Truth vs Propaganda in the Debt Ceiling deal

[BasketCase]

I don't see what you're disagreeing with me about. I was more commenting on Obama's tax hikes on "millionaires and billionaires" bait-and-switch, but I guess one-liners don't always convey my ideas fully.

What I read was "tax hikes on the rich benefit the poor". Though after a second look I suppose it could also mean "tax hikes on the rich trickle down and become tax hikes on the not-rich".

What idea were you conveying?

I support tax hikes if it leads to people who waste time by playing World of Warcraft at work getting fired.

Not gonna happen. Because my performance is still the best in our department, and when your computer starts to spew smoke, I'm the guy you want on the phone dispatching a tech. If I get fired, your computer will be at the mercy of a hardware monkey.....

World of Warcraft, movies, ping-pong tables, foosball tables, Robotron video games in the break rooms. There are wastes of time all over the workplace, nationwide. Bosses don't care as long as the work gets done.

 

[GamezRule]

Rich peoples incomes don't create jobs. Their sources of income create the jobs.

 

[aw3524]

What I read was "tax hikes on the rich benefit the poor". Though after a second look I suppose it could also mean "tax hikes on the rich trickle down and become tax hikes on the not-rich".

Bolded.

That just claims basic income over a large period and doesn't break down the brackets much. I wonder what after-tax dollars looks like? How about with cost of living and/or inflation? Perhaps more detailed info on dates?

I linked the data set in the same thread.

I even have a source: http://rationalrevolution.net/war/trickle_down.htm.

My god, lol. His example of the 5-person room doesn't even reflect a basic understanding of what money is; it's no wonder why he infers what he does from those graphs. I've addressed a few of the fallacies of these graphs in other posts.

I'm going to ignore the ones that convey no real useful information. The average earnings one tends to be deflated with the standard CPI measure (which often overstates inflation); it also is a false measure. Compensation is the more accurate measure of earnings (click the post link for graph):

The compensation curve includes non-schedule performance pay (commissions and bonuses), 401k contributions, and health/other benefits. All lines are adjusted for inflation with CPI-U index.

The 'shares of income' and 'income by quintile' graphs are tricky, and one needs to be careful not to squeeze too much meaning out of them. As Joseph Schumpeter once said, "the upper strata of society are like hotels which are indeed always full of people, but people who are forever changing. They consist of persons who are recruited from below to a much greater extent than many of us are willing to admit." My linked post from above cites a Treasury mobility study that looks at this. I also avoid using household income measures due to changing structure, size, etc.

 

[Cutlass]

I think Americans are smart enough to realize that "tax hikes for the rich" have a way of trickling down.

Never has before. Why should it now?

Wait, are we talking about the stimulus now?

We're talking about the Bush years of subpar growth despite massive stimulus.

Citation please. I'm willing to bet they do no such thing for 'most' Americans.

Most Americans eventually use Medicare, Social Security, and all the other programs that will be cut.

 

[aw3524]

Never has before. Why should it now?

"Real bracket creep"? The CBO's alternative fiscal scenario assumes ~18.5% of GDP revenues, but their discussion (around page 65, iirc) notes that bracket creep and other provisions will rapidly increase the tax burden if left as is.

 

[Tarquelne]

My god, lol.

I suggested you ignore blather. Not almost everything but the blather.

We could change tack a bit and try a simple question: Do you think David Stockman was lying in his (in)famous remarks to "Atlantic Monthly"?

I'm going to ignore the ones that convey no real useful information.

"useful" is such a wonderfully ambiguous word.

 

[Cutlass]

"Real bracket creep"? The CBO's alternative fiscal scenario assumes ~18.5% of GDP revenues, but their discussion (around page 65, iirc) notes that bracket creep and other provisions will rapidly increase the tax burden if left as is.

That doesn't answer the question of why anyone who has been paying attention would think that tax cuts for the rich will trickle down. Over the past 30 years, nothing has trickled down at all.

 

[squadbroken]

That doesn't answer the question of why anyone who has been paying attention would think that tax cuts for the rich will trickle down. Over the past 30 years, nothing has trickled down at all.

Well there's been something trickling down from the rich on to the rest of us, but it's yellow and it doesn't taste very good.

 

[Grimz101]

That doesn't answer the question of why anyone who has been paying attention would think that tax cuts for the rich will trickle down. Over the past 30 years, nothing has trickled down at all.

I agree with this, if there was wasn't an investment grade asset supply shortfall in America(Due to all the demand from countries such as Germany, Japan & China who have excess savings) Additional money given to the rich might help drive down the expense of borrowing etc for medium to large private companies, in turn helping with their expansion and leading to more jobs. But the situation is completely different from this, and if anything, these all time low tax rates have just been fuelling asset bubbles as demand for assets far out ways supply.

 

[aw3524]

I suggested you ignore blather. Not almost everything but the blather.

I didn't ignore "everything but the blather," but I couldn't help myself that time.

We could change tack a bit and try a simple question: Do you think David Stockman was lying in his (in)famous remarks to "Atlantic Monthly"?

When he talks about the loopholes and the pandering, no. I'm sure anyone would be disgusted by the level of whoring that takes place in politics. I, however, don't see the connection with marginal rate cuts.

"useful" is such a wonderfully ambiguous word.

I believe I expressed my reasoning why those cute little income share graphs can be useless.

That doesn't answer the question of why anyone who has been paying attention would think that tax cuts for the rich will trickle down. Over the past 30 years, nothing has trickled down at all.

I said "tax hikes." That a "tax hike" on "the rich" today (note that a lot of the people affected by top marginal hikes are not rich) might affect more people tomorrow. Although, your view on tax cuts is amusing, too.

 

[Cutlass]

I said "tax hikes." That a "tax hike" on "the rich" today (note that a lot of the people affected by top marginal hikes are not rich) might affect more people tomorrow. Although, your view on tax cuts is amusing, too.

No one making less than $300k will see a tax increase. And even those will only have a trivial one. That's close enough to the rich. Or we could just end the stupidest loopholes for the rich and businesses. No one will suffer from that.

 

[Tarquelne]

When he talks about the loopholes and the pandering, no.

So you do think he was lying about everything else?

 

[GenMarshall]

Well, Eventhough I want to see the rich get punished by their greed. Doing so would essentially bite the hand that feeds you. So, I'd be against the tax hike against the rich since it is an essential part to encourage the rich segment to start hiring again.

Actually, what you found makes it even worse for Obama's claims. From your second link.

I just posted more Information in regards to this issue that... ...it's gonna hurt Obama politically. Not disputing any claims.

 

[aw3524]

So you do think he was lying about everything else?

Lying? I don't see why, but I'm not going to read the entire article. When you're at the level of economic sophistication where you think top marginal cuts ("for the rich") lead to less goodies for everyone else, I'm sure what he was saying had its own seductive logic.

 

[Cutlass]

Lying? I don't see why, but I'm not going to read the entire article. When you're at the level of economic sophistication where you think top marginal cuts ("for the rich") lead to less goodies for everyone else, I'm sure what he was saying had its own seductive logic.

TANSTAAFL

 

[FriendlyFire]

So why the falsehood? Why would Obama say such a thing that is so easily disproven? Is it just bad propaganda? Failed populism?
Please opine.

I wonder though, from Mobboss previous post it looked like you went really aware of what deal was being done. (not aware that Obama cut the budget much more then what the Republicans wanted.) Well at least your following the story now (tip of the hat)

Look at what else the poll says below.
Same old polorised media, politics and the uninformed.

74% of Democrats give him good or excellent marks while 71% of Republicans say he’s doing a poor job

 

[Tarquelne]

Lying? I don't see why, but I'm not going to read the entire article. When you're at the level of economic sophistication where you think top marginal cuts ("for the rich") lead to less goodies for everyone else, I'm sure what he was saying had its own seductive logic.

Who's at that level? Or is that just how you characterize "Less revenue is less revenue?"

And... Seductive logic? Is that why you think Reagan hired him, for his seductive logic?

 

[MobBoss]

Most Americans eventually use Medicare, Social Security, and all the other programs that will be cut.

I have highlighted the appropriate word in your reply that shows what you said earlier was completely false. kthxbye.

 

[aw3524]

Who's at that level? Or is that just how you characterize "Less revenue is less revenue?"

That's how I characterize the people that only see tax cuts as less revenue.

 

[BasketCase]

Bolded.

Now I gotcha. I kind of disagree with you--tax increases don't have a habit of heading downstairs to the poorer folks, but when politicians who champion the poor (or say they do!) see their agenda running out of money.....yes, then they would probably be willing to tax the non-rich.