Politics: Onward from New Hampshire

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sgtclub
See circa 1980.

Or circa 1945. Where ever the peak of the curve is (the nipple for fringe), it's well higher than the current top marginal rate.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Or circa 1945. Where ever the peak of the curve is (the nipple for fringe), it's well higher than the current top marginal rate.

There is evidence in other countries as well. Ireland provides a dramatic example, starting about 5 years ago.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Or circa 1945. Where ever the peak of the curve is (the nipple for fringe), it's well higher than the current top marginal rate.

No there IS NO NIPPLE. It's where the nipple would be, if there were one, but there isn't one. Sheesh.

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by sgtclub
See circa 1980.

I don't know about '45 or Ireland, but I'm fairly sure that the Reagan tax cuts did not result in anything approaching an increase in revenues.

A brief google shows that the govt recouped at most 1/3 of the revenue lost, but I'm not seeing too many figures in the first cites that come up. Perhaps others can succeed where my google-fu has failed.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
I don't know about '45 or Ireland, but I'm fairly sure that the Reagan tax cuts did not result in anything approaching an increase in revenues.

A brief google shows that the govt recouped at most 1/3 of the revenue lost, but I'm not seeing too many figures in the first cites that come up. Perhaps others can succeed where my google-fu has failed.

The restructuring of the tax code in 1986 was not really a "tax cut," it was a whole redoing of the entire tax code, and it was (I think honestly) intended to be revenue-neutral. This would be a concept for Bush and the current Congress to think about.

Edited to add that I think there was a cut in 1984 and I think another in 1988, maybe, and those were just regular cuts.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
No there IS NO NIPPLE. It's where the nipple would be, if there were one, but there isn't one. Sheesh.

If there were a nipple, it would be the sweet spot, where the economic stimulus of tax policy would be maximized. Both workforce and capital would be teased, tickled, and tweaked into ever-higher levels of responsiveness, whipped into a frenzy of revenue production and growth.

And Alan Greenspan would bestride that gentle curve like a Colossus, ready to dispense vast pearl necklaces of wisdom and prosperity on our heaving chests of vast treasures.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
If there were a nipple, it would be the sweet spot, where the economic stimulus of tax policy would be maximized. Both workforce and capital would be teased, tickled, and tweaked into ever-higher levels of responsiveness, whipped into a frenzy of revenue production and growth.

And Alan Greenspan would bestride that gentle curve like a Colossus, ready to dispense vast pearl necklaces of wisdom and prosperity on our heaving chests of vast treasures.

Man-pleaser.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
I don't know about '45 or Ireland, but I'm fairly sure that the Reagan tax cuts did not result in anything approaching an increase in revenues.

What do you think lead to the Gingrich supluses?

[Skeks in the city]

Originally posted by sgtclub

You are focusing on the short term at the expense of the long term. I urge you to go back and re-read the two articles I posted. But here are the cliff notes:

If the benefits of free trade are so large and so real, you should be willing to fully compensate U.S. workers that suffer permanent wage losses due to those policies. If no one's willing to pay the freight for those changes, you gotta wonder whether the policies are worthwhile.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by bilmore
There is empirical support for that proposition - that the stimulus effect will make a difference. Unfortunately, Bush's profligacy makes it a hard argument to assert lately.

Does the empirical support show a rise in revenues in the short term -- i.e., the same year the tax cuts take effect? I doubt the results are that immediate or significant, sufficient to justify not making an offsetting spending cut in the same year that a tax cut takes effect.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
What do you think lead to the Gingrich supluses?

Oh, my, that's funny. I mean, that's really good.

Gingrich taking credit for the surpluses is like the clouds taking credit for the sunrise, because they were unable to stay in the way despite their best efforts.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Oh, my, that's funny. I mean, that's really good.

Gingrich taking credit for the surpluses is like the clouds taking credit for the sunrise, because they were unable to stay in the way despite their best efforts.

I thought you all would like that one. But it's funny, I didn't recall Clinton as a party to the Contract with America. Perhaps my memory is a tad fuzzy.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Skeks in the city
Originally posted by sgtclub



If the benefits of free trade are so large and so real, you should be willing to fully compensate U.S. workers that suffer permanent wage losses due to those policies. If no one's willing to pay the freight for those changes, you gotta wonder whether the policies are worthwhile.

We are coming at this from positions so far apart, it's not even worth discussing further. No offense, of course.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I thought you all would like that one. But it's funny, I didn't recall Clinton as a party to the Contract with America. Perhaps my memory is a tad fuzzy.

And one is either on the Contract With America GOP wagon (and for cutting spending/taxes) or is off the wagon and wants to increase taxes and spending like there is no tomorrow. The way those CWA people overrode Clinton's veto, twisting arms here, blackmailing there, was truly inspirational. I'm all teared up just thinking about it. Excuse me. I have to take a moment. Hand me a tissue will you?

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I thought you all would like that one. But it's funny, I didn't recall Clinton as a party to the Contract with America. Perhaps my memory is a tad fuzzy.

Wasn't the CWA in '94? Clinton's first budget, enacted without a single vote from those parties to the CWA that you refer to, provided a great deal of deficit reduction IIRC.

Or maybe I'm missing some sly humor here, as I usually do.