Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

---

Moar people answer my question

---

At 10/6/07 10:08 PM, Q-Pac wrote: K, Elfer: Number 1 seems inconclussive; the results seem to support both sides. It seems like economic turns that don't correlate whatsoever to taxation impacts the graph far to badly for it to really show anything. And it seems like number two supports my statement; the times when tax goes lower, the blue sees a spike.

First of all, this is exactly what I was saying: the graphs don't show any sort of trend, therefore the presumed benefits of trickle-down economics aren't really manifesting themselves.

As for the second one supporting your conclusion, please learn to read a graph, please learn what a trend is, and please, PLEASE learn about variance and deviation from the mean

I seriously don't know where the fuck you people are coming from who have no idea to interpret data, but let me put it like this: Since similar spikes and troughs occur when the tax rate remains constant, a spike or trough that coincides with a change in the tax rate is meaningless, because it is within the same range of results that occur independently of any change in tax rates.

If you can't understand that sentence, you don't have the data analysis skills required to form an opinion on economics. Sorry.

---

At 10/6/07 10:02 PM, Q-Pac wrote: Anyone who isn't diliberately bipassing logic to make a non-existent point would see that theres a massive difference between the statement of 'It doesn't matter which citizen gets the money, since the increased spending will stimulate the economy' and 'It doesn't matter if the government gets everyones money and then just hordes it'.

Unfortunately for your case, the government doesn't hoard its money; otherwise, it wouldn't be running a budget deficit, now would it? No, it spends its money, just like other economic entities. Applying your "trickle-down" logic, everybody will benefit from this government spending as much as they would benefit from Bill Gates spending the money. Hell, you know what you be a genial idea? Let's give all our tax money to Bill Gates himself and see the economy lifted to dizzying heights by your airtight logic! By the way, before professing to know something about economics, it would be helpful if you read some books on the topic -- there are intellectual arguments for supply-side economics, which, although flawed, are far superior to your senseless drivel.

---

At 10/6/07 09:35 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: 1) How much of it should go to the government, as my duty as an american citizen

Approximately $100,000 of it.

2) What should this money be used for?

Ensuring that every American has access to an adequate standard of living; that includes a satisfactory house (with water, heating, power, and an internet connection), sufficient food and clothing, an acceptable job, etc.

3) How much of it is going to benefit me based on number 2

You are entitled to the aforementioned benefits, the same as everyone else. The remainder of your salary can be spent purely on luxury goods, since all your basic necessities are already met.

---

At 10/6/07 11:01 PM, Begoner wrote:

At 10/6/07 09:35 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: 1) How much of it should go to the government, as my duty as an american citizen

Approximately $100,000 of it.

2) What should this money be used for?

Ensuring that every American has access to an adequate standard of living; that includes a satisfactory house (with water, heating, power, and an internet connection), sufficient food and clothing, an acceptable job, etc.

3) How much of it is going to benefit me based on number 2

You are entitled to the aforementioned benefits, the same as everyone else. The remainder of your salary can be spent purely on luxury goods, since all your basic necessities are already met.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! perhaps he should of said if YOU make 125,000

I now declare begoner HORSETHIEF

In answer to your question smilez: 0$ in a sane and fair society EVERYONE would pay the same amount of money. the money should ONLY go to securing the state from outside influences i.e. armiesjavascript:BBSPost.Save();

---

Ok Begoner, new question.

Lets say i earn 45,000 dollars a year as my Salary.

1) how much of my money is owed to the government.

2) For what purpose should my money be used for?

3) how much MORE of my money should be used for me as opposed to the scenario where i earned 45,000 dollars.

---

At 10/7/07 10:00 AM, SmilezRoyale wrote: 1) how much of my money is owed to the government.

About $35,000.

2) For what purpose should my money be used for?

Same as before -- everybody benefits equally from the policy I mentioned before. So you'd be entitled to the same amount \and quality of goods as you would be had you earned $125,000.

---

"The mere existence of a commodity economy does not alone suffice to constitute capitalism. A commodity economy can exist although there are no capitalists; for instance, the economy in which the only producers are independent artisans. They produce for the market, they sell their products; thus these products are undoubtedly commodities, and the whole production is commodity production. Nevertheless, this is not capitalist production; it is nothing more than simple commodity production. In order that a simple commodity economy can be transformed into capitalist production, it is necessary, on the one hand, that the means of production (tools, machinery, buildings, land, etc.) should become the private property of a comparatively limited class of wealthy capitalists; and, on the other, that there should ensue the ruin of most of the independent artisans and peasants and their conversion into wage workers.

We have already seen that a simple commodity economy contains within itself the germs that will lead to the impoverishment of some and the enrichment of others. This is what has actually occurred. In all countries alike, most of the independent artisans and small masters have been ruined. The poorest were forced in the end to sell their tools; from 'masters' they became 'men' whose sole possession was a pair of hands. Those on the other hand who were richer, grew more wealthy still; they rebuilt their workshops on a more extensive scale, installed new machinery, began to employ more workpeople, became factory owners.

Little by little there passed into the hands of these wealthy persons all that was necessary for production: factory buildings, machinery, raw materials, warehouses and shops, dwelling houses, workshops, mines, railways, steamships, the land - in a word, all the means of production. All these means of production became the exclusive property of the capitalist class; they became, as the phrase runs, a 'monopoly' of the capitalist class."

-N.I. Bukharin and E. Preobrazhensky: The ABC of Communism

When the industrial bourgeoisie has more wealth and therefore tightens its grip on the means of production by producing more, it does not mean that the industrial proletariat is not any better off or any less oppressed.

---

At 10/6/07 10:46 PM, Elfer wrote:

First of all, this is exactly what I was saying: the graphs don't show any sort of trend, therefore the presumed benefits of trickle-down economics aren't really manifesting themselves.

Exactly. They aren't shown, no conclusion is given either way. Guess what? That's doesn't make me wrong. By that logic, you could prove that all of Economic study is completely without merit, since it can hardly be captured on a graph measuring a single part of it.

As for the second one supporting your conclusion, please learn to read a graph, please learn what a trend is, and please, PLEASE learn about variance and deviation from the mean

Why not take your own advice? The fact that the graph was always going downward in general doesn't show that raised taxes weakened the economy; that just shows the economy got worse. What IS relevent is that the graph went down less harshly, or in some cases ROSE, when the tax's were lowered. That's like showing a graph; the Health of an aid's victim as well as the level of treatment he was receiving. Since the begaining of the graph the health dropped dramatically, however the health decreased less sharply when treatment was increased. This would not, as you seem to think, mean that treatment caused a loss in health, it means the opposite.

I seriously don't know where the fuck you people are coming from who have no idea to interpret data, but let me put it like this: Since similar spikes and troughs occur when the tax rate remains constant, a spike or trough that coincides with a change in the tax rate is meaningless, because it is within the same range of results that occur independently of any change in tax rates.
If you can't understand that sentence, you don't have the data analysis skills required to form an opinion on economics. Sorry.

And you're moronic logic seems to be this; "When a spike supports your opinion, it's a coincidence. However, many spikes go against your opinion. Therefore, you're wrong"

You're like that bratty kid on the basketball court who keeps calling all the shots "luck", then won't shut the fuck up when you score a three pointer.

---

At 10/6/07 10:47 PM, Begoner wrote:

Unfortunately for your case, the government doesn't hoard its money; otherwise, it wouldn't be running a budget deficit, now would it? No, it spends its money, just like other economic entities.

The government invests it's money in other nations, which does the people no good, and it spends money on certain industries; indeed, the military-industrial corporations are booming, but grocery stores aren't.

Applying your "trickle-down" logic, everybody will benefit from this government spending as much as they would benefit from Bill Gates spending the money.

No, they won't, because Bill Gates buys things like cars, food, and water, whilst the government buys things like space lasers. A strong space laser market doesn't help Joe Civillian; a strong chain of supermarkets does.

Hell, you know what you be a genial idea? Let's give all our tax money to Bill Gates himself and see the economy lifted to dizzying heights by your airtight logic!

Because then we would have an anarchy; Bill Gates doesn't fund the police force, fire departments, or other vital things the government supplies.

By the way, before professing to know something about economics, it would be helpful if you read some books on the topic -- there are intellectual arguments for supply-side economics, which, although flawed, are far superior to your senseless drivel.

You're pathetic. You disagree with my point, so you label it as "senseless drivel" by applying absolutely moronic leaps of knowledge; like, for example, point blank denying that civilians buy different things then the government.

---

At 10/7/07 04:20 PM, Q-Pac wrote: The government invests it's money in other nations

Are you referring to the purchasing of foreign bonds? That accounts for a minute portion of government expenditures and is far outweighed by the amount we borrow in the form of treasury bonds.

No, they won't, because Bill Gates buys things like cars, food, and water, whilst the government buys things like space lasers. A strong space laser market doesn't help Joe Civillian; a strong chain of supermarkets does.

Ah, so if we give Bill Gates millions of dollars in tax rebates, he'll finally be able to afford that food he's been craving but just didn't have the funds to purchase before? Get real. On the other hand, the government invests in such areas that can help Joe Civilian, such as education, transportation, law and order, and health-care.

---

At 10/7/07 10:45 AM, Begoner wrote:

At 10/7/07 10:00 AM, SmilezRoyale wrote: 1) how much of my money is owed to the government.

About $35,000.

2) For what purpose should my money be used for?

Same as before -- everybody benefits equally from the policy I mentioned before. So you'd be entitled to the same amount \and quality of goods as you would be had you earned $125,000.

If my math is correct, that means my earnings are 'About' 10,000 dollars a year

That puts me 200 dollars below the poverty threshhold for 1 person [Meaning, somone who was living in poverty would have less than aproximatly 10,281 dollars a year; the Poverty Threashold being measured by 'HHS poverty Guidelines'

So basically, if i was an upperclass citizen making 125,000 dollars, your administration would see to it that my earnings were below that of the Average Americans Wages [BTW, let me preface, 125,000 household wages; which puts slightly more merit in your high taxes than usual. if i made the wages of an average american, you'd put me below the poverty line.

At which point i am dependent on government aid for Medicare, Education, And housing.

I'm sorry, this might sound insane to you, but i'm not the kind of person who enjoys the prospect of crossing my fingers in hopes that the government will provide for me.

However, i'm sure there's more that your plan entails for me and my future, For Example. Lets Asume I start Working at the Age of 21, and descide to retire at age 61, How much money is in my Social Security now that i am unable to work [And lets asume i receive 50% pension from my 40 years of service] Would that also be taxed? if so, how much?

If i was, i might be more extactic about having 80%-77% of my earnings taken away.

BTW, yes; 100/125 = .8 = 80%, and 35/45 = 7.7777 %

I'm not sure if this is correct, but since 45,000 is the average americans earnings, i'm guessing it's somewhere CLOSE to the earnings of a middle class household. I'm curious if your as strongly convicted of taxes that high on MIDDLE CLASS households.

---

At 10/7/07 07:35 PM, Begoner wrote:

Are you referring to the purchasing of foreign bonds? That accounts for a minute portion of government expenditures and is far outweighed by the amount we borrow in the form of treasury bonds.

Man, that would sure be a legitimate point if I hadn't gone on @_@

Ah, so if we give Bill Gates millions of dollars in tax rebates, he'll finally be able to afford that food he's been craving but just didn't have the funds to purchase before? Get real. On the other hand, the government invests in such areas that can help Joe Civilian, such as education, transportation, law and order, and health-care.

Bill Gates already buys food and water. Lowered taxes will lead him to spend more on charity, spend more on his company (more time invested in Xbox means more money to shareholders), buy new fancy cars, and the likes. Once again, the average american doesn't hide their money in the shoe drawer; they spend it, they invest it, or they lend it.

---

At 10/7/07 07:50 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: stuff

Wow, no wonder he called my post "senseless"; the fool is actually in support of taxing citizens so much money that every taxpayer in the U.S is below the poverty line. This is where I would make a "typical liberal post", but I've met typical liberals; they're nice people, and their support of higher taxes doesn't extend into the pure stupidity of actually supporting the U.S government stealing so much money from their people that Joe American can't feed himself.

Soviet Russia, anyone?

---

Don't Bash Begoner Yet, my information has slight flaws [And for some reason whenever i type, the crying face on my thread mood shakes] Slight flaws being the amount of money is [i think, I'm not positive] based on households. Poverty line for 10,000 dollars was the poverty line of Gross pay for one individuals, However the 10,000 dollars begoner believes ill be able to use to buy the bear essentials, and if left over, any other digressionary luxury items, refers to my Household Net pay. [I'm fairly certain that 45,000 dollars a year was the average HOUSEHOLD wage. And my estimations are fuzzy math; at best.

Since it's Net Vs. Gross pay, i will have more than someone who is at the poverty line.
However, Since 45,000 is the Gross pay for a household, and we assume that the average household consists of 2.6 people Whereas the Average Family is slightly more than 4 [4.2] Whereas the poverty line consists of one person. That might Run in my favor, [45000/2.6 = 17307 dollars per year for each member [Household wages would mean that Either multiple family members are working, or 1 is working, either way, it's the households value.] Tax 17307 by 77% and you're left with 3807 dollars to spend for each household member per year.

That puts each household member WAY below the united states current poverty line. [10,000 dollars was the new pay for each person, The only way a lower class citizen would end up with LESS money than i would after taxes is if they were taxed around 60%. And honestly, what kind of politician would agree with taxing a lower class family 60%

---

At 10/7/07 04:14 PM, Q-Pac wrote: Exactly. They aren't shown, no conclusion is given either way. Guess what? That's doesn't make me wrong.

Actually, it kind of does. You claim that there's benefits associated with top level tax cuts, but they don't manifest themselves in the actual data. Even with all the noise, the range is fairly consistent. If there were real effects, that pocket of activity should change with the tax cuts, but it doesn't. Even if overarching economic effects have blurred out any potential effects, that still means that you have failed to show any evidence for your opinion.

By that logic, you could prove that all of Economic study is completely without merit, since it can hardly be captured on a graph measuring a single part of it.

You know, when you get right down to it, a great deal of macroeconomics is largely without merit. That's why two different economists can look at the same data and come to completely opposite conclusions, depending on who's paying them.

Why not take your own advice? The fact that the graph was always going downward in general doesn't show that raised taxes weakened the economy;

Precisely, lowering the tax rate had no visible effects, either aggravating or mitigating. In fact, I'll go so far as to say that there is no significant trend in general. I'm willing to bet that if you recreated the graph and performed the analysis on it, the error on the slope would have a range from positive to negative, meaning you couldn't even tell if it's an upward or downward trend.

that just shows the economy got worse. What IS relevent is that the graph went down less harshly, or in some cases ROSE, when the tax's were lowered.

No, it didn't. There is no trend visible in the data. If the variation after a tax cut is in the same range as the variation at the previous tax level, and we see a lot of spikes and troughs when the tax rate is kept constant, then it means that we can't draw a conclusion from the data.

And you're moronic logic seems to be this; "When a spike supports your opinion, it's a coincidence. However, many spikes go against your opinion. Therefore, you're wrong"

I didn't say that. What I said is that there's no trend that supports your opinion. I haven't said shit about spikes, in fact, I've claimed that the spikes and troughs are meaningless. Try to read and understand next time.

You're like that bratty kid on the basketball court who keeps calling all the shots "luck", then won't shut the fuck up when you score a three pointer.

When did I say anything about spikes being in my favour? I haven't. All I've been saying is that there's no trend. The people who have been talking about spikes associated with certain events are NOT ME, it's been people who don't know how to tell the difference between "trend," "correlation," and "noise."

My exact wording was "Since similar spikes and troughs occur when the tax rate remains constant, a spike or trough that coincides with a change in the tax rate is meaningless, because it is within the same range of results that occur independently of any change in tax rates."

Does that sound to you like I was trying to claim that spikes or troughs that agree with my conclusion had any meaning?

Here's how my argument works, put in terms so simple even a moron could understand them:
- There are drawbacks to decreased government income. This is obvious, because less government income means less funding for public programs of any sort, including education, public safety, military etc. Again, this is obvious, apparent, and undeniable, so try to remember this for later on.
- People who support trickle down economics claim that there are certain benefits to dropping the top tax rate.
- Upon inspection, these alleged benefits fail to manifest themselves in a discernible manner.

Therefore, slashing the top tax rate has obvious drawbacks and no demonstrable advantages, therefore trickle down economics is a load of rhetorical bullshit.

Can you understand that? I know that when I was trying to use complicated things like graphs or words like "trend" that you had absolutely no idea what I was talking about, so this should make it obvious. If you can't read this last post without getting confused, there's no hope for you.

---

I specially love that last statement, how I do love generalizations, they are truely such a magnificient thing to witness

It's not a generalisation. A generalisation takes an example from one thing and applies it to other things. Mine is a statement based on study of other areas.

"there isn't still debate about economic theory". Exactly what do you mean by debate? What aspect? If your trying to claim that economics is a area of study (since you deny it the name of science) where some sort of consensus exists (I'm pretty sure this isn't what you meant, but I have to cover all bases), then all I can say to you is that your gravely mistaken.

You've missed the point of this statement. In the wider context of the statement the "isn't" is in the form double negative. Economists like to pretend that there isn't a debate about economic theory. See
"while pretending that there isn't a huge normative dimension to economics and that there isn't still debate about economic theory but it is the dirty little secret of economics that will never go away."

I've found that Economics as a discipline likes to present itself as scientific and as objective (this is certainly an idea that is passed on to economics undergraduates.)

The debate certainly exists and has being going on from since the 50's (at least), a starting point perhaps being Essays in Positive Economics . Actually, I'm pretty certain this sort of debate began much earlier, but the paper is a seminal one.

It really kicked off in the 50s with the behaviouralist revolution - for which I blame Americans - which affected all social sciences.

Maybe economics can't be considered a "hard science" yet, but it's certainly trying to become one.

It can try all it likes, I don't think it is possible. But, in the meantime, its attempts to present itself as a science (read objective) hides the huge normative underpinnings of orthodox economics.

PS: I didn't mean to ask anything. I was stating my case.

PPS: This isn't really a proper response to your two points, but I felt a response to the first one was not necessary because it was misaimed and a response to second point was not necessary because you did in fact agree that economics is not a science. All the debate here is really about is the extent to which economics likes to present itself as a science.

---

Elfer, your smart, could you answer my question.

A person in the united states can be part of the top 10% of income earners, and still live a [moderately] middle class life style

1) why is this?

2) How much money do you think they owe to the government

3) Does your finanscial plan encourage or discourage people saving they're money.

---

This post was a lot longer than I expected. For those who want to skim, here's the short answers:
1) Inequity of wealth distribution
2) "Just the right amount"
3) Sure

And with that, let's get on with the long-winded version:

At 10/8/07 09:23 AM, SmilezRoyale wrote: A person in the united states can be part of the top 10% of income earners, and still live a [moderately] middle class life style

1) why is this?

Because wealth distribution in your country is top-heavy enough that someone can be in the top ten
percent and still not live an extravagant lifestyle.

Take a look at Gini coefficients for example. Without going into the math of it, a high Gini coefficient means that the wealth is unevenly distributed. At the low reasonable end of the scale are countries like Denmark and Finland with 25-26, and at the high end are countries like Botswana with 63. The US is sitting at 40.8. Not hideous, but not amazing. Canada is at 32.6. Used to be better, but our gap between the rich and poor is unfortunately widening these days.

Think about it. Take yourself and a group of ten people say, plucked out of a road in a city. How likely is it that one of them is going to be an aristocrat? Not all that likely. The real wealth in a capitalist system isn't about earning a lot of money, it's about controlling a lot of money, and logistically speaking, there's only enough money that a very few people can control a significant portion of it.

For some charts n' graphs, here's this site that I found with a bunch of data on it. Of particular relevance to your question are this graph and this graph, which show how income, particularly capital income, really skyrockets at the very top end of the graph, and this graph, where you can see the real increase of wealth doesn't occur until around the 97th percentile, meaning that in fact, most of the people in the top 10% aren't earning the huge amount of money that one might first think when they hear "top 10%".

The truth is, a lot of the people in the top 10% aren't tycoons or businessmen who move money around for a living and make extravagant amounts of cash, a lot of them are professionals such as doctors, lawyers or engineers who are paid approximately what their labour is worth. As you can see from the third graph, the proportions of the relative types of income remain fairly stable, with labour increasing as you might expect, until you get to the top 3%, where you get people with exorbitant salaries who make a lot of cash from capital income.

This is where the recent tax cuts come into play. As you can see on the chart here, tax distribution is uneven based on the type of income it is. Transfer income is taxed very moderately, as is appropriate (although oddly enough the top 1% is getting more than 1% of it, why?), but proportionally speaking, capital income is taxed much less severely than labour income. Basically, income from moving money around you can keep, whereas money you actually work for is taken away. This means that high-level professionals get fucked in the ass, while the administration and their business buddies are laughing all the way to the bank.

Just for a bit of trivia:
- The distribution of Bush's income
- The distribution of Cheney's income

This shows the change in effective tax liabilities between 200 and 2004. As you can see, the top 1% gets the biggest break, while the middle class gets fucked over again.

2) How much money do you think they owe to the government

Here, another graph showing how the top 1% has been getting mad breaks while everyone else gets the finger. You'll note that the group we're talking about is actually almost spot-on in terms of taxation relative to their income, that is, they're paying the same amount as they would be if we had a flat tax.

Basically they owe enough money to the government that they can help to fund social programs a bit more than the lower classes do, but can still make a somewhat more comfortable living.

3) Does your finanscial plan encourage or discourage people saving they're money.

That's a pretty tough question, because realistically speaking, saving your money is the responsible thing to do, but people do it based on their own whims, rather than the economic environment.

Contrary to what you might think, people on social assistance generally do try to put money aside for when they really need it, rather than blowing it and waiting for the next cheque. The real money-saving problems come from the middle and sometimes upper-middle classes, where people rack up a bunch of debt and live way beyond their means because they have a job and think they can do anything.

In my personal, unprofessional opinion however, I feel that saving would be encouraged in a system where we distribute enough resources for people to get by, but not enough for anyone to afford luxuries just because they're on welfare.

---

Alright Elfer...

And this isn't so much about you...

Begoner had said if you make 125,000 dollars a year [Which probably puts you in the top 10 percent, but not the top 1-3 percent, egoner has told me that under prudent administration, 80% of that persons income should be used by the government, leaving them with 25,000 dollars a year for one household [Household income i think, so divide that by the average number of persons per household [2.6]] you would have 25,000/2.6 dollars a year to spend on disgressions. That's about 9615 dollars per year for 1 person. [Once again, this is a household income]

That means somone who went to college to be say... a lawyer, will have 9615 dollars to spend for 1, the bear essentials, and 2, whatever's left, for luxury goods.

Now lets talk about if i made an average household income, which is 45,000 dollars, under Begoners prudent tax system, the middle class would be given 2.3% less of a tax than the top 10%, [35,000 dollar reduction]

That leaves 10,000 dollars a year for a household, which makes it 3850 dollars per year for each person.

That kind of system confuses me... First of all, wouldn't buisnesses [Including the small 'Good' ones] would be hurt by the fact that people don't have enough money to buy anything other than what they REALLY need.

From your graphs and statements, you have stated that tax cuts on your top 1% isn't as effective as some would have it cracked up to be, because the money doesn't really reach your middle class due to the 'nature of purchasing' amoung your higher ups, Save possibly the fact that buisnesses have less investors, it doesn't serve the purpose it was proclaimed to have. I am however wondering, wouldn't tax rates of 80-77.8% on your middle class and psuedo upper class be bad for buisness?

---

At 10/6/07 04:01 PM, Elfer wrote: You know what's seriously not a science though? Fuckin' psychology.

Ok I'll take a stab at defending my discipline.
True. It's isn't a hard science like physics or chemistry, my university refers to it as a "Social Science". But it is moving towards becoming one. With divisions such as Biopsychology and Cognitive Neuropsychology we're getting closer to the actual physiological root causes of everything we are. It's not quite there yet but the end goal is to be able to say how much of neurotransmitter X and neurotransmitter Y result in sensation Z, and what kind of stimulus is required to produce such an event.
I'd call that pretty scientific.

At 10/6/07 04:31 PM, Vert wrote: Maybe economics can't be considered a "hard science" yet, but it's certainly trying to become one.

Oh, and small provocation (don't take too seriously) is in order: RommelTJ, you do realize that chemistry is merely a small branch of physics, right? Right? I mean, it can't be seriously considered a "branch of science", no more than than, say, quantum mechanics could or thermodynamics are. They are all merely branches of physics. =]

Well, technically everything in all existence can be broken down to physics theoretically, it just requires a high enough level of detail. But yeah, economics, like psychology seems to be moving towards being scientific.

At 10/7/07 08:04 PM, Q-Pac wrote: Bill Gates already buys food and water. Lowered taxes will lead him to spend more on charity, spend more on his company (more time invested in Xbox means more money to shareholders), buy new fancy cars, and the likes. Once again, the average american doesn't hide their money in the shoe drawer; they spend it, they invest it, or they lend it.

The average american does however save money when they can. It may not be in shoe boxes as much as savings accounts and savings plans but people do save money. Particularly when all of their needs are met, and who can afford to have their needs met better than the rich? You seem to be under the delusion that the rich will spend all of their money, which just isn't the case. People don't always spend, invest, or lend money, especially when they don't have incentive to do so.

Supply side economics works well in theory when there is a greater demand for production than is established to meet that demand. Once there is sufficient production to meet that demand the benefits of supply side economics drop off sharply, helping industry produce more doesn't mean people are going to buy more. And right now the U.S. has way more production than it needs.

---

At 10/8/07 08:51 PM, ReThink wrote:

At 10/6/07 04:01 PM, Elfer wrote: You know what's seriously not a science though? Fuckin' psychology.

Ok I'll take a stab at defending my discipline.

Yeah, sorry, I meant to type "psychiatry"

Psychology is much more of a real thing.

---

At 10/8/07 01:38 AM, Elfer wrote:

Actually, it kind of does. You claim that there's benefits associated with top level tax cuts, but they don't manifest themselves in the actual data. Even with all the noise, the range is fairly consistent. If there were real effects, that pocket of activity should change with the tax cuts, but it doesn't. Even if overarching economic effects have blurred out any potential effects, that still means that you have failed to show any evidence for your opinion.

The fact that my hypothesis isn't backed up by the graph doesn't mean my opinion is wrong; it could easily be do to the fact that all of the factors of economics are far to broad and far reaching to record on a graph measuring two statistics. Furthermore, the differences between lowered taxes and an Idealistic nation of next-to-nothing taxes is different.

Finally, if you can find a reliable version of number one that measures GNP instead of GDP, I would be abliged.

You know, when you get right down to it, a great deal of macroeconomics is largely without merit. That's why two different economists can look at the same data and come to completely opposite conclusions, depending on who's paying them.

Yet I doubt either of us are being paid off by Sony, so I think we can both assume that neither of our opinions are biased by anything but logic.

Precisely, lowering the tax rate had no visible effects, either aggravating or mitigating. In fact, I'll go so far as to say that there is no significant trend in general. I'm willing to bet that if you recreated the graph and performed the analysis on it, the error on the slope would have a range from positive to negative, meaning you couldn't even tell if it's an upward or downward trend.

Yet, once again, the vast ranges of economics can't be captured on a simplified growth. It may claim that yearly income isn't raised, but what about economic security, stuff like that?

And, of course, the graph could be wrong =/

No, it didn't. There is no trend visible in the data. If the variation after a tax cut is in the same range as the variation at the previous tax level, and we see a lot of spikes and troughs when the tax rate is kept constant, then it means that we can't draw a conclusion from the data.

All I noticed is that when it had already been going down, the lowering of taxes lowered the slope.

I didn't say that. What I said is that there's no trend that supports your opinion. I haven't said shit about spikes, in fact, I've claimed that the spikes and troughs are meaningless. Try to read and understand next time.
When did I say anything about spikes being in my favour? I haven't. All I've been saying is that there's no trend. The people who have been talking about spikes associated with certain events are NOT ME, it's been people who don't know how to tell the difference between "trend," "correlation," and "noise."

But you DID use the graphs to "prove" I was wrong, when they don't "prove" anything at all; they basically say "we have no fucking clue".

My exact wording was "Since similar spikes and troughs occur when the tax rate remains constant, a spike or trough that coincides with a change in the tax rate is meaningless, because it is within the same range of results that occur independently of any change in tax rates."
Does that sound to you like I was trying to claim that spikes or troughs that agree with my conclusion had any meaning?

You did use the graph itself to support your conclusion. Whilst we're on the "rhetorical question" train; when did I use the term "spike and troughs"?

Here's how my argument works, put in terms so simple even a moron could understand them:
- There are drawbacks to decreased government income. This is obvious, because less government income means less funding for public programs of any sort, including education, public safety, military etc. Again, this is obvious, apparent, and undeniable, so try to remember this for later on.

No, it isn't "undeniable". If the government couldn't keep kicking us around and wasting OUR money, if they had a finnit amound of funds which they couldn't go over, do you think they would still fund bullshit social programs knowing THEY would be paying for it, not us? A decrease in taxes would lead to the same amount of police funding, since the police would get an increased percent of a decreased portion.

- People who support trickle down economics claim that there are certain benefits to dropping the top tax rate.
- Upon inspection, these alleged benefits fail to manifest themselves in a discernible manner.

Because the core of SSE has failed to manifest itself at all; even "lowered" taxes charged huge amounts.

And, once again, you've only shown 2 biased graphs from the same person. I could find graphs by Joe Bushite saying the opposite, but we both know that wouldn't actually prove anything.

Therefore, slashing the top tax rate has obvious drawbacks and no demonstrable advantages, therefore trickle down economics is a load of rhetorical bullshit.
Can you understand that? I know that when I was trying to use complicated things like graphs or words like "trend" that you had absolutely no idea what I was talking about, so this should make it obvious. If you can't read this last post without getting confused, there's no hope for you.

Brilliant; my argument is wrong because your selective graphs said that it can't be proven. Then you go off with statements that also can't be proven and throw them around like facts.

---

This post in brief:
- Obvious drawbacks to trickle-down economics, benefits fail to emerge
- Tits or GTFO

At 10/8/07 10:17 PM, Q-Pac wrote: The fact that my hypothesis isn't backed up by the graph doesn't mean my opinion is wrong;

Let me rephrase. It indicates a lack of evidence for your position.

Finally, if you can find a reliable version of number one that measures GNP instead of GDP, I would be abliged.

If you think your position would be supported by such a graph, feel free to dig it up or construct it yourself. If you can find a site with stats on the change in GNP over time, such a graph could be made fairly easily.

Yet I doubt either of us are being paid off by Sony, so I think we can both assume that neither of our opinions are biased by anything but logic.

That would seem to mean that economics is even less of a real science, if two unbiased people can easily come to different conclusions with no real way to test our relative hypotheses.

Yet, once again, the vast ranges of economics can't be captured on a simplified growth. It may claim that yearly income isn't raised, but what about economic security, stuff like that?

Yes, I get what you're saying. But what I'm telling you is that since the amount of noise is reasonably constant at a constant tax level, then if there are any significant effects of cutting the top tax level, they should manifest themselves in the data.

If the effects are too small to be inseparable from the noise, then there's no evidence that supports trickle-down economics.

And, of course, the graph could be wrong =/

Well, that's a pretty bold claim unless you can find some contradictory data from a reliable source. If you can, we can throw out those graphs and make our own. Just saying "your data might be wrong" isn't a valid argument unless you have a reason to believe that it's wrong.

All I noticed is that when it had already been going down, the lowering of taxes lowered the slope.

Now when you say "lowered the slope," do you mean "lowered the slope," or "reduced the magnitude of the slope"?

Again, as I said, the data as it is is too noisy and incoherent to look at it and show any sort of trend. Anything you say about slopes is meaningless unless you can show a trend that has an error range that doesn't include zero.

But you DID use the graphs to "prove" I was wrong, when they don't "prove" anything at all; they basically say "we have no fucking clue".

I like how you put "prove" in quotation marks, even though the only time I used the word "prove" in this topic was when I said "the data is too noisy to PROVE it doesn't work"

You did use the graph itself to support your conclusion. Whilst we're on the "rhetorical question" train; when did I use the term "spike and troughs"?

You didn't use the exact term, but you referred to them when you tried to claim that spikes coinciding with tax cuts supported your argument. And yes, you did try to claim this, look at your last post on page 1.

No, it isn't "undeniable".

Let's go over what I was claiming was "undeniable"
- Tax income is a subset of government income
- Therefore, less tax income = less government income
- Less government income means less money to spend on government programs

If the government couldn't keep kicking us around and wasting OUR money, if they had a finnit amound of funds which they couldn't go over, do you think they would still fund bullshit social programs knowing THEY would be paying for it, not us?

Well, considering the government represents the people, "they" are "us," and there's no way for them to pay for things with their own money, since it's public money. All that they could do is rack up debt that becomes our debt anyway. As we can see with the current administration, that's what the government does when it doesn't actually have enough money to fund bullshit programs; it funds them anyway and sticks us with the bill.

A decrease in taxes would lead to the same amount of police funding, since the police would get an increased percent of a decreased portion.

Come on now, are you completely oblivious to the public sector? Do you really imagine that we give perfect and adequate funding to services like police and education before funding bullshit programs? It doesn't happen that way, really. What happens is, politicians budget for whatevers popular, and everyone else gets fucked.

Because the core of SSE has failed to manifest itself at all; even "lowered" taxes charged huge amounts.

But lowering the tax rate still supplies a lot of money to wealthy people like investors, and if that gives them an incentive to supply, and supply is what drives the economy, then that extra money should still manifest itself as soon as the tax rate drops.

Nobody in the top 1% is saying "Well, we have this extra three million from the tax cut last year, should we invest it?" "No way, taxes are still pretty high. Let's just stuff it into our mattress and forget about it for no reason."

And, once again, you've only shown 2 biased graphs from the same person. I could find graphs by Joe Bushite saying the opposite, but we both know that wouldn't actually prove anything.

Again, you're just saying "I could provide evidence for my opinion, but I refuse to for specious reasons.

Brilliant; my argument is wrong because your selective graphs said that it can't be proven. Then you go off with statements that also can't be proven and throw them around like facts.

I said that lowering tax rates reduces government income. That IS a fact, and there's no two fucking ways about it. If you reduce your source of income, you reduce your income. I don't see what's difficult to understand about that.

And nice little jab, calling the graphs "selective." You're right, they use irrelevant and niche statistics like top-level tax rate or GDP growth rate. You know what? You've questioned the veracity of my graphs three times in this post alone (with no actual basis, mind you, just vague claims of bias without mentioning what form the bias takes. Since you're not claiming abuse of statistics, I assume you're talking about falsification of data, which is a pretty hefty thing to throw around), and you've mentioned that you could provide graphs that show the exact opposite. Well, go ahead and show some, show something that would provide any sort of evidence to back up your claims.

In fact, if you can't give me any evidence in your next reply, I'm not going to bother replying to you. You've had two pages to bring up anything at all that would say your claims are right, and you've been claiming that you can if you wanted to, but the data has failed to materialize. Since we obviously can't PROVE this either way, we have to look at what possible evidence we have, and make a conclusion based on that. "No proof" doesn't mean we should err on the side of incurring public debt.

Here's what I'm saying: That is a blatant, obvious drawback that manifests itself immediately when tax rates are cut.

However, after repeated top-level tax cuts, you still have failed to provide any sort of actual evidence for positive effects of those tax cuts.

If we have obvious drawbacks and no discernible benefits, the only way that someone could consider trickle-down economics a good system is through rhetoric.

---

To be honest here, my current ideia is that economics is a science, in the sense that it has falsefied models in the past (and should continue to do so in the future), the best example of this being the original formulation of the Phillips curve, a clear case where the data contracdicted the model and thus new, superior models (in the sense that they managed to explain more data) emerged. Futhermore, there are plenty of models that provide predictions and are thus testable.

Can you please provide a couple of good examples of these models? I've never actually approached economics from inside the subject, my analysis is instead bedded in philosophy, history and politics.

A slight point on the Phillips curve. In any subject, "scientific" or not, when the real world contradicts the theory isn't the theory re-evaluated? For example, in International Relations the events of the 1930s and 40s killed off Liberal idealism (with its stress on interdependence and the beneficial convergance of state interests) and gave rise to realism (with its view that states look out for their own interests and that war is inevitable.)

When I feel I'm up to it, I'll try to explain why I keep coming backwards and fowards on this issue, if your interested (I'd kindly request an answer to this statement, no point on elaborating something if you aren't interested). But keep in mind that economics (in general) does try to confront models with data and does have some, albite limited, sucess in predictions.

I'd be very interested. I think I'd find it hard to call economics a science from purely philosophical grounds, but I'd like to hear another person's point of view.

---

At 10/8/07 09:11 PM, Elfer wrote:

At 10/8/07 08:51 PM, ReThink wrote:

At 10/6/07 04:01 PM, Elfer wrote: You know what's seriously not a science though? Fuckin' psychology.

Ok I'll take a stab at defending my discipline.

Yeah, sorry, I meant to type "psychiatry"

Psychology is much more of a real thing.

bullshit.

psychology is about the same as psychiatry minus the MD. the only thing is psychiatry relates more to diagnosing problems and treating them. whereas psychology can encompass a much more broad range of disciplines, like eating babies or clinical psychology. actually psychiatry is more concrete than psychology provided that they try to resolve known neurological problems through medications whereas psychologists can experiment with 'behavioral modifications'.

psychology isn't a science, even if it employs use of the scientific method.

---

At 10/9/07 09:56 AM, tony4moroney wrote: bullshit.

psychology is about the same as psychiatry minus the MD. the only thing is psychiatry relates more to diagnosing problems and treating them.

No, they're actually pretty different. Psychiatry is about examining high-level concepts of the mind, trying to deduce a high-level cause for problems, and prescribing drugs to treat them. Psychology is about looking at biology and trying to find ways to explain certain types of behaviour on a biological level.

I'd agree that psychologists who try to explain things like a teenager's appreciation for rock and roll devil music through biology are mostly pulling stuff out of their ass (note here: psychoanalytical psychology is the type of psychology that's most closely related to psychiatry), but a great deal of psychology is far more scientific than psychiatry.

Psychiatrists today are essentially witch doctors. They give you the right herb or root, and claim your problems are the cause of certain demons inhabiting your body, and you need the root to drive them out. Their solution works, so they assume that they're right.

In reality, the treatment really does work, but by a mechanism entirely different from what they think is happening. They're doing the right thing, but they're not actually aware of what they're doing. In a way, psychology is about trying to figure out what we're actually doing, rather than how to treat problems.

Of course, since psychology is a relatively new field, it's only really cohesive on a "basic" level, but at least they're trying to come up with real reasons for what they're doing.

psychology isn't a science, even if it employs use of the scientific method.

Generally speaking, psychology produces a lot of testable theories, unlike psychology.

---

Note: You know exactly what that last sentence was supposed to say.