Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <I was addressing the logical fallacy, a classic example of "post hoc ergo proctor hoc" - aka "after the fact, therefore because of the fact - when a temporal relation between two events is assumed to prove that the first one caused the second one."... i.e. "because we cut the c.g. rates, that's why we have more c.g. revenues." That's a logical fallacy that doesn't follow.> If every time you perform an act, there is a corresponding result, then one can logically assume that the result follows the act. When almost everytime we cut taxes, we get more money coming into the federal treasury than projected, and when almost everytime we raise taxes, we get less money coming into the federal treasury than projected, it's not a logical fallacy to conclude that tax cuts spur the economy, and tax increases cause a drag on the economy.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <If every time you perform an act, there is a corresponding result, then one can logically assume that the result follows the act. When almost everytime we cut taxes, we get more money coming into the federal treasury than projected, and when almost everytime we raise taxes, we get less money coming into the federal treasury than projected, it's not a logical fallacy to conclude that tax cuts spur the economy, and tax increases cause a drag on the economy.> Yes it is. a). We went over this before but you insist on interpreting the "good" CBO numbers ("good" according to your preset opinion) one way, and rationalize away the "bad" CBO numbers when they don't match that preset opinion, and b). you're obfuscating again with the whole projection thing when I didn't address that; only the logical fallacy that started this thread that stated that the reduction in c.g. rates led to increased c.g. revenues, when what actually led to the latter was largely a better stock market than in the immediate post-9/11 period. Certainly, if we'd kept the rates the same and the stock market had performed the same, we'd have even MORE in c.g. revenues.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh But that assumes the stock market would have performed the same. History teaches us that it would not have.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>But the reason why earned income is taxed at a higher rate than capital gains is because earned income hasn't been devalued by inflation.<< But it's still income, isn't it? Money you didn't have when you started?
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh Making 10,000 dollars by holding an asset 10 years is not the same as earning 10,000 dollars by working for a few months. In the first, most of the "gain" is actually just inflation. Plus, taxing capital gains at too high a rate causes investors to be more cautious with their capital - they'll tend not to invest in things that have a greater risk but also a greater chance of return, which hurts economic growth.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <But that assumes the stock market would have performed the same. History teaches us that it would not have.> History does not tell us this. Look at the 90's stock market with higher c.g. rates than today. Again, you're trying to attribute a causal effect to something that can not be shown to be causal. Classic logical fallacy.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>In the first, most of the "gain" is actually just inflation.<< I just can't see it as anything other than income, regardless of whether or not the investment kept pace with inflation or exceeded it wildly (as has been the case in real estate in the past few years). You invest $100,000 in 1990. You sell it in 2000 for $110,000. To me, that's just $10,000 in income. If you suddenly get a $50,000 inheritance, that's income too as far as I'm concerned. I'd be all for a flat tax if all income -earned and windfall - were treated equally by the tax.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <History does not tell us this.> Again, yes it does. Almost everytime we cut taxes, we get more money coming into the federal treasury than projected, and almost everytime we raise taxes, we get less money coming into the federal treasury than projected. The only reason that would be true is if tax increases were a drag on the economy, and tax cuts spur economic growth.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer That or economists really don't know how to project tax revenues in a highly complex economic system, and how to anticipate the impact of world events or public sentiment.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>If you suddenly get a $50,000 inheritance, that's income too as far as I'm concerned.<< I disagree on this point, as that money has been taxed already five ways to Sunday by the original earner. In other words, if Uncle Ralph manages to squirrel away $50,000 by the time he dies, he's paid income tax on it already, paid tax on any interest or dividend income from it, etc. To tax it again because he is handing it down to his niece is double-dipping by the gov't., in my opinion. It isn't "new" income -- it has been gifted from one relative to another. Because of the inheritance tax, otherwise healthy businesses often have to be sold off or shut down, merely to pay the tax on it. There was a newspaper here in the Bay Area that had to do just that, sold off to a larger chain, because the inheritance tax on keeping it a family-run, independent operation would have run it into bankruptcy. The new owners bought it, cut lots of jobs.
Originally Posted By cape cod joe You took the words right of my mouth 2toon as the money has been taxed sooo many times and over such a long period that it can't possibly put on an even playing field with earned income.
Originally Posted By cmpaley >>>>If you suddenly get a $50,000 inheritance, that's income too as far as I'm concerned.<< I disagree on this point, as that money has been taxed already five ways to Sunday by the original earner.<< It depends, doesn't it? There are ways for moneys bequeathed unto others can NEVER be taxed...which is the ultimate goal of the Right.
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder "It already has. As a percentage of GDP, it's relatively small. If we want to go from a deficit to a surplus anytime soon, however, we need to reform entitlements." Not buying that one bit, not one tiny bit. When you have to slash programs designed to help those who can't help themselves, you haven't made any progress at all. This President's economic policies are a full blown disaster. If he was able to articulate them, we could ask him to explain himself.
Originally Posted By cape cod joe I just saw the networks anent the budget and it is OUT of CONTROL> seems hopeless with NO one having the courage to cut anything in this big election year. I see NO hope and I'm the eternal optimist. IMPOSSIBLE as anyone who cuts will get cut from office. Ulitmately it is the electorate's fault for "forcing" the politicians to perpetuate this fiscal irresponsibility.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <When you have to slash programs designed to help those who can't help themselves, you haven't made any progress at all.> I don't see any programs being slashed. I see some programs who rate of growth might slow down.
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder "I don't see any programs being slashed. I see some programs who rate of growth might slow down." The Spork of Spin lives. We've been over this. The Child Support Program is getting 1.7 billion less over the next five years. That's a cut, Jack, no matter how you spin it.
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/06/AR2006020601424.html" target="_blank">http://www.washingtonpost.com/ wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/06/AR2006020601424.html</a> Sample quotes: >>The president's budget acknowledges the cost of Bush's call to make his tax cuts permanent -- $1.35 trillion over the next decade and nearly $120 billion in 2011 alone. But beyond 2007, the budget assumes no military expenditures in Iraq or Afghanistan and no effort to address the unintended effects of the alternative minimum tax, a parallel income tax system that was designed to hit the rich but has instead increasingly pinched the middle class. It also assumes Congress will cut domestic spending every year after 2007. Those factors led Goldman Sachs economists to tell clients yesterday that the deficit forecasts are "unrealistic."<< >>"This budget is not going to happen," said Stanley E. Collender, a federal budget analyst at Financial Dynamics Business Communications. "Of all the budgets I've seen recently, this is the one going nowhere the fastest." What is included may prove equally unrealistic, Collender and other budget experts said. The budget includes a crackdown on tax cheats that is supposed to net more than $1.5 billion over the next five years and $3.6 billion over the next decade. But if such a crackdown is in the offing, the Internal Revenue Service has said very little about it.<<
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <The Child Support Program is getting 1.7 billion less over the next five years.> Less than what?
Originally Posted By cape cod joe I'm still shaken by the budget. Any hope that we can get this elephant (deficit) out of our kitchen (country)?? It seems like yesterday> 6 years ago? when I actually stopped even thinking about the deficit as I thought it was gone forever! What happened? I guess the defense is KILLING us in more ways than actual casualties? I'm glad I'm not President. George has NO way out without everyone hating him it seems no matter what he does. WHAT SHOULD HE DO? Any pragmatic suggesions?
Originally Posted By bboisvert <<Any hope that we can get this elephant (deficit) out of our kitchen (country)??>> "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter. We won the mid-term elections, this is our due." Dick Cheney Is it a coincidence that you metaphorically refer to the problem in the kitchen as an elephant? <<It seems like yesterday> 6 years ago? when I actually stopped even thinking about the deficit as I thought it was gone forever!>> That !@*# Clinton! It's all his fault. <<Any pragmatic suggesions?>> Vote for checks and balances in Congress this year.
