McCain”s moral compass

[EconProf]

I’m seeing a lot of familiar arguments hurdled back and forth in the above posts about the “fairness” of our progressive income tax system, our distribution of income in America, and income mobility over time. We are getting bogged down in anecdotal evidence, sweeping generalizations, and ad hominem attacks. Here are a few empirically verifiable observations that should contribute to our understanding:
1. There is a huge, largely unpublicized, correlation between family income and hours worked annually.
Sounds simple, and it is. The poor simply work less, for a variety of reasons.
2. The income tax rate structure is already extremely “progressive” if measured by the % paid by each quintile. The lowest two quintiles pay less than 5% of the revenues, the top quintile pays over half.
3. Historically, increases in marginal tax rates NEVER bring in the predicted tax revenues. People can simply work less or arrange their affairs to legally (or illegally) pay less. Indeed, regarding the capital gains tax rate, there is a perfect record going back decades of lower rates bringing in more tax revenue, and higher rates less revenue.

[an]

I completely agree BobS. I personally will take a step back and apologize if I offended anyone. We all have made our points clear and all the points are on the table. Since we don’t agree, we can just agree to disagree. But BobS’s point is hard to over look and I think that will occur when taxes get increased. People will take a step back, reanalyze their situation, and determine whether it’s worth it to work extra hours or not.

[an]

I completely agree BobS. I personally will take a step back and apologize if I offended anyone. We all have made our points clear and all the points are on the table. Since we don’t agree, we can just agree to disagree. But BobS’s point is hard to over look and I think that will occur when taxes get increased. People will take a step back, reanalyze their situation, and determine whether it’s worth it to work extra hours or not.

[an]

I completely agree BobS. I personally will take a step back and apologize if I offended anyone. We all have made our points clear and all the points are on the table. Since we don’t agree, we can just agree to disagree. But BobS’s point is hard to over look and I think that will occur when taxes get increased. People will take a step back, reanalyze their situation, and determine whether it’s worth it to work extra hours or not.

[an]

I completely agree BobS. I personally will take a step back and apologize if I offended anyone. We all have made our points clear and all the points are on the table. Since we don’t agree, we can just agree to disagree. But BobS’s point is hard to over look and I think that will occur when taxes get increased. People will take a step back, reanalyze their situation, and determine whether it’s worth it to work extra hours or not.

[an]

I completely agree BobS. I personally will take a step back and apologize if I offended anyone. We all have made our points clear and all the points are on the table. Since we don’t agree, we can just agree to disagree. But BobS’s point is hard to over look and I think that will occur when taxes get increased. People will take a step back, reanalyze their situation, and determine whether it’s worth it to work extra hours or not.

[anxvariety]

I think Ron Paul was the most Republican candidate. Protect things here, smaller government, lower/eliminate taxes.

The other 2 candidates are just part of the plan.. the winner has already been decided. I couldn’t vote for either even if the vote were to count.

It’s not about America anymore… it’s about Israel.

The person who makes the most guarantees to AIPAC will win. I personally know of no one that is interested in either McCain or Obama, so no idea how they are so “popular” as the media and fixed primaries indicate.

[anxvariety]

I think Ron Paul was the most Republican candidate. Protect things here, smaller government, lower/eliminate taxes.

The other 2 candidates are just part of the plan.. the winner has already been decided. I couldn’t vote for either even if the vote were to count.

It’s not about America anymore… it’s about Israel.

The person who makes the most guarantees to AIPAC will win. I personally know of no one that is interested in either McCain or Obama, so no idea how they are so “popular” as the media and fixed primaries indicate.

[anxvariety]

I think Ron Paul was the most Republican candidate. Protect things here, smaller government, lower/eliminate taxes.

The other 2 candidates are just part of the plan.. the winner has already been decided. I couldn’t vote for either even if the vote were to count.

It’s not about America anymore… it’s about Israel.

The person who makes the most guarantees to AIPAC will win. I personally know of no one that is interested in either McCain or Obama, so no idea how they are so “popular” as the media and fixed primaries indicate.

[anxvariety]

I think Ron Paul was the most Republican candidate. Protect things here, smaller government, lower/eliminate taxes.

The other 2 candidates are just part of the plan.. the winner has already been decided. I couldn’t vote for either even if the vote were to count.

It’s not about America anymore… it’s about Israel.

The person who makes the most guarantees to AIPAC will win. I personally know of no one that is interested in either McCain or Obama, so no idea how they are so “popular” as the media and fixed primaries indicate.

[anxvariety]

I think Ron Paul was the most Republican candidate. Protect things here, smaller government, lower/eliminate taxes.

The other 2 candidates are just part of the plan.. the winner has already been decided. I couldn’t vote for either even if the vote were to count.

It’s not about America anymore… it’s about Israel.

The person who makes the most guarantees to AIPAC will win. I personally know of no one that is interested in either McCain or Obama, so no idea how they are so “popular” as the media and fixed primaries indicate.

[drunkle]

[quote=BobS]

Here are a few empirically verifiable observations that should contribute to our understanding:
1. There is a huge, largely unpublicized, correlation between family income and hours worked annually.
Sounds simple, and it is. The poor simply work less, for a variety of reasons.
[/quote]

while the correlation may apply to the middle classes, it obviously does not apply at the extremes; uneducated laborers and the wealthy born/well connected.

[quote]

2. The income tax rate structure is already extremely “progressive” if measured by the % paid by each quintile. The lowest two quintiles pay less than 5% of the revenues, the top quintile pays over half.

[/quote]

by “extremely progressive”, i assume you’re refering to the progression affecting the bottom 75%.

[quote]

3. Historically, increases in marginal tax rates NEVER bring in the predicted tax revenues. People can simply work less or arrange their affairs to legally (or illegally) pay less. Indeed, regarding the capital gains tax rate, there is a perfect record going back decades of lower rates bringing in more tax revenue, and higher rates less revenue.[/quote]

does “predicted tax revenues” mean less revenues than before a rate hike?

do higher tax revenues under lower cap gains rate = higher total revenues? or higher than “predicted”? and does individual behaviour such as tax reduction strategy have much to do with it? ie., not cashing out holdings during times of higher rates?

i think these observations are inconclusive regarding fairness or unfairness of our tax system.

[drunkle]

[quote=BobS]

Here are a few empirically verifiable observations that should contribute to our understanding:
1. There is a huge, largely unpublicized, correlation between family income and hours worked annually.
Sounds simple, and it is. The poor simply work less, for a variety of reasons.
[/quote]

while the correlation may apply to the middle classes, it obviously does not apply at the extremes; uneducated laborers and the wealthy born/well connected.

[quote]

2. The income tax rate structure is already extremely “progressive” if measured by the % paid by each quintile. The lowest two quintiles pay less than 5% of the revenues, the top quintile pays over half.

[/quote]

by “extremely progressive”, i assume you’re refering to the progression affecting the bottom 75%.

[quote]

3. Historically, increases in marginal tax rates NEVER bring in the predicted tax revenues. People can simply work less or arrange their affairs to legally (or illegally) pay less. Indeed, regarding the capital gains tax rate, there is a perfect record going back decades of lower rates bringing in more tax revenue, and higher rates less revenue.[/quote]

does “predicted tax revenues” mean less revenues than before a rate hike?

do higher tax revenues under lower cap gains rate = higher total revenues? or higher than “predicted”? and does individual behaviour such as tax reduction strategy have much to do with it? ie., not cashing out holdings during times of higher rates?

i think these observations are inconclusive regarding fairness or unfairness of our tax system.

[drunkle]

[quote=BobS]

Here are a few empirically verifiable observations that should contribute to our understanding:
1. There is a huge, largely unpublicized, correlation between family income and hours worked annually.
Sounds simple, and it is. The poor simply work less, for a variety of reasons.
[/quote]

while the correlation may apply to the middle classes, it obviously does not apply at the extremes; uneducated laborers and the wealthy born/well connected.

[quote]

2. The income tax rate structure is already extremely “progressive” if measured by the % paid by each quintile. The lowest two quintiles pay less than 5% of the revenues, the top quintile pays over half.

[/quote]

by “extremely progressive”, i assume you’re refering to the progression affecting the bottom 75%.

[quote]

3. Historically, increases in marginal tax rates NEVER bring in the predicted tax revenues. People can simply work less or arrange their affairs to legally (or illegally) pay less. Indeed, regarding the capital gains tax rate, there is a perfect record going back decades of lower rates bringing in more tax revenue, and higher rates less revenue.[/quote]

does “predicted tax revenues” mean less revenues than before a rate hike?

do higher tax revenues under lower cap gains rate = higher total revenues? or higher than “predicted”? and does individual behaviour such as tax reduction strategy have much to do with it? ie., not cashing out holdings during times of higher rates?

i think these observations are inconclusive regarding fairness or unfairness of our tax system.

[drunkle]

[quote=BobS]

Here are a few empirically verifiable observations that should contribute to our understanding:
1. There is a huge, largely unpublicized, correlation between family income and hours worked annually.
Sounds simple, and it is. The poor simply work less, for a variety of reasons.
[/quote]

while the correlation may apply to the middle classes, it obviously does not apply at the extremes; uneducated laborers and the wealthy born/well connected.

[quote]

2. The income tax rate structure is already extremely “progressive” if measured by the % paid by each quintile. The lowest two quintiles pay less than 5% of the revenues, the top quintile pays over half.

[/quote]

by “extremely progressive”, i assume you’re refering to the progression affecting the bottom 75%.

[quote]

3. Historically, increases in marginal tax rates NEVER bring in the predicted tax revenues. People can simply work less or arrange their affairs to legally (or illegally) pay less. Indeed, regarding the capital gains tax rate, there is a perfect record going back decades of lower rates bringing in more tax revenue, and higher rates less revenue.[/quote]

does “predicted tax revenues” mean less revenues than before a rate hike?

do higher tax revenues under lower cap gains rate = higher total revenues? or higher than “predicted”? and does individual behaviour such as tax reduction strategy have much to do with it? ie., not cashing out holdings during times of higher rates?

i think these observations are inconclusive regarding fairness or unfairness of our tax system.

[Author]

Posts