Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:I am really looking for when DF shows studies that refute the one RJ found.

Why should I?

My whole point is that raising them will NOT fund all the crap Bernie wants to give away. Furthermore, neither of the socialist candidates will explain what "fair share" means.

So, RJ found a study. Good for him. I didn't challenge him to find a study.

Furthermore, the author's other works . . . seem like they could be written by Paul Krugman.

Dangerous targets: Why setting a specific deficit reduction target would worsen the economic and fiscal situation
April 30, 2013 | By Josh Bivens, Andrew Fieldhouse, and Ethan Pollack | Issue Brief
Ten-year deficit reduction targets have proliferated in recent years. However, these targets are bad economics and will likely lead to poor policy decisions. A better goal is to stabilize the debt ratio once the economy returns much closer to full employment.
From free-fall to stagnation: Five years after the start of the Great Recession, extraordinary policy measures are still needed, but are not forthcoming
February 14, 2013 | By Josh Bivens, Heidi Shierholz, and Andrew Fieldhouse | Briefing Paper
The economy has gone five years since the beginning of the Great Recession without remotely approaching a full recovery. The top policy priority must be ensuring a rapid return to full employment through proven policy levers—namely, deficit-financed government spending to close the demand shortfall.
A fiscal obstacle course, not a cliff: Economic impacts of expiring tax cuts and impending spending cuts, and policy recommendations
September 18, 2012 | By Josh Bivens and Andrew Fieldhouse | Issue Brief
The focus of economic policy debate has turned to what has been called the “fiscal cliff”—the impact of tax cuts set to expire and spending cuts due to take effect at the end of calendar year 2012. For various reasons, “fiscal cliff” is a poor metaphor. We thus propose a different metaphor: the fiscal obstacle course.
The Ryan budget versus the Budget for All: Exacerbating versus alleviating our serious economic challenges
May 17, 2012 | By Andrew Fieldhouse, Rebecca Thiess, and Ethan Pollack | Briefing Paper
As numeric embodiments of national priorities, budget proposals strip away political rhetoric to reflect underlying policy priorities.

Fieldhouse loves him lots of government spending.

danivon wrote:OK. So beyond not liking what he has written elsewhere, do you have "evidence" that contradicts him? Alternative studies that show he is wrong would be more compelling than you not liking the summary lines of previous papers.

But, no, it is not mandatory. I just wonder how you will convince RJ...

danivon wrote:"So beyond not liking what he has written elsewhere, do you have "evidence" that contradicts him?"

So the answer is "No"?

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:"So beyond not liking what he has written elsewhere, do you have "evidence" that contradicts him?"

So the answer is "No"?

The full answer is, "I don't care enough to look.I have no reason to think that anything I show him is going to change his vote, which is all I would care about. If he wants to believe a study by a guy with an ax to grind, that's his business."

Ray Jay wrote:I believe in lower income tax rates ... I believe that people should keep more of the money they earn (which I define broadly to include investing) ... I believe that even though the government has some essential functions, in general it has overstepped its bounds and does not spend money well.

There were anecdotes, and blogs, and opinions galore. But I didn't find anything comprehensive or what I consider to be evidence. Fate, I would welcome an analysis that shows the deleterious effect of high individual income tax rates..

We find that, while there is no doubt that tax policy can influence economic choices, it is by no means obvious, on an ex ante basis, that tax rate cuts will ultimately lead to a larger economy. While the rate cuts would raise the after-tax return to working, saving, and investing, they would also raise the after-tax income people receive from their current level of activities, which lessens their need to work, save, and invest. The first effect normally raises economic activity (through so-called substitution effects), while the second effect normally reduces it (through so-called income effects). In addition, if they are not financed by spending cuts, tax cuts will lead to an increase in federal borrowing, which in turn, will further reduce long-term growth. The historical evidence and simulation analysis is consistent with the idea that tax cuts that are not financed by immediate spending cuts will have little positive impact on growth. On the other hand, tax rate cuts financed by immediate cuts in unproductive spending will raise output.

Tax reform is more complex, as it involves tax rate cuts as well as base-broadening changes. There is a theoretical presumption that such changes should raise the overall size of the economy in the long-term, though the effect and magnitude of the impact are subject to considerable uncertainty. One fact that often escapes unnoticed is that broadening the tax base by reducing or eliminating tax expenditures raises the effective tax rate that people and firms face and hence will operate, in that regard, in a direction opposite to rate cuts. But base-broadening has the additional benefit of reallocating resources from sectors that are currently tax-preferred to sectors that have the highest economic (pre-tax) return, which should raise the overall size of the economy.

A fair assessment would conclude that well designed tax policies have the potential to raise economic growth, but there are many stumbling blocks along the way and certainly no guarantee that all tax changes will improve economic performance. Given the various channels through which tax policy affects growth, a growth-inducing tax policy would involve (i) large positive incentive (substitution) effects that encourage work, saving, and investment; (ii) income effects that are small and positive or are negative, including a careful targeting of tax cuts toward new economic activity, rather than providing windfall gains for previous activities; (iii) a reduction in distortions across economic sectors and across different types of income and types of consumption; and (iv) minimal increases in the budget deficit.

How stupid is our government to keep corporate tax rates at one of the highest marginal rates in the developed world? It doesn't generate tax revenue because companies find loopholes and/or move. What it does do is export high paying jobs. It also reduces tax revenue when companies leave. Neither Democratic Presidential candidate is in favor of lowering the corporate tax rate. Every Republican candidate is, as far as I know.

1. Do higher tax rates decrease poverty?

We need a tax code that encourages work, saving, and investment. Right now, too often, it does just the opposite.

rickyp wrote:ray

How stupid is our government to keep corporate tax rates at one of the highest marginal rates in the developed world? It doesn't generate tax revenue because companies find loopholes and/or move. What it does do is export high paying jobs. It also reduces tax revenue when companies leave. Neither Democratic Presidential candidate is in favor of lowering the corporate tax rate. Every Republican candidate is, as far as I know.

How stupid is a congress that can't close the loopholes?
Here's one candidate who has proposed action on them...
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-e ... D120151210

Ray, who should make taxation policy? Congress or corporations? Cutting corporate taxes too much in order to stop them using a loophole that can be closed is just giving in to them.
If the Republican Tax plans are followed, the deficits will be enormous. Unless there are major cuts to defense and pretty much everything..

Ray

1. Do higher tax rates decrease poverty?

They can.
Depending on whats done with the taxes raised.
Poverty rates are much lower in social democratic countries with higher taxation than in the US.

Poverty rates were also lowered in the US significantly between 1959 and 1974 in a period of high taxation rates... (But increasing social programs that provided benefits to the young and the poor. )

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_i ... tates..PNG

Ray

We need a tax code that encourages work, saving, and investment. Right now, too often, it does just the opposite.

The US economy is largely driven by domestic spending. 71% I think.
Domestic spending is done by middle and working class people mainly. You need a tax code and program spending that repairs the spending of the middle class and working class. Since the 80's health care and education have taken too large a share of their income. And too many of the middle class lost heavily in the 08 crash, and have not recovered. (Wall Street elite on the other hand have made out like bandits since then...)

bbauska wrote:Fate + Ray = Freight

bbauska wrote:Fate + Ray = Freight

Ray Jay wrote:

bbauska wrote:Fate + Ray = Freight

Dr. + Jay = one of the all time greatest basketball players

How stupid is a congress that can't close the loopholes?

Most people wouldn't define having your company purchased by an Irish company to be a tax loophole