Are the rich really the engine of the economy? Surprising datas from a new study.

[ShcShc11 0]

Mr. Romney proposes to have tax cuts for the rich because it would be good for the economy

I have nothing against the rich.
I don't really care much about the constant rhetorics happening around them.


But there was an interesting article on how much the rich actually contribute to the real economy.

http://emlab.berkeley.edu/~saez/saez-slemrod-giertzJEL12.pdf


'[...] the measure of such changes’ supply-side effects is the sensitivity of reported income to marginal rates. If people work and invest more in response to tax cuts, their reported income will rise when marginal rates fall. True supply-siders believe that this sensitivity is well over a value of 1, implying that cuts in marginal rates raise reported income enough that government tax revenues nevertheless rise. Several natural-experiment studies concluded that the best available estimates of this sensitivity range from 0.12 to 0.40. The midpoint of the range, 0.25, implies that if the marginal tax rate for high earners decreased from its current level of 35 percent to 28 percent , reported income would rise by just 2 1/2 percent"



In a few decades, we'l end up seeing this whole rich worshipping ("the engine of economy") the same way we see Communism today.

"how could we have been so dumb in spite of all the datas??"



Cheers! Shc

[funjumper101 15]

Quote

Mr. Romney proposes to have tax cuts for the rich because it would be good for the economy

I have nothing against the rich.
I don't really care much about the constant rhetorics happening around them.


But there was an interesting article on how much the rich actually contribute to the real economy.

http://emlab.berkeley.edu/~saez/saez-slemrod-giertzJEL12.pdf


'[...] the measure of such changes’ supply-side effects is the sensitivity of reported income to marginal rates. If people work and invest more in response to tax cuts, their reported income will rise when marginal rates fall. True supply-siders believe that this sensitivity is well over a value of 1, implying that cuts in marginal rates raise reported income enough that government tax revenues nevertheless rise. Several natural-experiment studies concluded that the best available estimates of this sensitivity range from 0.12 to 0.40. The midpoint of the range, 0.25, implies that if the marginal tax rate for high earners decreased from its current level of 35 percent to 28 percent , reported income would rise by just 2 1/2 percent"



In a few decades, we'l end up seeing this whole rich worshipping ("the engine of economy") the same way we see Communism today.

"how could we have been so dumb in spite of all the datas??"



Cheers! Shc

Posting factual information that conflicts with the belief systems of the dumb fucks that are Right Wing Conservatives is a waste of time. There is no amount of factual information that will cause any change in their belief structure.
This mental illness is much like the so called "christians" who quote the bible in support of their beliefs. They pick and choose little bits from here and there to support their previously established beliefs, while ignoring the the bits that are 100% the opposite of what their beliefs are. When the obvious stuff is pointed out, like the rules for handling slaves, and the sale of female children, they always say "We don't believe in or use those parts of the bible any more". Funny how that works, isn't it. It totally exposes the lies upon which the belief system is built.

[winsor 186]

Quote

Quote

Mr. Romney proposes to have tax cuts for the rich because it would be good for the economy

I have nothing against the rich.
I don't really care much about the constant rhetorics happening around them.


But there was an interesting article on how much the rich actually contribute to the real economy.

http://emlab.berkeley.edu/~saez/saez-slemrod-giertzJEL12.pdf


'[...] the measure of such changes’ supply-side effects is the sensitivity of reported income to marginal rates. If people work and invest more in response to tax cuts, their reported income will rise when marginal rates fall. True supply-siders believe that this sensitivity is well over a value of 1, implying that cuts in marginal rates raise reported income enough that government tax revenues nevertheless rise. Several natural-experiment studies concluded that the best available estimates of this sensitivity range from 0.12 to 0.40. The midpoint of the range, 0.25, implies that if the marginal tax rate for high earners decreased from its current level of 35 percent to 28 percent , reported income would rise by just 2 1/2 percent"



In a few decades, we'l end up seeing this whole rich worshipping ("the engine of economy") the same way we see Communism today.

"how could we have been so dumb in spite of all the datas??"



Cheers! Shc

Posting factual information that conflicts with the belief systems of the dumb fucks that are Right Wing Conservatives is a waste of time. There is no amount of factual information that will cause any change in their belief structure.
This mental illness is much like the so called "christians" who quote the bible in support of their beliefs. They pick and choose little bits from here and there to support their previously established beliefs, while ignoring the the bits that are 100% the opposite of what their beliefs are. When the obvious stuff is pointed out, like the rules for handling slaves, and the sale of female children, they always say "We don't believe in or use those parts of the bible any more". Funny how that works, isn't it. It totally exposes the lies upon which the belief system is built.

Okay, so you are a wellspring of vitriol.

Do you actually have any suggestions?

BTW, "datum" is the singular of "data." Using the word "datas" is indicative of semi-literacy.

[ShcShc11 0]

Quote

Do you actually have any suggestions?

Yes absolutely. See my previous posts.
Tax cuts for the rich can work in the case of 1970s stagflation but not in the case of lack-of-demand (the zero-bound economy) like the 1930s and 2008s depressions.

Quote

BTW, "datum" is the singular of "data." Using the word "datas" is indicative of semi-literacy.

The general rule is to criticize the grammar when there's nothing to criticize on the numbers LOL

"Datas" is indicative of knowing more than one language


Cheers'! Shc

[DiverMike 5]

I read the article and it is the most fact based, well written and researched article I have ever read on DZ.COM.

IMHO, misusing 'datas' or putting two question marks at the end of a question does not negate the message in the article.

I agree, someday hero worshipping the rich will no longer be popular.

For the same reason I jump off a perfectly good diving board.

[airdvr 197]

I didn't read the .pdf. it's from Berkley, I know where it's coming from.

99 weeks of unemployment

3.6 million new people taking disability payments since 2009

Obama's tax raises 58 billion annually..enough to run the government for 8.5 days.

There's statistics for ya.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[billvon 2,396]

>"how could we have been so dumb in spite of all the datas??"

Simple -

"I didn't read it. It's from a place I disagree with."

[airdvr 197]

Quote

>"how could we have been so dumb in spite of all the datas??"

Simple -

"I didn't read it. It's from a place I disagree with."

I didn't read Mein Kampf, most of the Bible, and Jim Jones' Kool Aid cookbook either. The OP assumes the statistics must tell the truth. I know better.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[Fast 0]

Quote

Quote

>"how could we have been so dumb in spite of all the datas??"

Simple -

"I didn't read it. It's from a place I disagree with."

I didn't read Mein Kampf, most of the Bible, and Jim Jones' Kool Aid cookbook either. The OP assumes the statistics must tell the truth. I know better.

This is one of the biggest problems in our society. It also occurs on both sides of whatever fence you're fighting about. People, in general, have moved themselves to a position in which they no longer care about logical reasoning.

The end result of this is going to be a catastrophic failure of what we consider to be "normal every day society" because in the long run, things can only get worse based on current mindsets. The only positive side for most of us is that we wont live to see it, so who cares. I mean, that's the way to look at it right?

~D
Where troubles melt like lemon drops Away above the chimney tops That's where you'll find me.
Swooping is taking one last poke at the bear before escaping it's cave - davelepka

[airdvr 197]

Quote

Quote

Quote

>"how could we have been so dumb in spite of all the datas??"

Simple -

"I didn't read it. It's from a place I disagree with."

I didn't read Mein Kampf, most of the Bible, and Jim Jones' Kool Aid cookbook either. The OP assumes the statistics must tell the truth. I know better.

This is one of the biggest problems in our society. It also occurs on both sides of whatever fence you're fighting about. People, in general, have moved themselves to a position in which they no longer care about logical reasoning.

The end result of this is going to be a catastrophic failure of what we consider to be "normal every day society" because in the long run, things can only get worse based on current mindsets. The only positive side for most of us is that we wont live to see it, so who cares. I mean, that's the way to look at it right?

I disagree. I consider myself a conservative, but I'm pro-choice, against capital punishment, and I don't have a make believe friend in the sky.

I know that until the late 1700's we lived in the stone age. What changed? A country was formed that allowed people the freedom to do what they wanted. Freedom to be successful or a failure. Look at the advances in the last 200 years. Now all of a sudden that mindset is wrong.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[Remster 24]

Quote

I know that until the late 1700's we lived in the stone age.

Yeah. It's not like there was a renaissance or something called like that...

Remster

[airdvr 197]

Quote

Quote

I know that until the late 1700's we lived in the stone age.

Yeah. It's not like there was a renaissance or something called like that...

Relative to where we are today...

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[Remster 24]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I know that until the late 1700's we lived in the stone age.

Yeah. It's not like there was a renaissance or something called like that...

Relative to where we are today...

No. We lived in the stone age relative to today a whole 20,000 years before the 18th century. And if you want to see the start of the industrial revolution as the great leap forward, look at England, not the US as it's great initiator (and hint: it started in the same 17,000's you refered to). You need to get a better sense or relativism.

Remster

[airdvr 197]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

I know that until the late 1700's we lived in the stone age.

Yeah. It's not like there was a renaissance or something called like that...

Relative to where we are today...

No. We lived in the stone age relative to today a whole 20,000 years before the 18th century. And if you want to see the start of the industrial revolution as the great leap forward, look at England, not the US as it's great initiator (and hint: it started in the same 17,000's you refered to). You need to get a better sense or relativism.

So you don't care to address the idea put forth, you'd rather split hairs over the timeline.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[Remster 24]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

I know that until the late 1700's we lived in the stone age.

Yeah. It's not like there was a renaissance or something called like that...

Relative to where we are today...

No. We lived in the stone age relative to today a whole 20,000 years before the 18th century. And if you want to see the start of the industrial revolution as the great leap forward, look at England, not the US as it's great initiator (and hint: it started in the same 17,000's you refered to). You need to get a better sense or relativism.

So you don't care to address the idea put forth,

At least I read the link! lol

Remster

[jclalor 12]

Quote

Obama's tax raises 58 billion annually..enough to run the government for 8.5 days.

There's statistics for ya.

[airdvr 197]

Quote

Quote

Obama's tax raises 58 billion annually..enough to run the government for 8.5 days.

There's statistics for ya.

You do realize that taxes under Obama are the lowest in 60 years? That the vast majority are paying less in taxes now than under bush ?

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

>"how could we have been so dumb in spite of all the datas??"

Simple -

"I didn't read it. It's from a place I disagree with."

I didn't read Mein Kampf, most of the Bible, and Jim Jones' Kool Aid cookbook either. The OP assumes the statistics must tell the truth. I know better.

Ignorance and hiding from any potential new data is always a good approach to take. Anti Intellectualism is a significant causal factor to our current state of being in the US.

BTW, do you know that Berkeley has always been responsible for our nuclear weapons development and management and thus the victory in the Cold War?

[jclalor 12]

Quote

Quote

Quote

***Obama's tax raises 58 billion annually..enough to run the government for 8.5 days.

There's statistics for ya.

You do realize that taxes under Obama are the lowest in 60 years? That the vast majority are paying less in taxes now than under bush ?

So, let me get this right. You think it'd be the right thing to raise taxes?

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

and then work on the other 2%.

How much money do you think that's going to bring in? Do you really think it will address the huge deficit?

We are all engines of karma

[airdvr 197]

In it's current form $58 billion. Enough to run the country for 8.5 days. Shooting b b's at a tank.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

Shooting b b's at a tank.

Exactly, yet Liberals continue to harp on it like it's going to actually accomplish something. Their math skills don't impress me.

We are all engines of karma

[Bertt 0]

Actually, hero worshiping the rich fell out of favor in the period around 1900 - 1910 (give or take a few years) when several regulations and reforms were put in place to check the power of those who could simply go out and buy votes. There is an element today that would like to turn the clock back about a hundred years, but that might be a little off topic for this discussion, since the point of argument here seems to be centered around the differences between the stone age and the bronze age.

You don't have to outrun the bear.

[billvon 2,396]

>I didn't read Mein Kampf, most of the Bible, and Jim Jones' Kool Aid cookbook either.

OK. Do you think that someone who has not read most of the Bible is more or less qualified to speak about it, compared to someone who has read the entire thing?

[billvon 2,396]

>So, let me get this right. You think it'd be the right thing to raise taxes?

Until we pay our debts, yes. Then lower them.

Otherwise we will continue our free ride indefinitely.