Article

2005-01-24 Home Front: Economy

Tax Rates Do Too Influence Taxpayer Behaviour

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by trailing wife 2005-01-24 2:19:16 AM|| || Front Page|| [11135 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Thanks TW, the supply siders prevail. Not on page one of your friendly MSM publications was how increased revenue into the US coffers has decreased the budget deficit by roughtly $20B.

Could it be the MSM unintentionally forgot to mention this?

Posted by Captain America 2005-01-24 9:54:24 AM|| 2005-01-24 9:54:24 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 I'd consider the Wall Street Journal to be pretty mainstream, in a conservative, business-specialty, we tell the truth because otherwise our readers lose money, which really annoys them kind of way, Captain A. But the New York Times it admittedly is not.

Posted by trailing wife 2005-01-24 10:26:44 AM|| 2005-01-24 10:26:44 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 WSJ ed page is conservative - but the writers are liberal.

Posted by anonymous2u 2005-01-24 1:52:56 PM|| 2005-01-24 1:52:56 PM|| Front Page Top

#4 TW: I'd consider the Wall Street Journal to be pretty mainstream, in a conservative, business-specialty, we tell the truth because otherwise our readers lose money, which really annoys them kind of way, Captain A. But the New York Times it admittedly is not.

Editorial pages are conservative - news pages are more liberal than the NYT - with writers like Yochi Dreazen, Andrew Higgins (ex-Guardian), Hugh Pope, Greg Ip, et al...

Posted by Zhang Fei 2005-01-24 1:55:41 PM|| [http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2005-01-24 1:55:41 PM|| Front Page Top

#5 Also, let's distinguish between the WSJ print and on-line editions. The on-line edition includes articles and commentary written exclusively for the online edition. Perhaps not held to the same standard as the print edition.

Posted by Tom 2005-01-24 2:04:23 PM|| 2005-01-24 2:04:23 PM|| Front Page Top

#6 January 24, 2005; Page A18 This article appeared in the print edition, too. Also, the reporters may be as liberal as they like (and I agree that they are), but articles like this involve money, not world events.

Posted by trailing wife 2005-01-24 2:20:24 PM|| 2005-01-24 2:20:24 PM|| Front Page Top

#7 Liberals hate the Laffer curve so much that they become hysterical at its mention. "It has been disproven!", said one, "By who and how?", I asked. "It just has! By economists!", was the informative comeback. Another insisted that Arthur Laffer worked for Reagan, not Carter, until I showed him a reference book. Then he mumbled something about a conspiracy, implying that Laffer had been sent to sabotage the Carter administration by Reagan.

Posted by Anonymoose 2005-01-24 5:36:28 PM|| 2005-01-24 5:36:28 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 As if Carter needed outside help! Thanks, Anonymoose, I didn't know that about liberals and Laffer. Up 'til now I've had no reason to know about his curve, let alone discuss it in putatively polite company ;-) Google, here I come!

Posted by trailing wife 2005-01-24 10:31:51 PM|| 2005-01-24 10:31:51 PM|| Front Page Top

00:50 Hupoluck Elmaitle6376
00:46 Croth Hupesing4131
00:46 Croth Hupesing4131
00:45 Tholuck Hupeanter3756
00:45 Tholuck Hupeanter3756
23:44 BH
23:36 Frank G
23:28 trailing wife
23:28 OldSpook
23:27 BH
23:12 OldSpook
23:09 OldSpook
23:05 Teddy Kennedy
23:03 OldSpook
23:01 Frank G
23:00 OldSpook
23:00 trailing wife
22:51 trailing wife
22:51 Senator Barbara Boxer
22:50 Frank G
22:48 Frank G
22:48 Senator Barbara Boxer
22:47 Frank G
22:40 badanov