ROSEN: The 'trickle-down' myth
By Mike Rosen, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)
Published November 28, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.
'For eight years, we've been told that the way to a stronger economy was to give huge tax breaks to corporations and the wealthiest Americans, and somehow prosperity would trickle down." So intoned Barack Obama in a campaign ad.
Really? And who told us this? Certainly not Republicans or proponents of supply-side economics, from which the epithet "trickle-down economics" was dishonestly contrived by Democrats. An earlier form of this liberal cliche can be traced back to William Jennings Bryan's infamous 1896 "Cross of Gold" speech: "There are those who believe that if you will only legislate to make the well-to-do prosperous, their prosperity will leak through on those below." [My emphasis here and above.]
Leak through or trickle down - same difference. Bryan was a populist demagogue, a practitioner of the politics of envy, which latter-day Democrats have raised to an art form.
Supply-side economics is based on the understanding that prosperity is ultimately dependent on productivity and output. And that the way to stimulate more of that is to create incentives for productive enterprise. Lower rates of taxation for everyone on work, savings and investment encourages these very things; higher tax rates discourage them.
Defaming supply-side economics contemptuously as "trickle-down" has been a Democratic standby for years, with one notable exception. After John F. Kennedy was elected president in 1960, he persuaded Congress to reduce the confiscatory top marginal tax rate, then 90 percent, down to a mere 70 percent. In a speech to the Economic Club of New York in 1962, JFK explained: "In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues too low - and the soundest way to raise revenues in the long run is to cut tax rates now."
Under the Kennedy tax-rate cuts, as predicted, revenues grew. Twenty years later, when tax rates were cut even more under Ronald Reagan, federal tax revenues again soared with the "rich" paying an increasingly greater share of the income tax burden. Since it was now a Republican initiating this policy, Democrats branded it "Reaganomics" and mocked it as half-baked, "trickle-down" economics.
In fact, it's simply common sense. It applies to all facets of commerce. Think of a department store, for example. When the store wants to make more money it doesn't raise its prices, it advertises a sale and cuts them. The store might make less money per unit sold, but by stimulating the volume of economic activity it increases its profits. Lower tax rates are a sale on economic enterprise.
This common-sense concept was understood as far back as the 14th century, when the Arabian philosopher Ibn Khaldun observed that, "the strongest incentive for cultural activity is to lower as much as possible the amounts of individual imposts levied on upon persons capable of undertaking cultural enterprises."
In Federalist No. 21, Alexander Hamilton echoed this same theme, arguing that taxes "prescribe their own limit; which cannot be exceeded without defeating the end proposed, - that is, an extension of the revenue . . . If duties are too high they lessen the consumption; the collection is eluded; and the product to the treasury is not so great as when they are confined within proper and moderate bounds."
It's ironic that liberals smugly ridicule this proposition when even their ideological icons have endorsed it. Icons like John Maynard Keynes, economic godfather to FDR's New Deal, who in his 1933 tract The Means to Prosperity wrote, "taxation may be so high as to defeat its object, and that, given sufficient time to gather the fruits, a reduction of taxation will run a better chance, than an increase, of balancing the budget."
"Trickle-down" economics has become the knee-jerk, liberal expletive to demean tax incentives that reward individual effort and success. Their simple-minded notion of capital formation is not of entrepreneurs creating jobs but of fat cats getting rich and throwing a few crumbs at exploited laborers. They don't much understand or care for capitalism, and like capitalists even less.
Mike Rosen's radio show airs weekdays from 9 a.m. to noon on 850 KOA. He can be reached by e-mail at mikerosen@850koa.com.
Featured
-
DNC in Denver
Complete coverage of the 2008 Democratic National Convention.
-
The Crevasse
A five-part series that examines one tragic day on Mount Rainier.
-
Deadly denial
Sick nuclear workers applied for government compensation but most haven't seen a dime.
-
Final Salute
The Rocky followed Maj. Steve Beck as he took on the most difficult duty of his career.
-
'Colorado's burning'
Coverage of the state's worst wildfires.
-
Columbine shootings
Coverage of the April 20, 1999, shootings at Littleton's Columbine High School.
-
The Crossing
Colorado's deadliest traffic accident killed 20 children on Dec. 14, 1961.
-
Osveli's journey
Osveli Sales left Guatemala for a better life. Two months later, he came home in a box.
-
Wake for an Indian warrior
Oglala Sioux bestow a tribute to the first tribal fatality in Iraq.
November 28, 2008
6:06 a.m.
Suggest removal
SheikYurBooty writes:
Rosenomics: gorge the cow so that the flies may eat.
To say "that prosperity is ultimately dependent on productivity and output." is belaboring the obvious. The issue isn't productivity, but who gets which part of that produced. Why do CEO's today get several hundred times what an average worker gets while in the 50's that was only several dozen times as much? Were CEOs back then such laggards? Why does a journeyman, bench-warming utility infielder today take home as much or more (in inflation-adjusted $$) than greats like Mantle or Dimaggio ever did? Because they are so much more productive? Hogwash. It is much better explained that changes to which they contributed nothing militated to their benefit. What changes? Development of lucrative TV deals, competitive card and product endorsement market, taxpayer subsidies of their industry, end of the reserve clause and open market bidding for their services, etc. They are not more productive (just compare stats) but changes in market dynamic OVER WHICH THEY HAD NO CONTROL AND DID NOT CAUSE TO HAPPEN made them winners in life's lotto. Ditto CEOs, movie starts, etc even if the comparison is less straightforward to illustrate.
November 28, 2008
6:41 a.m.
Suggest removal
Oh_Wise_One writes:
Sheikur- "winner in life's lotto"? That would be all Americans as compared to most of the third world countries. So, then, by your comparison, we should hand over all of our hard earned fruits to those in Kenya or Thailand?
Class envy is the scourge of Liberalism.
November 28, 2008
6:46 a.m.
Suggest removal
socrates writes:
Two things: First - Rosen makes the assumption of the ideologue. Basically, if drinking one beer feels good, drinking a case of beer will feel that much better. A reasonable tax rate may be below a confiscatory tax rate, but lower is not always better - there's a reasonable rate that works to the best benefit.
Secondly - Reagan raised taxes.
November 28, 2008
6:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
Oh_Wise_One writes:
Socrates- so the debate is over how high it too high for taxes. Some of us believe we can spend our own money better that the government can. Let's change it so you can GIVE them all that you want. Me, I say no more taxes.... no more taxes.
November 28, 2008
7:06 a.m.
Suggest removal
JohnSWren writes:
I heard Prof. Kenneth Boulding from the University of Colorado explain it this way: "The problem is the economist's pie-chart. There is no pie, just a bunch of damned little tarts!"
There is a problem with the salaries of a few CEOs and pro athletes in the short-run, but if the market is allowed to operate these problems will be corrected as stockholders and fans wake up and move to cheaper substitutes.
Higher tax rates will kill the cow. From Ben Franklin to Jarid Polis, people starting new businesses and reaping the benefits has fueled the true American Dream. Our best hope for prosperity and freedom are the million or so new businesses that start each year, and the million or so U.S. millionairs we have that can stand up to the government when it over-reaches. Taxing away their power will just make us all poorer.
The best way to fight back is to start a business. To learn more, join us this afternoon or any Friday afternoon for the Denver IDEA Cafe. Details and RSVP at http://ideacafe.meetup.com/1
November 28, 2008
7:21 a.m.
Suggest removal
SheikYurBooty writes:
O_W_O: "That would be all Americans as compared to most of the third world countries." An easy argument to make - you can fill in the blanks better than I can I'm guessing.
"So, then, by your comparison, we should hand over all of our hard earned fruits to those in Kenya or Thailand?" No - and I suspect this "question" is meant to inflame and not to inform, but nonetheless let me respond. All "hard-earned fruits" belong to those who earned them. Question - if you go into a third world country and can use a compliant, corrupt, violent government to get people to pick fruit for pennies an hour and then you can ship them to the West for pennies a pound (due to maritime law that favors shipowners) and then sell them for $$/lb, who "earned" the money. I know who can CLAIM it, but that's not my question - the question is who EARNED it????
November 28, 2008
7:48 a.m.
Suggest removal
LetsThink writes:
Excellent points made by Mr. Rosen, that are indisputable.
It will be interesting to see how the liberals respond.
November 28, 2008
7:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
SheikYurBooty writes:
O_W_O - BTW, what do you call it when someone cashes in huge due to something that they did not cause to happen and indeed had no control over? I called that a lotto winner and I stand by that. Please show me otherwise...
November 28, 2008
7:58 a.m.
Suggest removal
Gonzopozo writes:
So what, Obama just invented the term "trickle down"? Please.
"We never said that !!!" is the cry of the Republicans when it becomes glaringly obvious that it doesn't work anymore. I never hear Rosen or Rush or Hannity or any other conservative CYA radio host clone disavow all knowledge of it when it might have worked. Why is that?
November 28, 2008
7:58 a.m.
Suggest removal
skleepit writes:
Just wait, the worst is about to come upon us. Hope and change are on the horrizon! Our new non-american president-elect is going to sqeeze every last cent from all of us. Can't wait to see how the libs twist and shout the new message. entitlements, entitlements, and entitlements. Do not work or try to advance yourself for the liberals will take from someone else and give it to you. God damn liberals!
November 28, 2008
8:07 a.m.
Suggest removal
SheikYurBooty writes:
skleepit: "Our new non-american president-elect is going to sqeeze every last cent from all of us."
1. Too late - the Bu**sh** administration beat him to the punch.
2. I'd rather have this "non-american president-elect" than our current "american non-president."
November 28, 2008
8:17 a.m.
Suggest removal
DakotaPlainsman writes:
I've never been hired by a poor person.
November 28, 2008
8:23 a.m.
Suggest removal
hogarm writes:
" Lower rates of taxation for everyone on work, savings and investment encourages <productivity and output>; higher tax rates discourage them."
What Joe the Plumber doesn't know and Mike Rosen ignores, this is not true for corporate income taxes. Rather than maximize net income in years of high corporate income taxes, companies will invest in deductible expenses; such as labor, technology, depreciable assets and corporate jets; all of which “trickle” into the overall economy. The winners are workers, suppliers and contractors. The loser is the investor. The key is not to lower income taxes to the lowest possible level, the key is to maximize taxes to stimulate growth without raising them to a level that will restrict the ability to raise capital.
November 28, 2008
8:31 a.m.
Suggest removal
SheikYurBooty writes:
"I've never been hired by a poor person."
Sure you have - every day. Contrary to popular belief, jobs are not "created" by the wealthy. The are created by consumer demand alone. Poor people contribute to consumer demand, in fact, given their numbers, they are a strong component of consumer demand. So not only have you been "hired" by a poor person, you and most others have been hired by all of the poor on an ongoing basis.
Glad I could clear that up for you.
November 28, 2008
8:31 a.m.
Suggest removal
DakotaPlainsman writes:
Corporate jets are not all bad. Someone had to build it, some has to fly it, someone has to maintain it. If the company can afford the jet, its not such a bad thing. It's when a union supported CEO shows up in front of Congress asking for a hand out after flying in a corp jet ... that's not so good. Same with multi-million $ homes. Some one built them, maintains them and provided the materials.... at each step taxes were paid and jobs were created. I vote for Rosen as Treasury Secretary.
November 28, 2008
8:36 a.m.
Suggest removal
DakotaPlainsman writes:
Sheik,
As a matter of fact, some might consider me a poor person. And, when I decide to purchase a product or a service from a rich person, I don't begrudge that person the benefit from my purchase. If I decide to spend my limited income to watch a highly talented professional athlete do something I am unable to do, I do not begrudge him his talent. I sit in the bleachers and cheer for his success and I am happy to be a spectator. If I want to be out on the field of play, then I need to step down from the bleachers and go for it. I pity you for your envy. I do not envy you for your pity.
November 28, 2008
8:53 a.m.
Suggest removal
SheikYurBooty writes:
DP - I vote for Rosen for US Ambassador to Iraq.
I don't envy anyone, so please disabuse yourself of that self-serving falsehood. I simply object to people taking from others that which is not theirs. If a person gets carjacked and wants their car back, is that envy???? If Pat Bowlen legally takes your money via a tax he got legislature to approve and that he demagogued through an election with false (due to contractual obligations) threats to move, and I object to that forcible taking, I am like the carjack victim. If that's what you call envy, so be it. I think people should EARN their income and property, not claim it away from others just because they can.
If you engage a big, rich landscape company and pay big $$ to them to hire a bunch of illegal, minimum wage (or less) day laborers to do you lawn then:
1. you, a self-described "poor" person, just hired some people (you, that "poor" person hire people every time you spend a dime - do you not understand that simple economic reality???)
2. who added the value that you paid for? The owner of the company? The laborers? Both? In that latter case, who provided what percent of the overall value????
November 28, 2008
9:01 a.m.
Suggest removal
DakotaPlainsman writes:
Sheik,
You sure sound envious. That's not a good trait.
A worker that adds value to a product is doing so because the originator of that product provided the opportunity to the worker. Its a mutually beneficial relationship. If the worker is not getting his just reward, he sould sell his efforts to a higher bidder.... if such a bidder exists and if his efforts are truly worth more. One instance where that relationship cannot and does not exist is in a union dominated industry... most of which have failed and the rest are in the process of failure.
November 28, 2008
9:15 a.m.
Suggest removal
SheikYurBooty writes:
DP:
"You sure sound envious. That's not a good trait. - that's what you percieve, but I have already tried to set you straight. Look - if a mugged person complains, that is NOT envy. What part of that is so hard to understand???
"A worker that adds value to a product is doing so because the originator of that product provided the opportunity to the worker. Its a mutually beneficial relationship."
The demand is created by the end consumer, not by the employer. The employer is more accurately a middleman - he provides a portion of the value and productivity to be sure, but he does not provide the demand that fuels the underlying economic activity. Econ 101 my friend.
"If the worker is not getting his just reward, he sould sell his efforts to a higher bidder...."
True only in competitve markets. Uncompetitve markets turn this notion on its head. Many markets are severly lacking in overall competitiveness.
"if such a bidder exists and if his efforts are truly worth more."
You speak of "worth" as if this were an objective concept. Not to beat this to death, but it's a good example and one that no one has ever debunked: Pat Bowlen makes a lot more $$ today thatn he did 10 years ago? What is he doing to produce so much more value than he did 10 years ago??? (Answer: nothing. It's just that he has set himself up as the beneficiary of a "Pat Bowlen" tax that he collects from all of the rest of us. He is NOT MORE PRODUCTIVE!!! Can you demonstrate otherwise??? SO that's income redistribution. I am against that. You seem to be all for it.
November 28, 2008
9:22 a.m.
Suggest removal
cb writes:
Shiek...of course the amount that CEO's and others make is obscene. But their is no recourse here...do you suggest a board of commissars to dictate how much a person can earn or a firm can make? I'd sure like to meet that bunch of folks.
The folks of the left who complain about disparity and fairness (or "social justice") never have a solution because often there is none. However, they're always willing to tear down any existing establishment in their foolish quest for haven on earth.
November 28, 2008
9:27 a.m.
Suggest removal
DakotaPlainsman writes:
Sheik,
Your obsession (is this envy I detect) with Pat Bowlen seems to be causing you to miss some important concepts...
choice
decisions
opportunity
You are describing victimhood. (car jacking, muggings, etc.)
To be a victim and to choose to stay one is a pathetic way to spend ones life. You can spend your life any way you want, but you can only spend it once.
Having been to many places other than America, with all our faults, it is still the best place on earth for choice, decisions and opportunity.
November 28, 2008
9:29 a.m.
Suggest removal
jfkdem47 writes:
Not one. Not a single one. Not a single poster has been able to prove Rosen wrong with sound logic and evidence. All they could do is use childish namecalling to try to deflect Rosen's points, or use some warped examples of their ignorance of basic economics (i.e. Sheik) to try to cover up their inability to understand the subject.
November 28, 2008
9:40 a.m.
Suggest removal
SheikYurBooty writes:
cb: "Shiek...of course the amount that CEO's and others make is obscene. But their is no recourse here...do you suggest a board of commissars to dictate how much a person can earn or a firm can make? I'd sure like to meet that bunch of folks."
I never said anything was "obscene" but I would characterize compensation at hundreds of times average levels as "redistributionist" and/or "non-competitive." I am against both of those (apparently that makes me a socialist in the eyes of some who don't have a clue what that word even means).
As for recourse - the first step is to acknowledge the situation. I would start by insisting that CEO's and others explain just how it is that they are 100's of time more productive than the average person, including our fine military in combat zones. Pointing out that you are able to claim the $$ legally is not an explanation, but a simple description of an event. If they claimed to have run a marathon 100 times faster than the average person, we would know they were deluded or cheating. Why don't we recognize that fact where the subject in income???
November 28, 2008
9:48 a.m.
Suggest removal
SheikYurBooty writes:
DP - I use Bowlen because his case is well known and he is a shining example of someone who redistributed and legally claimed wealth that he did not produce. I oppose people taking income that they did not produce from others, even if done so legally. Bowlen in the toast of Denver society (you always see the well-baubled Anabel in the paper at some function or other) with $$ that he TOOK, legally, discreetly, classily, whatever, but nonetheless TOOK from other people who had to work for it. In that respect, he is no different than a carjacker. He differs from a carjacker in that the latter operates illegally, non-gracefully, and non-discreetly. They both use differnt means to take from others. Prove me wrong.
I won't hold my breath.
November 28, 2008
9:53 a.m.
Suggest removal
SheikYurBooty writes:
jfkdem47:
"or use some warped examples of their ignorance of basic economics (i.e. Sheik) to try to cover up their inability to understand the subject."
I notice you were unable to provide even one example of your baseless claim.
November 28, 2008
10:20 a.m.
Suggest removal
cb writes:
Shiek - you say "As for recourse - the first step is to acknowledge the situation" - Pretty much all of us are aware there are folks who make way more than they appear to be worth...it's been that way since the beginning of time. Again I ask how do you propose to change human nature? How would you limit wealth concentration and administer it? The free market finds the correct price for everything - it is messy but no one has found a way to improve on it. Both objects, and labor are simply worth what ever the seller will accept. (check out ebay or craigslist)
If today you took all the cash in the world and redistributed it evenly to all peoples it would eventually end up back in the hands of the capable and cunning - the poor and dependent would again be the majority. Wisdom, talent and good luck are not distributed evenly in this world.
November 28, 2008
10:25 a.m.
Suggest removal
Ted_in_Vegas writes:
So, Sheik, without Sam Walton, WalMart would have existed anyway?
The Broncos would have won SuperBowls no matter who was in charge?
Microsoft would be the dominant software company in the world if I or you were in charge of it instead of Bill Gates?
You seem to be saying that sound leadership and management has NO effect on production. That is simply the MOST inane thing I've ever seen you write, and I've seen you write some doosies.
If your theory that those in charge have little or nothing to do with success or failure were true, then it really doesn't matter who's in charge of anything!
It doesn't matter whether my boss is a good businessman or a bad one, we'll succeed or fail regardless.
It doesn't even matter who the president is, we'll succeed or fail regardless of the leadership and managerial skills of the Commander-in-Chief.
That is absolutely the most ignorant concept I've seen you espouse, but my examples are clearly the extrapolations that your expressions create.
Go away, get an education in the real world, and THEN come back with something to add.
November 28, 2008
10:39 a.m.
Suggest removal
SheikYurBooty writes:
cb:
"Pretty much all of us are aware there are folks who make way more than they appear to be worth...it's been that way since the beginning of time."
They don't **make** it they **CLAIM** it and we have consistently conflated those 2 concepts. If they really **made*** it, then CEO's would indeed be hundreds of times as productive as the average person and Nefy Perez would actually be more productive than Joe Dimaggio was. Don't tell me you believe that Perez' productivity (no matter how measured) > Dimaggio's??
"Again I ask how do you propose to change human nature?"
Huh - where did you get such a silly notion???
"How would you limit wealth concentration and administer it?"
Serious progressive reclaiming as income claiming gets seriously north of the average.
"The free market finds the correct price for everything - it is messy but no one has found a way to improve on it."
An improvement would be competitive markets. Competitve markets are in fact a subset of free markets. In fact, Free MArket = Competitve Market part + non-competitive part.
"If today you took all the cash in the world and redistributed it evenly to all peoples it would eventually end up back in the hands of the capable and cunning" - The "capable and cunning" - that is a tautology - the C&C or simply those who can grab the loot. Saddam Hussein e.g.
"Wisdom, talent and good luck are not distributed evenly in this world." - belaboring the obvious. That's no excuse for some taking (claiming) what others produced.
November 28, 2008
10:44 a.m.
Suggest removal
SheikYurBooty writes:
T_I_V:
"So, Sheik, without Sam Walton, WalMart would have existed anyway?
The Broncos would have won SuperBowls no matter who was in charge?
Microsoft would be the dominant software company in the world if I or you were in charge of it instead of Bill Gates?"
??? You are cofusing my posts with something you read elsewhere. What you've said here has nothing to do with my posts.
"You seem to be saying that sound leadership and management has NO effect on production."
??? Please cite. You are confused.
"That is simply the MOST inane thing I've ever seen you write,.." That's because I NEVER WROTE THAT!!!!
"If your theory that those in charge have little or nothing to do with success or failure were true, then it really doesn't matter who's in charge of anything!"
More over-the-top confusion. Provide the citation that led you to this perverse conclusion.
"It doesn't matter whether my boss is a good businessman or a bad one, we'll succeed or fail regardless." - You are losing it my friend.
"That is absolutely the most ignorant concept I've seen you espouse, but my examples are clearly the extrapolations that your expressions create."
???? Citation please. You are SERIOUSLY mistaking my posts for stuff you read on some other blog, by someone else.
November 28, 2008
11:01 a.m.
Suggest removal
mmannino writes:
The important issue is who determines value. In a market economy, the interaction of buyers and sellers determines value. I think that many want some outside determination of value especially for labor. There is nothing special about buyers and sellers determining value except for the large number of buyers and sellers and market transactions. In each transaction, buyers and sellers are trying maximize their interests.
When outside parties such as politicians and government bureaucrats determine value, they have no direct stake in the outcome. They substitute their judgment for buyers and sellers. Outside parties impose price controls using class warfare and envy as justification.
Those who favor determination of compensation levels want price controls. Price controls except in short term situations such as war have had disasterous consequences. Organizations employing CEOs, athletes, entertainment stars, and other top talent should be free to determine compensation levels in exchanges with the top talent.
November 28, 2008
11:08 a.m.
Suggest removal
CL writes:
"Not a single poster has been able to prove Rosen wrong with sound logic and evidence."
Here's a couple flaws.
"Twenty years later, when tax rates were cut even more under Ronald Reagan, federal tax revenues again soared ..."
And federal tax revenues also rose after Clinton raised taxes, so by Rosen's "sound logic", raising taxes will also increase revenue collected. Rosen selectively uses anecdotal evidence to make his point. One could selectively use the increased tax revenues following Clinton's tax increase to argue that raising taxes boosts tax revenues - exactly opposite what Rosen says.
But one could counter, Clinton benefited from the dot-com boom and the economy boomed despite his tax increase! YES - this is true, but Reagan likewise benefited from a recovering economy - if one argues that the dot-com boom happened despite Clinton's tax policy, then that same argument can be applied to Reagan's tax policy and say that the economy recovered despite them. Bottom line is Rosen needs to establish cause-and-effect, which he doesn't do, rather than just point out anecdotal correlations that support his argument while ignoring those that contradict it. The flaw with Rosen's "sound logic and evidence" is that the economy responds to much, much more than just tax policy.
Now on to the next flaw -
"In fact, it's simply common sense. It applies to all facets of commerce. Think of a department store, for example. When the store wants to make more money it doesn't raise its prices, it advertises a sale and cuts them. The store might make less money per unit sold, but by stimulating the volume of economic activity it increases its profits. Lower tax rates are a sale on economic enterprise."
Following that logic, then the store should be able to lower it's prices to zero or even pay customers to take their products - think of all the profits they would make then! Likewise, to get the most tax revenue, drop the rate to nothing. This obviously won't work. The reason is the Rosen left out a critical part of supply-side economic theory - guess what - it DOESN"T say that decreasing tax rates will ALWAYS increase tax revenue. What it does say is that if tax rates are too high then decreasing them can increase revenues collected - up to a point after which lowering tax rates further will result in lower revenues collected. It's called the Laffer Curve:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_c...
So to make the argument that lowering tax rates will increase revenues one first needs to establish that the tax rates are on the high side of the curve. This is something that is virtually impossible to do for a variety of reasons - one being that the economy responds to much more than tax policy which means that the "ideal" rate will differ with differing economic conditions such a recession vs a boom.
November 28, 2008
11:20 a.m.
Suggest removal
HopiMedicineMan writes:
During the era of the great robber barons, there was no income tax and no trickle down. We’re just discovering Reagan through his imitators, the Democrats. Reagan mastered the technique of producing “cognitive dissonance,” doing the opposite of what you say you’re doing, as you do it. He lowered tax rates, but overall increased the rate of taxation. I paid higher taxes on lower income in that era. Any reform begun by Reagan, perpetuated and claimed by Clinton, has been significantly reversed by Bush, master of not failing to offend just about everyone everywhere.
November 28, 2008
11:30 a.m.
Suggest removal
BlueCarp writes:
I encourage everyone, especially those on this thread who have an obvious interest in economics, to read "Free to Choose" by Milton Friedman.
November 28, 2008
12:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
SheikYurBooty writes:
BlueCarp - BTDT. Also "Economics in One Lesson" by Henry Hazlitt.
November 28, 2008
12:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
blacksho89 writes:
Sheik; What do your inane rantings have to do with taxes?
November 28, 2008
1:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
Colorado_Bill writes:
Following the "logic" of Rosen and his right-wing groupies, this country must be full of coulda-been Sam Waltons and Bill Gateses, all of whom said to themselves, "I could make tens of millions of dollars if only those Demon Liberals would let me! If I have to pay half my income to the gummint in taxes, I'll only take home fives of millions of dollars. No way Jose! I won't go into business at all, and live on welfare, instead. That will show them!"
YeahRightSure. Can you spell "baloney?"
November 28, 2008
1:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
Slimjim_800 writes:
It's one thing for Mike to suggest lower tax rates increases productivity and prosperity. However, for him to also suggest that lowering tax rates actually increases tax revenues is ridiculous. I'm sure if he actually analyzes the data he used to make that assumption it will point him in a different direction.
If he feels so strongly about this correlation why doesn't he support a bill to fund something by cutting our income tax rate. It could read something like: state income tax will be reduced by 1% to fund homeland security by $30 million. If he needed $60 million he could reduce tax by 2%.
November 28, 2008
1:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
infidel91 writes:
SYB: Of course Perez' productivity is greater than DiMaggio's was -- because Perez (like all players) enjoys the benefit of factors such as television, merchandising, and marketing that multiply the value (in entertainment dollars taken in) of his play. Just because others invented those multipliers doesn't mean that Perez stole money from those others, or that he isn't entitled to the salary he's been given.
November 28, 2008
1:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
HolierThanThou writes:
The grand canonical flaw of trickle-down (or supply-side) policy is that tax cuts for the wealthy do not work because their taxes are already too low. Instead of increasing revenue, government goes into deficit, which is both a tax on posterity and a drain on available capital for new business investment.
These evils happened during Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II showing cause and effect to demonstrate the complete failure of the supply-side model. Whether or not we call it "trickle-down" economics, it's still a miserable failure.
What conservatives say and what they do are diametric opposites. Conservatives say they want the government to balance the budget but, when they take control, the government dives headlong into the red. So, the results always prove that conservatives have no real concept of economics. Rosen's writings are scarcely even coherent. Making an argument against them is like trying to convince a raving schizophrenic that his hallucinations aren't real. He'll cite you chapter and verse to prove that the shadow on the wall is preparing to devour everyone in the room. He deserves our pity but don't give him a pistol or hand over the reins of government to him.
The government provides the structural framework of the economy. As such, the first priority of the government must be integrity. Integrity means that the government must first balance its own budget. We can do that by taxing the wealthy to balance the budget or by cutting spending on such wasteful projects as the military adventures of the madman who shall be retiring on January 20th.
Integrity also means that those who create the wealth with their own hands and brain-power deserve to share largely in what they produce. This wealth must not be stolen and concentrated into the hands of a wealthy few just because they have the legal power to oppress their employees and rob their stockholders. If they over pay themselves, we tax them them to trim their power. High taxation on billionaires is not just a way to balance the budget but is also a necessary check on their power to rule the rest of society by way of bribery and influence over the media.
Call it by any dignified phraseology that you can invent Mr. Rosen. The results of trickle-down economics are now plain enough for even the flakiest conservatives to see, so they're doing their level best to disown the horrendous injuries they've done to America.
Fortunately, we have a new government coming together. If this and future generations are provided a good quality of education then conservatism will follow monarchy, communism, and nazism into the ash heap of history. May future generations be diligent in solving the problems of this nation and the world with common sense, rational thinking, and a fair share of kindness towards their global neighbors as well.
November 28, 2008
1:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
infidel91 writes:
HTT: What is this "structural framework of the economy" that you claim is provided by the government?
November 28, 2008
2 p.m.
Suggest removal
SheikYurBooty writes:
infidel91
If Perez' productivity was magnified by TV, marketing, etc, then those should get the benefit. It's called competitive capitalism. You seem to be smitten with "winner-take-all" capitalism.
Anyone care to explain Bowlen's legal windfall of taxing the rest of us for his own personal gain?? The question is: did he **earn** that money???
November 28, 2008
2:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
infidel91 writes:
It's the *existence* of advancements in the use of TV and marketing and etc. in their current forms that acts as the multiplier -- there isn't a Mr. TV or a Mrs. Marketing to hand any money to. In the same way, Toyota can't hand over some of the benefits from their sales to "the assembly line," or "the wheel." There are thousands upon thousands of advancements in productivity that benefit everyone, but that most people aren't expected to pay for -- it's a fringe benefit of capitalism.
As for your suggestion of my smitten-ness, I will borrow a phrase of yours from when someone was putting words in *your* mouth: "You are cofusing my posts with something you read elsewhere. What you've said here has nothing to do with my posts."
I only know one kind of capitalism, and that's . . . capitalism. I'm not familiar with any variants such as you have named.
As for Bowlen, what's to understand? He's got political pull, and he got his hands on our money. That's hardly a sin that can be laid at the feet of a free market -- it is instead a consequence of the widespread acceptance of the idea of the state mucking around in the economy. Want to eliminate government corruption? Take away the power of politicians to hand out favors.
November 28, 2008
2:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
Slimjim_800 writes:
Bowlen did earn that money. He created a brand and successfully marketed it to Colorado. He then charged us a price for it and used the government to collect the money for it.
He earned the money just as legitimately as Bill Gates did for creating a product and marketing it to us. Although the two products are different both products have value and as such he did not take anyting from us.
November 28, 2008
2:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
SheikYurBooty writes:
Slim: "Bowlen did earn that money. He created a brand and successfully marketed it to Colorado. He then charged us a price for it and used the government to collect the money for it."
That conflates the $$ he collects from fans with what he shook down the taxpayers for.
"... he did not take anyting from us." Au contraire - he totally did via the sales tax that was imposed on millions of us for his personal benefit.
Infidel - there are all different "flavors" of capitalism: free market, competitive, crony, winner-take-all, cooperative, democratic, etc.
"..and he got his hands on our money." I think that's a close as you will let yourself come to admitting the he did NOT **earn** the $$ - i.e. he "redistributed" it to himself.
November 28, 2008
2:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
infidel91 writes:
I should clarify that I was only referring to any tax money that Bowlen got to help build his facilities. I have no problem with any money that he's gotten from *voluntary* transactions.
November 28, 2008
2:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
infidel91 writes:
Um, SYB, of course he didn't *earn* our tax money. That's why I advocated emptying the government trough that people like Bowlen feed at.
November 28, 2008
3:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
SheikYurBooty writes:
infidel - don't forget that Bowle operates a monopoly, and monopolies exist soley to extract a price premium - that is, a premium that would not be possible in a competitive market. That premium, even though it is collected in the market and not via government force, is every bit as unearned and redistributed as is the forced tax collection that Bowlen has imposed on the hard working people of Denver.
November 28, 2008
3:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
globalkooler writes:
Sheik.....What you forgot is that anytime those hard working prople don't want to pay Bowlen's price all they have to do is stop buying tickets and guess what, prices will fall........Free Market Capitalism at work.
Rosen gave you a history lesson which shows that reducing taxes always results in more revenue into Government coffers. It has worked over and over again. Only a moron would not understand the concept............
November 28, 2008
3:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
SheikYurBooty writes:
globalcooler - so monopolies are a meaningless joke that economists invented just to amuse themselves? So union monopolies are all fine by you? Monopolies are part of the "free market" and in fact are just about all that is wrong with the free market. A free market w/o monopolistic nooks and crannies would be a virtually perfect economic system. With those nooks and crannies, it leaves a lot to be desired however.
You have to learn to separate the wheat from the chaff.
November 28, 2008
3:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
SheikYurBooty writes:
global:
"Rosen gave you a history lesson which shows that reducing taxes always results in more revenue into Government coffers."
What is this, New Math?????
Taxes = gov't revenue.
Reducing taxes = less gov't revenue (by definition)
But according to your statement, less gov't revenue = more gov't revenue.
You might want to think that one through. Or maybe it's just a version of the old Jedi Mind Trick.
November 28, 2008
4:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
sawzallartist writes:
globalkooler writes:
"Rosen gave you a history lesson which shows that reducing taxes always results in more revenue into Government coffers. It has worked over and over again. Only a moron would not understand the concept............"
No.....only a moron makes stuff up....
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/art...
November 28, 2008
4:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
p_myers661 writes:
SYB
"I oppose people taking income that they did not produce from others, even if done so legally. "
So you oppose welfare and Medicaid and Medicare?
Your arguments are simple but ignore the fact that the stadium tax was approved by a vote of the people. They approved the tax because the Bronco games produce a revenue "ripple" for others. Parking, bars, food purveyors, specialty stores for sports items and the restaurants and takeout stands prosper more from the 8 games here than you take account of. Many restaurants and bars hire extra help for those games so part time workers can add to their income while the regular workers may collect higher paychecks from overtime or even just more hours up to forty.
Wealth creates jobs. A wealthy person hires workers to do work for him either at his home or at his business. That is related to his high income. If it is too high, there are simple market factors that will reduce it. We are seeing one now. If the government would get it's hands (and our money) out of the way those businesses would fail, the overpaid would either have to reduce their standard of living or find other work at the same level. That is how the market works.
Many of the different arguments you raise are the product one idea: that everything is or should be equal. Not even a little bit true. The rest of the problem with your arguments is that wages are paid to workers dependent upon their value to an employer. An excellent graphic artist could command a six figure salary in an advertising company, yet get minimum wage in an accounting office if s/he could be hired there at all.
Time and location determine what the "street value" of each of us is. Education, can change this as can talent. I know one person who prefers to work here in Colorado at a small legal firm that represents men in divorce cases and charges very small rates. (45 dollars an hour billed). He has been offered a partnership at a local law firm where the hourly billing is 500 an hour for minor clients and much higher for hard cases. He turned them down. He was also offered a job outside Colorado in a class action suit. He could be making 7-8 figures a year. He wants to stay. Is his value his salary or his potential earnings?
Overtaxation of the wealthy will produce revenue at the beginning. After a short period, revenue will drop. The weqlth have the means to transfer wealth to other places and to protect themselves and that wealth from governments. A change of nationality can protect everything and many would/will do exactly that.
We have the second highest corporate taxes in the world. Companies are moving as much of their business structures overseas as they can. This is because of the reality of the global economy. They must remain competitive. If they don't, they close.
Does that help or hurt the average person?
November 28, 2008
4:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
SheikYurBooty writes:
pm661:
"So you oppose welfare and Medicaid and Medicare?"
Red herring. These programs have costs and provide value, but do not put income into the pockets of their beneficiaries. There are good questions to be asked there, but not as concerns income redistribution.
"Your arguments are simple but ignore the fact that the stadium tax was approved by a vote of the people."
Not at all. It is because of that vote that I refer to it as "legal."
"They approved the tax because the Bronco games produce a revenue "ripple" for others."
Wrong. They approved it because Bowlen outspent the opposition 108 to 1 and because he "threatened" to sell the team to someone who would move it, even though that was impossible due to 20 years remaining on his lease agreement. I.E. he lied to win.
"the 8 games here than you take account of."
I never referred to # of games, although the way the Donks play post season has become a joke. If you think that it's the govt's job to subsidize the Broncos so some minor vendors can have some Sunday income, you're beyond hope.
"Many of the different arguments you raise are the product one idea: that everything is or should be equal."
No citation, because none exists. This is wildly off base - you read it elsewhere, not in my posts. I searched the whole string and the first use of the word "equal" is by....you.
"...wages are paid to workers dependent upon their value to an employer. An excellent graphic artist could command a six figure salary in an advertising company, yet get minimum wage in an accounting office if s/he could be hired there at all."
Belaboring the obvious. Is there some greater or subtle point???
":Time and location determine what the "street value" of each of us is. Education, can change this as can talent. I know one person who prefers to work here in Colorado at a small legal firm that represents men in divorce cases and charges very small rates. (45 dollars an hour billed). He has been offered a partnership at a local law firm where the hourly billing is 500 an hour for minor clients and much higher for hard cases. He turned them down. He was also offered a job outside Colorado in a class action suit. He could be making 7-8 figures a year. He wants to stay. Is his value his salary or his potential earnings?"
Nice anecdote. How many angels can dance on the head of a pin???
November 28, 2008
4:59 p.m.
Suggest removal
SheikYurBooty writes:
pm661 (cont)
"Overtaxation of the wealthy will produce revenue at the beginning."
With a 10+ trillion debt, nobody is being overtaxed. When we have a huge surplus we can talk about being overtaxed.
"A change of nationality can protect everything and many would/will do exactly that."
Let 'em move. I hear Monaco is nice in the winter.
"We have the second highest corporate taxes in the world."
Theory triumphing over reality. If corporations actually paid top rate, that would be true, but few do and after all is said and done, our corp taxes are quite low. You can cheer corp taxes all you want, but I will always oppose them.
"Companies are moving as much of their business structures overseas as they can."
Doing this is known as "outsourcing" and is driven far more by cheap offshore labot than by taxes.
"They must remain competitive."
What about US workers??? Do they have to remain "competitive" with Indonesia, Vietnam, etc???? Lack of income here = defaults, less spending, recession, depression, bigger deficits, lower dollar, and so on...
November 28, 2008
5:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
HopiMedicineMan writes:
If everyone in this country paid their fair share, they'd pay an equal portion of the annual federal budget. Only about 10% pay that and more. We need to tax them more. The deficit is a trillion. I remember when it was 200-million and that was a national tragedy. The wealthy need to pay the bill of the country's insatiable needs. We need especially credit card bailouts so we can buy more Japanese electronics.
November 28, 2008
5:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
sawzallartist writes:
Mike Rosen is a tool.....
Just like every other propagandist regurgitating talking points developed in think tanks funded by corporate interests.
Here is some nice light reading that completely destroys the lower taxes = more gov't income nonsense.
http://www.cbpp.org/3-8-06tax.htm
Also if you are one who supports Rosen...you are also a tool...
November 28, 2008
5:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
darkhaha writes:
I wonder if Mr. Rosen can refute any of the following points from Media Matters for America:
John McCain's own senior policy adviser (and former chief economist for President Bush's Council of Economic Advisers), Douglas Holtz-Eakin, disputed the claim that tax cuts create a net increase in revenues. As director of the Congressional Budget Office in 2005, Holtz-Eakin released a study of a 10-percent federal income tax cut, which concluded that "the budgetary impact of the economic changes was estimated to offset between 1 percent and 22 percent of the revenue loss from the tax cut over the first five years and add as much as 5 percent to that loss or offset as much as 32 percent of it over the second five years." In other words, during the first five years of a 10-percent tax cut, the resulting economic impact on the budget would offset at most 22 percent of the federal revenues lost and during the second five years would offset at most 32 percent of the revenues lost. Holtz-Eakin also reportedly told Boston Globe columnist Scot Lehigh, "You are not going to get tax cuts to pay for themselves." Holtz-Eakin is not alone. Several other Bush administration economists have disputed the notion that cutting taxes raises revenue:
• During his June 2006 confirmation hearing, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said, "As a general rule, I don't believe that tax cuts pay for themselves." The financial information website, MarketWatch, reported this statement as "echoing the opinion of most economists."
• According to a November 15, 2007, Washington Post editorial, Jim Nussle, the director of the Office of Management and Budget, told reporters, "Some say that [the tax cut] was a total loss. Some say they totally pay for themselves. It's neither extreme."
• In a May 2006 Wall Street Journal op-ed, N. Gregory Mankiw, Harvard University economics professor and former chairman of President Bush's Council of Economic Advisers, wrote: "Some supply-siders like to claim that the distortionary effect of taxes is so large that increasing tax rates reduces tax revenue. Like most economists, I don't find that conclusion credible for most tax hikes, and I doubt Mr. Paulson does either."
• In an October 17, 2006, article, the Post quoted Alan D. Viard, a former Council of Economic Advisers senior economist under Bush, saying that "[f]ederal revenue is lower today than it would have been without the [Bush] tax cuts. There's really no dispute among economists about that."
• During his testimony to the Senate Budget Committee in 2006, Edward Lazear, then-chairman of Bush's Council of Economic Advisers, stated: "Will the tax cuts pay for themselves? As a general rule, we do not think tax cuts pay for themselves. Certainly, the data presented above do not support this claim."
November 28, 2008
5:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
SheikYurBooty writes:
"Mike Rosen is a tool....."
A sawzall by any chance???
November 28, 2008
5:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
sawzallartist writes:
He may be a tool but no artist....except a BS artist.
November 28, 2008
6:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
Ted_in_Vegas writes:
Sorry Sheik, I forgot that you cannot draw conclusions unless spoonfed.
Simply put, your argument is that the workers create demand and therefore are due more than they get and that the Bowlens-of-the-world (CEOs in general) are over compensated.
My point, put as simply for you as possible, is that CEO (good ones anyway) are worth thier income because they supply the vision of fulfilling a demand and leading and managing the workers into the fulfillment of that demand.
There are demands for all kinds of needs that are not being fulfilled and the reason is, among other issues, a lack of leadership and management to direct workers in fulfilling that demand. (Other reasons include, overtaxation and over-(or mis-)regulation.
What angers me is Boards that are stupid enough to give huge payouts to overrated leader/managers (Rick Waggoner, CEO of GM - for example) and the huge payouts to unionized workers (UAW - for example - which may have just drove their members' jobs out of existence!).
Is that simple enough for you or are you a public-school graduate?
November 28, 2008
6:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
SheikYurBooty writes:
TIV - "your argument is that the workers create demand"
Citation please!!!
I NEVER SAID THAT OR ANYTHING CLOSE.
What I said was that **consumers** create demand (see my 8:31 post). Actually I am not the originator of that - it's basic Econ 101. I guess that's why you flubbed it.
"therefore are due more than they get and that the Bowlens-of-the-world (CEOs in general) are over compensated."
Citation?? I NEVER SAID THAT EITHER.
As for what angers you, see a therapist. And get those voices to stop telling I said things that I never did. Or else provide the citations, but you can't do that. Pathetic.
November 28, 2008
7:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
why am i not surprised to see rosen once again carrying water for the far right by trying to defend twice failed supply side economic policies?
November 28, 2008
7:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
jbowen43 writes:
"Congress to reduce the confiscatory top marginal tax rate, then 90 percent, down to a mere 70 percent."
AND THAT'S WHERE IT SHOULD HAVE STAYED!!
THERE IS ZERO EVIDENCE THAT SUPPLY SIDE ECONOMICS HAS EVER WORKED!!
November 28, 2008
8:34 p.m.
Suggest removal
Patron_Drinker writes:
Sheik,
CEOs are just workers. Their product is the intangible "supply" without which the intangible "demand" goes unmet. If a CEO fails, the entire supply enterprise suffers. If a laborer fails, only a portion of the enterprise suffers (perhaps limited to the laborer himself). The larger responsibility is why a CEO gets a larger salary.
Oftentimes, CEOs like Waggoner are at least partially responsible for the ideas (either by invention or investment) which created the good or service that is the tangible supply which meets the tangible demand. For this, they are duly compensated which (usually) increases their earnings. Anyone who owns stock in the enterprise is similarly compensated.
CEOs like Bowlen own the enterprise outright, which means that every cent the organization receives in revenue goes to them, and they then pay their laborers and other expenses out-of-pocket.
Each worker, from the CEO to the laborer, is compensated based on his value to the enterprise. Laborers are more common and more easily replaced than CEOs, so they each have less value.
November 28, 2008
10:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
RB writes:
Your "simple mindedness", of "trickle down economics FIRST INTORODUCED BY RONALD REAGAN IN THE 1980'S, is what has caused the current economic melt down. Not any action from the Democrats as you so vehemently proclaim. It was the republic's who were creaming their jeans when Ronald Reagan walked on a stage in the 1980's with the book "Freedom and Capatalism" in his hand. A book written by an idiot and diligently followed by the republic party to it's current demise. One which, Reagan through the grace of God, does not have the misfortune to see yet, we, the living, currently do. Rosen is so full of crap, his eyes are brown! How can anyone, outside of a moron, say that the current economic situation that the country now finds itself in is due to the majority rule of the Democrats when it has been, for the past twelve years the republic majority rule that has driven this country to it's demise. Remember, Bush took office in 2000 with a "surplus of cash" and he has enrichened himself and others on our dime. PUT THAT IN YOUR PIPE AND SMOKE IT, ROSEN AND THE REST OF YOU WORTHLESS GOOD FOR NOTHING OXYGEN ROBBING republic's!
November 29, 2008
11:28 a.m.
Suggest removal
YesWeCan writes:
Whatever you want to call it, “supply side,” “Reaganomics,” “laissez-faire,” or “trickle-down,” the theory when put into practice leads to an eventual meltdown of the economy. It happens every time oligarchic greed exceeds the ability of the middle and lower classes to subsidize it. The greed of the few at the top symbolized The Gilded Age in the late 1800s, appeared again in the1920s, asserted itself briefly in the 1950s, and in The New Gilded Age of the 1990s and 2000s. Those not at the top one percent of income (i.e., “the rest of us”) experience declining income and standards of living each time the theory is practiced.
David Stockman, Ronald Reagan’s head of the Office of Management and Budget called it as he saw it about Reagan's legacy tax cut. He said in a famous interview with Atlantic Monthly December 1981:
"I mean, Kemp-Roth was always a Trojan horse to bring down the top rate.... It's kind of hard to sell 'trickle down.' So the supply-side formula was the only way to get a tax policy that was really 'trickle down.' Supply-side is 'trickle-down' theory."
The short term gains for big business only result in net losses for the rest of us. We aren’t floating higher with the free market boat; rather, we are trapped under it and getting ground up by the propellers.
Reagan’s own VP, George H.W. Bush derided Reaganomics as “Voodoo economics.” He discredited it to win the White House, only to see the recession caused by supply side economics end his tenure there. Two years later, the Republican-dominated Congress overrode a Clinton veto with trickle down policies that resulted in the Enron scandals. Eight years later, Bush’s ideologue son embraced it, and we are seeing the disastrous results.
November 29, 2008
11:31 a.m.
Suggest removal
YesWeCan writes:
Supply side is a rhetorical bait-and-switch tool employed to steal the opportunity for a good life from the middle and under classes. It strips egalitarian opportunity in favor of oligarchic greed. Every time this country has embraced this faulty economic theory, no matter what the name, it has resulted in varying degrees of disaster. Short term gains for the wealthy only result in losses for all of us. This bitter pudding has been proofed several times in our history, and it is time to dispose of it for good.
Rosen’s view of liberals is deranged. Liberals like egalitarian capitalism just fine: It works for entrepreneurs and small businessmen when laws and regulations don’t conspire to benefit only the wealthy. Trickle down benefits big business oligarchs, while leaving the rest of us out in the cold, unable to get the capital we need.
President-elect Obama was right to refer to it derisively. It mocks our core values of Democracy and equal opportunity for all. Federalists notwithstanding (though even they recognized the need for limitations on capitalist greed), it was the dream of this country’s Founders to create a society in which opportunity was available to everyone, not just oligarchs. We can turn away from it again, this time forever. Yes we can.
November 29, 2008
1:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
Spencer writes:
i guess we should start more wars and cut some more taxes to pay for it all?????????
November 29, 2008
6:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
YesWeCan writes:
Ah yes, but the old European and Middle Eastern societies, were run by aristocracies, and dependent upon big business becoming bigger. Though those with money did well, the rest of society did not. When the economic power is concentrated in the few, it only stands to reason that business dependent upon favor of monarchies and aristocracies would constrict under higher taxation, the need for which was usually brought about by the monarch's whim to go to war.
The USA, in spite of those like Rosen, who would emulate the Federalists, and prefer to concentrate power in the elites and create/sustain an aristocracy, we remain an economy that does best when the small entrepreneur flourishes. That is why Obama seeks tax relief for the masses, while looking to have the elites at long last pay their fair share.
This is a struggle that has gone on from the inception of this republic. You have the Hamiltons and the Clays and the Federalists on the side of reserving power for an ersatz aristocracy, and the Jeffersons and the Jacksons placing faith in the abilities of the rank and file to create a robust economy when not fettered with the burden of serving the elites.
November 29, 2008
11:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
"You are about to see a concentration of power by the liberal elites; the likes of which and the consequences of which have never been seen before in this democratic republic."
hey, nut, where exactly do you think this "concentration of power" will reside? how are they going to do it?
your chicken little scenarios about job losses aren't supported by historical data so i'm just wondering where you're getting the information to support your theories.
November 30, 2008
5:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
ILoveChipotle writes:
"trying to defend twice failed supply side economic policies?"
Please Jay - provide some support for your baseless claims.
November 30, 2008
5:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
YesWeCan writes:
He's pulling it from where the sun don't shine.
Job losses come when not enough people want the products being produced, not because the company or its owner are paying their fair share of the taxes.
Obama is looking to make it easier for the most productive job-creation source to begin creating new jobs—and that is small business, not big business. It's the small businesses that aren't beholden to shareholders and Wall Street who create the most jobs in this country. The big guys are just looking for ways to ship our jobs overseas.
They don't ship jobs overseas because their taxes are high—in fact they got substantial subsidies and tax breaks from the George H.W. Bush administration to do it. No, they ship them overseas to avoid having to compete with other companies that ship jobs overseas.
The main thing that is keeping companies from taking on additional workforce is the obligation to provide health insurance. The auto industry has plants in Canada because they can produce cars there for more than $2,000 less per unit because they don't have a health insurance obligation there.
When I had my own company in the late 90s, the thing that was keeping us from growing as fast as we wanted wasn't taxes, it was health insurance. We couldn't get help if we didn't have it, and it drained our coffers faster than rent, payroll, or equipment. With some of our employees, the health insurance obligation cost more than their paycheck.
Of course, they can produce crap even cheaper in places like China, where health insurance is not provided. Look at conditions there, because that is where we are headed if big companies succeed in their continued quest to bust unions. Hang out near a hospital in any big city in China, and you will see hundreds of sick people begging doctors and nurses coming to work, for free health care.
We've seen a concentration of power by the elites, and it didn't come from liberals. Just look around you to see the result: Poverty on the rise, the most expensive health care in the world that serves the fewest people, crumbling infrastructure, the scorn of the world for idiotic foreign policy, an economy that is tanking faster than the liberals can act to stop it, high unemployment, stagnant job creation for eight years, despite a supposedly "booming" economy, one of our great cities still trying to struggle back after a disastrous storm, and George of the Bungle hiding in the White House to ride out the last of his shameful failed administration, trying desperately to undermine whatever he can before he leaves.
November 30, 2008
6:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
please don't pout, burrito....we've gone over the clinton vs. bush numbers countless times.
do you have anything of substance to add besides another attempt at refusing to acknowledge politically inconvenient facts?
(this time that trickle down/supply side/toryism/horse and sparrow economics haven't failed for the vast majority of americans)
don't you ever tire of being irrelevant here, chipotle?
wouldn't actual discourse be more fun than trolling or pouting?
December 1, 2008
1:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
globalkooler writes:
For the Morons who are in denial............
1) Lower tax rates do not mean less tax revenue.
The tax cuts of the 1920s
Tax rates were slashed dramatically during the 1920s, dropping from over 70 percent to less than 25 percent. What happened? Personal income tax revenues increased substantially during the 1920s, despite the reduction in rates. Revenues rose from $719 million in 1921 to $1164 million in 1928, an increase of more than 61 percent.
The Kennedy tax cuts
President Hoover dramatically increased tax rates in the 1930s and President Roosevelt compounded the damage by pushing marginal tax rates to more than 90 percent. Recognizing that high tax rates were hindering the economy, President Kennedy proposed across-the-board tax rate reductions that reduced the top tax rate from more than 90 percent down to 70 percent. What happened? Tax revenues climbed from $94 billion in 1961 to $153 billion in 1968, an increase of 62 percent (33 percent after adjusting for inflation).
According to President John F. Kennedy:
Our true choice is not between tax reduction, on the one hand, and the avoidance of large Federal deficits on the other. It is increasingly clear that no matter what party is in power, so long as our national security needs keep rising, an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits… In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now.
The Reagan tax cuts
Thanks to “bracket creep,” the inflation of the 1970s pushed millions of taxpayers into higher tax brackets even though their inflation-adjusted incomes were not rising. To help offset this tax increase and also to improve incentives to work, save, and invest, President Reagan proposed sweeping tax rate reductions during the 1980s. What happened? Total tax revenues climbed by 99.4 percent during the 1980s, and the results are even more impressive when looking at what happened to personal income tax revenues. Once the economy received an unambiguous tax cut in January 1983, income tax revenues climbed dramatically, increasing by more than 54 percent by 1989 (28 percent after adjusting for inflation).
Complete article: http://www.heritage.org/research/taxe...
August 13, 2003
The Historical Lessons of Lower Tax Rates
by Daniel J. Mitchell, Ph.D.
This WebMemo is excerpted from the author’s, Daniel J. Mitchell's, Backgrounder, The Historical Lessons of Lower Tax Rates, published July 19, 1996 http://www.heritage.org/About/Staff/D... The original publication, found here http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxe... ,contains footnotes and numerous charts.
December 1, 2008
1:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
fatheromalley writes:
Boy what a bunch of liberal whackos here, practicing I guess for the May Day parade and kissing their MAO and Lenin posters they hang in their bedrooms..
But wait, it just might be just a bad case of Cranial Rectal Inversion?
Tax success you get less of it. Tax anything you get less of it..
Taxing income without choice is the stuff of tyrants.
Go Green! Tax consumption on New Retail Goods and Services, leave used goods without Federal Taxes and watch this economy grow!
The greenies are always talking about reducing consumption of new retail goods and increase recycling but they'll be damn if they'll actually support a tax code promoting this concept.
The high is just too big for them to give up "taxing the rich". .
When Lenin's idiots finally get it, that sticking to "the man" is really sticking it to themselves, we can rest assured they will change their tune.. but until then we must put up with their endless tirade of jealousy..
Want to untax the poor completely at the Federal level?
Go to www.fairtax.org
December 1, 2008
1:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
CL writes:
globalkooler -
"For the Morons who are in denial............"
Speak for your self.
"1) Lower tax rates do not mean less tax revenue."
Unfortunately according to the Laffer Curve Theory you are only at best 1/2 correct. According to this basic theory of supply side economics, lower tax rates only increase tax revenue when the level of tax rate is on the high side of the curve, when the tax rate is on the lower side of the curve, then lowering tax rates reduces tax revenues.
"The tax cuts of the 1920s"
"The Kennedy tax cuts"
"The Reagan tax cuts"
Yes globalkooler, but these selective examples do not address the point I raised on the 28th @ 11:08 a.m which mainly is that what's laking is the cause-and-effect AND that these are selective examples. If lowering tax rates increases tax revenues then why did tax revenues rise after Clinton raised tax rates (an inconvenient fact both you and your link conveniently ignored)? I answered this question in my earlier post - many other things effect tax revenues other than the tax rates alone (the dot-com boom in Clinton's case and a recovering economy in Reagan's). In order to establish cause and effect you need to rule out other factors that effect tax revenues - such as is the economy booming or is it in a recession.
December 1, 2008
2:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
you know what's missing from these right wing missives?
causality.
again...we can look at the data....bush numbers vs. clinton's.
i'll take a return to clinton's policy platform all day long.
you have to wonder why the vast majority of americans disagree with you loyal tory footsoldiers.
this is just one guy talking...but i think that's what happens when "theory" doesn't reconcile with reality.
December 1, 2008
3:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
YesWeCan writes:
If the theories that lowering taxes increases tax revenues, and that a rising tide floats all boats are true, during the "boom" years of Bush, then; the poverty rate decreased, the middle class showed an increase in real income, the number of well-paying middle class jobs grew faster than we were able to produce workers to fill them, consumer debt all but disappeared, and there is no budget deficit, right?
Oh, wait a minute—the last time that happened, Democrats were in charge.
December 1, 2008
6:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
CL writes:
globalkooler -
I wanted to get to this little tidbit:
"President Kennedy proposed across-the-board tax rate reductions that reduced the top tax rate from more than 90 percent down to 70 percent. What happened? Tax revenues climbed from $94 billion in 1961 to $153 billion in 1968, an increase of 62 percent (33 percent after adjusting for inflation)."
This is a very deceptive statement - especially by including the year 1968. Here's why:
Here's a chart of tax revnues from 1963 to 2005
http://www.willisms.com/archives/reco...
Note that before 1968, tax revenues were **lower** than any of the previous years and then suddenly spike in 1968 onlyto drop the following year to again be lower than any of the previous years. So was the 1968 spike due to Kennedy's tax cuts?
What you fail to mention is that there was a significant tax policy that went into effect that year - the Revenue and Expenditure Control Act of 1968
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/legisl...
which created a **temporary 10% individual and corporate tax sucharge until 6/30/1969**. Now that couldn't possibly have had anything to do with the spike in 1968 now could it?
December 2, 2008
1:15 a.m.
Suggest removal
TYoungman writes:
" 'Trickle-down' economics has become the knee-jerk, liberal expletive to demean tax incentives that reward individual effort and success." - end quote
Individual effort and success? The tax incentives that are in place now do not reward individual effort and success; they reward conglomeration, ruthless mob rule, and sleazy accounting practices. Rewarding individual effort means creating an environment where an "individual" can compete.
"prosperity is ultimately dependent on productivity and output" - end quote
But if American companies are encouraged/rewarded for using workers in other countries to produce their goods, who prospers? Certainly not the American worker.
Rosen is a windbag who does nothing more (in print or on the radio) than review and paraphrase over and over, the talking points of his hackneyed ideology. I'm sick of hearing how these poor, struggling, US corporations are at a disadvantage in the world market because they have to pay for things like pension and health care, and to provide decent working conditions; and because they can't use child labor, sweatshops, or other cruel but profitable practices. The swine are actually complaining out loud about the burden of these American standards.
December 2, 2008
8:52 a.m.
Suggest removal
YesWeCan writes:
One thing we do have to acknowledge is the ability of the righties like Rosen, Limbaugh, Hannity and O'Reilly to use inflammatory rhetoric to ignite the flames of anxiety, hate and fear in their True Believers (if not the ability to discern fact from windbagosity). So for those True Believers, here, please dears, lie down on the fainting couch, put your feet up, and I will bring you a nice cuppa soothing tea and your daily double dose of Xanax. Now tell us, dears, what is it that frightens you so about President Obama? Is it the centrist course he is setting, his steadfast Constitutional values, his intelligence and education, his steadiness and calm, or his ability to keep huge crowds so peaceful and positive?
December 2, 2008
10:13 a.m.
Suggest removal
BobCratchit writes:
Why would I want a big tax cut, when I can just wait for the benefits of a tax cut for the rich to trickle down to me? Does that sound patently absurd? Of course it does. But that is PRECISELY what Rosen is peddling.
If tax cuts cause increased prosperity, where is that proof of that for the Bush tax cuts?
It's not surprising that Rosen used to be a used car salesman. He keeps trying to push this same old lemon on whoever is STUPID enough to buy it.
December 2, 2008
12:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
ILoveChipotle writes:
"don't you ever tire of being irrelevant here, chipotle?"
jay jay jay... Hello kettle, this is the pot, you're black.
December 2, 2008
2:34 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
well...i'll ask again in the hope that you'll actually have something to say, chipotle.
do you have anything of substance to add?
December 2, 2008
9:41 p.m.
Suggest removal
DavidG writes:
Got in here late but I'll take a crack at Rosen anyhow. I'm not so sure the "trickle down" variety that we experienced in the Reagan years is anywhere near the same as the earlier descriptions. The problem here is not that we should refrain from dropping tax rates at times. The problem is that when the very rich use the money they save from these cuts in ways that has no real impact on the community. If they had invested these savings in new businesses, charity donations, environmental cleanup, or a ton of other things that has a way of making a lot more people better off, then there is value in that tax cut. If they simply employ a small army and buy $500M of materials to build a $5M house, that's it for the trickle. The house (or 5 cars, whatever) just sits there. When you see these wall street guys getting paid millions and getting taxed at the capital gains rate (they do!), that's a rip off. Greed got ahead of too many of them and they did not let the trickle get too far.