5 ms·

This is ideology and attempted political point-scoring, not evidence. There aren’t even a preponderance of correlative data that shows a link between tax cuts

This is ideology and attempted political point-scoring, not evidence. There aren’t even a preponderance of correlative data that shows a link between tax cuts and economic growth—except where economic growth is defined as a disproportionate increase in wealth concentration in ever smaller percentages of the population. The opposite has been shown—and quite conclusively—with decades of data (that tax cuts do not spur economic growth). Moreover, seeing as how you’re dragging out the old government waste trope—its notable that you conveniently neglect to directly indict those on the receiving end of this “waste”. It cannot be solely the government’s fault that private corporate contractors happily pocket this waste. If waste is something you find especially onerous, shouldn’t we start by pointing the finger at the private companies who submit “wasteful” bids/invoices? If the government is paying too much and wasting public funds on contractors, doesn’t the fault lie with those submitting the bids/invoices? If there is nothing at all wrong with their bids, and we want to say it’s acceptable to bid any amount so long as the bidding is, say, fairly open to all comers, then how exactly can the government be guilty of “waste”? Seems every time the government is criticized for waste, it’s always a one-sided critique. Meanwhile, attempting to reign in this alleged waste with regulations, bid caps, stronger negotiating power, or some form of (gasp!) price control mechanism for public projects is rather uniformly met with charges of abuse of power, not playing by the rules, crippling free markets, or some other such nonsense. If there is waste, it starts with exorbitant bids/invoices for that $200 screwdriver. Seems to me the government is simply playing by the rules and paying what is demanded. There’d be a shit storm if they didn’t.

ksk 8y ago
>There aren’t even a preponderance of correlative data that shows a link between tax cuts and economic growth—except where economic growth is defined as a disproportionate increase in wealth concentration in ever smaller percentages of the population. I can re-define economic growth to mean the size of my checking account. Income inequality has its own definition. You re-defining it to mean something its not doesn't mean much. >Moreover, seeing as how you’re dragging out the old government waste trope Its not a trope. Your personal ideology might or might not allow you to recognize this. I would recommend keeping an open mind. >its notable that you conveniently neglect to directly indict those on the receiving end of this “waste”. Once you create the means for someone to obtain wealth, you cannot fault the individual for maximizing their gains under a capitalist system. Look, if you don't believe that the government does a very poor job of allocating resources, then our disconnect is large enough that realistically no consensus can be reached. The motivations of the people lobbying for their piece of the government pie only exist in a context where (1) people are greedy and (2) the government has tons of money to spend. We can't do anything about #1, but maybe something about #2. >The opposite has been shown—and quite conclusively—with decades of data (that tax cuts do not spur economic growth). Nothing of the sort has been conclusively demonstrated, primarily because macro economics deals with aggregate human behavior - and humans are not automations. To every example of a low-tax low-growth economy is a counter example of high-tax still low-growth economy.
- dnomad 8y ago
  > To every example of a low-tax low-growth economy is a counter example of high-tax still low-growth economy. Despite decades of evidence demonstrating how government spending can produce enormous growth (see eg. the lil' ol' Great Depression, Europe after WW2, China -- really all of East Asia), despite conclusive recent research showing the post-GFC failure of austerity, ideologues will never revisit their outdated ideas. At this point you might as well admit that data and evidence doesn't matter at all and you aren't actually interested in the real world, just your own axiomatic fantasy.
  - ksk 8y ago
    Oh, you mean the period when countries were dropping their top marginal taxes? https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/top-mrts-on-individual-income https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/top-mrts-on-individual-in... Its obvious who is living in a fantasy. I prefer to be skeptical of both sides. You are free to chose your own path. Goodbye!
    - bobwaycott 8y ago
      Do you realize this period when top marginal rates began (and continued) dropping overlaps the period when economic growth began (and continued) dropping, as well? It’s almost like dropping those top marginal rates did nothing to spur growth. I mean, it’s like one might actually have to entertain the idea that lowering taxation doesn’t actually lead to massive reinvestment of capital or wage and economic growth we’re promised every time it happens. Or perhaps—just maybe—economic growth isn’t something we can even realistically anticipate to obtain as a constant.
- bobwaycott 8y ago
  > I can re-define economic growth to mean the size of my checking account. Income inequality has its own definition. You re-defining it to mean something its not doesn't mean much. You do realize you’re stating exactly what I did in slightly different wording? Specifically that the only manner in which lowering taxes is proven as a cause of economic growth is when economic growth is defined as growing individual bank accounts of an increasingly smaller proportion of the population? > Its not a trope. Your personal ideology might or might not allow you to recognize this. I would recommend keeping an open mind. It most certainly is a trope. It is a motif, a recurrent theme used by many who criticize government spending. What exactly do you think a trope is? Suggesting one keep an open mind has nothing at all todo with recognizing a discursive trope. > Once you create the means for someone to obtain wealth, you cannot fault the individual for maximizing their gains under a capitalist system. Nothing in my comment faults individuals for maximizing their potential gains under a capitalist system. In fact, i don’t fault individuals because, under a capitalist system, one is required to operate in that way or starve to death. Recognizing and calling this out is not the same thing as blaming people for doing it. > Look, if you don't believe that the government does a very poor job of allocating resources, then our disconnect is large enough that realistically no consensus can be reached. You are rejecting the possibility of understanding and/or consensus based on your own ideological tenet, not any sort of evidence or discussion of facts. For you, “that the government does a very poor job of allocating resources” is an axiom, a political/ideological article of faith. This is in no way proven, yet you’re establishing an impasse by refusing to engage with the possibility that could be false. > The motivations of the people lobbying for their piece of the government pie only exist in a context where (1) people are greedy and (2) the government has tons of money to spend. We can't do anything about #1, but maybe something about #2. You do realize the people—who are allegedly not to be faulted for being “greedy” as a foundational concept of living in a capitalist system—are submitting bids/invoices for their piece of the pie voluntarily, right? If you do, on what sensible grounds can you criticize the government for paying up? The government is obeying the rules of this capitalist system. Even if it always was required to choose the cheapest bid, one could still allege that is waste. At which point, your ideology is blaming the government for “wasting” resources when there are no other options, and—with no evidence provided—concludes the answer is to starve the government of resources to use for the public good. You appear to believe you can eliminate waste not by targeting where the waste is procured (and where the rates are set) but by targeting who pays for it. That’s some pretty interesting mental gymnastics there. > Nothing of the sort has been conclusively demonstrated, primarily because macro economics deals with aggregate human behavior - and humans are not automations. To every example of a low-tax low-growth economy is a counter example of high-tax still low-growth economy. Yes, it most certainly has. Here’s 65 years of data to get you started: https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/09/tax-cuts-dont-lead-to-economic-growth-a-new-65-year-study-finds/262438/ https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/09/tax-cut... A sibling commenter has provided other links in their posts. Is there proof that raising taxes causes economic growth? No. That claim is not made. Is there proof that cutting taxes harms economic growth? No. What is shown is that cutting taxes does not spur economic growth, as those who advocate for that idea claim. Where are the examples and serious data that show cutting taxes and starving the government of resources leads to high economic growth? You’re claiming it’s out there, so where is it? Where’s the low-tax, high-growth country? How long does that last? How much demonstrable growth is triggered as a result of each cut in taxes? How much of that growth is actually a product of the lower taxes?

ksk 8y ago

>There aren’t even a preponderance of correlative data that shows a link between tax cuts and economic growth—except where economic growth is defined as a disproportionate increase in wealth concentration in ever smaller percentages of the population. I can re-define economic growth to mean the size of my checking account. Income inequality has its own definition. You re-defining it to mean something its not doesn't mean much. >Moreover, seeing as how you’re dragging out the old government waste trope Its not a trope. Your personal ideology might or might not allow you to recognize this. I would recommend keeping an open mind. >its notable that you conveniently neglect to directly indict those on the receiving end of this “waste”. Once you create the means for someone to obtain wealth, you cannot fault the individual for maximizing their gains under a capitalist system. Look, if you don't believe that the government does a very poor job of allocating resources, then our disconnect is large enough that realistically no consensus can be reached. The motivations of the people lobbying for their piece of the government pie only exist in a context where (1) people are greedy and (2) the government has tons of money to spend. We can't do anything about #1, but maybe something about #2. >The opposite has been shown—and quite conclusively—with decades of data (that tax cuts do not spur economic growth). Nothing of the sort has been conclusively demonstrated, primarily because macro economics deals with aggregate human behavior - and humans are not automations. To every example of a low-tax low-growth economy is a counter example of high-tax still low-growth economy.

dnomad 8y ago
> To every example of a low-tax low-growth economy is a counter example of high-tax still low-growth economy. Despite decades of evidence demonstrating how government spending can produce enormous growth (see eg. the lil' ol' Great Depression, Europe after WW2, China -- really all of East Asia), despite conclusive recent research showing the post-GFC failure of austerity, ideologues will never revisit their outdated ideas. At this point you might as well admit that data and evidence doesn't matter at all and you aren't actually interested in the real world, just your own axiomatic fantasy.
- ksk 8y ago
  Oh, you mean the period when countries were dropping their top marginal taxes? https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/top-mrts-on-individual-income https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/top-mrts-on-individual-in... Its obvious who is living in a fantasy. I prefer to be skeptical of both sides. You are free to chose your own path. Goodbye!
  - bobwaycott 8y ago
    Do you realize this period when top marginal rates began (and continued) dropping overlaps the period when economic growth began (and continued) dropping, as well? It’s almost like dropping those top marginal rates did nothing to spur growth. I mean, it’s like one might actually have to entertain the idea that lowering taxation doesn’t actually lead to massive reinvestment of capital or wage and economic growth we’re promised every time it happens. Or perhaps—just maybe—economic growth isn’t something we can even realistically anticipate to obtain as a constant.
bobwaycott 8y ago
> I can re-define economic growth to mean the size of my checking account. Income inequality has its own definition. You re-defining it to mean something its not doesn't mean much. You do realize you’re stating exactly what I did in slightly different wording? Specifically that the only manner in which lowering taxes is proven as a cause of economic growth is when economic growth is defined as growing individual bank accounts of an increasingly smaller proportion of the population? > Its not a trope. Your personal ideology might or might not allow you to recognize this. I would recommend keeping an open mind. It most certainly is a trope. It is a motif, a recurrent theme used by many who criticize government spending. What exactly do you think a trope is? Suggesting one keep an open mind has nothing at all todo with recognizing a discursive trope. > Once you create the means for someone to obtain wealth, you cannot fault the individual for maximizing their gains under a capitalist system. Nothing in my comment faults individuals for maximizing their potential gains under a capitalist system. In fact, i don’t fault individuals because, under a capitalist system, one is required to operate in that way or starve to death. Recognizing and calling this out is not the same thing as blaming people for doing it. > Look, if you don't believe that the government does a very poor job of allocating resources, then our disconnect is large enough that realistically no consensus can be reached. You are rejecting the possibility of understanding and/or consensus based on your own ideological tenet, not any sort of evidence or discussion of facts. For you, “that the government does a very poor job of allocating resources” is an axiom, a political/ideological article of faith. This is in no way proven, yet you’re establishing an impasse by refusing to engage with the possibility that could be false. > The motivations of the people lobbying for their piece of the government pie only exist in a context where (1) people are greedy and (2) the government has tons of money to spend. We can't do anything about #1, but maybe something about #2. You do realize the people—who are allegedly not to be faulted for being “greedy” as a foundational concept of living in a capitalist system—are submitting bids/invoices for their piece of the pie voluntarily, right? If you do, on what sensible grounds can you criticize the government for paying up? The government is obeying the rules of this capitalist system. Even if it always was required to choose the cheapest bid, one could still allege that is waste. At which point, your ideology is blaming the government for “wasting” resources when there are no other options, and—with no evidence provided—concludes the answer is to starve the government of resources to use for the public good. You appear to believe you can eliminate waste not by targeting where the waste is procured (and where the rates are set) but by targeting who pays for it. That’s some pretty interesting mental gymnastics there. > Nothing of the sort has been conclusively demonstrated, primarily because macro economics deals with aggregate human behavior - and humans are not automations. To every example of a low-tax low-growth economy is a counter example of high-tax still low-growth economy. Yes, it most certainly has. Here’s 65 years of data to get you started: https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/09/tax-cuts-dont-lead-to-economic-growth-a-new-65-year-study-finds/262438/ https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/09/tax-cut... A sibling commenter has provided other links in their posts. Is there proof that raising taxes causes economic growth? No. That claim is not made. Is there proof that cutting taxes harms economic growth? No. What is shown is that cutting taxes does not spur economic growth, as those who advocate for that idea claim. Where are the examples and serious data that show cutting taxes and starving the government of resources leads to high economic growth? You’re claiming it’s out there, so where is it? Where’s the low-tax, high-growth country? How long does that last? How much demonstrable growth is triggered as a result of each cut in taxes? How much of that growth is actually a product of the lower taxes?