Political Cartoons

"the level of taxation doesn't really impact the amount of revenue"

That seems counter-intuitive to say the least. If true, it would also seem to imply that we could reduce the level of taxation to zero without affecting revenue.

If you want to argue that the tax cuts or wars alone don't account for the whole of the deficit, then I'm sure there is a sensible argument to be made for that position.

If you're really arguing that tax cuts don't affect the amount of revenue a state collects (and thus the deficit) then I think you're obviously off-base on that one.

From:

That seems counter-intuitive to say the least. If true, it would also seem to imply that we could reduce the level of taxation to zero without affecting revenue.

Hauser's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hauser's_law) has persisted in spite of significant changes to the tax code. It is counter-intuitive, yes, but assuming there are tax rates (without extremes in the lower direction), this has appeared to persist.

From:

I'm not familiar with Hauser's law, although it looks like it's not unanimously accepted as true.

From:

The history appears to speak for itself.

From:

History has to be interpreted and it seems there's conflict over how it's correctly interpreted.

From:

There's not a ton of real conflict on it, however. The revenues have been remarkably steady.

From:

It's an interesting suggestion but so far I've only got your say-so and a wikipedia article listing conflicting opinions.

I'll probably have to check into this thread again a bit later, see if any new perspectives are brought to the discussion and what they say.

From:

I think the facts speak for themselves here. Hauser's Law isn't really about interpretation here - there's little to interpret.

It's what I ultimately love about history, especially well-documented recent history.

(deleted comment)

From:

Because?

From:

Houser's law is a lie. Its a clever graphical way to arrange data and use statistics that makes the wide variations in revenue as a result of tax policy changes look inconsequential.

Specifically they only look at one tax rate and ignore the increase in other tax rates.

There are pretty much no tax economists who believe it. As in, the people who spend their entire lives studying the effects of tax policy on revenue do not believe in Hauser's Law.

<- Actual Economist (not a tax economist though)

From:

As I didn't see this before, I pretty much address those points here (http://politicartoons.livejournal.com/2830926.html?thread=67667022#t67667022). Those who are "tax economists" probably care less about historical data, I would assume, since they cannot look at the historical data and say otherwise.

From:

Uhh it is not addressed by those comments at all. "Historically we can't do more regardless of the tax rate" is a comment regarding the effect of the tax rate on revenues.

This is literally the exact thing that tax economists study, and it has been shown time and time again that increasing the tax rate increases revenues.

Those who are tax economists care deeply about the historical data, because that is the primary source of information with which to derive empirical findings of the validity of the theories! These empirical findings are the backbone of modern economics. They are why we can call it a science and not bullshit.

You could not be more wrong if you tried.

From:

Those who are tax economists care deeply about the historical data, because that is the primary source of information with which to derive empirical findings of the validity of the theories! These empirical findings are the backbone of modern economics. They are why we can call it a science and not bullshit.

The historical data, then, should be significantly clear to you in regards to the US's history regarding tax revenues.

From:

Yes, it is very clear to me. But I understand things like statistics.

And understanding statistics is a big problem if you want to take the Hauser view. As is understanding the concept of counterfactuals (for instance the period before 1940 or the period after 1992). As is understanding that the fluctuations in tax revenue during that period were quite substantial regardless of how small a graph can make them look.

From:

Yes, it is very clear to me. But I understand things like statistics.

Then there's no argument here.

From:

:roll:

From:

Thank you for your input.

I rather suspected that the line I was given was at least controversial and contested.

From:

We have been over this before. Hauser's law is a lie. You know its a lie. Stop lying.

From:

No it isn't, so I'm not lying. Etc etc.

From:

farchivist.livejournal.com

Since

goumindong is an economist, wouldn't he actually know if Hauser's Law was true and used by economists? Or is he lying in this comment? (http://politicartoons.livejournal.com/2830926.html?thread=67673422#t67673422)

From:

If he's indeed an economist, maybe. I don't know, it's not relevant, and I don't know what he knows, so I won't make a judgement call on his knowledge or information, except that he should probably do some research.

From:

farchivist.livejournal.com

It's exceedingly relevant. Either he's right and you're wrong. Or you're right and he's wrong. It's either/or, yes/no. Which is it?

In the comment I link he says you're wrong and why. So it's up to you to issue a rebuttal; state why he is wrong and why. You can't debate or argue without making judgement calls on things. Especially when it is over such a thing as objective facts, like whether Hauser's Law is factual or false.

From: