Also, the prospect of rising prices, higher interest rates and more regulations next year will further entice demand and supply to be shifted from 2011 into 2010. In my view, this shift of income and demand is a major reason that the economy in 2010 has appeared as strong as it has. When we pass the tax boundary of Jan. 1, 2011, my best guess is that the train goes off the tracks and we get our worst nightmare of a severe "double dip" recession.

In 1981, Ronald Reagan -- with bipartisan support -- began the first phase in a series of tax cuts passed under the Economic Recovery Tax Act (ERTA), whereby the bulk of the tax cuts didn't take effect until Jan. 1, 1983. Reagan's delayed tax cuts were the mirror image of President Barack Obama's delayed tax rate increases. For 1981 and 1982 people deferred so much economic activity that real GDP was basically flat (i.e., no growth), and the unemployment rate rose to well over 10%.

But at the tax boundary of Jan. 1, 1983 the economy took off like a rocket, with average real growth reaching 7.5% in 1983 and 5.5% in 1984. It has always amazed me how tax cuts don't work until they take effect. Mr. Obama's experience with deferred tax rate increases will be the reverse. The economy will collapse in 2011.

Consider corporate profits as a share of GDP. Today, corporate profits as a share of GDP are way too high given the state of the U.S. economy. These high profits reflect the shift in income into 2010 from 2011. These profits will tumble in 2011, preceded most likely by the stock market.

In 2010, without any prepayment penalties, people can cash in their Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs), Keough deferred income accounts and 401(k) deferred income accounts. After paying their taxes, these deferred income accounts can be rolled into Roth IRAs that provide after-tax income to their owners into the future. Given what's going to happen to tax rates, this conversion seems like a no-brainer.

The result will be a crash in tax receipts once the surge is past. If you thought deficits and unemployment have been bad lately, you ain't seen nothing yet.

Mr. Laffer is the chairman of Laffer Associates and co-author of "Return to Prosperity: How America Can Regain Its Economic Superpower Status" (Threshold, 2010).

He's not saying there will be another downturn--he's predicting 'a crash' ....

The repubs should run on extending the tax cuts for the November election.

"Given what's going to happen to tax rates, this conversion seems like a no-brainer. "

No so fast. There are lots of factors, including what tax bracket they are currently in, and what bracket they expect to be in at retirement. It would only be a "no brainer", if the 15% bracket was guaranteed to rise to 25%, which --frankly -- ain't gonna happen.

"The repubs should run on extending the tax cuts for the November election."

You're right. Nothing says "fiscal responsibility" like keeping a 60% income tax rate cut for the wealthiest among us.

"The result will be a crash in tax receipts once the surge is past."

Nonsense; they'll simply return to normal.

And Dan is smarter than this guy??

"And Dan is smarter than this guy??"

If he's making ludicrous claims like "It has always amazed me how tax cuts don't work until they take effect", thereby totally ignoring the reality of the Bush tax cuts...well then, yes.

#8 | Posted by Danforth
Are you Danni's alter ego because both of you have about the same views on econoomics?

Laffer: Tax Hikes and the 2011 Economic Collapse
Posted by MURPHY

You are causing a lot of work for yourself posting this. It's going to be Eco 101 for three days, or as I call it remedial democrat economics.

And I believe the marriage tax rate is scheduled to go from 15% to 39% or some such.

Someone know what the percentage is??

And how does this affect the 47% who don't pay taxes right now?

Well--they will have to pay taxes after Jan 1st 2011. Or get less in their return.

Dan,

"Nonsense; they'll simply return to normal."

Our economy hasn't been normal in quite some time.

What normal are you referring to?

If things should collapse as he suggests, can you honestly blame it on just one thing?

Or would it be the result of years and years of irresponsible spending and deliberately distorted financials of entire industries?

Americans and investors have been led to believe businesses and industries were strong, that were only strong on paper.

I think we hit the tipping point a few years back. Now the government is using more and more debt to stave off something potentially worse than the Great Depression.

He may just be right.

The party may be over.

But...of course, if things should go to crap next year, we should simply blame it on taxes.

"What normal are you referring to?"

What it would've been without the extra collections due to the Roth conversions. Haven't you been paying attention?

"And I believe the marriage tax rate is scheduled to go from 15% to 39% or some such."

As usual, you're full of crap.

As usual, you're full of crap.
#13 | Posted by Danforth

Well that at least one thing you're and expert on.

"Look it up"

I did.

Yet another topic on which you're full of shit.

Care to make it a trifecta?

Dan,

My point is I don't quite buy the idea that the problem with our economy can be summed in the word, "taxes".

I think it can be summed up in the word, "debt".

Look at the graph showing debt to earnings ratios.

"Well that at least one thing you're and(sic) expert on."

Son, you have no room to be questioning the intelligence of others.

"While I agree that taxes are a serious problem, is it the primary culprit?"

Well, the deficits rung up by Bush pretty much equal the tax cuts given to the wealthiest by Bush. You make the call.

BTW, I think it's both spending and taxes.

Yet another topic on which you're full of shit.
Care to make it a trifecta?
#15 | Posted by Danforth

Be specific, I'm game

I'll kick your ass around the DR till I lose interest. Like a cat loses interest in a piece of lint on a sting.

"Be specific, I'm game"

Well, you were wrong about HP, and you're wrong about the tax rate jumping from 15% to 39%, as Murphy claimed and you seemed to back.

"I'll kick your ass around the DR"

Ever delusional, I see.

Dan,

I just went back and reread things.

I wasn't following the thread.

It's late...time for bed.

you're wrong about the tax rate jumping from 15% to 39%, as Murphy claimed and you seemed to back.
#20 | Posted by Danforth

I never said that, as MURPHY and you don't have enough information to determine the tax rates which you would know if you knew shit. I only provided the source for you to find the information.

"I never said that, as MURPHY and you don't have enough information to determine the tax rates which you would know if you knew shit."

Do you really want to bark up that tree? I've been doing taxes for 25 years and have ~300 clients.

So, by all means...please instruct me as to the nature of the tax code, and all I don't know about it.

What a maroon.

You better hope those 300 people don't frequent the DR or you're going to be on the wrong side of the Laffer curve.

Pan, whenever your involved, it's more like the Laugher curve.

Pan, whenever your involved, it's more like the Laugher curve.
#25 | Posted by Danforth

Now you see that's funny, when this tax thing doesn't work out, there always comedy clubs.

"when this tax thing doesn't work out, there always comedy clubs."

Thanks, but two careers at a time is plenty for me.

you're wrong about the tax rate jumping from 15% to 39%, as Murphy claimed and you seemed to back.
#20 | Posted by Danforth

Wait--I was asking or posing a question--sorry for not using a question mark.

I thought the marriage credit was going to increased from 15% to 39% as well come Jan 2011.

Is it going to jump--if so to what percentage?

"I thought the marriage credit was going to increased from 15% to 39% as well come Jan 2011."

Marriage credit?

Are you referring to the tax rates?

What's slated to rise like that is taxes on dividends. As of now, we tax dividends at a maximum of 15%, based on the Bush tax codes set to sunset at the end of the year, to revert to regular income rates (as high as 38.5% right now) after that.

Anyway, marital status has nothing to do with the changes, which were all proposed, written, passed, and signed into law by the Republicans.

Sorry--long day..

When the tax rates go up for personal income it will affect married couples as well and the couple earning x amount of dollars are going to be penalized.

Is it the marriage penalty that is going to take affect too?

Maybe that is what I am thinking of?

On or about Jan. 1, 2011, federal, state and local tax rates are scheduled to rise quite sharply. President George W. Bush's tax cuts expire on that date, meaning that the highest federal personal income tax rate will go 39.6% from 35%, the highest federal dividend tax rate pops up to 39.6% from 15%, the capital gains tax rate to 20% from 15%, and the estate tax rate to 55% from zero. Lots and lots of other changes will also occur as a result of the sunset provision in the Bush tax cuts.

And it is more than the dividends that are affected in 2011.

"it is more than the dividends that are affected in 2011."

I know...I was merely trying to identify the "15% to 39%" figure you stated.

Anyway...if returning to the prior tax rates upsets you, talk to the authors of the law.

I'm perpetually amazed that so many of the most vocal opponents to taxes have never paid the top marginal federal income-tax rate in their lives. You'd think people would first aspire to make enough money that they actually have to pay those rates, before they started complaining about them.

"I'm perpetually amazed that so many of the most vocal opponents to taxes have never paid the top marginal federal income-tax rate in their lives. "

Add to that the opponents of the so-called "death tax". I will give a crisp 100 dollar bill to the first reichwinger on this blog who would qualify for that one.

Letus,

As an engineering director at a large Japanese consumer electronics firm, and inheriting a large farm in LA. I qualify for both, but keep your money, I don't need it...... But then again I am taking european delivery of my GT3 in November, and could use it to fill, my tank, perhaps you should send it.

"I'm perpetually amazed that so many of the most vocal opponents to taxes have never paid the top marginal federal income-tax rate in their lives. "

Add to that the opponents of the so-called "death tax". I will give a crisp 100 dollar bill to the first reichwinger on this blog who would qualify for that one.

#34 | Posted by LetUsPray

I'm not black. Does this mean I can't say I think slavery was wrong? I mean, I wasn't effected. It didn't hurt me. Your saying, if it doesn't actually effect you directly, I shouldn't have an opinion.

Laffer has been consistently wrong his entire career. He neglects to mention in his trip down memory lane that Reagan left behind the largest debt in history (at the time) which still sits there acruing interest and adding to today's budgets. When you add up just the interest over the years on the debt incurred by just Reagan you have a huge amount, add in the debt created since and you can see that more and more of the budget will go to service the debt until we finally, at long last, repeal the crazy Reagan and Bush tax cuts for the rich and pay off the debt. Probably some of the resistance comes from the fact that 2.5 T of that debt is owed to us, the working class of America through Social Security. The rich just don't like the fact that we, the working class, are demanding payment for the money they borrowed to go fight stupid wars for oil overseas.

Tax codes set to sunset at the end of the year, are going to happen while were in a fragile economic state not a good idea.

To justify letting these tax codes sunset based on the fact that we had these rates before is ignoring other details, like what was GDP, unemployment, debt ratios an so on.

It's like ff you drink beer on a unhealthy stomach you'll get sick, but that doesn't mean every time you drink beer you'll get sick.

That said our economy is very shaky right now, so any increase in taxes could be problematic.

"That said our economy is very shaky right now, so any increase in taxes could be problematic."

Yeah, yeah, yeah...and when the economy is strong, the argument is you can't increase taxes because it might turn things south.

Funny thing about that "we can't raise taxes because the economy is shaky right now" thing.....it has gotten continually shakier the more we cut taxes. It is sort of amazing that so many won't look to our past and notice that when we had higher tax rates we had lower unemployment, rising wages, growing GDP and growing industries.
When Reagan cut taxes we headed into the worst recession at that time since the Great Depression, high unemployment, etc. and as Laffer chooses to forget we did not recover until they raised taxes. Of course though, that tax increase was on the backs of workers so that the government could immediately borrow our SS contributions to replace the taxes the wealthy were no longer paying.
Laffer is so dishonest that it is disgusting.

I always love Danni's theory that if people are allowed to keep less of their income via highter taxes they are better off financially.

If tax cuts stimulate the economy please exlpain current deficits. Laffer ignores other economic factors. Clinton raised taxes during his administration and left with a surplus.

I always love Danni's theory that if people are allowed to keep less of their income via highter taxes they are better off financially.

I love the theory that we can continue to borrow and run huge deficits (thank you Ronnie) without repercussions. I also love the theory that we can get out of this economic crisis through spending cuts alone. Morons, morons everywhere...

Our deficits are a spending problem, not a revenue problem.

SS, Medicare and Medicaid need major reform and fast.

love the theory that we can continue to borrow and run huge deficits (thank you Ronnie)

Ronnie proposed massive spending cuts to go along with his tax cuts.

The Dems had a majority and wouldn't stand for it (the House controls the purse-strings) and the comprimised result was deficits.

The real assholes were the Bush-lead GOP from 2000 to 2006.

Of course Obama and the current Dems make the Bush crew look like pikers and most Dems (not necessarily you) jump up and down and cheer about it.

I guess it time for this one again

Economics 101 for Danni and all the other liberals to wrapped up in their liberal ideology to think for themselves.

Socialist Republic of Danni
1,000,000 population
150,000 unemployed Unemployment rate 15%
500,000 50% who pay no taxes
300,000 30% wage earners who earn $40,000 who pay taxes (25% tax rate)
50,000 5% of wage earners who earn $250,000 (80% tax rate)
Revenue to government from taxes
15% Unemployed $0.00 revenue
50% Untaxed $0.00 revenue
30% wage earners $3,000,000,000 revenue
5% of wage earners revenue 10,000,000,000 revenue
Total revenue 13,000,000,000

United States of Danni
1,000,000 population
50,000 unemployed Unemployment rate 5%
200,000 20% who pay no taxes
650,000 65% wage earners who earn $40,000 who pay taxes (25% tax rate)
100,000 10% of wage earners who earn $250,000 (50% tax rate)
Revenue to government from taxes
5% Unemployed $0.00 revenue
20% Untaxed $0.00 revenue
65% wage earners $6,500,000,000 revenue
10% of wage earners revenue $12,500,000,000 revenue
Total revenue $19,000,000,000

I always love Danni's theory that if people are allowed to keep less of their income via highter taxes they are better off financially.

I always love it when people ignore the current reality and continue to push a policy that isn't working.

A month or two ago, there was a thread on the DR about income amongst millionaires is at the highest rates for years and taxes are at low rates.

And yet we're still saddled with high unemployment that doesn't seem to be going away.

Corporations and individuals seem to have money like crazy, yet no one wants to create jobs like we've been told they would. What gives?

Jeff,

See my link on doing away with the mortgage interest deduction. Someone in Washington is actually showing signs of fiscal responsibility.

#42 | Posted by taxman

If tax cuts stimulate the economy please exlpain current deficits. Laffer ignores other economic factors. Clinton raised taxes during his administration and left with a surplus.
-----------
Clinton had a tech boom.

We our currently recovering from one of the worst recessions in history, and Europe is having a debt crisis.

Totally different economic environments.

Tax,

With Medicare and SS they need to institute means testing and raise the eligibility age real quick.

Medicare should become a voucher system where people get their money and then have a list of Medicare-approved plans they can choose from. It works really well for government employees.

Economics 101 for Danni and all the other liberals to wrapped up in their liberal ideology to think for themselves.

Fuck you.

I'm not that liberal by any means.

But you're too damned stupid to be so condescending.

#49 | Posted by 90c2cab at 2010-06-11 12:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

You are proving my point.

#43 | Posted by taxman
I love the theory that we can continue to borrow and run huge deficits (thank you Ronnie) without repercussions. I also love the theory that we can get out of this economic crisis through spending cuts alone. Morons, morons everywhere...
--------------
I love it how if you go to a debt counselor, with problems you're told you have spending problem.

But somehow when it's the government and liberals it's always a revenue problem.

To coin taxman's phrase Morons, morons everywhere...

Before Obama's 2009 budget the following tax rates will be necessary for the next generation (my kids) in order to service the debt:

Bottom bracket: 25%
Middle bracket: 66%
Top bracket": 88%

And these are the tax rates needed BEFORE Obama started burning the financial house.

We are conscripting our kids to indentured servitude to the state.

I have no problems with tax increases as long as they are accompanied with massive cuts in spending. We can't tax our way out of this.

Danni and Dan - The largest deficit in HISTORY is not REAGAN ..it is OBAMA by ANY Measure - total, as a % of GDP etc. with ONE exception - the top of WW2 as a %...but nothing else comes close to Obama and the Democratic congress.

Personally...we need to leave the tax cuts that are currently in place alone. (and where is Obama's pledge about no "tax increases?" another lie ..like his entire presidency to this point)

No more tax cuts other than those in place today...what we need is NO MORE SPENDING.

You two whine about Bush's spending...but OBAMA and the democratic party (look at what happened to spending after the DEMS took control in the last years of the Bush Presidency) has spent us into oblivion.

We need to leave taxes where they are and actually cut spending..not cut the growth of spending - cut spending.

That is what the T- Parties stand for....and you should too.

Corporations and individuals seem to have money like crazy, yet no one wants to create jobs like we've been told they would. What gives?

Uncertainty. Congress just passed a healthcare debacle that is hitting the bottom line of some companies quite hard. We have an administration that is VERY pro-union and is willing to pass legislation accordingly which makes the cost of hiring and employment go up. We have an administration that is pushing cap/tax which will exponentially drive-up energy costs to the point where businesses may be forced to downsize. We have an administration that just nationalized a couple of car companies and some business owners are undoubtedly thinking, "Are we next." We have an administration that has instituted a 'pay czar' who regulates executive pay at some companies. We have some banks begging to pay back their TARP funds and the government telling them "no" - is it so that government feels it can exert whatever controls over these banks that it wishes and doesn't want that power taken away? We have a government that just passed a bill institutionalizing too big to fail which results in the largest institutions getting cheaper credit - most hiring occurs at smaller businesses and if the government gives their bigger competitors a credit advantage via legislation, they are going to continue to hunker down. Unsustainable deficits and debt as far as the eyes can see isn't inspiring confidence either.

#53 | Posted by 90c2cab at 2010-06-11 12:23 PM | Reply | Flag:

Where did I say it's only a revnue problem, moron?

This is the lattest economic news:

In a setback for the U.S. economic recovery, retail sales unexpectedly fell hard in May as consumers pulled back their spending on things from cars to clothing.

Economists React: 'Weaker Underlying Picture' The Wealthy Are the Only Ones Spending Retail sales tumbled 1.2%, the Commerce Department said Friday, prompting one forecaster to lower its outlook on second-quarter economic growth.

Economists surveyed by Dow Jones Newswires were expecting a 0.2% increase in May sales. The decline was the biggest -- and the first -- since September, when sales fell 2.2%.
-----------
I wouldn't want to be the politician who raises taxes in this kind of environment.

But we all know Liberals know best!

#57 | Posted by taxman
Where did I say it's only a revnue problem, moron?
--------------------
Just because you liberals can't defend the economic policies of California (the most liberal state), doesn't mean you have result in personal attacks.

I'm sooo hurt!

I'm not that liberal by any means.
But you're too damned stupid to be so condescending.
#51 | Posted by jpw

Hauser's Law
You Can't Soak the Rich

W. Kurt Hauser is a San Francisco investment economist who published fresh and eye-opening data about the federal tax system fifteen years ago. His findings imply that there are draconian constraints on the ability of higher taxes to generate fresh revenues. I think his discovery deserves to be called Hauser's law, because it is as central to the economics of taxation as Boyle's law is to the physics of gases. Yet economists and policy makers are barely aware of it.

"Danni and Dan - The largest deficit in HISTORY is not REAGAN ..it is OBAMA by ANY Measure - total, as a % of GDP etc. with ONE exception - the top of WW2 as a %...but nothing else comes close to Obama and the Democratic congress."

It also has the highest percentage on non-discretionary spending which includes the interest for all the borrowing which preceded his presidency. Just spouting off about the total of the deficit is misleading, you need to also mention the two wars and the Bush tax cuts which created most of this deficit. CBO says if we get out of recession, get out of both wars and let Bush tax cuts expire our deficits will largely evaporate.

Just because you liberals can't defend the economic policies of California (the most liberal state), doesn't mean you have result in personal attacks.

Again, show me where I said increased revenues are the only way out of this mess and I'll take it back; otherwise, the accusation holds.

CBO says if we get out of recession, get out of both wars and let Bush tax cuts expire our deficits will largely evaporate.
#61 | Posted by danni

PROVE IT.

Prove it won't.

How can anyone prove something like that, it's in the future.

#64 | Posted by danni
So what you're saying is you're just making up crap. And you wonder why you're not taken seriously.

"So what you're saying is you're just making up crap. And you wonder why you're not taken seriously."

All I said was what the CBO said. If you have a problem with that take it up with them.
Question: Are you honestly going to try an contend that if we 1) got out of recession, 2) ended both wars and 3) allowed Bush tax cuts to expire that it would not improve our deficit problem significantly????

Please say you are saying that because I could use a good laugh.

CBO says if we get out of recession, get out of both wars and let Bush tax cuts expire our deficits will largely evaporate.
#61 | Posted by danni

Either you have proof of this(CBO link will do) or you're talking shit. Which is it?

"Which is it?"

It's time to laugh at you. Pretending that those three things wouldn't reduce the problem of deficits is laughable and I am laughing.
Deny the obvious much?

"Economists of all persuasions accept that a tax-rate increase would reduce GDP, in which case Hauser's law says it would also lower tax revenue."

Then either Hauser's an idiot, or someone is misinterpreting his "law". Tax cuts don't automatically raise revenue, as the Bush tax cuts proved.

The real assholes were the Bush-lead GOP from 2000 to 2006.

Of course Obama and the current Dems make the Bush crew look like pikers and most Dems (not necessarily you) jump up and down and cheer about it.

#45 | Posted by JeffJ

Agreed to both points.

Laffer makes clear, concise points that nobody on this board has yet refuted.

Assigning blame seems to be more important to most people rather than looking at what really needs to be done.

My guess is that most people extolling the virtues of the Obamachronicles get some form of government cheese.

The cheese is rotten folks, wake up.

Then either Hauser's an idiot, or someone is misinterpreting his "law". Tax cuts don't automatically raise revenue, as the Bush tax cuts proved.
#69 | Posted by Danforth

Its Hauser's Law because there is history to prove it.

Corporations and individuals seem to have money like crazy, yet no one wants to create jobs like we've been told they would. What gives?

#47 | Posted by jpw at 2010-06-11 12:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

I don't think we're allowed to melt iron to make steel. I don't think we're allowed to put fire to sand to make glass. I don't think we're allowed to melt rubber to make tires.

Rev. 18:22 And there shall be found in you, no craftsman of whatever craft he may be.

We're in the services industry pal. Did you miss Clintons speech's back in 1993 and 94 ?

"The big surprise has been in tax revenue, which is running nearly 15 percent higher than in 2004. Corporate tax revenue has soared about 40 percent, after languishing for four years, and individual tax revenue is up as well. "

Of course, to be able to pass Econ 101, you have to know how to compare two disparate years to each other by factoring inflation.

All these agenda-driven assholes who pretend tax cuts increase revenue are using methods which would get them flunked out of a beginners Economics class.

But, of course, that means they're either stupid, or they believe their audience to be stupid.

Give the printed paper to the working class, not rich fraudsters facing annihilation. Recovery would be virtually instantaneous. Inflation might set in, unless production rose in proportion to the money supply. But, if that supply is based on real wealth creation (production), instead of paper shuffling, interest charges and rent, inflation would remain under control.

.....and always remember there are two sides to the Laffer Curve, requiring opposite responses by a competent Government economic team. On one side of the curve you lower taxes (where we are now) on the other you raise them. Reagan's Team did this, first they lowered taxes, then while measuring continuously, they reversed course and raised them. Therein lies the confusion over supply side economics, which remains a small valid correction to Keynes. It has never been a stand alone theory. It merely corrects the way people spend faced with differing tax brackets.

" at the end of the day facts are facts."

Of course, if you don't know how to interpret those facts, or what goes into determining them, your analysis is worthless conjecture.

The real assholes were the Bush-lead GOP from 2000 to 2006.

Of course Obama and the current Dems make the Bush crew look like pikers and most Dems (not necessarily you) jump up and down and cheer about it.
#45 | Posted by JeffJ

Agreed to both points.

#70 | POSTED BY MURPHY AT 2010-06-11 06:41 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

And I am willing to bet that you voted for him in 2000 and 2004.

Now, if people know tax rates will be higher next year than they are this year, what will those people do this year? They will shift production and income out of next year into this year to the extent possible. As a result, income this year has already been inflated above where it otherwise should be and next year, 2011, income will be lower than it otherwise should be.

Maybe to a limited extent, however large corporations are accrual basis taxpayers and income is taxed when earned and not collected.

Also not many restaurants, grocery and retail stores can force customers to buy in 2010 instead of 2011. Same is true for entertainment and tourism.

The shifting of income into 2010 from 2011 to avoid a 4% tax increase in my opinion will be insignificant to the overall economy as a whole.

you have to know how to compare two disparate years to each other by factoring inflation.
74 | Posted by Danforth

" Which was 2.68% so the increases in revenue exceeded that but you don't care you only wanted to post some bombastic crap again to attempt to show off your impotent knowledge of economics. "

You should really quit when you're behind.

The first round of the Bush tax cuts occurred in 2001, so the baseline year is 2000. You don't get to cherry-pick one anomaly year. Tax revenues, properly adjusted for inflation, were higher in 2000 than they were in 2004.

It seems if they included economic literacy in your voting test, you'd flunk that as well.

"you, who have no credentials, except an amazing prophecy for typing shit with nothing to back it up"

I've been a tax and financial advisor for 25 years, moron. I'm also a trustee on two pensions, serve on a National Finance committee for an organization with over 70,000 members, and was recently nominated to be a Trustee on a multi-billion dollar pension and health fund. What bona fides do you bring to the table?

"You need to take up golf because you don't know you ass from a hole in the ground and the results will be mildly interesting."

Son, you're too stupid to question anyone else's intelligence. You've had your ass handed to you again and again on this blog, especially where money is concerned. I'd give it up if I were you.

Danforth - again and again I am full of admiration for your patience in answering complete assholes - I can't tell you how much I admire that and even hope with scepticism that you have any effect...but that doessn't diminish my support for your amazing sanity.

Sitdown,

Thanks for the compliment, but I think the definition of what I do is closer to insanity.

The first round of the Bush tax cuts occurred in 2001, so the baseline year is 2000.
#80 | Posted by Danforth

President Bush signed into law on May 28, 2003, And you're an accountant? I guess most people would question your integrity or your competence, I know I do.

"President Bush signed into law on May 28, 2003, And you're an accountant? I guess most people would question your integrity or your competence, I know I do."

"WSJ Inconvenient Tax Truths "

The WSJ?!?

They were the ones who published the editorial claiming "tax cuts increase revenues", and then "proved" it by using methods a freshman economic student can't, because he'd get flunked out. The author, Stephen Moore, is either a blithering idiot, or he believes his readers are.

If you need that translated: the WSJ is agenda-driven.

Solid as usual, Danforth.

Using the baseline of 2000 for Bushes tax cuts is fallacious due to the Dot Com bubble bursting late in that year. Nothing coming after would be reflective of a valid expansion in the economy. Then drop in the one week suspension of all action on Wall Street (9/11 - virtually freezing all monetary Transactions world-wide) and ANY comparison would reflect badly on that Administration!

Laffer also stated that 'A CORRESPONDING REDUCTION IN SPENDING WAS REQUIRED!' Reagan managed the tax part, the Democrats stymied the other!

Socialism does not work, it hasn't worked in any country where it has been attempted! They are ALL on the rocks monetarily! We will be there soon if no changes are made! First the reduction in spending 'Locked In', then tax increases, if necessary!

The 'RICH' will pay no more taxes that they FEEL they should! They will find the loopholes!

"Using the baseline of 2000 for Bushes tax cuts is fallacious due to the Dot Com bubble bursting late in that year."

Nonsense. Rises come & go. Drops come & go. Bush's first recession, by definition, didn't happen until near the end of his second term.

"The 'RICH' ... will find the loopholes!"

Not if Congress doesn't write them.

"Reagan managed the tax part, the Democrats stymied the other!"

Huh? Reagan proposed (and got) massive increases in defense spending.

You are correct H.R. 1836 is the primary bill and the H.R. 2 is just an up date. I appoligize for my error and personal attack based on that mistake.

"You sight no source and you expect me to believe you. "

Anyone with even a modicum of economic and math sense will tell you if rates are lower, yet one group is paying higher, then they have a lot more.

I'm sorry you don't understand that, either.

BTW, where are your bona fides?

"I give you WSJ so I'm sticking with these figures till I see some better information."

Oh, go right ahead and stick with the figures.

Just don't pretend you know what they mean.

From that WSJ article,
Finally, another inconvenient truth is that there have been 49 consecutive months of job growth as a result of the economic expansion induced by President Bush's 2003 tax rate reductions.

That's a total lie. Much of Bush's job growth came from growing the Federal government. Not a result of tax cuts. Quite the opposite, it's a reason for tax hikes since someone has to pay all those Federal employees.

"You sight(sic) no source"

One must wonder how people who are so pathetically illiterate can even find food.

No wonder Carl's Junior is doing so well.

From the WSJ article,
Lower tax rates have be so successful in spurring growth that the percentage of federal income taxes paid by the very wealthy has increased.

That's nonsense too.

It's true that the top 1% pays more taxes. The reason the top 1% pays more in taxes today than in 1980 is the top 1% is far wealthier today than in 1980.

"The reason the top 1% pays more in taxes today than in 1980 is the top 1% is far wealthier today than in 1980."

Exactly. They pay more, despite lower marginal rates. Go to the head of the class!

Obama has tripled the deficit.

Many front-loaded "stimulus" measures are expired or will soon be expiring: home credit, cash for clunkers (car version and appliance version). Almost half a million census workers will be back in the unemployment lines by the end of the year.

And unless there is a miracle this November, the Bush tax cuts will be left to expire in 2011, which will cause a false boost in income in the last quarter, to be followed by a profound decline in income and small business jobs. We are looking at an incredibly grim 2011, thanks to this administration. He has bullied his way into extending and deepening the recession, and he has yet to do one thing (not even one) that has WORKED.
Afghanistan: now our longest war, still at a stalemate with a vague plan and (thanks to Obama), inadequate resources and a weak leader. Economy: Where's that 8% unemployment that we were assured was the "worst case" after your $700B scare tactic? Real income is down. Way down. Real unemployment is way over 10%. Your health plan is costing businesses trillions. End result: worse health care and fewer US jobs. How's that "green jobs" thing coming? Just a hand-out for your political allies: GE, Goldman, and Van Jones. USA now rated 38th in financial stability, behind Mexico, the Czeck Republic and 35 others.

Add to this the unfolding catastrophe in the Gulf, now measured at 8 times Exxon Valdez, and you can bet your stimulus money that number will only climb. And once Obama strips BP of its cash and assets, who will be left to pay for the clean-up, and to suffer the economic losses? You, baby. BP boycotts and draconian measures against the oil industry will only make things worse, faster.

Funny that with all of the harm that Obama has done to the USA with his "fundamental transformation", his most lasting legacy may be his mishandling of a leaky pipe.

The world is laughing at our incompetence. Bush even regarded himself as an uncomplicated "cowboy" type, no
big surprise there. But this new guy was supposed to at least be smart, and competent...

Be specific, I'm game
I'll kick your ass around the DR till I lose interest. Like a cat loses interest in a piece of lint on a sting.

#19 | POSTED BY PANEOCON

You are a fucking economic illiterate paneocon. You have no ability to read an investment chart, no ability to understand anything beyond supply side horseshit.

Do you claim the "retard" exemption on your tax forms?

"Obama has tripled the deficit."

How do you figure that? And, as my physics professor used to say...show your work.

Oh, go right ahead and stick with the figures.
Just don't pretend you know what they mean.
#92 | Posted by Danforth

I seem to be the only one here citing sources. It's real easy to talk crap and generalities with nothing to back it up.

"with all of the harm that Obama has done to the USA with his "fundamental transformation", his most lasting legacy may be his mishandling of a leaky pipe. "

Tell us...what would President McCain have done to stop the leak by now?

How do you figure that? And, as my physics professor used to say...show your work.
#99 | Posted by Danforth

Coming from the "trust me" guy that's "f"ing rich.

"I seem to be the only one here citing sources."

You also seem to be the only one wildly misinterpreting what they mean.

"It's real easy to talk crap and generalities with nothing to back it up."

As you've proven, again and again.

Ultimately, the rest of us are talking real numbers: if you lower the tax rate on the wealthiest, and that leads them to pay a more in taxes, it's because the increase in their wealth has more than offset the lower rate.

And I'm still waiting for those bona fides...you know, some of your "many". Are you going to post them, or are you ready to admit you don't have any?

Geez Dan--you have such impressive credentials and responsibilities.

I hope you don't get left holding the bag when the shit hits the fan at the end of the year.

"Coming from the "trust me" guy that's "f"ing rich."

I'm not asking anyone to "trust me"; I'm using the figures you provided and properly interpreting them. Poster after poster has seen you flounder and screw up, and pointed out as much. Are you really too stupid to know how dumb you are?

"Obama has tripled the deficit."

How do you figure that? And, as my physics professor used to say...show your work.

#99 | Posted by Danforth

I don't know--well --maybe since Bush's deficit was 1.3 trillion and now under Obama the deficit is over 4 trillion.

"I hope you don't get left holding the bag when the shit hits the fan at the end of the year."

Define "holding the bag".

If you increase taxes to bring in a Trillion dollars and choose to spend Two Trillion dollars, increasing taxes doesn't eliminate a deficit.

This is why I'm against raising taxes to clear the deficit and pay off the National Debt.

Congress plans on spending the revenue.

"Tell us...what would President McCain have done to stop the leak by now?"

Posted by Danforth at 2010-06-12 12:18 AM | Reply

HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHHAAAA

Maybe should be the debt--but who cares? Right??

"I don't know--well --maybe since Bush's deficit was 1.3 trillion and now under Obama the deficit is over 4 trillion."

1. How is Bush's debt only $1.3 trillion, when he was running a half-trillion dollar deficit before the trillion-dollar TARP, and before the additional trillion was injected into the banking system a few days before TARP?

2. Where is Obama's deficit over $4 trillion?

Define "holding the bag".

#107 | Posted by Danforth

Dan--you are a smart guy--I mean that sincerely.

You have responsibility for "I've been a tax and financial advisor for 25 years, moron. I'm also a trustee on two pensions, serve on a National Finance committee for an organization with over 70,000 members, and was recently nominated to be a Trustee on a multi-billion dollar pension and health fund."

You also want to ignore the perilous times that experts like Laffer point to that he claims will happen in 2011.

Yet--you acknowledge-- "Ultimately, the rest of us are talking real numbers: if you lower the tax rate on the wealthiest, and that leads them to pay a more in taxes, it's because the increase in their wealth has more than offset the lower rate.""

Meaning when tax rates are lower revenues increase. It's happened over and over again thru history. You want to ascribe it to some other phenomena--ok. But the action and reaction occurs.

Well--with all your responsiblity and your stubborness to disregard experts like Laffer --may leave you and your responsibilities as a 'hot potato" to be dropped when not adhered to or at least considered relevant.

Meaning--protect yourself --so you are not holding the proverbial bag when the shit hits the fan.

usgovernmentrevenue.com

YR / GDP / Tax Rev /Tot Rev
2000 9951.5 1211.75 3706.47

2001 10286.2 1145.41 3833.89

2002 10642.3 1006.39 3330.71

2003 11142.1 925.48 3764.08

2004 11867.8 998.33 3932.09

2005 12638.4 1205.50 4306.69

2006 13398.9 1397.83 4763.17

2007 14077.6 1533.71 5237.39

2008 14441.4 1450.10 4989.70

2009 14258.2 1053.54 4628.70

"Meaning when tax rates are lower revenues increase."

WRONG. Not when inflation is factored in, something a freshman Econ student learns before heading home for fall break.

"It's happened over and over again thru history."

Not in the last generation, and certainly not with the Bush tax cuts. Anyone trying to feed you that bullshit doesn't know the difference between nominal dollars and real dollars.

holding

Find you a jar or something....

#113

Wow, you can cut and paste.

Now, here's the next part: go to an inflation calculator, and find the cumulative inflation between 2000 and each of those other years. Then, for each one, multiply the number from 2000 by the inflation rate + 1.00 (i.e., if it's 20% between 2000 and 2005, multiply the number from 2000 by 1.20) and THEN compare the numbers.

Can you do that?

Because until you can, and until you do, you're confusing nominal dollars with real dollars. IOW, you've still got a failing grade, non-existent bona fides notwithstanding.

Jak,

Thanks for the help the other night. My director was blown away, as were several of my castmates. Thanks for pointing me to Barry Corbin and Tommy Lee Jones, and thanks for the other insight you gave.

Dan--the Bush tax cuts kept the economy going.

The repubs blew it will the outrageous spending.

But the revenues were coming and did reduce the deficit under Bush for some period of time. It may have been short but they were coming in.

Then the Wall Street/AIG/Housing Bubble shit hit the fan and they should have been left to go BK. Period--AIG should have gone BK.

But the decisions of the gov't on 'too big to fail' became the mantra.

THAT is not covered in Econ 101.

So you are saying Laffer is full of crap? Because he noted the history and it doesn't matter what the nominal and real dollars are.

I'm just saying--cover the bases and don't be stuck with the bag when Laffer is right when the shit hits the fan. That's all..

Find you a jar or something....

#116 | Posted by Jak_Se_Mao

LOL

I don't want to offend Zat the spelling nazi with a misspelled word.

"it doesn't matter what the nominal and real dollars are."

My stupid meter just exploded from over-pegging.

Not in the last generation, and certainly not with the Bush tax cuts. Anyone trying to feed you that bullshit doesn't know the difference between nominal dollars and real dollars.
#114 | Posted by Danforth

2008 3.85% is the highest inflation during Bush's terms

"But the revenues were coming"

The revenues didn't match the last year of the Clinton tax codes, unless you use a totally debunked method.

Do you understand what that means, or not?

"2008 3.85% is the highest inflation during Bush's terms"

Oh, Geez, the moron doesn't understand cumulative inflation either.

Where are your qualifications? Anywhere???

Dan--get a grip.

There is an article from Laffer--who is quite smart-- and you disregard his points because he doesn't mention nominal and real dollars.

Does real and nominal dollars really matter when the tax cuts expire and businesses have saved or squirrelled away 25% more from a year ago because they are anticipating the expiration of the tax cuts??

They are not hiring people and they will have to pay more taxes next year.

Now I ask you--Does anyone really give a shit about real and nominal dollars when the market is reacting the way they are??

Oh, Geez, the moron doesn't understand cumulative inflation either.
#124 | Posted by Danforth

are you saying that you can add the inflation rates from two consecutive years?

"you disregard his points because he doesn't mention nominal and real dollars."

Someone who doesn't know the difference will not pass Econ 101. And anyone who tries to prove an economic point without using real dollars has an agenda he's trying to push, or he thinks his readers don't know any better. I do.

"Now I ask you--Does anyone really give a shit about real and nominal dollars when the market is reacting the way they are??"

They should, if folks are trying to spoon-feed them crap. The problem is, you don't know the difference, and don't want to know the difference: it would make you face the truth instead of eating the pablum.

And if you think real and nominal dollars aren't important, how would you feel with a 5% raise...over the next 30 years. You'd be getting more in nominal dollars...is that good enough for you?

"are you saying that you can add the inflation rates from two consecutive years?"

You don't know?!?

Time to list your bona fides, or admit you don't have any.

#128 | Posted by Danforth

and the answer is?

"and the answer is?"

I'll tell you, right after you list your "many" qualifications. Of course, since I've asked for them about a half-dozen times, it's quite obvious you're nothing but a posing liar.

Dan--it doesn't matter what I know or think about real and nominal dollars.

--------------

Does real and nominal dollars really matter when the tax cuts expire and businesses have saved or squirrelled away 25% more from a year ago because they are anticipating the expiration of the tax cuts??

They are not hiring people and they will have to pay more taxes next year.

Now I ask you--Does anyone really give a shit about real and nominal dollars when the market is reacting the way they are??

#125 | Posted by MURPHY at

I'll tell you, right after you list your "many" qualifications.

Why are you asking someone to post their resume on an anonymous blog?

"Dan--it doesn't matter what I know or think about real and nominal dollars."

I guess ignorance is bliss, in your case.

"Now I ask you--Does anyone really give a shit about real and nominal dollars when the market is reacting the way they are??"

If they have half a brain or more, yes. Luckily, that leaves you out, so you don't have to worry your pretty little head over it.

BTW...that 5% pay increase over the next 30 years is ok with you, isn't it? I promise to pay in nominal dollars.

Why is this stupid fucking ad placed at the bottom of the thread?

It irritates the fuck out of me.

"Why are you asking someone to post their resume on an anonymous blog?"

He stated they were "many". I'd be content to see "any".

I find it annoying as well..the ad that is..

Later gaters..

It's annoying as shit.

I'm noticing little bits and pieces of sell-out here.

I don't like strategic product positioning on the Drudge Retort.

Tell Obama to Stop New Offshore Drilling!

Yeah!

I've got about 50 things I'd like to tell that sorry-ass Marxist punk motherfucker before I tell him that.

The thing I can't understand about the ad, Pinche, is I thought Obama already banned offshore oil drilling after the accident. I guess that was only deepwater drilling? Whatever.

The reason the ad bothers me, if RCade reads this shit, are as follows:

1. The ad is within the flow of the page. I'm responding to poor little Pinche here and between the box I'm typing in, there's an ad. The ad breaks up the flow, you'd never see this in a newspaper.

2. Actually there is no 2, but the picture in the ad itself offends me, like a cop in a vegan bakery. I'm not particularly fond of looking at a picture of an immense tragedy every time I post. Would you run a picture of 9/11 in an ad? If so, you're an asshole.

the WSJ is agenda-driven.

#85 | Posted by Danforth

Pretty much THIS.

Laffer opining for the WSJ that the American economy will "crash" if the Bush tax cuts aren't rolled back?

Wotta fucknut.

America can't afford not to.

Be Well.

I'm not black. Does this mean I can't say I think slavery was wrong? I mean, I wasn't effected. It didn't hurt me.

Does that mean that you think black people have been hurt by slavery? If so, what should be done to redress their grievances?

The ad is within the flow of the page.

I moved it this morning to get out of the way of commenting. I also widened the comment box while I was messing around with that code.

"Obama has tripled the deficit."

That is not just incorrect it is incredible that anyone would even think such a stupid thought. I suspect the righties who post here have viruses in their brains. I am thinking of inventing an anti-virus product to protect human brains.

"There is an article from Laffer--who is quite smart-- and you disregard his points because he doesn't mention nominal and real dollars."

Are you kidding???? Murphy, honestly, you don't understand why that is important???? Really????
You need to be demoted two grades.
I guess that would put you in Kindergarten, aren't you a bit old for that???
BTW, my twelve year old grandson can understand the relevance of "real" dollars but heck, he'll be thirteen soon.

Tell all the people without a job and the other people who run businesses about the glories of nominal and real dollars and how important they are...

People are not getting hired and the businesses are reportedly saving 25% more because of the expiration of the tax cuts.

You and I and Dan can all go crazy for nominal and real dollars--but it doesn't matter to someone without a job and the companies are not hiring but saving their money because they are going to have to pay more in taxes.

"businesses are reportedly saving 25% more because of the expiration of the tax cuts."

Link?

And why? Business taxes aren't going up 25%.

"You and I and Dan can all go crazy for nominal and real dollars--but it doesn't matter "

How on earth can you claim it "doesn't matter" when you have no idea what it is in the first place?

Murphy is not a real person is my only conclusion. She is an invention of a right-wing marketing organization which teaches cute aphorisms to placate us.

Dan--nominal is the face value of the dollar and the real is the corrected value with inflation. Why are you harping on that?

This guy is talking about the collapse of the economy when the tax cuts expire.

And I think I saw on CNN about the 23.4% or some such that businesses saving more because of the what is going to happen in 2011.

Talking about tax cuts is what the right wing do. They sound great and get people to vote for them. In practice the people who vote for them get a little, the people who get people to vote for them get a lot. Nice work if you can get it.

The facts in hard cash:

Citizen for Tax Justice

Good source, Looks like a nice union shop to me.

Board of Directors
Officers

President
Wayne Cox
Minnesota CTJ

Vice President
Gerald McEntee, President
AFSCME

Secretary-Treasurer
Michael J. Sullivan, General President
Sheet Metal Workers Int'l Association

Board Members

John Sweeney, President
AFL-CIO

What really is needed to stimulate the economy is if the people start spending again. Higher taxes leaves less discretionary monies for the people to purchase products and services - the wrong move in this economy.

Laffer is blind to monetary and debt expansion. This economy will collapse because the rate of increase in both cannot be expanded much longer. At this late stage, whether the feds increase or decrease taxes hardly makes a difference. That won't stop the clueless Laffer from claiming he was right when the stimulus effect wears off.

Why argue -- the results of allowing the tax breaks to expire will soon be known. If history is any measure -- this will mean a slower economy. There will be no escaping it.

All this stuff has happened and been tried before and the results are always the same. You need to remove the obfuscation of other inputs, such as increased gov spending (in the case of lower taxes) to clearly see the impacts of taxation on its own. Higher taxes = slower economy. Lower taxes + deficit spending is a terrible plan too, it is this spending that has caused the deficit, not lower taxes. But of course, we must feed the blue beast ... can't stop the give aways.

It will be interesting to see people's spin on even greater economic hardship once higher taxes kick in. This is simply too predictable and the people on the lower end of the economic scale will suffer the most ... for those concerned with "justice."

"What really is needed to stimulate the economy is if the people start spending again. Higher taxes leaves less discretionary monies for the people to purchase products and services - the wrong move in this economy."

Baloney because the increase in tax for most people is very small. The bulk of the increase which will happen when the Bush tax cuts expire is for people in the highest income brackets who don't spend anywhere near their entire income. Their purchases will be unchanged with or without the tax increase. What you express is the same "trickle down" economic theory which was used to sell these tax cuts but which has now been thoroughly disproven.

in 2006 before Bush became a lame duck, the fed gov enjoyed record tax revenues. taxes are to high now, they need to be lowered. the gov needs to quit giving money away, money we don't have. I blame Dems and repubs for this.

I perdict the tax cuts will be extended. its political suicide to support a raise.

I support a flat tax. you made X amount send in 15% for everyone. no deductions