A preemptive strike against Dave Burris’ tax lunacy

Comments (10)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

1. Ryan S. says:

   July 13, 2007 at 4:33 pm

   You can run a quadratic or linear regression on any set of data. Neither graph proves anything.

2. jason330 says:

   July 13, 2007 at 4:52 pm

   Lets not get into a semantic thing in which the word “proves” end up meaning “does not prove”

   I can only take one of those every few weeeks.

3. Ryan S. says:

   July 13, 2007 at 5:02 pm

   Hassett is misusing the Laffer Curve, and both he and the blogger are misusing regression techniques.

   These prove nothing either way about tax revenues.

   Sorry I make you think so hard, Jace. I’ll try to keep the thought level on an eighth grade level from now on, k?

4. anon says:

   July 13, 2007 at 5:26 pm

   You don’t need to work out the regression equations to see the “Norway Loop” is absurd and the straight line is a better fit.

5. Nancy Willing says:

   July 13, 2007 at 7:56 pm

   One of Brian Lamb’s guests this morning was a staff writer for the Wall Sreet Journal. A caller brought up this article and as the C-Span camera zoomed in on the graph depiction, the caller perfectly deconstructed the bullshit variables. The story had legs all day long and it is great to see it here too!

6. Chris says:

   July 13, 2007 at 11:07 pm

   Ahem. Try drawing a line from Ireland down to the US and I think the graph would seem to prove that higher tax rates DO reduce tax revenue.

   Of course this whole study is bogus to begin with. Comparing percentage of GDP between countries is comparing apples to oranges.

   If Country A has a tax rate of 10% which generates $1000 out of a GDP of $50,000, then the 10% rate has resulted in revenue of 2% of GDP.

   Country B has a tax rate of 40%. But, the country, because of the economic depression caused by high taxes, has only $10,000 GDP. It generates $500 in tax revenue. That means it is 5% of GDP.

   So in liberal speak, raising taxes increased revenue by 3% of GDP. We will just ignore the fact the the economic slowdown caused by the tax increase actually cut tax revenues in half.

7. jason330 says:

   July 13, 2007 at 11:18 pm

   You know what Ryan – you may be right. I might be thinking too hard. I mean, taxes must be an unvarnished evil.

   Just compare the horrible quality of life in a high tax state like Mass, New York or Vermont with the paradise you find in the low tax states like Mississippi or Alabama.

8. Chris says:

   July 13, 2007 at 11:31 pm

   “Just compare the horrible quality of life in a high tax state like Mass, New York or Vermont with the paradise you find in the low tax states like Mississippi or Alabama.”

   I don’t Florida has very low taxes and there are certainly some wonderful quality of life areas that come to mind. North Carolina also has some wonderful, beautiful areas for quality of life, and taxes are pretty low there.

   Then again…taxes in Jersey are pretty high, and I just came running from there screaming….though the traffic in DE is making me think twice.

9. Alan Coffey says:

   July 14, 2007 at 7:14 am

   “Hassett is misusing the Laffer Curve, and both he and the blogger are misusing regression techniques.

   These prove nothing either way about tax revenues. ”

   AMEN!

   IF the point of taxation is to garner the revenue needed for governing with the least amount of disruption of commerce, then look to the Laffer Curve and you will generally find that our tax rates are too high. IF on the other hand you intend to modify behaviour with taxation, then the rates should be set politically. In this case, the beatings shall continue until morale improves.

10. tommywonk says:

    July 14, 2007 at 6:22 pm

    Thanks for posting this. Imposing the Laffer curve on the data in this chart isn’t as delusional as pointing to an apparition of the Blessed Virgin in a grilled cheese sandwich, but it is intellectually dishonest.

    If you’d like to know why, come on over to TommyWonk.