Dow Transportation Index hits all time high.

Tax rates having no measurable impact on the amount of tax revenues collected as a percentage of GDP.

 

It's just a math formula. It's not evidence of anything.

 

I think amateur economists are about as annoying to deal with as jailhouse attorneys. They think if they repeat something over and over it becomes true.

 

God only knows with you but don’t you mean ETR X Gross Income? Gee seems like you forgot sales tax which generates billions in tax revenue and goes down sharply when you tax the crap out of the private sector. Heck even Obama and the Dems figured out they had to fight to keep the evil Bush tax cuts in fact they just made them permanent.

 

When the tax rate increases on substantially appreciated commercial real property do federal tax revenues from the disposition of those assets increase or decrease?

 

Sure they do. Look at the rates under Clinton and before and after. Approximately 2 percentage points of GDP was collected on average.

- - - Updated - - -

There is no significant federal sales tax.

- - - Updated - - -

There is no significant federal sales tax.

 

Please, share with us your wisdom and explain how the formula revenues = effective tax rate * gross income is inaccurate.

- - - Updated - - -

I didn't say it was evidence. Re-read my post.

 

Exactly. It's not evidence. Just a math formula you slapped on the screen. Show us the evidence that increasing tax rates will cause tax revenues to increase.

 

Depends on whether the gains are realized. If they are the tax revenues would increase for any given realization.

- - - Updated - - -

Exactly. It's not evidence. It is a description of the function of how revenues are generated. If you feel it is inaccurate state why and what your think would be accurate.

I've previously posted the evidence of tax increases resulting in greater revenues from the 1993 tax increase. And the opposite resulting from the 2001-03 tax cuts as well as the Reagan tax cuts.

 

When the tax rate increases on substantially appreciated commercial real property how much tax revenue escapes current taxation under the nonrecognition provision of Section 1031?

 

I don't know, but if there is no increase of taxes because of it, then it wouldn't be a tax increase, would it?

 

An entire industry grew up in order to help investors in substantially appreciated real property use the nonrecognition provision of Section 1031 of the IRC to avoid recognition of capital gains. It started with the appellate decision in the First Starker case in 1979.

http://www.atlas1031.com/blog/1031-exchange/bid/50323/1031-Starker-Case-Impact-Review

The point is that I don't agree with your view that raising tax rates invariably increases revenues. In the realm of capital gains, investors in substantially appreciated real property have the ability to avoid recognition of gain by using Section 1031...and they avail themselves of this nonrecognition technique on a massive basis when tax rates are increased. And they don't use Section 1031 as much when the tax rate on captital gains is lower.

 

Yes, as I've indicated in numerous posts on this thread, it is the effective tax rate that matters.

If you have a tax rate increase but create a loophole that avoids that tax rate increase, you have no effective tax increase, and with no effective tax increase you have no more revenues.

 

Inflation devalues money. Wages are money. Inflation devalues wages by definition. No amount of sophistry on your part will change that fact.

The US debt market is an over-inflated byproduct of the central government's monopoly on money and serves as a giant paper-swapping enterprise whereby investment banks enrich themselves via underwriting and speculating.

http://www.newyorkfed.org/markets/pridealers_current.html

Whose chairman was appointed by Obama.

So you have controlled for every variable in the "economy"?

Yes, I know it's a math formula, but how does that math formula help to establish the real-world causal relationship between statutory tax rates and tax revenues?

Actually, it's a basic truth of economics. Inflation devalues our money while increasing the banking system's access to liquidity.

It designates certain banks as "systemically important financial institutions", creating a perpetual moral hazard.

And that's bad?

Why is it too high?

This does not explain why we can't just "stimulate" the economy with $10 trillion. If $800 billion in "stimulus" can "create wealth", then $10 trillion in "stimulus" should create even more wealth.

 

Explanation for the stock market rally?

 

Could be. I think we'd be see a lot of price declines if we had massive deflation.

 

Even Obama admitted that raising revenue wasn't the major motive for pooping up the cap gains rate. It was 'fairness'. It was punishing the 1%ers.

All the looters want them punished. Economic pluses and minuses aren't part of the equation. It's raw power and punishment.

 

Inflation increases prices. Wages are the price of labor. No amount of sophistry on your part will change that fact.

US debt is the byproduct of the Govt cutting revenues and/or increasing spending. No amount of sophistry on your part will change that fact.

+1 to Obama.

Why would I need to do that when you control for the economy?

Because it describes the relationship between revenues, effective tax rate, and gross income.

If you contend it is inaccurate as a description explain why you think it is wrong and what you think would be accurate.

It's not an economic truth at all. Please post a source for this truth you claim that inflation devalues wages.

We are talking about wages.

How does that designation create a perpetual moral hazard as you claim?

It would be IMO.

I explained in the following sentences. Did you read them?

It does explain it. We could stimulate the economy with $10 trillion. It would create more government created wealth but would crowd out the private sector.

- - - Updated - - -

That ancient talking point as already been rebutted. Obama later clarified his answer to the unfair question.

But Obama is certainly right that a guy worth $250 million like Mitt Romney paying a lower tax rate than the typical middle income family is a travesty.

 

If by 'clarify' you mean spin and lie then we agree.

 

Paper isn't chasing assets. Its chasing paper.

The need for necessity isn't changing much (oil, food, materials, etc). As a result, prices there won't move too much.

Good thing the primary dealers are focused on paper wealth, or we'd be having massive inflation in these necessities.

 

Doesn't change the fact that inflation devalues money by definition.

The "economy" is just a conceptual label attached to trillions of variables. How did you control for all the variables that constitute the "economy"?

What evidence do you have that this "description" is valid?

Since you asserted the equation, the onus falls upon you to demonstrate its descriptive validity, which you have so far failed to do.

Wages are paid in money. Inflation devalues money. Inflation, therefore, devalues wages. No amount of obtuse sophistry on your part will change that fact.

By conferring a special status on financial institutions that other business enterprises do not have.

Then why did you support Obama's stimulus package which added to our debt? Why do you support a President who has increased the debt every year he's been in office?

You made numerous assertions, but you offered no substantive explanation as to why 75% is "too high" of a tax rate. Why is 75% "too high" but the rates proposed by Obama are not? What's the difference?

So the same logic applies to Obama's stimulus package then. It created more wealth but crowded out the private sector.

- - - Updated - - -

That's all you can do when reality is not on your side.

 

Irrelevant.

Why would I need to do that?

Calculating tax revenue is not difficult provided you know which tax rate to charge against a tax base. The tax rate is the legally defined percentage to be charged against the legally defined tax base. The tax base is the legally defined measure upon which the assessment or determination of tax liability is based. The total amount of taxes collected by the government for a specific tax is referred to as tax revenue. Anyone can compute tax revenue provided they have done the necessary research to identify the legally defined tax rate to be applied to the legally defined tax base.

http://www.ehow.com/how_7890430_calculate-tax-revenue.html

Total revenues equals the average tax rate mulitplied by the total amount of income.

http://books.google.com/books?id=Ct...evenues average tax rate gross income&f=false

I would not have thought that it was even a matter of dispute.

So you have no basis or reason to assert it is inaccurate. Of course not.

I didn't initially support Obama, I supported Clinton. The Republican alternatives were far worse for the debt.

Previously addressed.

No, because the economy was not even close to running at full capacity, and in fact was retracting.

Feel free to prove the question posed to Obama was "reality" instead of making stuff up.

- - - Updated - - -

Why do you claim it was spin? Or are you making baseless claims again?

 

So you think it's OK for one group, by virtue of them having more than anyone else, to get favorable treatment from the evil Govt?
It's OK for one group, a group that can afford it the most, to pay a far lower rate of taxes than you do?
It's OK to tax income earned from labor, at double or more, than income not earned?
Strange.

 

Wages are paid in money. Inflation devalues money. Inflation, therefore, devalues wages. No amount of obtuse sophistry on your part will change that fact.

Well, I asked you: How do you know the tax increase caused the increase in tax revenues?

You replied:

How did you "account of" the entire "economy" in your statistical analysis?

How does any of this establish the causal relationship between statutory tax rates and tax revenues? You have asserted such a relationship, but you haven't provided any evidence to support it. The equation itself is not evidence of anything. So where is your evidence? Oh, that's right! The Clinton tax increase! This is your "evidence"...

It doesn't matter. You are the one who is asserting the equation as a valid descriptive metric, not me. If you want to assert this equation as being valid within the context of our dispute, then the onus clearly falls upon you to establish its validity, which you have so far failed to do.

Why did you support Obama's stimulus package which added to our debt? Why do you support a President who has increased the debt every year he's been in office?

If you say so. At present, I have seen no adequate explanation from you as to why a 75% tax rate is "too high" but the current one is not. You just assert that it is so but provide no consistent or objective reasoning as to why.

So then why didn't he just spend $10 trillion dollars? If $800 billion is good, then $10 trillion must be great.

 

False, as explained above. No amount of obtuse sophistry on your part will change that fact.

Compare growth of revenues with growth of economy.

It evidences the formula. Which for the life of me I still can't figure out what you think is wrong about it, since you cannot seem to articulate it.

To the contrary. See prior posts. The equation explains the function of how revenues are generated.

Why wouldn't the Clinton tax increase be relevant evidence? It is the last major tax increase we've had in decades.

To the contrary. See my prior post.

The fact that you cannot even articulate why you think it is not accurate demonstrates you have no real argument and are just arguing about nothing.

To prevent the Great Recession from spiralling into a depression.

Why do you support a party that has increased the debt every year even faster?

Explained in my prior post. I'm sorry if you don't get it. I can't dumb it down for you any further.

Explained in my prior post. I'm sorry if you don't get it. I can't dumb it down for you any further.