Opti said:
I remember seeing charts like this for other developed countries and we ( the USA) were near the bottom.
Opti said:
I remember seeing charts like this for other developed countries and we ( the USA) were near the bottom.
Opti said:In reply to 93EXCivic :
It's called the Laffer curve
The idea of the Laffer curve (that it can be used as a predictive tool) is nonsense though:
https://ctmirror.org/2018/01/18/why-the-laffer-curve-is-garbage/
Steve_Jones said:pheller said:Ok, so what's the problem
Is there a problem?
I'm done talking.
Ask the guy that started the thread, he must think there is a problem based on the title. I'd say most of the others here don't see a problem.
I'm not even saying there isn't a problem.
I just don't think the problem is what he (at least originally) seemed to think it is.
And I damn sure don't think his proposed cure is going to do anything but make it worse.
Ok, I'm not criticizing you. Lets not criticize me.
I'm just asking, do you think there is a problem with housing, housing prices, rent prices, etc in your area, or in the USA, and what should/can be done about it?
In reply to GameboyRMH :
I didn't say it was a predictive tool. It's a theory to help understand some variables of the effect of tax rate on tax revenue.
I read your article and I have a couple complains. First it's from the dumbest class of people, a politician and second I didn't see anything to dispute the Laffer curve in there. If anything he's reinforcing it, things like the rich use their power to lobby for tax benefits
Steve_Jones said:pheller said:Ok, so what's the problem
Is there a problem?
I'm done talking.
Ask the guy that started the thread, he must think there is a problem based on the title. I'd say most of the others here don't see a problem.
It's about putting high density apartments in your backyard. If you aren't in Southern California or the fashionable part of Dallas, there probably isn't a problem. My dog actually has a problem with it. She likes her backyard the way it is.
Oh, and we have to pass a bill in Congress forcing poor people to move to abandoned houses in Baltimore because welfare queens shouldn't have an ocean view.
Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) said:because welfare queens shouldn't have an ocean view.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/03/us/bruces-beach-los-angeles-county-sale-reaj/index.html
mr2s2000elise said:Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) said:because welfare queens shouldn't have an ocean view.https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/03/us/bruces-beach-los-angeles-county-sale-reaj/index.html
So you assume that black property owners would be welfare queens? A lot of welfare queens are white and don't drive Cadillacs.
In reply to Opti :
Here's some more in-depth debunking:
https://itep.org/DebunkingLaffer/
Also I wouldn't say that politicians are dumb as a group, a fairly small fraction are actually dumb, most are of average intelligence or better, and then there are those who are "dumb like a fox."
frenchyd said:Opti said:
I remember seeing charts like this for other developed countries and we ( the USA) were near the bottom.
And your point? Culture, form of government, and public opinion play a part in this. Let me give you an example, you have two countries lets say one has been various forms of a monarchy for the last couple thousands years and because of thats its people have been subject to oppressive taxes by the aristocracy for the last ~1500 years, and another country overthrew that same monarchy a couple hundred years ago because of a couple percent tax on tea. These two countries are going to have different levels of taxation that is considered ok.
To illustrate this further lets look at supply and demand. People call supply and demand a law but it isnt applied equally to all goods. Milk and gasoline have very different demand curves and elasticity. This doesnt mean that supply and demand is wrong, it just means they start from different base levels and have slightly different forces and effects acting upon them.
TLDR: just because the USA is lower doesnt mean it CAN or SHOULD be higher.
In reply to GameboyRMH :
First, of all the things that have been said in this thread, the one I oppose the most vehemently is that politicians arent dumb.
Second I read this article and its not disputing the laffer curve, its disputing arguments that use the laffer curve rather terribly in their "proof." The laffer curve pretty much only says that there is some tax rate at which maximum tax revenue is achieved and moving it higher or lower results in a lower tax revenue. Thats not even controversial. The controversy comes into play when people argue about what the revenue maximizing tax rate is and wether we are currently above or below it.
In reply to Opti :
I totally agree.
How could it not be the case that if the government charges 0% or 100% tax, they'll get zero revenue.
Obviously, there's a sweet spot above which or below which tax revenue will go down...the objective, from the governments prospective, is to squeeze its citizens as hard as they can before they start deciding that living a more modest life is a better option than trying to feed the beast or worse, they start working under the table or bartering or ??? to avoid the government.
In reply to GameboyRMH :
In reply to Opti :
Here's some more in-depth debunking:
https://itep.org/DebunkingLaffer/
Also I wouldn't say that politicians are dumb as a group, a fairly small fraction are actually dumb, most are of average intelligence or better, and then there are those who are "dumb like a fox."
Oh my goodness, try again please. And again, check your source. For those interested, this is the source to the linked graph...
If their home page doesn't tip you off that they are biased, it doesn't take much research to find which way they lean. These guys are masters at manipulating data to support their conclusion.
And talk about a stretch. I'm pretty sure we saw that same state's income tax Vs. unemployment graph already in this thread or another like it. It was just as meaningless then. Unemployment is a complex issue with a multitude of factors, many unique to each state. And they singled out income tax rate? Whoever published that graph was dumb like a fox as you would say.
Opti said:frenchyd said:Opti said:
I remember seeing charts like this for other developed countries and we ( the USA) were near the bottom.
And your point? Culture, form of government, and public opinion play a part in this. Let me give you an example, you have two countries lets say one has been various forms of a monarchy for the last couple thousands years and because of thats its people have been subject to oppressive taxes by the aristocracy for the last ~1500 years, and another country overthrew that same monarchy a couple hundred years ago because of a couple percent tax on tea. These two countries are going to have different levels of taxation that is considered ok.
To illustrate this further lets look at supply and demand. People call supply and demand a law but it isnt applied equally to all goods. Milk and gasoline have very different demand curves and elasticity. This doesnt mean that supply and demand is wrong, it just means they start from different base levels and have slightly different forces and effects acting upon them.
TLDR: just because the USA is lower doesnt mean it CAN or SHOULD be higher.
The countries that have the most content ( happy) citizens are ones where their security needs ( food/clothing/shelter are going to be comfortably met and where the citizens perseve the government is responsive to the citizens, not special interests.
Finland, Sweden, Norway, Belgium are such countries. Yes their tax rate is higher than here in America. However they perceive their needs are being met.
Fewer of their citizens are in jail. They are among the best educated and healthiest people in the world their medical care provides them with long health lives and as proof they tend to be much taller and slimmer than Americans.
Since Americans are now 22 in education, 21 st in health and life expectancy. Wealthier than average Americans. Clearly we aren't doing something right. It's called best practices. We don't do it anymore.
Maybe it's time America looks around the world and starts following best practices?
Opti said:Second I read this article and its not disputing the laffer curve, its disputing arguments that use the laffer curve rather terribly in their "proof." The laffer curve pretty much only says that there is some tax rate at which maximum tax revenue is achieved and moving it higher or lower results in a lower tax revenue. Thats not even controversial. The controversy comes into play when people argue about what the revenue maximizing tax rate is and wether we are currently above or below it.
That's what makes it worse than useless. There's very little to the basics of it but it implies immense powers of prediction that are incredibly tempting to try using, and proposed curve shapes have grown around it because of this. The best thing it can do is nothing, the worst it can do is mislead people terribly.
An analogy I like to use is that a dyno graph produced by a dynamometer is real, and one produced by an algorithm that takes a couple of engine specs and claims to be able to produce a dyno graph is a joke. Anyone who tried to use its output could only be misled. The Laffer curve is that algorithm for economics, and some of the specific curve shapes proposed for it are like a set of background constants just waiting for a gullible user to plug in their displacement and idle RPM.
If such an algorithm were really floating around and was somehow as popular as the Laffer curve (maybe because a popular constant set said intake vortex generators and a little bit of backpressure were the best things ever), it would be treated as the worst piece of bunk in existence in the engine tuning world.
In reply to Boost_Crazy :
Boost crazy.
Politicians say what we want to hear. And do what the people with the fat check books want. When caught in a lie they act confused.
dumb? I doubt it. Most great actors are plenty smart.
How much did you donate to your political party? ( you can round it out to the nearest million). ?!!!! Why would they act in your interest? Or even care about you?
Is revenue the only reason taxes are applied?
What if taxes make a certain economic more expensive, or allow more competition, or actually reduce the amount the government needs to spend on something?
Take taxes on tobacco. You could argue that it both makes the product more expensive, but in doing so it probably saves the government ie taxpayers some money because its not paying Medicare/Medicaid bills for lung cancer patients other health problems associated with smoking. In this case, it's not JUST about revenue.
In what ways could similar strategies be applied to the real estate market? Where tax is not designed JUST to raise revenue, but also used to discourage certain behaviors?
pheller said:In what ways could similar strategies be applied to the real estate market? Where tax is not designed JUST to raise revenue, but also used to discourage certain behaviors?
Now we are back to the beginning. What behaviors? Ones you don't agree with right? As said many times in this thread, you are more than free to buy a piece of property and do whatever you feel is right.
I dunno, you tell me.
What behaviors regarding real estate should be discouraged?
pheller said:I dunno, you tell me.
What behaviors regarding real estate should be discouraged?
I don't think any should. People are free to buy/sell/keep/give away/develop/let sit/whatever on property they own.
What about regulation? Zoning and Building Codes, for example?
Steve_Jones said:pheller said:I dunno, you tell me.
What behaviors regarding real estate should be discouraged?
I don't think any should. People are free to buy/sell/keep/give away/develop/let sit/whatever on property they own.
Tell that to the zoning officials of any city. Want to buy a house in an expensive neighborhood, tear it down and raise pigs on the lot? No. They won't let you do it even if you own the property. In fact, a permit from the city would usually be required just to tear a house down.
Want to build a commercial building and rent it out. You have to get a building permit from the city and inspections are required every step of the way, even if you own the land. A certificate of occupancy will also be required from the city before you rent it out, even though you do own it. In most places the government already can tell you what to do with your property. Maybe in a rural area in the middle of nowhere you can live in a hut or a ratty old trailer, but not in most cities.
pheller said:What about regulation? Zoning and Building Codes, for example?
I knew you'd move the goalposts. As long as it's not against zoning and codes, people have the right to decide what to do with their property. If they want to let it sit, it sits. It's irrelevant what you think they should do with it. You don't own it.
In reply to Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) :
If I decide I want to develop it, of course I need to follow zoning, but you can't force me to develop it just because YOU don't think it's adding value sitting vacant. That's what started this thread 2 years ago
You'll need to log in to post.
