tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post8962423102017015956..comments2024-03-29T03:56:03.736-04:00Comments on the daily howler: ELITE DELUSIONS: Horsies yes, looting no!<b>bob somerby</b>http://www.blogger.com/profile/02963464534685954436noreply@blogger.comBlogger37125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-58112453209104761012012-08-07T21:08:13.394-04:002012-08-07T21:08:13.394-04:00http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNHywGefNnQhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNHywGefNnQAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-4201037160741226082012-08-07T14:37:28.702-04:002012-08-07T14:37:28.702-04:00Yes, time.
Time enough to post dismissively, but ...Yes, time.<br /><br />Time enough to post dismissively, but no time to argue any points of fact -- maybe you've got nothing.<br /><br />Moving on's your best bet.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-1276492461541748232012-08-07T14:08:31.794-04:002012-08-07T14:08:31.794-04:00"Yeah, it's the standard bullsh!t of fals..."Yeah, it's the standard bullsh!t of false centrism."<br /><br />One man's bullsh!t....but an expected response on your part.<br /><br />Hasta luega....time to move on.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-3678827226959236072012-08-07T12:55:38.429-04:002012-08-07T12:55:38.429-04:00Yeah, it's the standard bullsh!t of false cent...Yeah, it's the standard bullsh!t of false centrism.<br /><br />As misdirection I guess it's worth something, since it doesn't actually say *anything* about Romney's plan.<br /><br />But you have to love a gem like this:<br /><br />"On average, the tax bite on the rich is bigger—except for those whose income mainly comes from capital gains and dividends."<br /><br />So if we leave out a source of income primarily benefiting the rich, the rich pay more in taxes. <br /><br />Thanks for that data, prof!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-52688150071270002042012-08-07T11:04:04.847-04:002012-08-07T11:04:04.847-04:00I'm sure that this source is biased, too:
htt...I'm sure that this source is biased, too:<br /><br />http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2012/08/wsj-taxing-the-.htmlAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-67635444528585457882012-08-06T12:31:29.656-04:002012-08-06T12:31:29.656-04:00tl;dr:
The Tax Policy Center used to be "obj...tl;dr:<br /><br />The Tax Policy Center used to be "objective third-party analysts." <br /><br />That lasted right up until until they told the truth about Mitt Romney's tax plan to steal from the poor and give to the rich. <br /><br />Now, of course, they're biased leftists.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-87855610558033943482012-08-06T12:18:50.437-04:002012-08-06T12:18:50.437-04:00Yikes!Yikes!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-78401761386538224612012-08-06T11:09:29.507-04:002012-08-06T11:09:29.507-04:00"The rich pay the most federal income tax bec..."The rich pay the most federal income tax because they collect the most income." - COLLECT? There are plenty of implications to be made in the careful selection of that word. Don't you mean 'earn'?"<br /><br />Nope. Most of the wealth of the rich was accrued as economic rent, which is best characterized as "stolen".liberalnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-89852478527486196412012-08-06T10:27:53.601-04:002012-08-06T10:27:53.601-04:00"they assume that any shortfall in taxes coll..."they assume that any shortfall in taxes collected would fall on the backs of the poor and middle class"<br /><br />WRONG again, David. <br /><br />We are seeing a pattern here -- I keep correcting you. Then you admit I'm right. Then you insert a new misstatement.<br /><br />The TPC did not "assume" what would happen in the event of what you call a "shortfall."<br /><br />Romney insists the plan will be revenue neutral, and he insists that the reductions in rates will be offset by elimination of other tax preferences.<br /><br />To do the offset, TPC assumed that all "shortfalls" as you term them, would be collected from the richest taxpayers first, not that they would come on the backs of the poor and middle class.<br /><br />That outcome isn't an "assumption" by TPC. It's just a reflection of the math:<br /><br />High income earners will have their taxes cut by far more than it is mathematically possible to offset by eliminating unspecified deductions that they have.<br /><br />Unless Romney is lying, his plan raises taxes on the poor and middle class to pay for cuts for the rich.<br /><br />It's arithmetic.<br /><br />But, of course, maybe Romney is a liar.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-34370865198137372622012-08-06T10:19:11.947-04:002012-08-06T10:19:11.947-04:00The person you refer to is Adam Looney -- he was a...The person you refer to is Adam Looney -- he was an economist on the staff of Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers, or CEA.<br /><br />Another co-author of the study is William Gale, who was an economist for CEA during the George H.W. Bush administration.<br /><br />That isn't the left!<br /><br />But you know that.<br /><br />Again, let's quote Romney on Tax Policy Center:<br /><br /> "Objective, Third party analysis"<br /><br />-- that is, as long as he likes what they're saying!!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-53856163365155606842012-08-06T09:40:46.780-04:002012-08-06T09:40:46.780-04:00You are correct, Anon. They did included one poss...You are correct, Anon. They did included one possible stimulative impact, which, in their opinion, was possibly generous. However, any number of other stimulative assumptions are possible. No doubt, with some of them, the stimulative impact would be enough to change their conclusion.<br /><br />However, they might well be right. Romney's proposed cuts are so large that they might well reduce the taxes collected. <br /><br />However TPC goes completely off the rails when they assume that any shortfall in taxes collected would fall on the backs of the poor and middle class. That's just something they made up. Romney never ever proposed that if his plan didn't produce enough tax revenue then some particular segment would make up the difference.David in Calnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-60913819569764616852012-08-06T09:39:37.231-04:002012-08-06T09:39:37.231-04:00One of the authors of that objective study worked ...One of the authors of that objective study worked in Pres. Obama's administration. It was co-authored by a member of the Obama White House, someone who was part of the White House economic team. That is the Left!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-72209331866240587732012-08-06T07:29:35.467-04:002012-08-06T07:29:35.467-04:00"says who? The Left, of course"
Well no..."says who? The Left, of course"<br /><br />Well no, it's the Tax Policy Center, not the left at all.<br /><br />They bent over backwards to make Romney's plan work, but it just doesn't add up.<br /><br />It's not the left you have a problem with -- it's arithmetic.<br /><br />"Objective, Third-Party Analysis" -- that's how the Romney campaign characterizes the Tax Policy Center -- as long as it's saying something Romney likes.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-54701059785365981232012-08-06T07:25:16.627-04:002012-08-06T07:25:16.627-04:00"I'm fairly sure TPC did a static analysi..."I'm fairly sure TPC did a static analysis."<br /><br />And, you're wrong about that one too, David.<br /><br />It's been one piece of misinformation after another from you on this.<br /><br />As Ezra Klein summarized it today: "mathematically impossible." <br /><br />That's the only available conclusion about Romney's "plan" -- and, if you will bother to read the August 1 paper, you will see that every possible (even unrealistic) attempt has been made to be friendly to the plan.<br /><br />Page 14 and 15 specifically address the (bogus) issue of stimulation versus static scoring.<br /><br />Stop making sh!t up and telling what you "think", okay?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-29435540277680747292012-08-05T23:39:41.246-04:002012-08-05T23:39:41.246-04:00Yes, I agree, Anon 1:28. I guess that's the st...Yes, I agree, Anon 1:28. I guess that's the study the New York Times and Bob Somerby were writing about. Yet, that result contradicts the point the TPC themselves made in the quote I linked. How can TPC do something that TPC themselves said couldn't be done?<br /><br />Furthermore, TPC's result depends on the assumptions used. I'm fairly sure TPC did a static analysis. That is, they assumed that the lower tax rates would not stimulate the economy. If one assumes that lower taxes will lead to a stronger economy, then I suspect TPC's 8/1/12 conclusion would not apply.David in Calnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-956125306692296262012-08-05T16:26:33.894-04:002012-08-05T16:26:33.894-04:00"To thinking people" means, "I'..."To thinking people" means, "I'm smarter than you" which tell us something about you. My fantasies are based on the Left's characterizations of the "selfish rich" and linking everyone's fate to them. The implication is evident by the Left's daily drumbeat of evil rich Republicans - not fantasy.<br /><br />"The rich pay the most federal income tax because they collect the most income." - COLLECT? There are plenty of implications to be made in the careful selection of that word. Don't you mean 'earn'? <br /><br />"What we also know is that in tandem with the decline in higher-income tax rates we have seen the rich take a larger share of national incomes." - there is not a finite pile of money in this country or the world for that matter; that pile grows and contracts. People move up and down along with that growth and contraction - income is not stagnant as people are not stagnant over a lifetime of earnings. I have friends who were in the bottom 20% of income earners thirty years ago - not now! They are in the top 10% today but were in the top 2% six years ago. <br /><br />"What we also know is that we have seen, since the 1970s, that while productivity has increased the profits gains from that productivity have gone *only* to the rich -- other income groups have seen no net after-inflation gain in income." - only if one were stuck in the same income group since the 70s, which is rare. Income is only part of the picture...wealth is another...as is what was characterized as poor in the 70s has changed with regard to household living conveniences.<br /><br />"If Romney isn't lying about his largely-unspecified plan, if it is indeed revenue-neutral, then the simple math of taxes means the large dollar-value of his proposed rate cuts at high income levels cannot be offset by elimination of other tax preferences at those levels." and "...If Romney will remain revenue neutral in his almost completely unspecified tax plan, he will HAVE to do it on the backs of the Low and Medium Income earners." - says who? The Left, of course!<br /><br />I could link to so many government programs that are replete with fraud, corruption, and down right indifference to the "use of other people's money" - the scary rich as you put it - but I see no purpose in doing so because the Left doesn't care; that's par for the course when one pines for other people's money. Of course there are monies that can be found to offset more tax cuts - to say that there is not outside of "...HAV[ing] to do it on the backs of the Low and Medium Income earners" is patently absurd!<br /><br />"That they pay the most federal tax doesn't even come close to demonstrating that they pay a 'fair' share." - that Leftist drivel says it all...the Left cannot define fair; any definition leaves them open for ridicule when more is not enough 4 years from now. The Left will eventually have to come after my small pile of money. <br /><br />The envy, resentment, and the general sense of despair among liberals in power is remarkable to say the least, but I suspect those are emotional contrivances designed to solicit votes. It's inexorable push to spread more despair, envy, and resentment among others only strengthens its hand of power over those aren't "thinking people".Mikenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-14728370514070330932012-08-05T13:48:16.687-04:002012-08-05T13:48:16.687-04:00The rich (scare quotes are not needed -- the rich ...The rich (scare quotes are not needed -- the rich do indeed exist -- they aren't a fantasy) pay the most federal income tax because they collect the most income.<br /><br />That they pay the most federal tax doesn't even come close to demonstrating that they pay a "fair" share.<br /><br />What we do know is that federal tax rates at the highest income levels are at historically low levels.<br /><br />What we also know is that in tandem with the decline in higher-income tax rates we have seen the rich take a larger share of national incomes.<br /><br />What we also know is that we have seen, since the 1970s, that while productivity has increased the profits gains from that productivity have gone *only* to the rich -- other income groups have seen no net after-inflation gain in income.<br /><br />"To assert that my economic life depends on what the rich pay or don't pay in taxes is absurd"<br /><br />And no one has said anything like that. It's your fantasy characterization.<br /><br />"the government is the sole arbiter of one's economic fate"<br /><br />Your fantasy characterization, again. Does little to address reality, but tells us something about you.<br /><br />Your calling the projections of TPC absurd also means nothing to thinking people. <br /><br />It is exactly as was said by Anon at 2:33 August 4:<br /><br />If Romney isn't lying about his largely-unspecified plan, if it is indeed revenue-neutral, then the simple math of taxes means the large dollar-value of his proposed rate cuts at high income levels cannot be offset by elimination of other tax preferences at those levels.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-16360208871965043172012-08-05T13:28:51.072-04:002012-08-05T13:28:51.072-04:00No, David.
There is a specific study (Not what yo...No, David.<br /><br />There is a specific study (Not what you linked to, of course) that addresses distributional effects. <br /><br />Anyone who cares to find it will see it is the latest thing (as of Aug. 1, 2012) at their site.<br /><br />So: <br /><br />"Our major conclusion is that any revenue-neutral individual income tax change that incorporates the features Governor Romney has proposed would provide large tax cuts to high-income households, and increase the tax burdens on middle- and/or lower-income taxpayers."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-20128967970936972152012-08-05T13:10:22.432-04:002012-08-05T13:10:22.432-04:00The "rich" would have more of their mone...The "rich" would have more of their money returned to them under Romeny's plan because they pay most of the federal income tax - it's that simple. The notion that the rich don't pay their share is silly, especially without defining what a fair share means. <br /><br />Equally as silly is the assertion that the average federal income taxpayer - which by the way eliminates almost 50% of all income earners - will pay almost $600 more in federal taxes; of course, in every election, liberals make the same argument that somehow 95% of Americans will have to subsidize the ill-gotten gains of the rich.<br /><br />During the Bush administration, I was told by the left that I would pay more in taxes to subsidized the cuts in taxes for the rich under its fiscal policies - what garbage! I benefited greatly by those tax policies. Before having children, we saved and lived within our means. While my wife stayed at home for the first four years of our twin children's lives, I went to work teaching in a public school as I have for the last 20 years. We did not pay one cent of federal income taxes during those four years and, in fact, we received between $1200 and $2200 in a so-called "refund" each of those years subsidized by my neighbors! My wife eventually went back to work; last year, we wrote a check for $1300 to the federal government. We will continue to pay federal income taxes each year regardless of what the rich earn or don't earn. To assert that my economic life depends on what the rich pay or don't pay in taxes is absurd.<br /><br />While it might be true for some that their economic lives depend on the largess(e) of the federal government, it does not for most Americans - not yet. If the Left reelects President Obama, more Americans will have gambled on the idea that the government is the sole arbiter of one's economic fate - those Americans, over time, will not be disappointed.Mikenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-81531726330652374462012-08-04T19:47:52.512-04:002012-08-04T19:47:52.512-04:00Donald,
Thanks for that response. I think it wou...Donald,<br /><br />Thanks for that response. I think it would be worthwhile for Bob to try, in a standalone post, to express his thesis for why the Times is the way it is.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-15049947673636072692012-08-04T16:45:24.805-04:002012-08-04T16:45:24.805-04:00Maybe Romney's assumptions were different from...Maybe Romney's assumptions were different from the Tax Policy Center's. E.g., Romney may have assumed that the lower tax rates would have a stimulative effect -- an assumption that TPC didn't make.<br /><br />BTW the Tax Policy Center themselves admitted:<br /><a href="http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxtopics/Romney-plan.cfm" rel="nofollow"><b>Because Gov. Romney has not specified how he would increase the tax base, it is impossible to determine how the plan would affect federal tax revenues or the distribution of the tax burden.</b></a><br /><br />That's the very point I made in my earlier post.<br /><br />Note how tricky the TPC was. On the one hand, TPC admits that it's impossible to determine the distribution of the tax burden. OTOH they more or less claim that Romney's plan will add exactly $546 to the tax burden of the middle and low income filers. That's amazing precision for a calculation that they admit is impossible to do.David in Calnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-59387038087578396792012-08-04T14:37:08.835-04:002012-08-04T14:37:08.835-04:00In terms of the policy outcome, yours is a distinc...In terms of the policy outcome, yours is a distinction without a material difference, but your mathematical pedantry is appreciated...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-76135692558247533152012-08-04T14:33:25.543-04:002012-08-04T14:33:25.543-04:00"Since he hasn't specified which deductio..."Since he hasn't specified which deductions he would eliminate, there's no way to compute how that would affect high or low or medium earners."<br /><br />WRONG, again, as usual.<br /><br />The simple arithmetical value of all the deductions, exemptions, and "tax expenses" available to be cut at High, Low, and Medium level earners tell us that there is no way to make the offset come in the High income category. <br /><br />High income earners will have their taxes cut by far more than it is mathematically possible to offset by eliminating unspecified deductions that they have.<br /><br />If Romney will remain revenue neutral in his almost completely unspecified tax plan, he will HAVE to do it on the backs of the Low and Medium Income earners.<br /><br />It's just math, David. You're an actuary, you can handle it.<br /><br />Romney's plan most definitely is to take from the poor and give to the rich. <br /><br />There is no approach that adds up that gives any other result.<br /><br />Maybe Romney's just lying however -- that should certainly be at least considered.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-45855808144137467862012-08-04T13:15:40.164-04:002012-08-04T13:15:40.164-04:00I'm not sure if one could summarize it adequat...I'm not sure if one could summarize it adequately in a paragraph. It would have to be done by someone smarter than me and I've wondered about this for literally decades. <br /><br /> I think the majority of people at the NYT and some others in the MSM are of course Democrats, but they are out of touch with ordinary people. They're often neo-liberal like Tom Friedman, who was the chief acolyte in the 90's of the omniscience and wisdom of the financial markets. They are liberal on social issues like abortion and gay rights, but on economic issues they don't like unions and they are very quick to support free trade because in the textbooks the total benefits outweigh the costs and the losers can (in theory) be taken care of with retraining and assistance which (almost as though by an invisible hand) never materializes. <br /><br />Well after the predictable collapse in 2008, some of the NYT people have come to realize that neoliberalism was wrong, or at least some of them have, but the culture of the NYT has been taken over by the snarkmasters like Maureen Dowd and Gail Collins, and there are still worshippers at the cult of the Centrism like Bill Keller and Matt Bai. These people are just too shallow or stupid or superficial to change. <br /><br />I don't know that the above really explains it that well, but I think there's some truth to it. A deeper explanation would involve who pays the bills. But granting that, I'm still curious about why the individuals at the paper behave the way Bob describes and the above is the best I've come up with.<br /><br />DonaldAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-56175731246420431692012-08-04T13:03:13.983-04:002012-08-04T13:03:13.983-04:00So what? Elect him and find out?So what? Elect him and find out?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com