Ben Stein:"There's no connection between taxation and the level of economic activity"

[mercury14]

Ben Stein:"There's no connection between taxation and the level of economic activity"

Ben Stein gets it. And he spelled it out to the completely dumbfounded twits on Fox & Friends, too funny.


http://www.upworthy.com/win-ben-steins-money-no-need-he-wants-to-pay-more-taxes?c=bl3

 

[koalabear]

I agree, programs need to be cut, you miss that part StinkyMORON?

 

[koalabear]

I guess you did.

 

[mercury14]

I agree, programs need to be cut, you miss that part StinkyMORON?

Yeah cuts and tax hikes, like I keep saying. Ben Stein is correct.

 

[koalabear]

Yeah cuts and tax hikes, like I keep saying. Ben Stein is correct.

Ben Stein gets it. And he spelled it out to the completely dumbfounded twits on Fox & Friends, too funny.


Yet that was your lead-in, StinkyMORON.

 

[imalickin]

Ben Stein gets it. And he spelled it out to the completely dumbfounded twits on Fox & Friends, too funny.


Yet that was your lead-in, StinkyMORON.

What do you expect from a socialist.

 

[koalabear]

What do you expect from a socialist.

He's a partisan StinkyMORON.

 

[Squibbs]

Beuller

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

If Stein is right 100% tax rates oughta be ideal. Take every penny and we'll all be rich.

Uh, wait...somethings wrong with the math.

Let me explain the Revolution Model and how revolutions come about. Take any revolution you like, and they all unfold the same way.

Every government that ever existed operates the same: The king or queen or president or dictator pays soldiers, courtesans, and others to work for him/her. And bribes enemies to chill-out. But none of these groups produce anything anyone wants. Peasants and craftsmen and such make the stuff people want.

And when a peasant raises a pig the king/queen demands a fixed portion of the animal, to distribute to the soldiers and others. And because government always grows and never gets smaller, the king takes more and more of the pig. And at some time the peasant is left with only the animals balls. If the peasant fishes, the queen lets him keep the heads and maybe the scales.

After the peasants are tapped out the government ups the ante on the middle-class, who must sell their investments and other assets to help the king feed his government.

And when things go to hell the queen fires government people to use the money to pay the soldiers and bribes and the princes.

The revolt comes from the fired government officials. Peasants dont revolt, peasants poach the kings deers and watermelons. Peasants are hired by the ex government officials to tar and feather the officials who still work for the queen. Then the soldiers gotta earn their pay protecting the government officials, and the fat is in the fire.

 

[ms_ann_thrope]

Without taxation there never would have been a tea party.

 

[renard_ruse]

The ability of liberal loudmouths to effectively demonize Fox news, a rare center left voice in the otherwise completely extreme left "news" media proves there is a liberal conspiracy in the media.

If there wasn't there would be dozens of centre left and even the occasional right of center mainstream media outlet. The fact there's not rather proves the point.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Without taxation there never would have been a tea party.

The issue was always crony capitalism. The king and his court owed the East India Tea Company their anal sphincters, and gave up American commerce in lieu of their butts. The East India Tea Company was Wally World on steroids, and effectively controlled commercial life in the American colony. You hadda buy everything from the tea company, and they competed with you for customers. They printed the money and paid you what they pleased for your stuff. The tax thang was the final straw. Folks started smuggling in cheaper stuff, and selling their stuff to the French, Spanish, and Dutch for more money. So the tea company demanded troops and taxes to pay for the troops.

 

[mercury14]

If Stein is right 100% tax rates oughta be ideal. Take every penny and we'll all be rich.

Uh, wait...somethings wrong with the math.

Nothing's wrong with the math, you're just misunderstanding it. A 100% tax rate isn't capitalism so it's not applicable to the discussion.

There's no evidence to back the conservative claim that raising taxes on the rich from 35% to 39.5% is going to measurably slow down economic activity. After all, America's economic activity boomed when it had a 90% top tax bracket. There's plenty of evidence to show that these kinds of tax increases bring in more revenue and slash the deficit though (see: America in 2013). AJ's economic theorists are wrong. All wrong, every last one of them.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Nothing's wrong with the math, you're just misunderstanding it. A 100% tax rate isn't capitalism so it's not applicable to the discussion.

There's no evidence to back the conservative claim that raising taxes on the rich from 35% to 39.5% is going to measurably slow down economic activity. After all, America's economic activity boomed when it had a 90% top tax bracket. There's plenty of evidence to show that these kinds of tax increases bring in more revenue and slash the deficit though (see: America in 2013). AJ's economic theorists are wrong. All wrong, every last one of them.

Dear, no one paid the 90% rate except peasant lotto winners. In those days FDR sold Eleanors soiled drawers for huge tax credits. FDR sold so many of Eleanors drawers to the rich she was known as DOLF for a while, cuz her pants went up and down so often.

 

[njlauren]

Basically, the whole supply side economic theory that came in with Reagan and has been stock and trade of the GOP for the last 35 years , that cutting taxes stimulates growth, has been proven to be false. The claim is if you cut taxes, slash them, on the top wage earners, it will result in massive capital formation which in turn will stimulate the economy, lead to higher revenue for the government and also will "float all boats"......and despite the fact that the marginal tax rates on the highest bracket went from 90% to 35%, the results have shown it failed to do what conservatives claim. Reagan ran budget deficits both terms, Bush 1 ran deficits, Clinton kept the tax cuts and ran deficits until they finally raised taxes, Bush II slashed taxes in the middle of two costly wars (that he kept out of the main budget, as 'emergency spending', that showed up later as debt) and doubled the national debt. Conservatives trot out the laffer curve as this miraculous formula, but the problem is, real life didn't mimic laffer. The worse part of supply side economics is it increased the wealth and the income of the top 1% to the point where they have higher concentrations of wealth and income then the well off did in the 1920's, but it barely caused a rise in the income of the rest of the 99%, most of whom have lost ground. In reality, these tax cuts were not there to stimulate the economy, they basically were aimed at the 1% who resent having to pay any taxes at all, the Leona Helmsley "only the little people pay taxes".

Cutting taxes or increasing government spending are ways to stimulate the economy when they go into recession, but spending actually tends to do a better job, Keynes was right. In part, it is because government spending tends to go into the families of middle and working class people, whereas tax breaks tend to go the very upper earners, and even leaving out my take that the well off don't engage in much useful capital formation, the other problem is the top 1% don't stimulate the economy well at all as consumers. An extra buck that gets into the hands of middle or working class people generates about 5 bucks of economic acitivity (the multiplier effect), whereas with those in upper brackets it is about 1.50.

Ben Stein is not a liberal economist, he tends to be more form the University of Chicago school, but he also is a trained economist who knows that in the end, figures tell the story. All I have to say is the tax cut mantra that we have had the last 30+ years has taken us from where the national debt was 1 trillion dollars and the deficit 50 million, to a debt of 17 trillion and a deficit that without the financial crisis would be about 500 billion, and 16 trillion of that has happened with tax rates that are sharply lower then they were before Reagan took office, since taxes have for the most part been left or cut from when Reagan left office.

 

[koalabear]

Nothing's wrong with the math, you're just misunderstanding it. A 100% tax rate isn't capitalism so it's not applicable to the discussion.

There's no evidence to back the conservative claim that raising taxes on the rich from 35% to 39.5% is going to measurably slow down economic activity. After all, America's economic activity boomed when it had a 90% top tax bracket. There's plenty of evidence to show that these kinds of tax increases bring in more revenue and slash the deficit though (see: America in 2013). AJ's economic theorists are wrong. All wrong, every last one of them.

You seem to forget about cutting spending. You were all for Stein's tax increase but ignored the rest, StinkyMORON.

 

[ms_ann_thrope]

I want to pump you up!

 

[KRCummings]

Know what's awesome about the internet? Everybody is an expert at everything.

 

[islandman]

Know what's awesome about the internet? Everybody is an expert at everything.

And especially the ones who are dudes pretending to be chicks.

 

[KRCummings]

And especially the ones who are dudes pretending to be chicks.

I don't know if I'd say that was awesome. Entertaining sure but awesome?

 

[tactful]

My eyes are kinda redish, anyone got any Clear eyes stuff?
Ben, Ben is that you?

 

[KRCummings]

Want a good laugh? Look up Stein on wiki and see what he had to say about the recession, the subprime/housing mess and the credit crunch.
I also didn't find anything that says he has any education in economics.
I like the guy but why anyone would take his word for anything to do with the economy is beyond me.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Ben Stein is a lawyer, and has a record of being wrong about economic issues most of the time. His father was an economist.

Now! Being a lawyer is okay but a law degree isn't a magic wand for authority of anything but law. A law degree wont make you a better plumber or lap dancer or French fry cook. It wont help you embalm bodies or transplant hearts. Or farm or fish or wrestle alligators.

 

[about_average]

I can't be bothered to look it up right now (just got home from a 15hr RT drive) but I heard a reference to a recent (I think) study of taxes and the economy looking at the period since around 1900 that found a definite correlation between taxation and the economy. Surprisingly, when the tax rate is 50+% the economy shows a steady growth, when taxes fall below 50% it goes in to cycles of bubble and bust. Which actually makes sense if you think about it.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

I can't be bothered to look it up right now (just got home from a 15hr RT drive) but I heard a reference to a recent (I think) study of taxes and the economy looking at the period since around 1900 that found a definite correlation between taxation and the economy. Surprisingly, when the tax rate is 50+% the economy shows a steady growth, when taxes fall below 50% it goes in to cycles of bubble and bust. Which actually makes sense if you think about it.

I don't sense the sense, so make some sense.

Having no goddamned idea what you mean lemme look at the situation this way: Suppose there was no government to confiscate my money. Its doable if youre Robinson Crusoe and marooned. My economic activity would be for me entirely.

If I'm nutty enough I might fish 24/7, or collect coconuts 24/7, or build treehouses every goddamned where, but prolly I wouldn't. Prolly I'd arrange my work according to my needs, and take care of bizness. If Girl Friday comes along, and all she has to contribute to the community is pussy, then I may need to adjust my work routine to improve both our lives. But we still got no government taking the whole pig and leaving me with the balls. And that's what we're talking about. If the government takes the hams and bacon and chops, and I got balls and lips and ears, you can make a case that life is wonderful for someone, and the steady growth is the governments share of the pig.