Tea Party 4-18-11 Topic

silentpadna
Posts: 980 (0)
Hall of Famer
148
Prospect
Posted by antonsirius on 4/14/2011 3:45:00 PM (view original):
Posted by silentpadna on 4/14/2011 2:56:00 PM (view original):
Maybe...it's been awhile since I read the studies.  But the point still remains.  There is a max value of revenue at some point where raising tax rates won't increase revenue.  If spending is above it, you'll never get the revenue you need.  Without substantial, probably painful spending cuts, discussions about tax rates for among the classes does nothing but obscure the real problem.

The problem with the Laffer Curve theory in application is that economists offer wildly different interpretations on where the optimal revenue point is. And that optimal revenue point will differ depending on what form of specific taxation you're talking about. So it's a hard thing to base concrete tax policy on.

I can't say I've ever seen a study claiming that the optimal overall rate for the US was as low as 16-19% though.

I think the Laffer curve theory has merit, but I'm not totally convinced it even looks the way it's pictured as published.  It may well have more than one peak.  I also believe it changes dramatically from time to time based on activity.  I do, however think that with the anecdotal evidence we have, and if the curve is parabolic, that we are on the side of the curve where rates are inversely proportional to revenue.  If we stayed limited in spending, we could eventually get the tax rates to some reasonable level.  Of course, if spending were less than revenues, there would be two intersection points on the curve.  I'm okay with the rate sitting just under where the peak is and on the side of higher rates (so that the evil rich can pay their "fair share", whatever that is ).

Spending is entirely the key.
4/14/2011 4:15 PM
antonsirius
Posts: 2567 (0)
Hall of Famer
167 135 9 20
Prospect
I really want to know how you figure we're on the back side of the parabola. If anything, Hauser suggests we've been around the top of it for 50 years.
4/14/2011 4:46 PM
antonsirius
Posts: 2567 (0)
Hall of Famer
167 135 9 20
Prospect
Posted by swamphawk22 on 4/14/2011 3:54:00 PM (view original):
Posted by antonsirius on 4/14/2011 1:41:00 PM (view original):
Posted by swamphawk22 on 4/14/2011 1:08:00 PM (view original):
Posted by The Taint on 4/14/2011 11:02:00 AM (view original):
You're never going to balance the budget through cuts alone, especially with military budget being off the table...just ain't gonna happen. 


**** in one hand and make wishes in the other and tell me which fills up first.
And what we should be thinking is we cannot balance the budget through tax increases. It is impossible.
**** off, liar. No one is suggesting balancing the budget solely through tax increases.
No one said you did say it.

Maybe you could just cut a "liar" and just paste it on all my posts. You dont seem to read them anymore. This was in no way a lie.

Couldnt you try to talk to people instead of just talking at them?
**** off, liar. That was exactly what you implied with your post.

And you are not "people", liar. Anyone who bothers to look would see that I single you out for the treatment to get, and that you've earned. You are a kitten-sodomizing stain upon the universe. The director of A Serbian Film's next project should be your autobiography, because he's the only one who could possibly do your unfathomable moral degeneracy justice.
4/14/2011 4:52 PM
swamphawk22
Posts: 13021 (0)
Hall of Famer
9 4 8 3 84 113 36
Prospect

Oh I see. When I say you said something, but only implied something I am a liar. When you say i said something I only implied you are a crusader for truth!

As much as I am enjoying our little feud we need to change direction.

You can call me a liar all you want. I have proven your are wrong.

And that is now my catch phrase. You are wrong!

4/14/2011 6:07 PM
antonsirius
Posts: 2567 (0)
Hall of Famer
167 135 9 20
Prospect
**** off, liar.
4/14/2011 8:59 PM
swamphawk22
Posts: 13021 (0)
Hall of Famer
9 4 8 3 84 113 36
Prospect
Posted by antonsirius on 4/14/2011 8:59:00 PM (view original):
**** off, liar.
You are wrong.

See at least my statement is correct!
4/15/2011 12:29 AM
antonsirius
Posts: 2567 (0)
Hall of Famer
167 135 9 20
Prospect
You are a liar, and I desire you to **** off, so no it was not wrong.
4/15/2011 6:58 AM
creilmann
Posts: 582 (0)
Hall of Famer
134 4
Prospect
The Sprawl Bubble




...true dat...
4/15/2011 1:59 PM
swamphawk22
Posts: 13021 (0)
Hall of Famer
9 4 8 3 84 113 36
Prospect
Posted by creilmann on 4/15/2011 1:59:00 PM (view original):
The Sprawl Bubble




...true dat...
1 This is the same kind of ideal that says that growth is bad and poverty is good.

2 This whole piece tries to tie together issues from multiple decades and tries to paint them as a conspiracy to sprawl.

I wasnt people to read this and if you dont find it laughable you might be a left wing redneck.
4/15/2011 11:37 PM
creilmann
Posts: 582 (0)
Hall of Famer
134 4
Prospect
1. no it doesn't

2. no it doesn't, at least not in the context that you are trying to portray.
4/16/2011 12:53 PM (edited)
swamphawk22
Posts: 13021 (0)
Hall of Famer
9 4 8 3 84 113 36
Prospect
Lets look at some parts of it.

There is a graph that shows retail space per person on America. The source is a box titles "Big box swindle: The true cost of mega retailers. Does that seem impartial?

Later there is a graph showing our retail space vs other coutries. It say America has about half as much retail space as the 1st graph!

This may seem minor but it seems to indicate that they are cherry picking odd sources of data to support their conclusion.
4/16/2011 3:31 AM
antonsirius
Posts: 2567 (0)
Hall of Famer
167 135 9 20
Prospect
Posted by swamphawk22 on 4/16/2011 3:31:00 AM (view original):
Lets look at some parts of it.

There is a graph that shows retail space per person on America. The source is a box titles "Big box swindle: The true cost of mega retailers. Does that seem impartial?

Later there is a graph showing our retail space vs other coutries. It say America has about half as much retail space as the 1st graph!

This may seem minor but it seems to indicate that they are cherry picking odd sources of data to support their conclusion.
**** off, liar. Try reading something before you comment on it, rather than cherry-picking graphs and thinking you understand what the author is suggesting they mean.
4/16/2011 10:57 AM
creilmann
Posts: 582 (0)
Hall of Famer
134 4
Prospect
Swamp I think there is a thread somewhere about Palin's lack of intelligence that is a little more in line with your level of debate.
4/16/2011 12:52 PM
swamphawk22
Posts: 13021 (0)
Hall of Famer
9 4 8 3 84 113 36
Prospect
So the fact that 2 of the sources that support his argument disagree by a factor of 2 what the base number is does not matter. And the fact that both sources are questionable. One is an oddball book and one is an orginization that isnt known for this kind of data and seems to be run by a real estate agency.

If this is so clear as he implies why not cite some sources that are a bit more mainstream? Some on the Right in these forums have been criticized for using questionable sources, can we even discuss this persons sources?
4/16/2011 2:01 PM
antonsirius
Posts: 2567 (0)
Hall of Famer
167 135 9 20
Prospect
**** off, liar. They didn't disagree, they were measuring slightly different things, which you would have understood if you'd read the article instead of just looking at the pretty pictures and thinking your feeble mind understood them.
4/16/2011 2:41 PM
◂ Prev 1...119|120|121|122|123...133 Next ▸
Tea Party 4-18-11 Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2025 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.