The argument is over what point we're at on the Laffer Curve, as well as the specific shape of the curve (i.e. is the right side so steep that we can tax at whatever rate we want up until revenues collapse entirely?), and about how tax enforcement policy can affect the shape of the curve.

"They," meaning progressives, don't fail to account for anything. They just disagree with your analysis.

Finally, the reason nobody knows or cares about this particular research is that most tax cuts were made with an eye toward maintaining revenue at a constant percentage of GDP. That is, the graph is a self-fulfilling prophecy. It doesn't predict what would happen with subsequent changes in the tax code.

Furthermore, this isn't even in any way connected to MTRs for the rich. All that this graph reflects is that as taxes were decreased for the upper %1 over the past half century, they were increased on everybody else. It doesn't illustrate increased collection rates, just increasingly regressive tax policy.

Brief mathematical analysis of what this article said:

TaxRateforRich x RichEarnings + TaxRateEveryoneElse x EveryoneElseEarnings = TotalRevenue

Then they told you that as TaxRateforRich dropped, total revenue remained constant, and thus concluded that the amount of earnings reported by rich people (RichEarnings) must have risen. What they ignored was a rise in TaxRateEveryoneElse.

"All that this graph reflects is that as taxes were decreased for the upper %1 over the past half century, they were increased on everybody else."

False.

We have a dynamic system where the incentives of the top 1% have a disproportional influence on GDP. Further, tax rates of the top 10% account for the majority of revenue. So I not only deny your claim but put forth that your rhetoric is emotionally manipulative - pitting the rich ("them") versus the rest ("us poor little everybody else").

The "rich", the top 1%, are the prime drivers of wealth creation. They are the reason GDP grows faster than population growth. The incentives on the top 1% heavily influence GDP growth.

Also, the percentiles used are very misleading. The top and bottom quintiles today are not the same people in the top and bottom quintiles 20 years ago. So most stats we track about poverty and wealth are fairly useless because they follow that faulty assumption.

Just in case anyone isn't clear on this: if you're a founder of a tech company, you're in the top 1% - perhaps not in income today, but in wealth generators and life-time taxes paid and to-be-paid.

""All that this graph reflects is that as taxes were decreased for the upper %1 over the past half century, they were increased on everybody else."

False."

I have to disagree. The Tax Reform Act of 1986 (as well as the cut of 64) disproportionately affected the lower income brackets. As a matter of record, tax rates are higher for the lower income brackets, and lower for higher income brackets than at any other point in US history.

To cite wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Reform_Act_of_1986#Income_t...

"The top tax rate was lowered from 50% to 28% while the bottom rate was raised from 11% to 15% - the only time in the history of the U.S. income tax (which dates back to the passage of the Revenue Act of 1862) that the top rate was reduced and the bottom rate increased concomitantly."

"The "rich", the top 1%, are the prime drivers of wealth creation. They are the reason GDP grows faster than population growth."

Anyone who has capital gains from the labor of others. It is misleading to say that they are responsible for this growth themselves. Their wealth is invested in those in other income brackets, and used to drive up GDP. There's nothing morally wrong with this system.

I agree that incentives for the upper %1 have a disproportionate effect on GDP. That said, from an economic perspective, I happen to believe that the Laffer curve has a very steep right side, and that we are to the left of the peak. This means that by raising rates, more revenue can be collected. For example, the 1981 tax cut did not improve revenue collection.

I believe that we should raise rates in order to pay for progressive social programs. The upper %1 have benefitted from not only their skill and ability to drive wealth creation, but also a good deal of luck.

Progressivism is a form of social insurance. It is an acknowledgment that perhaps, through no fault of my own, I might have been born poor, or with skills not suited to the modern economy. It is the understanding that in the richest nation on earth, no one should want for food, shelter, or healthcare, no matter what their ability to contribute.

This is not rhetoric. It is a judgement of values, and an assertion of a logical argument.

Think of it in terms of human capital. Those born into poverty today lack the access to crucial resources, such as education, to contribute to the economy to their full potential. It is a colossal waste of human resources to allow these conditions to continue. Imagine if Bill Gates had been born in Compton instead of Seattle.

"It is a judgement of values"

The fundamental disagreement between libertarians and progressives is that libertarians do not find the values of a mob/majority justify violence upon a minority.

I used the word violence carefully: you don't pay your taxes, an armed man will come to put you in a pen for years.

The problem with asserting positive rights, versus freedom from oppression, is that they come at a cost to someone else. For example, asserting a right to health care is asserting the right to take from a health care provider.

"As a matter of record, tax rates are higher for the lower income brackets, and lower for higher income brackets than at any other point in US history."

Tax rates are still higher for higher income earners.

They make more, and a flat percentage would proportionally cover their wealth, but you insist on a _higher_ percentage. That is pretty hard to justify, especially considering the benefit of government is diminished proportional to increased income.

Ah, now we've come to the point of it.

"The fundamental disagreement between libertarians and progressives is that libertarians do not find the values of a mob/majority justify violence upon a minority."

The power of the state rests upon the willful consent of the governed. The constitutional structure protects minorities from the tyranny of the majority, and as such, when it is in the good of society, that force can be used, including to collect taxes.

"The problem with asserting positive rights, versus freedom from oppression, is that they come at a cost to someone else. For example, asserting a right to health care is asserting the right to take from a health care provider."

Here's the fallacy. Its not a zero sum game, and the market isn't an omnipotent distributer of goods. For example, asserting a right to health care provides more output for the society, as it takes away from the costs of untreated illnesses. Some things are common to all, and ensuring that everyone has access enhances total welfare. Surely you must see that defense spending is justified?

"They make more, and a flat percentage would proportionally cover their wealth, but you insist on a _higher_ percentage."

This is a form of social insurance. Just as defense spending insures us against risk of attack, social programs insure us against the risk of bad luck. Imagine yourself behind the veil of ignorance, before you were born, before you knew that you would occupy that top %1. Now design a tax system.

You have to take into account the decreasing marginal utility of income. $100 additional dollars to a person making several million a year has far less utility to them than $100 additional dollars to a person making twenty thousand a year.

Not to mention the political folks tell me that inequality is the chief cause of revolution. If we look at this from a practical perspective, we see that times of extremely low taxation and large amounts of inequality caused a breakdown in the market system. Those who accumulate most of the wealth become a law unto themselves and ensure oligopolistic control over industry. Too much of this and in Russia the farmers get their pitchforks and the mob takes to the streets. Here you get the New Deal. Some socialism is necessary to stave off communism.

"The constitutional structure protects minorities from the tyranny of the majority, and as such, when it is in the good of society, that force can be used, including to collect taxes."

You just said: 'the minorities are protected, and that means force can be used on them.' It's a clear contradiction.

What kind of government program isn't justified by that reasoning? Why doesn't the government start controlling or "guaranteeing" super markets, car dealerships, or house construction?

You take an unprincipled approach that scales to tyranny.

"For example, asserting a right to health care provides more output for the society, as it takes away from the costs of untreated illnesses"

That is complete unvalidated. Where is the evidence? Keep in mind, the comparison is to health with government management and with individual decision making (and not government coverage vs. none). One huge fallacy specific to health care is that health does not equal medical treatment. So you can't equate a dollar paid for medical treatment and a dollar improved in value of health.

"Some socialism is necessary to stave off communism."

And some sex is necessary to keep your virginity. Corporations that accumulate government power usually do so because of unprincipled approaches to what the government should and shouldn't be doing. Look up the history of railroads in the US, and specifically the rise of the Interstate Commerce Commission. A government entity went out of it's bounds to "protect" the people, and the new power was taken over by the rail companies. It's exactly what I mentioned before: What kind of government program isn't justified by that reasoning? And then who do you think is going to control it? Our benevolent senators? Or the people with a $$$ interest?

For health coverage, lots of policy decisions make much more sense if you just consider the AMA the largest and most powerful union in the US. They act for the benefit of themselves, and not their patients, often doing so with government force. One example, two words: drug war.

"You just said: 'the minorities are protected, and that means force can be used on them.' It's a clear contradiction."

This is the basis of constitutional government. Just holding a minority opinion doesn't necessarily mean the majority can't constrain your behavior with force.

For example, if I hold the minority opinion that "killing people for no reason is fine," then it isn't a violation of my freedom for the non-homicidal majority to arrest me.

Constitutional government includes a series of guarantees about what can't be done to minorities, and also usually includes checks and balances on the majority's power to prevent rash action.

"What kind of government program isn't justified by that reasoning?"

The answer is that all governmental programs are justified as long as they improve the public welfare. Those you have listed would not.

The fundamental difference is that in the progressive model the market is not the be-all-end-all of politics, it is just a means used to accomplish an end. The economy exists to serve the people, not the other way around.

""Some socialism is necessary to stave off communism." And some sex is necessary to keep your virginity."

Pretty much everyone on either side of the left-ride divide agrees about the need for the modern welfare state, even if they disagree about the extent. Communist orators used to draw crowds of tens of thousands before the New Deal.

"You take an unprincipled approach that scales to tyranny."

Your pure libertarianism scales to a far more direct form of tyranny, and doesn't come with the niceties of constitutional protections. What's the market rate on a police force? An army? A life?

"This is the basis of constitutional government. Just holding a minority opinion doesn't necessarily mean the majority can't constrain your behavior with force."

It's the exact opposite. A constitutional republic maintains that holding the majority opinion does not justify force.

If you don't understand this, you don't understand anything about the US.

Your examples are ridiculous. Stopping violence is not violence.

"Pretty much everyone on either side of the left-ride divide agrees about the need for the modern welfare state, even if they disagree about the extent"

You really don't know anything about this, do you? Who exactly do you think you're talking to if not someone who disagrees with that sentiment?

This thread is over.

"Your examples are ridiculous. Stopping violence is not violence."

If you don't like the previous (perfectly valid) example, how about one that doesn't involve violence on the part of the perpetrator? Perhaps theft, or public nudity.

The point is that everything a state does is ultimately based on force. The whole point of preventing tyranny of the majority is to ensure that the only actions are taken are taken for the good of everyone, rather than a specific sect. It has nothing to do with denying the legitimacy of taxation.

It seems to me you don't understand the basic concept of a constitutional state. Reread On Liberty and Federalist #10.

"Who exactly do you think you're talking to if not someone who disagrees with that sentiment?"

I was pointing out exactly how far outside the terms of legitimate debate you actually are.

Now the thread is over.

fuck man, you advocate violence, then tell the victims they consented and should thank the government for its constitutional protections that prevent anyone from being a victim.

First of all, force isn't violence. Nobody beats you for failing to pay your taxes.

Second of all, you do consent. You have freedom of speech to express your displeasure, and a vote to rid yourself of unjust leaders.

Taxes are the price we pay to live in a civilized society. They build our roads and pay our soldiers, and I'm sick and tired of some people acting like they're a form of theft.

> First of all, force isn't violence. Nobody beats you for failing to pay your taxes.

Oh really? We put people in jail for failing to pay taxes. People get killed in jail. They get beat and raped.

> Second of all, you do consent. You have freedom of speech to express your displeasure, and a vote to rid yourself of unjust leaders.

If five guys vote that a woman should put out, she consents because she's free to say no and can vote against their proposal.

> Taxes are the price we pay to live in a civilized society. They build our roads and pay our soldiers, and I'm sick and tired of some people acting like they're a form of theft.

Note that they also pay for a lot of other things; things that simply don't work.

SDurkin suggests a social contract. In every other contract, you can refuse the deal. You can also get out of the contract if the other side doesn't live up to its obligations. The "social contract" in reality is neither social nor a contract.

"Oh really? We put people in jail for failing to pay taxes. People get killed in jail. They get beat and raped."

Yes, really. Victimization in prison isn't part of the state's intent or action. Its an unfortunate consequence of a poorly managed correctional system. One that would see far fewer prisoners if there were more poverty assistance programs.

"If five guys vote that a woman should put out, she consents because she's free to say no and can vote against their proposal."

See above for a full explanation of how constitutional democracies prevent tyranny of the majority.

"Note that they also pay for a lot of other things; things that simply don't work."

This is a problem with certain specific programs, not with taxes in general.

"SDurkin suggests a social contract."

Yes, I do suggest a social contract, because social contract theory is part of the foundation of our and every other modern democracy. Sure, it isn't perfect, but its certainly better than the alternatives.

How did the Commerce Clause protect me from being regulated by the Federal government?

> Victimization in prison isn't part of the state's intent or action.

Let's assume for the moment that this statement is true.

That does not in any way absolve the state from moral accountability when it sends people there. Since prisons, in reality, are set up in such a way that brutal violence is a given, it is neither here nor there what they wish it were like. You sentence people to the prisons you have, not the ones you wish you had.

Imagine you have a time-out room for misbehaving children, which has been infested with human-eating alligators. "It's an unfortunate consequence of your running in the halls that you will be devoured by alligators, but it's not my intent or action. I just mean for you to have a 15-minute time out, and it's not my responsibility if my putting you there -- by force, into what I intend to be a nice quiet room -- is actually a death sentence."

Do you not understand that dragging a person to jail, when he wishes to stay in his home, is violent? That physical force exerted on his body, against his will, is violent? Do you not understand that it hurts people? Do you not understand that demands, backed by guns, are violent?

Never mind whether it's for the best in the grand scheme of things, or whether a superior alternative is known. Even if this is best it is still violent.

There's also the rise in Social Security taxes under Reagan, which was done to give the Social Security system a surplus to handle the baby boomers' retirement. Since only wages up to a certain level are subject to Social Security tax, the tax affects the middle and lower classes more than it affects the rich.

The odd part about SS spending is it's vary low friction Income redistribution so it has little impact on the economy where Defense spending has a such a huge negative impact. However, such a large portion is put into the general fund the SS savings is basically just income tax.

http://carriedaway.blogs.com/carried_away/2005/04/us_governm...

PS: US GDP growth is slower than the rest of the world so it's hard to think why people think we are such a great example of growth..

"Progressivism is a form of social insurance. It is an acknowledgment that perhaps, through no fault of my own, I might have been born poor, or with skills not suited to the modern economy. It is the understanding that in the richest nation on earth, no one should want for food, shelter, or healthcare, no matter what their ability to contribute."

No, progressivism is nothing more than epicureanism, transported into the present. You propose building a world where everyone is free from pain and struggle, without realizing that this builds a society of child-men, unable and unwilling to do the hard work necessary to advance civilization, each clamoring for more and more handouts from the ever-bountiful teat of Government.

I wonder if there's some sort of fundamental relationship between the powerful elites in every given society and the rest reflected in the graph? Is there some sort of relationship like Boyle's Law for gases?