20 Nov 10
2 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderNow you criticize the very microsimulation model that you cited earlier. You really are an airhead.
From your link:
Because modeling a concept is not so easy, TPC picked the version of their plan that would eliminate all deductions, credits, and [b]exclusions except for the earned income credit and the child credit (two big safety net programs for working families).
It' easy to cherry pick the proposals to g ...[text shortened]... pire would be far more progressive and reduce the deficit more than the Simpson-Bowles package.[/b]
I also love your link to 2004 data. Way to stay ahead of the curve no1. Ironically, the data you link to actually proves my point. The share of total taxes paid by the richest households exceeds their share of national income. It's only become more the case since 2004, but keep googling, lawyer.
Empirics trumps ideology yet again, no1. Games may work in a courtroom but they don't work in this field.
20 Nov 10
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderWhat part of "income inequality has risen and overall taxes are progressive" did you not understand?
Is that all your superior intellect can come up with, Khan?
What part of "mildly progressive" didn't you understand?
Go back to law. You've got to know more than a Keynesian cross argue this case.
20 Nov 10
1 edit
Originally posted by telerionStill mad about the meat packing fiasco I see. Still think that industry is "highly competitive", Mr. Expert?
What part of "income inequality has risen and overall taxes are progressive" did you not understand?
Go back to law. You've got to know more than a Keynesian cross argue this case.
20 Nov 10
Originally posted by no1marauderDodging much?
Still mad about the meat packing fiasco I see. Still think that industry is "highly competitive", Mr. Expert?
By the way, you slate journalist could use a lesson in effective tax rates as well. The highest effective marginal tax rate was not 70% back the 1970's. Challenge me on that one. I dare you.
20 Nov 10
Originally posted by telerionOverall taxes are mildly progressive and getting less so while income inequality is exploding. Smarter economists than you think that has had a detrimental effect on the economy. Simpson-Bowles is an inadequate response to 30 years of wrong headed policy.
What part of "income inequality has risen and overall taxes are progressive" did you not understand?
Go back to law. You've got to know more than a Keynesian cross argue this case.
20 Nov 10
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderOpinion and a true example of the argument from authority fallacy. Let's see the facts, lawyer, or take your lies and move on.
Overall taxes are mildly progressive and getting less so while income inequality is exploding. Smarter economists than you think that has had a detrimental effect on the economy. Simpson-Bowles is an inadequate response to 30 years of wrong headed policy.
20 Nov 10
Originally posted by telerionWhy not double dog dare me? That would be up to the intellectual quality of your posts in the last hour.
Dodging much?
By the way, you slate journalist could use a lesson in effective tax rates as well. The highest effective marginal tax rate was not 70% back the 1970's. Challenge me on that one. I dare you.
20 Nov 10
2 edits
Originally posted by telerionWhich do you dispute:
Opinion and a true example of the argument from authority fallacy. Let's see the facts, lawyer, or take your lies and move on.
A) That the overall tax system is mildly progressive (I already provided data on that)?; and/or
B) That income inequality has risen sharply in the last 30 years (you've quoted Piketty-Saenz so you know that)?
20 Nov 10
Originally posted by no1marauderThe facts? Where are they? The only points you've given evidence for are the ones none of us disputed.
Why not double dog dare me? That would be up to the intellectual quality of your posts in the last hour.
The rest is just your ideology in a online news articles.
20 Nov 10
2 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderNeither really. That's been my point from the get go. Although I would say that your modifier "mildly" is ambiguous.
Which do you dispute:
A) That the overall tax system is mildly progressive (I already provided data on that)?; and/or
B) That income inequality has risen sharply in the last 30 years (you've quote Paketty-Saenz so you know that)?
I've also pointed out that the S-B proposals are moves toward more progressivity. You disputed that. I've cited tax experts, one from academia and another from a non-partisan tax policy think tank, who agree. You are so focused on the (God forbid!) lower marginal income tax rate on the rich that you completely ignore the other parts of the proposals which include
1) Counting dividend and capital gains income as ordinary income (the rich have a much higher concentration of these types of income)
2) The reduction of SS benefits at the high end of income (effectively making the SS system more progressive)
3) Reducing marginal tax rates for everybody else
20 Nov 10
Originally posted by telerionDo you dispute this statement:
Neither really. That's been my point from the get go. Although I would say that your modifier "mildly" is ambiguous.
I've also pointed out that the S-B proposals are moves toward more progressivity. You disputed that. I've cited tax experts, one from academia and another from a non-partisan tax policy think tank, who agree. You are so focused on t ...[text shortened]... f SS benefits at the high end of income (effectively making the SS system more progressive)
Quite simply, just letting the Bush tax cuts expire would be far more progressive and reduce the deficit more than the Simpson-Bowles package.
20 Nov 10
Originally posted by no1marauderI'd have to go back and compare the forecasted effects of eliminating the 2001 and 2003 tax reforms to those forecasted in the S-B report. Eliminating all the Bush tax cuts would be very sizable (though not enough on its own to eliminate budget shortfalls). Notably, expiring them for just the rich doesn't do much by comparison.
Do you dispute this statement:
Quite simply, just letting the Bush tax cuts expire would be far more progressive and reduce the deficit more than the Simpson-Bowles package.
20 Nov 10
Originally posted by telerionI was talking about letting all the Bush tax cuts expire, not the Obama proposal. My understanding is that would reduce the deficit more than the Simpson-Bowles proposal.
I'd have to go back and compare the forecasted effects of eliminating the 2001 and 2003 tax reforms to those forecasted in the S-B report. Eliminating all the Bush tax cuts would be very sizable (though not enough on its own to eliminate budget shortfalls). Notably, expiring them for just the rich doesn't do much by comparison.
I am aware of the proposal to treat capital gains and dividend income as ordinary income; as I've already mentioned the increase of a max 15% to a max 23% would be more than offset by the steep drop in the top marginal rate. The net effect would be that the average wealthy taxpayer would paid less, not more, in taxes.