• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

nonpartisan research: tax cuts won't fix economy

BTW you missed some obvious proof-the luxury tax caused a major downturn in purchasing luxury items.

I have no evidence that was the cause. All factors have to be considered. But even at that, which I doubt, such is a different type of tax.

Spending on Luxury Goods
In the United States in 2007 luxury goods accounted for a $157 billion industry[1]. In the period between 1979-2003, household income grew 1% for the bottom fifth of households, 9% for the middle fifth, and 49% for the top fifth with household income more than doubling (up 111%) for the top 1%[2]. If the above trend had been reversed, there wouldn’t be nearly as many extravagant luxury items on the market such as $1 million cars and $45 million private jets. Even in such a slowing economy, there is still a big market to get consumers to spend their money on luxury items. The luxury goods market is a continually growing industry with marketers always trying to get consumers to spend their money on luxury goods.

(snip)

Spending dropped in 2008 as the result of consumer fears about the economy. Consumers saved instead of spending.[4]

Consumer spending - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Notice the last line offers another factor.
 
do you pay top bracket taxes? I tire of being told I don't pay enough by people who are pandering for the votes of low bracket payers or non payers.

and given tax hikes on the rich cannot keep up with government spending, where is it going to end

if you set a table and refuse to see what it brings then I cannot help it and its in your interest to pretend that a system that not only allows the many to vote up the taxes of the few but the political system encourages that, is creating a recipe for disaster

you can admit or deny it but the fact is the dems campaing rhetoric constantly tries to appeal to class warfare with the claims that the tax cuts Benefited the rich even though the rich now pay more of the tax burden.

I pay a good deal of taxes, and have no problem with mind being raised. But that is besides the point. You can't argue we can't raise them for reasons that are false. If you just don't want to pay that much, argue so. But we can't say it will cost jobs because the evidence doesn't support that. Nor can we say it will kill the economy because onjective evidence doesn't support that.

And as for rhetoric, both isdes uses the rhetoric it thinks work, and it does to some degree, and both lie. The fact is both spend. There is really not a lot of difference between the two parties, which is why both sides are often disappointed. Again, it is a fool's game to play partisan. Bush was a poor president because of the things he did and not the party he belonged to. And he and his republican party spend freely and irrationally. Keep that in mind. ;)
 
Is it really a raise in taxes? All Obama is doing is allowing the taxes to return to their previous levels before Bush. Data shows that the wealthy saved the extra money from tax cuts, even if they didn't I'd have a hard time seeing the top 1%, or 2% go on a spending spree enough to stimulate the economy to a useful extent. I'm not rich though so it's a lot easier for me to call for the expiration of these taxes, I know my Grandfather is in the 1% and he sure as hell doesn't want them to expire.
 
I pay a good deal of taxes, and have no problem with mind being raised. But that is besides the point. You can't argue we can't raise them for reasons that are false. If you just don't want to pay that much, argue so. But we can't say it will cost jobs because the evidence doesn't support that. Nor can we say it will kill the economy because onjective evidence doesn't support that.

And as for rhetoric, both isdes uses the rhetoric it thinks work, and it does to some degree, and both lie. The fact is both spend. There is really not a lot of difference between the two parties, which is why both sides are often disappointed. Again, it is a fool's game to play partisan. Bush was a poor president because of the things he did and not the party he belonged to. And he and his republican party spend freely and irrationally. Keep that in mind. ;)

1) sure you don't have a problem

but I do-I pay several hundred K a year in taxes and I get little back in return

2) and all I see is dems spending more and more of it because if they stop spending, they lose their ability to buy votes.

3) yes, the GOP spent recklessly but to say the rich have a duty to pay for that is crap

but I get nothing in return for paying far more taxes than you do

anything I "get" i pay for, the government gives me no extra benefits whatsoever

so tell me why I should support paying more
 
I've found no evidence to support that. Even recent reports say such isn't true. Tax cuts have little to no effect on jobs. So, while it may seem logical to us that it would, and certainly we can fine someone who says it will (and won't), what is needed is some objective evidence that it does. Historically, we've seen the economy do well will a high tax rate and poor with a low tax rate, and the reverse. There has been little to support that taxes effect the economy either way.

So you've gotten inconclusive evidence from the data. Apparently then we need another method to elucidate the effect of taxes on jobs. Might I suggest deduction? The first step would be to respond to my theoretical argument.
 
So you've gotten inconclusive evidence from the data. Apparently then we need another method to elucidate the effect of taxes on jobs. Might I suggest deduction? The first step would be to respond to my theoretical argument.

Even with deductive reasoning, the major premise and the minor premise have to be supported with data and facts. It is possible to reach inaccurate conclusions with deductive reasoning. Your major premise, as I read it, is that tax cuts mean more spending. Minor premise, that more more spending means more jobs. Thus you conclude we need to cut taxes. And yes, I note you do say among other things.

yet, taxes are cut right now, today. Can we show it has helped? Can we support your conclusion? As I have said, the numbers, not only now but historically, show nothing to support that conclusion.
 
1) sure you don't have a problem

but I do-I pay several hundred K a year in taxes and I get little back in return

2) and all I see is dems spending more and more of it because if they stop spending, they lose their ability to buy votes.

3) yes, the GOP spent recklessly but to say the rich have a duty to pay for that is crap

but I get nothing in return for paying far more taxes than you do

anything I "get" i pay for, the government gives me no extra benefits whatsoever

so tell me why I should support paying more

Why do republicans spend? What are they buying?

You live in this country. Everything that benefits the country, benefits you. It will help you if the debt is reduced. It helps all of us if we don't have a population that can't afford healthcare. It helps all of us if fewer people default on morgages, or can't pay their bills, or can meet their needs, thus spending money. So, much of the services we all pay for help the world we live in be better. And because of this, our lives on the whole are better then they could have been.

Paying taxes, even a progressive tax, regardles sof where you are, has not done away with wealth or privliedge or anything else I suspect you value. But the fact remains, debt reduction will require both cutting spending and raising taxes.
 
Is it really a raise in taxes? All Obama is doing is allowing the taxes to return to their previous levels before Bush. Data shows that the wealthy saved the extra money from tax cuts, even if they didn't I'd have a hard time seeing the top 1%, or 2% go on a spending spree enough to stimulate the economy to a useful extent. I'm not rich though so it's a lot easier for me to call for the expiration of these taxes, I know my Grandfather is in the 1% and he sure as hell doesn't want them to expire.

That's true, but those in the upper brackets will still pay more then they are at thsi momment. It won't break them, and won't be as large as they've paid at other times. But it is part of what needs to be done if we're really concerned about debt reduction.
 
Why do republicans spend? What are they buying?

You live in this country. Everything that benefits the country, benefits you. It will help you if the debt is reduced. It helps all of us if we don't have a population that can't afford healthcare. It helps all of us if fewer people default on morgages, or can't pay their bills, or can meet their needs, thus spending money. So, much of the services we all pay for help the world we live in be better. And because of this, our lives on the whole are better then they could have been.

Paying taxes, even a progressive tax, regardles sof where you are, has not done away with wealth or privliedge or anything else I suspect you value. But the fact remains, debt reduction will require both cutting spending and raising taxes.

great-so when the politicians you support start demanding everyone pay more I might pay you some heed.

right now the dems only want to soak the rich out of political expedience and I haven't heard anything about them cutting spending
 
That's true, but those in the upper brackets will still pay more then they are at thsi momment. It won't break them, and won't be as large as they've paid at other times. But it is part of what needs to be done if we're really concerned about debt reduction.

if you aren't in the top 2% how do you know what it will do. People of all stripes tend to often spend as much as they can. why should a rich person have to cut back on non-essential spending when those who cast most of the votes for the idiots in office don't have to?
 
Even with deductive reasoning, the major premise and the minor premise have to be supported with data and facts. It is possible to reach inaccurate conclusions with deductive reasoning. Your major premise, as I read it, is that tax cuts mean more spending. Minor premise, that more more spending means more jobs. Thus you conclude we need to cut taxes. And yes, I note you do say among other things.

yet, taxes are cut right now, today. Can we show it has helped? Can we support your conclusion? As I have said, the numbers, not only now but historically, show nothing to support that conclusion.

If you can find no problem with the theory and can't show why the theory isn't applicable, then you have to accept the conclusions.
 
That's true, but those in the upper brackets will still pay more then they are at thsi momment. It won't break them, and won't be as large as they've paid at other times. But it is part of what needs to be done if we're really concerned about debt reduction.

There is no reason to expect that a tax reason would go to debt reduction. More likely it would be spent and then some.
 
There is no reason to expect that a tax reason would go to debt reduction. More likely it would be spent and then some.

Maybe. But such concerns are anothe issue. The point is it can be used for debt reduction, and if we care about debt reduction, we have to acknowledge that tax increases has to be part of it (as is cutting spending).
 
If you can find no problem with the theory and can't show why the theory isn't applicable, then you have to accept the conclusions.

We have evidence, as I have noted, that show problem with the theory. It has been tested, repeately, and the evidence shows no connection to taxes and the economy on the whole. Remember, they are cut right now, and yet, no jobs. That shows a problem with the theory.
 
We have evidence, as I have noted, that show problem with the theory. It has been tested, repeately, and the evidence shows no connection to taxes and the economy on the whole. Remember, they are cut right now, and yet, no jobs. That shows a problem with the theory.

It doesn't. That shows you that the effect isn't present in the data, and that could be due to a whole host of other issues. It's why you can't use data to confirm or reject your theories in economics; the data are just too unreliable becuase of the presence of so many variables that cannot be controlled. So like I said, if the theory makes sense and it applies here, then you cannot reject it.
 
Maybe. But such concerns are anothe issue. The point is it can be used for debt reduction, and if we care about debt reduction, we have to acknowledge that tax increases has to be part of it (as is cutting spending).

I wouldn't propose tax increases to pay down the debt until we see government cut spending first. Until then I just don't trust them with the money.
 
If you can find no problem with the theory and can't show why the theory isn't applicable, then you have to accept the conclusions.

The problem with that statement is that it essentially means that we replace science with philosophy. I think a higher (and better standard) is that whatever theory (economic or another discipline) should be able to be demonstrated before it gains widespread acceptance.
 
It doesn't. That shows you that the effect isn't present in the data, and that could be due to a whole host of other issues. It's why you can't use data to confirm or reject your theories in economics; the data are just too unreliable becuase of the presence of so many variables that cannot be controlled. So like I said, if the theory makes sense and it applies here, then you cannot reject it.

No, that's wrong. The best you can hope for is that there is no support for the theory you post. Theory has to be confirmed by observation. Until it is supported, it is just a hypothesis. We don't stop there. We need to fine evidence to support it. If we cannot find any evidence, then the hypothesis is in doubt, at a minimum.
 
I wouldn't propose tax increases to pay down the debt until we see government cut spending first. Until then I just don't trust them with the money.

I see no reason not to call for both.
 
I see no reason not to call for both.

Except I want to see the cut in spending first, otherwise I just see a tax increase being used right now solely for spending and that it wouldn't be used to pay down the debt. I have absolutely no reason to trust the government in that regard. Let them tighten their own belts before stealing more from me.
 
No, that's wrong. The best you can hope for is that there is no support for the theory you post. Theory has to be confirmed by observation. Until it is supported, it is just a hypothesis. We don't stop there. We need to fine evidence to support it. If we cannot find any evidence, then the hypothesis is in doubt, at a minimum.

Except you can't do that with economics because you can't isolate variables. For instance, maybe the lower tax rate has a good effect on jobs but the increase in government debt has a bad effect on jobs. If the government debt has more of an effect than the tax rate, then you would see a higher unemployment number even though the low tax rate is good for jobs. Because you can't isolate variables like this with economics, there is no way to tell. The data are useless.
 
Except you can't do that with economics because you can't isolate variables. For instance, maybe the lower tax rate has a good effect on jobs but the increase in government debt has a bad effect on jobs. If the government debt has more of an effect than the tax rate, then you would see a higher unemployment number even though the low tax rate is good for jobs. Because you can't isolate variables like this with economics, there is no way to tell. The data are useless.

Then what you're saying is that we don't know anything concerning economics. So, all comments about economics is useless.
 
Then what you're saying is that we don't know anything concerning economics. So, all comments about economics is useless.

No. I'm saying we can only know things about economics from deduction. Empiricism cannot work in economics.
 
No. I'm saying we can only know things about economics from deduction. Empiricism cannot work in economics.

I don't believe that. The rules of deduction, and I know something about this, require the same type of support asn induction. If you can't support something, then you can't reach any conclusions. The best of deduction can't be accepted without proper support and evidence. It can't be assumed.

Also, deductive reasoning can never be used to show something is true or false, thus in this case making the reasoning irrelevent. You must be able to show both premises true, and that the conclsion is also true;

Cats have four legs.

Fluffy has four legs

(both true)

Therefore fluffy is a cat.

It is true if Fluffy is a cat. False if Fluffy is a dog. So, you have to show all of it to be true. If you can't, you can't make a valid claim. Both deduction and induction require support and evidence, and not just assumption.
 
I don't believe that. The rules of deduction, and I know something about this, require the same type of support asn induction. If you can't support something, then you can't reach any conclusions. The best of deduction can't be accepted without proper support and evidence. It can't be assumed.

There are no truths about human action that we just know?

Also, deductive reasoning can never be used to show something is true or false, thus in this case making the reasoning irrelevent. You must be able to show both premises true, and that the conclsion is also true;

Cats have four legs.

Fluffy has four legs

(both true)

Therefore fluffy is a cat.

It is true if Fluffy is a cat. False if Fluffy is a dog. So, you have to show all of it to be true. If you can't, you can't make a valid claim. Both deduction and induction require support and evidence, and not just assumption.

Umm, that's not a valid claim, so your conclusion doesn't logically follow. This is an example of poor logic, not a fault with deduction.
 
Back
Top Bottom