Republicans Can't Handle The Truth

Message boards : Politics : Republicans Can't Handle The Truth
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5

Profile Ex: "Socialist"
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 12 Mar 12
Posts: 3426
Credit: 2,175,025
RAC: 454
United States
Message 1304913 - Posted: 11 Nov 2012, 14:06:38 UTC

The right wing believes they have the answer
Forgetting that the uber-rich don't care about them
To those people, you too are a cancer
The only one that will protect you is a Dem
ID: 1304913 · Report as offensive
Profile skildude

Send message
Joined: 4 Oct 00
Posts: 9529
Credit: 44,436,947
RAC: 0
Message 1304917 - Posted: 11 Nov 2012, 14:19:50 UTC - in response to Message 1304913.  
Last modified: 11 Nov 2012, 14:24:34 UTC

There once was a setizen named Guy
He's believed every Republican Lie
The truth be told
that crew is getting old
When their gone will you cry

or a modified
Guy Believes every Republican Lie
It's like pigs in a Sty
Revenge I am told
Is best served up cold
Help save the US, GOP Die
In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope
ID: 1304917 · Report as offensive
that guy...

Send message
Joined: 3 Apr 99
Posts: 2985
Credit: 105,888,572
RAC: 3
United States
Message 1304934 - Posted: 11 Nov 2012, 15:05:53 UTC
Last modified: 21 Mar 2014, 17:22:43 UTC

ID: 1304934 · Report as offensive
bobby "snowflake"

Send message
Joined: 22 Mar 02
Posts: 2852
Credit: 16,954,556
RAC: 2,231
United States
Message 1304955 - Posted: 11 Nov 2012, 15:56:47 UTC - in response to Message 1304680.  

Your failure to answer the question is duly noted, it was 1931. Every landslide election in the UK since then has been on less than half the votes cast. Thatcher in 1983, where there were 397 Conservative MPs vs 253 others was on 42.4% of the popular vote, Blair in 2001 had 413 Labour MPs vs 237 others on 40.1% of the popular vote.

As I said before you ask the US to remove the splinter from its eye....

Booby, you are mixing up figures here, you are quoting UK figures on figures for party against total votes available, where the US figures are figures based on total votes cast.

There is a big difference, also in the US the number of votes cast is usually below 70% of the population that could vote, whilst in the UK the figure is usually over 70%.

So unless there is has been a big change, and the figures do not support that, then against the total voting population in this election then it will be about a third each for each party and the non-voters.

Are you sure it's me that's mixing things up? The percentages used for UK elections were of total votes cast (aka the popular vote), the same basis was used for US elections. In 1983 the Conservative Party won 42.4% of total votes cast (13.7 million votes for Conservative Party candidates vs 17.5 million votes for other candidates). The last time voter participation in the UK was over 70% was 15 years ago (source), US voter participation is typically a smaller proportion (source).

Reagan in 1980 won 50.7% of total votes cast, he won the Electoral College by 489 vs. 49 for Carter. The issue of the Electoral College not reflecting the proportion of votes cast is not new, nor is it new for the system to be discussed following an election. The college has been a feature of US elections since 1788 (the first election following the adoption of the Constitution), and I suspect it will remain a feature of US elections for some time yet.
I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

ID: 1304955 · Report as offensive
Reed Young

Send message
Joined: 23 Feb 06
Posts: 122
Credit: 81,383
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1305049 - Posted: 11 Nov 2012, 20:04:10 UTC

from pages 2, 4-5 of the suppressed report by the non-partisan Congressional Research Service:
Top Tax Rates Since 1945
Tax policy analysts often use two concepts of tax rates. The first is the marginal tax rate or the tax rate on the last dollar of income. If a taxpayer’s income were to increase by $1, the marginal tax rate indicates what proportion of that dollar would be paid in taxes. The highest marginal tax rate is referred to as the top marginal tax rate. How much an additional dollar is taxed depends on if it is ordinary income (e.g., wages) or capital gains. The second concept of tax rates is the average tax rate, which is the proportion of all income that is paid in taxes. An examination of the trend in
the average tax rate provides information on how the tax burden has changed over time.

Although the statutory top marginal tax rate was over 90% in the 1950s, the average tax rate for the very rich was much lower. The average tax rates at five-year intervals since 1945 for the top 0.1% and top 0.01% of taxpayers is shown in Figure 1. The average tax rate for the top 0.01% (one taxpayer in 10,000) was about 60% in 1945 and fell to 24.2% by 1990. The average tax rate for the top 0.1% (one taxpayer in 1,000) was 55% in 1945 and also fell to 24.2% by 1990, following a similar downward path as the tax rate for the top 0.01%. Between 1990 and 1995, the average tax rate for both the top 0.1% and top 0.01% increased to about 31%. After 1995, the average tax rate for the top 0.01% was lower than that for the top 0.1%...

Top Tax Rates and the Economy
Some economists and policymakers often assert that reducing marginal tax rates would spur economic growth.[9] This could work through several mechanisms. First, lower tax rates could give people more after-tax income that could be used to purchase additional goods and services. This is a demand-side argument and is often invoked to support a temporary tax reduction as an expansionary fiscal stimulus. Second, reduced tax rates could boost saving and investment, which would increase the productive capacity of the economy and productivity.[10] Furthermore, some argue that reduced tax rates increase labor supply by increasing the after-tax wage rate. There is substantial evidence, however, to suggest that labor supply responses to wage and tax changes are small for both men and women.[11] To the extent that these mechanisms are valid, it is expected
that there would be an inverse relationship between the top tax rates and saving, investment, productivity growth, and real per capita GDP growth. Each relationship is examined.

As you can see, Republican Senators protested the report because it objectively reports the facts and because the facts disprove their voodoo economics.
ID: 1305049 · Report as offensive
Reed Young

Send message
Joined: 23 Feb 06
Posts: 122
Credit: 81,383
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1305050 - Posted: 11 Nov 2012, 20:09:10 UTC - in response to Message 1305049.  
Last modified: 11 Nov 2012, 20:10:11 UTC

The fitted values seem to suggest that higher tax rates are associated with slightly higher real per capita GDP growth rates. The top marginal tax rate in the 1950s was over 90%, and the real GDP growth rate averaged 4.2% and real per capita GDP increased annually by 2.4% in the 1950s. In the 2000s, the top marginal tax rate was 35% while the average real GDP growth rate was 1.7% and real per capita GDP increased annually by less than 1%.

The scattered points, however, generally are not close to the fitted values line indicating that the association between GDP growth and the top tax rates is not strong.[22] Furthermore, the observed positive association between real GDP growth and the top tax rates shown in the figure could be coincidental or spurious because of changes to the U.S. economy over the past 65 years.[23] The statistical analysis using multivariate regression (reported in Table A-1) does not find that either top tax rate has a statistically significant association with the real GDP growth rate.[24]

These results are generally consistent with previous research on tax cuts. Some studies find that a broad based tax rate reduction has a small to modest, positive effect on economic growth.[25] Other studies have found that a broad based tax reduction, such as the Bush tax cuts, has no effect on economic growth.[26] It would be reasonable to assume that a tax rate change limited to a small group of taxpayers at the top of the income distribution would have a negligible effect on economic growth.

ID: 1305050 · Report as offensive
Profile betregerProject Donor

Send message
Joined: 29 Jun 99
Posts: 5882
Credit: 14,072,908
RAC: 16,497
United States
Message 1305051 - Posted: 11 Nov 2012, 20:14:48 UTC - in response to Message 1305049.  
Last modified: 11 Nov 2012, 20:15:07 UTC

Reed, the Republicans started ignoring economics when Regan became president. A problem that I never see discussed is that the marginal utility of a dollar is much lower for the rich therefore they are much less likely to spend or invest that marginal dollar.
ID: 1305051 · Report as offensive
Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5

Message boards : Politics : Republicans Can't Handle The Truth

©2017 University of California
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.