8 ms·

The argument is over what point we're at on the Laffer Curve, as well as the specific shape of the curve (i.e. is the right side so steep that we can tax at wha

by sdurkin 18y ago

The argument is over what point we're at on the Laffer Curve, as well as the specific shape of the curve (i.e. is the right side so steep that we can tax at whatever rate we want up until revenues collapse entirely?), and about how tax enforcement policy can affect the shape of the curve. "They," meaning progressives, don't fail to account for anything. They just disagree with your analysis. Finally, the reason nobody knows or cares about this particular research is that most tax cuts were made with an eye toward maintaining revenue at a constant percentage of GDP. That is, the graph is a self-fulfilling prophecy. It doesn't predict what would happen with subsequent changes in the tax code. Furthermore, this isn't even in any way connected to MTRs for the rich. All that this graph reflects is that as taxes were decreased for the upper %1 over the past half century, they were increased on everybody else. It doesn't illustrate increased collection rates, just increasingly regressive tax policy. Brief mathematical analysis of what this article said: TaxRateforRich x RichEarnings + TaxRateEveryoneElse x EveryoneElseEarnings = TotalRevenue Then they told you that as TaxRateforRich dropped, total revenue remained constant, and thus concluded that the amount of earnings reported by rich people (RichEarnings) must have risen. What they ignored was a rise in TaxRateEveryoneElse.

ivankirigin 18y ago
"All that this graph reflects is that as taxes were decreased for the upper %1 over the past half century, they were increased on everybody else." False. We have a dynamic system where the incentives of the top 1% have a disproportional influence on GDP. Further, tax rates of the top 10% account for the majority of revenue. So I not only deny your claim but put forth that your rhetoric is emotionally manipulative - pitting the rich ("them") versus the rest ("us poor little everybody else"). The "rich", the top 1%, are the prime drivers of wealth creation. They are the reason GDP grows faster than population growth. The incentives on the top 1% heavily influence GDP growth. Also, the percentiles used are very misleading. The top and bottom quintiles today are not the same people in the top and bottom quintiles 20 years ago. So most stats we track about poverty and wealth are fairly useless because they follow that faulty assumption. Just in case anyone isn't clear on this: if you're a founder of a tech company, you're in the top 1% - perhaps not in income today, but in wealth generators and life-time taxes paid and to-be-paid.
- sdurkin 18y ago
  ""All that this graph reflects is that as taxes were decreased for the upper %1 over the past half century, they were increased on everybody else." False." I have to disagree. The Tax Reform Act of 1986 (as well as the cut of 64) disproportionately affected the lower income brackets. As a matter of record, tax rates are higher for the lower income brackets, and lower for higher income brackets than at any other point in US history. To cite wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Reform_Act_of_1986#Income_tax_rates http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Reform_Act_of_1986#Income_t... "The top tax rate was lowered from 50% to 28% while the bottom rate was raised from 11% to 15% - the only time in the history of the U.S. income tax (which dates back to the passage of the Revenue Act of 1862) that the top rate was reduced and the bottom rate increased concomitantly." "The "rich", the top 1%, are the prime drivers of wealth creation. They are the reason GDP grows faster than population growth." Anyone who has capital gains from the labor of others. It is misleading to say that they are responsible for this growth themselves. Their wealth is invested in those in other income brackets, and used to drive up GDP. There's nothing morally wrong with this system. I agree that incentives for the upper %1 have a disproportionate effect on GDP. That said, from an economic perspective, I happen to believe that the Laffer curve has a very steep right side, and that we are to the left of the peak. This means that by raising rates, more revenue can be collected. For example, the 1981 tax cut did not improve revenue collection. I believe that we should raise rates in order to pay for progressive social programs. The upper %1 have benefitted from not only their skill and ability to drive wealth creation, but also a good deal of luck. Progressivism is a form of social insurance. It is an acknowledgment that perhaps, through no fault of my own, I might have been born poor, or with skills not suited to the modern economy. It is the understanding that in the richest nation on earth, no one should want for food, shelter, or healthcare, no matter what their ability to contribute. This is not rhetoric. It is a judgement of values, and an assertion of a logical argument. Think of it in terms of human capital. Those born into poverty today lack the access to crucial resources, such as education, to contribute to the economy to their full potential. It is a colossal waste of human resources to allow these conditions to continue. Imagine if Bill Gates had been born in Compton instead of Seattle.
  - ivankirigin 18y ago

by sdurkin 18y ago

ivankirigin 18y ago

"All that this graph reflects is that as taxes were decreased for the upper %1 over the past half century, they were increased on everybody else." False. We have a dynamic system where the incentives of the top 1% have a disproportional influence on GDP. Further, tax rates of the top 10% account for the majority of revenue. So I not only deny your claim but put forth that your rhetoric is emotionally manipulative - pitting the rich ("them") versus the rest ("us poor little everybody else"). The "rich", the top 1%, are the prime drivers of wealth creation. They are the reason GDP grows faster than population growth. The incentives on the top 1% heavily influence GDP growth. Also, the percentiles used are very misleading. The top and bottom quintiles today are not the same people in the top and bottom quintiles 20 years ago. So most stats we track about poverty and wealth are fairly useless because they follow that faulty assumption. Just in case anyone isn't clear on this: if you're a founder of a tech company, you're in the top 1% - perhaps not in income today, but in wealth generators and life-time taxes paid and to-be-paid.

sdurkin 18y ago
""All that this graph reflects is that as taxes were decreased for the upper %1 over the past half century, they were increased on everybody else." False." I have to disagree. The Tax Reform Act of 1986 (as well as the cut of 64) disproportionately affected the lower income brackets. As a matter of record, tax rates are higher for the lower income brackets, and lower for higher income brackets than at any other point in US history. To cite wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Reform_Act_of_1986#Income_tax_rates http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Reform_Act_of_1986#Income_t... "The top tax rate was lowered from 50% to 28% while the bottom rate was raised from 11% to 15% - the only time in the history of the U.S. income tax (which dates back to the passage of the Revenue Act of 1862) that the top rate was reduced and the bottom rate increased concomitantly." "The "rich", the top 1%, are the prime drivers of wealth creation. They are the reason GDP grows faster than population growth." Anyone who has capital gains from the labor of others. It is misleading to say that they are responsible for this growth themselves. Their wealth is invested in those in other income brackets, and used to drive up GDP. There's nothing morally wrong with this system. I agree that incentives for the upper %1 have a disproportionate effect on GDP. That said, from an economic perspective, I happen to believe that the Laffer curve has a very steep right side, and that we are to the left of the peak. This means that by raising rates, more revenue can be collected. For example, the 1981 tax cut did not improve revenue collection. I believe that we should raise rates in order to pay for progressive social programs. The upper %1 have benefitted from not only their skill and ability to drive wealth creation, but also a good deal of luck. Progressivism is a form of social insurance. It is an acknowledgment that perhaps, through no fault of my own, I might have been born poor, or with skills not suited to the modern economy. It is the understanding that in the richest nation on earth, no one should want for food, shelter, or healthcare, no matter what their ability to contribute. This is not rhetoric. It is a judgement of values, and an assertion of a logical argument. Think of it in terms of human capital. Those born into poverty today lack the access to crucial resources, such as education, to contribute to the economy to their full potential. It is a colossal waste of human resources to allow these conditions to continue. Imagine if Bill Gates had been born in Compton instead of Seattle.
- ivankirigin 18y ago