Let's talk about supply side economics

[Voyager]

@puddleglum

The point of government policy should not be to maximize government revenue but to maximize the size of the overall economy. In order to increase revenue via tax cut the deadweight loss of the taxes have to be a multiple of the size of the tax cut. This is unlikely to be the case for most tax cuts but that does not mean that the deadweight losses have not occurred. Whether the slope is positive or negative, damage to the economy is still occuring.

Be that as it may, the argument for the Laffer Curve was that cutting taxes would not decrease tax revenue, thus forcing cuts, but increase it. Do you agree that this is not really the case?
As for the impact of tax increases and increased government spending, it depends on how this money is spent. If it is invested in ways which will improve productivity - such as the interstate highways system - it will grow the economy. There are many ways tax money can be spent that won’t.

The income share is not determined by the political process but by market process. Tax rates are determined by the political process. What the OP said was that income inequality was leading to a system where the rich hijack the political process to give themselves lower rates and give the tax burden to other people. The actual facts show that the tax rates have gone up for the richest, and down for the poorest. Thus the assertion of the OP is completely groundless.

Tax rates did indeed go up for the rich due to the election of a president most of the rich hate, and despite massive spending by the rich to stop him. Which unfortunately is working. We know what happened to their tax rate when their guy was in.
In any case, the pay of the 1% has little to do with market forces, since they have the power to rig the compensation committees of their companies. And while finally stockholders get a vote about their pay, they are not obligated to listen to it. Will they get fired if they screw up badly enough? Sometimes. But they get fired with more money than most of us will see in our lifetimes.

[BrainGlutton]

@puddleglum

The point of government policy should not be to maximize government revenue but to maximize the size of the overall economy.

That is not always a good idea either. Not if maximizing GDP by any means necessary, regardless of environmental or social costs, is the policy. Especially not if only the rich get richer by it, which appears to be the case in the present recovery. The goal , rather, should be to maximize the country’s ranking on the Index of Sustainable Economic Welfare or the Genuine Progress Indicator. And, to the degree compatible with that, to minimize the Gini coefficient.

[ITR_champion]

[QUOTE=John_Stamos’_Left_Ear]
So let’s talk about supply side economics. Is it as big if a failure as it seems? If it is (or even if whatever benefits it may cause the economy are outweighed by negatives) why are the Republicans still listening to the beating drum by an increasingly smaller number of economists that it works? And what can the Democrats do to counter this?
[/QUOTE]

Funny thing is, if look at which states are gaining people and which are losing people, it seems that people are fleeing from high-tax, high-regulation states like Illinois and Connecticut and heading towards low-tax, low-regulation states like Texas, Florida, and Nevada. It’s almost as if people like being allowed to keep more of their own money and being allowed to choose what to do with it.

[Trinopus]

But look at personal income levels in those states. High disparities, and very low increases over time. Those states have fragile economies, hugely subsidized. They aren’t sustainable.

[John_Stamos_Left_Ear]

@ITR_champion

Funny thing is, if look at which states are gaining people and which are losing people, it seems that people are fleeing from high-tax, high-regulation states like Illinois and Connecticut and heading towards low-tax, low-regulation states like Texas, Florida, and Nevada. It’s almost as if people like being allowed to keep more of their own money and being allowed to choose what to do with it.

You have a cite for this? Because I have a cite that it isn’t happening in Minnesota which is odd because all those wealthy people and businesses wouldn’t have far to go to be in Scott walker’s supply side paradise:

Over the past several years, Minnesota has become a testing ground for a litany of policies Democrats hope to enact nationally: legalizing same-sex marriage, making it easier to vote, boosting primary education spending, instituting all-day kindergarten, expanding unionization, freezing college tuition, increasing the minimum wage, and passing new laws requiring equal pay for women. To pay for it all, Dayton pushed a sharp increase on taxes for the top 2 percent—one of the largest hikes in state history. Republicans went berserk, warning that businesses would flee the state and take jobs with them.

The disaster Dayton’s GOP rivals predicted never happened. Two years after the tax hike, Minnesota’s economy is booming. The state added 172,000 jobs during Dayton’s first four years in office. Its 3.6 percent unemployment rate is among the lowest in the country (Wisconsin’s is 5.2 percent), and the Twin Cities have the lowest unemployment rate of any major metropolitan area. Under Dayton, Minnesota has consistently been in the top tier of states for GDP growth. Median incomes are $8,000 higher than the national average. In 2014, Minnesota led the nation in economic confidence, according to Gallup.

Mother Jones

These states are very similar in many ways but Minnesota didn’t lose much business, if any, even to the neighboring state with the supply side firmly entrenched.

[John_Stamos_Left_Ear]

And studies show that despite some states’ willingness to race to the bottom, it has little effect. NPR in 2011 reported:

…two new studies show there is little evidence that the rich flee high-tax states.

“Taxes [have] essentially no impact on causing people to leave a state,” says Jeff Thompson, of the Political Economy Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

In a study tracking 18 years of migration between states in New England, Thompson found that people mostly move for job-related reasons. They go where the jobs are, regardless of whether it’s low-tax New Hampshire or higher-tax Maine.

In 2004, New Jersey increased taxes on income over $500,000 by 2.6 percent. And what happened?

“The vast, vast majority just don’t respond to the tax. They stay put,” says sociologist Charles Varner of Princeton University.

Varner compared people who were just under the line for the new tax — who made, say, $400,000 a year — with those who suddenly had to pay more taxes.

According to Varner’s study, both groups moved away from New Jersey at the same rates.

“The effect on migration is minimal,” he says.

from the New York Times in 2013:

Cristobal Young, an assistant professor of sociology at Stanford, studied the effects of recent tax increases in New Jersey and California.

“It’s very clear that, over all, modest changes in top tax rates do not affect millionaire migration,” he told me this week. “Neither tax increases nor tax cuts on the rich have affected their migration rates.”

The notion of tax flight “is almost entirely bogus — it’s a myth,” said Jon Shure, director of state fiscal studies at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a nonprofit research group in Washington. “The anecdotal coverage makes it seem like people are leaving in droves because of high taxes. They’re not. There are a lot of low-tax states, and you don’t see millionaires flocking there.”

“People who are very rich, who are retired or who aren’t tied to a particular location, do change their residency at a high rate based on tax differentials.”

Low-tax advocates like Mr. Varney point to Maryland as a prime example of tax flight. Maryland created a millionaire tax bracket in 2008 with a top rate of 6.25 percent. But a year later, the state reported that the number of millionaires filing returns had dropped by a third, and that total tax revenue from the group fell despite the rate increase.

But a study by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, a nonprofit research group in Washington, found that nearly all the decline in millionaires was the result of a drop in incomes largely attributable to the stock market plunge and recession, and not to migration — “down and not out,” as the study put it.

In 2009, just 364 people in the millionaire bracket moved from Maryland or died (the data didn’t distinguish between the two) — about the same percentage who disappeared in 2007, before any tax increase. And in 2009, more than 1,500 taxpayers entered the millionaire rolls, either because they earned more or moved to Maryland that year. That data “directly contravenes the notion that changes in tax policy were discouraging the affluent from working hard and earning substantial sums of money, or driving them out of the state altogether,” the study concluded.

Professor Young said his study looked at every millionaire tax record filed in California over the last 20 years, and “neither tax increases nor tax cuts on the rich have affected their migration rates.” He said that the two major tax overhauls before the recent increase didn’t have any effect on migration rates of millionaires. “Among the very richest, people making more than $2 million, out-migration actually declined slightly after the 2005 millionaire tax,” he said.

[Fuzzy_wuzzy]

@John_Stamos_Left_Ear

You have a cite for this? Because I have a cite that it isn’t happening in Minnesota which is odd because all those wealthy people and businesses wouldn’t have far to go to be in Scott walker’s supply side paradise:These states are very similar in many ways but Minnesota didn’t lose much business, if any, even to the neighboring state with the supply side firmly entrenched.

A neighbouring state with the supply side firmly entrenched? This was the state that had a recall election putting in danger many of Walker’s reforms. It was not firmly entrenched just a year or two back. In fact it was under real threat. It’s little wonder outsiders may have been wary of how much longer these tax rates etc would have been in place.

Without knowing too much about Wisconsin I doubt its a paradise for anything.

[John_Stamos_Left_Ear]

@Fuzzy_wuzzy

A neighbouring state with the supply side firmly entrenched? This was the state that had a recall election putting in danger many of Walker’s reforms.

A recall election that he won, a victory he saw as a mandate on those policies. I don’t think they went away while he was dealing with the recall process.

Without knowing too much about Wisconsin I doubt its a paradise for anything.

So you don’t know much about it? Did you know that he’s a front-runner for the 2016 GOP Presidential nod? A lot of Republicans seem to like what he has done in Wisconsin. Whether that makes it a paradise, I couldn’t say but I can say that I rarely say that I don’t know much about something and then make semi-authoritative proclamations about the subject. maybe you might want to find out about Wisconsin and see if whatever happened there meets your hunches?

[Fuzzy_wuzzy]

@John_Stamos_Left_Ear

A recall election that he won, a victory he saw as a mandate on those policies. I don’t think they went away while he was dealing with the recall process.So you don’t know much about it? Did you know that he’s a front-runner for the 2016 GOP Presidential nod? A lot of Republicans seem to like what he has done in Wisconsin. Whether that makes it a paradise, I couldn’t say but I can say that I rarely say that I don’t know much about something and then make semi-authoritative proclamations about the subject. maybe you might want to find out about Wisconsin and see if whatever happened there meets your hunches?

He won a relatively close run race. It was certainly no foregone conclusion. Many economists on both left and right tell us businesses like stability. If so, then the threat to his changes will have had an affect.

You really do enjoy misinterpreting what I say. I said I don’t know much about Wisconsin. I did not say I knew little about Walker. Wisconsin is far more than Scott Walker. Wisconsin’s economic history and outlook make up far more than any recent reforms introduced by Walker.

[ITR_champion]

@John_Stamos_Left_Ear

You have a cite for this?

Yup.

http://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2014/cb14-232.html

The fastest-growing states are North Dakota, Nevada, Texas, Colorado, and Florida. Florida recently replaced New York as the third most populous state. Meanwhile Illinois ranks highest in the number of people leaving, and second highest by percentage of people leaving.

If it were actually true that Republicans are practicing evil supply-side economics that benefit the rich while the Democrats practice good economics that benefit everyone else, then the American people could respond by electing more Democrats and moving to states governed by Democrats. Instead the American people seem inclined to do the exact opposite.

[John_Stamos_Left_Ear]

@Fuzzy_wuzzy

He won a relatively close run race. It was certainly no foregone conclusion.

In a victory seen by Republicans as a mandate of a political agenda that included sharp cuts to public-sector union rights, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker on Tuesday became the first governor in US history to win a recall election.

CSM

Like I said: They viewed it as a mandate.

You really do enjoy misinterpreting what I say. I said I don’t know much about Wisconsin. I did not say I knew little about Walker. Wisconsin is far more than Scott Walker. Wisconsin’s economic history and outlook make up far more than any recent reforms introduced by Walker.

I can say that Walker never rolled back his tax cuts. Even as I type, he is going against his own words by gearing up to make Wisconsin a Right To Work state. So instead of guessing, maybe you should do some research. The fact is that Scott Walker has cut taxes, massively deregulated the mining industry and proudly busted unions and the result?

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) will skip making $108 million in debt payments in the face of a budget shortfall due to a slew of tax cuts he enacted.

Walker has pushed for and enacted more than $2 billion in tax cuts since he took office in 2011. Although the state had a surplus of $759 million last year, it now faces a projected shortfall that could wind up being more than $2 billion for the next two budget years.

His latest budget, which he unveiled earlier this month, seeks even more property tax cuts. At the same time, it cuts $300 million from the state’s public universities as well as cuts to public media and the Department of National Resources. It also seeks new borrowing: $1.3 billion to cover transportation projects instead of increasing the gas tax and more than $200 million to finance a new basketball stadium.

Think Progress

If you feel that his impact on Wisconsin was mitigated by his recall election, the facts don’t support that. “Walker has gone all-in on the supply side,” says Esquire Magazine. And he’s having private dinners with supply-siders in New York.

I guess I am saying there is ample evidence that Walker is a supply-side guy and evidence that he has implemented that for as long as he has been governor in Wisconsin. I am shocked that someone who claims to know about Walker doesn’t know this.

[Fuzzy_wuzzy]

@John_Stamos_Left_Ear

Like I said: They viewed it as a mandate.I can say that Walker never rolled back his tax cuts. Even as I type, he is going against his own words by gearing up to make Wisconsin a Right To Work state. So instead of guessing, maybe you should do some research. The fact is that Scott Walker has cut taxes, massively deregulated the mining industry and proudly busted unions and the result?If you feel that his impact on Wisconsin was mitigated by his recall election, the facts don’t support that. “Walker has gone all-in on the supply side,” says Esquire Magazine. And he’s having private dinners with supply-siders in New York.

I guess I am saying there is ample evidence that Walker is a supply-side guy and evidence that he has implemented that for as long as he has been governor in Wisconsin. I am shocked that someone who claims to know about Walker doesn’t know this.

A “mandate” he received in late 2012. It kinda makes his policies implemented rather late in being accepted fully. Im willing to accept tax cuts have only limited impact in attracting outside businesses. However, *if *they do attract some businesses then these Walker cuts were only really fully mandated in Nov 12. A business thinking of moving(for tax purposes) from Shitsville Kentucky to Wisconsin will not move under the threat of Walkers tax cuts being repealed. This means some of his policies have had less time to work than others.

Please, dont post stuff about Walker’s budget shortfalls without posting past budget shortfalls. 2010 had a similar budget shortfall in Wisconsin. Sure, the economy was doing worse back then. However, with Democratic spending increases the likelihood is that the state would still be running a deficit. Maybe not as large a deficit but still a deficit.

http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2010/nov/29/jim-doyle/gov-jim-doyle-says-wisconsins-projected-budget-sho/

[John_Stamos_Left_Ear]

**ITR champion **- Correlation does not imply causation. See my own citations that give alternate reasons for why people move that have nothing to do with “fleeing from high-tax, high-regulation states… heading towards low-tax, low-regulation states.”

Fuzzy_wuzzy - I am aware that Wisconsin’s budget woes didn’t start with Walker but I am also aware that his predesessor Jim Doyle had the misfortune of having to lead the state when the whole country was in the middle of and then recovering from the Great Recession. Possible you heard of it - worst recession since the Great Depression.

Walker has had the fortune of getting in while we’ve been in recovery for several years and things have markedly improved across the nation. But not as much in Wisconsin.

That’s why I brought up Minnesota (actually other media outlets have done that, but that’s why I mentioned it) - to me it’s far better to see how two neighboring states are doing at the same time and the same national (and global) economy.

[ITR_champion]

@John_Stamos_Left_Ear

**ITR champion **- Correlation does not imply causation. See my own citations that give alternate reasons for why people move that have nothing to do with “fleeing from high-tax, high-regulation states… heading towards low-tax, low-regulation states.”

You quoted two articles from NPR and the New York Times saying that tax raises don’t cause millionaires to move. I guess it’s not surprising that NPR and the New York Times would focus on the plight of the rich; they are liberal sources, after all.

But my point didn’t mention the rich. It dealt with ordinary people. Every year, hundreds of thousands of people move into low-tax, low-regulation, less unionized states such as Florida, Texas, Nevada, and North Dakota. Most of the people moving are not rich. They are poor or middle class.

Now of course the Democrats in struggling states like Illinois, New York, and Connecticut will say that their policies benefit the poor and middle class. Perhaps they actually believe it. But migration patterns suggest that there are millions of poor and middle class people who think they’ll be better off in more free state rather than a less free one.

[Fuzzy_wuzzy]

@John_Stamos_Left_Ear

**ITR champion **- Correlation does not imply causation. See my own citations that give alternate reasons for why people move that have nothing to do with “fleeing from high-tax, high-regulation states… heading towards low-tax, low-regulation states.”

Fuzzy_wuzzy - I am aware that Wisconsin’s budget woes didn’t start with Walker but I am also aware that his predesessor Jim Doyle had the misfortune of having to lead the state when the whole country was in the middle of and then recovering from the Great Recession. Possible you heard of it - worst recession since the Great Depression.

Walker has had the fortune of getting in while we’ve been in recovery for several years and things have markedly improved across the nation. But not as much in Wisconsin.

That’s why I brought up Minnesota (actually other media outlets have done that, but that’s why I mentioned it) - to me it’s far better to see how two neighboring states are doing at the same time and the same national (and global) economy.

Which is why I said “Sure, the economy was doing worse back then.” This is another example of you seeing only what you wish to see in someones post and then trying to point score off your own misrepresentation.

[John_Stamos_Left_Ear]

So it’s not comparable. Thanks for making a comparison that wasn’t comparable and ignoring the one that is, that being the neighbouring state.

[John_Stamos_Left_Ear]

@ITR_champion

You quoted two articles from NPR and the New York Times saying that tax raises don’t cause millionaires to move. I guess it’s not surprising that NPR and the New York Times would focus on the plight of the rich; they are liberal sources, after all.

While you were busy writing off sources you failed to notice that between them then liked to three studies and interviewed the people responsible for them.

So you can take on the methodology of the studies or admit you never even clicked the links, up to you.

Either way you’re just pointing out population movement and have no evidence other than your own biases that the movement has anything to do with taxes.

IOW: Causation does not equal correlation.

Although I find it amusing you think poor people have tons of money to move because they hate taxes.

[Ruken]

I know several people who wanted to live in NM, but lived in TX and waited to move until retirement. TX has no income tax. So I know it’s a factor some people consider, but I don’t know how many.

[John_Stamos_Left_Ear]

Alaska has no income tax and also no sales tax, why isn’t it a giant retirement village?

Oh yeah, it’s cold as shit there and hard to get around. It’s almost as if there are other factors.

Also retirees leaving a place are usually not a big loss. They are embarking on a stage of their lives where they are relying less on employment income. They usually get Social Security and their state of residence pays for most of their healthcare.

In short, they are what Republicans call takers.

[Ruken]

@John_Stamos_Left_Ear

Also retirees leaving a place are usually not a big loss. They are embarking on a stage of their lives where they are relying less on employment income. They usually get Social Security and their state of residence pays for most of their healthcare.

In short, they are what Republicans call takers.

Most anybody isn’t a big loss, because most people don’t make a lot of money. However, as you already posted, rich retirees go where the taxes are low and spend their money there.