Some wondered if he wasn't happy with Hanauer bringing up inequality. No, Worstell says, he's just ignorant.
I've written of Hanauer's proposals to be sure. I don't think the 'liberal billionare' is ignorant at all.
http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2015/06/when-i-grow-up-i-want-to-be-like-nick.html
http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2015/06/whats-next-for-uber-economy-part-2.html
However, Worstell does.
"Nick Hanauer seems to have got more than a little peeved over the way that TED didn’t post up his little 5 minute speech. Vague insinuations that it was because he was talking about inequality are floating around. The real problem is that he was really talking about the economics of taxation. Unfortunately, the economics of taxation seems to be a subject he is deeply ignorant of. Which isn’t really a great advertisement for the sort of informative talks by experts that TED likes to broadcast on this here internet."
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/05/19/the-ignorance-of-nick-hanauers-ted-speech/
Nope, Worstell replies dismissively, Hanauer just doesn't know what he's talking about. Did Hanauer give a mediocre speech?
"At which point I’m afraid I must disagree. It was worse than mediocre: it was deeply ignorant of the very subject under discussion."
"Here’s the transcript of the talk. To highlight some points:
"If taxes on the rich go up, job creation will go down. …..In the same way, a policy maker who believed that the rich and businesses are “job creators” and therefore should not be taxed, would make equally bad policy. …..That’s why our current policies are so upside down. When you have a tax system in which most of the exemptions and the lowest rates benefit the richest, all in the name of job creation, all that happens is that the rich get richer……Another reason this idea is so wrong-headed is that there can never be enough superrich Americans to power a great economy. The annual earnings of people like me are hundreds, if not thousands, of times greater than those of the median American, but we don’t buy hundreds or thousands of times more stuff. My family owns three cars, not 3,000. I buy a few pairs of pants and a few shirts a year, just like most American men. Like everyone else, we go out to eat with friends and family only occasionally."
"I can’t buy enough of anything to make up for the fact that millions of unemployed and underemployed Americans can’t buy any new clothes or cars or enjoy any meals out. Or to make up for the decreasing consumption of the vast majority of American families that are barely squeaking by, buried by spiraling costs and trapped by stagnant or declining wages."
"It isn’t actually true that the claimed link is between taxes on the rich and job creation. Rather, that marginal tax rates have an effect on labour supply: raise those marginal rates too high and people will decide to do something else rather than go to work. Appear unpaid on stage at conferences to make a video perhaps. This is the Laffer Curve argument in part. Economic production and thus total taxes raised will be maximised by having marginal tax rates that are not too high."
Yes, sure, this just brings us the shouting match about what is “too high” and what a lovely shouting match that is. But it is a discussion of labour supply and marginal tax rates, not a discussion of job creation."
I don't think it really shows ignorance-at most Worstell is discussing a different conservative theory about why taxes are bad than what Worstell mentions-conservatives have lots of theories as to why taxes are harmful.
As to the effect of marginal tax rates I don't think it makes much sense for those at the bottom of the income scale. If I don''t make a lot of money I cant say 'Gee, they raised my taxes, I quit so I can go home and fly my kite!'
In truth, I am forced to work more hours which will cost me what the Neoclassical economists call leisure. I'll have less time with my family or other interests, goals, or hobbies I enjoy.
So even if Hanauer has never heard of Laffer before this theory has some holes in it unless it's given more context. I would say that the only people who are going to react to a tax hike by working less are those with enough savings such that they don't really need to work at all.
So we finally have discovered that Forbes doesn't like all billionaires-it hates liberal billionaires.
I've written of Hanauer's proposals to be sure. I don't think the 'liberal billionare' is ignorant at all.
http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2015/06/when-i-grow-up-i-want-to-be-like-nick.html
http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2015/06/whats-next-for-uber-economy-part-2.html
However, Worstell does.
"Nick Hanauer seems to have got more than a little peeved over the way that TED didn’t post up his little 5 minute speech. Vague insinuations that it was because he was talking about inequality are floating around. The real problem is that he was really talking about the economics of taxation. Unfortunately, the economics of taxation seems to be a subject he is deeply ignorant of. Which isn’t really a great advertisement for the sort of informative talks by experts that TED likes to broadcast on this here internet."
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/05/19/the-ignorance-of-nick-hanauers-ted-speech/
Nope, Worstell replies dismissively, Hanauer just doesn't know what he's talking about. Did Hanauer give a mediocre speech?
"At which point I’m afraid I must disagree. It was worse than mediocre: it was deeply ignorant of the very subject under discussion."
"Here’s the transcript of the talk. To highlight some points:
"If taxes on the rich go up, job creation will go down. …..In the same way, a policy maker who believed that the rich and businesses are “job creators” and therefore should not be taxed, would make equally bad policy. …..That’s why our current policies are so upside down. When you have a tax system in which most of the exemptions and the lowest rates benefit the richest, all in the name of job creation, all that happens is that the rich get richer……Another reason this idea is so wrong-headed is that there can never be enough superrich Americans to power a great economy. The annual earnings of people like me are hundreds, if not thousands, of times greater than those of the median American, but we don’t buy hundreds or thousands of times more stuff. My family owns three cars, not 3,000. I buy a few pairs of pants and a few shirts a year, just like most American men. Like everyone else, we go out to eat with friends and family only occasionally."
"I can’t buy enough of anything to make up for the fact that millions of unemployed and underemployed Americans can’t buy any new clothes or cars or enjoy any meals out. Or to make up for the decreasing consumption of the vast majority of American families that are barely squeaking by, buried by spiraling costs and trapped by stagnant or declining wages."
"It isn’t actually true that the claimed link is between taxes on the rich and job creation. Rather, that marginal tax rates have an effect on labour supply: raise those marginal rates too high and people will decide to do something else rather than go to work. Appear unpaid on stage at conferences to make a video perhaps. This is the Laffer Curve argument in part. Economic production and thus total taxes raised will be maximised by having marginal tax rates that are not too high."
Yes, sure, this just brings us the shouting match about what is “too high” and what a lovely shouting match that is. But it is a discussion of labour supply and marginal tax rates, not a discussion of job creation."
I don't think it really shows ignorance-at most Worstell is discussing a different conservative theory about why taxes are bad than what Worstell mentions-conservatives have lots of theories as to why taxes are harmful.
As to the effect of marginal tax rates I don't think it makes much sense for those at the bottom of the income scale. If I don''t make a lot of money I cant say 'Gee, they raised my taxes, I quit so I can go home and fly my kite!'
In truth, I am forced to work more hours which will cost me what the Neoclassical economists call leisure. I'll have less time with my family or other interests, goals, or hobbies I enjoy.
So even if Hanauer has never heard of Laffer before this theory has some holes in it unless it's given more context. I would say that the only people who are going to react to a tax hike by working less are those with enough savings such that they don't really need to work at all.
So we finally have discovered that Forbes doesn't like all billionaires-it hates liberal billionaires.
No comments:
Post a Comment