Hidden Tax Hikes

[LongBlade]

It's not exactly a hole in the argument - an increase in taxes is still money taken out of the economy and distributed less efficiently by government.

However, revenues as a whole *should* increase when the economy expands. And the economy has been expanding for a while now, just not fast enough to pull unemployment down.

[son_of_montfort]

It's not exactly a hole in the argument - an increase in taxes is still money taken out of the economy and distributed less efficiently by government.

However, revenues as a whole *should* increase when the economy expands. And the economy has been expanding for a while now, just not fast enough to pull unemployment down.

It is a hole in the "longest running depression without recover" part.

[Steelgrave]

I'll tell ya, one thing that may well come into play come election day is how people perceive the state of the economy to be. Case in point is that in the months leading up to Bush I vs. Bill Clinton, the economy was actually on an upswing, but the perception among the great unwashed was that little had changed, and this helped Clinton get into office.

Among people I know well or even casually, I can't name anyone, no one at all, who is doing better financially than they were a couple of years ago. Most folks I know shake their head and say "not around here" when the media reports an economy on the rebound.

My point is that a lot of what happens in an election is not scientific and cannot be measured. Obama, being a Democrat, does have the advantage of a friendly media who will help to push the "recovering economy" stories and it may well prove successful. But it's hard to convince people that things are better if their own personal circumstances, and that of their circle of family and friends, says otherwise.

[Windigo]

What the long article didn't address was if this was standard practice by the OMB or just this administration.

And the point about the "taking credit for tax cuts" was a major distraction.

As I said in my above point, I'm pretty confident this isn't trying to "hide" tax hikes but is a rhetorical tool for discussion (when you talk trillions, 158 billion "hidden" is not all that significant). Congress should have access to the exact same documents as the article's author (or is he saying he is more wily or "in the know" than Congress), so they should have the exact numbers and where those figures are placed. If a Conservative Think-Tank author has the info, the Congress does too.

I haven't seen Bison responding for a while since the Catholic dohickey.....do we really want this forum to get to this point?

Left or right...throw the baby out with the bath water because we don't give a rat's rear end if it isn't forwarding what we believe in.....

I'm not sure what you mean here. Windi stated it correctly, the article was clearly meant to be inflammatory (albeit in an intellectual way). The reason that I first question source bias of anything I read and watch is because I know that the clarity and accuracy of the content of any media will depend upon the reason for writing it. This group clearly has an agenda to implement a flat tax system, so I question they way in which they presented this tax hike as "hidden" from those who need to know.

Regarding Bison, I changed my avatar as he stated it offended him. I didn't actively try to run him off, if you were thinking that.

There is no intellectual integrity in this document. It is a politicized discussion that ascribes cause without proof. It easily ascribes and accuses, again without proof. In other words its just a more restrained version of a Rush L. rant.

[Windigo]

It's not exactly a hole in the argument - an increase in taxes is still money taken out of the economy and distributed less efficiently by government.

However, revenues as a whole *should* increase when the economy expands. And the economy has been expanding for a while now, just not fast enough to pull unemployment down.

Your insistence that government somehow takes money out of an economy is proof you haven't learned your economics as well as you claim.

Your inference that somehow governments redistribution is less efficient than..... what? How do you measure inefficiencies in program spending? With whom do you compare?

If you think IBM or Exxon or Microsoft don't have bloated natures like government (e.g., excess internal policy) you are not aware of the truth then.... rhetoric is what I am hearing all the time.... rhetoric can be true, but if you don't know yourself that its true.... what is it then???  faith-based religious dogma? I think so.

Politics in the states are becoming just that fights of faith-based religious dogma.

[Smuckatelli]

What the long article didn't address was if this was standard practice by the OMB or just this administration.

And the point about the "taking credit for tax cuts" was a major distraction.

As I said in my above point, I'm pretty confident this isn't trying to "hide" tax hikes but is a rhetorical tool for discussion (when you talk trillions, 158 billion "hidden" is not all that significant). Congress should have access to the exact same documents as the article's author (or is he saying he is more wily or "in the know" than Congress), so they should have the exact numbers and where those figures are placed. If a Conservative Think-Tank author has the info, the Congress does too.

I haven't seen Bison responding for a while since the Catholic dohickey.....do we really want this forum to get to this point?

Left or right...throw the baby out with the bath water because we don't give a rat's rear end if it isn't forwarding what we believe in.....

I'm not sure what you mean here. Windi stated it correctly, the article was clearly meant to be inflammatory (albeit in an intellectual way). The reason that I first question source bias of anything I read and watch is because I know that the clarity and accuracy of the content of any media will depend upon the reason for writing it. This group clearly has an agenda to implement a flat tax system, so I question they way in which they presented this tax hike as "hidden" from those who need to know.

Regarding Bison, I changed my avatar as he stated it offended him. I didn't actively try to run him off, if you were thinking that.

There is no intellectual integrity in this document. It is a politicized discussion that ascribes cause without proof. It easily ascribes and accuses, again without proof. In other words its just a more restrained version of a Rush L. rant.

Windy, can you expand on this? Are you referencing what SoM posted or what I posted?

[LongBlade]

Edit.

Ahahaha!

I get it, Windy.

Thanks for the laugh. Your foray into game theory almost had me going.

Nice try. I appreciate the effort.

Can I interest you in a new Chevy Volt?

[son_of_montfort]

I'll tell ya, one thing that may well come into play come election day is how people perceive the state of the economy to be. Case in point is that in the months leading up to Bush I vs. Bill Clinton, the economy was actually on an upswing, but the perception among the great unwashed was that little had changed, and this helped Clinton get into office.

This effect is well known by political scientists and proven to be demonstrable. Perception is ALWAY stronger than reality and typically a lot different than reality. How that will turn out for this election is far from clear, but it certainly will be a factor.

I think that Romney has done a very very good job of making himself look like the detached, ultra-rich, white guy. Given what you just said, that is going to be a real downside to his presidential bid with the undecided voters.

I know, with the storm that just hit here, the economic arguments are going to be VERY strong.

[Windigo]

Game theorem, economics, and ecology go hand in hand (the sociologists don't get it though).

The tragedy of the commons is perhaps the simplest example of all three of these coming together.


@Smuck
both actually, but that first piece you linked to is just a Rush schtick with a calmer tone.

[LongBlade]

Game theorem, economics, and ecology go hand in hand (the sociologists don't get it though).

Not quite.

I can demonstrate that if the demand curve has sufficient elasticity, lowering the price of a good will increase demand.

OTOH, Sunday night the weather forecast was for 0.10 inches of snow. We got six.

Might I interest you in a Chevy Volt?

[Smuckatelli]

@Smuck
both actually, but that first piece you linked to is just a Rush schtick with a calmer tone.

Windy, stop being a wally....I posted:

An interesting article; can anyone shoot it down?

Saying it is just Rush schtick with a calmer tone doesn't help me. when I asked for it to be shoot down, I didn't want blanks to be used. ;)

[son_of_montfort]

Can we say it was just William F. Buckley Jr. schtick updated for 2012?

[Smuckatelli]

Can we say it was just William F. Buckley Jr. schtick updated for 2012?

No, now go to the corner and face the wall!!!!!

Just explain it to me why it is BS and provide links if possible.

[LongBlade]

Can we say it was just William F. Buckley Jr. schtick updated for 2012?

No. There are fact that have been put on the table: the budget numbers between the Treasury and OMB are widely at odds and suggest political shenanigans.

This is a serious charge, and the best anyone can do to refute them is to pretend it doesn't exist.

[son_of_montfort]

Can we say it was just William F. Buckley Jr. schtick updated for 2012?

No, now go to the corner and face the wall!!!!!

Just explain it to me why it is BS and provide links if possible.

You never did answer my very valid question. The author claims these hikes were "hidden," yet he "found" them in the available documents. Congress has access to these documents when deciding to approve the new tax hikes. Thus, these hikes are openly known to congress - a fact that calls into question the article's very premise that these hikes were hidden in an attempt to obfuscate and slip these hikes past Congress.

Ergo, the article's premise is flawed and inaccurate.

Unless this author claims access to secret knowledge that is not part of the public record. Does he?