Visualization of Americas debt

[LOON_ATTIC]

Weswammy Wrote:Have any of you morons ever heard of the Laffer curve?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve
Tax policy isn't as simple as, "RAISE TAXES, MOAR MONIES!"

I didn't even bother to read his post at first

Now I read it and it seems pretty fucking stupid though I can't fully understand economy yet so I won't jump to any conclusions.

Hidden stuff:

Maybe the guvmint should just stop spending so much fucking money when they don't have it?... I see money as an "imaginary entity" by the government to organize what people can/can't get. Fuck it. I always get mindfucked when I try to think about economy, and if I don't go that deep I always feel dissatisfied.

...WHO DOES THE GUVMINT OWE MONEY TO? Other countries? Its own citizens or some shit? Then what the fuck is the point of taxes, if it's just taking away people's money? Maybe I'm fucking stupid but better to be stupid once than forever I guess.

I expect people to facepalm massively but you know what, I don't give a shit.

Maybe I should just go read a book instead of expecting people on a forum to write one for me.

[Miller0700]

Lunatic Wrote:Maybe I should just go read a book instead of expecting people on a forum to write one for me.

Even though that would be nice if they did.....

[Bob Dole]

Weswammy: I don't advocate raising taxes just because it means MOAR MONIES. I advocate raising taxes because we're on the left side of equilibrium.

Supply side economics as pursued by the vast majority of conservative politicians is a joke. Cutting taxes in certain places is often a fucking great idea. However, WE STILL NEED TO RAISE THE INCOME TAX RATES IN ORDER TO FUND NECESSARY PUBLIC WORKS PROJECTS AND TO STABILIZE THE ECONOMIC SITUATION OF THE UNITED STATES. Seriously, what we're doing now is spending a shitload more than we take in, which is goddamn irresponsible, no matter who you are. Household or Federal government. We either need to cut back costs or increase revenues through taxes. And we can only cut costs so much before the nation as a whole loses out massively. And we're dangerously close to that now.

So explain to me why going back to pre-Reagan tax rates is at all unreasonable. That is what America was functioning at during its heyday. Businesses didn't collapse, people weren't going broke. It worked, and it'll work again, if we pursue a fiscally responsible course of action instead of "WE'LL JUST BUY IT ALL ON CREDIT!!!!111"

And we need to close loopholes and amend the tax code massively. General Electric paid no federal taxes in 2010. Justify that to me.

[HeartofShadows]

Weswammy Wrote:Have any of you morons ever heard of the Laffer curve?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve
Tax policy isn't as simple as, "RAISE TAXES, MOAR MONIES!"

[/quote]

Wow wes way to make a complete ass of yourself.

[gore goroth]

Z҉A҉L҉G҉O̚̕̚ Wrote:Weswammy: I don't advocate raising taxes just because it means MOAR MONIES. I advocate raising taxes because we're on the left side of equilibrium.

Supply side economics as pursued by the vast majority of conservative politicians is a joke. Cutting taxes in certain places is often a fucking great idea. However, WE STILL NEED TO RAISE THE INCOME TAX RATES IN ORDER TO FUND NECESSARY PUBLIC WORKS PROJECTS AND TO STABILIZE THE ECONOMIC SITUATION OF THE UNITED STATES. Seriously, what we're doing now is spending a shitload more than we take in, which is goddamn irresponsible, no matter who you are. Household or Federal government. We either need to cut back costs or increase revenues through taxes. And we can only cut costs so much before the nation as a whole loses out massively. And we're dangerously close to that now.

So explain to me why going back to pre-Reagan tax rates is at all unreasonable. That is what America was functioning at during its heyday. Businesses didn't collapse, people weren't going broke. It worked, and it'll work again, if we pursue a fiscally responsible course of action instead of "WE'LL JUST BUY IT ALL ON CREDIT!!!!111"

And we need to close loopholes and amend the tax code massively. General Electric paid no federal taxes in 2010. Justify that to me.

Maybe the government could not spend taxpayer money on stupid shit so we wouldn't have to be taxed. But it won't do that, government only exists to get bigger.

[SaintVicious]

Well first we need to get everyone to pay taxes lol big corporations have been getting away with it legally for years between tax holidays and loopholes

[thewake]

Z҉A҉L҉G҉O̚̕̚ Wrote:Weswammy: I don't advocate raising taxes just because it means MOAR MONIES. I advocate raising taxes because we're on the left side of equilibrium. Supply side economics as pursued by the vast majority of conservative politicians is a joke. Cutting taxes in certain places is often a fucking great idea. However, WE STILL NEED TO RAISE THE INCOME TAX RATES IN ORDER TO FUND NECESSARY PUBLIC WORKS PROJECTS AND TO STABILIZE THE ECONOMIC SITUATION OF THE UNITED STATES.

Have you ever heard of the broken window fallacy? The idea that public works and government spending is anything but a pipe dream is absolutely wrong. And the economic situation will stabilize when the government gets the heck out of the economy.

Quote:Seriously, what we're doing now is spending a shitload more than we take in, which is goddamn irresponsible, no matter who you are. Household or Federal government. We either need to cut back costs or increase revenues through taxes. And we can only cut costs so much before the nation as a whole loses out massively. And we're dangerously close to that now. So explain to me why going back to pre-Reagan tax rates is at all unreasonable. That is what America was functioning at during its heyday. Businesses didn't collapse, people weren't going broke. It worked, and it'll work again, if we pursue a fiscally responsible course of action instead of "WE'LL JUST BUY IT ALL ON CREDIT!!!!111"

I never said we shouldn't cut spending. I'm all for cutting spending. Buying on credit is an awful idea, but the idea that tax increases mean we will get any significant increase in revenue relative to GDP is wrong. I just showed you the numbers. We have to focus on spending cuts to fix the mess.

And during that "heyday" there was still debt, and rather large too (although small compared to the current one). The only President to ever pay off the debt was Andrew Jackson, way before the era you talk about. We were still doing the same thing then as now. I'd also argue that the reason we have the current crisis is that we spend so much more, not that we tax so little.

Quote:And we need to close loopholes and amend the tax code massively.

See: Flat tax. Problem solved.

Quote:General Electric paid no federal taxes in 2010. Justify that to me.

I can't justify just General Electric paying no taxes, but I'm very much in favor of all corporations paying no taxes.

To state my position: Cut spending, don't raise taxes. In fact, I'm in favor of tax cuts no matter who they're for, or why they're enacted. Any excuse is fine with me.

[John Tuttle]

If Keynesianism is correct than natural disasters would be economic boons. The problem is than Keynes wasn't right.

[gore goroth]

Quote:I never said we shouldn't cut spending. I'm all for cutting spending. Buying on credit is an awful idea, but the idea that tax increases mean we will get any significant increase in revenue relative to GDP is wrong. I just showed you the numbers. We have to focus on spending cuts to fix the mess.

And during that "heyday" there was still debt, and rather large too (although small compared to the current one). The only President to ever pay off the debt was Andrew Jackson, way before the era you talk about. We were still doing the same thing then as now. I'd also argue that the reason we have the current crisis is that we spend so much more, not that we tax so little.

I agree, Andrew Jackson also was the only president to put his foot down on the national bank. No president since then ever really gave a shit and they gave away the U.S. back to the banking class.

[Bob Dole]

Quote:Have you ever heard of the broken window fallacy? The idea that public works and government spending is anything but a pipe dream is absolutely wrong. And the economic situation will stabilize when the government gets the heck out of the economy.

I think you don't know the definition of the word pipe dream, or have used it incorrectly due to not proof-reading your post. Public works and government spending is necessary to keep the country functioning. Roads, dams, hospitals, schools, sewer systems, paying for a standing army. All of these things are necessary to have even a basic functioning government.

Shit, this was specifically provided for in the U.S. Constitution:

Quote:The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

And here's the other thing, the economy is not stable and occasionally requires government interference to keep it from absolutely shitting itself. Effective, sane regulation has shown itself to be much better for the nation than unrestrained capitalism with effectively no rules and a hell of a lot of trickery. The politicians who deregulate the economy often do it on misguided principles that include bringing about a "freer market". And it almost always leads to a massive clusterfuck.

Quote:If Keynesianism is correct than natural disasters would be economic boons. The problem is than Keynes wasn't right.

That is perhaps the most incorrect thing I've heard today. Keynes argued that occasionally government intervention is necessary because private market forces sometimes make bad decisions that hurt the economy as a whole. No sane economist would make an argument that natural disasters are fucking awesome for the economy. It results in a massive loss of land, labor, and capital, which is necessary for production. Any increased demand (which isn't likely, due to most people having to survive on very little due to the factors of production being fucked) is offset massively by the loss in production capability.

Quote:I never said we shouldn't cut spending. I'm all for cutting spending. Buying on credit is an awful idea, but the idea that tax increases mean we will get any significant increase in revenue relative to GDP is wrong. I just showed you the numbers. We have to focus on spending cuts to fix the mess.

You have showed me no numbers whatsoever. You posted a Laffer curve. One that reflects no real economy, and is instead used for demonstration purposes. Indeed, if I were to take that as your "numbers", we should institute a flat tax of 50%. You seem to lack a grasp on taxation policy, as a Laffer curve (even if we had a totally accurate one for the U.S. economy) only displays the curve for taxable income, it DOES NOT decide an optimal tax rate, which balances the raising of revenue with the loss of potential income from taxation.

You also seem to be of the mind that the best thing to do is always cut programs (I use program, in this case, to refer to any government spending project) when you're in a difficult situation. That is simply terrible policy.

Cutting of anything should only be considered when the cost of sustaining the program is greater than the benefit provided by the program and the costs of the negative consequences of cutting the program. If you can prove that cutting the program provides more benefit than keeping the program around, it is objectively good policy to cut it.

There is a balance to strike between cutting costs and raising revenues. If you cut too many corners, then disaster follows due to lack of resilience in the system. If you decide to raise revenue too much to pay for more programs than you can reasonably support, your economy fails due to lack of private sector activity.

Quote:See: Flat tax. Problem solved.

A flat income tax is absolutely foolish for one of several reasons.

The first being the diminishing marginal utility of money. Five dollars in the possession of a homeless man is much more valuable to the owner than the same five dollars in the hands of a middle-class family or a millionaire. A true flat tax, then, disproportionately affects the lower classes, which then affects the economy negatively, as the lower classes tend to spend their earning fairly quickly (on bills and the like).

A flat tax with an NIT provision creates a perverse incentive in that income is guaranteed, whether you work or not.

A marginal flat tax may as well just be a progressive income tax system.

Also, a flat tax without exemptions doesn't allow for government to create incentives and disincentives towards certain actions. For example, the government could decide that a strategic move away from fossil fuels is in the best interests of the nation as a whole and decide to provide tax breaks for companies actively pursuing research and development in alternative sources of energy.

Quote:I can't justify just General Electric paying no taxes, but I'm very much in favor of all corporations paying no taxes.

To state my position: Cut spending, don't raise taxes. In fact, I'm in favor of tax cuts no matter who they're for, or why they're enacted. Any excuse is fine with me.

Right. Corporations pay no taxes. Guess what, you've created a perverse incentive. Now everyone's going to start up corporations and somehow figure out a way to claim their income is the corporation's income.

Your proposals are shortsighted in that they ignore the necessity of government and government programs. A lack of tax revenue makes for a weak, anemic government that cannot act as the check that the economy needs.

Quote:And during that "heyday" there was still debt, and rather large too (although small compared to the current one). The only President to ever pay off the debt was Andrew Jackson, way before the era you talk about. We were still doing the same thing then as now. I'd also argue that the reason we have the current crisis is that we spend so much more, not that we tax so little.

FYI, the U.S. public debt is not going to hit zero again. Jackson could repay the U.S. national debt because it was owed to various other countries. Nowadays a large portion of debt is in U.S. Treasury bonds and the like.

Also, I never said there was no debt during that heyday, did I? There was manageable debt, that had a solid plan of repayment. It was also kept at a reasonably low level, instead of continuously increasing the debt as a percentage of GDP and not having any plan to pay it back.

And I would argue that spending has changed relatively little. Spending on defense and entitlement programs is much the same as it has been for years, since the end of WW2 and the start of the Cold War, I'd say. The only thing that has changed is the massive reduction of taxes. I would say that the facts back me up on this, and I'm sure I can find some statistics if it would please you.

Quote:Maybe the government could not spend taxpayer money on stupid shit so we wouldn't have to be taxed. But it won't do that, government only exists to get bigger.

Right, stupid shit. Like social safety net programs to avoid the creation of a highly exploited underclass with little chance of finding any social mobility, or defense, to ensure that the U.S. can operate without undue risk of outside interference.



The problem that so many advocates of free markets seem to have is that they assume conditions that don't exist. They seem to assume that all actors in the economy are rational, and that they have perfect information. This leads to a completely balanced economy that needs no government innovation. The problem is that humans are not rational, and many people make stupid, shortsighted decisions on imperfect information that occasionally has a massive impact on other people. The Darwinian mode of thought on the economy supposes that the actors that are unable to compete will simply fail and a new company will take its place. This oversimplifies market forces and simply put, doesn't work.

[thewake]

Z҉A҉L҉G҉O̚̕̚ Wrote:

Quote:Have you ever heard of the broken window fallacy? The idea that public works and government spending is anything but a pipe dream is absolutely wrong. And the economic situation will stabilize when the government gets the heck out of the economy.

I think you don't know the definition of the word pipe dream, or have used it incorrectly due to not proof-reading your post. Public works and government spending is necessary to keep the country functioning. Roads, dams, hospitals, schools, sewer systems, paying for a standing army. All of these things are necessary to have even a basic functioning government.

What I mean to say is that, building a dam just to stimulate the economy, not because it is needed, is destructive. Shifting money from the productive private sector to the unproductive government sector is like throwing is down a money hole.

Quote:Shit, this was specifically provided for in the U.S. Constitution:

Quote:The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

And here's the other thing, the economy is not stable and occasionally requires government interference to keep it from absolutely shitting itself. Effective, sane regulation has shown itself to be much better for the nation than unrestrained capitalism with effectively no rules and a hell of a lot of trickery. The politicians who deregulate the economy often do it on misguided principles that include bringing about a "freer market". And it almost always leads to a massive clusterfuck.

Yeah, right. And Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac weren't the main cause of the housing crisis.

Quote:

Quote:If Keynesianism is correct than natural disasters would be economic boons. The problem is than Keynes wasn't right.

That is perhaps the most incorrect thing I've heard today. Keynes argued that occasionally government intervention is necessary because private market forces sometimes make bad decisions that hurt the economy as a whole. No sane economist would make an argument that natural disasters are fucking awesome for the economy. It results in a massive loss of land, labor, and capital, which is necessary for production. Any increased demand (which isn't likely, due to most people having to survive on very little due to the factors of production being fucked) is offset massively by the loss in production capability.

Ever heard of the fatal conceit?

Quote:

Quote:I never said we shouldn't cut spending. I'm all for cutting spending. Buying on credit is an awful idea, but the idea that tax increases mean we will get any significant increase in revenue relative to GDP is wrong. I just showed you the numbers. We have to focus on spending cuts to fix the mess.

You have showed me no numbers whatsoever. You posted a Laffer curve. One that reflects no real economy, and is instead used for demonstration purposes. Indeed, if I were to take that as your "numbers", we should institute a flat tax of 50%. You seem to lack a grasp on taxation policy, as a Laffer curve (even if we had a totally accurate one for the U.S. economy) only displays the curve for taxable income, it DOES NOT decide an optimal tax rate, which balances the raising of revenue with the loss of potential income from taxation.

http://www.antolin-davies.com/conventio ... budget.pdf


Watch on YouTube

Quote:You also seem to be of the mind that the best thing to do is always cut programs (I use program, in this case, to refer to any government spending project) when you're in a difficult situation. That is simply terrible policy.

Cutting of anything should only be considered when the cost of sustaining the program is greater than the benefit provided by the program and the costs of the negative consequences of cutting the program. If you can prove that cutting the program provides more benefit than keeping the program around, it is objectively good policy to cut it.

There is a balance to strike between cutting costs and raising revenues. If you cut too many corners, then disaster follows due to lack of resilience in the system. If you decide to raise revenue too much to pay for more programs than you can reasonably support, your economy fails due to lack of private sector activity.

Of course you can't just go cutting everything. We need a military, police, infrastructure, etc. However, government is certifiably huge at the moment. It is sapping the private sector.

Quote:

Quote:See: Flat tax. Problem solved.

A flat income tax is absolutely foolish for one of several reasons.

The first being the diminishing marginal utility of money. Five dollars in the possession of a homeless man is much more valuable to the owner than the same five dollars in the hands of a middle-class family or a millionaire. A true flat tax, then, disproportionately affects the lower classes, which then affects the economy negatively, as the lower classes tend to spend their earning fairly quickly (on bills and the like).

A flat tax with an NIT provision creates a perverse incentive in that income is guaranteed, whether you work or not.

A marginal flat tax may as well just be a progressive income tax system.

Also, a flat tax without exemptions doesn't allow for government to create incentives and disincentives towards certain actions. For example, the government could decide that a strategic move away from fossil fuels is in the best interests of the nation as a whole and decide to provide tax breaks for companies actively pursuing research and development in alternative sources of energy.

It's really hurt places like Estonia.
And, to be honest, I'm not a big fan of income taxes in general. I just think a flat tax would be better than the current system because it is harder to dodge. It's simple.

Quote:Right. Corporations pay no taxes. Guess what, you've created a perverse incentive. Now everyone's going to start up corporations and somehow figure out a way to claim their income is the corporation's income.

Fine with me.

Quote:Your proposals are shortsighted in that they ignore the necessity of government and government programs. A lack of tax revenue makes for a weak, anemic government that cannot act as the check that the economy needs.

I want a weak anemic government. That sounds like the biggest boon to the economy since the invention of money.

Quote:

Quote:And during that "heyday" there was still debt, and rather large too (although small compared to the current one). The only President to ever pay off the debt was Andrew Jackson, way before the era you talk about. We were still doing the same thing then as now. I'd also argue that the reason we have the current crisis is that we spend so much more, not that we tax so little.

FYI, the U.S. public debt is not going to hit zero again. Jackson could repay the U.S. national debt because it was owed to various other countries. Nowadays a large portion of debt is in U.S. Treasury bonds and the like.

Also, I never said there was no debt during that heyday, did I? There was manageable debt, that had a solid plan of repayment. It was also kept at a reasonably low level, instead of continuously increasing the debt as a percentage of GDP and not having any plan to pay it back.

And I would argue that spending has changed relatively little. Spending on defense and entitlement programs is much the same as it has been for years, since the end of WW2 and the start of the Cold War, I'd say. The only thing that has changed is the massive reduction of taxes. I would say that the facts back me up on this, and I'm sure I can find some statistics if it would please you.

http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=3521&type=0
Looks like spending is about to explode.

[thewake]

Watch on YouTube


Watch on YouTube

[John Tuttle]

Weswammy Wrote:

Hidden stuff:

Watch on YouTube


Watch on YouTube

Those guys are great.