From[Marc Abrams (2006.06.24.2112)]
[From Rick Marken (2006.06.24.1720)]
> I presented data that shows that growth rates were higher during
periods when federal income tax rates were higher and than when >they
were lower. This is data that is readily accessible. I presented it
because it puzzles me. There seems to be a general consensus in
>economics that increasing taxes leads to decreased growth. But here is
readily available data that suggests that this is not the case. So my
>puzzlement is this: what is the basis for the economic consensus on
the relationship between taxes and growth?
First of all there is no consensus. Actually for the longest time most
economists said taxes did not matter. It has only been relatively
recently that several studies have shown that it does indeed matter. I
am attaching a paper showing the consequences of the tax policies of
the 1930's.
Are you certain you are talking tax _rates_ or tax revenue?
But again, there is no consensus.
> You call this an "analysis"?
No. I call it data. It's an observation. I don't know why it is
observed, I just see that it is. You had said that taxes reduce
economic >activity (a claim that I believe all economists of all
persuasions would agree with). But you didn't present any data to
support that claim.
You did say that such data is available at the state level. I'd like
to see it. I just presented data that suggests that, at the federal
level, >anyway, increasing taxes does not necessarily lead to decreased
economic activity (in terms of growth).
The question here is what criteriia are you using to designate
"economic growth"? New business start-ups? Employement? New job
creation? All of the above or some of the above?
All of these numbers are available from each of the states. I have no
desire to collect this data for you.
>> What can I gain by talking economics with you?
>A respect for data, perhaps?
Thanks, but I already have that. Indeed, it is the never ending quest
for better data that makes all this so much fun. But data exists in
many things besides numbers, and most numbers must be treated with a
great deal of skeptism until you understand what they actually
represent.
Rick, what I always find most interesting about your posts are not your
answwrs but what you choose to ignore or not answer and this post is no
exception.
I find it a bit puzzling that you have nothing toi say about the
equivocal use of the word control in this forum. I find it a bit
puzzling that yiou have nothing to say about using control more as a
metaphor than literally as used in PCT, and I find it puzzling that you
did not tell me what any of this economic stuff has to do with
perceptual control.
If you think I'm the only one who has these questions I think you are
badly mistaken and I think a frank discussion about them might be a
good idea. But like so many other questions at so many other times, I
won't be holding my breath waiting for any answers.
I hope the paper helps.
Regards,
Marc
Hight Taxes 1930’s - Cato.pdf (136 KB)
···
________________________________________________________________________
Check out AOL.com today. Breaking news, video search, pictures, email
and IM. All on demand. Always Free.