An Unproductive Discussion

I saw this video of David Letterman’s interview of Rand Paul from 2011 posted on Carpe Diem:

I suggest skipping past Paul’s corny attempts at humor near the beginning and watch the last five to six minutes of the discussion. It’s a great example of how someone’s ignorance, Letterman’s in this case, can be mistaken for legitimate arguments by stating platitudes and refusing to accept facts.

In one example, Letterman characterizes Republicans as the party that just wants to give tax breaks to the rich and big business.

Paul points out that there’s the idea that the rich don’t pay their fair share isn’t accurate. They, in fact, pay most of the taxes. He says the top 1% income earners pay a third of income taxes collected and the top 50% pay 96%. Letterman gets some claps for replying:

…I think there’s something wrong with those numbers. I don’t know what it is exactly, but I’m pretty sure there’s something wrong with them…

I’ll give Letterman credit. After the applause, he then says:

Thank you, you’re applauding my stupidity, God bless you.

I’d like to know if Letterman followed up to learn more about these facts to see if he could build a more valid counterpoint than “I’m pretty sure there’s something wrong.” If he did, what did he find? Did it change his mind?

What do you do when you encounter facts that go against what you previously believed? I don’t know about you, but I find that intriguing and I usually dig in deeper.

Earlier in the conversation (4 minute mark), Letterman demonstrates his ignorance by confusing the national deficit with the debt.  “The American debt is what, $3 trillion?”

Paul explains that the deficit is running about $2 trillion each year, but total debt has accumulated up to $14 trillion.

Letterman blows by this fact. He just learned that something he thought was $3 is nearly 5 times as big and he has no reaction. A reasonable person should respond, “Holy cow! $14 trillion? How did that happen? I had no idea that it was that much. What was I thinking?”

I will give Letterman some credit here. He asks how continuing to borrow will affect him. Paul tries to explain, but I don’t think it made much sense to Letterman.

I would have said the Soviet Union, Greece, Cyprus and Detroit are good examples of what can happen. It’s tough to tell how far down the road that is, but that’s the direction borrowing leads.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Higher Tax Rates Can Lower Revenue

I normally don’t watch Sunday morning political TV.  I gave it a chance after this week’s election results.  I watched some of This Week with Christiane Amanpour.   I watched the interview with Rand Paul and the segment on raising taxes with Mike Pence and David Stockman (former budget director with Reagan).  I was surprised at the hostility Amanpour had toward Paul and Pence.

One theme Amanpour pushed in both segments was raising taxes.  She tried to get Rand Paul to agree that his desire to balance the Federal budget would require a tax increase.  The entire Pence/Stockman segment was on this topic.

It took longer than I expected to bring up this point, but Pence finally mentioned it in the back-half of his segment: raising taxes could result in lower Federal revenue.

Stockman disagreed saying that a $100 billion tax increase could increase revenue by $90 billion.

Amanpour then advanced a logical fallacy by appealing to Stockman’s authority on the matter, implying that Stockman was right because he was the “architect of massive tax cuts.”

At that point Pence could have pointed out that Stockman being “the architect of massive tax cuts” doesn’t mean his assertion that tax increases result in higher government revenue is correct.  That’s what’s known as a logical fallacy and fallacies are far too common.  This particular fallacy is called an appeal to expert or appeal to authority.

Then Pence should have asked the architect of massive tax cuts what happened to government revenue in 1986, the year his “massive tax cuts” went into place?

Here’s the Federal government revenue for some of the fiscal years surrounding the “massive tax cut” in 1986 that lowered the top income tax bracket from 50% to 28% from this source:

1985    $734 billion

1986    $769 billion

1987    $854 billion

1988    $909 billion

1989    $991 billion

Stockman could assert that the Federal government would have had even more revenue in 1986-89 if he hadn’t cut taxes, but that’s something we will never know because it didn’t happen.  Since we don’t know what would have happened, we can’t make any sound conclusions on that point.

There are two solid conclusions we can make from this data.  First, a “massive tax cut” does not appear to significantly hurt revenue and it might help.  In fact, if you look at the government revenues around other significant tax cuts you will see s similar pattern.

Second, since a tax cut may not hurt revenues, and may help, a tax increase may not increase revenue.

This isn’t as intuitive to folks on the left as it is to those on the right.  The left tends to assume that everything else (e.g. size of economy) remains constant, or close enough.  If they were correct, then raising tax rates increases revenue.  After all, 20% of 100 is greater than 19%.

However, the economy is dynamic and people do respond to incentives.  Higher tax rates cause a smaller economy (now and in the future) and more tax avoidance, while lower tax rates cause a bigger economy (now and in the future) and less tax avoidance.  In this case, 19% of 105 is greater than 20% of 100.

Nobody can tell you exactly how much the size of the economy and tax avoidance will change with differing tax rates.  Not an economist nor David Stockman.  If they tell you they know with a high degree of confidence, then there’s one thing you can be certain of, they can’t be trusted.

But the fact is that the size of the economy does change with tax rates.  Higher tax rates can lead to lower government revenue.  That’s enough for me to not really want to take a chance on that tactic when deciding how to balance the budget.

Rand Paul on Dennis Miller Show

Here are Rand Paul’s top five issues from the interview he did on the Dennis Miller Show last week:

  1. Deficit is a big issue.  Need a balanced budget amendment.
  2. We need term limits.  They [politicians] go and stay too long and they become corrupted by the system.
  3. I think they should read the bill before they vote on them.  They should wait one day for every 20 pages and that will keep them busy for a while.
  4. Every bill should point to where in the Constitution they get the authority for the bill.
  5. They shouldn’t pass any laws that they exempt themselves from.

I’m not sure I care much about #1.  I think it can have some bad unintended consequences.  For example, tax cuts are passed with a sunset date because of the current balanced budget rules.  I think this is bad because it just loads the hopper for political power.  “You want me to vote to extend your tax cut, then sign my bill.”

#2 sounds good, but I’m not sure that will solve many problems.

I do like #3 through #5.