Federal Unemployment benefits ending tomorrow

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from andiejen. Show andiejen's posts

    Re: Federal Unemployment benefits ending tomorrow

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:

     

    In response to andiejen's comment:

    "The rest of us see the folly in this thought process."

    Quite a sweeping generization there, is it not?

    By the rest of us , whom do you mean?

    Certainly you do not mean what you wrote...i.e., everybody but the poster in question.

    So, do you mean the majority of conservative Republicans?

    Do you mean a smaller group, like say Tea Party supporters...or even just Tea Party members?

     




     

    The Laffer curve is absolute common sense.  Sorry, but I can't be any clearer than that.  It shows that there is a level of taxation where government revenues are maximized.  Might be 1%, might be 99%.  It doesn't say anything like what 12 Angry men is implying, whihc I take to be that the Laffer curve prescribes lower taxes as a means to maximize revenue.  It does not.

    So, I guess I mean the "rest of us" as in those that actually have thought this through,  Liberal, libertarian, or conservative.  The Laffer curve is agnostic as to political thought.  It just is.




    ronreaganfan,

    I majored in Economics at Brown University before I went onto law school for 2 degrees, the 2nd a masters in tax law.

    I am telling you this since you are a rather new poster and most of us have shared our respective backgrounds on this board.

    Brown is not exactly a no name university. (Of course we here in the North have this Ivy League thing if you are not from the East Coast.) There the professors pretty much laughed the Laffer curve right out the door. It was a little bit ago, and of course I went on to practice law, but to state as you have that the Laffer curve is just common sense means you belong to a particular school of economics...one to which I and a lot of people do not subscribe.

    You probably know this already. Economics is a social science...not a hard core science. There is less consensus in this field than in the "regular" scientific fields.

    That is as succinct as I can make it. You and I are from different schools of economic thought, as well as political leanings.

    That said, the Laffer curve cannot be said to just make sense. It can be said that one school of economic thought believes that the Laffer curve makes sense.

    There is a big difference between those two statements, yes?

     

    Btw, I saw your post at the bottom of the WSJ thread. For some reason, software glitch reason, I am not able to post there currently.

    I tend to believe what you wrote. As you said, what is the fun in that?

    I really do like conservative posters who debate with articulate, thought out posts rather than bumper sticker slogans.

    You of course fall in the first category.

    I guess it was just a major coincidence. My apologies. 

    I wish we knew who reported our deleted posts and the reasons why. That might reduce the number of reports...which I believe in...as well as reduce the atmosphere of suspicion that occurs. It has happened to me. Being falsely accused of reporting a post...nevermind several posts.

    Clean slate as far as I am concerned, rrfan.

     

     
  2. This post has been removed.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from andiejen. Show andiejen's posts

    Re: Federal Unemployment benefits ending tomorrow

    In response to twelve_angry_men's comment:

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:

    In response to twelve_angry_men's comment:

     

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:

     

    In response to twelve_angry_men's comment:

     

     

     

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:

     

    In response to twelve_angry_men's comment:

     

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:

     

    In response to twelve_angry_men's comment:

     

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

     

     

     


    Paying unemployment benefits is how a clueless leftist like angryman thinks the private economy grows....

    Dont know whether to laugh or cry at such ideological ignorance about basic economic principles...

    Why dont we pay everyone in the country unemployment benefits? Wouldnt that do the trick, spanky? After all, it is 'free money' ,  the money grows on trees, and the Almighty Government can spend it.....

    Or, better yet, have a trillion dollar "stimulus" where the Government will spend to increase "demand"? Oops, never mind...that was already tried , it was Obama's worst failure (before ObamaCare).  Though it did result in the employment of hundreds of state economists who swore the stimulus was a hugh success..

     

     

     




    Heh, heh, heh ... this critique by someone who believes in the laugher-curve and that reducing taxes increases revenues.

     

     

     

    So to use your sophmoric ad absurdum response ... why don't we just reduce taxes to zero and the gov't would be swimming in revenue and the debt and deficit would disappear overnight. Heck, then we could pay everyone just for being a citizen.... wasn't that Palin's grand scheme in AK?

     

     



    Laffer curve doesn't work? 

     

    I bet you don't even know what it represents.

    Typical leftist economic ignorance.

     




    Okay spanky, if you're so bright, why don't you tell me exactly where the Laugher-curve falls. You know, that point at which people will stop working once their income taxes hit a certain level.

     

    Tell us where, to the exact percentage, that is.

    And while you're at it, maybe you could show some millionares who stopped working because their taxes were too high.

    Or maybe someone who simply quit working, quit trying to make money, who said they didn't want to be rich because the taxes were too high.

    How about a 1% who wouldn't invest money because they didn't want to pay taxes on all those profits.

     

     



     

     So, you don't understand the Laffer curve.  Let me explain:

    The Laffer curve, defined by Art Laffer, shos thatthere is a maximum tax rate which maximizes reciepts, given the current economic condition, i.e. it changes given the state of the economy.

    You have a very childish notion that you can tax people at a rate approaching 100% and these people would continue to work, simply because they are "rich".  

     




    Hey spanky, check out the rates in the 50's - 60's, then get back to me.

     

    I see ya haven't found anyone who doesn't want to be rich because taxes are too high or a 1%-er who won't invest because he doesn't want to pay taxes on the profits.

    And where is that magic number? We all know it ain't 100% or 0% but you keep talking as if an expert and throwing around insults .... so if anyone should be able to nail it down it should be you. Where is it? What's the magic number?

    The Laugher curve is a joke and part of the voodoo economics that the right has swallowed hook-line-and-sinker and they haven't been able to spit out the tackleline since.

     



    Are you denying the Laffer curve?

     

    I said nothing about what rates were desirable, niether does the Laffer curve.

    Not throwing any insults around, but you are.  Grow up.

    Get your head out of your...copy of Rules for Radicals.

     

     




    Now you're just being childish and petulant.

     

     

    The Laugher curve states that there is a point where maximum revenue intersects the tax rate which is the point for optimum economic performance and growth for the country.

    A) In the 50-60's the top tax rate was over 90% and yet tax receipts were up, little to no nat'l debt and it was the longest economic expansion in history ... and that included enacting 'great society' programs like medicare.

    B) Today the tax rate is the lowest in generations and tax receipts are below historic avgs and the economy is moving sideways while the safety net is being cut and still we have continued debt.

    This ain't rocket surgery:

    A+B represent the two extremes of the tax rate in the US in the modern era.

    That means that the Laugher curve has never, ever, been found to hold true in the real world because scenario B with the lowest rates proves it doesn't work on the low end and scenario A with the highest rates of the 60's proves it can work at least up to 95% or so. Which means it's nothing but a useless talking point for the neo-con crowd.

    Of course you could try the ad absurdum and argue at 0% or 100% but that would just be foolish... let's keep it in the realm of reality, shall we.

     

     

     



    No, what you are missing is the part where the Laffer curve is for a given economic condition.  Sorry that the common sense of the Laffer curve escapes you.  Let me illustrate:

    Let's say taxation is 100%.  How much in taxes is collected?

    As far as unemployment being stimulus and additive to the GDP:  If we layoff 100% of the workforce and pay them benefits, what is GDP?

    Is the word elasticity springing into your head?  Or the lack of elasticity in your argument?  Huh?

    See, this is where liberal economics falls apart.  The key concept in liberal economics is to divorce incentive for the equation.  Completely inelastic.  In your bizzare little world, people work and pay 100% taxes becasue they are not motivated by earning money.  The rest of us see the folly in this thought process.

    Hence, the Laffer Curve.




    As I intimated, it didn't take long for you to leave reality and head straight to the absurd.

    If you can't argue reality then what's the point?

    As for the Laugher curve being for a "given economic condition", that's just ridiculous.

    So every time there's a downturn, everyone's taxes will change.

    That's just to ridiculous to even consider.

    So how will a company plan for the future?

    How deep does the dip in economic activity need to be before you change everyone's tax rate?

    You can't argue realistic scenarios which is why the Laugher curve is a joke.

    Listen, I gave you very specific, real world examples of the high and low of tax policies and the effects.

    When you lost the argument, you came back with exactly what I predicted you would, a absurd, alternate reality which is the only place that the Laugher curve makes any sense.

    You are just incapable of explaining, with real world examples, what you just mindlessly parrot because it sounds good.

    I gave you the high and low on tax policy, real world and researchable, to show that voodoo economics is nothing but a neo-con pipe dream, it doesn't apply in reality where the rest of the country actually lives.

     

    And why can't you dispute the specifics of the facts I posted?

    Why do you feel the need to ignore reality and go off on an absurd rant?

     

    When you can dispute the facts, the facts that reflect this country's experience with tax policy, then I'll be happy to debate.

    Until then, have fun in your 100% tax dystopia.



    12angrymen,

    Maybe rrfan is done for the night.

    As you can see, I posted a retort to the Laffer curve as a reply to him on this page.

    I remeber studying what it was about and why it did not hold water in college.

    He has yet to reply to that post as well.

    Maybe this weekend. Perfect timing as the benefits will have ended as well.

     
  4. This post has been removed.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from andiejen. Show andiejen's posts

    Re: Federal Unemployment benefits ending tomorrow

    In response to Beach-Spider's comment:

         

      88,000 Floridians Losing

    Unemployment Benefits Saturday

     

    Posted: December 27, 2013 - 3:01pm | Updated: December 28, 2013 - 12:22am

    This Aug. 14 photo shows job seekers checking out companies at a job fair in Miami Lakes. More than 1 million Americans are bracing for a harrowing, post-Christmas jolt as federal unemployment benefits come to a sudden halt this weekend.  ALAN DIAZ/Associated Press

    ALAN DIAZ/Associated Press

    This Aug. 14 photo shows job seekers checking out companies at a job fair in Miami Lakes. More than 1 million Americans are bracing for a harrowing, post-Christmas jolt as federal unemployment benefits come to a sudden halt this weekend.

        By The News Service Of Florida

    TALLAHASSEE | Tens of thousands of Floridians are losing their federal emergency jobless benefits on Saturday, joining about 1.3 million Americans whose unemployment checks weren't part of the bipartisan budget deal passed by Congress last week and signed by President Obama on Thursday.

    All 88,000 Floridians in the federally-funded Emergency Unemployment Compensation (EUC) program will be cut off Saturday, said state Department of Economic Opportunity spokeswoman Monica Russell.

    The emergency benefits, begun in 2008 under President George W. Bush, were created to help unemployed workers who had exhausted their state jobless benefits during the economic recession. And according to the National Employment Law Project, while Saturday's cutoff will affect 1.3 million people, another 850,000 U.S. workers will run out of state unemployment insurance in the first three months of 2014, with no access to federal jobless aid.

    Among those are eligible Floridians, whose current 19 weeks of state reemployment assistance benefits will drop to 16 weeks effective Jan. 1, according to Russell.

    The elimination of the emergency benefits coupled with the reduction in the maximum benefits for out of work Floridians is a "devastating combination," said U.S. Rep. Ted Deutch, a Boca Raton Democrat.

    "That's not just devastating for their own families but for the communities they live in and ultimately it's a drag on our economy,"

    Deutch said. "It's frustrating that we weren't able to do anything before we left."

    Read more at Jacksonville.com: http://jacksonville.com/breaking-news/2013-12-27/story/13-million-losing-unemployment-benefits-saturday#ixzz2okSCr3cK



    "Deutch said. "It's frustrating that we weren't able to do anything before we left."

    Frustrating? I would say more like heartbreaking.

    Previous posts have referred to the Laffer Cureve and the GDP as well as a poster's personal view, with no backup source, of how the unemployed behave (wait until their benefits are about to run out then they seek employment), but I do not think any of the posts really captured the overall devastation to those individuals and familes this decision is about to wreak havoc upon.

    spidey, your top animation, with a weeping something, is so right on the point of what we should have been discussing. The very human side of this loss of UI benefits. 

    Of course when Congress reconvenes in January, there is going to be a push by the Democrats to re-instate these benefits. Frome now until then, we need a push to educate the public both about the human wrecking ball Congress has swung as well as the practical it is in your self interest to have this program re-instated fact.

    Well done spidey.

     
  6. This post has been removed.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from miscricket. Show miscricket's posts

    Re: Federal Unemployment benefits ending tomorrow

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

    In response to andiejen's comment:

    In response to UserName9's comment:

    23,000 people just applied for 600 minimum wage openings at a new Walmart in Washington DC.

    http://www.businessinsider.com/wal-mart-receives-23000-applications-2013-11

     

    Its not easy out there.



    Of course not. Not easy is an understatement.

    3 applicants for every job opening. 34% for every job opening.

     

    600/23,000=0.026. Here, 2.6% for a minimum wage job opening at Walmart.  Great odds to get an awful job. But they are standing for hours to try.

    Job seekers lining the blocks for minimum wage jobs that only a very very few will get.

    While some posters sit in their warm homes or apartments, fridges full of fresh food, go to jobs, in warm buildings, jobbs with benefits and a living wage and then some.

    Am I supposed to apologize because I'm sitting in my warm home, with a fridge full of food, have a job in a warm building, a job with good benefits? It's not my fault others can't find a job. And I'm sure not going to apologize that I have a job when someone else doesn't. Does it suck that person is out of work? Yup, sure does. I feel bad for people who struggle. But that doesn't mean I should feel bad that I still have a job.

    From that prism some can look down at those who have been seeking work for a long long time.

    Happily, for me, I know those who look down their noses now, for the most part are employees at will. That means they can be laid off/fired without any notice.

    I have never "looked down my nose" at anyone looking for a job. I applaud them for wanting to get a job.

    But good to know what a spiteful person you are that you would be happy to see certain people lose their job.

     

     

     







    Pinkie..this is why I sit very happily as a moderate. Someone who can view both sides of an issue and not just see things in black and white..or cast negative aspersions on someone who doesn't share my opinion.

    I know for sure that Conservatives don't corner the market on nastiness where politics are concerned..lol.

    I also know that there are people on both sides of the political aisle who feel the same way I do about continuing temporary programs indefinitely.

    I am still wondering why we are not having the conversation about wage suppression , record corporate profits and the real causes of the stagnant job market. I guess no one really wants to have that conversation.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from ronreganfan. Show ronreganfan's posts

    Re: Federal Unemployment benefits ending tomorrow

    In response to twelve_angry_men's comment:

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:

     

    In response to twelve_angry_men's comment:

     

     

     

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:

     

    In response to twelve_angry_men's comment:

     

     

     

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:

     

    In response to twelve_angry_men's comment:

     

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:

     

    In response to twelve_angry_men's comment:

     

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

     

     

     


    Paying unemployment benefits is how a clueless leftist like angryman thinks the private economy grows....

    Dont know whether to laugh or cry at such ideological ignorance about basic economic principles...

    Why dont we pay everyone in the country unemployment benefits? Wouldnt that do the trick, spanky? After all, it is 'free money' ,  the money grows on trees, and the Almighty Government can spend it.....

    Or, better yet, have a trillion dollar "stimulus" where the Government will spend to increase "demand"? Oops, never mind...that was already tried , it was Obama's worst failure (before ObamaCare).  Though it did result in the employment of hundreds of state economists who swore the stimulus was a hugh success..

     

     

     




    Heh, heh, heh ... this critique by someone who believes in the laugher-curve and that reducing taxes increases revenues.

     

     

     

    So to use your sophmoric ad absurdum response ... why don't we just reduce taxes to zero and the gov't would be swimming in revenue and the debt and deficit would disappear overnight. Heck, then we could pay everyone just for being a citizen.... wasn't that Palin's grand scheme in AK?

     

     



    Laffer curve doesn't work? 

     

    I bet you don't even know what it represents.

    Typical leftist economic ignorance.

     




    Okay spanky, if you're so bright, why don't you tell me exactly where the Laugher-curve falls. You know, that point at which people will stop working once their income taxes hit a certain level.

     

    Tell us where, to the exact percentage, that is.

    And while you're at it, maybe you could show some millionares who stopped working because their taxes were too high.

    Or maybe someone who simply quit working, quit trying to make money, who said they didn't want to be rich because the taxes were too high.

    How about a 1% who wouldn't invest money because they didn't want to pay taxes on all those profits.

     

     



     

     So, you don't understand the Laffer curve.  Let me explain:

    The Laffer curve, defined by Art Laffer, shos thatthere is a maximum tax rate which maximizes reciepts, given the current economic condition, i.e. it changes given the state of the economy.

    You have a very childish notion that you can tax people at a rate approaching 100% and these people would continue to work, simply because they are "rich".  

     




    Hey spanky, check out the rates in the 50's - 60's, then get back to me.

     

    I see ya haven't found anyone who doesn't want to be rich because taxes are too high or a 1%-er who won't invest because he doesn't want to pay taxes on the profits.

    And where is that magic number? We all know it ain't 100% or 0% but you keep talking as if an expert and throwing around insults .... so if anyone should be able to nail it down it should be you. Where is it? What's the magic number?

    The Laugher curve is a joke and part of the voodoo economics that the right has swallowed hook-line-and-sinker and they haven't been able to spit out the tackleline since.

     



    Are you denying the Laffer curve?

     

    I said nothing about what rates were desirable, niether does the Laffer curve.

    Not throwing any insults around, but you are.  Grow up.

    Get your head out of your...copy of Rules for Radicals.

     

     

     




    Now you're just being childish and petulant.

     

     

     

    The Laugher curve states that there is a point where maximum revenue intersects the tax rate which is the point for optimum economic performance and growth for the country.

    A) In the 50-60's the top tax rate was over 90% and yet tax receipts were up, little to no nat'l debt and it was the longest economic expansion in history ... and that included enacting 'great society' programs like medicare.

    B) Today the tax rate is the lowest in generations and tax receipts are below historic avgs and the economy is moving sideways while the safety net is being cut and still we have continued debt.

    This ain't rocket surgery:

    A+B represent the two extremes of the tax rate in the US in the modern era.

    That means that the Laugher curve has never, ever, been found to hold true in the real world because scenario B with the lowest rates proves it doesn't work on the low end and scenario A with the highest rates of the 60's proves it can work at least up to 95% or so. Which means it's nothing but a useless talking point for the neo-con crowd.

    Of course you could try the ad absurdum and argue at 0% or 100% but that would just be foolish... let's keep it in the realm of reality, shall we.

     

     

     

     



    No, what you are missing is the part where the Laffer curve is for a given economic condition.  Sorry that the common sense of the Laffer curve escapes you.  Let me illustrate:

     

    Let's say taxation is 100%.  How much in taxes is collected?

    As far as unemployment being stimulus and additive to the GDP:  If we layoff 100% of the workforce and pay them benefits, what is GDP?

    Is the word elasticity springing into your head?  Or the lack of elasticity in your argument?  Huh?

    See, this is where liberal economics falls apart.  The key concept in liberal economics is to divorce incentive for the equation.  Completely inelastic.  In your bizzare little world, people work and pay 100% taxes becasue they are not motivated by earning money.  The rest of us see the folly in this thought process.

    Hence, the Laffer Curve.




    As I predicted, it didn't take long for you to leave reality and head straight to the absurd.

    If you can't argue reality, then what's the point?

    As for the Laugher curve being for a "given economic condition", that's just ridiculous.

    So every time there's a downturn, everyone's taxes will change.

    That's just too ridiculous to even consider.

    So how will a company plan for the future?

    How deep does the dip in economic activity need to be before you change everyone's tax rate?

    You can't argue realistic scenarios which is why you, and the Laugher curve, are a joke.

    Listen, I gave you very specific, real world examples of the high and low limits of tax policies and the effects in the last 60 yrs. When you lost the argument, you came back with exactly what I predicted you would, an absurd, alternate reality... which is the only place that the Laugher curve makes any sense.

    You are incapable of understanding, much less explaining, with any real world examples, what you mindlessly parrot, because it simply doesn't make sense.

    I gave you the high and low on tax policy in the US in the last 60 yrs, real world researchable data, to show that voodoo economics is nothing but a neo-con pipe dream, it doesn't apply in reality where the rest of the country actually lives.

     

    So why can't you dispute the specifics and the facts I posted?

    Why do you feel the need to ignore reality and go off on an absurd rant without a shred of evidence?

     

    When you can dispute the facts, the facts that reflect this country's actual experience with tax policy, then I'll be happy to debate.

    Until then, have fun in your 100% tax dystopia.



    What "fact" did you post about the Laffer curve?  I didn't see any facts.  I did see some amaturish conjecture, which I showed to be incorrect.

    Leave economics to the pro's, son.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from ronreganfan. Show ronreganfan's posts

    Re: Federal Unemployment benefits ending tomorrow

    In response to andiejen's comment:

    In response to twelve_angry_men's comment:

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:

    In response to twelve_angry_men's comment:

     

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:

     

    In response to twelve_angry_men's comment:

     

     

     

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:

     

    In response to twelve_angry_men's comment:

     

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:

     

    In response to twelve_angry_men's comment:

     

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

     

     

     


    Paying unemployment benefits is how a clueless leftist like angryman thinks the private economy grows....

    Dont know whether to laugh or cry at such ideological ignorance about basic economic principles...

    Why dont we pay everyone in the country unemployment benefits? Wouldnt that do the trick, spanky? After all, it is 'free money' ,  the money grows on trees, and the Almighty Government can spend it.....

    Or, better yet, have a trillion dollar "stimulus" where the Government will spend to increase "demand"? Oops, never mind...that was already tried , it was Obama's worst failure (before ObamaCare).  Though it did result in the employment of hundreds of state economists who swore the stimulus was a hugh success..

     

     

     




    Heh, heh, heh ... this critique by someone who believes in the laugher-curve and that reducing taxes increases revenues.

     

     

     

    So to use your sophmoric ad absurdum response ... why don't we just reduce taxes to zero and the gov't would be swimming in revenue and the debt and deficit would disappear overnight. Heck, then we could pay everyone just for being a citizen.... wasn't that Palin's grand scheme in AK?

     

     



    Laffer curve doesn't work? 

     

    I bet you don't even know what it represents.

    Typical leftist economic ignorance.

     




    Okay spanky, if you're so bright, why don't you tell me exactly where the Laugher-curve falls. You know, that point at which people will stop working once their income taxes hit a certain level.

     

    Tell us where, to the exact percentage, that is.

    And while you're at it, maybe you could show some millionares who stopped working because their taxes were too high.

    Or maybe someone who simply quit working, quit trying to make money, who said they didn't want to be rich because the taxes were too high.

    How about a 1% who wouldn't invest money because they didn't want to pay taxes on all those profits.

     

     



     

     So, you don't understand the Laffer curve.  Let me explain:

    The Laffer curve, defined by Art Laffer, shos thatthere is a maximum tax rate which maximizes reciepts, given the current economic condition, i.e. it changes given the state of the economy.

    You have a very childish notion that you can tax people at a rate approaching 100% and these people would continue to work, simply because they are "rich".  

     




    Hey spanky, check out the rates in the 50's - 60's, then get back to me.

     

    I see ya haven't found anyone who doesn't want to be rich because taxes are too high or a 1%-er who won't invest because he doesn't want to pay taxes on the profits.

    And where is that magic number? We all know it ain't 100% or 0% but you keep talking as if an expert and throwing around insults .... so if anyone should be able to nail it down it should be you. Where is it? What's the magic number?

    The Laugher curve is a joke and part of the voodoo economics that the right has swallowed hook-line-and-sinker and they haven't been able to spit out the tackleline since.

     



    Are you denying the Laffer curve?

     

    I said nothing about what rates were desirable, niether does the Laffer curve.

    Not throwing any insults around, but you are.  Grow up.

    Get your head out of your...copy of Rules for Radicals.

     

     




    Now you're just being childish and petulant.

     

     

    The Laugher curve states that there is a point where maximum revenue intersects the tax rate which is the point for optimum economic performance and growth for the country.

    A) In the 50-60's the top tax rate was over 90% and yet tax receipts were up, little to no nat'l debt and it was the longest economic expansion in history ... and that included enacting 'great society' programs like medicare.

    B) Today the tax rate is the lowest in generations and tax receipts are below historic avgs and the economy is moving sideways while the safety net is being cut and still we have continued debt.

    This ain't rocket surgery:

    A+B represent the two extremes of the tax rate in the US in the modern era.

    That means that the Laugher curve has never, ever, been found to hold true in the real world because scenario B with the lowest rates proves it doesn't work on the low end and scenario A with the highest rates of the 60's proves it can work at least up to 95% or so. Which means it's nothing but a useless talking point for the neo-con crowd.

    Of course you could try the ad absurdum and argue at 0% or 100% but that would just be foolish... let's keep it in the realm of reality, shall we.

     

     

     



    No, what you are missing is the part where the Laffer curve is for a given economic condition.  Sorry that the common sense of the Laffer curve escapes you.  Let me illustrate:

    Let's say taxation is 100%.  How much in taxes is collected?

    As far as unemployment being stimulus and additive to the GDP:  If we layoff 100% of the workforce and pay them benefits, what is GDP?

    Is the word elasticity springing into your head?  Or the lack of elasticity in your argument?  Huh?

    See, this is where liberal economics falls apart.  The key concept in liberal economics is to divorce incentive for the equation.  Completely inelastic.  In your bizzare little world, people work and pay 100% taxes becasue they are not motivated by earning money.  The rest of us see the folly in this thought process.

    Hence, the Laffer Curve.




    As I intimated, it didn't take long for you to leave reality and head straight to the absurd.

    If you can't argue reality then what's the point?

    As for the Laugher curve being for a "given economic condition", that's just ridiculous.

    So every time there's a downturn, everyone's taxes will change.

    That's just to ridiculous to even consider.

    So how will a company plan for the future?

    How deep does the dip in economic activity need to be before you change everyone's tax rate?

    You can't argue realistic scenarios which is why the Laugher curve is a joke.

    Listen, I gave you very specific, real world examples of the high and low of tax policies and the effects.

    When you lost the argument, you came back with exactly what I predicted you would, a absurd, alternate reality which is the only place that the Laugher curve makes any sense.

    You are just incapable of explaining, with real world examples, what you just mindlessly parrot because it sounds good.

    I gave you the high and low on tax policy, real world and researchable, to show that voodoo economics is nothing but a neo-con pipe dream, it doesn't apply in reality where the rest of the country actually lives.

     

    And why can't you dispute the specifics of the facts I posted?

    Why do you feel the need to ignore reality and go off on an absurd rant?

     

    When you can dispute the facts, the facts that reflect this country's experience with tax policy, then I'll be happy to debate.

    Until then, have fun in your 100% tax dystopia.



    12angrymen,

    Maybe rrfan is done for the night.

    As you can see, I posted a retort to the Laffer curve as a reply to him on this page.

    I remeber studying what it was about and why it did not hold water in college.

    He has yet to reply to that post as well.

    Maybe this weekend. Perfect timing as the benefits will have ended as well.



    12 Angry men did not post any facts relative the Laffer curve.  I know he is ANGRY, and wants it to be wrong because he said so, but that's not how reality works.

    The key assertion seems to be that the Laffer curve says lower tax rates increase revenues.  It says no such thing.  I don't know how many times I can state the obvious to the unhinged liberal.

    As far as telling Angry the "exact" point we are at on the Laffer curve, well, I just have to laugh. Unlike the liberal approach to economics, these things are not known except in a predicitive sense, or inthe rear view mirror.  Suffice it to say that in bad times, my expectation would be that the point on the Laffer curve that maximizes revenue would be moving towards the zero end, and in better times, moving towardsthe 100% end.

    After all, this is just common sense. I really dont see what the confusion is with you liberals when it comes to common sense.  Hey, I might be on to something...

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from andiejen. Show andiejen's posts

    Re: Federal Unemployment benefits ending tomorrow

    "After all, this is just common sense. I really dont see what the confusion is with you liberals when it comes to common sense.  Hey, I might be on to something.."

    rrfan,

    I am really interested on what that something you might be on to vis a vis liberals.

    Maybe if you put it in layman's terms, and type very slowly, some of us liberals may be able to understand what it is?

    Who knows, you may bring one or two of us over from the dark side if you make your point(s) very well.

    You know...or maybe you do not... it ain't easy being a liberal theae days. Some of us are ready to jump. We just need the right push.

     
  11. This post has been removed.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from ronreganfan. Show ronreganfan's posts

    Re: Federal Unemployment benefits ending tomorrow

    In response to andiejen's comment:

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:

     

    In response to andiejen's comment:

     

    "The rest of us see the folly in this thought process."

    Quite a sweeping generization there, is it not?

    By the rest of us , whom do you mean?

    Certainly you do not mean what you wrote...i.e., everybody but the poster in question.

    So, do you mean the majority of conservative Republicans?

    Do you mean a smaller group, like say Tea Party supporters...or even just Tea Party members?

     




     

    The Laffer curve is absolute common sense.  Sorry, but I can't be any clearer than that.  It shows that there is a level of taxation where government revenues are maximized.  Might be 1%, might be 99%.  It doesn't say anything like what 12 Angry men is implying, whihc I take to be that the Laffer curve prescribes lower taxes as a means to maximize revenue.  It does not.

    So, I guess I mean the "rest of us" as in those that actually have thought this through,  Liberal, libertarian, or conservative.  The Laffer curve is agnostic as to political thought.  It just is.

     




    ronreaganfan,

     

    I majored in Economics at Brown University before I went onto law school for 2 degrees, the 2nd a masters in tax law.

    I am telling you this since you are a rather new poster and most of us have shared our respective backgrounds on this board.

    Brown is not exactly a no name university. (Of course we here in the North have this Ivy League thing if you are not from the East Coast.) There the professors pretty much laughed the Laffer curve right out the door. It was a little bit ago, and of course I went on to practice law, but to state as you have that the Laffer curve is just common sense means you belong to a particular school of economics...one to which I and a lot of people do not subscribe.

    You probably know this already. Economics is a social science...not a hard core science. There is less consensus in this field than in the "regular" scientific fields.

    That is as succinct as I can make it. You and I are from different schools of economic thought, as well as political leanings.

    That said, the Laffer curve cannot be said to just make sense. It can be said that one school of economic thought believes that the Laffer curve makes sense.

    There is a big difference between those two statements, yes?

     

    Btw, I saw your post at the bottom of the WSJ thread. For some reason, software glitch reason, I am not able to post there currently.

    I tend to believe what you wrote. As you said, what is the fun in that?

    I really do like conservative posters who debate with articulate, thought out posts rather than bumper sticker slogans.

    You of course fall in the first category.

    I guess it was just a major coincidence. My apologies. 

    I wish we knew who reported our deleted posts and the reasons why. That might reduce the number of reports...which I believe in...as well as reduce the atmosphere of suspicion that occurs. It has happened to me. Being falsely accused of reporting a post...nevermind several posts.

    Clean slate as far as I am concerned, rrfan.

     



    I am sure the economists at Brown laughed the Laffer curve right out the door.  They probaly all think Krugman is spot on all the time.  Still, they are wrong.  The Laffer Curve is common sense.  Consdier this article:

    But under all of the political banter, finger-pointing, and hyperbole, the curve does exist.  At any given point in time (including right now), changes to a given tax rate in either direction will produce a result.  Government revenue may increase.  If it happens near the crest of the curve, it may produce little or no change in revenue.  Government revenue may decline.

    Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/09/why_the_left_hates_the_laffer_curve.html#ixzz2oz0mSmlv 
    Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from ronreganfan. Show ronreganfan's posts

    Re: Federal Unemployment benefits ending tomorrow

    In response to andiejen's comment:

    "After all, this is just common sense. I really dont see what the confusion is with you liberals when it comes to common sense.  Hey, I might be on to something.."

    rrfan,

    I am really interested on what that something you might be on to vis a vis liberals.

    Maybe if you put it in layman's terms, and type very slowly, some of us liberals may be able to understand what it is?

    Who knows, you may bring one or two of us over from the dark side if you make your point(s) very well.

    You know...or maybe you do not... it ain't easy being a liberal theae days. Some of us are ready to jump. We just need the right push.



    You are finally gettitng my sense of humor.

    But seriously, if you dismiss the common sesne of the LAffer curve, you probably also dismiss the Rahn curve?

     
  14. This post has been removed.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from ronreganfan. Show ronreganfan's posts

    Re: Federal Unemployment benefits ending tomorrow

    In response to twelve_angry_men's comment:

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:

    In response to andiejen's comment:

     

    In response to twelve_angry_men's comment:

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:

    In response to twelve_angry_men's comment:

     

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:

     

    In response to twelve_angry_men's comment:

     

     

     

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:

     

    In response to twelve_angry_men's comment:

     

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:

     

    In response to twelve_angry_men's comment:

     

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

     

     

     




    Heh, heh, heh ... this critique by someone who believes in the laugher-curve and that reducing taxes increases revenues.

     

     



    12 Angry men did not post any facts relative the Laffer curve.  I know he is ANGRY, and wants it to be wrong because he said so, but that's not how reality works.

    The key assertion seems to be that the Laffer curve says lower tax rates increase revenues.  It says no such thing.  I don't know how many times I can state the obvious to the unhinged liberal.

    As far as telling Angry the "exact" point we are at on the Laffer curve, well, I just have to laugh. Unlike the liberal approach to economics, these things are not known except in a predicitive sense, or inthe rear view mirror.  Suffice it to say that in bad times, my expectation would be that the point on the Laffer curve that maximizes revenue would be moving towards the zero end, and in better times, moving towardsthe 100% end.

    After all, this is just common sense. I really dont see what the confusion is with you liberals when it comes to common sense.  Hey, I might be on to something...




    I posted two real-world examples;

    The 60's when tax rates were over 90% yet it was the second longest period of economic expansion in modern times and federal revenues at historical averages.

    Today, when tax rates are at historic lows and yet the economy is moving sideways and gov't revenue is well below historical averages.

    How do you explain that those two real world examples indicate that Laugher curve is upside down and that longer sustained economic growth came with higher taxes, in the 70-90% range.



    What is wrong with you?

    HOW many times do I have to tell you that the Laffer curve doesn't state what you think it does?  The Laffer curve DOES NOT say that when rates go down, tax receipts go up, period.

    It merely indicates that there is a rate at which tax receipts are maximized.  Go in either direction from that point, and receipts likely go down.

    It is basic elactisity. No magic, no special significance.

    as to your point on the 1960's:  

    No one paid the 90% rate in the 50's and 60's, 70's.  A meaningless number you cling to for some reason.  The effective tax rate on the top 1% (I assume that is the group that paid the 90% rate) was about 30%.  Look it up.

    And, JFK dropped the tax rate to spur growth.  I know that just rankles your liberals. JFK, a tax cutting supply sider.

     
  16. This post has been removed.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from doozy-day. Show doozy-day's posts

    Re: Federal Unemployment benefits ending tomorrow


    There are no tax revenues on unemployment $, putting people back to work creates revenue for the governement in payroll taxes, folks make money and spend it, sales tax, meals tax, excise tax, hotel tax, gas tax, etc.

    If more peolpe have jobs, they spend more money and revenues increase, right?

    Paying them to stay home, stay on welfare, SNAP, unemployment, SSI, etc will keep them voting for the farmer that fills the trough.

     

     

     
  18. This post has been removed.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from ronreganfan. Show ronreganfan's posts

    Re: Federal Unemployment benefits ending tomorrow

    In response to twelve_angry_men's comment:

     

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:

     

    In response to twelve_angry_men's comment:

     

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:

     

    In response to andiejen's comment:

     

     

     

    In response to twelve_angry_men's comment:

     

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to twelve_angry_men's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:

     

    In response to twelve_angry_men's comment:

     

     

     

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:

     

    In response to twelve_angry_men's comment:

     

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:

     

    In response to twelve_angry_men's comment:

     

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     




    Heh, heh, heh ... this critique by someone who believes in the laugher-curve and that reducing taxes increases revenues.

     

     

     



    12 Angry men did not post any facts relative the Laffer curve.  I know he is ANGRY, and wants it to be wrong because he said so, but that's not how reality works.

     

    The key assertion seems to be that the Laffer curve says lower tax rates increase revenues.  It says no such thing.  I don't know how many times I can state the obvious to the unhinged liberal.

    As far as telling Angry the "exact" point we are at on the Laffer curve, well, I just have to laugh. Unlike the liberal approach to economics, these things are not known except in a predicitive sense, or inthe rear view mirror.  Suffice it to say that in bad times, my expectation would be that the point on the Laffer curve that maximizes revenue would be moving towards the zero end, and in better times, moving towardsthe 100% end.

    After all, this is just common sense. I really dont see what the confusion is with you liberals when it comes to common sense.  Hey, I might be on to something...

     




    I posted two real-world examples;

     

    The 60's when tax rates were over 90% yet it was the second longest period of economic expansion in modern times and federal revenues at historical averages.

    Today, when tax rates are at historic lows and yet the economy is moving sideways and gov't revenue is well below historical averages.

    How do you explain that those two real world examples indicate that Laugher curve is upside down and that longer sustained economic growth came with higher taxes, in the 70-90% range.

     



     

    What is wrong with you?

    HOW many times do I have to tell you that the Laffer curve doesn't state what you think it does?  The Laffer curve DOES NOT say that when rates go down, tax receipts go up, period.

    It merely indicates that there is a rate at which tax receipts are maximized.  Go in either direction from that point, and receipts likely go down.

    It is basic elactisity. No magic, no special significance.

    as to your point on the 1960's:  

    No one paid the 90% rate in the 50's and 60's, 70's.  A meaningless number you cling to for some reason.  The effective tax rate on the top 1% (I assume that is the group that paid the 90% rate) was about 30%.  Look it up.

    And, JFK dropped the tax rate to spur growth.  I know that just rankles your liberals. JFK, a tax cutting supply sider.

     

     

     

     




    Now you're just making up numbers.

     

    The nominal tax rate in 1960 was 91%. The effective tax rate was 70%.

    The average of all tax payers was 30%

    Here, look it up: http://www.nber.org/papers/w12404

    JFK proposed dropping the tax rate but it didn't kick in until 1965, and the country was already 5 yrs into a 10yr growth cycle.... and when the rates were dropped, revenues decreased .2% of GDP. Look it up.

    The Laugher curve ain't 'common sense' if every economic indicator, and reality itself, shows the Laugher curve is mythical and impossible to quantify or qualify.

    The only two points on the curve that make any sense are the end points 0% - 100%, everything else is conjecture and wishful thinking which is directly contradicted by the facts ... you have a better chance of catching a unicorn in your backyard.



    Sorry, not making the tax rate up:

    "The data itself tells an entirely different story from the idealized 91% tax rate.  According to Internal Revenue Service data, presented below on a graph, from 1966 to 1970 the effective tax rate of an average tax payer in the top 1% was 30.85%.  Throughout the time period in question, the effective tax rate of the average top 1% never exceeded 35%. - See more at: http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2012/11/worthy-of-further-investigation.html#sthash.l1AM3cLp.dpuf"

    Well, if you mean by conjecture hard to measure, you would be right.

    But, because you agree with my key pont, that the revenue collected at 0$ and 100% is the same, the point at which rates maximize revenue lies somewhere between 0% and 100%, right?

    That is the point of the Laffer curve, so, it is common sense, is it not?

    As far as Kennedy:  what's your point?  did he want higher taxes?  No? As the economy got better, the more sensible tax rate added to the uptick.

     

     

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from andiejen. Show andiejen's posts

    Re: Federal Unemployment benefits ending tomorrow

    In response to doozy-day's comment:


    There are no tax revenues on unemployment $, putting people back to work creates revenue for the governement in payroll taxes, folks make money and spend it, sales tax, meals tax, excise tax, hotel tax, gas tax, etc.

    If more peolpe have jobs, they spend more money and revenues increase, right?

    Paying them to stay home, stay on welfare, SNAP, unemployment, SSI, etc will keep them voting for the farmer that fills the trough.

     

     

    Unemployment benefits ARE taxable. 

    I do not know where you got the notion that they were not, doozy-day.

    Have you never known a single person who had their job out sourced?

    Or simply laid off, or just fired?

    I mean people making 6 figure salaries with advanced degreees, homes, 2 or 3 cars, children, etc.

    People who can not simple pick up and move to where ever a similar position may be at the moment.

    People who may have responsibilities for elderly relatives on both sides of the family.

    We have been very responsible with our money. We have far more than one year of liquidity should all the income stop coming in for some reason without touching a penny of retirement funds, or investment funds.

    But should we be hit with a say major lawsuit against us, or a major expense that we have not insured for, and had no income flow to boot, UI is not a lot of money, even at the max. amount, but at least it is something coming in while people regroup...esp. in this still recovering job market.

     

     

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from andiejen. Show andiejen's posts

    Re: Federal Unemployment benefits ending tomorrow

    rrfan,

    Here is the Rahn Curve, since you brought it up a few posts ago.

     

    The Rahn Curve

    Written by Tim Worstall | Saturday 16 July 2011

    An interesting little idea that I'd not come across before: the Rahn Curve. It's analogous to the Laffer Curve, in that it says there's a level of public spending up to which more increases growth rates, over which it reduces growth rates.

    It shows that growth is maximized by small governments that focus on core “public goods” like rule of law and protection of property rights. But when governments expand beyond a certain growth-maximizing level (the research says about 20 percent of GDP,....), the result is slower growth and less prosperity.

    It's intuitively appealing to people like us of course and as with the Laffer Curve at extremes it's clearly and obviously true. Zero tax means zero government and without at the very least some form of defense, police and a criminal justice system there's not going to be much economic growth. When the government takes and spends all of the economy there's not likely to be much either. The argument will be, as with Laffer, what is that sweet spot? One interesting note is that Keynes himself thought that 25% of GDP passing through the government's hands was probably as high a portion as we would want.

    However, it's also true that growth purely as growth isn't the only thing we want:

    There is also another issue which can get lost – the fact that maximizing growth rates is not necessarily the government’s highest priority. Issues of equity, fairness and concern for the environment are arguably more important than maximizing rates of economic growth.

    As indeed it is also arguable that they are not. But I'm entirely happy to accept that stricture, that economic growth isn't the only thing we want out of an economy. What this Rahn Curve does allow us to do though is keep insisting that, as ever in economics, there's a trade off here.

    How much equity and fairness now are you going to insist upon at the cost of making our children poorer than they could be? Given that we can't have both, a decision has to be made. And that's very useful in itself: a counter to those who say that greater equity now will make our children richer. It won't.

     

     

     

    http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/tax-and-economy/the-rahn-curve

     

    "There is also another issue which can get lost – the fact that maximizing growth rates is not necessarily the government’s highest priority. Issues of equity, fairness and concern for the environment are arguably more important than maximizing rates of economic growth."

     

    Even if you accept th Rahn Curve, as the above paragraph points out, MAXIMIZING GROWTH RATES IS NOT NECESSARILY THE GOVERNMENT'S HIGHEST PRIORITY.

    Quite a concept. Talking about issues of equity, fairness and concern for the environment being argubly MORE important than maximizing rates of economic growth.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from andiejen. Show andiejen's posts

    Re: Federal Unemployment benefits ending tomorrow

    rrfan,

    More on the Rahn Curve.

     

     

     

     

    http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/447/economics/the-rahn-curve-economic-growth-and-level-of-spending/

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from miscricket. Show miscricket's posts

    Re: Federal Unemployment benefits ending tomorrow

    Well..it's been almost a month with no real movement on another Federal Unemployment extension. Congress is back to work today but the sticking points remain on how to pay for it.

    Meanwhile here's an interesting question I posed to a very rightwing family member last week. Why aren't the states picking up the tab and enacting their own unemployment extensions ( and paying for them)? Why are they ( especially the red states) sitting back and waiting for the feds to take action while so many of their constituents are suffering ( alleged)?

    After all..we hear so much from the Right about how the states should be in the driver's seat and how the power of the federal government needs to be limited ( a la healthcare). So where do all the republican governors stand on this issue?

    For the record..my family member did not know how to respond when I asked this question...which gave me a break from the political rantings..lol

     
  24. This post has been removed.

     
  25. This post has been removed.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share