Slashdot Mirror
Nonpartisan Tax Report Removed After Republican Protest
eldavojohn writes "On September 14th a report titled 'Taxes and the Economy: An Economic Analysis of the Top Tax Rates Since 1945' (PDF) penned by the Library of Congress' nonpartisan Congressional Research Service was released to little fanfare. However, the following conclusion of the report has since roiled the GOP enough to have the report removed from the Library of Congress: 'The results of the analysis suggest that changes over the past 65 years in the top marginal tax rate and the top capital gains tax rate do not appear correlated with economic growth. The reduction in the top tax rates appears to be uncorrelated with saving, investment, and productivity growth. The top tax rates appear to have little or no relation to the size of the economic pie. However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top of the income distribution. As measured by IRS data, the share of income accruing to the top 0.1% of U.S. families increased from 4.2% in 1945 to 12.3% by 2007 before falling to 9.2% due to the 2007-2009 recession. At the same time, the average tax rate paid by the top 0.1% fell from over 50% in 1945 to about 25% in 2009. Tax policy could have a relation to how the economic pie is sliced—lower top tax rates may be associated with greater income disparities.' From the New York Times article: 'The pressure applied to the research service comes amid a broader Republican effort to raise questions about research and statistics that were once trusted as nonpartisan and apolitical.' It appears to no longer be found on the Library of Congress' website."
Of course it was removed!
Non-partisan is just a politically correct way of saying, Lib'rul bias.
Now excuse me, I have to go back to watching Fox News.
It's the PDF link in the summary...
It was removed, but did anyone manage to get a copy before that was done. It would be interesting to get an independent (in relative terms) review of the document.
Reading fail - it is right there linked in the summary. Now excuse me while I walk away and hide in shame ;)
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
When you're a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
When you're a conservative nut-job, everything looks liberal.
Seriously, when are people going to learn about the Streisand Effect?
I would never have heard about this had they left it up. But now, it's gone from "boring tax report" to "the economic analysis that THEY don't want you to know about!".
have a well-known liberal bias.
Facts don't match my ideology so FACTS MUST BE WRONG!!!
The Right seem to live in this strange world, where you can change reality by wishing hard enough, or lying hard enough, or by denying evidence and truth hard enough.
A bit like how Communists and their whacked-out theories about how reality could be changed by willing it so, e.g. the New Soviet Man.
And a bit like left-wing crazies in academic literary circles with postmodernism; where they deny objective reality, and consider science and reason to be something not to be trusted, because it's invented by powerful people to keep the little man down.
So what we're really seeing, is right-wing postmodernism; where the FOX crowd deny objective reality, because they see rationality, science and evidence-based-anything as a liberal left-wing plot to repress and hold down Galtian supermen such as themselves.
In a nutshell, the modern American Right is losing credibility, because enough of them are so split from reality, that they think that simply making shit up, denying the truth, and being stupid will bend the world to their will. Serious right-wing thinkers like William Buckley would have been appalled by the intellectual and moral rot.
It's tragic and bizarre, but nobody's laughing, because they're dangerous and get into power often enough to cause serious damage, like expensive and pointless wars, massive environmental damage, and yawning inequality.
I never understood that idea that giving a tax break to high salary people will stimulate the economy.
Usually the reasonning is that since they will have more money, they will consume more and that will help the economy. If you give a tax break to low income people for the same amount of tax dollars, they will use that money as well. They are not going to set it on fire, they will use it in a grocery store.
Am I understanding something wrong?
Wealth disparity is actually more important than income indequality, as the extremely wealthy often earn a tiny fraction of income compared to their immense wealth, while the extremely poor have only their income to rely on.
Unfortunately, wealth inequality is rarely talked about in the mainstream media. Usually it's income that's talked about, and as horrible as income inequality is, focusing on it paints an unduly rosy picture of the real economic injustice suffered in the US.
If I give $1000 to a guy who is worth a billion dollars, he may just stick it in the vault and let it sit there.
If I give $1000 to someone who's living hand-to-mouth, it's going to get spent on food/drink/rent/clothes pretty much immediately.
If you are going to pull a stunt like this, you are supposed to wait until AFTER the elections!
This "stunt" was pulled back in September as a run-of-the-mill decision. Three guesses as to why it was publicized THIS week?
Oddly, Attila the Hun was very liberal for his day, and could be considered liberal even today. Among the very progressive (for the times) things he enforced:
- It was fairly typical for him to take a city and then kill all of the political leadership, but not punish the populous. He then would let it be known that he knew who had commanded the opposition, and that the fight was now over with their disposal. Of course if anyone then tried to resume the fight he was incredibly brutal in retaliation. The idea of punishing the people responsible for war rather than the common man is something we still struggle with nowadays.
- Having been a near-slave himself early in life he abolished the idea of being born into slavery. The only people who were slaves were the people who were conquered.
- With the exception of the inherited emperorship (which was always going to go to whichever of his many children proved the most able), governmental positions were almost all by merit rather than political connection. This was virtually unheard of anywhere in the world at the time.
- Religious freedom was enforced all across the empire (because the largest in history it should be noted). In fact he seems to have enjoyed religious debate, and the most scholarly work comparing and contrasting religion of the time all came out of his capital where he brought diverse religious leaders together and invited them to debate before the court.
Most of this is from "Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World" (a great read): http://www.amazon.com/Genghis-Khan-Making-Modern-World/dp/0609809644
Other pieces from the traveling museum exhibit that it seems will next be in Chicago in Feb (I saw it in San Jose): http://fieldmuseum.org/about/genghis-khan-invades-chicago
The Soviet gangsters also practiced rewriting history and making inconvenient facts disappear.
They also valued Party connections over competence. Compare that to the people flown out to do Iraq reconstruction straight from college because they were in the Young Republicans.
The plan advocated by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan that is embodied in the House Budget Resolution (H.Con.Res. 112), the Path to Prosperity, also proposes to reduce income tax rates by broadening the tax base.
There is not conclusive evidence, however, to substantiate a clear relationship between the 65-year steady reduction in the top tax rates and economic growth. Analysis of such data suggests the reduction in the top tax rates have had little association with saving, investment, or productivity growth. However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top of the income distribution. The share of income accruing to the top 0.1% of U.S. families increased from 4.2% in 1945 to 12.3% by 2007
Roughly interpreted: Ryan doesn't know what he's talking about, by extension neither does Romney. In fact, the only thing accomplished by reducing taxes on the rich is a money grab that increases the disparity between the 1% and the other 99%.
You know I really cannot understand why the Republicans would take issue with this report. I mean really, you'd think they'd like to know that their domestic policy is specious so that they can find real solutions. Unless, perhaps they already understood the reality of their talking point...
Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once
I withdraw the comparison. It was a snarky comment I heard many years ago. And it makes an even greater contrast to the current day.
Who would Attila have punished for the Iraq war? How many of the current political dynasties would have been cut off from any connection with the government? Can you imagine a set of broadcast national debates on religion today?
Interesting.
...-based reasoning, reality will continue to take on an increasingly liberal tinge.
Let me propose a radical idea to discuss: abolish the income tax and replace it by a tax on net assets. I'm not proposing any particular rate structure, but let me describe the general ideas.
Income tax has too many loopholes for the wealthy. For example, the Facebook and Google CEOs pay themselves $1 per year, avoiding any income tax and paying only the low capital gains rate when they occasionally sell some stock to finance their lifestyles. The rest grows tax-free, indefinitely, as their companies grow.
It seems to me that a fair tax would be based on a person's ability to pay it. The ability to afford a tax is much more dependent on how much wealth you have than how much income you make. Taxing the income of someone who can barely make ends meet, preventing them from accumulating any savings, doesn't seem beneficial for society overall.
It is much harder for a wealthy person to hide their assets than to exploit income tax loopholes. Of course there will always be loopholes, but most of the information regarding the ultra rich, for example, is even public, otherwise it would not be possible to compile the Fortune 400 list.
The middle class is already subject to an asset (real estate) tax on what, for most, is their primary asset, their home. So it's nothing new, and although those who pay it don't enjoy doing so of course, it's accepted and viewed as a necessary evil to finance their local community. The real estate tax is actually very regressive â" the less equity you have in your home, the higher percentage of that equity you pay, since it is based on the home's value, not your equity in it. You pay it even if your equity is negative (i.e. if the mortgage is underwater)! If both real estate tax and income tax were replaced by a net asset tax, it would seem to me to be much fairer.
One argument I've seen against an asset tax is that it would encourage people not to accumulate wealth i.e. would encourage stagnation. I disagree. A positive benefit of the real estate tax, for example, is that it discourages the accumulation of property sitting idle, but encourages the development and use of that property. Similarly, I would imagine a net worth tax would encourage productive use of the money, possibly even finally leading to that trickle-down job creation we hear so much about.
It's not stealing, you have a choice not to take part in this system. All taxes are going to benefit some more than others.
You're welcome to move to Somalia where there is no government to take your money or trample on your freedoms. Just don't expect to have the benefits of a stable currency to trade with, a government to enforce contracts, large scale water purification to give you cheap arsenic free drinking water, or even a public police force to keep people from trying to take your property.
Taxes are an expression of faith and comity and the dues paid as part of citizenship. It's perfectly valid to want lower taxes, and to vote for elected officials or take other steps to change tax rates.
But taxes themselves, and the services they provide, are never stolen from you. They are exactly the price you have to pay, and the benefit you receive, for living in a democratic country, even if some benefits aren't directly tangible to you right now.
To call taxes "stealing," when the government is elected by the people, is disgusting and unpatriotic.
This "stunt" was pulled back in September as a run-of-the-mill decision. Three guesses as to why it was publicized THIS week?
and the pedophile says: "i molested that little girl back in 2007. i can't believe they decided to bring it up when i applied for my new teaching position."
why did they bring it up now? to try and keep those liars that are hiding the truth from getting elected? duh.
So now you want to tax wealth? Get the hell out of here.
Taxing wealth may be a bad (or at least hard to implement) idea
But taxing investment (i.e. wealth-derived) income at a higher rate than the standard income seems fair. Instead, once your wealth is earning you money, you pay less than 15% on such income.
As your salary increases, you progressively move into higher income brackets and pay more taxes. But jump to a point where you only earn money from capital tax gains, then suddenly you are back to 15%?
I've been saying it since Howard Jarvis and Ronald Reagan implemented their "tax revolt" at the end of the '70s: any benefit from tax cuts and less regulation is temporary, short-term, and soon overridden by the increased size of the crash after the greedy rich people abuse various economic sectors. That's why there was an S&L crises in the '80s, a housing crash in the '90s, bank and housing crises in the oughts, California schools run out of money. Shoot, does anyone think to check the top tax rates under Eisenhower? Even Greenspan was shocked... shocked! that rich people were greedy, that Objectivism is... oh well, why bother, people just filter it through their biases. Brown and Clinton have the best budget surpluses of their eras, then conservatives have to go and mess it up with voodoo economics.
Will some psycho please reenact an episode of Criminal Minds with George Will and Arthur Laffer as victims?
Oracle and unix guy.
OTOH, we do need to consider that the paper did have real problems. For example, there are almost no dynamics considered. Very few of the variables are lagged. That was one of the Republican complaints.
And it misses some important economic issues such as the declining value of labor versus capital (one would expect owners of capital to do relatively well in a global market with extremely cheap labor available and for that capital to move to foreign locations) and the burden of regulation (which has considerable effect on hiring people and creating new businesses, both which would favor those who own established, working capital). In other words, there are two big, contrary effects which might mask any economic benefit from cutting taxes for the highest income bracket.
As to the article being pulled, it was allegedly done at the behest of Senate Republicans who are a minority in the Senate. Why didn't Democrats block that? In fact, who actually asked for and sequestered the report? Doesn't seem to be a Republican thing to ask for stuff that might run counter to their agenda, but maybe the people who requested it thought they could bury anything inconvenient.
That's what I do with it. I sock it away, in stocks, bonds or other instruments. Sometimes I buy stuff--a car, a nice meal, new clothes, but mostly (~80% of my purchases) I buy paper. I'm under no illusion that this goes back somehow into the pockets of working-class folks.
Take it from a rich guy, I don't want the responsibility for taking care of every shlub in America--I've got other things to worry about. What am I going to do, get ten freaking maids to clean my house every day? I don't want to live in Mexico, or Russia. I want a strong economy built on a mix of services, manufacturing and education. That's what makes stock prices go up, and that's what makes me wealthy.
Taking care of poor people--with heath care, education and unemployment insurance, is actually a really good job for the government. They do it well, and I'm happy to contribute my bit.
You want to know what would happen if you attacked that wealth? Eventually no one would be motivated to do the things that being to earn them such wealth. Progress would stop dead. You wouldn't have any of the cool stuff technologically that you have today. Sure there may be an occasional person who comes up with a brilliant idea that advances some sector of industry or whatever, but what you really end up with is a bunch of people who will only do what is need to just get by because that's as much recognition for their work as they get.
Yes, yes. People would simply lose ALL hope and waste their entire lives just watching TV reality shows. Without the motivation of the remote possibility of getting filthy rich, no one would ever want to think, create, imagine or actually do anything ever again. Yes, sir, Einstein only thought stuff up for the money. No one would ever give to charity, because that would make themselves, you know, less rich. I could go on, but won't because ...
Jesus, you're fucking stupid.
P.S.
And your NFL football example... Seriously? It has *nothing* to do with the progress, ideas and technology in your rant.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Normally, I am not about Replublicans versus Democrats. I see them both as rather "bought and sold out" groups who behave at the request of big money.
That said, I find it fitting and typical of my observations and expectations of those who subscribe to Republican philosophies. If the truth gets in the way, hide it, change it, deny or it erase it. This type of behavior is known among commoners as deceitful. Others just simply call them liars and cheats.
I understand all too well how people try to cling to their beliefs even when facts and evidence is staring them right in the face. But I see it as a mental weakness or flaw and such people are ill equiped to make important decisions which affect millions of lives across the planet.
One side is obvious, the other is not. The Republicans have indicated that they object to the tone, and the conclusions, but have not indicated if there were any facts or assumptions that they object to. Objecting to the findings and conclusion when the foundation is solid seems more like censorship than debate.
The cowards haven't even admitted they requested it taken down.
Learn to love Alaska
"“There were a lot of problems with the report from a real, legitimate economic analysis perspective,” said Antonia Ferrier,"
No, there wasn't. You set up a different set of goals and then complained the report didn't take into account for your made up goals.
These are the same people who complain when the study might be delayed by Sandy.
Then they don't actual raise any factual concerns. Some talk about verbiage that in no way impacts the results.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
See, the thing most miss is that when higher incomes had higher taxes they'd have to look for tax breaks by hiring, diversifying, expanding, whatever.
With taxes low they can just invest in the stock market. Less aggravation, likely higher (and lower taxaable) income.
So, the markets bloom, they get richer with no aggravation with hiring, firing, building costs, overhead, etc. While the average guy starves.
Wuddooeyeno? IITYWYBMAD? Like nuts? eclecticallyincorrect.com
If you are going to pull a stunt like this, you are supposed to wait until AFTER the elections!
This "stunt" was pulled back in September as a run-of-the-mill decision. Three guesses as to why it was publicized THIS week?
Well it was September 28th, so only about a month ago, and we don't know how well the retraction was published, so it could be all the political junkies got their copy in the 2 weeks it was available and it took a while for people to notice it was missing.
Or it's also possible that whatever political operatives did notice immediately, but decided to sit on it while waiting for a more opportune time, rather than cause an early October bump that would dissipate before the election.
I think two critical questions are a) does the agency have an explanation for the retraction, and b) how common are retractions.
I stole this Sig
Attila the Hun predates Genghis Khan by about 750 years. Attila was defeated in the Battle at the Catalaunian Plains in 451 AD and died in 453 AD, while Genghis Khan was born (named Temujin) somewhen around 1162 AD and died in 1227.
I used to think that the fact that mid-20th-Century US highest tax bracket rates were in the 80%+ region was a VERY persuasive argument that Republicans had significantly overshot in their efforts to relieve taxation on job-creators, and reached a point where it was more about enriching the rich than any sober policy of trickle-down economics.
However I had the opportunity in September to be seated next to an older gentleman who was a personal accountant in the 1950s. As he explained to me, the tax rates were high but NOBODY paid those rates, nobody. There were so many massive loopholes, and much-easier "wink'n'nudge" accounting going on (than today, in his opinion, although he's been retired for 20 years), he said it was uncommon if a top-bracket individual was paying over 20%, ever.
It was his suspicion that in fact the top tax brackets probably paid the same today in fact, as they ever had, plus/minus 5%.
I didn't perceive him as a demogogue of either side, and he was pretty comprehensive in his discussion. I was convinced that the "taxes were higher in the old days and we were great" is also, in reality, as much bullshit as what usually comes from politicians' mouths otherwise.
-Styopa
It'll be interesting to see if there's any Streisand Effect (google it) from this feeble attempt to suppress the document.
We've all read and heard a lot of opinion on this topic, and there's precious little that passes as Scientific Method in the field of economics. It could be interesting to read criticisms (negative or positive) from actual scientists and statisticians about this document.
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
Eventually no one would be motivated to do the things that being to earn them such wealth. Progress would stop dead.
We've had 94% income tax in the US. Progress was as fast in that time as it's ever been.
Think people will play NFL football for $35,000 a year? Not in this lifetime.
There are piles willing to play college ball for free. If you offered an "open" spot on the Cowboys for a lineman for $10,000 a year, I think you'd get more than 10,000 applicants.
In short, you are wrong, so massively so, you should see a doctor about your brain damage.
Learn to love Alaska
You want to know what would happen if you attacked that wealth? Eventually no one would be motivated to do the things that being to earn them such wealth. Progress would stop dead.
This is what randrrhoids actually believe.
The first. most blatant and most fatal flaw in Atlas Shrugged is that it assumes that all the creative people are Conservative/Libertarian. No Ted Turners, no Bill Gatess, no Warren Buffets. Even as young and clueless as I was when I first read it I knew that was nonsense, just like the "30-minute" speech that patently isn't. The first time I actually skipped over part of a book, no matter how tedious ("how dim does she think I am that I haven't gotten the point by now and if I didn't is hammering me over the head with it going to help?")
The idea that wealthy people will stop doing things that make them wealthy if you take some of that wealth away isn't actually codified in Rand's writings that I know of, but I think everyone pretty well agrees that after the first 200K or so of income you're no longer working to "make a living", you're working to Prove a Point. Money is just one of the more popular ways of keeping score. Naturally, everyone wants to be given things (like Lower Taxes Every Day [TM]) and nobody wants to have things taken from them, but it's not like anyone with a fat bank account is going to simply up and quit. Especially in times like these where the popular meme is that you become successful (implying wealthy) by doing something before anyone else does it first.
High taxes hinder capital accumulation, and capital investment is the bedrock of modern civilization. I would like to see someone argue the contrary.
The subject study seems to argue the contrary. From the summary:
The reduction in the top tax rates appears to be uncorrelated with saving, investment, and productivity growth.
What these tax rates do change is who will be saving and investing in the economy. Let the rich accumulate wealth and yes, they will invest it. Let the middle class accumulate it and they will invest it as well. Or spend it and fuel the economy. Right now, capital is insanely cheap. What we need to kick start growth is customers.
The other thing to keep in mind is the effect that income disparities have on the productivity of the working class. Eventually you get something like the Soviet system. Where the workers grumble that "they pretend to pay us and we pretend to work".
Have gnu, will travel.
lol.. you expect republican congress critters to be slashdot posters? Democrats congress critters might when it's election time and there is a need to astroturf. Do you expect some spokesman to come out and say "we requested this to be taken down"?
No, but when the press asks a simple and direct question like "was the Republican party responsible for the takedown" that they'd answer. They haven't. They refuse to comment.
How about it was taken down because complaints about it appearing bias was actually true enough to at least on the surface make that appearance.
Who complained? The Republicans haven't said they did it. That's what my complaint was. Nobody has come forward as the complainer.
. Its methodology is obviously in question as it says there is no economic change with the top tax rates but somehow there is a magical process happening that lower rates concentrate the wealth in the rich and takes from the poor.
Exactly what I said, the complaints are not about the methodology, other than "we don't like the answer, so we assert the methodology is flawed, though we have no specific problem with the methodology."
Learn to love Alaska
With a tax rate of 80% the incentive to find loopholes is great, when the tax rate is 15 or 20%, the incentive is much less.
Faced with a 95% tax on his income, John Lennon left England for the US as a tax exile.
Faced with a similar tax rate, U2 moved out of Ireland, for tax purposes.
The idea of "geting the rich to pay through the nose" relies on the mistaken belief that the rich have no alternative...
Ken
It's a story about how nerdy things like numbers get pushed aside in favor of non-nerdy things like prejudices and gut feelings.
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
Want to read that report? go here and download the PDF -> http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/ Thanks to Rachael Maddow for making this available
Geek Hillbilly
How is taxing income that comes with risk (investment income) more than income that comes with no risk (salary) fair?
I'd say there's plenty of risk associated with earning a salary. Every time you change jobs to increase your salary there's the risk of the company you work for going under and you being unable to get a new job. Then there's the risk of getting a mortgage or long-term lease near enough to your job that you can actually get to work, of buying a car so you can get to work, of money invested in education...
What's more, even the unlikely event that a wealthy person who's earning income through investment does lose it all, they're still not any worse off than the salaried worker who never had it in the first place! In fact they're probably better off - they have better contacts, are less likely to have student loan debts, may well still own assets like their home outright with no mortgage...
Government research agencies were operating under extreme pressure from ultra left wing political interests to generate only the results they wanted, or risk losing their jobs.
It is hard to believe how much projection there is on the extreme right. If you retargeted GOP words back on themselves, then they may well be more accurate. After-all, if you look at recent history:
+ The GOP are about big government. (Reagan, Bush & Bush)
+ They are fiscally irresponsible. (Reagan failed to balance the budget, but wasn't completely nuts. George W's own treasury secretary resigned because of his attitude towards money.)
+ They are obstructionist, but accuse Dems of not working across the table. (They will ask for the moon and more -- e.g., Debt ceiling, Eric Holder, the list is endless)
+ They believe Dems are engaging in voter fraud, and then aggressively engage in their own voter suppression campaign.
+ They believe they have the "truth" and others are just biased. (The kicker for me is that O'Reilly believes he's an independent, and his show is a "Spin Free Zone"
+ They believe their freedoms are restricted when they cannot restrict the freedoms of others. (The social conservative influence.)
There is a lot to respect about the historical GOP, but recently, they have become irresponsible. + They are disliked by about 70-80% of the rest of the world
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
"Romney wants to cut taxes for the rich, but a never-released economic report proves him wrong".
It *was* released, and then quietly retracted. You can grab a copy here.
One of the complaints was the phrase "Bush era tax cuts" doesn't set the correct tone.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
You're half right, and completely wrong.
Government is a monopoly. It is a monopoly on the use of force. The "competitive market" for government is commonly called warfare.
Government is a natural monopoly. It is the natural monopoly created to control other natural monopolies. When markets are more efficient, they should be used. When capital requirements to enter a market are high enough to preclude competition, or when services are required to be universal, markets are not efficient.
Governments are evil, but a necessary evil. The state where private interests take over the duties and methods of government is commonly called Fascism. We must resist equally the government wishing to enslave its citizens, and the private interests wishing to do the same thing. At the moment, private interest has the upper hand. Be aware of what you are advocating: If you do not seek a fascist state, you should reconsider your views on government.
The question of whether or not governments produce something is wholly irrelevant to the purpose of governments.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.