New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Top 1% would give up their tax cuts

degsme

Council Member
Originally Posted by degsmeHmm so having the option of paying the cost of participating in society or not, but in chosing not to pay that cost you also don't get the benefits

is the same as

Being extorted to pay some thugs for no benefit to you other than the thugs being happy for a brief period of time.


Well I guess that explains why we cannot have a fact based discussion on economics with you.
LOL! As if your concept of "facts" isn't whatever you say they are...
I see - you cannot address the logical inconsistency in your arguement so you go for the ad hominem...

Well done.

Can you point to where my "facts" on economics are "whatever I say they are"? Plese do try.

FACTS MATTER
got any?
 

degsme

Council Member
Originally Posted by degsmea by product? So the notion of a society being able to accomplish more than the individual alone can is a BYPRODUCT of society? please... its the core reason for the existance of society in the first place. Wealth redistribution is the CORE BASIS for ALL Societies.



Interesting. "new Marxism" as in whatever you define it to be... That's the logical fallacy of Definitional reasoning.
And then there's the wierd notion of how "collective approach to Democracy" is somehow anything but a tautology. Democracy is inherently a "collective approach". In fact collective action and Democracy are indistinguishable. So your point there is highly confused as well

So now we have the logical fallacy of definitional reasonign combined with a tautological statement that tells us nothing.... wow reall winner here.


And now of course we have ad hominem and strawman.

really? So slavery enforced by law did not directly redistribute the wealth created by the slave to the slaves owner? You have either a curious defintiion of wealth redistrubution or a very curious memory of US History.
I'm confused - are you saying slavery was good?
I'll type slowly....
1) YOU claimed, that Wealth Redistribution by The Government was not how the USA has ever been run
2) I simply asked if you considered Slavery to be something that did not count as "wealth redistribution" enforced by government action.

How this gets to the question of whether or not slavery is "good" is rather besides the point. Slaves didn't benefit from the existance of the USA. Wealthy property owners do.
Slaves had no choice about being in the system they were in, wealthy property owners do.

And the data is clear. until you go ABOVE 90% marginal tax rates, the wealthy think the USA is still a very good deal for them
 

Lukey

Senator
I'll type slowly....
1) YOU claimed, that Wealth Redistribution by The Government was not how the USA has ever been run
2) I simply asked if you considered Slavery to be something that did not count as "wealth redistribution" enforced by government action.

How this gets to the question of whether or not slavery is "good" is rather besides the point. Slaves didn't benefit from the existance of the USA. Wealthy property owners do.
Slaves had no choice about being in the system they were in, wealthy property owners do.

And the data is clear. until you go ABOVE 90% marginal tax rates, the wealthy think the USA is still a very good deal for them
See, it's funny you would go there, because I've made the case that the current situation (where an open ended government spending commitment is being levied on the wallets of "the rich") is tantamount to slavery. So I find it interesting that you would use slavery as an example of wealth redistribution. I think we may have finally found some common ground!
 

Lukey

Senator
I see - you cannot address the logical inconsistency in your arguement so you go for the ad hominem...

Well done.

Can you point to where my "facts" on economics are "whatever I say they are"? Plese do try.

FACTS MATTER
got any?
Pretty much every fact you cite (with respect to economics) is "proved" via a model that assumes Keynesian theories are correct. Lets just say there disagreement on that...
 

degsme

Council Member
Pretty much every fact you cite (with respect to economics) is "proved" via a model that assumes Keynesian theories are correct.
Um that's actually simply not true. Empirical data collection on Velocity of Money, Fiscal Multipliers etc. are not based in "models". The PREDICTIONS are models, but the measurements are empirical. That's the part of "independently observable" you don't seem to get about FACTS.
 

degsme

Council Member
See, it's funny you would go there, because I've made the case that the current situation (where an open ended government spending commitment is being levied on the wallets of "the rich") is tantamount to slavery. So I find it interesting that you would use slavery as an example of wealth redistribution. I think we may have finally found some common ground!
No - because again you ignore the points I made about slavery's distinction from taxation.

You can CHOOSE to foregoe society's benefits so as to forego taxation

a slave
1) got no societal benefits
2) had no choice to leave

The reality is that throughout US history, as long as tax rates were not above 90% marginal rates, we did not see any measurable outmigration of the wealthy. QED by "voting with their feet" they acknowledged that the BENEFITS they received at least broke even to their costs.

Not so with slavery.
 

Lukey

Senator
No - because again you ignore the points I made about slavery's distinction from taxation.

You can CHOOSE to foregoe society's benefits so as to forego taxation

a slave
1) got no societal benefits
2) had no choice to leave

The reality is that throughout US history, as long as tax rates were not above 90% marginal rates, we did not see any measurable outmigration of the wealthy. QED by "voting with their feet" they acknowledged that the BENEFITS they received at least broke even to their costs.

Not so with slavery.
I'm talking morally - morally it's the same.
 

Lukey

Senator
Um that's actually simply not true. Empirical data collection on Velocity of Money, Fiscal Multipliers etc. are not based in "models". The PREDICTIONS are models, but the measurements are empirical. That's the part of "independently observable" you don't seem to get about FACTS.
Um, that's actually not true. There's just as much evidence that FM's are less than one as there are that they are more than one.
 

degsme

Council Member
Um, that's actually not true. There's just as much evidence that FM's are less than one as there are that they are more than one.
SOME FMs are less than one... particularly military.

But for government? There is very little empirical evidence of FM's below 1.0 in social sector spending Almost all of it comes from ideological sources.

Seconldy FM's, like all economic functions, are not linear. For example, in a robust economy unlimited unemployment benefits extend unemployment periods by an average of about 5 working days. But in a faltering or recovering economy, they add about an average of 1/4 of a day.

And that doesn't take into effect the benefits of more optimal resource allocation that this allows.

Similarly FMs for unemployment benefits drop to about 1.5 in a robust economy but exceed 2.0 in a crash/recovery.
 

degsme

Council Member
Originally Posted by degsmeCash is fungible. we can end SS benefits tomorrow and FICA could still be collected. We can end FICA collection tommorrow and still pay SS benefits.

FICA is a Federal tax on income that goes into the general coffers of the government. That there is a law that creates a separate accounting category for the assets used to pay SS benefits is irrelevant. Cash is cash.
Does that still hold now that SS & Medicare are cash flow negative?
Precisely because they are cashflow negative it applies. The negative cash flow comes from the General Fund, just where the positive cash flow ALSO went.

its all taxation of income.
 

degsme

Council Member
Originally Posted by degsmeNo - because again you ignore the points I made about slavery's distinction from taxation.

You can CHOOSE to foregoe society's benefits so as to forego taxation

a slave
1) got no societal benefits
2) had no choice to leave

The reality is that throughout US history, as long as tax rates were not above 90% marginal rates, we did not see any measurable outmigration of the wealthy. QED by "voting with their feet" they acknowledged that the BENEFITS they received at least broke even to their costs.

Not so with slavery.
I'm talking morally - morally it's the same.
That's the definitional reasoning fallacy. You demand that we agree to your particularl set of "morals". I can argue that those morals are internally inconsistent and hypocritical but that is besides the point. You are demanding that everyone agree to your beliefs rather than discuss things on the basis of valid logic and observable and verifiable fact.

That's by definition a logical fallacy. Using your line of reasoning here ImADinnerJackets holocaust denial is of equal validity as the Weisenthal instututes claim of its existance. Its a false equivilence.
 

Lukey

Senator
That's the definitional reasoning fallacy. You demand that we agree to your particularl set of "morals". I can argue that those morals are internally inconsistent and hypocritical but that is besides the point. You are demanding that everyone agree to your beliefs rather than discuss things on the basis of valid logic and observable and verifiable fact.

That's by definition a logical fallacy. Using your line of reasoning here ImADinnerJackets holocaust denial is of equal validity as the Weisenthal instututes claim of its existance. Its a false equivilence.
Right on! If we can't argue morality, communism wins over liberty every damn time. Go on with your bad self. Good to know what side you are on. Oh, and, btw, the proof of the holocaust exists because it was documented as part of the historical record of WWII. So, no, that's not the equivalent (and you know it).
 

Lukey

Senator
SOME FMs are less than one... particularly military.

But for government? There is very little empirical evidence of FM's below 1.0 in social sector spending Almost all of it comes from ideological sources.

Seconldy FM's, like all economic functions, are not linear. For example, in a robust economy unlimited unemployment benefits extend unemployment periods by an average of about 5 working days. But in a faltering or recovering economy, they add about an average of 1/4 of a day.

And that doesn't take into effect the benefits of more optimal resource allocation that this allows.

Similarly FMs for unemployment benefits drop to about 1.5 in a robust economy but exceed 2.0 in a crash/recovery.
And, of course, none of YOUR sources are "ideological."
 

degsme

Council Member
And, of course, none of YOUR sources are "ideological."
Not the one's I've cited no. They haven't been. They have been mainstream economists on both the salt and freshwater side. I've not cited Krugmna, I've not cited any "liberal" foundation.

I've cited mainstream economists. I've even cited CONSERvATIVE economists. whereas your sources are invariably CATO, Hoover, Heritage and AEI (or Von Mises). Ideological locksteps that I have been able to demonstrate with independently verifiable and observable facts as engaging in intellectuall dishonesty.

See that's the difference. I can make my case using CONSERVATIVE SOURCES... you cannot even find conservative sources that back your case without engaging in intellectual dishonesty.
 

degsme

Council Member
Right on! If we can't argue morality, communism wins over liberty every damn time.
RIGHT.. more definitional logic based on your BELIEF..... logical fallacy after logical fallacy.

Oh, and, btw, the proof of the holocaust exists because it was documented as part of the historical record of WWII. So, no, that's not the equivalent (and you know it).
Actually the econometric data for Keynesian vs. Supply Side economics is equally well documented,
 

Lukey

Senator
Not the one's I've cited no. They haven't been. They have been mainstream economists on both the salt and freshwater side. I've not cited Krugmna, I've not cited any "liberal" foundation.

I've cited mainstream economists. I've even cited CONSERvATIVE economists. whereas your sources are invariably CATO, Hoover, Heritage and AEI (or Von Mises). Ideological locksteps that I have been able to demonstrate with independently verifiable and observable facts as engaging in intellectuall dishonesty.

See that's the difference. I can make my case using CONSERVATIVE SOURCES... you cannot even find conservative sources that back your case without engaging in intellectual dishonesty.
Bullsh*t! You have cited the New York Times and you have cited Paul Krugman (as well as, I believe, Joeseph Stiglitz?). Now you are just resorting to outright lies!
 

Lukey

Senator
RIGHT.. more definitional logic based on your BELIEF..... logical fallacy after logical fallacy.


Actually the econometric data for Keynesian vs. Supply Side economics is equally well documented,
Actually, you mean we can only use lefty morals. Our "moral" obligation to help the "poor" triumphs over the "rich's" right to their personal property. That morality is valid. But the immorality of practicing spending profligacy and sending the ever growing bill to a small minority isn't allowed. Such is the dishonesty of the left. Take your "definitional logic" and put it where the sun don't shine. You aren't fooling me. Morality is what YOU say it is, facts are what YOU say they are. Nonsense! As for your silly contention regarding the econometric data, if that was so, how could the notion that the "stimulus" failed be so widely and generally accepted? You simply claim things that aren't so and I reject them.
 

Lukey

Senator
Precisely because they are cashflow negative it applies. The negative cash flow comes from the General Fund, just where the positive cash flow ALSO went.

its all taxation of income.
And the fact that wage taxes are ostensibly to fund SS & MC and the average person receives MORE in benefits than they paid in means...what? That people who don't pay any federal taxes but wage taxes are funding things other than SS & MC? Not where I come from...
 

degsme

Council Member
Bullsh*t! You have cited the New York Times and you have cited Paul Krugman (as well as, I believe, Joeseph Stiglitz?). Now you are just resorting to outright lies!
Not in arguing with you. You cannot show me citing Krugman - other than in the case where I showed that even Krugman's work was based in demand based analysis.

As for Stiglitz, again, mainstream nobel prize winning economist. yes and?
And I've cited The Economist to support MY position

Where have you cited Krugman to support yours?
 

degsme

Council Member
Originally Posted by degsmeRIGHT.. more definitional logic based on your BELIEF..... logical fallacy after logical fallacy.


Actually the econometric data for Keynesian vs. Supply Side economics is equally well documented,
Actually, you mean we can only use lefty morals.
Nope. More definittional fallacy from you

Our "moral" obligation to help the "poor" triumphs over the "rich's" right to their personal property.
Nope you cannot point to me invoking this in any way. I have been scrupulous about simply keeping this in terms of Marginal Utility and ROI. In essence I have been focussed on the majority of the "moral" arguements you make about the importance of efficient markets. thus you are engaged in a strawman fallacy

. Such is the dishonesty of the left.
and now you are engaged not only in strawman logical fallacy but ad hominem.
Take your "definitional logic" and put it where the sun don't shine.
Ah yes, you want to be able to make up the arguement as you go. No adherence to logical reasoning necessary. Sorry nope

You aren't fooling me. Morality is what YOU say it is, facts are what YOU say they are. Nonsense!
more strawman fallacy. More ad hominem fallacy. You haven't offered ANY actual data to support your claims but you accuse others of makingup facts LOL!!

As for your silly contention regarding the econometric data, if that was so, how could the notion that the "stimulus" failed be so widely and generally accepted?
Because the GOP engaged in a propoganda campaign that misrepresented what was projected by the Stimulus and the Dems made the POLITICAL mistake of not responding adequately.

again you are engaged in logical fallacy - namely Appeal to Popularity. by that line of reasoning, in the 1200s the earth was flat... which is a ludicrous notion.

You simply claim things that aren't so and I reject them.
Um sorry I've documented where the stimulus
1) proejcted to create/save between 2.5 and 3 million jobs
2) where it created/saved between 3 and 4.5 million jobs (Conservative economists LIKE The Economist put the number at around 3 million - which still is in the range of success)

OTOH, you have offered not a single shred of evidence to support ANY of your claims. You claimed that under GWB we averaged 4% growth in the year after the tax cut. I showed that when tracked on a quarterly basis, what you had was a single 6% spike and then back to 22% underperformance

You claimed that the underperformance from 2001-2007 was due to the extended post 9/11 recession. I showed independent econometric data that
1) documented the advers economic impact of 9/11 at about $50 billion in a $12 Trill economy
2) that the economic downturn was over within 1 quarter and simply went back to the anemic GOP based growth that underperformed

You keep making claims that INDEPENDENT FACTS REFUTE

and you have yet to offer a FACT BASED refutation of anything I have cited.

FACTS MATTER LUkEY
they really do... you can't just make shit up about GDP growth rates and pretend its so
you cannot point to something that is a logical fallacy (appeal to popularity) as a way of refuting actual econometric data.

well you can - but you then come across as either ignorant, dishonest or foolish.
 
Top