tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4290163255778893789.post5223887980871885743..comments2024-03-16T05:19:07.061-04:00Comments on Retirement Blues: Another Lie From The Lying Liars at The Heritage FoundationJazzbumpahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07337490817307473659noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4290163255778893789.post-30669107592566029422011-06-15T12:21:13.044-04:002011-06-15T12:21:13.044-04:00Jazz--
Yes, tax policy is highly relevant. But the...Jazz--<br />Yes, tax <b>policy</b> is highly relevant. But there's more to it than cutting taxes or raising them.<br /><br />I refer above to "ending of the deduction for interest"... This is an effective way to make accumulating debt less appealing to people. As a result of ending the deduction there was a significant drop in debt increase. <br /><br />So yes, tax policy is important.<br /><br />But all you hear from anybody on the internet or on tv or in congress, is about tax *rates*. People get buffaloed by it, and ignore the other, more important parts of tax policy.The Arthurianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16501331051089400601noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4290163255778893789.post-26300230586297828872011-06-15T10:36:06.629-04:002011-06-15T10:36:06.629-04:00Art -
Lots of good food for thought. Thanx.
I a...Art -<br /><br />Lots of good food for thought. Thanx.<br /><br />I am become, albeit in a highly reluctant and tepid way, a sort-of Bruce Bartlett fan. I saw him on O'Donnell's show last night, and he was making perfect sense. I'm about 90% in agreement with the article you linked in your 2nd comment. <br /><br />I need to give your links more thought. But I do believe tax policy is highly relevant. As BB is does little to or for business in a direct sense, but skews wealth distribution one way or the other in society, and that is, in JzBian economics the crux. <br /><br />Nothing in the real world is univariant, but wealth distribution is a huge player since WW II.<br /><br />Cheers!<br />JzBJazzbumpahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07337490817307473659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4290163255778893789.post-45638449963917103612011-06-15T06:29:57.520-04:002011-06-15T06:29:57.520-04:00Moron Bartlett here.
Your first graph in this pos...Moron Bartlett <a href="http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2011/06/10/What-Really-Matters-for-Growth-Its-Not-Tax-Rates.aspx" rel="nofollow">here</a>.<br /><br />Your first graph in this post... "Quarterly GDP Change in the Clinton Era" -- you could easily extend the red and yellow trend lines back to 1992. Or even back to the end of the 1990/91 recession.<br /><br />I don't look at tax rates as the cause of that "bronze" age. I look at the ending of the deduction for interest on the individual income tax form (possibly listed as "A permanent extension of the phase-out of personal exemptions" under the 1993 tax, but originally part of the Bush-One 'read my lips' tax). I look at the distinct, temporary fall in the growth of debt from 1989 to 1992 or so, vsible <a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-dVot5iSQb8s/TcaK8gcu_xI/AAAAAAAABNU/ztuJAoLLG9U/s1600/FRED%2BTCMDO%2B%2525CHG%2BYR%2BAGO.png" rel="nofollow">here</a>.<br /><br />And I look at the unusual increase in the quantity of M1 money in the early 1990s, visible <a href="http://newarthurianeconomics.blogspot.com/2010/07/another-piece-of-puzzle.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>.<br /><br />And I look at the relation of that slowdown-of-debt and increase-of-money as visible between points (5) and (6) on Graph #1 <a href="http://newarthurianeconomics.blogspot.com/2011/05/if-it-cost-nothing-debt-would-be-no.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>.<br /><br />And the comparable relation occurring between points (1) and (2) on the same graph.<br /><br />And the comparable relation that begins shortly after point (8).The Arthurianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16501331051089400601noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4290163255778893789.post-811680493372068442011-06-12T15:35:14.449-04:002011-06-12T15:35:14.449-04:00Oh good, the update. I was just about to quote you...Oh good, the update. I was just about to quote you: "Since the Bush tax cuts, the economy has gotten steadily worse."<br />And I was gonna ask: Do you argue that there is a causal relation between the Bush tax cuts and the economy getting worse?<br />But we can set that aside. Good.<br /><br />Anyhow, on the subject of tax cutting, consider this:<br /><br /><i>Just last week, House Republicans released a new plan to reduce unemployment. Its principal provision would reduce the top statutory income tax rate on businesses and individuals to 25 percent from 35 percent. <b>No evidence was offered for the Republican argument that cutting taxes for the well-to-do and big corporations would reduce unemployment; it was simply asserted as self-evident</b>.</i><br /><br />...a surprise from our old friend <a href="http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/31/are-taxes-in-the-u-s-high-or-low/" rel="nofollow">Bruce Bartlett</a>.The Arthurianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16501331051089400601noreply@blogger.com