[jonottawa]

I think the one principled right-wing criticism of Obama that has merit is the rejection of his contention that he has offered a deficit reduction plan that reduces the deficit by 4 trillion dollars and that it contains 2.5 dollars in spending cuts for every dollar in higher taxes.

He counts things that have already been agreed on and signed into law as spending cuts. He counts money we aren't going to be spending on wars that have ended as spending cuts. It's a slimy claim and he should stop making it.

Obama and Romney both need to explain what % of GDP they think the federal government should spend every year and then propose the tax increases and spending cuts that will plausibly achieve that result. I watched quite a bit of the GHWB-Ferraro debate tonight and the difference in tone, honesty, and seriousness of both the participants and the media questioners was striking. The press really is as bad as the politicians (and yes, the folks at FoxNews are by far the worst offenders, and have undoubtedly led other networks to emulate their reprehensible behavior (in an effort to achieve similar ratings.))

And someone in the media needs to get a clear answer from Romney whether he has unequivocally ruled out the possibility of amending this year's tax return to take full advantage of the charitable deductions he didn't claim if he were to lose the election.

[hrothgar]

jonottawa, on 2012-October-06, 22:57, said:

Obama and Romney both need to explain what % of GDP they think the federal government should spend every year

This number isn't constant

[luke warm]

y66, on 2012-October-06, 09:55, said:

They don't call it Voodoo economics for nothing.

if memory serves, it was bush the elder who coined this term, but i could be mistaken... but as R said in the debate, we are entitled to many things, perhaps, but not to our own facts

from thomas sowell:

Quote

In 1921, when the tax rate on people making over $100,000 a year was 73 percent, the federal government collected a little over $700 million in income taxes, of which 30 percent was paid by those making over $100,000. By 1929, after a series of tax rate reductions had cut the tax rate to 24 percent on those making over $100,000, the federal government collected more than a billion dollars in income taxes, of which 65 percent was collected from those making over $100,000.

and

Quote

The point here is not simply that the weight of evidence is on one side of the argument rather than the other but, more fundamentally, that there was no serious engagement with the arguments actually advanced but instead an evasion of those arguments by depicting them as simply a way of transferring tax burdens from the rich to other taxpayers.

so using terms like "voodoo economics" or "trickle down economics" might sound catchy, but they say nothing about the underlying arguments

lalldonn, on 2012-October-06, 16:51, said:

It's just like the whole global warming debate. Can you find a single non-partisan source (not just a source that calls themselves that) who believe any such thing?

it depends on how you define non-partisan... if the definition is anyone whose conclusions match your belief is non-partisan, then i can find some... if the definition is, anyone whose conclusions match my belief, then i can find some

okay, you don't believe "... lowering tax rates on investment and labor, the Romney tax plan would grow the economy by 7.4 percent, the capital stock by almost 19 percent, wages by almost 5 percent, and hours worked by 3 percent?"

or that "... every income group would experience at least a 7 percent increase in after-tax income" or that "... fully 60 percent of the static revenue loss from Romney’s plan would be recovered from taxing a larger economy."

that's okay, we all have to choose who/what to believe... non-partisan or not, there is truth somewhere

[kenberg]

jonottawa, on 2012-October-06, 22:57, said:

And someone in the media needs to get a clear answer from Romney whether he has unequivocally ruled out the possibility of amending this year's tax return to take full advantage of the charitable deductions he didn't claim if he were to lose the election.

Political choices often astound me, and this is one such case. I cannot for the life of me see why he would not take the full deduction here. If his opponents want to say "look at that awful sneak, ripping off the government by giving so lavishly to charities", it seems to me that such charitable giving would offend only the most truly dedicated partisans. This is not what comes to mind when I hear of someone dodging taxes. So, since I can't see why on earth he did this in the first place I don't much care what he does about it later, except he would look silly. Perhaps one is ok with looking silly if the price is right.

A variant: Do we really want to change the tax code to make charitable contributions no longer deductible? My wife does some free tutoring. Should she pay taxes on the money she could have charged? I really don't get this.

[Flem72]

lalldonn, on 2012-October-06, 08:51, said:

As it should be.
Real GDP under Bush, complete with his tax cuts, grew at an average rate of 2.5% (compared to 4.0% under Clinton (and 2.77% under Reagan)). Your assumption is completely unreasonable.

Yes. Conservatives didn't like W's Republocrat-like spending policies. But the rest just drives home the point that the only way intelligently to discuss this stuff would necessitate book-length, heavily footnoted treatises or briefs as opposed to the off the hip stuff we see here (albeit sometimes from informed perspectives).

Clinton's GDP: does anyone doubt that this was the result of a government hands-off, relatively free market policy environment? So was the Clinton boom, and consequent deficit reduction, the result of Democrat stewardship or Republican ideology put into practice? Or, in this case, six of one etc ?

[PassedOut]

luke warm, on 2012-October-07, 08:16, said:

okay, you don't believe "... lowering tax rates on investment and labor, the Romney tax plan would grow the economy by 7.4 percent, the capital stock by almost 19 percent, wages by almost 5 percent, and hours worked by 3 percent?"

or that "... every income group would experience at least a 7 percent increase in after-tax income" or that "... fully 60 percent of the static revenue loss from Romney’s plan would be recovered from taxing a larger economy."

Those of us old enough to remember 2001 recall the same claims being made about the original Bush tax cuts. A jobs boom was supposed to make up the lost revenue.

In fact, the reason that those cuts had a 10-year expiration date was that CBO scoring projected "unsustainable deficits" if the tax cuts passed. Droolers like Dick Armey claimed that it was proved that lowering taxes would produce more tax money than the existing rates. The CBO would not budge, so the republicans instituted the expiration date, praying that 10 years of history would ratify their predictions.

It did not.

Despite the housing boom, only 2.7 million non-farm jobs were created during Bush's first term. Compare that with the 7.9 million non-farm jobs created during Jimmy Carter's single term. During Bush's second term, more jobs were lost than were created in his first term.

The idea that you generate more tax revenue by lowering rates appeals to many. But there is no free lunch.

[luke warm]

PassedOut, on 2012-October-07, 14:15, said:

The idea that you generate more tax revenue by lowering rates appeals to many. But there is no free lunch.

yes, such as jfk and reagan... you keep leaving out the effect increased spending has... there is disagreement as to the degree to which tax policy affects gdp and revenues, but nobody says it has no effect... and it can't be argued that obama's economy, growing at about 1.8%, is pitiful... you keep insisting that you are a fiscal conservative, yet also insist that obama's fiscal policies are better for the country... it baffles me how the former can be true, knowing that the latter is not... read sowell's paper (above) for a picture that differs a little from yours... of course you may consider him to be a "drooler" as well, though i think we should all be a little careful about such things... especially those of us who aren't nearly as accomplished in our chosen fields as we'd like to be, and as they are

[kenberg]

About jfk. I seemed to recall the top marginal tax rate as being around 90% in 1960. That seemed unbelievable (I was working at NASA over the 1960 summer at a yearly salary of a bit over 5K, and in the fall as a grad student at 2K, upped to 3K after I did well in my courses, so my tax rate was somewhat lower ) so I looked it up.Yep. 91%



From http://www.usnews.co...side-tax-cutter


[Quote]
The notion of Kennedy as supply-side forerunner is a powerful myth, but it is a myth. Context is key. Conservatives love to quote a speech Kennedy gave at the Economic Club of New York in December 1962. Here's one quote—I've italicized the crucial part often left out: "Our present tax system, developed as it was, in good part, during World War II to restrain growth, exerts too heavy a drag on growth in peace time; that it siphons out of the private economy too large a share of personal and business purchasing power; that it reduces the financial incentives for personal effort, investment, and risk-taking." JFK was not expounding an implacable economic philosophy; he was speaking about a very specific circumstance. The top marginal tax rate was 91 percent, which JFK wanted reduced to a "more sensible" 65 percent. Compare that with today's 35 percent top rate, and ask: If supply-siders are so enamored of JFK's tax policies, would they advocate a return to a "more sensible" 65 percent top rate? Applying Kennedy's tax talk to the current structure, JFK biographer Robert Dallek says, is like comparing "apples and watermelons."
[\Quote]

One can easily accept, as I do, that cutting the top rate from 91% t0 65% is a good idea without buying into the Bush cuts or anything like them For one thing, the jfk cuts worked.

[phil_20686]

PassedOut, on 2012-October-07, 14:15, said:

Despite the housing boom, only 2.7 million non-farm jobs were created during Bush's first term. Compare that with the 7.9 million non-farm jobs created during Jimmy Carter's single term. During Bush's second term, more jobs were lost than were created in his first term.

But this only underscores how hard it is to avoid comparing apples with oranges. The seventies where the strongest ever growth in the labour market, combining high population growth with a shift in cultural attitudes about women in the work force. The labour participation rate grew by 5% in a decade, the total size of the labour force grew by 35% in ten years. Adjusted for population growth, in today's term that would mean the economy needed to create 365,000 jobs per month just to stand still. Today, we have lower population growth, and the retirement of the Baby Boomers alongside longer life expectiency is reducing the long term labour participation rate.

Also, Bush can hardly take the blame for the recession. He can probably take the blame for a poor fiscal situation, but the recession was caused by the Fed.

[cherdano]

So you start like this:

jonottawa, on 2012-October-06, 22:57, said:

I think the one principled right-wing criticism of Obama that has merit

and then go on to criticize the president's plan based on how he is selling it (i.e., to which baseline he is comparing it to).
Has it really become impossible to judge a plan on its merits, not on how it's sold?

Quote

And someone in the media needs to get a clear answer from Romney whether he has unequivocally ruled out the possibility of amending this year's tax return to take full advantage of the charitable deductions he didn't claim if he were to lose the election.

Nope, someone in the media should get a clear answer from Romney what his tax proposal is. His campaign's proposal would inevitably lead to a tax cut for the wealthy. In the debate, he said: "But I'm not going to reduce the share of taxes paid by high-income people." And later again: "I will not reduce the taxes paid by high-income Americans."
Would he veto a bill from a Republican congress that would do so?

I don't think presidential candidates need to present 50 page plans for every policy question, laws are written by congress. But on major issues, they should give a clear guideline about what they want to do achieve, and what they wouldn't be willing to accept. And if they don't, the press should ask them.

[PassedOut]

luke warm, on 2012-October-07, 15:07, said:

yes, such as jfk and reagan... you keep leaving out the effect increased spending has... there is disagreement as to the degree to which tax policy affects gdp and revenues, but nobody says it has no effect...

Of course nobody says that, nor do I.

But let's look at the federal tax receipts as a percentage of GDP (the only meaningful way to do so) during the Reagan years:

1981 19.6%
1982 19.1%
1983 17.5%
1984 17.4%
1985 17.8%
1986 17.3%
1987 18.3%
1988 18.2%

You might recall that Reagan's first budget director, David Stockman, warned Reagan about "red ink as far as the eye can see" unless he could identify spending cuts to offset the reductions in tax revenue. Reagan could not or would not do so.

Before Reagan, every president from Harry Truman had cut the US debt. After Reagan and Bush I, the US debt was double the debt that Jimmy Carter had bequeathed to Reagan and was ballooning.

As a conservative, fiscal responsibility is important to me. Party affiliation is not. Therefore I'm not going to pretend to agree with the fantasies of folks who claim (without basis) to be conservative.

[y66]

Thomas Sowell? Is he the same guy who wrote Is Reality Optional? And who Brad DeLong described as the stupidist man alive?

[Flem72]

y66, on 2012-October-07, 16:57, said:

Thomas Sowell? Is he the same guy who wrote Is Reality Optional? And who Brad DeLong described as the stupidist man alive?

I don't as yet know who Brad DeLong is or pretends to be, but if he said that, he is the stupidist person alive.

[Flem72]

PassedOut, on 2012-October-07, 16:41, said:

Of course nobody says that, nor do I.

But let's look at the federal tax receipts as a percentage of GDP (the only meaningful way to do so) during the Reagan years:

1981 19.6%
1982 19.1%
1983 17.5%
1984 17.4%
1985 17.8%
1986 17.3%
1987 18.3%
1988 18.2%

What were the raw numbers on GDP and tax revenues? I'm betting, w/o knowing, that both went up, tax receipts slower than GDP?

[ArtK78]

Deleted.

[PassedOut]

Flem72, on 2012-October-07, 18:13, said:

What were the raw numbers on GDP and tax revenues? I'm betting, w/o knowing, that both went up, tax receipts slower than GDP?

Almost correct. Here are the GDPs, receipts, and outlays for the Reagan years (in millions of 2005 dollars):

      GDP        Receipts     Outlays
1981  3,057,000   599,272     678,241
1982  3,223,700   617,766     745,743
1983  3,440,700   600,562     808,364
1984  3,844,400   666,438     851,805
1985  4,146,300   734,037     946,344
1986  4,403,900   769,155     990,382
1987  4,651,400   854,288   1,004,017
1988  5,008,500   909,238   1,064,416

The GDP and outlays went up every year. Tax receipts went down from 1982 to 1983, but otherwise rose each year.

[Flem72]

Can someone explain to me why the tax burden on our most wealthy is an issue? at all? Seems to me just an emotional appeal, something to get folks riled up. Won't solve even a teeny bit of the deficit/funding problem; the very wealthy have always been around, and their presence has almost no effect on what I have wanted to do in my life to improve my lot. And the idea that all of these folks are rabid Republicans is ludicrous: I'd be willing to bet the family farm that something like 75% of Wall Streeters -- ooooh, Them -- are solid, straight-ticket Dems just based on where they tend to live and the voting proclivities of those areas. The difference being that a Dem Wall Streeter wants to game government in its role as a market creator/regulator, while the Repubs want to game the (relatively more) open, unregulated market. How does higher taxes on the wealthy help the Main Street small business to do business, especially in an environment where the increased tax revenues result in more regulation?

IOW, IMHO, to the overwhelming % of Americans, the existence of the very wealthy is a day-to-day life-neutral fact. Why shouldn't we be more worried about folks who BECOME very wealthy, or become compensated way out of reasonable proportions as cronies/bureaucrats, by finding their rice bowl within government or artificial, government-created markets, at our expense?

[ArtK78]

Flem72, on 2012-October-08, 08:19, said:

Can someone explain to me why the tax burden on our most wealthy is an issue? at all? Seems to me just an emotional appeal, something to get folks riled up. Won't solve even a teeny bit of the deficit/funding problem; the very wealthy have always been around, and their presence has almost no effect on what I have wanted to do in my life to improve my lot. And the idea that all of these folks are rabid Republicans is ludicrous: I'd be willing to bet the family farm that something like 75% of Wall Streeters -- ooooh, Them -- are solid, straight-ticket Dems just based on where they tend to live and the voting proclivities of those areas. The difference being that a Dem Wall Streeter wants to game government in its role as a market creator/regulator, while the Repubs want to game the (relatively more) open, unregulated market. How does higher taxes on the wealthy help the Main Street small business to do business, especially in an environment where the increased tax revenues result in more regulation?

IOW, IMHO, to the overwhelming % of Americans, the existence of the very wealthy is a day-to-day life-neutral fact. Why shouldn't we be more worried about folks who BECOME very wealthy, or become compensated way out of reasonable proportions as cronies/bureaucrats, by finding their rice bowl within government or artificial, government-created markets, at our expense?

Why is it an issue? Because it is the avowed goal of the Republican Party to lower the tax burden on the rich. The elimination of the capital gains tax and the corporate income tax as well as an across the board reduction of the personal income tax are only three of the items comprising the tax policy of the Republican Party. And, while some ingenuously argue that an across the board reduction of the income tax rate provides a benefit for the less weathly as well as the wealthy, it is clear that this is more of a benefit to the wealthy, as they are not as burdened with other taxes - payroll taxes, sales taxes, etc. - to the same extent as the middle or lower class.

Why is it that you never see Republicans championing an elimination of sales taxes?

And the idea that most Wall Streeters are solid, straight-ticket Democrats is laughable.

No one is arguing that the wealthy don't have the right to be wealthy, or that no one has the right to become wealthy. What is being argued is that the wealthy should shoulder a share of the tax burden commensurate with their wealth. The wealthy do not need special benefits.

[kenberg]

Flem72, on 2012-October-08, 08:19, said:

Can someone explain to me why the tax burden on our most wealthy is an issue? at all?

I'll give it a shot. I accept that we cannot go on as we are, forever spending far more than we take in. Moreover, I accept that the older folks, I am one, are part of the problem. We are retired, we don't produce much (but we did, and maybe life should be taken as a whole), we get social security, we get pensions, we get medicare, etc. It's a problem that I expect we have to solve.

Now we can't get money from poor people, they don't have it. The rich are resourceful in arranging the laws for their benefit. So the burden will fall on me. Well, I'm prepared to help with many things, be a responsible citizen and all that, but I don't wish to be played for a sucker. If we are going to solve our problems, we should all pitch in. That includes the rich.

[luke warm]

ArtK78, on 2012-October-08, 08:44, said:

Why is it an issue? Because it is the avowed goal of the Republican Party to lower the tax burden on the rich.

this is not true... even one of the economists the obama campaign quoted as agreeing with them about all that has disavowed their statements

Princeton professor Harvey Rosen:

Quote

I can’t tell exactly how the Obama campaign reached that characterization of my work. It might be that they assume that Governor Romney wants to keep the taxes from the Affordable Care Act in place, despite the fact that the Governor has called for its complete repeal. The main conclusion of my study is that under plausible assumptions, a proposal along the lines suggested by Governor Romney can both be revenue neutral and keep the net tax burden on taxpayers with incomes above $200,000 about the same. That is, an increase in the tax burden on lower and middle income individuals is not required in order to make the overall plan revenue neutral.

so it's not that romney was lying, it's that obama (and his surrogates) are