Page 35 of 58 FirstFirst ... 25333435363745 ... LastLast
Results 341 to 350 of 573

Thread: SC allows Texas to use New Voter ID Law

  1. #341
    Traveler

    Jack Hays's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Williamsburg, Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,890
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: SC allows Texas to use New Voter ID Law

    Quote Originally Posted by JasperL View Post
    It's not special pleading. The dependent variable in this "analysis" is total nominal Federal revenues (individual income taxes + corporate income taxes + payroll taxes + excise taxes + other Federal receipts). It's just illegitimate to have as your ONLY independent variable the highest tax rate on a small sliver of individuals. We would expect that the rate change on 1% of individuals would affect only taxes paid by 1% of individuals. Why would changes in tax rates on Buffett affect payroll taxes? Or the taxes paid by the median worker, or any worker not subject to the top rates. In fact we could lower tax rates on the 1%, raise them on everyone else, and the tax revenues on higher rates on the bottom 99% would be counted, by this hack analysis, as due to the rate drop on the 1%. It's bogus. It gets an F-.

    I'll just address 6 - changes to the tax base. Tax revenues = Tax Rate X Tax base. If you want to explain changes in Tax Revenues, it's NOT OK to ignore changes in the Base. FICA ends a little over 100k. If we eliminate the cap, we'll see a large increase in payroll taxes and total tax collections in that graph above, and it will have NOTHING to do with the top marginal income tax rate. Ignoring the base means F-.

    Besides, the premise here is simple. The downside to more spending - e.g. to pay for a war - is MORE TAX CUTS!!! YEAH!!! It's gutless and cowardly and reckless for the GOP to sell that free lunch nonsense as serious fiscal policy. It tells the GOP base that there are no tough choices in government. Tax cuts have no downside. You can't really believe that.....
    The top rate is the top rate; that's what the discussion is about. The GWB tax cut was not sold to pay for a war, but rather to share with the people the surplus created by the Clinton tax increase. I happen to agree with you about war funding. All US wars have been funded by deficit financing, so I have no problem there, but there should have been a "war tax" increase for both revenue and to impart a sense of shared sacrifice.
    "It's always reassuring to find you've made the right enemies." -- William J. Donovan

  2. #342
    Sage
    Dittohead not!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The Golden State
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:39 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    41,561

    Re: SC allows Texas to use New Voter ID Law

    Quote Originally Posted by Muhammed View Post
    I think it's pretty obvious that most illicit votes go to the Democrats. Generally, Democrats simply have no morals. They are just plain evil. Lying, murdering and cheating has been their game ever since the institution of the party.
    nothing partisan here, folks. Keep moving, nothing to see here, nope, partisanship is dead.
    "Donald Trump is a phony, a fraud... [he's] playing the American public for suckers." Mitt Romney

  3. #343
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 01:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,270

    Re: SC allows Texas to use New Voter ID Law

    Quote Originally Posted by JasperL View Post
    It's not special pleading. The dependent variable in this "analysis" is total nominal Federal revenues (individual income taxes + corporate income taxes + payroll taxes + excise taxes + other Federal receipts). It's just illegitimate to have as your ONLY independent variable the highest tax rate on a small sliver of individuals. We would expect that the rate change on 1% of individuals would affect only taxes paid by 1% of individuals. Why would changes in tax rates on Buffett affect payroll taxes? Or the taxes paid by the median worker, or any worker not subject to the top rates. In fact we could lower tax rates on the 1%, raise them on everyone else, and the tax revenues on higher rates on the bottom 99% would be counted, by this hack analysis, as due to the rate drop on the 1%. It's bogus. It gets an F-.

    I'll just address 6 - changes to the tax base. Tax revenues = Tax Rate X Tax base. If you want to explain changes in Tax Revenues, it's NOT OK to ignore changes in the Base. FICA ends a little over 100k. If we eliminate the cap, we'll see a large increase in payroll taxes and total tax collections in that graph above, and it will have NOTHING to do with the top marginal income tax rate. Ignoring the base means F-.

    Besides, the premise here is simple. The downside to more spending - e.g. to pay for a war - is MORE TAX CUTS!!! YEAH!!! It's gutless and cowardly and reckless for the GOP to sell that free lunch nonsense as serious fiscal policy. It tells the GOP base that there are no tough choices in government. Tax cuts have no downside. You can't really believe that.....
    Yes, tax cuts have a downside for liberals. Putting more money into the hands of the people always scares the hell out of liberals as there is no need for liberals when there is less dependence on liberalism because of big govt.

  4. #344
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 01:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,270

    Re: SC allows Texas to use New Voter ID Law

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Hays View Post
    The top rate is the top rate; that's what the discussion is about. The GWB tax cut was not sold to pay for a war, but rather to share with the people the surplus created by the Clinton tax increase. I happen to agree with you about war funding. All US wars have been funded by deficit financing, so I have no problem there, but there should have been a "war tax" increase for both revenue and to impart a sense of shared sacrifice.
    You know, I never hear any liberal talking about spending less or the fact that SS and Medicare were robbed to pay for the Vietnam War and continued well into the 80's. I never hear any liberal talk about the 3.9 trillion dollar budget Obama has proposed or the fact that there will never be enough money to fund the liberal spending appetite. It is amazing to me that since Obama took office the debt increased over 7 trillion dollars with very little of that due to the wars. Just goes to show how little liberals truly know.

  5. #345
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,835

    Re: SC allows Texas to use New Voter ID Law

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Hays View Post
    The top rate is the top rate; that's what the discussion is about.
    Yes, but if you want to conclude something about the relationship between rates and revenues, you can't put ONE rate on the INCOME of ONE PERCENT of INDIVIDUALS on one side of the equation and on the other total all taxes, including all individual taxes, payroll taxes. It's hackery at its finest.

    [QUOTE]The GWB tax cut was not sold to pay for a war, but rather to share with the people the surplus created by the Clinton tax increase.
    [/QUOTE

    Correct, the tax rate cuts were intended and did reduce tax revenues, reduce the surplus! No one said when Bush cut taxes that we'd expect to run HIGHER SURPLUSES!

    I happen to agree with you about war funding. All US wars have been funded by deficit financing, so I have no problem there, but there should have been a "war tax" increase for both revenue and to impart a sense of shared sacrifice.
    Again, you're agreeing with me. The tax rate increase would have paid for some of the war - aka, raised tax revenues. BTW, I especially agree with shared sacrifice. It's easy to support a war in Iraq fought by other people's children, and 'paid for' with two rounds of tax CUTS. You put a yellow sticker on your car, "Support the Troops!!" and you're done....

  6. #346
    Traveler

    Jack Hays's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Williamsburg, Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,890
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: SC allows Texas to use New Voter ID Law

    [QUOTE=JasperL;1063908916]Yes, but if you want to conclude something about the relationship between rates and revenues, you can't put ONE rate on the INCOME of ONE PERCENT of INDIVIDUALS on one side of the equation and on the other total all taxes, including all individual taxes, payroll taxes. It's hackery at its finest.

    The GWB tax cut was not sold to pay for a war, but rather to share with the people the surplus created by the Clinton tax increase.
    [/QUOTE

    Correct, the tax rate cuts were intended and did reduce tax revenues, reduce the surplus! No one said when Bush cut taxes that we'd expect to run HIGHER SURPLUSES!



    Again, you're agreeing with me. The tax rate increase would have paid for some of the war - aka, raised tax revenues. BTW, I especially agree with shared sacrifice. It's easy to support a war in Iraq fought by other people's children, and 'paid for' with two rounds of tax CUTS. You put a yellow sticker on your car, "Support the Troops!!" and you're done....
    I was referring to the war in Afghanistan, but the same applies for Iraq. Of course I can put the top rate on one side and all revenues on the other. The top rate is the top rate.
    "It's always reassuring to find you've made the right enemies." -- William J. Donovan

  7. #347
    Sage
    Phys251's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:10 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    12,774

    Re: SC allows Texas to use New Voter ID Law

    If conservatives and libertarians showed half as much interest in solving climate change as voter fraud, we'd be a prosperous, carbon-neutral nation by the year 2020.

    Inb4 the deniers say that such a goal is impossible.
    "A man you can bait with a tweet is not a man we can trust with nuclear weapons." --Hillary Rodham Clinton
    "Innocent until proven guilty is for criminal convictions, not elections." --Mitt Romney

  8. #348
    Traveler

    Jack Hays's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Williamsburg, Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,890
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: SC allows Texas to use New Voter ID Law

    Quote Originally Posted by Phys251 View Post
    If conservatives and libertarians showed half as much interest in solving climate change as voter fraud, we'd be a prosperous, carbon-neutral nation by the year 2020.

    Inb4 the deniers say that such a goal is impossible.
    Climate change is not a problem.
    "It's always reassuring to find you've made the right enemies." -- William J. Donovan

  9. #349
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,835

    Re: SC allows Texas to use New Voter ID Law

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Hays View Post
    Of course I can put the top rate on one side and all revenues on the other. The top rate is the top rate.
    You can, but you're not proving a thing.

    The top rate only affects a small part of total revenues. Let's do some math. The top 1% pay about 33% of individual INCOME taxes now, and about 20% in 1980. A lot of that tax is capital gains, which was only taxed at the top rate for a couple of years under Reagan, so isn't affected by the top marginal rate. And the 1% starts at around $350k, but the top bracket now only applies to income over about $450k. So there are a lot of 1%ers who don't pay the top rate. But let's say that 25% of personal income is subject to the highest rate. It's lower than that, but we'll go with that number. In 1980 it couldn't have been higher than 15%.

    Individual income taxes are about 45% of collections. So of that, about 11% (.25 X 45) is subject to the top rate. Again, that's too high, because even 1%ers have a lot of income taxed at lower rates - 0 to about $450k - and we're assuming ALL their income is subject to the top rate.

    So on the left hand side you have total revenues (the dependent variable) and on the right side (independent variable) you have ONE rate that at the very most affects 11% of total revenues. So 89% of revenues is completely unaffected your ONE independent variable, changes in that top rate. Now why would anyone do a serious analysis and use an independent variable that AT BEST, would explain only 11% of changes in the dependent variable (if tax rates explained 100% of the changes in revenues - which is ludicrous)? No economist would, such an analysis would be laughed out of any room.

    The TL/DR version of that above is at best the analysis shows a correlation. And of course correlation =/= causation. My favorite correlation is GOP/Democratic Presidents and economic growth.

    Presidents and growth: Timing is everything | The Economist

    “SINCE 1961…the Republicans have held the White House 28 years, the Democrats 24,” said Bill Clinton in 2012. “In those 52 years, our private economy has produced 66m private-sector jobs. So what’s the jobs score? Republicans 24m, Democrats 42[m].” In the two years since, Barack Obama has increased the Democrats’ lead by close to 5m. [Democrats 47m, Republicans 24]

    Since the second world war the economy has done better under Democratic presidents, who have overseen more job creation and higher stockmarket returns than Republican leaders. During this time the economy has grown about 1.8 percentage points faster [not quite DOUBLE] when a Democrat occupies the White House
    Based on this, why would anyone ever vote for a Republican POTUS? It's clear I've just proved that the economy, stock market, GDP growth and jobs all do better when Democrats are in charge! QED.

    And the truth is my conclusion is more defensible (read the article for details) than the hackery Forbes published.

  10. #350
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,835

    Re: SC allows Texas to use New Voter ID Law

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    Yes, tax cuts have a downside for liberals. Putting more money into the hands of the people always scares the hell out of liberals as there is no need for liberals when there is less dependence on liberalism because of big govt.
    Yeah, OK, you don't like liberals. Understood.

    The point is there is no Tax Santa Clause, and a party that relies on one as a foundation of its fiscal policy shouldn't be taken seriously, so I don't.

Page 35 of 58 FirstFirst ... 25333435363745 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •