responded with Clinton? Ignore him?
hacks in the GOP who in turn ignore their own economists. As for
Laffer, I have no idea what he's been saying these days and I could care
less: as an empirical proposition, we are currently located to the left
of the peak of the Laffer Curve. If we raise taxes, we raise revenue,
period. We also make people unhappy, period. This is not a feel good
message but it's the truth. There's no such thing as a free lunch.
Subject: Laffer was right!
I suspect that LS is referring to the Laffer Curve rather than the man himself. Unfortunately for liberals, the inconvenient truth is that it's more than theory; it's a proven economic effect. One need only look at this chart:
[ source: http://tinyurl.com/2ay6r32 ]
Raising taxes does not increase revenue; the revenue level stubbornly stays at 19% of GDP regardless of the tax rate. Furthermore, it is a documented fact that raising taxes does not pay down the debt; for every $1.00 of new taxation, there is a $1.17 increase in spending [source: http://tinyurl.com/7xb9ym8 ]
Nevertheless, our Marxist-in-Chief continues to fool a lot of people into thinking that class warfare is a good idea, and pushes the kind of taxation that sucks the capital out of the true source of economic growth: investment in business.
Finally, I assert that no "Grand Bargain" was offered at all. Establishment RINO's bullied our Tea Party reps into accepting politics as usual. A bargain with the devil is never a real bargain. Now that it's clear that the GOP has failed to maintain itself as the bastion of conservatism, it's time for the conservatives to bail out and start a true conservative party. GOP can be "democrats lite" and the traitor scum at MSNBC can continue bashing the hell out of them while the Real Americans go off somewhere else and save the country.
Subject: Re: Laffer was right!
Raising taxes does *not* increase revenue; the revenue level
stubbornly stays at 19% of GDP regardless of the tax rate.
You prove you know nothing at all. You claim "Laffer was right", and then you come out with this idiocy, which is worse than anything even Laffer ever said. Here's a refresher for those who were asleep in class: Laffer postulated a curve, sort of a parabola with a peak, and if we are located to the right of the peak then cutting taxes would raise revenue; if we were located to the left of the peak then raising taxes would move us towards the peak and raise revenue.
P.S. Ur mom wuz a hamster.
Subject: Re: Laffer was right!
Raising taxes only serves to biggerize the government, sucking the life out of the private sector and causing investment to move to more business-friendly places -- thus lowering the overall revenue and negating any gains made by the new taxation (which, oops, they already spent and then some, so we're even further in the hole than we were when we started).
Keynesian economics fails every time in practice. That's why they need lies to prop it up.
Well, one good thing came out of this discussion--now that you've come out of the closet not only as a Lafferite but a paleo-Lafferite, we can put to rest all your claims about fiscal responsibility.
PURGE ALL THE LAFFERITES FROM THE GOP AND YOU PURGE THE GOP FROM THE FACE OF AMERICA! WE NEED A FINAL SOLUTION TO THE LAFFER PROBLEM!
The only fallacy I'll admit to at this point is omitting a couple of in-between steps, so let's clear them up. Although the implication should be obvious, it's clear that we moved past the peak of the Laffer curve a long time ago.
(How far to the right of the peak we are right now is irrelevant; moving it around will only change the results within a margin of error.)
Since the Laffer curve is a simplification, obviously it's expressing tax revenue in terms of absolute dollars, while the chart I showed is showing tax revenue as percent of GDP. If one were to plot a Laffer-like curve showing the relationship between taxation and GDP, it would likely be a downward-pointing bell. Put those together and you end up with the chart I showed.
So what are we left with? When we put Keynesians in power, they raise taxes, which fails to increase revenue, then they raise spending beyond the tax hike, which puts the budget even more out of balance, and we end up with this snowball effect that bankrupted the country a long time ago yet continues to get worse.
The GOP has a *long* list of problems. Affirming the validity of the Laffer curve isn't one of them. It's convenient to point to that and tell the naive people "look, it's a bunch of rich guys who don't want to pay their fair share" but that's beyond a fallacy, it's plainly empty propaganda. The numbers prove otherwise.
All these arguments around whether raising taxes will affect revenue or not seem to be making one simple assumption: no change in the U.S. population.
If so, then the answer is incredibly simple! We need to increase the U.S. population! More people means more taxpayers means more gross revenue (who cares about net!).
If we go forward with this idea, it would also end the whole controversy about birth control. We'd want less birth control to get more babies! Of course, the downside is that our need for petroleum products would skyrocket due to the increased demand for diapers and baby toys (both mostly made of plastic).
You're skewed in so many different ways I don't even know where to begin.
Obama a fiscal conservative? No President would accept multi-year $1.2 trillion+ deficits being fiscally conservative. Period.
Blaming the Tea Party for Obama's noxious combination of tax increases and spending increases and debt increases was not a "great deal". They should have shut the damned government down to show they were serious about it. The President won the political game, and made the Tea Party look foolish, because they blinked instead of holding to principal.
The Laffer Curve - like it or not, Laffer is correct. There is a point of diminishing returns when raising taxes. Where you think we are on the curve and where I think are entirely different. But, why are you against Laffer in general?
We don't have so much a revenue problem as a spending problem. You can't be at 100% GDP, incur huge deficits each year, continue to hide money on the Feds balance sheet, and have interest rates near zero. We're headed towards a lost decade like the Japanese.
A real fiscal conservative is going to look to balance spending and revenues.
A real fiscal conservative wouldn't push through Health Care act during a massive recession.
We should have let the automakers declare bankruptcy, renegotiate their contracts and move on. We should have a cogent energy policy. We should make American debt attractive by raising interest rates.
Instead, we're committing fiscal suicide as a nation.
Well you made a couple statements in there that I agree with, the rest not so much.
Laffer is correct in a sense. There is a point of diminishing returns: as a matter of common sense mathematical obviousness, there has to be. We are simply not presently located to right of the peak, as an empirical matter.
Now if you'll excuse me, I've got some final solutionizing to do.
As they say on Wikipedophilia: 
Your data blows goats. You compared the top tier with all the other tiers, which happen to average out at around... 19%. Completely specious.
I do know that as a rule, when we've raised taxes, the economy tends to slow, and when we drop them, the economy tends to speed up.
Maybe the curve is much more narrow than we expect, which is why government revenues tend to stay around that 19% of GDP.
Apr 12 2012 11:53pm from LoanShark @uncnsrd
Your data blows goats. You compared the top tier with all the other
tiers, which happen to average out at around... 19%. Completely
Well, the top 10% of wage earners pay over 70% of the taxes.... The top 1% pays almost 37%. I don't see how you can expect IG's data to show anything else LS.
Back up your own implausible claims first.. You claim to be a fiscal conservative? The idea that any unfunded tax cuts are going to pay for themselves is not the conservative assumption.
Not over the long run, anyway.
We don't need permanent tax cuts at time when our credit ratings are being cut. We need a credible plan for long-run balance. If you're arguing for tax-cuts that aren't funded by spending cuts, you're arguing for monetary stimulus. And if there's going to be stimulus, either from tax cuts or spending hikes, it needs to be a layer on top of the long-run plan and it needs to be framed it as temporary. Otherwise, the (thus-far invisible) bond vigilantes may punish you...
Look, Ragnar, the problem with IG's "data" is not that's it's wrong, it's that it changed the subject. The top marginal rate, paid by 0.1% of people, has precious little to do with the Laffer Curve. He proved only that the average tax rate remains around 20%, as a glance here would have shown:
I actually think IG's data (as far as it goes, which is not far, because looking at revenue as a percent of GDP doesn't do enough to validate the Laffer Curve) actually supports my point more than his. You can clearly see that when tax rates go up, revenue goes up. (Put that in your pipe and smoke it, eh?)
But really, none of the data presented thus far is enough. You need to use tools like VARs and IRFs to really make an objective case one way or the other...
To understand why we are not on the left side of the Laffer curve, Bill Whittle's "Eat the Rich" piece is included, in its entirety, herein by reference. (typing this on my phone otherwise I'd include a link)
No mainstream political hacks go far enough to cut spending because they are all beholden to specisl interests. Some do better than others but none even come close to doing the right thing.
Most. Self-contradictory. Ticket. Ever.
Paul: Hard-core pro-balanced budget ideologue.
Laffer: Hard-core pro-DEFICIT ideologue!
'Today's corporate profits reflect an income shift into 2010. These profits will tumble next year, preceded most likely by the stock market. '
You may argue with each other if you want.
However it stands to reason that "spend less, spend less, spend less, tax less, tax less, tax less" is ABSOLUTELY COMPATIBLE with "tax less, tax less, tax less."
Especially when we are on the right side of the Laffer curve.