- #1
- 19,490
- 10,208
russ_watters said:That's the basic conservative economic position: more economic freedom -> higher growth -> more tax revenue -> lower deficits.
Does economic freedom = deregulation?
russ_watters said:That's the basic conservative economic position: more economic freedom -> higher growth -> more tax revenue -> lower deficits.
Generally, yes. Clearly, that must be done with care to avoid abuse.Greg Bernhardt said:Does economic freedom = deregulation?
Everyone.Mentalist said:Economic freedom for whom?
The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, a joint project of the Urban Institute and Brookings Institution, has said the Romney proposal would cost $360 billion in the first year before it is offset by closing loopholes, which others have extrapolated to estimate that it would amount to $5 trillion over the decade.
The report said the loopholes – popular deductions including those for mortgage interest, charitable giving and others – are not plentiful enough at the top of the income scale to cover the estimated $360-billion annual cost of reducing tax rates by 20%.
The gap would need to be filled by closing loopholes for those at lower ends of the income scale, those earning less than $200,000. Estimates say those earning between $100,000 and $200,000 would be significantly hit.
Also, the report said the trade-off between lower rates and loopholes would benefit higher-income households, which would see their overall tax burden go down while middle- and lower-income households would see their taxes rise.
Look at economies of HK or Singapore. I doubt the US will ever have same kind of economy as those countries because you see different party every 4 years, removing all polices from the previous administration. You need a period of far more than 4 years to have something to work, government having different economic perspectives every 4 years is damaging IMO.Mentalist said:How does deregulation mean more economic freedom for everyone? Wages have been going down for 20+ years now, so I don't see much of the benefits. That is, unless, I am looking at it the wrong way. But cite some sources please.
I'm not sure what you are asking. What do lower wages (factual inaccuracy of the assertion aside) have to do with economic freedom/lack thereof? What are you asking me to source?Mentalist said:How does deregulation mean more economic freedom for everyone? Wages have been going down for 20+ years now, so I don't see much of the benefits. That is, unless, I am looking at it the wrong way. But cite some sources please.
rootX said:Look at economies of HK or Singapore. I doubt the US will ever have same kind of economy as those countries because you see different party every 4 years, removing all polices from the previous administration. You need a period of far more than 4 years to have something to work, government having different economic perspectives every 4 years is damaging IMO.
I'm not sure I can provide you a source beyond a simple definition. Economic freedom equaling a lack of regulation is basically a tautology. It is tough to write a one-sentence description of economic freedom without mentioning the lack of regulation. For example:Mentalist said:I just don't know what economic freedom entails exactly. My initial thinking of it was on the fact that it had something to do with wage earning and companies being able to increase their bottom line, i.e. profit, therefore helping their employees earn more money. I am still unclear on your point though. I am also asking for a source to what you're saying so I can read a bit more into it and do my own research from there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laissez-faireswiki said:Laissez-faire (i/ˌlɛseɪˈfɛər-/, French: [lɛsefɛʁ] ( listen)) is an economic environment in which transactions between private parties are free from tariffs, government subsidies, and enforced monopolies, with only enough government regulations sufficient to protect property rights against theft and aggression.
This is triply wrong:Wages have been going down for 20+ years now...
If freedom means freedom and prosperity means prosperity, why would someone say freedom when they mean prosperity?Mentalist said:I get it in that sense but I was thinking Greg was speaking about economic freedom in the sense of economic prosperity which was along the lines I was thinking when the question was posed. But of course, I agree that deregulation means more freedom, but more freedom is never necessarily good in my opinion.
Yes.Charmar said:Percent increases over from 1967 till 2011 for the adjusted to todays dollar data.
Source: http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/historical/household/2011/H03AR_2011.xls
(the 2nd set of data)
Lowest 119%
2nd 112%
3rd 120%
4th 137%
5th 170%
top 5 188%
Was this how trickle down was supposed to work?
russ_watters said:Yes.
That's confusingly written: you're aware that Bush's tax cuts were for everyone, right?Charmar said:So the richest people got tax cuts for them to have a bigger increase in money than the lower class?
Charmar said:Percent increases over from 1967 till 2011 for the adjusted to todays dollar data.
Source: http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/historical/household/2011/H03AR_2011.xls
(the 2nd set of data)
Lowest 119%
2nd 112%
3rd 120%
4th 137%
5th 170%
top 5 188%
Was this how trickle down was supposed to work?
russ_watters said:If freedom means freedom and prosperity means prosperity, why would someone say freedom when they mean prosperity?
That's confusingly written: you're aware that Bush's tax cuts were for everyone, right?
Mentalist said:I just don't know what economic freedom entails exactly. My initial thinking of it was on the fact that it had something to do with wage earning and companies being able to increase their bottom line, i.e. profit, therefore helping their employees earn more money. I am still unclear on your point though. I am also asking for a source to what you're saying so I can read a bit more into it and do my own research from there.
Mentalist said:Wages have been going down for 20+ years now, so I don't see much of the benefits.
Jim Kata said:Your link makes sense but I don't understand your percentages.
The key numbers as I see it are
1980 income in 2011 dollars
11,201; 27877; 46,000; 67,770; 120,834; 180571
2011 income
11,231; 29,204; 49,842; 80,080; 178,020; 311,444
Wage stagnation for the bottom half of the economy, and larger and larger wage increases for the upper half.
russ_watters said:That's confusingly written: you're aware that Bush's tax cuts were for everyone, right?
Not sure why you are picking 1980?Jim Kata said:Your link makes sense but I don't understand your percentages.
The key numbers as I see it are
1980 income in 2011 dollars
No, the numbers are inflation adjusted.Mentalist said:But to your link, sure, you could make the argument but that link does not cover the devaluation of the American dollar either (or, factor it in but I was wrong on employee wages decreasing).
Please source the claim that they work more hours.However, employees work more hours yet aren't paid to the degree of production, a 3%-10% increase isn't much either when compared with other factors.
On that we agree.Why would you decrease taxes yet keep spending at the same rate? Doesn't make sense to me. You'd have to decrease spending to keep up with the taxes...
Not entirely your fault: democratic politicians have for years been hammering home the false idea that the Bush tax cuts were for the rich only. You just fell for it.Charmar said:To be honest, I didn't know, I stand corrected. I've spent a little while trying to find a chart or some data comparing the tax rates over the past 30 years or so and can't seem to come up with a whole lot. I would be happy to look at the data if some were presented.
The second moved up the timetable for the reductions and added a reduction in capital gains tax as well as increased several deductions that apply to people up and down the scale.a new 10% bracket was created for single filers with taxable income up to $6,000, joint filers up to $12,000, and heads of households up to $10,000.
the 15% bracket's lower threshold was indexed to the new 10% bracket
the 28% bracket would be lowered to 25% by 2006.
the 31% bracket would be lowered to 28% by 2006
the 36% bracket would be lowered to 33% by 2006
the 39.6% bracket would be lowered to 35% by 2006
There are so many wrong claims and cherry-picked facts in here, it is tough to know who you are really addressing or what your real point is or if it is based on the incorrect fact you quoted. Let me expand on my earlier affirmative response to the question on "trickle down" economics:ImaLooser said:Some people just hate freedom.
http://taxfoundation.org/article/simulating-economic-effects-romneys-tax-plan...the results of a single study by the Tax Policy Center (TPC),[2] which finds Romney’s tax plan would require raising taxes on low- and middle-income earners to pay for tax cuts for high-income earners. However, to get there, TPC assumes that tax rates do not matter for economic growth, i.e., Romney’s plan to cut income tax rates by 20 percent across the board will have no effect on labor supply or saving and investment decisions. Only among Washington score keepers does such an assumption make sense, but it certainly has no credibility among academic economists ...
...The Romney plan would raise actual and potential GDP by about 7.4 percent over a five to ten year adjustment period. The private business sector would grow about 7.8 percent.
...The Romney tax plan would recover nearly 60 percent of the static projected revenue cost due to economic growth, higher wages and employment, and higher tax collections on the higher incomes. To keep the reform revenue neutral, the government would only need base-broadeners [i.e. deduction elimination] equal to about 40 percent of the static cost
Jim Kata said:Charmar the problem with just a straight percentage like you did is that it isn't adjusted for inflation. The more interesting numbers in your link are the real wages that is the wages in 2011 dollars that's where the stagnation is made abundantly apparent. To Russ's point, the reason I picked 1980 or there about is because that is about the time when the stagnation begun.
The answer to wage stagnation is quite mundane it's because our economy went from a labor shortage to a labor surplus. In a labor surplus wages become stagnant. With increases in productivity through automation and stagnant wages profits increased and the businessmen thought the increases in profit was due to their ingenuous entrepreneur abilities and rewarded themselves accordingly. With out massive intervention this trend will continue because the amount of available jobs is far below the amount of employable people.
Yes, they are.Charmar said:I thought those numbers were adjusted for inflation due to the numbers being in 2011 dollars?
russ_watters said:Yes, they are.