Chris JL
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 1,766
๐๐ป 1,852
March 2017
|
Help Refugees UK - Need 3000 Sleeping Bags, by Chris JL on Feb 16, 2019 3:22:04 GMT 1, Do you want an economic argument? Because by helping and integrating those migrants you'd get an economic boost. Those are people who most willingly will work, taking low-skill occupations needed in industry and services, and pay taxes that will fund your public goods and other social services - possibly directed at the homeless. If you want to talk economics, you'd know that economic migrants are a net cost, not a net benefit to a country. The fun thing lefties always do is say that economic migrants are 'willing to work' which they could have done in any of the safe countries they have passed before getting to the UK, and then argue that economic migrants are willing to take 'low skilled' occupations, completely disregarding the fact that one of the biggest economic and social challenges in the very near future is automation and the disappearance of low skilled jobs, rendering a large part of the social underclass without a meaningful day-to-day occupation. If anything we need less low skilled workers, not more.
Wrong, as usual. Immigration is a net benefit - about a zillion serious studies show that (even purely low skills one, like the famous bracero studies in the US document). I told you already several times: study, please - ignorance is NOT bliss.
PS: one of a zillion testaments to your ignorance and prejudice, purely about low skill labour (and the AER happens to be the top econ, peer reviewed, journal):
www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.20170765
PPS: AOCโs IQ and competence versus yours? Iโll take her any day Iโm afraid.
Do you want an economic argument? Because by helping and integrating those migrants you'd get an economic boost. Those are people who most willingly will work, taking low-skill occupations needed in industry and services, and pay taxes that will fund your public goods and other social services - possibly directed at the homeless. If you want to talk economics, you'd know that economic migrants are a net cost, not a net benefit to a country. The fun thing lefties always do is say that economic migrants are 'willing to work' which they could have done in any of the safe countries they have passed before getting to the UK, and then argue that economic migrants are willing to take 'low skilled' occupations, completely disregarding the fact that one of the biggest economic and social challenges in the very near future is automation and the disappearance of low skilled jobs, rendering a large part of the social underclass without a meaningful day-to-day occupation. If anything we need less low skilled workers, not more. Wrong, as usual. Immigration is a net benefit - about a zillion serious studies show that (even purely low skills one, like the famous bracero studies in the US document). I told you already several times: study, please - ignorance is NOT bliss. PS: one of a zillion testaments to your ignorance and prejudice, purely about low skill labour (and the AER happens to be the top econ, peer reviewed, journal): www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.20170765PPS: AOCโs IQ and competence versus yours? Iโll take her any day Iโm afraid. |
|
Chris JL
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 1,766
๐๐ป 1,852
March 2017
|
Help Refugees UK - Need 3000 Sleeping Bags, by Chris JL on Feb 16, 2019 3:49:32 GMT 1, But if this discussion is gonna move forward constructively, we cant dismiss the fears of people like blanksky through insults and respond to provocation with aggressivity, because a lot of people actually think and vote like that. you need to show facts, not dismiss the negative when it exists, nothing is black or white, but address it and show how the positives outweighs the negatives. So indeed the only positive comment here when looking back is Fast Eddie featuring actual information with source - all the rest is really noise that wont convince anyone else
But we should not indulge ignorance, prejudice and lies. The economic impact of migrants has been studied over and over, so we should call bullshit in the face of his type of bullshit, racist, and endlessly debunked arguments.
But if this discussion is gonna move forward constructively, we cant dismiss the fears of people like blanksky through insults and respond to provocation with aggressivity, because a lot of people actually think and vote like that. you need to show facts, not dismiss the negative when it exists, nothing is black or white, but address it and show how the positives outweighs the negatives. So indeed the only positive comment here when looking back is Fast Eddie featuring actual information with source - all the rest is really noise that wont convince anyone else But we should not indulge ignorance, prejudice and lies. The economic impact of migrants has been studied over and over, so we should call bullshit in the face of his type of bullshit, racist, and endlessly debunked arguments. |
|
Fast Eddie
New Member
๐จ๏ธ 714
๐๐ป 852
November 2018
|
Help Refugees UK - Need 3000 Sleeping Bags, by Fast Eddie on Feb 16, 2019 4:55:40 GMT 1, You can't go at it so hard nosed, Chris JL. That does not convince many, even if you are 100% correct in the economics of it (an economist with good taste in art, that is a rare species).
The good thing about AOC in my view is that she is going after the ultra rich. But not because of redistribution, Poster Bob, but because those with billions influence and buy politicians (and policies) with those billions. And they screw the rest.
Has anybody noticed that there are as many Goldman Sachs former execs in the cabinet under Trump as there have been in the last five administrations? Aren't you vaguely surprised big banks were the first to be bailed out in the crisis? I am no socialist, but to be fairly direct these people are screwing with the middle class. Or maybe you think your "free" voices count as much as those of special interests?
You can't go at it so hard nosed, Chris JL. That does not convince many, even if you are 100% correct in the economics of it (an economist with good taste in art, that is a rare species). The good thing about AOC in my view is that she is going after the ultra rich. But not because of redistribution, Poster Bob, but because those with billions influence and buy politicians (and policies) with those billions. And they screw the rest. Has anybody noticed that there are as many Goldman Sachs former execs in the cabinet under Trump as there have been in the last five administrations? Aren't you vaguely surprised big banks were the first to be bailed out in the crisis? I am no socialist, but to be fairly direct these people are screwing with the middle class. Or maybe you think your "free" voices count as much as those of special interests? |
|
Carl Cashman
Artist
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 1,775
๐๐ป 3,147
August 2017
|
Help Refugees UK - Need 3000 Sleeping Bags, by Carl Cashman on Feb 16, 2019 7:46:52 GMT 1,
@blanksky Really dude? You're living in a country that exploited and destroyed the cultures, resources and livelihoods of billions of people on this planet for centuries and you think a few thousand people in need coming for help during times of difficulties are the enemy? There's a few billion people in Africa living in poverty, which under your definition could all qualify as being 'in need'. Not a few thousand. If you import a few billion people into the few western societies that made it to being a welfare state, there are no more welfare states, just a giant social underclass with no skills and no people or money to care of them. Also, to 'a country that exploited and destroyed the cultures blahblah'. Please don't hold people living now responsible for the supposed crimes of their ancestors. I don't own slaves and you are not working on a plantation. Also try having some gratitude for people evolving morally, instead of telling everyone that white people are all bad because of things that happend in the past.
We sell weapons to Saudi princes and invade any country that America sees fit... unfortunatly our meddling is recent as well as historical.
@blanksky Really dude? You're living in a country that exploited and destroyed the cultures, resources and livelihoods of billions of people on this planet for centuries and you think a few thousand people in need coming for help during times of difficulties are the enemy? There's a few billion people in Africa living in poverty, which under your definition could all qualify as being 'in need'. Not a few thousand. If you import a few billion people into the few western societies that made it to being a welfare state, there are no more welfare states, just a giant social underclass with no skills and no people or money to care of them. Also, to 'a country that exploited and destroyed the cultures blahblah'. Please don't hold people living now responsible for the supposed crimes of their ancestors. I don't own slaves and you are not working on a plantation. Also try having some gratitude for people evolving morally, instead of telling everyone that white people are all bad because of things that happend in the past. We sell weapons to Saudi princes and invade any country that America sees fit... unfortunatly our meddling is recent as well as historical. |
|
Chris JL
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 1,766
๐๐ป 1,852
March 2017
|
Help Refugees UK - Need 3000 Sleeping Bags, by Chris JL on Feb 16, 2019 9:31:45 GMT 1, You can't go at it so hard nosed, Chris JL. That does not convince many, even if you are 100% correct in the economics of it (an economist with good taste in art, that is a rare species).
Why? Good research and academic evidence is fact, not an opinion, and has no political colour.
There are issues that are indeed debatable (e.g. what is the optimal higher marginal tax) and issues that are clear by now as the fact that the planet is not flat - like the overall economic effects of immigration (at least since the industrial revolution).
Treating ignorance and prejudice with white gloves only gives ignorance and prejudice longevity, and that clearly doesnโt help anybody.
Imagine if e.g. every time a Brexiter, a climate-change-denier, or a supply-side-sorcerer peddled his/her debunked fairy tales in front of a journalist or an academic the latter had simply replied โsorry, but that appears to be a lie according to overwhelming scientific evidence.โ In such a world, Brexit would have been laughed at, the planet would not be warming, and we would be living in a richer society with fairer taxes and lower inequality. Oh, and the latter would imply (according to an overwhelming body of peer reviewed scientific evidence) a world with lower crime rates, teenage pregnancies, suicides, drugs abuse, mental illnesses, mortality etc etc: www.equalitytrust.org.uk/sites/default/files/files/SpiritLevel%20slides.pptx
You can't go at it so hard nosed, Chris JL. That does not convince many, even if you are 100% correct in the economics of it (an economist with good taste in art, that is a rare species). Why? Good research and academic evidence is fact, not an opinion, and has no political colour. There are issues that are indeed debatable (e.g. what is the optimal higher marginal tax) and issues that are clear by now as the fact that the planet is not flat - like the overall economic effects of immigration (at least since the industrial revolution). Treating ignorance and prejudice with white gloves only gives ignorance and prejudice longevity, and that clearly doesnโt help anybody. Imagine if e.g. every time a Brexiter, a climate-change-denier, or a supply-side-sorcerer peddled his/her debunked fairy tales in front of a journalist or an academic the latter had simply replied โsorry, but that appears to be a lie according to overwhelming scientific evidence.โ In such a world, Brexit would have been laughed at, the planet would not be warming, and we would be living in a richer society with fairer taxes and lower inequality. Oh, and the latter would imply (according to an overwhelming body of peer reviewed scientific evidence) a world with lower crime rates, teenage pregnancies, suicides, drugs abuse, mental illnesses, mortality etc etc: www.equalitytrust.org.uk/sites/default/files/files/SpiritLevel%20slides.pptx |
|
Poster Bob
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 5,891
๐๐ป 5,524
September 2013
|
Help Refugees UK - Need 3000 Sleeping Bags, by Poster Bob on Feb 16, 2019 10:16:47 GMT 1, She will not accomplish campaign reform. Just look at pay-to-play Hillary. The Democrats are as corrupt and greedy as the Republicans, they just claim the moral high ground.
Her campaign against the rich is nothing more than populism; populism that has been proven not to work. Take France's abandoned highest tax rate.
You can't go at it so hard nosed, Chris JL. That does not convince many, even if you are 100% correct in the economics of it (an economist with good taste in art, that is a rare species). The good thing about AOC in my view is that she is going after the ultra rich. But not because of redistribution, Poster Bob, but because those with billions influence and buy politicians (and policies) with those billions. And they screw the rest. Has anybody noticed that there are as many Goldman Sachs former execs in the cabinet under Trump as there have been in the last five administrations? Aren't you vaguely surprised big banks were the first to be bailed out in the crisis? I am no socialist, but to be fairly direct these people are screwing with the middle class. Or maybe you think your "free" voices count as much as those of special interests?
She will not accomplish campaign reform. Just look at pay-to-play Hillary. The Democrats are as corrupt and greedy as the Republicans, they just claim the moral high ground. Her campaign against the rich is nothing more than populism; populism that has been proven not to work. Take France's abandoned highest tax rate. You can't go at it so hard nosed, Chris JL. That does not convince many, even if you are 100% correct in the economics of it (an economist with good taste in art, that is a rare species). The good thing about AOC in my view is that she is going after the ultra rich. But not because of redistribution, Poster Bob, but because those with billions influence and buy politicians (and policies) with those billions. And they screw the rest. Has anybody noticed that there are as many Goldman Sachs former execs in the cabinet under Trump as there have been in the last five administrations? Aren't you vaguely surprised big banks were the first to be bailed out in the crisis? I am no socialist, but to be fairly direct these people are screwing with the middle class. Or maybe you think your "free" voices count as much as those of special interests? |
|
|
|
Poster Bob
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 5,891
๐๐ป 5,524
September 2013
|
Help Refugees UK - Need 3000 Sleeping Bags, by Poster Bob on Feb 16, 2019 10:19:14 GMT 1, Ooh we've got an ANTIFA anarchist on our hands. Watch out everyone, he's got a bike lock and is enforcing modern usage of pronouns.
You can't go at it so hard nosed, Chris JL. That does not convince many, even if you are 100% correct in the economics of it (an economist with good taste in art, that is a rare species). Why? Good research and academic evidence is fact, not an opinion, and has no political colour. There are issues that are indeed debatable (e.g. what is the optimal higher marginal tax) and issues that are clear by now as the fact that the planet is not flat - like the overall economic effects of immigration (at least since the industrial revolution). Treating ignorance and prejudice with white gloves only gives ignorance and prejudice longevity, and that clearly doesnโt help anybody. Imagine if e.g. every time a Brexiter, a climate-change-denier, or a supply-side-sorcerer peddled his/her debunked fairy tales in front of a journalist or an academic the latter had simply replied โsorry, but that appears to be a lie according to overwhelming scientific evidence.โ In such a world, Brexit would have been laughed at, the planet would not be warming, and we would be living in a richer society with fairer taxes and lower inequality. Oh, and the latter would imply (according to an overwhelming body of peer reviewed scientific evidence) a world with lower crime rates, teenage pregnancies, suicides, drugs abuse, mental illnesses, mortality etc etc: www.equalitytrust.org.uk/sites/default/files/files/SpiritLevel%20slides.pptx
Ooh we've got an ANTIFA anarchist on our hands. Watch out everyone, he's got a bike lock and is enforcing modern usage of pronouns. You can't go at it so hard nosed, Chris JL. That does not convince many, even if you are 100% correct in the economics of it (an economist with good taste in art, that is a rare species). Why? Good research and academic evidence is fact, not an opinion, and has no political colour. There are issues that are indeed debatable (e.g. what is the optimal higher marginal tax) and issues that are clear by now as the fact that the planet is not flat - like the overall economic effects of immigration (at least since the industrial revolution). Treating ignorance and prejudice with white gloves only gives ignorance and prejudice longevity, and that clearly doesnโt help anybody. Imagine if e.g. every time a Brexiter, a climate-change-denier, or a supply-side-sorcerer peddled his/her debunked fairy tales in front of a journalist or an academic the latter had simply replied โsorry, but that appears to be a lie according to overwhelming scientific evidence.โ In such a world, Brexit would have been laughed at, the planet would not be warming, and we would be living in a richer society with fairer taxes and lower inequality. Oh, and the latter would imply (according to an overwhelming body of peer reviewed scientific evidence) a world with lower crime rates, teenage pregnancies, suicides, drugs abuse, mental illnesses, mortality etc etc: www.equalitytrust.org.uk/sites/default/files/files/SpiritLevel%20slides.pptx |
|
Chris JL
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 1,766
๐๐ป 1,852
March 2017
|
Help Refugees UK - Need 3000 Sleeping Bags, by Chris JL on Feb 16, 2019 11:08:59 GMT 1, Poster Bob as usual, you are as insightful as a brick. Chapeau.
Poster Bob as usual, you are as insightful as a brick. Chapeau.
|
|
Poster Bob
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 5,891
๐๐ป 5,524
September 2013
|
Help Refugees UK - Need 3000 Sleeping Bags, by Poster Bob on Feb 16, 2019 11:10:31 GMT 1, S J Dubya.
Poster Bob as usual, you are as insightful as a brick. Chapeau.
S J Dubya. Poster Bob as usual, you are as insightful as a brick. Chapeau. |
|
caruso
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 1,181
๐๐ป 818
August 2017
|
Help Refugees UK - Need 3000 Sleeping Bags, by caruso on Feb 16, 2019 11:32:17 GMT 1, I don't want to get involved in this debate, but just to shed a light on why the French ISF 'tax on the rich' was - not abandoned - but actually replaced by a tax on properties for the rich (which is equally controversial): the ISF generated less than 5 billion euros in revenue, a drop in the ocean compared to the combined 1200 billion euros budget for the nation; but with extremely prejudicial consequences as many entrepreneurs and wealthy citizens were 'fiscally domiciled in another country to avoid paying any tax at all, but in reality all living half the year minus one day (in theory at least) in France. Taxing the rich silly is an ideological theory that cannot be implemented in reality Those of you not familiar with the Laffer curve can find out why.
She will not accomplish campaign reform. Just look at pay-to-play Hillary. The Democrats are as corrupt and greedy as the Republicans, they just claim the moral high ground. Her campaign against the rich is nothing more than populism; populism that has been proven not to work. Take France's abandoned highest tax rate. You can't go at it so hard nosed, Chris JL. That does not convince many, even if you are 100% correct in the economics of it (an economist with good taste in art, that is a rare species). The good thing about AOC in my view is that she is going after the ultra rich. But not because of redistribution, Poster Bob, but because those with billions influence and buy politicians (and policies) with those billions. And they screw the rest. Has anybody noticed that there are as many Goldman Sachs former execs in the cabinet under Trump as there have been in the last five administrations? Aren't you vaguely surprised big banks were the first to be bailed out in the crisis? I am no socialist, but to be fairly direct these people are screwing with the middle class. Or maybe you think your "free" voices count as much as those of special interests?
I don't want to get involved in this debate, but just to shed a light on why the French ISF 'tax on the rich' was - not abandoned - but actually replaced by a tax on properties for the rich (which is equally controversial): the ISF generated less than 5 billion euros in revenue, a drop in the ocean compared to the combined 1200 billion euros budget for the nation; but with extremely prejudicial consequences as many entrepreneurs and wealthy citizens were 'fiscally domiciled in another country to avoid paying any tax at all, but in reality all living half the year minus one day (in theory at least) in France. Taxing the rich silly is an ideological theory that cannot be implemented in reality Those of you not familiar with the Laffer curve can find out why. She will not accomplish campaign reform. Just look at pay-to-play Hillary. The Democrats are as corrupt and greedy as the Republicans, they just claim the moral high ground. Her campaign against the rich is nothing more than populism; populism that has been proven not to work. Take France's abandoned highest tax rate. You can't go at it so hard nosed, Chris JL. That does not convince many, even if you are 100% correct in the economics of it (an economist with good taste in art, that is a rare species). The good thing about AOC in my view is that she is going after the ultra rich. But not because of redistribution, Poster Bob, but because those with billions influence and buy politicians (and policies) with those billions. And they screw the rest. Has anybody noticed that there are as many Goldman Sachs former execs in the cabinet under Trump as there have been in the last five administrations? Aren't you vaguely surprised big banks were the first to be bailed out in the crisis? I am no socialist, but to be fairly direct these people are screwing with the middle class. Or maybe you think your "free" voices count as much as those of special interests? |
|
Chris JL
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 1,766
๐๐ป 1,852
March 2017
|
Help Refugees UK - Need 3000 Sleeping Bags, by Chris JL on Feb 16, 2019 11:38:47 GMT 1, S J Dubya. Poster Bob as usual, you are as insightful as a brick. Chapeau.
Indeed, you are right, you fit that description too if you prefer. But I thought a brick is less armful.
S J Dubya. Poster Bob as usual, you are as insightful as a brick. Chapeau. Indeed, you are right, you fit that description too if you prefer. But I thought a brick is less armful. |
|
Chris JL
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 1,766
๐๐ป 1,852
March 2017
|
Help Refugees UK - Need 3000 Sleeping Bags, by Chris JL on Feb 16, 2019 11:50:06 GMT 1, I don't want to get involved in this debate, but just to shed a light on why the French ISF 'tax on the rich' was - not abandoned - but actually replaced by a tax on properties for the rich (which is equally controversial): the ISF generated less than 5 billion euros in revenue, a drop in the ocean compared to the combined 1200 billion euros budget for the nation; but with extremely prejudicial consequences as many entrepreneurs and wealthy citizens were 'fiscally domiciled in another country to avoid paying any tax at all, but in reality all living half the year minus one day (in theory at least) in France. Taxing the rich silly is an ideological theory that cannot be implemented in reality Those of you not familiar with the Laffer curve can find out why. She will not accomplish campaign reform. Just look at pay-to-play Hillary. The Democrats are as corrupt and greedy as the Republicans, they just claim the moral high ground. Her campaign against the rich is nothing more than populism; populism that has been proven not to work. Take France's abandoned highest tax rate.
Ehm... the Laffer curve is concave, and itโs not clear at all that we are on the right side of the max (most evidence suggests the exact opposite actually, since every single tax cut for the rich has reduced revenues since Reagan).
Also, there is a little thing called Ricardian equivalence...
I don't want to get involved in this debate, but just to shed a light on why the French ISF 'tax on the rich' was - not abandoned - but actually replaced by a tax on properties for the rich (which is equally controversial): the ISF generated less than 5 billion euros in revenue, a drop in the ocean compared to the combined 1200 billion euros budget for the nation; but with extremely prejudicial consequences as many entrepreneurs and wealthy citizens were 'fiscally domiciled in another country to avoid paying any tax at all, but in reality all living half the year minus one day (in theory at least) in France. Taxing the rich silly is an ideological theory that cannot be implemented in reality Those of you not familiar with the Laffer curve can find out why. She will not accomplish campaign reform. Just look at pay-to-play Hillary. The Democrats are as corrupt and greedy as the Republicans, they just claim the moral high ground. Her campaign against the rich is nothing more than populism; populism that has been proven not to work. Take France's abandoned highest tax rate. Ehm... the Laffer curve is concave, and itโs not clear at all that we are on the right side of the max (most evidence suggests the exact opposite actually, since every single tax cut for the rich has reduced revenues since Reagan). Also, there is a little thing called Ricardian equivalence... |
|
caruso
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 1,181
๐๐ป 818
August 2017
|
Help Refugees UK - Need 3000 Sleeping Bags, by caruso on Feb 16, 2019 12:44:06 GMT 1, The idea is that the more you tax people the less likely they are to want to make more money because whatever they make in addition will be taxed heavily. Same logic behind UK students turning down higher paid jobs to avoid having to pay back their student loan.
The idea is that the more you tax people the less likely they are to want to make more money because whatever they make in addition will be taxed heavily. Same logic behind UK students turning down higher paid jobs to avoid having to pay back their student loan.
|
|
Chris JL
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 1,766
๐๐ป 1,852
March 2017
|
Help Refugees UK - Need 3000 Sleeping Bags, by Chris JL on Feb 16, 2019 13:31:45 GMT 1, The idea is that the more you tax people the less likely they are to want to make more money because whatever they make in addition will be taxed heavily. Same logic behind UK students turning down higher paid jobs to avoid having to pay back their student loan.
Again, it depends on whether you are on the right or left side of T* in the above graph. If we are on the left, the net effect of a tax increase is beneficial overall. While if we are on the right, a tax increase, as you mention, has a. detrimental effect on incentives that is so extreme that the overall effect is negative. Hence in that region itโs optimal to reduce taxes (thatโs basically the range in which the equilibrium looks like โI hurt myself to hurt the taxmanโ). Since Reagan, the right has argued that โweโ (the rich) are on the right (๐) of T*, hence itโs optimal to tax less (the rich). But tax cuts (for the rich) have always (since Reagan) caused a decrease in revenues - indicating that we are instead on the left side of T*, ie where it is optimal to increases taxes (on the rich).
Thatโs the theory you (mis)cited. You oversimplify things by assuming a linear relationship: from higher taxes to worse economic outcomes. Thatโs not how the theory you cite works. Nor how the data look like. Iโm afraid.
โ-
A digression: if you consider the same Laffer curve theory, and you fit it to the data - but this time for the not-rich (and thatโs becoming 99% of us given the current levels of inequality), and in particular the middle class, and even more so for the poor, we have evidence of actually being on the right side of T*.
Homework: if we are on the right side of T* for the poor, that might even have zero effective tax rate, how do you reduce their taxes further?
The idea is that the more you tax people the less likely they are to want to make more money because whatever they make in addition will be taxed heavily. Same logic behind UK students turning down higher paid jobs to avoid having to pay back their student loan. Again, it depends on whether you are on the right or left side of T* in the above graph. If we are on the left, the net effect of a tax increase is beneficial overall. While if we are on the right, a tax increase, as you mention, has a. detrimental effect on incentives that is so extreme that the overall effect is negative. Hence in that region itโs optimal to reduce taxes (thatโs basically the range in which the equilibrium looks like โI hurt myself to hurt the taxmanโ). Since Reagan, the right has argued that โweโ (the rich) are on the right (๐) of T*, hence itโs optimal to tax less (the rich). But tax cuts (for the rich) have always (since Reagan) caused a decrease in revenues - indicating that we are instead on the left side of T*, ie where it is optimal to increases taxes (on the rich). Thatโs the theory you (mis)cited. You oversimplify things by assuming a linear relationship: from higher taxes to worse economic outcomes. Thatโs not how the theory you cite works. Nor how the data look like. Iโm afraid. โ- A digression: if you consider the same Laffer curve theory, and you fit it to the data - but this time for the not-rich (and thatโs becoming 99% of us given the current levels of inequality), and in particular the middle class, and even more so for the poor, we have evidence of actually being on the right side of T*. Homework: if we are on the right side of T* for the poor, that might even have zero effective tax rate, how do you reduce their taxes further? |
|
|
|
k2
New Member
๐จ๏ธ 528
๐๐ป 972
November 2016
|
Help Refugees UK - Need 3000 Sleeping Bags, by k2 on Feb 16, 2019 13:55:25 GMT 1, No idea what any of this means, but this is cool! Is it a screen print or giclee? Edition size?
No idea what any of this means, but this is cool! Is it a screen print or giclee? Edition size? |
|
caruso
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 1,181
๐๐ป 818
August 2017
|
Help Refugees UK - Need 3000 Sleeping Bags, by caruso on Feb 16, 2019 13:56:52 GMT 1, The idea is that the more you tax people the less likely they are to want to make more money because whatever they make in addition will be taxed heavily. Same logic behind UK students turning down higher paid jobs to avoid having to pay back their student loan. Again, it depends on whether you are on the right or left side of T* in the above graph. If we are on the left, the net effect of a tax increase is beneficial overall. While if we are on the right, a tax increase, as you mention, has a. detrimental effect on incentives that is so extreme that the overall effect is negative. Hence in that region itโs optimal to reduce taxes (thatโs basically the range in which the equilibrium looks like โI hurt myself to hurt the taxmanโ). Since Reagan, the right has argued that โweโ (the rich) are on the right (๐) of T*, hence itโs optimal to tax less (the rich). But tax cuts (for the rich) have always (since Reagan) caused a decrease in revenues - indicating that we are instead on the left side of T*, ie where it is optimal to increases taxes (on the rich). Thatโs the theory you (mis)cited. You oversimplify things by assuming a linear relationship: from higher taxes to worse economic outcomes. Thatโs not how the theory you cite works. Nor how the data look like. Iโm afraid. โ- A digression: if you consider the same Laffer curve theory, and you fit it to the data - but this time for the not-rich (and thatโs becoming 99% of us given the current levels of inequality), and in particular the middle class, and even more so for the poor, we have evidence of actually being on the right side of T*. Homework: if we are on the right side of T* for the poor, that might even have zero effective tax rate, how do you reduce their taxes further?
Same goes for the Laffer curve, you clearly do not get it. I have no time to send educating this forum, this is a losing battle.
By all means, do remain on your false certainties and do not learn anything new today.
The idea is that the more you tax people the less likely they are to want to make more money because whatever they make in addition will be taxed heavily. Same logic behind UK students turning down higher paid jobs to avoid having to pay back their student loan. Again, it depends on whether you are on the right or left side of T* in the above graph. If we are on the left, the net effect of a tax increase is beneficial overall. While if we are on the right, a tax increase, as you mention, has a. detrimental effect on incentives that is so extreme that the overall effect is negative. Hence in that region itโs optimal to reduce taxes (thatโs basically the range in which the equilibrium looks like โI hurt myself to hurt the taxmanโ). Since Reagan, the right has argued that โweโ (the rich) are on the right (๐) of T*, hence itโs optimal to tax less (the rich). But tax cuts (for the rich) have always (since Reagan) caused a decrease in revenues - indicating that we are instead on the left side of T*, ie where it is optimal to increases taxes (on the rich). Thatโs the theory you (mis)cited. You oversimplify things by assuming a linear relationship: from higher taxes to worse economic outcomes. Thatโs not how the theory you cite works. Nor how the data look like. Iโm afraid. โ- A digression: if you consider the same Laffer curve theory, and you fit it to the data - but this time for the not-rich (and thatโs becoming 99% of us given the current levels of inequality), and in particular the middle class, and even more so for the poor, we have evidence of actually being on the right side of T*. Homework: if we are on the right side of T* for the poor, that might even have zero effective tax rate, how do you reduce their taxes further? Oh my, that's why I didn't want to engage. You have no understanding of economics, wrongly cited the Ricardian equivalence, which you probably simply googled without understanding its principle. Same goes for the Laffer curve, you clearly do not get it. I have no time to send educating this forum, this is a losing battle. By all means, do remain on your false certainties and do not learn anything new today. |
|
Chris JL
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 1,766
๐๐ป 1,852
March 2017
|
Help Refugees UK - Need 3000 Sleeping Bags, by Chris JL on Feb 16, 2019 14:11:02 GMT 1, Again, it depends on whether you are on the right or left side of T* in the above graph. If we are on the left, the net effect of a tax increase is beneficial overall. While if we are on the right, a tax increase, as you mention, has a. detrimental effect on incentives that is so extreme that the overall effect is negative. Hence in that region itโs optimal to reduce taxes (thatโs basically the range in which the equilibrium looks like โI hurt myself to hurt the taxmanโ). Since Reagan, the right has argued that โweโ (the rich) are on the right (๐) of T*, hence itโs optimal to tax less (the rich). But tax cuts (for the rich) have always (since Reagan) caused a decrease in revenues - indicating that we are instead on the left side of T*, ie where it is optimal to increases taxes (on the rich). Thatโs the theory you (mis)cited. You oversimplify things by assuming a linear relationship: from higher taxes to worse economic outcomes. Thatโs not how the theory you cite works. Nor how the data look like. Iโm afraid. โ- A digression: if you consider the same Laffer curve theory, and you fit it to the data - but this time for the not-rich (and thatโs becoming 99% of us given the current levels of inequality), and in particular the middle class, and even more so for the poor, we have evidence of actually being on the right side of T*. Homework: if we are on the right side of T* for the poor, that might even have zero effective tax rate, how do you reduce their taxes further? Oh my, that's why I didn't want to engage. You have no understanding of economics, wrongly cited the Ricardian equivalence, which you probably simply googled without understanding its principle. Same goes for the Laffer curve, you clearly do not get it. I have no time to send educating this forum, this is a losing battle. By all means, do remain on your false certainties and do not learn anything new today.
I happen to have a few MSc degrees in Economics and Finance, two PhDs (one in public finance and one in economics), the last few of which from a top 3 world department. I thought and teach economics and finance at places like Harvard and Princeton, and Iโm a tenured professor at a top 10 department. I edit and have edited top economics and finance peer reviewed journals and publish therein etc etc because the remaining half a dozen pages of my CV get boring.
I discover and write the stuff you google dumbass.
Again, it depends on whether you are on the right or left side of T* in the above graph. If we are on the left, the net effect of a tax increase is beneficial overall. While if we are on the right, a tax increase, as you mention, has a. detrimental effect on incentives that is so extreme that the overall effect is negative. Hence in that region itโs optimal to reduce taxes (thatโs basically the range in which the equilibrium looks like โI hurt myself to hurt the taxmanโ). Since Reagan, the right has argued that โweโ (the rich) are on the right (๐) of T*, hence itโs optimal to tax less (the rich). But tax cuts (for the rich) have always (since Reagan) caused a decrease in revenues - indicating that we are instead on the left side of T*, ie where it is optimal to increases taxes (on the rich). Thatโs the theory you (mis)cited. You oversimplify things by assuming a linear relationship: from higher taxes to worse economic outcomes. Thatโs not how the theory you cite works. Nor how the data look like. Iโm afraid. โ- A digression: if you consider the same Laffer curve theory, and you fit it to the data - but this time for the not-rich (and thatโs becoming 99% of us given the current levels of inequality), and in particular the middle class, and even more so for the poor, we have evidence of actually being on the right side of T*. Homework: if we are on the right side of T* for the poor, that might even have zero effective tax rate, how do you reduce their taxes further? Oh my, that's why I didn't want to engage. You have no understanding of economics, wrongly cited the Ricardian equivalence, which you probably simply googled without understanding its principle. Same goes for the Laffer curve, you clearly do not get it. I have no time to send educating this forum, this is a losing battle. By all means, do remain on your false certainties and do not learn anything new today. I happen to have a few MSc degrees in Economics and Finance, two PhDs (one in public finance and one in economics), the last few of which from a top 3 world department. I thought and teach economics and finance at places like Harvard and Princeton, and Iโm a tenured professor at a top 10 department. I edit and have edited top economics and finance peer reviewed journals and publish therein etc etc because the remaining half a dozen pages of my CV get boring. I discover and write the stuff you google dumbass. |
|
Deleted
๐จ๏ธ 0
๐๐ป
January 1970
|
Help Refugees UK - Need 3000 Sleeping Bags, by Deleted on Feb 16, 2019 14:11:23 GMT 1, No idea what any of this means, but this is cool! Is it a screen print or giclee? Edition size?
Its missing a nipple
No idea what any of this means, but this is cool! Is it a screen print or giclee? Edition size? Its missing a nipple |
|
k2
New Member
๐จ๏ธ 528
๐๐ป 972
November 2016
|
Help Refugees UK - Need 3000 Sleeping Bags, by k2 on Feb 16, 2019 14:13:08 GMT 1, No idea what any of this means, but this is cool! Is it a screen print or giclee? Edition size? Its missing a nipple
No idea what any of this means, but this is cool! Is it a screen print or giclee? Edition size? Its missing a nipple Good point. Hoping for a hand-finished edition. |
|
Dive Jedi
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 6,194
๐๐ป 9,453
October 2015
|
Help Refugees UK - Need 3000 Sleeping Bags, by Dive Jedi on Feb 16, 2019 14:17:14 GMT 1, No idea what any of this means, but this is cool! Is it a screen print or giclee? Edition size? Its missing a nipple
No idea what any of this means, but this is cool! Is it a screen print or giclee? Edition size? Its missing a nipple So are you. |
|
Chris JL
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 1,766
๐๐ป 1,852
March 2017
|
Help Refugees UK - Need 3000 Sleeping Bags, by Chris JL on Feb 16, 2019 14:20:31 GMT 1, No idea what any of this means, but this is cool! Is it a screen print or giclee? Edition size?
I can help you find an original maybe. PM me ๐
No idea what any of this means, but this is cool! Is it a screen print or giclee? Edition size? I can help you find an original maybe. PM me ๐ |
|
caruso
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 1,181
๐๐ป 818
August 2017
|
Help Refugees UK - Need 3000 Sleeping Bags, by caruso on Feb 16, 2019 15:02:44 GMT 1, And I'm the Queen of England. What your wrote about the Laffer curve shows you do not even grasp the concept. You, professor of economics? Simply hilarious. Or outright sad if it were to be true.
Oh my, that's why I didn't want to engage. You have no understanding of economics, wrongly cited the Ricardian equivalence, which you probably simply googled without understanding its principle. Same goes for the Laffer curve, you clearly do not get it. I have no time to send educating this forum, this is a losing battle. By all means, do remain on your false certainties and do not learn anything new today. I happen to have a few MSc degrees in Economics and Finance, two PhDs (one in public finance and one in economics), the last few of which from a top 3 world department. I thought and teach economics and finance at places like Harvard and Princeton, and Iโm a tenured professor at a top 10 department. I edit and have edited top economics and finance peer reviewed journals and publish therein etc etc because the remaining half a dozen pages of my CV get boring. I discover and write the stuff you google dumbass.
And I'm the Queen of England. What your wrote about the Laffer curve shows you do not even grasp the concept. You, professor of economics? Simply hilarious. Or outright sad if it were to be true. Oh my, that's why I didn't want to engage. You have no understanding of economics, wrongly cited the Ricardian equivalence, which you probably simply googled without understanding its principle. Same goes for the Laffer curve, you clearly do not get it. I have no time to send educating this forum, this is a losing battle. By all means, do remain on your false certainties and do not learn anything new today. I happen to have a few MSc degrees in Economics and Finance, two PhDs (one in public finance and one in economics), the last few of which from a top 3 world department. I thought and teach economics and finance at places like Harvard and Princeton, and Iโm a tenured professor at a top 10 department. I edit and have edited top economics and finance peer reviewed journals and publish therein etc etc because the remaining half a dozen pages of my CV get boring. I discover and write the stuff you google dumbass. |
|
|
|
Chris JL
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 1,766
๐๐ป 1,852
March 2017
|
Help Refugees UK - Need 3000 Sleeping Bags, by Chris JL on Feb 16, 2019 15:08:30 GMT 1, ๐คฆโโ๏ธ ๐
๐คฆโโ๏ธ ๐
|
|
coller
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 2,384
๐๐ป 2,371
April 2015
|
Help Refugees UK - Need 3000 Sleeping Bags, by coller on Feb 16, 2019 15:12:53 GMT 1, yikes.
yikes.
|
|
Deleted
๐จ๏ธ 0
๐๐ป
January 1970
|
Help Refugees UK - Need 3000 Sleeping Bags, by Deleted on Feb 16, 2019 15:47:06 GMT 1, And I'm the Queen of England. What your wrote about the Laffer curve shows you do not even grasp the concept. You, professor of economics? Simply hilarious. Or outright sad if it were to be true. I happen to have a few MSc degrees in Economics and Finance, two PhDs (one in public finance and one in economics), the last few of which from a top 3 world department. I thought and teach economics and finance at places like Harvard and Princeton, and Iโm a tenured professor at a top 10 department. I edit and have edited top economics and finance peer reviewed journals and publish therein etc etc because the remaining half a dozen pages of my CV get boring. I discover and write the stuff you google dumbass.
The guy probably teaches marxist dance studies while wearing a 'the future is feminist' t-shirt.
He's also the a great personification of why Jordan Peterson is popular.
And I'm the Queen of England. What your wrote about the Laffer curve shows you do not even grasp the concept. You, professor of economics? Simply hilarious. Or outright sad if it were to be true. I happen to have a few MSc degrees in Economics and Finance, two PhDs (one in public finance and one in economics), the last few of which from a top 3 world department. I thought and teach economics and finance at places like Harvard and Princeton, and Iโm a tenured professor at a top 10 department. I edit and have edited top economics and finance peer reviewed journals and publish therein etc etc because the remaining half a dozen pages of my CV get boring. I discover and write the stuff you google dumbass. Never forget that left wing 'science' isn't actually science, as the far left doesn't even believe in objective science, as they believe everything is about power struggles and oppression, thus rendering the phrase 'objective truth' useless. In their view there isn't an objective truth, only personal truth that's based on feelings and perceived victimhood. The guy probably teaches marxist dance studies while wearing a 'the future is feminist' t-shirt. He's also the a great personification of why Jordan Peterson is popular. |
|
Fast Eddie
New Member
๐จ๏ธ 714
๐๐ป 852
November 2018
|
Help Refugees UK - Need 3000 Sleeping Bags, by Fast Eddie on Feb 16, 2019 16:00:54 GMT 1, And I'm the Queen of England. What your wrote about the Laffer curve shows you do not even grasp the concept. You, professor of economics? Simply hilarious. Or outright sad if it were to be true. I happen to have a few MSc degrees in Economics and Finance, two PhDs (one in public finance and one in economics), the last few of which from a top 3 world department. I thought and teach economics and finance at places like Harvard and Princeton, and Iโm a tenured professor at a top 10 department. I edit and have edited top economics and finance peer reviewed journals and publish therein etc etc because the remaining half a dozen pages of my CV get boring. I discover and write the stuff you google dumbass.
And I'm the Queen of England. What your wrote about the Laffer curve shows you do not even grasp the concept. You, professor of economics? Simply hilarious. Or outright sad if it were to be true. I happen to have a few MSc degrees in Economics and Finance, two PhDs (one in public finance and one in economics), the last few of which from a top 3 world department. I thought and teach economics and finance at places like Harvard and Princeton, and Iโm a tenured professor at a top 10 department. I edit and have edited top economics and finance peer reviewed journals and publish therein etc etc because the remaining half a dozen pages of my CV get boring. I discover and write the stuff you google dumbass. Actually what Chris JL wrote is correct. Have you actually checked before writing, caruso? |
|
Deleted
๐จ๏ธ 0
๐๐ป
January 1970
|
Help Refugees UK - Need 3000 Sleeping Bags, by Deleted on Feb 16, 2019 16:07:06 GMT 1, If you want to talk economics, you'd know that economic migrants are a net cost, not a net benefit to a country. The fun thing lefties always do is say that economic migrants are 'willing to work' which they could have done in any of the safe countries they have passed before getting to the UK, and then argue that economic migrants are willing to take 'low skilled' occupations, completely disregarding the fact that one of the biggest economic and social challenges in the very near future is automation and the disappearance of low skilled jobs, rendering a large part of the social underclass without a meaningful day-to-day occupation. If anything we need less low skilled workers, not more. Wrong, as usual. Immigration is a net benefit - about a zillion serious studies show that (even purely low skills one, like the famous bracero studies in the US document). I told you already several times: study, please - ignorance is NOT bliss. PS: one of a zillion testaments to your ignorance and prejudice, purely about low skill labour (and the AER happens to be the top econ, peer reviewed, journal): www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.20170765PPS: AOCโs IQ and competence versus yours? Iโll take her any day Iโm afraid. 
If you want to talk economics, you'd know that economic migrants are a net cost, not a net benefit to a country. The fun thing lefties always do is say that economic migrants are 'willing to work' which they could have done in any of the safe countries they have passed before getting to the UK, and then argue that economic migrants are willing to take 'low skilled' occupations, completely disregarding the fact that one of the biggest economic and social challenges in the very near future is automation and the disappearance of low skilled jobs, rendering a large part of the social underclass without a meaningful day-to-day occupation. If anything we need less low skilled workers, not more. Wrong, as usual. Immigration is a net benefit - about a zillion serious studies show that (even purely low skills one, like the famous bracero studies in the US document). I told you already several times: study, please - ignorance is NOT bliss. PS: one of a zillion testaments to your ignorance and prejudice, purely about low skill labour (and the AER happens to be the top econ, peer reviewed, journal): www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.20170765PPS: AOCโs IQ and competence versus yours? Iโll take her any day Iโm afraid. That ends any economic credibility you are so keen on granting yourself |
|
Chris JL
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 1,766
๐๐ป 1,852
March 2017
|
Help Refugees UK - Need 3000 Sleeping Bags, by Chris JL on Feb 16, 2019 16:10:53 GMT 1, @blanksky change your pusher and have a great weekend ๐
@blanksky change your pusher and have a great weekend ๐
|
|
Fast Eddie
New Member
๐จ๏ธ 714
๐๐ป 852
November 2018
|
Help Refugees UK - Need 3000 Sleeping Bags, by Fast Eddie on Feb 16, 2019 17:00:28 GMT 1, Let me go back to baseline here. These economic migrants are (contrary to common misconception propped by nationalist politicians and people that subscribe to their views) not a drag on public finances in the US or Europe. They are net gain.
This is not opinion, it is fact. This stuff can be measured. Accurately. The payroll taxes they pay, the cost of the public services they use, etc. It can be measured. It's essentially accounting. So before writing, please go check the numbers. It is not a crazy thing to ask on a forum where people constantly check auction prices and verify art sales as their job or passion.
Let me go back to baseline here. These economic migrants are (contrary to common misconception propped by nationalist politicians and people that subscribe to their views) not a drag on public finances in the US or Europe. They are net gain.
This is not opinion, it is fact. This stuff can be measured. Accurately. The payroll taxes they pay, the cost of the public services they use, etc. It can be measured. It's essentially accounting. So before writing, please go check the numbers. It is not a crazy thing to ask on a forum where people constantly check auction prices and verify art sales as their job or passion.
|
|
Deleted
๐จ๏ธ 0
๐๐ป
January 1970
|
Help Refugees UK - Need 3000 Sleeping Bags, by Deleted on Feb 16, 2019 18:06:37 GMT 1, Let me go back to baseline here. These economic migrants are (contrary to common misconception propped by nationalist politicians and people that subscribe to their views) not a drag on public finances in the US or Europe. They are net gain. This is not opinion, it is fact. This stuff can be measured. Accurately. The payroll taxes they pay, the cost of the public services they use, etc. It can be measured. It's essentially accounting. So before writing, please go check the numbers. It is not a crazy thing to ask on a forum where people constantly check auction prices and verify art sales as their job or passion.
Let's not pretend it's so clear cut though. The increased supply of low skilled workers (decorators, call centre workers, economists etc) does suppress the wages of those that need it most. Hence why the boss of Pret a Manger, for example, is such a fan of freedom of movement.
Let me go back to baseline here. These economic migrants are (contrary to common misconception propped by nationalist politicians and people that subscribe to their views) not a drag on public finances in the US or Europe. They are net gain. This is not opinion, it is fact. This stuff can be measured. Accurately. The payroll taxes they pay, the cost of the public services they use, etc. It can be measured. It's essentially accounting. So before writing, please go check the numbers. It is not a crazy thing to ask on a forum where people constantly check auction prices and verify art sales as their job or passion. Let's not pretend it's so clear cut though. The increased supply of low skilled workers (decorators, call centre workers, economists etc) does suppress the wages of those that need it most. Hence why the boss of Pret a Manger, for example, is such a fan of freedom of movement. |
|
