Feedback and Notes

We are a worldwide social network of freethinkers, atheists, agnostics and secular humanists.

The Big Lie about the Fair Tax, the 999 Plan and any Effort to Reduce Marginal Tax Rates

There you go = there is almost a perfect NEGATIVE correlation between the Highest Marginal Tax Rate and GDP growth for the last 60 years - as the rich get rich the overall growth rate goes down.  We are living in a proto Fair Tax experiment and the results show that progressive taxes are better.

Jobs, the Rich, and Other Economic Myths

| Mon Oct. 10, 2011 8:07 AM PDT

Hey, waddayaknow. My print piece for the magazine this month, "Five Six Myths About the Economy," is now up on the website. That's handy timing, what with Occupy Wall Street in full swing, isn't it? It's not quite as magisterial as Ezra Klein's take on Obama's economic policythis weekend (which I highly recommend), but it makes up for that with several lovely charts.

The chart below illustrates Myth #3, Lower taxes are the best way to grow the economy. I'm all in favor of low taxes if we can afford them, but in the moderate range that we set tax rates in the United States, their effect on economic growth and productivity is practically nothing. All the hot air in the world from our Republican friends just can't change that basic fact.

Anyway, there are more myths where that came from. Just click the link to bone up on what you need to know before you visit the relatives this Thanksgiving.


Views: 116

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I liked this too:

Myth #6: If you unshackle the rich, they'll rev up the economy.

Think of this as the supermyth—the one underlying so many other fallacies. For decades, America's economic policies have been based on the notion that catering to corporations and the wealthy is the way to stimulate the economy. Republicans routinely insist that we need to bail them out, lower their taxes, allow them to repatriate hundreds of billions in overseas profits, and free them from annoying government meddling. If we don't, the "job creators" will stay in a funk, and the economy will stay in a rut.

But here's a pesky fact neither corporate America nor the GOP establishment is trumpeting: After-tax corporate profits are currently at an all-time high. The problem businesses face isn't lack of cash but rather a lack of confidence that consumer demand will pick up in the future. So they're not expanding or hiring at the rate they should be.

Rich people don't create jobs when we hand them big windfalls. They create jobs when the economy is growing and they have customers for their businesses. And the key to solving that problem, at least during a deep economic slump like the one we're in now, is to focus like a laser on more stimulus, easier money, higher inflation, and a weaker currency. Unless we want to relive 1937 over and over and over again. As Bill Murray said, "Anything different is good."

The problem is that no amount of data, evidence, history, etc. will convince the fundamentalists. Given that the same mantra is repeated over and over, in the complete absence or evidence, actually, in the face of NEGATIVE data, I believe the term "fundamentalists" is justified here.

With the fair tax plan or 999, expect to see this get immediately even worse than it is.


Obscene to say the least.

Fox News - Shepard Smith just had a segment showing how household incomes are going down now and  banks are making more money.  Maybe we have turned a corner here in the USA.  

Like I said in the other discussion, incomes of the 99% have dropped almost 7% percent in the last two years. Not understanding how anyone can not be pissed. During my career, raises every year were almost a given, though by the end they were not keeping up with health care increases.

Do you mean, because even Fox News is beginning to see the light about the economy?

This isn't necessarily good news. If this trend persists, expect a new news channel that'll make Fox News look like bleeding heart liberals to emerge soon.

News Flash, Shepard Smith fired from faux news!


Hey, could happen!. =)

The 53%
by David Atkins ("thereisnospoon")

Following up on Digby's superb post below, it's worth pointing out just how delusional the conservative base that makes up 30-40% of the country really is, and why no amount of consciousness-raising will reach them or make them change their minds.

We are the 53% is supposed to provide a counterpunch to the now famous and emotionally powerful We are the 99%. 53%, for those not steeped in the conservative closed information loop, refers to the number of Americans who pay federal income taxes, to be contrasted with the supposedly lucky duckies among the 47% of Americans who don't.

The fact that the bottom 47% of Americans are too poor to pay federal income taxes doesn't bother conservatives. Nor does the fact that even if they did, they have so little income that it wouldn't do much for the federal budget if they did. Nor apparently does it bother them that by making this argument they are playing "class warfare" of the middle class against the poor, and essentially advocating forraising taxes. That was supposed to be against "conservative" beliefs, last I checked.

Most of all, the bottom 47% pay all sorts of other taxes, including sales, social security and payroll taxes that end up taking up as great a percentage or more of their income as the total tax burden for any other group. So the idea that 47% of Americans are skating by on the backs of 53% of Americans is ludicrous in the first place.

All that aside, however, the Republican activists who were responsible for We are the 53% have faced in a choice in the stories they chose to tell. They could choose to tell the stories of the well-to-do (mostly from older white males), which would come off as tone-deaf, arrogant hectoring. Or they could choose to tell the stories of hardworking people struggling to get by who still hold onto conservative beliefs about the economy.

They have chosen to do a little bit of both, which is smart from a messaging point of view. But the irony is that in doing so, they put the lie to their website, because many of the people in the photos aren't in the 53%. They're part of the 47%.

Unless she's making a heck of a lot off drawing cartoons, this person probably pays no income taxes. As an unemployed homemaker seeking work, this person is part of the 47%, not the 53%This person either pays no income taxes, or has a higher-wage job t.... And there are others besides.

These are people so steeped in their own conservative bile that they call themselves part of the 53% without even knowing what the "53%" means in context, to say nothing of why the statistic is bogus.

As for the rest of people there who believe they accomplished everything in their lives on their own and thus have no need of that outdated concept called empathy, I would refer them back to this. Not that they would listen, of course. They, like those who imagine themselves to be part of the overburdened 53%, are impervious to progressive arguments and consciousness-raising. And they will fight our movement with every breath of their being, right alongside the plutocrats.

Innovation drives business and not wealth.

And while we're on the subject of taxes, Paul Krugman exposes the little and not so little misinformations that go into keeping people duped about taxes. Also, he whacks David Brooks n the head symbolically for reporting the misinformation.

October 11, 2011, 10:09 am

Stocks, Flows, and Fuzzy Math

I read David Brooks citing the Tax Foundation this morning, and I thought he must have misread them. They couldn’t possibly have compared one year’s take from higher taxes on the rich with the total stock of debt, could they? They can’t possibly be that stupid, or think that their readers are that stupid, can they?

Yes they did. They actually find that their version of the “Buffett rule” would collect $120 billion a year, which is a seriously significant sum. But they try to make it look small by comparing one year’s revenue with the total debt outstanding.

I mean, the standard scoring method in Washington involves using 10-year projections — and even that is flawed, because the real budget issues are much longer-term than that. But nobody, nobody thinks it makes sense to estimate the effect of a revenue proposal on future debt by looking only at the first year’s receipts.

This deliberate fraud — because that’s what it has to be — is an example of the reasons knowledgeable people don’t trust the Tax Foundation.

They couldn’t possibly have compared one year’s take from higher taxes on the rich with the total stock of debt, could they?

Why not? French politicians and media pundits do this all the time, and they're smarter than yours ;-)


© 2018   Created by Atheist Universe.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Service