This Year's US Economics Nobel Winner: Bush Tax Cuts Too Small

[Jaguar]

Faster economic growth. Developing countries without bloated Departments of Agriculture and Universal Health Care systems have GDP growth of 8% a year.

[DanS]

I would add to what AS said by stating that since much of the middle and lower classes don't pay income taxes in any event, Prescott would advocate lowering their payroll taxes over time, accompanied by privatization of social security.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Harry Tuttle

and how many people do they employ? How much have they invested in their companies? How much risk have they undertaken?

I'm not ragging on the small business owners. To the contrary, blessed be the small business owner historically the creators of most of the jobs and most of the technological breakthroughs.

My point is that Kerry's proposed roll back of taxes will have no direct effect on most small businesses...contrary to the spin of the Bu****es.

To the contrary, when Clinton's Balanvced Budget Act raised taxes on the most wealthy 1.7% of Americans and coupled that with an increase in the minimum wage, it unleashed the greatest economic expansion in history. Fiscal responsibility + more money in the pockets of consumers does wonderful things.

*******
By the way, Bush is bragging how he's resently created (i.e. replaced) 1,300,000 jobs. 800,000 of those jobs are in government. Thus, it is now the Bush Administration that is directly creating most of the jobs in America -- not small businesses -- and that's an ominous sign.

[Harry Tuttle]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
My point is that Kerry's proposed roll back of taxes will have no direct effect on most small businesses...contrary to the spin of the Bu****es.

Oh goody, it will tax the people who have moved up from the small business. Kudos to Kerry. :

To the contrary, when Clinton's Balanvced Budget Act raised taxes on the most wealthy 1.7% of Americans and coupled that with an increase in the minimum wage, it unleashed the greatest economic expansion in history. Fiscal responsibility + more money in the pockets of consumers does wonderful things.

By the way, Bush is bragging how he's resently created (i.e. replaced) 1,300,000 jobs. 800,000 of those jobs are in government. Thus, it is now the Bush Administration that is directly creating most of the jobs in America -- not small businesses -- and that's an ominous sign.

Well that's nice, Clinton unleashed the greatest economic expansion in history. Please tell me how Bubba did this, all by himself, and I'll believe in his Midas touch. I'm still waiting for your "Tax the rich to create jobs argument".

[St Leo]

Originally posted by DanS
One of Prescott's theses is that high taxes discourage people from working as many hours as they would under normal circumstances. I guess this impact seems obvious, but I don't know how much of an impact it would have. Prescott suggests that most of the difference between how much Americans work and how much Europeans work is due to higher taxes paid by Europeans.

Uh, sane people don't work more than 40 hours a week voluntarily as long as they already earn enough for the necessities.

[Kidlicious]

Re: Yes, but ....

Originally posted by Adam Smith
Now that this lynch mob has given Professor Prescott a "fair" trial, you may procede with the hanging.

Well he's a supply-sider just as you describe him. Why the hell did he win the Nobel Prize? Are supply-siders now well accepted within the profession?

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by St Leo

Originally posted by DanS
One of Prescott's theses is that high taxes discourage people from working as many hours as they would under normal circumstances. I guess this impact seems obvious, but I don't know how much of an impact it would have. Prescott suggests that most of the difference between how much Americans work and how much Europeans work is due to higher taxes paid by Europeans.

Uh, sane people don't work more than 40 hours a week voluntarily as long as they already earn enough for the necessities.

My dad works about 65-80 hours a week and he earns ~500k.

He leaves for work at 7:25 and comes back around 8:00 pm on weekdays.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Jaguar

Tax cuts do encourage people to work. A tax cut is the same as a wage raise for workers.

Almost never, and certainly not in the current situation. In fact a tax increase would very likely get people to work more. Supply-sider understanding of microeconomics is piss poor and their understanding of macroeconomics is twice as bad.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by DanS
accompanied by privatization of social security.

OMG. He's stupid enough to be a regular poster here.

[Jaguar]

If someone earns 50 dollars an hour for working, and they get taxed 50 percent on it, they earn an effective 25 dollars. If the taxes get lowered to 20 percent, they earn 40 dollars for working an hour. Obviously, they'll be more likely to work longer hours since doing their job is a more effective use of their time.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Jaguar
If someone earns 50 dollars an hour for working, and they get taxed 50 percent on it, they earn an effective 25 dollars. If the taxes get lowered to 20 percent, they earn 40 dollars for working an hour. Obviously, they'll be more likely to work longer hours since doing their job is a more effective use of their time.

No. That's not the way it works. People's biggest concern is maintaining thier current income. If you increase their taxes they will work more.

[Jaguar]

I think people want to have more income than they used to have. That's why they try to get raises and such. You're right that nobody tolerates moving to a lower standard of living, but people certainly want to improve theirs, not mantain it.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Jaguar

Tax cuts do encourage people to work. A tax cut is the same as a wage raise for workers.

I don't know about you, but fear of homelessness and losing all my stuff is what motivates me to work. All a tax cut means is I don't have to work as much, because I'll take home the same pay for less work. Tax cuts promote laziness. If you want to promote work, you should take away enough money in taxes that people have to work three jobs just to stay in a freezing shack.

[Kidlicious]

They mostly want to maintain it. Improving it is out of reach these days. A lot of the growth during the nineties was people taking second jobs and the growth since the seventies has been women entering the work force. They have to to maintain the standard of living that they are accustom to because costs have increased so much.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I guess those studies don't go by recent history.

Of course they do. Back in 2002, it was indicated that a Republican victory would have a greater immediately effect on Wall Street than a Democrat one. And in 2000, you had Wall Street going up for a day or two whenever Bush was ahead in the polls.

Uh, sane people don't work more than 40 hours a week voluntarily as long as they already earn enough for the necessities.

You MUST be kidding me. Obviously you are not aware of what lawyers, doctors, and businessmen do. A lot of them work 60-80 hours a week, even though they could live on less.

No. That's not the way it works. People's biggest concern is maintaining thier current income. If you increase their taxes they will work more.

You are incorrect. If the perception is that their work hour is worth less because of the higher taxes, people will be less productive (ie, be there just to be there) and only work 'enough'. However, if taxes go down, each hour is worth more, and people will be more inclined to work more because they will make more money with each hour. Especially in order to save up some cash quickly. I know that I personally asked for some more hours when my state taxes fell.

Of course, this doesn't effect salaried workers who'll get the same amount no matter what.