inequality is increasing as evidenced by this:Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
I do not believe that is justifiable, healthy or sustainable for society as a whole in the long run.Quote:
...from 1979 to 2009, productivity rose by 80%, while the income of the bottom fifth fell by 4%. In roughly the same period, the income of the top 1% rose by 270%
What a sad world we would live in if the only motivation anyone had for innovating, improving and making advances was making money, which is what you're suggesting.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
I, certainly, have never done any job purely for the money. Do you think my lack of interest in this aspect makes me a less productive employee? That, after all, is the natural conclusion of your viewpoint.
You have to remember that there isn't any bottomless resource of wealth or unlimited growth. The more you get, the less there is for others.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
But you have proposed equality of results. I assume by your quote that you assume that if the top 1%'s wealth grows by a certain percentage, that you would want the bottom fifth's to grow by an equal amount. If that is not the case, please explain your point better. What do you want to see in your perfect society in percentage growth terms, or income distribution, or whatever else?Quote:
Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1
I wouldn't say that money is (or should be) anyone's only motivation. But to deny that it is a motivation is foolish at best. Sure some people set out to invent a product to "benefit society", but most want to see a profit in it as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
Again let's look at a bit of an extreme example. Tommorow aliens land on earth, take over all governments, and busineses. They decree that everyone gets paid equally, no matter how productive they are. Do you expect that most people would continue to show up to their current job and continue to be just as productive as they were yesterday?
I completely reject this statement. Economics is not a zero sum game.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
You haven't answered my perfectly genuine question. Do you feel that my lack of interest in the money makes me a worse employee than would be the case if it were a tremendous motivation?Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
In your specific case, I'm sure you would say that you would work just as hard for more money or less money. That does not hold true for society as a whole. And it does not hold true for me in particular. If you tell me that no matter how hard I work this year I will get the exact same raise as the most worthless employee in my company, I know that my motivation will lessen.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
Think of it as an insurable risk question. People who are richer in society have a greater quantifiable interest in making sure that the society which enabled their wealth in the first place remains cohesive.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
It may not be completely a zero sum game, but it's almost a zero sum game. There's a limit to growth and the rate of growth. Ultimately it will be a zero sum game or a negative sum game when all the resources of the world have been exploited and exhausted and the population of the world keeps on growing. I completely reject unlimited greed.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
How hard someone works is almost irrelevant unless they are on a piecework arrangement.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
Labour like any other commodity is subject to market forces with respect to price. It has different statutory requirements and different cost drivers but it's still a commodity largely determined by the price mechanism.
I'm sure for instance that a worker in a furniture factory probably works far harder than an investment banker but because of the price mechanism a higher price is paid for the labour of investment bankers than workers in a furniture factory.
And?Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
If I was the employer and I told everyone in the firm that I was giving everyone a pay increase in line with CPI, then that's my business. If you don't happen to like it then you are free to take your labour elsewhere.
In that case, you must see some of the 'golden handshakes' for members of senior management who leave their employer under a cloud and be disgusted, surely?Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
Every person is different, but without doubt financial motivation is a factor in the vast majority of working people that have bills to pay. How many people do you think would show up every day and work just as hard if their income was to remain stable and the actual work were optional?
Does this not indicate, then, that for far too many people work is not a sufficiently pleasurable experience to want to do it for reasons other than the money?Quote:
Originally Posted by airshifter
As I've already said, I'm raising a concern, not making a proposal. As income falls for 20% of the population it somehow rises by a massive amount for just 1% at the top. Why is that?Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
Would you argue that it's just those with the drive and determination reaping the rewards of their hard work, and there's nothing to prevent those among the 20% from doing the same?
What do I want to see in society? A less selfish "I'm alright Jack" mentality would be a good start.
Very good statement :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by airshifter
Then the "others" must get off their ar$e$ and work smarter/harder to get more.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
I'll explain the point better:Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
Alan Kohler who is the ABC's economics journalist quoted this from the New York Times:
Alan Kohler. | alankohler.com.au
http://www.alankohler.com.au/sites/a...%20unhappy.png
Assuming an index of 100 for both cases in 1979, in 2011 the average family wage is now indexed at 137.49 whilst the top 1% has now reached an index level of 350.80.
Although indexes do not tell you the whole story, they do tell you that an average family wage is now only 37% higher than it was in 1979, whilst the for the top 1% it's 250% higher.
I ask you, is that fair?
And why is it that something as American as "Baseball, Hot Dogs, Apple Pie and Chevrolet" is now produced in Vietnam, Thailand, Kazakhstan and India?
America has already proven that given the opportunity people and forms would pay workers nothing if they could get away with it.
This video is fun if you've got 10 minutes:
Despotism : Encyclopaedia Britannica Films : Free Download & Streaming : Internet Archive
Now ask yourself, how does America rate in 2011?
I don't question that at all, that is why it is called work and not called play. But reality states that there are a great number of jobs that very few people would find pleasurable. Those jobs require other incentives to get people interested and for many the primary incentive is wages.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
I would agree with that. But I leave it up to the businessmen to spend their money as they see fit. If they asked my advice, I would advise them to give to charities, work programs, training, etc. But there should not be any governmental mechanism that would FORCE them to do so.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
I'll make a distinction a bit clearer. My arguments are not about what is right or wrong morally. On the moral front, I'm probably more "progressive" than many here would think. However I do not think that governments should FORCE my views of morality upon anyone. Now here comes Ben arguing that by being against abortion, I am forcing my morality upon someone. But I am not, I am protecting someone's right to life.