An Economics Lesson for Democrats

[Mason Malmuth]

[ QUOTE ]
If you look around there is not a single politician who has ever run on a platform of higher taxes!

[/ QUOTE ]

George Washington. I'll let others elaborate.

MM

[El Barto]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you look around there is not a single politician who has ever run on a platform of higher taxes!

[/ QUOTE ]

George Washington. I'll let others elaborate.

MM

[/ QUOTE ]

and what of Mondale in 1984?

[andyfox]

I stand by my word "looted." Since 1983, the government has spent almost $5.4 trillion more than it took in. But the debt grew by "only" $3.6 trillion because of excess Social Security taxes. The rise in Social Security taxes has finances income tax cuts.

I hope the president addresses the Social Security tax travesty when he turns to tax simplification. Economists of all stripes ageee that the Social Security tax payed by the employer (which is also 6.2% up to $87,000) is really paid by workers, that it is simply an invisible part of their compensation. Thus a married couple who together earns $87,000 pays $10,788 in Social Security taxes, which is the same amount as a married couple who together earn $1,087,0000 or $100,087,000.

[Cyrus]

Mason,

Thanks for the pointer. Quite educational.

I truly did not know George Washington had actually promised that, if elected, he'd raise taxes! Not what he did, but what he promised. (I wrote "If you look around there is not a single politician who has ever run on a platform of higher taxes!" Platform indicates promise, not action.)

And I was thinking in terms of rather more ..recent politics but ol' Washington will do. So, I would very much appreciate those "others" that Mason keeps inviting "to elaborate" giving us any citation with such a George Washington tax-raising promise to the voters.

Anyone?

--Cyrus

[sillyarms]

[ QUOTE ]
I'll let others elaborate

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not trying to put you down but, this line was kinda funny the first couple of times I saw it. Now it's getting old. Sklansky uses a similar phrase. "Do you see why?". I can see no good reason to make me do needless reasearch when you could just as easily tell me in more clear terms. Is it because you don't want to say why and be wrong? If you do have a good reason for using this phrase please tell me what it is I would like to know.

silly

[Smasharoo]

Just a short comment on your classical equilibrium theory statement. This is pretty much supply side economics so if you simoly were bandying about fancy terms you should know that I agree with Say's Law.


Sure, why not, it allows a crackpot theory to have some sort of classical foundation. Let's just ignore the fact that it doesn't, hasn't and will never work in any non striclty barter based economy.

Say's law doesn't apply to any economy with currency because the efficent nature of transactions required for it to apply do not exist.

It would appear that you are an advoacate of lassiez-faire economics. If you are, saying you believe in "say's law" displays either confusion or ignrance on your part. The focus of modern lassiez-faire theoriticians is the focus on freeing markets of barriers to full employment, like minnium wage.

I don't mean to be judgemental, but advocating lassiez-faire economic policy and using say's law as a reason simply makes you appear desperate to have some sort of classical refrence without realizing it doesn't apply and calls your credibility into serious question.

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Silly:

[ QUOTE ]
Sklansky uses a similar phrase. "Do you see why?".

[/ QUOTE ]

That's because he works for me and is just trying to please the boss.

Best wishes,
Mason

[arabie]

"I clearly referred to tactics. While, as you know, strategy is the sum of tactics. (It's more than that, actually.) One tactic possibly employed by the BPITW (Best Player In The World) in NL HE would be to go all-in in every hand. This would be a constant tactic alright, "one and the same tactic", as I clearly wrote. The sum of BPITW's tactics (that single tactic, actually) would then constitute his strategy. I submit that such a strategy would be obviously and seriously inferior for the BPITW's expectation -- even when he'd be facing average players. I further submit that the BPITW would fare better if he would adopt a different strategy, one which would entail more than one tactics."

Fair enough, but now i challenge you to relate this to America and your prior comments about GWB. I think you'll have a hard time proving a case, needing to justify the hyperbole you stated earlier. On the other hand, it is my opinon that the US has many tactics, some of which are correct and strong, and some of which are simply not. This can often add up to total a weak strategy, but i doubt this is what you were refering to.

[brianmarc]

Stop trying to be so pretentious-you can't even spell "empirical"!

[Jimbo]

[ QUOTE ]
Thus a married couple who together earns $87,000 pays $10,788 in Social Security taxes, which is the same amount as a married couple who together earn $1,087,0000 or $100,087,000.


[/ QUOTE ]

Wheras you see this as unfair I see it as quite reasonable. I don't buy the Socialist platform Andy and neither should you. At full retirement age both your hypothetical couples will receive the same social security checks. However the wealthy couple will likely have additional income and be forced to pay more income tax on up to 50% of their social security income. They will get much less net from thier SS income, this should please you.

[ QUOTE ]
I stand by my word "looted." Since 1983, the government has spent almost $5.4 trillion more than it took in. But the debt grew by "only" $3.6 trillion because of excess Social Security taxes. The rise in Social Security taxes has finances income tax cuts.


[/ QUOTE ]

Then you lose credibility by doing so Andy. The debt you (and politicians) are quoting is simply external debt which does not include the debt the government owes to itself. That does not mean the internal debt does not exist since by law it is required to be repaid. Andy please do not stoop to low liberal political trick language in an attempt to scare people into believing something that isn't true.

Jimbo