News Can Income Tax Rate Hikes Close the Deficit? (interesting article)

[mheslep]

I realize you're not discussing this issue at the qualitative level, but I think it is relevant. The reason is that you are assuming that taxation and redistribution doesn't affect the value of currency in the bizarre ways that I believe it does. [...]

As it happens there's a fairly absolute rule on inflation that leads me to disagree across the board on all those fiscal examples:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monetarism"

Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon

I.e. inflation is about excess money supply, end of story.

 

[bleedblue1234]

"If this money is spent instead of saved or otherwise frozen..."

I stopped reading here...

I mean this stuff was figured out a while ago people, just read this book (one of many): https://www.amazon.com/dp/0517548232/?tag=pfamazon01-20

 

[brainstorm]

I.e. inflation is about excess money supply, end of story.

How do you define "excess" money supply except in terms of how it is used?

I stopped reading here...

I mean this stuff was figured out a while ago people, just read this book (one of many): https://www.amazon.com/dp/0517548232/?tag=pfamazon01-20

Please do me the courtesy of saying what you consider wrong with what I said instead of just referring me to a book. Imagine I went on your wild-goose chase only to discover you misinterpreted what I said. You're assumptiveness could cost me unnecessary time and energy because you didn't bother to state your reasons.

 

[mheslep]

How do you define "excess" money supply except in terms of how it is used?

Use of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taylor_rule" , or something like it, seems to be best practice, though it has people scratching heads when it calls for zero or negative interest rates, as it does now.

 

[brainstorm]

Use of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taylor_rule" , or something like it, seems to be best practice, though it has people scratching heads when it calls for zero or negative interest rates, as it does now.

I don't know if it makes sense to decrease interest rates during deflation, especially if deflation is the result of technological advances or other productivity advances that led to greater abundance, which caused the deflation. After all, there is more to buy with the existing money supply, which effectively already translates into increased money supply in deflated currency, which makes sense in terms of the real growth that caused the abundance-driven deflation to start with, no?

I think the bizarre thing about the current state of fiscal economy is "deflation denial," by which I mean that profit-maximization has motivated the supply-side to pretend like deflation is non-existent, hoping to actually grow by just maintaining previous price levels as much as possible. I'm tempted to call this stagflation, but I think that refers to something else. This is just inflation disguised as constant pricing due to it taking place in a context of real deflation.

Eventually, either productivity decreases will allow to abundance to decrease to fit with persisting price levels OR prices will decrease allowing more purchases with the current money supply, which would be a logical match for productivity increases (primarily in real-estate development and technologically enhanced products and processes). Presumably, without energy-conservation and efficiency-innovation projects succeeding, relative oil-scarcity will increase and that will cause inflation in all products whose fuel-costs are a larger proportion of the retail price.

Put simply, I think fuel-costs in supply-chain logistics are the biggest bottleneck for achieving uniform deflation. Every form of productivity is increasing, mainly due to technological advances. Only the complexity of supply-chains and divisions of labor create energy-inefficiencies which drive oil-scarcity and therefore fuel-prices up. This, in turn, neutralizes the gains in technological efficiency that could otherwise result in the expansion of markets and sales through lower prices.

Also, fuel-costs as a proportion of prices are not just amplified by logistics inefficiencies. Salary-levels are also driven by cost-of-living estimates, which factor in large amounts of fuel-usage and fuel-intensive consumption of products and services. Of course, try convincing people to reduce their salaries by driving less and giving up consumption and see how they respond - especially when they're represented by collective-bargaining agents.

So, where real-estate depreciation and digital media and IT can sufficiently innovate production and consumption practices, deflation should continue whereas more fuel-cost dependent commodities should continue to inflate, except to the extent they are saved by IT innovations and real-estate depreciation (as component costs).

In reality what is needed is major cultural and lifestyle transformations, which would allow more people to consume more real-estate and IT products and services while simultaneously reducing the demand for fuel-consumption. In other words, if conservation succeeds by culture transforming, inflation will be kept in check by a decrease in per-capita demand for fuel-intensive goods. If not, depreciation in real-estate and more efficient products and services will end up as nothing more than increased disposable income to further drive up inflation as oil-scarcity in pushed further by ever-increasing demand for fuel and fuel-intensive products.

Ultimately, I don't know if this will be a problem because price-increases force more conservation of spending, which should check inflation.

The question is why the government is running a deficit in the first place considering that the only reason economic problems are resulting from the deflation is that supply-pricing and demand-side behavior are not adjusting to new paradigms.

 

[mheslep]

Long awaited Fiscal Commission's Report is Out.

http://www.fiscalcommission.gov/sites/fiscalcommission.gov/files/documents/CoChair_Draft.pdf

Surprisingly, overall I think most of the suggestions are excellent:

o All of the $100B domestic cuts (slide 20), especially :

• Cut the federal work force 10% (13.2B)
• Eliminate 250,000 contractors (18.4B)
• Eliminate all earmarks (16B)

o All of the $100B Defense Cuts (slide 19), especially:
Reduce overseas bases by one-third
Freeze federal salaries DoD for three years. (Five years ago nine DoD people made more than $170k/yr. Now almost 1000 do).

o Tax Reform: lower the rates, simplify code, broaden the base.

• Consolidate the code to three individual rates, one corp.
• Eliminate $1.1T tax expenditures, allowing an individual rate reduction to 8,14, and 23%, corporate rate reduction to 26%. If we get that, then I'm fine with:
  • Repeal state and local tax deductions, so no more robbing state Paul to pay state Peter.
  • Reduce the mortage deduction. Yes I have a mortgage deduction. Phase it out (slowly) I say if the rates drop.
  • Haircut the the itemized deductions and the employer health deduction
  • Repeal AMT, PEP
  • Eliminate energy tax preferences for oil and gas industry.
  • Gradually raise gas tax by 15 cents.
  .

o Social Security:

• **** Index retirement age to increases in longevity ****. Ding, Ding. Ding. (slide 45)

o Misc:
Enact comprehensive medical malpractice liability reform to cap non-economic and punitive damages and make other changes in tort law (slide 32)

 

[mheslep]

I'm reminded the commissions members are as listed below. I can't imagine anything approaching unanimity with Sen. Durbin and SEIU President A. Stern in there, as I see can't imagine them approving of nearly anything in the report except for the defense cuts. Gregg and Ryan in particular are powerful persuaders; I imagine they played a leading role.

Co-Chairmen:
Sen. Alan Simpson. Former Republican Senator from Wyoming.
Erskine Bowles, Chief of Staff to President Clinton
Executive Director:
Bruce Reed, Chief Domestic Policy Adviser to President Clinton
Commissioners:
Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT)
Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-CA 31)
Rep. Dave Camp (R-MI 4)
Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK)
Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND)
David Cote, Chairman and CEO, Honeywell International
Sen. Mike Crapo (R-ID)
Sen. Richard Durbin (D-IL)
Ann Fudge, Former CEO, Young & Rubicam Brands
Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH)
Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX 5)
Alice Rivlin, Senior Fellow, Brookings Institute and former Director, Office of Management & Budget
Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI 1)
Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL 9)
Rep. John Spratt (D-SC 5)
Andrew Stern, President, Service Employees International Union

 

[mheslep]

Oh, don't like, at all:

Keeps Obamacare largely intact, and adds back in single payer, public option. (slides 31-36)

 

[talk2glenn]

I find it interesting that during the 1950s, a period when the US experienced a previously unheard-of level of prosperity and economic growth, that the top US income tax rate stood between 84& and 91%, as compared to 35% today. (see reference below).

It's easy to pick and choose data points to distort the facts, but the simple truth is taxes are substantially higher in the US today than they were in 1950. The marginal income tax rates distort that truth, but total revenues as a percentage of GDP do not.

http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/...tack=1&size=m&title=&state=US&color=c&local=s

In 1950, the effective federal tax rate was 23% of GDP. In 2008, at current rate levels, revenue peaked at about 37% of GDP. This is an increase of ~60%. The subsequent decline is due to temporary tax credits as part of the stimulus and the recession. Once the credits expire and the new laws and regulations kick in, real rates will rise even higher than that 37% level.

 

[CAC1001]

Another thing to remember is that during the 1950s, that top marginal income tax rate only applied to literally rich people, and there weren't as many around then. I believe they also sheltered much of their income in trusts and so forth to avoid paying the tax.

 

[mheslep]

It's easy to pick and choose data points to distort the facts, but the simple truth is taxes are substantially higher in the US today than they were in 1950. The marginal income tax rates distort that truth, but total revenues as a percentage of GDP do not.

http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/...tack=1&size=m&title=&state=US&color=c&local=s

In 1950, the effective federal tax rate was 23% of GDP. In 2008, at current rate levels, revenue peaked at about 37% of GDP. This is an increase of ~60%. The subsequent decline is due to temporary tax credits as part of the stimulus and the recession. Once the credits expire and the new laws and regulations kick in, real rates will rise even higher than that 37% level.

You want this instead:
http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/...tack=1&size=m&title=&state=US&color=c&local=s

 

[WhoWee]

You want this instead:
http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/...tack=1&size=m&title=&state=US&color=c&local=s

Actually, this is the important one - 2010.
http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/...tack=1&size=m&title=&state=US&color=c&local=s

 

[Al68]

US tax rates are...lower than they have been during most of US history.

This is false, and obviously false. There was no income tax at all for most of US history. Specifically the period of time when the US went from literally nothing to the greatest nation in the history of the planet.

It was after New Deal, etc, when other nations started catching back up. Imagine what kind of standard of living and technology we would have now had the New Deal, Great Society, and (relatively) high taxes and regulation never happened. We'll never know, but we can imagine an economy not held back by government for all those decades.

 

[WhoWee]

This is false, and obviously false. There was no income tax at all for most of US history. Specifically the period of time when the US went from literally nothing to the greatest nation in the history of the planet.

It was after New Deal, etc, when other nations started catching back up. Imagine what kind of standard of living and technology we would have now had the New Deal, Great Society, and (relatively) high taxes and regulation had never happened. We'll never know, but we can imagine an economy not held back by government for all those decades.

I think most people would agree that we need a safety net. Unfortunately, common sense is rarely applied to Government programs or (put in the way of) opportunities for political gain.

Food stamps are a good example of the conflict. We hear that health care costs are on the rise because of poor eating habits that lead to obesity and diabetes. Processed foods are the usual targets.

Yet, aside from tobacco and alcohol, persons yielding food stamps can "purchase" anything they want - and REGARDLESS of VALUE. I see people in line with me (I'm paying with my cash and buying discount priced items typically) and they're using the state food card and buying the most expensive products on the shelf. I've actually engaged a few people in conversation and they've laughed and said they can't spend their monthly allocation.

IMO - this does not make sense. Why can't we provide people who need food assistance with basic (yes generic) and healthy staples? The idea is to help people TEMPORARILY - not cradle to grave.

 

[Gokul43201]

It's easy to pick and choose data points to distort the facts, but the simple truth is taxes are substantially higher in the US today than they were in 1950. The marginal income tax rates distort that truth, but total revenues as a percentage of GDP do not.

But total revenues are not a measure of the tax rate. They might be if the Laffer Curve were a straight line with positive slope.

In 1950, the effective federal tax rate was 23% of GDP.

It sounds like you are using the term 'tax revenue' synonymously with 'tax rate'.

 

[Gokul43201]

This is false, and obviously false. There was no income tax at all for most of US history.

The sentence you quoted made no mention of "income taxes". There were obviously taxes of other forms (import tariffs, for instance). To expose the falsehood of the statement you quoted, you'd have to show that the rate of taxation (of all kinds) was not higher in the past.

Specifically the period of time when the US went from literally nothing to the greatest nation in the history of the planet.

Do you have a citation for "greatest nation in the history of the planet"?

 

[Astronuc]

Re: Income tax in the US -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States#Early_Federal_income_taxes

 

[CAC1001]

Do you have a citation for "greatest nation in the history of the planet"?

I think one could say America is the greatest nation in the history of the planet. No nation has ever dominated so much economically, financially, politically, militarily, etc...nor provided such incredible wealth, standard of living, and opportunity for its citizens and potential immigrants.

 

[Astronuc]

I think one could say America is the greatest nation in the history of the planet. No nation has ever dominated so much economically, financially, politically, militarily, etc...nor provided such incredible wealth, standard of living, and opportunity for its citizens and potential immigrants.

The Roman Empire before it collapsed, or Alexander's empire before it collapsed.

 

[Gokul43201]

No other nation has provided the same standard of living to its citizens? I think there are a few that might disagree. Some of the other areas of dominance (that you've listed, and I can't say I understand what political dominance is, or the difference between economic and financial dominance) arise for no other reason than that the US has a huge population. Want to compare per capita GDP across countries? And of course, there's the remaining question of why your particular set of criteria should be what determines greatness.

 

[Al68]

The sentence you quoted made no mention of "income taxes". There were obviously taxes of other forms (import tariffs, for instance). To expose the falsehood of the statement you quoted, you'd have to show that the rate of taxation (of all kinds) was not higher in the past.

Yes, but I'm too lazy right now to prove what is obvious. Government as we know it (big, powerful, and expensive) simply did not exist in the U.S. for most of its history. Nothing even remotely comparable existed.

Do I really need to prove to anyone that the U.S. government greatly expanded its size, power, revenues, and control over people during the last century? Is that not undisputed common knowledge?

Do you have a citation for "greatest nation in the history of the planet"?

Nope. But you can take my word for it.

 

[Al68]

No other nation has provided the same standard of living to its citizens?

The standard of living I was referring to is not "provided". I was not referring to the standard of living of wards of the state, or kept women, etc. I was referring generally to the standard of living of the bulk of people in the U.S. historically who provided for themselves.

 

[CRGreathouse]

It's worth pointing out, before there is confusion, that the point on "greatest nation" is *not* that the US is today, but that it was at one point. A (the?) standard citation backing this up would be Francis Fukuyama's famous essay "The End of History?". Of course Al68 may have been referring to an earlier time than Fukuyama.

 

[Al68]

Yet, aside from tobacco and alcohol, persons yielding food stamps can "purchase" anything they want - and REGARDLESS of VALUE.

Prior to using cards instead of actual food "stamps", they could buy anything. Either by liquidating them for cash at a discount, or by simply going to a store that was willing to ignore the rules. Plus from what I understand, most drug dealers freely accepted food stamps.

So the card, at least, makes that kind of thing a little more difficult.

 

[WhoWee]

Prior to using cards instead of actual food "stamps", they could buy anything. Either by liquidating them for cash at a discount, or by simply going to a store that was willing to ignore the rules. Plus from what I understand, most drug dealers freely accepted food stamps.

So the card, at least, makes that kind of thing a little more difficult.

I've witnessed people in a line using more than one card at a time - and the drug dealers had to use them somewhere.

 

[Gokul43201]

Yes, but I'm too lazy right now to prove what is obvious. Government as we know it (big, powerful, and expensive) simply did not exist in the U.S. for most of its history. Nothing even remotely comparable existed.

Do I really need to prove to anyone that the U.S. government greatly expanded its size, power, revenues, and control over people during the last century? Is that not undisputed common knowledge?Nope. But you can take my word for it.

The statement you responded to said nothing about size, power, revenues and control of the govt. So, whether or not any of those things are undisputed are irrelevant to me for this discussion.

What I'm interested in - the statement you described as obviously false is not obvious to me - is whether or not tax rates were always much lower than what they are now. If my memory serves correctly tariffs started out in the 10% range, but needed to go up to the 50% level for the Civil War, and continued to stay high after that, through the Gilded Age. And when WWI came along, they found the revenues from tariffs woefully inadequate to fight the war, leading to its abandonment.

 

[Gokul43201]

The standard of living I was referring to is not "provided".

This statement should be addressed to CAC. I was merely copy-pasting his choice of words.

 

[edward]

All of this tax talk reminds me of how things have changed over the years. A few years back a person who bought a large boat or yacht was charged a luxury tax.

Now the same buyer can call the craft a second home and deduct the interest paid on a loan to finance it from their income tax.

The only stipulations are that the craft must have a bed a galley and a head.

 

[CAC1001]

No other nation has provided the same standard of living to its citizens? I think there are a few that might disagree.

I would say standard of living and satisfaction of life are not the same thing. Also I'd say something like satisfaction of life is more arbitrary and difficult to measure. You can have a significantly lower standard of living than me let's say, but be very satisfied with your life. I, on the other hand, could live in a mansion and have unimaginable luxuries, but be miserable and totally dissatisfied with life.

Some of the other areas of dominance (that you've listed, and I can't say I understand what political dominance is,

Influence in global affairs.

or the difference between economic and financial dominance)

America could have a larger economy but lose its status as the financial center of the world I would think. But as it is, we are the largest economy and the main global financial center (in terms of countries).

arise for no other reason than that the US has a huge population.

So what though? A population is a factor in a country's ability to be pre-eminent in certain areas I'd think.

Want to compare per capita GDP across countries?

Yes, but one must also take into account GDP per capita at its PPP and cost of living in these nations. But also GDP per capita is one variable. My saying I view the U.S. as the greatest nation takes into account multiple variables. I would also argue that most of these nations do not offer the levels of opportunity the United States has.

And of course, there's the remaining question of why your particular set of criteria should be what determines greatness.

Plenty of countries can be great at certain things and areas, but overall, I see the U.S. as the greatest right now. I would venture you measure a country by its economy, military strength, political influence, etc...you could also include economic freedom (of which certain other nations and areas also score higher than America, such as Hong Kong for example), protection of private property and human rights, corruption in the government, etc...

 

[CAC1001]

The Roman Empire before it collapsed, or Alexander's empire before it collapsed.

Neither the Roman Empire nor Alexander's empire ever provided the standard of living or the level of military strength of the modern United States though. I'd say they matched it in terms of political influence for their times though.

 

[Al68]

What I'm interested in - the statement you described as obviously false is not obvious to me - is whether or not tax rates were always much lower than what they are now.

The only info I could find quickly isn't much, but makes my point: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals/ Table 1.1.

Sampling (in millions of dollars):

Year range_________________________ Total federal revenue per year (ave for range prior to 1940)

1789–1849 (61 years) ____________________________ 19
1850–1900 (51 years) ___________________________ 284
1901-1915 (15 years) ___________________________ 630
1916-1940 (25 years) __________________________ 4,015

1950________________________________________39,443
1960________________________________________92,492
1970_______________________________________192,807
1980_______________________________________517,112
1990_____________________________________1,031,972
2000_____________________________________2,025,198

These numbers are not adjusted for inflation, but since inflation was only a big factor after we went off the gold standard, and clearly cannot account but for a fraction of the growth seen above, these numbers are still a good indication of the stark difference between the early history of the U.S. and the last century.

And you're right, import tariffs were the bulk of revenue for those early years, and as you can imagine, they didn't add up to much, since it applied only to imports. But like I said, nothing even remotely comparable to government as we know it today existed in the U.S. at that time.

Edit: I know this isn't exactly what you were asking, but I don't know of any reasonable way to directly compare the "rate" of taxation, since GDP data and the percentage of income spent on imports subject to tariffs are not readily available for those early years. But since the difference in total government revenues is so stark, it's reasonable to deduct that the difference in total effective tax rate is comparable. And we know that only a tiny fraction of the current budget is more than sufficient to do everything that government did back then.

 

[CAC1001]

It's worth pointing out, before there is confusion, that the point on "greatest nation" is *not* that the US is today, but that it was at one point. A (the?) standard citation backing this up would be Francis Fukuyama's famous essay "The End of History?". Of course Al68 may have been referring to an earlier time than Fukuyama.

I'd say the U.S. still is today. No other nation has surpassed it yet.

 

[Gokul43201]

The only info I could find quickly isn't much, but makes my point: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals/ Table 1.1.

Sampling (in millions of dollars):

Year range_________________________ Ave total federal revenue per year

1789–1849 (61 years) ____________________________ 19
1850–1900 (51 years) ___________________________ 284
1901-1915 (15 years) ___________________________ 630
1916-1940 (25 years) __________________________ 4,015
1950________________________________________39,443
1960________________________________________92,492
1970_______________________________________192,807
1980_______________________________________517,112
1990_____________________________________1,031,972
2000_____________________________________2,025,198

These numbers are not adjusted for inflation, but since inflation was only a big factor after we went off the gold standard, and clearly cannot account but for a fraction of the growth seen above, these numbers are still a good indication of the stark difference between the early history of the U.S. and the last century.

And you're right, import tariffs were the bulk of revenue for those early years, and as you can imagine, they didn't add up to much. But like I said, nothing even remotely comparable to government as we know it today existed in the U.S. at that time.

Thanks for the link. Will look into it tomorrow.

 

[Gokul43201]

I would say standard of living and satisfaction of life are not the same thing. Also I'd say something like satisfaction of life is more arbitrary and difficult to measure. You can have a significantly lower standard of living than me let's say, but be very satisfied with your life. I, on the other hand, could live in a mansion and have unimaginable luxuries, but be miserable and totally dissatisfied with life.

And which of us is more likely to say: this is "great"?

Influence in global affairs.

I consider that derivative. If the US were not a military/economic power, it likely wouldn't be a diplomatic power either.

America could have a larger economy but lose its status as the financial center of the world I would think. But as it is, we are the largest economy and the main global financial center (in terms of countries).

I believe this is also derivative. If the US had a tiny economy, it's unlikely it would enjoy its financial capital status.

So what though? A population is a factor in a country's ability to be pre-eminent in certain areas I'd think.

Of course it is. But a country's population is much more an outcome of its size than its economic policies. Put differently, do you think the US would be the greatest country in the history of the world, if the Pilgrims had landed on a continent that was ten times smaller? The point you are defending is that it was taxation policy, not the dumb luck of being on a large tract of land, that propelled the US into the global leader that it is.

My saying I view the U.S. as the greatest nation takes into account multiple variables.

Once you add the word "I view", that makes it clear that you are expressing an opinion instead of claiming something to be a fact. There is therefore, no burden on you to support your statement. The same can not be said of the original statement by Al.

I would also argue that most of these nations do not offer the levels of opportunity the United States has.

'Opportunity' needs to be defined in some manner that makes a comparison possible.

 

[CAC1001]

And which of us is more likely to say: this is "great"?

If you are used to living in extreme wealth, you'll get used to it. So the very wealthy person could still be miserable, even though they have a higher standard of living.

I consider that derivative. If the US were not a military/economic power, it likely wouldn't be a diplomatic power either.

I agree.

I believe this is also derivative. If the US had a tiny economy, it's unlikely it would enjoy its financial capital status.

Also agree here.

Of course it is. But a country's population is much more an outcome of its size than its economic policies. Put differently, do you think the US would be the greatest country in the history of the world, if the Pilgrims had landed on a continent that was ten times smaller? The point you are defending is that it was taxation policy, not the dumb luck of being on a large tract of land, that propelled the US into the global leader that it is.

Whoa there, actually I'm not defending tax policy, I simply was stating I view the U.S. as the greatest nation in the world. I do not view this solely due to tax policy, on the contrary, I think part of it is most definitely is tied to geography. America has Canada to the North, Mexico to the South, two huge oceans on the East and Western coasts, making it incredibly difficult for any other major powers in the world to try and invade the U.S. if they so desired, we have huge amounts of natural resources, we have abundant farmland that allows us to be the major food producer of the world, our land amount also allows many homeowning Americans to enjoy having a plot of land for cheap that is impossible for homeowners in many other countries, etc...so yes, geography definitely plays a role.

If the Pilgrams had landed on a continent 10X smaller, and thus the population of America today was 30 million opposed to 300 million, then no, American might be "a" major power, but likely not "the" major power it currently is.

Once you add the word "I view", that makes it clear that you are expressing an opinion instead of claiming something to be a fact. There is therefore, no burden on you to support your statement. The same can not be said of the original statement by Al.

I think saying "I view," while seen as an opinion, I most certainly must support it (after all, "why" do I hold that view?).

But it is a fact that the U.S. has the largest economy, the most powerful military, is the financial center of the world, is the most influential in global affairs, consumes the most, has one of the highest GDP-per-capitas, has the finest universities, etc...

'Opportunity' needs to be defined in some manner that makes a comparison possible.

Opportunity to acquire an elite education, opportunity to become wealthy, etc...the best universities, the most business opportunities, etc...are in America.

 

[Gokul43201]

Whoa there, actually I'm not defending tax policy, I simply was stating I view the U.S. as the greatest nation in the world. I do not view this solely due to tax policy, on the contrary, I think part of it is most definitely is tied to geography.

My bad.

I think saying "I view," while seen as an opinion, I most certainly must support it (after all, "why" do I hold that view?).

The important difference, for discussion here, is that the forum rules specifically require citations for statements of fact.

Opportunity to acquire an elite education, opportunity to become wealthy, etc...the best universities, the most business opportunities, etc...are in America.

That is a statement of fact that would need both clarification and substantiation.

For instance, in 2007, Forbes ranked the US #1 in its list of best places for business, but that rank dropped to #4 in 2008.

http://www.forbes.com/2008/06/26/de...untries08_0626bizcountries_bestcountries.html

 

[CAC1001]

The important difference, for discussion here, is that the forum rules specifically require citations for statements of fact.

Well we do know for a fact that the U.S. has the largest economy of any single country at about $14 trillion, the strongest military (here is one site, although they are going by numbers with this - http://www.globalfirepower.com/), the financial center (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_centre#Global_Financial_Centres_Index - according to the Global Financial Centers Index, two of the top financial centers in the world are NYC and Chicago (although London is ahead of NYC now)), in terms of most influential in global affairs, well we could look at its influence with the United Nations (http://www.unausa.org/Page.aspx?pid=963#fund), NATO (http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=2976&type=0&sequence=4), the World Bank and the IMF (http://www.globalexchange.org/campaigns/wbimf/faq.html), etc...in terms of consumption (I can't find the exact statistic, but I know we consume the most, as we produce the most, here is one for oil consumption - http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_oil_con-energy-oil-consumption and one for electricity consumption - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_electricity_consumption), in terms of GDP per capita, America ranks in the top ten - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita (also in GDP per capita in PPP), regarding universities, well the U.S. has a large percentage of the best universities: http://education-portal.com/articles/List_of_the_20_Best_Universities_and_Colleges_in_the_World.html

That is a statement of fact that would need both clarification and substantiation.

For instance, in 2007, Forbes ranked the US #1 in its list of best places for business, but that rank dropped to #4 in 2008.

http://www.forbes.com/2008/06/26/de...untries08_0626bizcountries_bestcountries.html

I would say that there is a difference between being the "best" nation for business and having more or less business opportunities available. For example Hong Kong is very business-friendly, but if you wanted to build a large chain of stores, would you find more opportunity to launch it in Hong Kong or the U.S?

 

[Astronuc]

I would say that there is a difference between being the "best" nation for business and having more or less business opportunities available. For example Hong Kong is very business-friendly, but if you wanted to build a large chain of stores, would you find more opportunity to launch it in Hong Kong or the U.S?

That's an interesting question. One would have to look at the particular market and it's potential for whatever the stores would offer.

Just yesterday (Nov 11) - Tim Hortons Closes Its Connecticut Restaurants
http://articles.courant.com/2010-11-11/business/hc-tim-hortons-ct-closed-1112-20101111_1_tim-hortons-doughnuts-parking-lot

Tim Hortons announced the closings Wednesday as it announced its third-quarter earnings. Although the earnings were strong overall, the results included an operating loss of $17.5 million for its U.S. locations. The company blamed the loss on poorly performing locations in Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts and Maine.

Since 2007, there has been a number of retail chains that have failed, e.g., Circuit City, Mervyn's, Sharper Image, Linens n' Things, Levitz Furniture, . . . .

Some notables - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_business_failures#2008


Some numbers - "According to Dun & Bradstreet reports, “Businesses with fewer than 20 employees have only a 37% chance of surviving four years (of business) and only a 9% chance of surviving 10 years.” Restaurants only have a 20% chance of surviving 2 years."

and

"During the early 1990's, worldwide business failures occurred at rates higher than any time since the 1930's" [it would seem that bu

"According to Dun & Bradstreet statistics, 88.7% of all business failures are due to management mistakes."

Ref: http://cpa.utk.edu/pdffiles/adc24.pdf
http://www.summitbusinesssolutions.ws/docs/reasons_biz_fail.pdf

 

[mheslep]

No other nation has provided the same standard of living to its citizens? I think there are a few that might disagree. Some of the other areas of dominance (that you've listed, and I can't say I understand what political dominance is, or the difference between economic and financial dominance) arise for no other reason than that the US has a huge population. Want to compare per capita GDP across countries? And of course, there's the remaining question of why your particular set of criteria should be what determines greatness.

While observers are free to choose there own metrics for happiness, if standard of living is defined as productive output via GDP ( and you want to use PPP corrected GDP when comparing countries), then the US leads all comparably sized countries (say 50M people or more?)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita.
If one wants to consider some small countries with a couple million people with high outlier GDP(PPP) per cap, then consider smaller comparably sized parts of the US, like the DC area where GDP per cap is over $100k.

 

[mheslep]

It's worth pointing out, before there is confusion, that the point on "greatest nation" is *not* that the US is today, but that it was at one point. A (the?) standard citation backing this up would be Francis Fukuyama's famous essay "The End of History?". ...

I prefer Hitchen's essay The End of Fukuyama on this topic.
http://www.slate.com/id/2137134/

 

[Gokul43201]

<snip>
1901-1915 (15 years) ___________________________ 630
1916-1940 (25 years) __________________________ 4,015
...
1990_____________________________________1,031,972
2000_____________________________________2,025,198

These numbers are not adjusted for inflation, but since inflation was only a big factor after we went off the gold standard, and clearly cannot account but for a fraction of the growth seen above, these numbers are still a good indication of the stark difference between the early history of the U.S. and the last century.

The calculator I found here says that the inflation from the early 1914 to now is over 2,000%. Let's call the revenue for 1914 a round $1000 (millions assumed throughout). Scaled for inflation, that's about $200,000. That's for a 1914 population of about 100 mill, compared to today's pop of about 300. Also, the workforce participation has increased significantly, as a fraction of population, due to the addition of women to the labor force. These two effects contribute a multiplier of about 4. That makes the effective 1914 revenue about $800,000, which is about 2.5 times smaller than today's value.

If I haven't made any big mistakes, that is clearly smaller than today's value, and assuming we didn't transition across a Laffer optimum, implies that effective tax rates were similarly smaller than today's. I don't think I'd characterize it as a 'stark difference' though.

 

[Al68]

The calculator I found here says that the inflation from the early 1914 to now is over 2,000%. Let's call the revenue for 1914 a round $1000 (millions assumed throughout). Scaled for inflation, that's about $200,000. That's for a 1914 population of about 100 mill, compared to today's pop of about 300. Also, the workforce participation has increased significantly, as a fraction of population, due to the addition of women to the labor force. These two effects contribute a multiplier of about 4. That makes the effective 1914 revenue about $800,000, which is about 2.5 times smaller than today's value.

If I haven't made any big mistakes, that is clearly smaller than today's value, and assuming we didn't transition across a Laffer optimum, implies that effective tax rates were similarly smaller than today's. I don't think I'd characterize it as a 'stark difference' though.

That all sounds about right, and thanks for the legwork. Government (and tax rates) certainly has grown considerably since 1914. But the "stark" difference I was referring to is between the first 125 years (roughly) and the last century. It was roughly those first 125 years that the U.S. went from nothing to "the greatest nation in history", and after that that other nations started catching up.

A quick glance at those numbers indicates a very stark difference indeed, especially considering that inflation was a much, much smaller factor. here shows that from 1800 to 1900, the total inflation was only about 100% instead of over 2000% for the last hundred years.

And "stark" is a huge understatement if we combine those periods, and consider the growth of government (and taxes) since the beginning.