>> At 10:59 PM 2/5/2003 -0600 Dan Minette wrote:
>> >> Indeed, from 1994 to 1999, capital gains reports under Adjusted Gross
>> >> Income more than tripled in nominal terms.
>> >
>> >That's because there was a capital gains tax cut in '97. It give folks
>a
>> >chance to cash in on their capital gains while paying minimal taxes.
>>
>> If that was the predominant effect, it would have occurred in 1998, not
>> 1999 - so that's not an explanation. I don't know what model would
>> support an increase in capital gains revenues due to "cash-ins" two years
>> after a capital gains tax cut.
>>
>> Indeed, aren't tax cuts supposed to *decrease* revenues two years after
>the
>> cut in your mind?????
>
>A short term cashing of capital gains after a cut was never questioned.
>Its the long term impact that was questioned.
Yes, but by what model? If what you say is true, then investors were
choosing not to realize capital gains because of high capital gains tax
rates. Following the reduction in rates, these investors then "cash out"
producing a one-off boost in capital gains revenues.
This model, however provides no scenario in which capital gains revenues
spike two years after the cuts.
>I found that, by the OMB numbers, the average capital gains revenue for
>Clinton was 64 billion...which was more than I guessed from Cato. The
>projected average for Bush's first 2 years was 62.5 billion.
So do all of your so-called "scientists" play as fast and loose with
Statistics as you do? This reminds me of how you consistently used to
include the last year of Carter in Reagan's GDP numbers.
As far as I know, nobody has suggested that Clinton ran a surplus all eight
years of his term. I certainly haven't, but maybe you know somebody who
has.....
As such, it is completely disingenuous to average Clinton's capital gains
over all eight years of his term, especially during those years in which
Clinton was predicting annual budget deficits of between $200bil - $280bil
over the next ten years (the standard term of official budget forecasts.)
Anyhow, my argument is that Clinton managed surpluses in large part because
of a stock market bubble. I am sure that the revenues from the
non-surplus years brings Clinton's average done substantially. Moreover,
I suspect (but am too tired to look up right now), that the stock market
bubble affected other tax revenues besides capital gains, particularly
high-income tax returns..... but maybe I shouldn't mention that until I can
think that through.
Still, I think that it is worth returning the debate to your initial
assessment, which you have yet to retract, that "Clinton showed the right
balance of taxes and spending." Yet, Clinton's surpluses were only
possible because Republicans defeated "Hillarycare."
>> Yeah, Johnson and Carter were both Economic Superstars, right?
>
>A very interesting question, and I'm glad you asked it. Let me quote the
>numbers for the average GDP improvement from the last year of the previous
>administration to the last year of the administration in question.
>
>(numbers are from the bea)
>
>Johnson 5.2%
>Carter 3.3%
>Reagan 3.3%
>Bush 2.0%
>Clinton 4.3%
>
>So, I'll admit that, for overall GDP Carter was no better than Reagan, and
>not much better than Bush. He definately was a low performance democrat.
Yes, but GDP is hardly the only economic story.... as you remind me every
time you bring up "inequality." There are other factors involved in
economic success besides producing GDP growth, and to introduce a quote of
my own, "the economy got so bad under Carter, they had to invent a new
number - the misery index - to describe just how bad it was."
And of course, by these numbers, every US President should clearly become
students of Johnsonomics - yet serious economic analysts remember what the
"Let's Have Both Guns AND Butter" policy brought us.
>For example, the median family income rose only 4% from 80 to 92. The top
>5% income, on the other hand, rose 31% during that period. The basis of
>the economic view of the Republicans is that the rich are the driving force
>in the economy. Thus, focusing policy on what improves their income is the
>best thing a government can do. It hasn't worked in the last 80 years, but
>it is still being pushed. That is, btw, a good indication that economics
>is not a science. That doesn't happen in the sciences.
Of course not, after all, given your definition of Science=Physics, and
that you continually try to create post facto definitions of "science" to
eliminate those disciplines that you choose to belittle.
Yeah, your so-called-science has never done anything wrong for 80 years.
Uh huh.
And yet, this indication would preclude "evolutionary biology" from being a
science, given that so many people apparently are not yet convinced of
evolution.
And of course, that presumes that your definitive statements are accurate -
of which I am hardly convinced. After all, have experiements that have
conclusively eliminated all other exogenous factors to the policy been
conducted? Yeah, that's what I thought.
Indeed, your have based your conclusion on a subjective value judgement
about what is good for society. Yet, the science of Positive Economics
simply seeks to understand why and how things happen.... not make value
judgements.
Lastly, I'm curious if your data about median income is longitudnal or
cross-sectional in nature. Given that the US was (and is) experiencing a
wave of immigration over that time period that outstrips even the Ellis
Island years, and that these immigrants are very poor - I would be shocked
if this did not have a significant impact upon that data.
But then again, as long as this isn't science, why be bothered by facts,
right Dan?
JDG
_______________________________________________________
John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world,
it is God's gift to humanity." - George W. Bush 1/29/03
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
