I actually found it, I thought it might be in the thread we’re she acted like an ass towards myskepticsight.
No reason why you should remember it, I was just trying to clear it up and obviously fumbled.
Jim
Well,this thing pretty much exploded. It’ll take me days to catch up.
No, it wasn’t a stupid claim, bullshit, or dishonest. High marginal tax rates cause people to work less, seek to earn money on the black market, or even emigrate, to avoid said taxes.
cite Warning:PDF
I think the motivation for the top %1 for continuing to work is more than just money (although it’s part of it). Bill Gates continued on as CEO long after he had enough to retire for life.
The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics. What a find! Now if we only had a Concise Encyclopedia of Business Management and Investment Banking, we could have the entire White Studies Program in a two-volume set!
And the information! Let me share with you but a nugget from the gold mine of knowledge.
WTF? The rich get richer? (Gasp!)
And I didn’t hear a word about it! Revolutionary fervor sweeping like a firestorm across the globe, a new paradigm bursts into history: the rich get richer. The World Turned Upside Down, to be sure. I bet the Hamptons and Aspen were simply ablaze with catered insurrections.
The rich get richer. Gonna take a while to absorb this.
Of course people like to avoid taxes. No shit, Sherlock.
But I have yet to meet a person who calculates IRS withholdings before deciding whether to work a few more hours at the office or to go home and see the kids. If you seriously believe that workers make that calculation, then both you and the grad student you quoted are supremely full of crap.
Seriously, Carol, have you been working more hours because of the 2001 tax cuts? Did you start working less after GHWB raised taxes in 1990?
On a macroeconomice level, that’s exactly what happens.
That was supposed to be this one
Cold Stream – A town in Illinois? I have gotten so good at guessing.
Someone owes me ten bucks for this one.
From the style of writing, I would guess Carol is a male. And I can’t take anything she claims seriously.
Does anybody have anything to counter Carol’s argument? Or is this just one of those mindless pile-ons where people hold the object at bay so the great quippers of our board can each get in his (or her) shin kick?
Yeah, I was wondering that. Much as I have no time whatsoever for most of Carol’s opinions, the notion that a 90% marginal tax rate might discourage work (or encourage evasion to ridiculous levels) seems so utterly self-evident that the scorn being heaped on it really demands a bit of justification. FFS, here in the UK back in the days of 90% marginal rates you had businessmen leasing their suits from their companies, to avoid buying them with taxed money. Such businessmen as were crazy enough to stay in the country, that is.
90% of a lot of money is a lot of money. Why on earth would we assume that people won’t work as hard to keep it as they did to earn it?
You got anything to support it? Or is this just whining on general principle for you? You don’t see me arguing with flat earthers either, all they deserve and hence all they get is scorn. Kind of like you, ya goofball.
What, like the cites Carol provided? Those ones? Jesus. I’m quite astounded to see a debate in which Carol Stream is the one stumping up references, while everyone else is just carping and taking potshots at her gender.
The contention that high tax rates discourage earning (at least in ways detectable by the tax authorities) is hardly on a par with claiming the Earth is flat; after all, our entire economy is based on the idea of money as a proxy incentive; if you are now contending that less money is just as motivating as more, then it is you who are making the extraordinary claim. If you lot are content to cite outliers like Bill Gates, and scoff at the fact that Carol’s references are written by (gasp!) tax economists, then fine; but you’re not exactly heaping yourselves in glory here. Only Ravenman has even attempted a rebuttal, and even he’s just gone for a pointlessly narrow view of a macroeconomic question. Oh, I guess there was the example of Bill Gates, as outliery an outlier as has ever lain outside; what difference does it make what a man with effectively infinite money does? He can hardly be called the common case. Other than that? Sod all. It’s quite eye-opening, really.
Let’s be serious here: Carol Stream is knocking down a strawman that she constructed. Go back about two pages and read how Carol took a misstatement by Tomndebb about what constitutes “high tax rates” and converged it into a criticism of BG not giving up 91% of his income to the government.
Compounding the silliness of it all, I don’t believe there’s anyone here talking about 91% being a reasonable tax rate. First Carol had to be corrected that there never was a time in the US when anyone paid nine-tenths of his income in taxes. Then we had to explain what “marginal tax rates” were. Finally, I believe everyone criticizing her has either implied or outright stated that nobody here is proposing a move toward confiscatory taxes.
So my take is that Carol is doing a bully job of saying what we have stipulated: exorbitant tax rates lead to evasion, but at the same time, she is really trying to argue that ANY progressive tax system must be a bad thing because it discourages work in a “macroeconomic sense.” (I think there’s some terminology problems there, but whatever.) To show this point, she’s pulling out cites comparing African and European countries to the United States.
But that’s just a waste of time. The idea that tax structures in the Third World shed any light on what the appropriate tax structure is for the United States is laughable, and go screw yourself if you need a cite for something so patently obvious.
The cite concerning marginal tax rates WRT to Europe and the US – as in, somebody’s master’s thesis posted on a website – I think suffers from one crippling flaw: the data used is quite obviously irrelevant. It compares man-hours of labor per year to average marginal tax rates. Why the hell would average tax rates matter one whit? People don’t make economic decisions based on tax rates, they make decisions based on tax burdens. So while that study says the average tax rate in the US in 1993 was 40%, the actual average tax burden in the US at that time was approximately 22%. Cite. If a masters student can’t even grasp that simple bit of logic, I think it is safe to pass on taking the rest of the paper too seriously.
To be clear, here’s what I’m saying: exorbitant tax rates promote evasion, but I’m not inclined to say they have any impact on hours worked (since people may work more hours for under-the-table pay). When I talk about progressive taxes, I refer to the top income tax rates as being those that we have had in, say, the past twenty years (about 37% to 50%, and I’d say 50% is on the very high end). While increased taxation takes money out of the economy, the impact is roughly on order of decreasing government spending by similar amounts. Tax cuts are roughly as stimulative as increased spending, so the determination of which is to be preferred is probably more of a political and social question. And finally, I don’t believe the vast majority of workers don’t manage their lives based around how much is taken out of their paycheck within reasonable limits I described above: but those with very high disposable incomes have more options to try to break the law and evade taxation.
Why would we assume that tax evasion results from “confiscatory” tax rates? Isn’t the simpler assumption that people will evade taxes if they can?
There’s many reasons why people avoid taxes, but there does appear to be a link between high rates and low compliance:
Cite.
There’s of course other factors like the audit rate, satisfaction with the way government spends money, etc.
Cite 2.
Even John Kennedy understood this. Marginal tax rates were more than 90% when he took office, and he proposed a series of reductions that eventually lowered it to 70%. He reasoned:
Our true choice is not between tax reduction, on the one hand, and the avoidance of large Federal deficits on the other. It is increasingly clear that no matter what party is in power, so long as our national security needs keep rising, an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits. Surely the lesson of the last decade is that budget deficits are not caused by wild-eyed spenders but by slow economic growth and periodic recessions and any new recession would break all deficit records. In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now.Economic Club of New York, December 14, 1962 speech
I think Cecil should slap people who use his board the way you do with a big ol’ Ignorance Stick. To help you fend off his wrath, here is a helpful introduction, complete with pictures, explaining the effects of marginal tax rates.
The Heritage Foundation? Well, that should surely banish all doubt, given their strictly non-partisan view, and all. Though I must admit, I have heard rumors to the effect that they lean just the* teensiest * bit rightish.
Hmmm, Heritage Foundation?..hahahahahahahahahahahahahahah! You should go into stand up comedy, Lib. Because as an advocate for gods love and smaller government, you really suck.