Dow Transportation Index hits all time high.

Wages are money, inflation devalues money, inflation devalues wages. What's false?

How did you do this? What statistical methodologies did you employ?

It doesn't provide any evidence that the formula itself actually establishes a relationship between statutory tax rates and tax revenues, which is what you have been claiming.

The equation "explains" nothing without evidence to corroborate it. Thus far, you haven't provided a shred of evidence to corroborate a single thing you've said.

Besides being a tiny sample of the overall data set, and besides being a meaningless correlation within that tiny sample, it is great evidence for your claims...

I don't have to disprove your claims. The onus will and always will fall upon the individual making the claim to establish its veracity. So, please demonstrate that your equation is a valid descriptive measure of the relationship between statutory tax rates and tax revenues that you have asserted.

But it added to our debt, which you said was bad.

I don't.

You explained nothing. You merely asserted your opinion as fact and left it at that. In reality, you have no objective or self-consistent argument as to why 75% is "too high" but the present tax rate is not. You just say so and pretend like that is supposed to mean something.

Once again, your explanation was totally inadequate and failed to address the underlying reason why the government cannot just spend $10 trillion in a wealth creation scheme. The reason why you cannot do this is because your economic belief system is totally arbitrary and subjective. You have no reason why $800 billion is a better number than $200 billion or $1 trillion or $100 trillion. You are just making it up as you go along and hoping no one will notice. Classic pseudoscience, just like the high priests who divined the future from chicken entrails.

 

You attempted inference equating devaluation of money and devaluation of wages. I've explained it several times.

The BEA publishes GDP data. With it we can calculate the change in gross domestic production and compare than to the change in revenues.

Who said anything about "statutory tax rates" and why do you falsely claim I am claiming that? I haven't used the phrase "statutory tax rate" once.

It explains that revenues are the product of the effective tax rate * gross income.

That, plus the evidence of the Reagan and Bush tax cuts, all empirically support the proposition that raising taxes increases proportionate revenues and cutting taxes decreases them.

As any logical person would surmise.

You are criticizing my use of the fact that that revenues are a product of effective tax rates and gross income, without any basis for your criticism.

In other words, you have no real argument and are just arguing about nothing.

It did and it was.

Again, explained in my prior post. I'm sorry if you don't get it. I can't dumb it down for you any further.

If any of our other members can't follow my explanation, let me know what you find confusing and maybe I can clear it up for you.

Again, explained in my prior post. I'm sorry if you don't get it. I can't dumb it down for you any further.

If any of our other members can't follow my explanation, let me know what you find confusing and maybe I can clear it up for you.

 

Since wages are paid in money, inflation devalues wages by simple transitive logic. You would have to insane to argue otherwise.

What accepted statistical methodologies did you employ in order to establish that this correlation was (a) significant and (b) not confounded by other systemic variables?

You are advocating raising tax rates in order to raise revenues, are you not?

How does it explain that?

Right, because you say so.

The rest of your posting is just dodging and dishonest nonsense. Really, you have nothing but insults and evasion...

 

I've already explained it to you as simply as I can. I'm sorry if you don't get it. I can't dumb it down for you any further.

If any of our other members can't follow my explanation, let me know what you find confusing and maybe I can clear it up for you.

What correlation are you talking about? I didn't say anything about correlation.

Sure. Makes sense except to those invested in cutting taxes for political purposes.

I'm sorry if you don't get it. I can't dumb it down for you any further.

If any of our other members can't follow my explanation, let me know what you find confusing and maybe I can clear it up for you.

No, because that's what the data says. I've posted it numerous times.

No, I've explained my positions and I support them with data and sources. You've provided nothing except baseless criticism and then claiming I haven't explained my positions. I'm either unable to dumb down the subject to a level you can understand, or you are just playing games and are just arguing about nothing. In either case it's a waste of my time.

If any of our other members can't follow my explanation, let me know what you find confusing and maybe I can clear it up for you.

 

Translation: I cannot refute your argument, so I will accuse you of being dumb.

The positive correlation between the Clinton tax increases and tax revenues. What statistical methodology did you employ in order to determine that the correlation between these two variables was (a) statistically significant and (b) not confounded by other systemic variables? Please be as specific as possible and show us the work you did in order to arrive at your conclusion. Also, please address the shortcomings of such a relatively small sample size. How do you intend to make a valid statistical inference when the sample size you are using is a tiny fraction of the available data set?

So you favor raising statutory tax rates as a means to collect more tax revenue, yes?

Iriemon's patented surrender.

The data does not "say" anything until you have conducted a rigorous analysis of it, which you clearly have not.

Maybe the problem is that your argument is just dumb itself and you don't even realize it.

 

Not at all. I've given my explanation as straightforward as I can. You just keep repeating the same statements and questions over and over. I can't dumb it down any further, sorry.

I'll trust our other members can understand it.

I didn't say anything about correlation. Why do you keep bringing up straw men? I've said we can show the effects of a tax increase on revenues by isolating the part of revenue growth that correlates with economic growth. If GDP grows 6% and revenues grow 18%, something other than GDP growth caused revenues to grow faster. If GDP grows 6% and revenues shrink 6%, something other than GDP growth caused the revenues to shrink.

IMO the entire tax code needs to be overhauled and simplified and loopholes and special low rates and deductions reduced or eliminated, and tax rates need to be increased as well.

Not at all. Why would you say that?

Sure, the data says that revenues under Clinton grew much faster than GDP, while they grew much slower than GDP under Reagan and Bush. Feel free to explain why that was except for tax policy.

I disagree with your opinion. Others can decide for themselves.

 

At present, it seems "our other members" are decidedly against your insane views.

True or False? Inflation devalues wages.

Maybe you can convince them that they are wrong?

You just contradicted yourself.

A simple yes or no question.

In other words, you are inferring a causal relationship between Clinton's tax rates and Federal tax revenues based upon a correlation in a tiny sliver of the data.

Seems they are already deciding that one of your positions is patently dishonest.

 

I've explained it as best I can. I can't dumb it down any further for you.

"corresponds" would be a better word to use in the latter part. My point is that revenues are not simply due to GDP growth where revenues are growing substantially faster (or slower) than GDP growth. I was not basing my argument on the correlation between higher taxes and greater revenues and lower taxes and lower (relative) revenues, although the data shows that correlation as well.

Yes, with the explanation above.

There I stating that there is a correlation between higher taxes and higher revenues, and lower taxes and lower revenues, which supports the proposition that increasing taxes (within reason) increases tax revenues and vice versa. As does common sense. Because tax revenues are a product of gross income and the effective tax rate.

Not necessarily.

 

There you go showing your ignorance again, ad valorem federal tax revenues accounts for 20% of their total revenue. No need to go into the absolute fact that States collecting a steady stream of sales tax don’t need nearly as much of our federal tax dollars as those that don’t collect enough sales taxes, but I digress you have no chance of understanding that because it’s based in common sense and logic.

 

You need to stop using drugs!

U.S. economy contracts for first time since recession:
http://money.cnn.com/2013/01/30/news/economy/gdp-report/


Yep Iremon as usual you believe its the exact opposite of reality.

 

My post was on how the Dow Transportation stocks were doing in January 2013. Your post is on the economy in 2012. How does your post in any way suggest I'm "using drugs"?

It seems like someone is on drugs here, and it's not me.

 

What good is a lawyer who is incapable of articulating her case to her audience?

 

Trolling and baiting again, I see. How's the fishing?

 

You would make a good fish...a good lawyer not so much.

 

Sorry, I aint' biting your bait.