[Bruce_the_vii]

Proculation wrote:

Like said in your quote, that's not the same thing. The taxes were VERY high before Reagan for the individuals. That's quite obvious it was counter productive.

As for the Laffer curve, the problem is that it is a concept, not a "real" curve that you can refer to. It's pretty much an "essai et erreur" (try and mistakes?) concept.

Taxes on the rich were "very high". All I read is the rich in America are doing very well.

[Bruce_the_vii]

Here's my economist joke of the day.

It's been said immigrants stimulate the economy because they inject money into the system. In Trudeau's day there was a Royal Commission on the Economy chaired by former Finance Minister Donald McDonald who reports there is a concensus amongst economist that this is exactly so. Now I wondered how immigrants could inject money into the economy and I eventually found an explanation of it in the Frasers Institutes 1980's book on immigration. It explained while an immigrant may not be able to find a job, say if unemployment was high, they could most always find work.

[Proculation]

Bruce_the_vii wrote:

Proculation wrote:

Like said in your quote, that's not the same thing. The taxes were VERY high before Reagan for the individuals. That's quite obvious it was counter productive.

As for the Laffer curve, the problem is that it is a concept, not a "real" curve that you can refer to. It's pretty much an "essai et erreur" (try and mistakes?) concept.

Taxes on the rich were "very high". All I read is the rich in America are doing very well.

Taxes on the rich were over 70% when Reagan took office.... that's not "high" ?

[Curtman]

Lemmy wrote:

Curtman wrote:

Just because you keep saying it, doesn't make it true.

Huh? It's true whether I say it or not. And why would you be argumentative about this?

Why is it true? It may be true that the curve exists. Where Canada is in relation to it isn't a fact. It is your opinion.

[andyt]

Here's another quote from what I cited:

Quote:

Neither the Reagan nor the George W. Bush tax cuts were "self-financing," as the Laffer disciples like to argue. According to The Economist -- my former employer and no bastion of left-wing thought -- the current Bush Administration's top economist, Gregory Mankiw, estimated that decreasing taxes on labor would generate enough growth to recoup only about 17 cents for each lost dollar; a tax cut on capital is better, paying for more than half of itself. Still, the bottom line from the Bush Administration itself is that tax cuts reduce Uncle Sam's take.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1692027,00.html

Quote:

If there's one thing that Republican politicians agree on, it's that slashing taxes brings the government more money. "You cut taxes, and the tax revenues increase," President Bush said in a speech last year. Keeping taxes low, Vice President Dick Cheney explained in a recent interview, "does produce more revenue for the Federal Government." Presidential candidate John McCain declared in March that "tax cuts ... as we all know, increase revenues." His rival Rudy Giuliani couldn't agree more. "I know that reducing taxes produces more revenues," he intones in a new TV ad.

If there's one thing that economists agree on, it's that these claims are false. We're not talking just ivory-tower lefties. Virtually every economics Ph.D. who has worked in a prominent role in the Bush Administration acknowledges that the tax cuts enacted during the past six years have not paid for themselves--and were never intended to. Harvard professor Greg Mankiw, chairman of Bush's Council of Economic Advisers from 2003 to 2005, even devotes a section of his best-selling economics textbook to debunking the claim that tax cuts increase revenues.

...

Quote:

In other words, the Bush tax cuts were meant to create big deficits. But Laffer's O.K. with that. "The Laffer Curve should not be the reason you raise or lower taxes," he says. Perhaps not, but it does make for great campaign promises.

[Lemmy]

Curtman wrote:

Why is it true? It may be true that the curve exists. Where Canada is in relation to it isn't a fact. It is your opinion.

It's my opinion, yes. Where'd you get your PhD? I have done work on this, (albeit a few years ago) and the data supports my contention. Factory workers refusing overtime, teachers unwilling to accept department headships, etc, etc....these are strong indicators that we are on the downslope of the Laffer curve. When people aren't willing to take raises because they'll pay it all away in taxes, we're in a situation where reducing the tax rate will increase tax revenues.

It's too bad that we hit a recession right after Harris dropped the GST from 7% to 5%, because had consumer confidence not gone in the shitter, I'm certain that tax rate cut would have been a boon to the coffers.

So, Curtman, why do you question this? Have you some theory or data that suggests we're not where I say we are vis-a-vis tax rates? Surely you have some reason to disagree with me.

[andyt]

@Lemmy: Hence my comment about not admitting you're an economist. It seems your discipline is all over the place on this, and what most of you don't seem to get is that economics isn't really a science. Are you really saying you have the truth and all these other guys don't.

Maybe Shakespeare had it wrong - doubt the world would do any worse if there were no economists in it.

[Curtman]

Lemmy wrote:

Curtman wrote:

Why is it true? It may be true that the curve exists. Where Canada is in relation to it isn't a fact. It is your opinion.

It's my opinion, yes. Where'd you get your PhD? I have done work on this, (albeit a few years ago) and the data supports my contention. Factory workers refusing overtime, teachers unwilling to accept department headships, etc, etc....these are strong indicators that we are on the downslope of the Laffer curve. When people aren't willing to take raises because they'll pay it all away in taxes, we're in a situation where reducing the tax rate will increase tax revenues.

It's too bad that we hit a recession right after Harris dropped the GST from 7% to 5%, because had consumer confidence not gone in the shitter, I'm certain that tax rate cut would have been a boon to the coffers.

So, Curtman, why do you question this? Have you some theory or data that suggests we're not where I say we are vis-a-vis tax rates? Surely you have some reason to disagree with me.

Like I said before when we discussed this, I'll trust the opinion of Kevin Page, the Parliamentary Budget Officer before I trust your opinion that is stated as fact without any reference.

Quote:

As well, years of tax cuts - most significantly the cut to the GST, but also to corporate taxes - has left Ottawa without the cushion to withstand downturns without falling into deficit.

The most eye-opening element of the report is that the government's structural deficit will grow, rather than shrink, even during the years the Canadian economy is expected to expand.

"What we're saying to Parliamentarians is, 'You've got tough choices ahead - you've got a weak economy (now) ... and you have to deal with that,' " Page said.

"We're also saying, unfortunately, 'You've got to start dealing with a structural fiscal problem that is going to get bigger and bigger and bigger."

I don't have a PhD, but it is my opinion that the individual taxpayer pays more than his/her fair share, and cutting corporate taxes isn't necessarily going to bring more revenue or jobs to this country.

[Lemmy]

Curtman wrote:

Like I said before when we discussed this, I'll trust the opinion of Kevin Page, the Parliamentary Budget Officer[/url] before I trust your opinion that is stated as fact without any reference.

It's just so very surprising that anyone would question something that's so universally accepted among my profession. But if you'd rather believe someone in government than the entire school of professional economists, what can I say?

Curtman wrote:

I don't have a PhD, but it is my opinion that the individual taxpayer pays more than his/her fair share, and cutting corporate taxes isn't necessarily going to bring more revenue or jobs to this country.

Now hold on, just a second. I was talking about individuals' taxes, not corporate ones, in the first place. I wholeheartedly agree that corporations aren't paying their fair share. I never said a thing about corporate tax rates. I was talking about sales taxes, excise taxes and personal income taxes. It's consumer taxes all along that I've been saying are on the negative side of the Laffer curve.

[Curtman]

Lemmy wrote:

Curtman wrote:

Like I said before when we discussed this, I'll trust the opinion of Kevin Page, the Parliamentary Budget Officer[/url] before I trust your opinion that is stated as fact without any reference.

It's just so very surprising that anyone would question something that's so universally accepted among my profession. But if you'd rather believe someone in government than the entire school of professional economists, what can I say?

Because that is his job, and he is saying that previous and future tax cuts have given us an increasing structural deficit. That does not sound like universal acceptance at all.

Lemmy wrote:

Curtman wrote:

I don't have a PhD, but it is my opinion that the individual taxpayer pays more than his/her fair share, and cutting corporate taxes isn't necessarily going to bring more revenue or jobs to this country.

Now hold on, just a second. I was talking about individuals' taxes, not corporate ones, in the first place. I wholeheartedly agree that corporations aren't paying their fair share. I never said a thing about corporate tax rates. I was talking about sales taxes, excise taxes and personal income taxes. It's consumer taxes all along that I've been saying are on the negative side of the Laffer curve.

I rarely see anyone make any distinction at all. We were talking about taxes as a whole, and it seemed as silly as when our PM says no taxes are good taxes. Nobody in your profession says that do they?

[PostFactum]

The power of every strong country is in it's different people, It is one great prowerb "The main thing is the horse, because the stable you can build in every moment" If your hands, don't grow from ass and you're not stupid like a bull, you will find a good job anyway.

[Lemmy]

Curtman wrote:

[Because that is his job, and he is saying that previous and future tax cuts have given us an increasing structural deficit. That does not sound like universal acceptance at all.

Nonesense. Structural deficits come from inept mangement, not the nature of taxation.

Curtman wrote:

I rarely see anyone make any distinction at all. We were talking about taxes as a whole, and it seemed as silly as when our PM says no taxes are good taxes. Nobody in your profession says that do they?

You see no distinction between corporate taxation and personal taxation? Of course we make distinctions between the two. It could be (and in my opinion is) that personal taxes are much too high and corporate taxes are much too low. There are many things that go into whether a tax is "good" or not. We need to know the incidence and burden. We need to know the effects it will have when introduced or its rate is altered. We need to know what the government will do with the revenue. It may be a very general truth that "no taxes are good taxes", but there are certainly relative levels of "no good".


But there's still no question that the government could generate more tax revenue by easing the burden on individual tax payers.

[DerbyX]

Lemmy wrote:

You see no distinction between corporate taxation and personal taxation? Of course we make distinctions between the two. It could be (and in my opinion is) that personal taxes are much too high and corporate taxes are much too low. There are many things that go into whether a tax is "good" or not. We need to know the incidence and burden. We need to know the effects it will have when introduced or its rate is altered. We need to know what the government will do with the revenue. It may be a very general truth that "no taxes are good taxes", but there are certainly relative levels of "no good".


But there's still no question that the government could generate more tax revenue by easing the burden on individual tax payers.

Actually, I think he said he rarely sees people make that distinction and I think he is more or less correct. People complain about high taxes in general. Another factor that I see people failing to factor into taxes are the level of services people demand. Its all well and good to say you want a stronger military, more cops on the beat and more people in jail but few ever examine what it will actually cost us in tax dollars. You for one at least have openly stated you want reduced services for reduced taxes.

Interesting stance concerning corporate taxes being to low and income taxes being too high (you sure you aren't a NDPer?). Of course I've seen the same argument made in reverse in that low corporate taxes mean more industry and more jobs and thus greater government revenues.

How exactly is anybody supposed to tell which is the correct tax equation to get the most money for the least pain so to speak.

Personally I find a few faults with the laffer curve of late in that I don't see the government ever really getting more money by cutting taxes because the tax rate is never high enough to get that return. It just means more money for people to buy stuff.

[Curtman]

Lemmy wrote:

Curtman wrote:

[Because that is his job, and he is saying that previous and future tax cuts have given us an increasing structural deficit. That does not sound like universal acceptance at all.

Nonesense. Structural deficits come from inept mangement, not the nature of taxation.

He is saying that reductions in taxes have resulted in less revenue, and spending has not decreased to match. If we were on the negative side of the laffer curve, the opposite would be true. There is no evidence for this.

Lemmy wrote:

Curtman wrote:

I rarely see anyone make any distinction at all. We were talking about taxes as a whole, and it seemed as silly as when our PM says no taxes are good taxes. Nobody in your profession says that do they?

You see no distinction between corporate taxation and personal taxation? Of course we make distinctions between the two. It could be (and in my opinion is) that personal taxes are much too high and corporate taxes are much too low. There are many things that go into whether a tax is "good" or not. We need to know the incidence and burden. We need to know the effects it will have when introduced or its rate is altered. We need to know what the government will do with the revenue. It may be a very general truth that "no taxes are good taxes", but there are certainly relative levels of "no good".


But there's still no question that the government could generate more tax revenue by easing the burden on individual tax payers.

Except that personal income tax rates were falling under the previous government, and to a lesser degree under this government. I am not aware of any evidence that this has brought in more revenue.

[Lemmy]

DerbyX wrote:

Actually, I think he said he rarely sees people make that distinction and I think he is more or less correct. People complain about high taxes in general. Another factor that I see people failing to factor into taxes are the level of services people demand. Its all well and good to say you want a stronger military, more cops on the beat and more people in jail but few ever examine what it will actually cost us in tax dollars. You for one at least have openly stated you want reduced services for reduced taxes.

Yeah, I think the initial problem my have been my own assumption. My own research, as a labour economist, dealth with the choice whether to provide labour effort given the tax rate. It was my own tunnel vision I think that created the confusion. It's no secret that I'm a small-government proponent, but my general problem, on the spending side, is with the waste, not the services that are offered, but that's another matter.

DerbyX wrote:

Interesting stance concerning corporate taxes being to low and income taxes being too high (you sure you aren't a NDPer?). Of course I've seen the same argument made in reverse in that low corporate taxes mean more industry and more jobs and thus greater government revenues.

In a lot of ways, I am an NDPer. Libertarians come in a lot of varieties, including those of us that want socialized health-care and education. Libertarian socialists are afraid of government corruption, but we're even more afraid of corporate corruption.

DerbyX wrote:

How exactly is anybody supposed to tell which is the correct tax equation to get the most money for the least pain so to speak.

Personally I find a few faults with the laffer curve of late in that I don't see the government ever really getting more money by cutting taxes because the tax rate is never high enough to get that return. It just means more money for people to buy stuff.

Well, of course, the Laffer curve is a comolex thing to try and caluclate in any real way. But like I said, the personal tax rates are already so high that people refuse double-pay overtime becasue they know all that money will just go to government. I stand by my assertion reduced income and sales tax rates will yield more, not less government revenue. Look at how people have spent on home-renovations this year because of the tax credit. Think of the effects if that sort of tax break were applied to other sorts of spending. That home reno tax credit will generate many times the dollars in sales tax than will be returned to the people in income tax refunds.