I Am Bored

Loads of viral videos, games, memes, lists and social networking for when you're bored. Updated every day, so visit often.
LatestPopularMost BookmarkedMost EmailedTop RatedMy FavoritesRandomChat
AllGamesFunnyEntertainmentQuizzesWeirdTechLifestyle, Arts & Lit.News & PoliticsScienceSportsMisc
Submit Content  





rss

friendsmore friends | add your site
Asylum

Holy Taco

Funny Videos

BuzzFeed

NothingToxic

Oddee

Mousebreaker

Online Games

Eat Liver

Online Games

Gorilla Mask

Full Downloads

Norway Games

Damn Cool Pics

Kontraband

Extreme Humor

X Hollywood

I Dont Like You

123 Games

Hollywoodtuna

Funny Games

Cool Stuff

Viva La Games

X - Vids

Smit Happens

Funny Videos

Funny Stuff

ebaumsworld



Back to Listing

Raising Taxes Will Not Balance The Budget

Hits: 5424 | Rating: (2.4) | Category: News & Politics | Added by: 5Cats
Page: 13 Next >   Jump to: Bottom    Last Post
patchgrabber
Male, 30-39, Canada
 5717 Posts
Friday, November 16, 2012 11:40:20 AM
@Cajun: Hmm, well I'll say that only increasing revenue won't really help the bottom line, but that's the best I can do. In a hypothetical world where you could easily stop wasteful spending I'd agree with you, but how many decades have they been trying to cut spending?

5Cats
Male, 50-59, Canada
 25651 Posts
Friday, November 16, 2012 11:39:08 AM
I don't remember Obama saying "always" all I remember him saying is that the rich need to pay a little more,

So Obama says MORE REVENUE will be gained by raising the tax rate on "the rich"... and you're saying he's not saying that?

If "more revenue" is not part of the Democrat equation, WHY raise the rate at all?
Logic!

Obama and the Dems think they'll get massive revenue increases, oh about 1.5 TRILLION worth... out of tax rate increases!

And Romney's plan was "unrealistic"? (said the MSM, over and over again.)

"You can't say lowering taxes will always increase revenue just as you can't say raising them always will."


That first part: strawman, NO one is making that claim. Not in this video, not the Repubs, no one... specific enough?

Cajun247
Male, 18-29, Southern US
 10272 Posts
Friday, November 16, 2012 11:32:05 AM
Patchgrabber, can we at least agree that Washington has a SPENDING problem not a REVENUE problem?

patchgrabber
Male, 30-39, Canada
 5717 Posts
Friday, November 16, 2012 11:24:07 AM
This is to counter the arguement that "Raising tax rates ALWAYS increases revenue" which is what Obama and the Democrats are BASING THEIR FISCAL POLICY ON!

I don't remember Obama saying "always" all I remember him saying is that the rich need to pay a little more, and you're inferring the "always" yourself. But that's neither here nor there, I don't see how two wrongs make a right in this situation. Notice that I didn't say this guy is wrong, because I don't know. The *reason* I don't know is because he isn't providing enough information, so how is it wrong to point that out?

patchgrabber
Male, 30-39, Canada
 5717 Posts
Friday, November 16, 2012 11:20:30 AM
I think, given the current complex tax code we have, it would be nearly impossible to prove such a causation.

I agree 100% This is all I have been saying, that you can't oversimplify something the way he has. I am also 100% in agreement with a more simplified tax code, but I'll leave it for those with the inclination to delve into thousands of pages of tax jargon (yuck) to figure out how to do that.

@patchy: NO ONE is claiming that!

Claiming what? I might need you to be a tad bit more specific as I have made many points on this thread (probably too many).

@patchy: It's a YOUTUBE video, not a PHD THESIS!

I know it isn't, but to imply causation where there may be none is reprehensible. If he wants to use *data* then he has to provide the complete context for these data.

patchgrabber
Male, 30-39, Canada
 5717 Posts
Friday, November 16, 2012 11:14:53 AM
Let's hear it then.


There are too many factors to consider, at least for me, not being an economist or having a detailed understanding of your tax code. But for starters, he could factor in ALL sources of tax, i.e. if one decreases and one increases maybe they offset each other. Perhaps revisions to the tax code in a year created more loopholes that money slipped through. I can't know all the possible variables. What I do know is that it is not correct to only consider one independent variable when there are many. All I'm saying is that without more statistical context for his graphs, the graphs don't really mean anything.

I really don't have any problem with his showing the correlative nature between the two variables

I don't have a problem with him sharing a correlation, it's just that he's implying that it's causal.

5Cats
Male, 50-59, Canada
 25651 Posts
Friday, November 16, 2012 11:10:36 AM
Occam's razor comes to mind.

Too right @Cajun!
@patchy: It's a YOUTUBE video, not a PHD THESIS!

KiSS!

@Yawn-Man: lolz! I just typed that, THEN read you comment! Great minds eh?

@patchy (again) This is to counter the arguement that "Raising tax rates ALWAYS increases revenue" which is what Obama and the Democrats are BASING THEIR FISCAL POLICY ON! ok?
THEY say, over and over, the deficit can be cleared by TAX THE RICH" policies.
WE SAY: Um, no! Here's ONE reason why, out of many.

@hot4teachery: Um, I think it says so in the video description? Anyhow, it's NOT a secret, why mention it? Does it change the FACTS one iota??

(iota is my "word of the week" )

5Cats
Male, 50-59, Canada
 25651 Posts
Friday, November 16, 2012 11:02:27 AM
Good submission man.

Thanks @aj! I think IAB's @AntEconomist is either part of that group or IS that guy... iirc...

Anyhow, just the other day an IABer was saying "tax rates were 90% in the 50's and the economy was great!"
When I told him Reagan LOWERED the top rate and revenues WENT UP he called me names... BUT IT'S TRUE!
Here's proof! It makes perfect sense to me!

@patchy: NO ONE is claiming that! However it has happened before, so yes it could 'be true'.

@jops360: He says exactly that! Close the loopholes, SIMPLIFY the tax system and presto! More revenue! So... you agree?

@sssfdg: It's all in "real dollars" adjusted for inflation, idiot! Calling other 'morons' when you cannot understand a basic concept = TYPICAL!

@Cajun = gets it!
@An_egg = gets it!
@HumanAction = gets it!

HumanAction
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 2353 Posts
Friday, November 16, 2012 10:44:09 AM
Imagine if we dropped that down to under 75 pages and made it so everyone could understand it without needing an accountant.

Imagine if we reduced it to one line: you owe (X) percent of you total income. Better yet, imagine is we abolished it and simply had the states pay federal taxes (as in, the way it was supposed to work); then the states would collect all taxes and then you would only need to worry about one organization taking your money.

CrakrJak
Male, 40-49, Midwest US
 17129 Posts
Friday, November 16, 2012 10:26:42 AM
He's arguing for a simplification of the tax code, which is not a bad thing. There are currently 73,608 pages in the 2012 tax code and that number is growing. Imagine if we dropped that down to under 75 pages and made it so everyone could understand it without needing an accountant.

hot4teachey
Male, 18-29, Eastern US
 10 Posts
Friday, November 16, 2012 10:16:32 AM
2 seconds of googling revealed that this was funded by a Koch brother. If you don't know who that is then you're obviously not familiar with government-corporation corruption.

AtheistAlien
Male, 30-39, Western US
 809 Posts
Friday, November 16, 2012 10:07:38 AM
WILL GETTING A NEW SERVER BALANCE THE BUDGET?

HumanAction
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 2353 Posts
Friday, November 16, 2012 9:59:00 AM
which is that he's only focusing on one tax rate vs. tax earnings at a time, meaning that he's implying causation between two factors when there are many more things at play

Ahh... I see. I thought he was implying that the years weren't recent enough.

I agree that he shouldn't imply that A causes B so directly. However, I really don't have any problem with his showing the correlative nature between the two variables. I think, given the current complex tax code we have, it would be nearly impossible to prove such a causation.

Cajun247
Male, 18-29, Southern US
 10272 Posts
Friday, November 16, 2012 9:56:42 AM
only that you should favour simplicity UNLESS a competing hypothesis has greater explanatory power.


Let's hear it then.

patchgrabber
Male, 30-39, Canada
 5717 Posts
Friday, November 16, 2012 9:54:39 AM
@Cajun: Occam's razor doesn't suggest that the simplest answer *is* the correct one, only that you should favour simplicity UNLESS a competing hypothesis has greater explanatory power. In this case, taking more variables into account that lend a greater degree of explanation should be favoured.

Yawn-Man
Male, 18-29, Europe
 52 Posts
Friday, November 16, 2012 9:51:33 AM
Most of those graphs showed pretty poor correlation. Agree with his conclusion though: Keep It Simple Stupid.

Cajun247
Male, 18-29, Southern US
 10272 Posts
Friday, November 16, 2012 9:49:05 AM
which is that he's only focusing on one tax rate vs. tax earnings at a time, meaning that he's implying causation between two factors when there are many more things at play


Occam's razor comes to mind.

patchgrabber
Male, 30-39, Canada
 5717 Posts
Friday, November 16, 2012 9:48:55 AM
I'd be much more inclined to believe his data if he showed high r^2 or even better, a low p-value, but he doesn't show either of these for any of his charts, at least not that I could see.

patchgrabber
Male, 30-39, Canada
 5717 Posts
Friday, November 16, 2012 9:43:18 AM
@An_Egg: I didn't see anyone picking at that part of his presentation, which was the only part I actually agreed with. However people keep droning on about simplifying the tax code, but it never gets simplified. It's not as easy as it sounds, and big business lobbies to keep it complicated.

patchgrabber
Male, 30-39, Canada
 5717 Posts
Friday, November 16, 2012 9:40:38 AM
@Cajun: You also should have quoted the part where I said "You can't say lowering taxes will always increase revenue just as you can't say raising them always will."

Like what? His data is up to 2009. That's rather relevant.

I think what @Patchouly was getting at is what I had said earlier, which is that he's only focusing on one tax rate vs. tax earnings at a time, meaning that he's implying causation between two factors when there are many more things at play. I'd be equally skeptical if his graph showed, say, top marginal tax increase vs. tax revenue that showed an increase. If he's on to something, he's presenting it in a very bad way.

HumanAction
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 2353 Posts
Friday, November 16, 2012 9:29:17 AM
How does that fit in to this "low tax is better" theory?

That wasn't his theory though... He states, at the end, that his theory is that a complicated tax code is the problem.

The problem here is, his focus is so narrow, he's leaving out most of the relevant data, effectively skewing the results.

Like what? His data is up to 2009. That's rather relevant.

you know the population grows as well... more people paying taxes means more money coming in

*facepalm* ... per capita Billy... It's PER CAPITA. Don't bother going the "inflation" route either because he stated that the calculations are standardized to one year.

An-egg
Male, 30-39, Eastern US
 866 Posts
Friday, November 16, 2012 9:26:27 AM
So what you all seem to agree on is that the tax code should not be simplified and the very rich and big companies should continue to make out like bandits while the average person continues to get screwed.

Try not to be distracted by shiny things.


Cajun247
Male, 18-29, Southern US
 10272 Posts
Friday, November 16, 2012 9:26:06 AM
The fault in his analysis is that he is comparing two things (i.e. top marginal tax and tax revenue) and making it seem like one is the ONLY influence on the other. It's misleading.


As the deficit stands right now, raising the taxes on the top earners to 100% wouldn't even come close to fixing the budget. This chart shows that raising the top marginal tax rate does not definitively raise revenue.

sssfdg
Male, 18-29, Canada
 190 Posts
Friday, November 16, 2012 9:09:06 AM
what a dumbpoo.... you know the population grows as well... more people paying taxes means more money coming in. face palm... morons that believe this ridiculous BS

jops360
Male, 30-39, Midwest US
 570 Posts
Friday, November 16, 2012 8:45:00 AM
the real problem is that the rich dont even use the normal tax rate. they use capitol gains tax which is the lowest there is. that is how they pay under 14%. that and how they use loopholes to lower it even more. the key is to stop the loopholes and make them pay the real tax rate. we could raise it to 90% but as it is right now they will still pay under 14%. we need someone in there to find and stop the loopholes.

Page: 13 Next > 

You Must be Signed in to Add a Comment

If you've already got an I-Am-Bored.com account,
click here to sign in.

If you don't have an account yet,
Click Here to Create a Free Account
 

Back to Listing ^top


Bored | Suggest a Link | Advertise | Contact I Am Bored | About I Am Bored | Link to I Am Bored | Live Submission | Privacy | TOS | Ad Choices | Copyright Policy |
© 2014 Demand Media, Inc. All rights reserved.