Trump, "not Paying Taxes Makes Me Smart"

Discussion in 'Pro-Liberal Discussions' started by amberbeer, Sep 28, 2016.

  1. FuzzyLumpkins

    FuzzyLumpkins Well-Known Member

    3,038 Messages
    451 Likes Received
    The only real world number he used was the wage elasticity. There's not a question that the rich got richer. I already showed proof of the inequality of distribution earlier this thread. Taht still is not proof particularly in light of the deficit that is created.

    The last was already discussed regarding the uproar from conservatives about the tax increase in 1993 in the Krugman article. If you want to actually quote the preponderance then I will read it but I tire of board conservatives expecting me to assume your argument and research it myself. Right now it just seems like a real scotsman argument.
     
  2. FuzzyLumpkins

    FuzzyLumpkins Well-Known Member

    3,038 Messages
    451 Likes Received
    Here is a Congressional Study from a few years ago:

    http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/r42729_0917.pdf

    [quote[The top income tax rates have changed considerably since the end of World War II. Throughout the late-1940s and 1950s, the top marginal tax rate was typically above 90%; today it is 35%. Additionally, the top capital gains tax rate was 25% in the 1950s and 1960s, 35% in the 1970s; today it is 15%. The average tax rate faced by the top 0.01% of taxpayers was above 40% until the mid-1980s; today it is below 25%. Tax rates affecting taxpayers at the top of the income distribution are currently at their lowest levels since the end of the second World War.

    The results of the analysis suggest that changes over the past 65 years in the top marginal tax rate and the top capital gains tax rate do not appear correlated with economic growth. The reduction in the top tax rates appears to be uncorrelated with saving, investment, and productivity growth. The top tax rates appear to have little or no relation to the size of the economic pie. However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top of the income distribution. As measured by IRS data, the share of income accruing to the top 0.1% of U.S. families increased from 4.2% in 1945 to 12.3% by 2007 before falling to 9.2% due to the 2007-2009 recession. At the same time, the average tax rate paid by the top 0.1% fell from over 50% in 1945 to about 25% in 2009. Tax policy could have a relation to how the economic pie is sliced—lower top tax rates may be associated with greater income disparities.[/quote]

    The bolded is for @Nelson
     
  3. Alex_P_Keaton

    Alex_P_Keaton Well-Known Member

    719 Messages
    539 Likes Received
    I can't help but notice you omitted this portion of the evidence you provided:

    "But it would be unfortunate if this gave a bad reputation to the traditional supply side verities that the evolution of a nationts real income depends on its accumulation of physical and intellectual capital and on the quality and efforts of its workforce. Moreover, nothing about the experience since 1981 would cause us to doubt the time-honored conclusion of economists that tax rules influence economic behavior and that high marginal tax rates -P10- reduce incentives. Indeed, the evidence suggests that the reduction in tax rates did have a favorable effect on work incentives and on real GNP and that the resulting loss of tax revenue was significantly less than the traditional revenue estimates would imply."
     
    JoeKing likes this.
  4. FuzzyLumpkins

    FuzzyLumpkins Well-Known Member

    3,038 Messages
    451 Likes Received
    I read what you quoted. It's not my fault that you cannot quote the correct argument. I'm not looking for you.
     
  5. FuzzyLumpkins

    FuzzyLumpkins Well-Known Member

    3,038 Messages
    451 Likes Received
    He also distinguishes between types of supply side. I'm discussing GOP wishcasting that Trumps massive tax cuts are going to pay for themselves.
     
  6. Alex_P_Keaton

    Alex_P_Keaton Well-Known Member

    719 Messages
    539 Likes Received


    Ah, yes. The old CRS study. A couple facts about that one:

    "For instance, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) has found support for the theory that taxes have no effect on economic growth by looking at the U.S. experience since World War II and the dramatic variation in the statutory top marginal rate on individual income.[1] They find the fastest economic growth occurred in the 1950s when the top rate was more than ninety percent.[2] However, their study ignores the most basic problems with this sort of statistical analysis, including: the variation in the tax base to which the individual income tax applies; the variation in other taxes, particularly the corporate tax; the short-term versus long-term effects of tax policy; and reverse causality, whereby economic growth affects tax rates. These problems are all well known in the academic literature and have been dealt with in various ways, making the CRS study unpublishable in any peer-reviewed academic journal.[3]"

    Yikes!

    What Is the Evidence on Taxes and Growth?
     
    JoeKing likes this.
  7. Alex_P_Keaton

    Alex_P_Keaton Well-Known Member

    719 Messages
    539 Likes Received
    That's why it was important to establish how we were defining Supply-side prior to engaging in any sort of discussion on it. Yes, all theories have their overzealous proponents. We saw what happened with the prediction for Obama's stimulus.
     
    JoeKing likes this.
  8. FuzzyLumpkins

    FuzzyLumpkins Well-Known Member

    3,038 Messages
    451 Likes Received
    That is quite the assertion. Have anything showing the report was attempted to be publish in a peer reviewed pub and was rejected?
     
  9. Alex_P_Keaton

    Alex_P_Keaton Well-Known Member

    719 Messages
    539 Likes Received
    JoeKing likes this.
  10. FuzzyLumpkins

    FuzzyLumpkins Well-Known Member

    3,038 Messages
    451 Likes Received
  11. Alex_P_Keaton

    Alex_P_Keaton Well-Known Member

    719 Messages
    539 Likes Received
    If your study doesn't pass academic muster, it doesn't matter.
     
    JoeKing likes this.
  12. FuzzyLumpkins

    FuzzyLumpkins Well-Known Member

    3,038 Messages
    451 Likes Received
    it was never put up to academic muster and your source is not an academic source either. Given that standard all of their reports are invalid as well.

    That is a terrible standard like you having graphs were one dataset had 1/10th the range of the y-axis.
     
  13. Alex_P_Keaton

    Alex_P_Keaton Well-Known Member

    719 Messages
    539 Likes Received
    So you're quoting a report that's never been peer reviewed and ended up being pulled because the research was shoddy.
     
    JoeKing likes this.
  14. Alex_P_Keaton

    Alex_P_Keaton Well-Known Member

    719 Messages
    539 Likes Received
    Actually, my source listed several academic sources.
     
    JoeKing likes this.
  15. FuzzyLumpkins

    FuzzyLumpkins Well-Known Member

    3,038 Messages
    451 Likes Received
    sure and made claims about them none of which were a repudiation of the CRS work. I also doubt that the denominator they gave of 26 or whatever it was is valid.
     
  16. Nelson

    Nelson Well-Known Member

    740 Messages
    458 Likes Received
    When money is invested......... forget about it. There is no need in me wasting my time. I lived through the trickle down economic plan and I saw the results which are much different than you say they are.
     
    JoeKing likes this.
  17. ABQCOWBOY

    ABQCOWBOY Well-Known Member

    1,262 Messages
    892 Likes Received
    LOL..... I didn't lie. Go back and read my original post. I said I paid roughly 60% and that's true. I actually pay over 60%. This is not hard to figure out and I've already given you the break out.
     
    JoeKing likes this.
  18. amberbeer

    amberbeer Banned

    850 Messages
    104 Likes Received
    Back peddling now I see. And I showed your numbers don't add up.
     
    Heelsboy likes this.
  19. ABQCOWBOY

    ABQCOWBOY Well-Known Member

    1,262 Messages
    892 Likes Received
    Show me them again. Show me how what I posted doesn't add up to 60% of my total earnings out of my pocket before I ever see them.

    I've tried to be civil with you but I don't have to be. That's your call.
     
    JoeKing and iceberg like this.
  20. amberbeer

    amberbeer Banned

    850 Messages
    104 Likes Received
    Your breakdown

    40% Federal
    5% State
    Local County/Property/Bond Projects etc. Appoximatly 8%
    FICA is roughly 7.5%

    The highest tax bracket is 39.6 for those making over $415k. I may be wrong but I don't think you make that much.
     

Share This Page