The post-fact universe has arrived

[Ayatollah So]

Congressional Republicans squashed a Congressional Research Service report on the economic effects of tax cuts. Andrew Rosenthal comments:

In a brazen example of putting ideology ahead of reality, Senate Republicans seem to have pressured the Congressional Research Service to withdraw a report debunking conservative economic orthodoxy. Cutting tax rates at the top appears “to have little or no relation to the size of the economic pie,” the report said. “However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top of the income distribution.” So charging the rich lower tax rates doesn’t promote economic growth; it merely increases economic inequality.

The CRS is a highly respected, independent agency that prepares reports for members of Congress and routinely issues findings that disappoint or even irritate their clients, who usually just grin and bear it, or at least bear it. But Congressional Republicans seem to think that the CRS should function like Pravda.

Here's betting you won't hear much if anything about this from anyone but me, or a few other internet crackpots. The post-fact world is upon us. The truth is out there, but no one's there to keep it company.

 

[peter grimes]

I saw this on reddit yesterday. So I don't think your claim of uniquity is accurate

That said, do we know if this is the first time the CRS has withdrawn a report due to political pressure?

 

[Ayatollah So]

Explain the difference between "reddit" and "a few internet crackpots"? (1/2 )

Just in case facts still do matter, this bit of the CRS report is interesting:

The simple relationships between the private saving ratio and the top tax rates are displayed in the top two charts in Figure 3.14 Each point represents the private saving ratio and top tax rate for each year since 1945. The nature of the relationship is illustrated by the straight line in the figure, which graphically represents the correlation (fitted relationship or fitted values) between the two variables.15 The slope of the fitted values line indicates how one variable changes when the other variable changes. For both the top marginal tax rate and the top capital gains tax rate there seems to be a positive relationship—the higher the tax rate, the higher the saving ratio. The observed correlation between the tax rates and the saving ratio, however, could be coincidental or spurious.
Estimation of the correlations controlling for other factors affecting saving and paying particular attention to the statistical properties of the variables indicates that the relationship observed in Figure 3 is likely coincidental (and not statistically significant)—suggesting the top tax rates are not associated with private saving.16 Other research suggests that taxes generally have had a negligible effect on private saving.17 But public saving can be reduced if tax revenue is reduced due to tax rate reductions. The overall effect of tax reductions on national saving could be negative—that is, national saving falls.18

It's almost like he's saying public infrastructure depends on taxes, or something.

 

[Chimera Kitty]

True fiscal/economic rightists know that if you want to increase economic growth, you have to cut taxes for everyone, not just those at the top. The fact that the Republicans are trying to quash this only proves that they are not true conservatives so much as corporate whores puppets.

(whores are actually respectable)

Of course, Libertarians have known this for a long time.

 

[Joecoolyo]

<nvm>

 

[Skwink]

God I love this new <nvm> thing the kids are doing.

 

[Joecoolyo]

As Nicky said, its contagious.

 

[Cutlass]

True fiscal/economic rightists know that if you want to increase economic growth, you have to cut taxes for everyone, not just those at the top. The fact that the Republicans are trying to quash this only proves that they are not true conservatives so much as corporate whores puppets.

(whores are actually respectable)

Of course, Libertarians have known this for a long time.

That doesn't work either. Tax rates make trivial difference compared to what the return on the taxes to the economy are.

 

[LightSpectra]

would be okay if the federal government downsized and corresponded to state/local tax increases. Unfortunately doing this in a downturn means that won't happen.

 

[Chimera Kitty]

That doesn't work either. Tax rates make trivial difference compared to what the return on the taxes to the economy are.

A correlation has never been demonstrated due to sample size (not enough countries) and the lack of a good way to control for factors like spending and debt. However, a quick talk with anyone who had to close down their small or start-up business for tax reasons will support the libertarian position.

 

[Cutlass]

would be okay if the federal government downsized and corresponded to state/local tax increases. Unfortunately doing this in a downturn means that won't happen.

State government can never be any good at welfare. They are legally required to suck at it. Many of the other things the feds do they do because having 50 states do things 50 ways is the worst way to get it done.

 

[Chimera Kitty]

State government can never be any good at welfare. They are legally required to suck at it.

 

[Cutlass]

What's your problem with the literally true statement I made?

 

[FriendlyFire]

True fiscal/economic rightists know that if you want to increase economic growth, you have to cut taxes for everyone

Of course, Libertarians have known this for a long time.

Thats why the Libertarian paradise know as Somalia is such an economic power house. While there people starve to death, farm land turns our narcotics to feed the free market.
Besides Republicans will soon find out if 20% across the board tax cuts will work soon enough.

 

[Chimera Kitty]

What's your problem with the literally true statement I made?

Mostly the part where it's not actually true, because...

- A one-size-fits-all system does not allow for experimentation or voting with your feet.

- Implementing entitlement systems on a wider, more centralized scale also increases the power of the people in charge of those systems, and power corrupts and whatnot.

- The more local a government is, the more responsive it is to the wants and needs of its voters and taxpayers

- Required by law to suck? Literally?

Libertarian paradise know as Somalia

Wait, Somalia has a functioning government that protects every person's rights of life, liberty, and property? Damn, I need to read newspapers more often.

 

[Cutlass]

Mostly the part where it's not actually true, because...

- A one-size-fits-all system does not allow for experimentation or voting with your feet.

- Implementing entitlement systems on a wider, more centralized scale also increases the power of the people in charge of those systems, and power corrupts and whatnot.

And what does that mean?

- The more local a government is, the more responsive it is to the wants and needs of its voters and taxpayers

That's never been true in the United States.

- Required by law to suck? Literally?

The demand for welfare goes up when government revenue goes down. State governments are required to balance their budgets. There for they are legally required to fail to meet the needs of the dependents.

Wait, Somalia has a functioning government that protects every person's rights of life, liberty, and property? Damn, I need to read newspapers more often.

They have a libertarian government.

 

[El_Machinae]

Cutlass, you should've probably lead with "state's are required to have balanced budgets, therefore they cannot have a proper welfare system (or engage in counter-cyclical spending).

 

[Chimera Kitty]

And what does that mean?

It means that you're wrong.

That's never been true in the United States.

Okay. Try getting a face-to-face meeting with a member of your local school board, and try to get anything more than an automated response from the office of your Congressman (or equivalent in whatever country you're from)

Go ahead. I'll wait.

State governments are required to balance their budgets.

Since when? Wouldn't that vary by state? Can't it be changed if true?

They have no government.

Fixed

 

[Cutlass]

Cutlass, you should've probably lead with "state's are required to have balanced budgets, therefore they cannot have a proper welfare system (or engage in counter-cyclical spending).

It should be obvious either way to anyone who has any familiarity with the subject.

 

[Cutlass]

It means that you're wrong.

How so? Why do those things matter?

Okay. Try getting a face-to-face meeting with a member of your local school board, and try to get anything more than an automated response from the office of your Congressman (or equivalent in whatever country you're from)

Go ahead. I'll wait.

American history has overwhelming been that the closer the government is, the more oppressive it is and the less effective it is. That's just the reality of what has been happening for the past 200 odd years.

Since when? Wouldn't that vary by state? Can't it be changed if true?

It's true in all the states and they aren't going to change it.

Fixed

Exactly my point.