Senate Passes Stimulus, conference debate begins.

[SirNitram]

Let's see. You dismiss calculations by a major economicist team. You dismiss the point made repeatedly by Nobel Prize Winning Economist Krugman. You discard clear and obvious correlations.

What, precisely, do you accept? Beyond just your 'philosophy'.

[General Havoc]

No, Nitram, I reject numbers that you apparently pull out of thin air with no context or evidence to support them, as well as the claim that every economic dislocation in the last century clearly occurred because someone lowered somebody's taxes at some point in the decade previous to it.

If this is the conclusion of Krugman or this nameless "major economicist team" you're hinting at, please, by all means, cite them and let's have a discussion about it. Don't wave your hands in the general direction of mythical "evidence" and declare that everyone has to accept your word for it because you say so. In all the reading I've ever done I've never come across this notion of yours that to lower corporate taxes (even by four percent) leads to economic disaster, nor have I ever heard anyone attempt to make the argument that a single one of these economic catastrophes you cited had a damned thing to do with lowering the maximum tax rate.

What? I'm supposed to accept your word for it, in the face of every piece of literature I've ever read, because you say so?

Paul Krugman has something of a reputation for blaming every ill in the world on George Bush, but I'm prepared to take at (mostly) face value whatever he has to say on the subject. He did after all, predict the housing price collapse, and has many other intelligent things to say on the subject of the last few decades of economic growth. I would be surprised if his argument on the subject is as simplistic as "lowering corporate taxes is evil", but I haven't read the relevant evidence.

And besides, my point was not that we should be lowering corporate taxes now. This is manifestly not the time to do that. My point was simply that there are times when it is prudent to reduce the artificial operating expenses of even large corporations, for the reasons I cited above.

[SirNitram]

No, Nitram, I reject numbers that you apparently pull out of thin air with no context or evidence to support them, as well as the claim that every economic dislocation in the last century clearly occurred because someone lowered somebody's taxes at some point in the decade previous to it.

Holy shit. I name three widely spaced recessions, and you're leaping to 'every economic dislocation'? ANd you're not actually aware of what 'correlation' means, apparently.

If this is the conclusion of Krugman or this nameless "major economicist team" you're hinting at, please, by all means, cite them and let's have a discussion about it. Don't wave your hands in the general direction of mythical "evidence" and declare that everyone has to accept your word for it because you say so. In all the reading I've ever done I've never come across this notion of yours that to lower corporate taxes (even by four percent) leads to economic disaster, nor have I ever heard anyone attempt to make the argument that a single one of these economic catastrophes you cited had a damned thing to do with lowering the maximum tax rate.

Nameless? How many times must I say 'Moody's' before you give that total lie up?

What? I'm supposed to accept your word for it, in the face of every piece of literature I've ever read, because you say so?

Paul Krugman has something of a reputation for blaming every ill in the world on George Bush, but I'm prepared to take at (mostly) face value whatever he has to say on the subject. He did after all, predict the housing price collapse, and has many other intelligent things to say on the subject of the last few decades of economic growth. I would be surprised if his argument on the subject is as simplistic as "lowering corporate taxes is evil", but I haven't read the relevant evidence.

Roubini got it before Krugman, but no matter.

And of course, I never stated he advocated something as 'evil', which is a stupid cariacture(Like most of your replies tonight). He does mock the idea of them as useful. And he does not the same correlation as I do: Link

He does certainly openly state tax cuts are not what should be here: Link

And besides, my point was not that we should be lowering corporate taxes now. This is manifestly not the time to do that. My point was simply that there are times when it is prudent to reduce the artificial operating expenses of even large corporations, for the reasons I cited above.

You claim it keeps investments happening domestically, but I'm waiting for evidence. Ironically, you don't provide it, while ignoring that I keep stating the source for my coefficients, then claim you have no idea.

[General Havoc]

Holy shit. I name three widely spaced recessions, and you're leaping to 'every economic dislocation'? ANd you're not actually aware of what 'correlation' means, apparently.

You cited, by name, every single major US economic dislocation of the past century, or at least every one that I'm aware of, save for the smallest one of all, the Dot.com bust. You cited the Great Depression, the 1987 collapse, and the recent upheavals. As far as I know, Nitram, that's all of them.

Nameless? How many times must I say 'Moody's' before you give that total lie up?

You cited Moody's as the source for those "results per dollar spent" coefficients, not for this absurd claim that cutting corporate taxes is the cause of economic catastrophes. You said nothing about a correlation and you said nothing about Moody's or any other source. Don't call me a liar when you do nothing but tell self-justifying lies.

And of course, I never stated he advocated something as 'evil', which is a stupid caricature(Like most of your replies tonight).

Coming from someone who told me ten minutes ago that it is virtuous to claim Republicans are corrupt, but dishonest to claim that Democrats are also corrupt under the same circumstances, that's quite a declaration.

He does mock the idea of them as useful. And he does not the same correlation as I do: Link

He does certainly openly state tax cuts are not what should be here: Link

You claim it keeps investments happening domestically, but I'm waiting for evidence. Ironically, you don't provide it, while ignoring that I keep stating the source for my coefficients, then claim you have no idea.

When I have time tomorrow, I will dig up the appropriate evidence. Tonight I really should get some sleep. Sorry.

[SirNitram]

Holy shit. I name three widely spaced recessions, and you're leaping to 'every economic dislocation'? ANd you're not actually aware of what 'correlation' means, apparently.

You cited, by name, every single major US economic dislocation of the past century, or at least every one that I'm aware of, save for the smallest one of all, the Dot.com bust. You cited the Great Depression, the 1987 collapse, and the recent upheavals. As far as I know, Nitram, that's all of them.

1907, 1918, 1953, 1957, 1960, 1973, 1982, 1990, and 2001 if we're including that. Every single one of these was a recession. Seriously, you forgot the oil crisis, the S&L mayhem, and the WTC crash?

Nameless? How many times must I say 'Moody's' before you give that total lie up?

You cited Moody's as the source for those "results per dollar spent" coefficients, not for this absurd claim that cutting corporate taxes is the cause of economic catastrophes. You said nothing about a correlation and you said nothing about Moody's or any other source. Don't call me a liar when you do nothing but tell self-justifying lies.

I'll admit I may have confused your claim I 'pulled numbers from thin air' to mean the coefficients. That's quite possible.

Of course, trying to claim I did anything more than show a correlation is absurd. I showed the correlation by citing three crashes and their pattern of appearance shortly after the appearance of a lower top tax bracket rate. I'm not sufficiently arrogant to claim I know what caused, for example, the Great Depression(Though I'm increasingly onboard the Debt Deflation theory).

And of course, I never stated he advocated something as 'evil', which is a stupid caricature(Like most of your replies tonight).

Coming from someone who told me ten minutes ago that it is virtuous to claim Republicans are corrupt, but dishonest to claim that Democrats are also corrupt under the same circumstances, that's quite a declaration.

And you answer claims of making cariactures with another cariacture. Where'd I say it was virtuous to claim GOPers are corrupt? Where'd I say it was dishonest to call Dems corrupt? Nowhere! I just objected to the dishonest notion that posting a story about the corruption in state politics dominated by a single party my entire lifespan shaping my views, somehow means I don't think Dems are corrupt.

He does mock the idea of them as useful. And he does not the same correlation as I do: Link

He does certainly openly state tax cuts are not what should be here: Link

You claim it keeps investments happening domestically, but I'm waiting for evidence. Ironically, you don't provide it, while ignoring that I keep stating the source for my coefficients, then claim you have no idea.

When I have time tomorrow, I will dig up the appropriate evidence. Tonight I really should get some sleep. Sorry.

Perhaps whatever bug crawled up your ass to incite such silliness as you showed tonight will be expelled in the night, and we can return to stimulating debate.

[frigidmagi]

Nitram I find his request for a citing of the economic team and Nobel prize winner to be worth a reply. I would like to see sources.

Don't take that the wrong way, I just want to see sources. Much like how I'm always after you to post your links to the news stories yes?

[Derek Thunder]

I think one could make a case to replace higher corporate tax rates with higher personal tax rates, simply as an experiment - Businesses pay comparatively lower corporate tax rates in many western european countries, although there's a higher bureaucratic cost to doing business, so it might even out.

Maybe one way to help business would be to move towards a single-payer health care system and remove the obligation to provide health care from a businesses' books?

[frigidmagi]

Maybe one way to help business would be to move towards a single-payer health care system and remove the obligation to provide health care from a businesses' books?

I definitely think this is worth discussing. Admitly I don't have a source handy but I recall this being one of the current US's businesses major expenses. Keep in mind I'm not sure I want the same health care system you do Derek, but I agree the one we got simply won't do.

[General Havoc]

Much as I hate to admit it, I've been forced to come around to the notion that there is no viable alternative to a government-run health insurance system. The private sector simply cannot provide a system that even comes close to the necessary levels of coverage and quality of care.

That being said, I'm not so sure about the idea of replacing higher corporate taxes with higher personal ones. I mean, I see the principle (I think), but in Western Europe, personal taxes aren't high so as to permit lower corporate taxes, they're high to finance the welfare state systems that most European countries have. Shifting the tax burden from corporations to individuals here in the US, even to wealthy individuals would, I worry, be somewhat counterproductive.

I don't know... I can see it working either way. I just worry that it would lead to much greater tax evasion on behalf of the wealthy. Most corporations pay their taxes with relative regularity and at the appropriate rates, whereas most very wealthy individuals have a host of methods of avoiding taxes altogether. Raising the taxes on someone who uses tax loopholes to dodge their taxes altogether is going to produce no net revenue increase, and by lowering the payroll and bonus taxes (I know those aren't technical terms, but I don't know what they're actually called), it further incents corporations to dish out their money in the form of enormous, tax-loopholed bonuses, that simply won't be effected by the increased personal taxes. I think the result would be a fairly drastic drop in net government revenues, as well as a further incentive for large corporations to continue to act in manners that we don't want them to act in. Corporations should be using their money to further invest in themselves, their operations, and other economic drivers, not pouring shareholder (let alone government) funds into executive's pockets.

I know that this is sort of the opposite of the individualist tax-philosophy that I usually expound, but we have to face the facts of how taxes usually wind up assessed and collected. And I'm willing to consider that the result of such an endeavor would be the opposite of what I think it would be, but it just seems to me like the wrong way to go about things.

[frigidmagi]

I think we can get away with ratcheting up the capital gains taxes. Right now they're pretty damn low and adding 10% to the top brackets wouldn't hurt them and would help revenue.

[General Havoc]

Oh, I agree, capital gains taxes could stand an increase, but there's not many people who have capital gains to tax right now, so it would be more for the future. Fixing the AMT (which is about as likely to happen as the the discovery of Bigfoot) could help too. Streamlining personal taxes such that the burden falls where it should is a fine idea. I just don't think that shifting the proportion of the burden that falls on corporations towards individuals, even wealthy ones, is going to be of much use. And it might cause a fair amount of harm.

[SirNitram]

The AMT needs a permenant fix, but it seems most politicians just lack the goddamn balls. The Democrats are easy to explain, because they seem to have an inborn lack of spine. The only time I heard a peep out of the GOP, however, was a 2002-era plan to simply remove it entirely and thus set the minimum tax for the richest folks to zero. Outside of this, nada. Nothing.

[General Havoc]

You know, I'm sure it should be blindingly obvious to me, but I've never understood why the AMT of all things is such a third rail for federal politicians. Every year for how long, congress has passed a resolution temporarily amending the AMT so that it doesn't smack thirty million people with a massive tax hike. Even if the Republicans are dedicated to seeing it abolished, and the Democrats are lacking in a spine, surely a permanent legislative patch to fix that much should be easily doable...