Laffer has stated his view of "best tax rate and tax policy"... and that is... 11% Flat Personal Income/Capital Gains Tax 11% Flat Corporate Income Tax ZERO EXEMPTIONS except for "no income tax on the 1st ______ of income" to accommodate the poor." But EVERYBODY would get that exemption. Can one imagine what a boost to the economy that would be? But of course, as AAA has stated, progressive tax rates are all about power and control. AMERICA IS BEING STRANGLED ECONOMICALLY AND SOCIALLY BY LEFTISTS/PROGRESSIVES!! :>(
No progressives hate the concept. The difference of opinion centers on what is "too high" or "too low".
No, your specific argument/post to the inflation rates during the various presidencies. If you overlay that with real wage growth, It is possible that you might find the truth about which data set is the worst.
Fine. If real income is rising, that's a good thing. If it is declining (as it is now) it is not a good thing - whether in a recession or not. The inflation story is only half of it.
I agree. Yes, I know. The inflation stats I posted were in reply to jem's claim (half implied, half not) that inflation was low during Bush and is high during Obama.
I do not agree with Jem's assertion that inflation was low under Bush - at all. But if real income was rising, then it was outpacing inflation and it was "less of a bad thing" than we have now.
Not to mention: Since mid-2007 the U.S. population has grown by 17.2 million, according to the Census Bureau, but we have 374,000 fewer jobs since a November 2007 peak and are 10 million jobs shy of where we should be. http://online.wsj.com/articles/mort...-time-scandal-of-part-time-america-1405291652
But we know the main factors that drove that income growth, and so we know why that income growth has stalled. (I'm just going along with that last assertion, since I have not looked at US mean real income per capita in a while).
no... you miss the point because you do not understand the papers or you have not read them. Perhaps you did not understand the vernacular. A baseline is "the best assessment of the world absent the proposed regulation or policy action." http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/eerm.nsf/vwAN/EE-0568-05.pdf/$file/EE-0568-05.pdf I have read many of these papers to which you refer. Every single paper that I have read attempts to show the tax cuts did not increase revenue by baselining to a fantasy model world. Go ahead... link to the papers of you econ buddies or anyone other paper you like... lets read them. No method exists that can say that can accurately say the tax cuts did not increase revenue... when the big tax cuts went 4 for 4. 4 tax cuts... followed by 4 increases in revenue. I will bet what you econ friends are doing are baselining to a fantasy world... whether you understand what they do or not. There is another even more crazy method and that is where they state the tax cuts did not increase revenue because they claim receipts went down as a percent of gdp. Which of course is a complete torture of language. percent of gdp has nothing to do with whether revenues went up. As I stated before we are not trying to maximize govt tax revenues.