What do you see as a 'disgrace' to metal music? Why?

[DisconnectedFromReality]

How does a non-inflation adjusted table of total federal debt relate in any meaningful way to a discussion on 90% tax rates and the Laffer curve?

Fuck you beat me to it.

 

[Dazed and Brutal]

How does a non-inflation adjusted table of total federal debt relate in any meaningful way to a discussion on 90% tax rates and the Laffer curve?

inflation isn't that severe. As you can see, the national deficit shot into the trillions following Reagan era tax policy

you're deluded if you think inflation caused the deficit to shoot up around 100% in five years due to inflation

 

[DisconnectedFromReality]

inflation isn't that severe. As you can see, the national deficit shot into the trillions following Reagan era tax policy

you're deluded if you think inflation caused the deficit shot up around 100% in five years due to inflation

None of this addresses how the laffer curve is wrong about a 90% tax FYI.

 

[Dazed and Brutal]

None of this addresses how the laffer curve is wrong about a 90% tax FYI.

The laffer curve works both ways so I was just emphasizing that we have evidence that once the the 90% tax rates were phased out the national deficit sky rocketed. It just so happens that it acts much more severely to reductions than to hikes. The numbers are there, you just need to contextualize them.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

inflation isn't that severe. As you can see, the national deficit shot into the trillions following Reagan era tax policy

Kennedy cut the 90% tax bracket first. Obviously if you take a balanced budget, cut taxes and increase spending, you end up with a deficit, which with time turns into a substantial national debt. That doesn't say anything about the necessity of a 90% tax bracket today, let alone the viability in a world where dozens of industrialized nations compete with one another.

 

[DisconnectedFromReality]

The laffer curve works both ways so I was just emphasizing that we have evidence that once the the 90% tax rates were phased out the national deficit sky rocketed. It just so happens that it acts much more severely to reductions than to hikes. The numbers are there, you just need to contextualize them.

The irony is that you've incorrectly contextualized them. You've attributed something incorrectly to an action.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

The laffer curve works both ways so I was just emphasizing that we have evidence that once the the 90% tax rates were phased out the national deficit sky rocketed. It just so happens that it acts much more severely to reductions than to hikes. The numbers are there, you just need to contextualize them.

Unless you're referring to specific macroeconomic effects and the ability to pay down a debt as a result, neither is more severe than the other. If the government cuts tax revenue by $100b, the deficit increases $100b. If the government increases spending by $100b, the deficit increases $100b.

 

[Dazed and Brutal]

Kennedy cut the 90% tax bracket first. Obviously if you take a balanced budget, cut taxes and increase spending, you end up with a deficit, which with time turns into a substantial national debt. That doesn't say anything about the necessity of a 90% tax bracket today, let alone the viability in a world where dozens of industrialized nations compete with one another.

I mean it just depends where you apply that 90%. I sure as fuck wouldn't that to be the corporate tax rate nor would I want it to be set at too low of a level. The simple fact is America won't remain competitive if we allow education and environmental subsidies to be slashed as they always are first when the deficit worsens.

 

[Dazed and Brutal]

The irony is that you've incorrectly contextualized them. You've attributed something incorrectly to an action.

How so? Reagan lowered taxes and the deficit doubled.

edit: the laffer curve also assumes a single bracket model

 

[HamburgerBoy]

I mean it just depends where you apply that 90%. I sure as fuck wouldn't that to be the corporate tax rate nor would I want it to be set at too low of a level. The simple fact is America won't remain competitive if we allow education and environmental subsidies to be slashed as they always are first when the deficit worsens.

Sanders was specifically talking about income tax.

I don't know what you mean by "environmental subsidies". I'll assume that whatever they are, China doesn't have them and is in fact extremely competitive due to their absence. I'm not anti-environmental protection but it's usually a direct trade-off between that and trade/economic productivity. I don't know where you're reading that educational spending has been slashed, it's been on a rapid increase for decades now. Higher education in America is a sham anyways. Roughly a third of people that start never finish, a quarter of those that do finish do not see an increase in their income or the gain of any valuable skill, and ultimately it just hides the nation's inability to maintain historical highs in labor participation by keeping a percentage of the population out of the labor force for a few years.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

How so? Reagan lowered taxes and the deficit doubled.

edit: the laffer curve also assumes a single bracket model

This is partially true but not entirely.

There was a dip in overall tax revenue due to Reagan's tax cuts but that wasn't everything. It barely even registers beyond noise in the grand scheme of things. Increasing spending in the military contributed a lot as well.

 

[Dazed and Brutal]

I'm not anti-environmental protection but it's usually a direct trade-off between that and trade/economic productivity.

The emerging markets for alternative energies is the next cash cow imo. Not putting on emphasis on it would be missing out

My fault about education btw. That issue is more about fund allocation.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

The emerging markets for alternative energies is the next cash cow imo. Not putting on emphasis on it would be missing out

My fault about education btw. That issue is more about fund allocation.

Then let the government reap the bennies when those alternative energies become ultra-profitable on their own merits without the need of government subsidies. There is merit in subsidizing alternative energy, but from an R&D and environmental perspective, not a profit-motive one.

 

[Dazed and Brutal]

This is partially true but not entirely.

There was a dip in overall tax revenue due to Reagan's tax cuts but that wasn't everything. It barely even registers beyond noise in the grand scheme of things. Increasing spending in the military contributed a lot as well.

I would hardly call a doubling of the deficit in five years "noise". The Laffer curve is riddled with flawed underlying assumptions regardless. Each party thinks it's on the favorable part of inflection.

 

[Dazed and Brutal]

There is merit in subsidizing alternative energy, but from an R&D and environmental perspective, not a profit-motive one.

I totally agree, but having proprietary access to that sort of innovation would be cake. It's a bit of a null point given that the corp tax rate has just dropped to a flat 21%.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

I would hardly call a doubling of the deficit in five years "noise". The Laffer curve is riddled with flawed underlying assumptions regardless. Each party thinks it's on the favorable part of inflection.

I was referring to the dip in tax revenue as noise per that chart, meaning as a percentage of the GDP, it did not deviate that significantly from the average.

That doubling amounts to roughly $250b a year. Some of that was due to tax cuts, some of that was due to increased government spending. From 1980 to 1988 the federal government went from spending ~$1400b/yr to ~$1700b/yr, averaging an increased $50b/yr in spending per year.

 

[Dazed and Brutal]

I was referring to the dip in tax revenue as noise per that chart, meaning as a percentage of the GDP, it did not deviate that significantly from the average.

That doubling amounts to roughly $250b a year. Some of that was due to tax cuts, some of that was due to increased government spending. From 1980 to 1988 the federal government went from spending ~$1400b/yr to ~$1700b/yr, averaging an increased $50b/yr in spending per year.

Oh. Sorry, I wasn't viewing the trend the same way as you meant. Also, I totally forgot about the period of hyper-inflation in the 80s prior to Reagan.

 

[CiG]

 

[The Ozzman]

People putting an Omen album above all classic Priest and Maiden is a disgrace and degenerate

 

[Omni]

People putting an Omen album above all classic Priest and Maiden is a disgrace and degenerate

Wow. Every now and then, you say something that isn't terrible.