Conservative Skeptics?

[AmateurScientist]

So while increasing the tax rate for the upper class will not result in more tax revenues, it should result in a larger percentage of total tax revenue being paid by the upper class - if my simple numbers are correct.

Not necessarily. What happens in practice when the highest marginal income tax rates get too high (are deemed unfair or confiscatory by taxpayers in the highest brackets) is that we find a lot more income deferring, underreporting of income, and a shifting of activities to non-income tax producing activities, and even to those that intentionally generate losses (tax shelters). These are all perverse economic effects which can harm the overall economy in unexpected ways and which do nothing to contribute to healthy economic activity.

The 1970s saw a huge explosion in the proliferation of tax shelters, some legitimate in the sense that they were legal, and some fraudulent. It was very unhealthy for citizens participating in them and for the government to have such activity be so rampant. It funneled capital away from productive activities and diverted government enforcement efforts into investigating questionable practices that its own policies in effect created. Tax shelter abuse was the prime impetus for the broad, sweeping changes to the tax code in the Tax Reform Act of 1986.

Tax shelters have not been eliminated, but their widespread abuse has been curtailed substantially. We have all benefitted from that.

Which leads me to my next question: since GDP seems to grow regardless of the tax rate, what proof do we have that lowering taxes spurns the economy? Ideally it makes perfect sense, but I don't see any numbers to verify it.

I don't know. I don't even know if that supposition is in fact true. Personally, I suspect natural business cycles and major events such as WWII have a much greater impact on GDP than does tax policy alone.

Don't forget that fiscal and monetary policies play a role too. The loosening or tightening of credit induces or inhibits a lot of economic activity. Alan Greenspan isn't revered so highly for nothing.

Thanks again for taking the time with the info and links; it's much appreciated.

You're welcome. I enjoyed discussing it with you and looking up that information. Thanks for asking so nicely.

AS

 

[bagtaggar]

AS and rhoadp:

Really informative discussion. Much appreciated from a third party observer.

 

[Batman Jr.]

Maybe, maybe not, but it's called "the Laffer Curve." This isn't a discussion of the history of modern economics.

No, the idea of maximizing revenue has a long history, and people have always been taking it into consideration when drafting prospective economic policies. The trickle-down economists just wanted to pretend they discovered something special to explain the difference in their ideas with the ideas of others. The thing is that the other economists had the whole conundrum better covered long before these guys.

I didn't say we shouldn't raise taxes under any given set of circumstances. I made my first post on this topic in response to a remark from another poster that at least tax and spend liberals are fiscally responsible. My response was meant to illustrate that that isn't necessarily the case and why.

I have neither said nor implied anything about the Bush tax cuts in particular. You are constructing strawmen in that regard.

Well, if you look at the famous Reagan tax cuts in terms of constant dollars, you see that he lost revenue. The same thing happened with the Kennedy tax cuts. The tax cut thing hasn't done what the supply-siders said it would do in the past.

I'm sorry I read into you incorrectly about Bush; I just thought that we were talking about tax-and-spend versus spend and how Bush does the latter.

 

[epepke]

Are you ok dude? Seem a bit pissy IMO.

Yeah, but at least he spelled "bated" correctly.

 

[geni]

You're forgetting a rather important factor, it might very well be militarilly possible for you to take on another nation after you're done with Iraq, even a farily powerful nation such as Iran,

Don't be to certian remeber what happened during the Millenium Challenge war games.

 

[Tricky]

Well, ya know, conservatives rely on fundy woo-woos to maintain their power base. Liberals rely on new-age woo-woos to maintain their power base. I call it a push.

 

[bagtaggar]

I love that term, "woo-woo".

 

[Belz...]

Not before I do!

Tell you what, you can have half.

I'll even be nice, I'll take the half with more water.

No deal.

 

[Cleon]

Well, ya know, conservatives rely on fundy woo-woos to maintain their power base. Liberals rely on new-age woo-woos to maintain their power base. I call it a push.

Much as I have considerable loathing for both parties, I honestly don't buy the idea that new-age woos have as much clout with the Democrats as the fundies have with the Republicans. James Dobson, of "Focus on the Family," has the ear of the President. The Maharishi might have the ear of Dennis Kucinich.

 

[AmateurScientist]

The Maharishi might have the ear of Dennis Kucinich.

Easy enough to fix. Jeesh, just send Michael Madsen in to see him with a can of gasoline.

AS

 

[Nyarlathotep]

I find it interesting that the supposedly humanitarian left, which so often rants and raves about the responsibilities that developed nations have to the rest of the world (in the form of throwing money at starving people) would rather leave the Iraqi people to suffer under Saddam than offer them the hope of a free and civil existence, albeit through armed coup and for selfishly motivated reasons.

That's alright, I find it interesting that the supposedly fiscally responsible right which so often rants and raves about spending a few million dollars to send food and other aid to countries in the grip of famine are perfectly okey-dokey with spending a few billion dollars and a couple of thousand lives to bring democracy to Iraq.

 

[punchdrunk]

This is an odd response. Can you clarify what you mean here?

It was in response to "that doesn't change the supremacy of his "life, liberty, pursuit of happiness" principle". Sorry, I could have made it more clear.

 

[punchdrunk]

I stand by my contention that, judging by their stated principles and their respect for reason, some of the founders (and other enlightenment figures) would agree with the gay rights argument.

So let's go with the premise that some founders would support gay rights and some wouldn't. Let's also state a given: "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" had a much narrower scope in real life two hundred years ago. We now find ourselves in the position of having an absolute principle implemented conditionally by the very same men who declared it. How do we correctly decide to extend that principle to the issues of today? Those that point to the absoluteness of the principle as justification ignore the fact that it has never been implemented without qualification. I submit that the absoluteness of the principle as justification is illusory; in fact, every generation will have to grapple with the qualifications put upon it, using whatever new science, morality, or common wisdom is available at the time. Thus, every generation redefines the principle. But we cannot rely upon the statement itself as an end-all justification for views we may advocate.

Thomas Jefferson advocated a law in which sodomy would be punishable by castration for men and by drilling an half-inch hole in the nose for women. Quite clearly, Jefferson did not think that the "pursuit of freedom" included the right to have anal sex. What does that do to the absoluteness of the principle? How do those of us who would like to see all basic rights extended to homosexuals justify our embracement of some of his writings and the repudiation of his others? Can we pick and choose the meanings and applications we like? What prevents our opponents from picking and choosing their arguments?

 

[Tony]

It was in response to "that doesn't change the supremacy of his "life, liberty, pursuit of happiness" principle". Sorry, I could have made it more clear.

Yeah, but what did you mean? Are you agreeing or disagreeing with me?

 

[bagtaggar]

That's alright, I find it interesting that the supposedly fiscally responsible right which so often rants and raves about spending a few million dollars to send food and other aid to countries in the grip of famine are perfectly okey-dokey with spending a few billion dollars and a couple of thousand lives to bring democracy to Iraq.

...and secure the long term economic interests of this nation.

That is interesting.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

...and secure the long term economic interests of this nation.

That is interesting.

Except that I have never heard a good explanation for exactly how our economic interests are protected by this war, unless you want to argue that despite the protestations to the contrary by the administration and many other conservatives that the war is, in fact, for oil. That would at least be a reason, but the only reason I have heard from the right in support of the war lately is "Looky! We brought democracy to the Iraqi's! Yaaaaaaay!!!!!!"

If you are going to argue that liberating the Iraqi people from an evil dictator was at best a side effect of the war and not the reason, I will have to give you points for honesty if nothing else.

 

[punchdrunk]

Absolutely, but that is nowhere near the point.

The point is that we have no business forcing our form of government on other countries. On an individual level, one of the founding principles of the US was self-determiniation. By entering another country and telling them that they have the wrong form of government, we are being hypocritical to that principle.

I suppose this comes down to whether the end justifies the means. Here's a hypothetical for you: what if, by not "spreading democracy", we allow tyrannies to gain enough power/weapons that a massively destructive attack becomes possible not only on civilians and property, but on our founding principles themselves? Say a future, much-more powerful tyranny is able to cripple our government, endangering the continuation of the principles our government was founded upon. Wouldn't it be better to stop that tyranny now to preserve our way of life?

I just realized I sound a lot like Sterling Hayden's character from "Dr. Strangelove". Well, afterall, a lot of these thoughts come to me during the physical act of love.

 

[bagtaggar]

Except that I have never heard a good explanation for exactly how our economic interests are protected by this war, unless you want to argue that despite the protestations to the contrary by the administration and many other conservatives that the war is, in fact, for oil. That would at least be a reason, but the only reason I have heard from the right in support of the war lately is "Looky! We brought democracy to the Iraqi's! Yaaaaaaay!!!!!!"

If you are going to argue that liberating the Iraqi people from an evil dictator was at best a side effect of the war and not the reason, I will have to give you points for honesty if nothing else.

Go read my posts. I've already stated that I believe this war to be about petrodollars, curbing the Euro, and OPEC. And I'm comfortable with that.

I have no need to hide behind WMDs and terrorism.

I'm a godless neocon.

 

[Upchurch]

I suppose this comes down to whether the end justifies the means.

There was a time when this was a no-brainer philosophical question like, "Is torture ever justified?" It amazes me that neither are, anymore. The Republicans are becoming the liberals, in a way.

Here's a hypothetical for you: what if, by not "spreading democracy", we allow tyrannies to gain enough power/weapons that a massively destructive attack becomes possible not only on civilians and property, but on our founding principles themselves? Say a future, much-more powerful tyranny is able to cripple our government, endangering the continuation of the principles our government was founded upon. Wouldn't it be better to stop that tyranny now to preserve our way of life?

The equivalent to "If you could go back in time, would you kill baby Hitler?", only not quite because you know Hitler will grow up to be evil. We can only guess whether or not any current threat (or non-threat, in the case of Iraq) will grow up to be some mega-evil tyranny monster.

Maybe a better analogy would be: Should we kill all convicted criminals immediately, just in case they might one day become mob bosses? Sounds good, but we know the justice system is flawed and people can be wrongly convicted. Further, the odds are that most criminals will never reach mob boss level of power. So, in all likelyhood, we end up killing people by the millions so that we can personally feel safe. (sort of an interesting irony there)

Back to your question, do we betray our principles to preserve our way of life? I guess it depends on whether you value our principles or our way of life more, doesn't it. Our principles ought to be the foundation of our way of life. Like anything, with no foundation you've got something that won't last.

I would honestly have to say no. To follow your hypothetical plan would be to change our way of life anyway and we would have thrown out our moral high ground in the process. I don't think the short term gain is worth the long term consequences.

I just realized I sound a lot like Sterling Hayden's character from "Dr. Strangelove".

Well, how do you think I feel, Dimitri?

 

[Nyarlathotep]

I have no need to hide behind WMDs and terrorism.

Well, then I have to give you those points for honesty, because you are the first war supporter I have heard say that. Generally, all I ever hear is "We went there to overthrow an evil dictator" or "Saddam might have gotten nukes" or an attempt to link Iraq to Al Qaeda.

So now I have to ask, how far it goes. If tomorrow a major oil strike was discovered in Canada and The president decided to invade Canada to grab that oil, would you support it? How about slave labor? Slave labor would be a boon for the economy. How about if we invade Canada and bring Canadians over to be used as free forced labor? That would be good for our economy too, no doubt. At what point (if ever), in your opinion, does the morality of our actions trump the benefit to our economy?