Follow up on tax policy

A beautiful quote, via the howler:

No one could believe, as a general matter, that lowering tax rates brings higher revenues. For example, did George Bush believe this during Campaign 2000? Obviously, no—he did not. During that campaign, Bush proposed lowering the marginal tax rate from 39.6 percent down to 33 percent. But if lowering the tax rate brings higher revenues, why would Bush have drawn the line there? Why not lower the tax rate to thirty-two percent? No, to thirty-one! No, to 30! Obviously, no politician seriously thinks that lowering the tax rate brings higher revenues. But the claim has lived as a staple of talk-show discourse over the course of the past several decades.

It's so staggeringly simple. If lowering tax rates actually increased government revenues, no one in the world would be against it. If we can only lower the tax rate enough, we'd have more than enough money to cover the deficit, pay for the Iraq war, universal health coverage, you name it.

Rrrrrright!

Some fascinating evolution facts

Get Busy Livin', Or Get Busy Bloggin': The Sternberg Saga Continues

Nice follow up to the Sternberg saga, the guy who went on O'Reilly to complain about the horrible treatment he received from scientists when he allowed an ID paper to be published in the journal he edited.

All tax cuts are not good for the economy!

Andrew Tobias points out an argument that isn't heard nearly enough.

We've heard it argued countless times that when the government cuts, it's revenues always go up, which is absurd on it's face. Of course, as Andrew argues, that is clearly true when the top tax bracket is preposterously high, as they were during, Ike, Kennedy, and even Reagan's terms.

However, there is an obvious limit to this argument. If you cut taxes to 0%, your tax revenues will not go up. Therefore the trick is to find the threshold at which the reduced revenues in taxes caused by the rate reduction are made up by the increase in the size and growth of the overall economy, creating a net revenue gain. A simple example is, if a cut from 15% to 10% causes a double of the overall income generated, that is a net gain. 15% of 100,000 is 15,000. 10% of 200,000 = 20,000.

Many would argue as Andrew does that the Clinton top rate of 39.6% was about right, and the Bush cuts overshot the mark. There is a fair amount of evidence to support this position.

Any honest assessment of tax policy has to start with the position that all tax cuts are not a good idea. If you can't admit that, you shouldn't be allowed to talk about taxes.

The war on Christmas

Brought to you by fox news. O'Reilly, Gibson, and the entire network are pushing this thing, and I have to say that I completely don't get it. Among all the "secular progressives" I know, I don't know anyone who is against "Merry Christmas". Lots of non-religious people enjoy christmas as a secular event, myself included.

I'm sure there are a handful of crackpots out there, but I fail to see the giant conspiracy. And I don't understand what the heinous threat this poses. Is there even the slightest bit of evidence that the ACLU and George Soros are trying to get private companies to stop saying Merry Christmas?

Isn't the simpler explanation that retail companies simply choose to generify their holiday message, largely out of a risk-averse corporate strategy to appeal to as wide a base of shoppers as possible -jews, muslims, wiccans, et. al.? Is that such an offensive idea?

Yet, on fox news, it is an indisputable fact. Now, they are just breaking down the horrible consequences. Best bizarre recent quote (hat tip sadly, no!):

FOX News Financial analyst Tobin Smith says that the War on Christmas could lead to a world economic collapse:

The War on Christmas: Could the left win its crusade against Christmas and does that threaten our stock market and entire economy?

Tobin Smith: The War on Christmas is real and taken to the extreme turning Christmas into a second-class holiday would kill much of the retail specialty stores. The next target would be Easter. This definitely does hurt the economy. Retailers have fallen under the pixie dust spell of consultants and this idea of being politically correct becomes this insidious little disease.


A world economic collapse?? I don't quite know what to add to that.

The Booming Economy (?)

The Howler helps the media break down the disconnect between the booming economy, and the reality of most people.

Just because the GDP is growing nicely and corporate profits are high doesn't mean most people are better off, as Krugman and Reich explain. As with the Bush tax cuts, the economic boom mostly only helps those at the top of the income scale. As Andrew Tobias says, "It's a grand time to be rich in America."

The democrats and pundits simply don't explain this. Capitalism is the best economic system there is, but there is a difference between capitalism that helps hard working people get ahead and live the American dream, and "robber baron" capitalism. And that critical difference is largely a product of government economic and tax policy.