 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
Proteus_MST
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mazarin
The only minority government that makes sense is CDU/FDP. They are clearly stronger than SPD/Greens in the Bundestag and have a majority in the Bundesrat.
We will end up with a Grand Coalition in the end: Schröder is trying to gamble to make sure that at least if he doesn't win, his opponent loses -which is quite disgusting given the fact that we need a stable government asap. |
At the moment a Jamaica-Coalition seems not unlikely,
i.e. CDU/FDP/Green Party. At least parts of the Green Party seem to be open for it.
Of course the most interesting question stioll is, who will be Chancellor.
Merkel? IMHO Not very probable, as a majority within the Bundestag will probably vote against it (The Chancellor will be nominated by the President, but has to be confirmed by a majority vote within the Bundestag)
Schröder? Only if the left party also votes for him [which isn´t very likely, as the SPD (like the CDU) refuses to initiate Coalition talks with them].
|
|
| |
|
|
|
siron
|
|
quote:
Arthur Laffer is actually a trained economist,IIRC. |
Let me quote Gregory Mankiw (2003-2005 Chairman of the President's Council of Economic Advisers) He writes about Laffer's tax cut idea:
Thinking Like an Economist: Why Economists Disagree: Charlatans and Cranks:
pp. 29-30: An example of fad economics occurred in 1980, when a small group fo economists advised presidential candidate Ronald Reagan that an across-the-board cut in income tax rates would raise tax revenue. They argued that if people could keep a higher fraction of their income, people would work harder to earn more income. Even though tax rates would be lower, income would raise by so much, they claimed, that tax revenue would rise. Almost all professional economists, including most of those who supported Reagan's proposal to cut taxes, viewed this outcome as too optimistic. Lower tax rates might encourage people to work harder, and this extra effort would offset the direct effects of lower tax rates to some extent. But there was no credible evidence that work effort would rise by enough to caues tax revenues to rise in the face of lower tax rates. George Bush, also a presidential candidate in 1980, agreed with most of the professional economists: He called this idea "voodoo economics." Nonetheless, the argument was appealing to Reagan, and it shaped the 1980 presidential campaign and the economic policies of the 1980s.... Congress passes the cut in tax rates... but the tax cut did not cause tax revenue to rise... tax revenue fell... government began a long period of deficit spending... largest peacetime increase in the government debt in U.S. history. Fads can make experts seem less united than the actually are... when the economics profession appears in disarry, you should ask whether the disagreement is real or manufactured... [by] some snake-oil salesman who is trying to sell a miracle cure...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Imran Siddiqui
|
 |
The Potterverse
Jan 1970
time: 00:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by siron
Let me quote Gregory Mankiw (2003-2005 Chairman of the President's Council of Economic Advisers) He writes about Laffer's tax cut idea:
Thinking Like an Economist: Why Economists Disagree: Charlatans and Cranks:
pp. 29-30: An example of fad economics occurred in 1980, when a small group fo economists advised presidential candidate Ronald Reagan that an across-the-board cut in income tax rates would raise tax revenue. They argued that if people could keep a higher fraction of their income, people would work harder to earn more income. Even though tax rates would be lower, income would raise by so much, they claimed, that tax revenue would rise. Almost all professional economists, including most of those who supported Reagan's proposal to cut taxes, viewed this outcome as too optimistic. Lower tax rates might encourage people to work harder, and this extra effort would offset the direct effects of lower tax rates to some extent. But there was no credible evidence that work effort would rise by enough to caues tax revenues to rise in the face of lower tax rates. George Bush, also a presidential candidate in 1980, agreed with most of the professional economists: He called this idea "voodoo economics." Nonetheless, the argument was appealing to Reagan, and it shaped the 1980 presidential campaign and the economic policies of the 1980s.... Congress passes the cut in tax rates... but the tax cut did not cause tax revenue to rise... tax revenue fell... government began a long period of deficit spending... largest peacetime increase in the government debt in U.S. history. Fads can make experts seem less united than the actually are... when the economics profession appears in disarry, you should ask whether the disagreement is real or manufactured... [by] some snake-oil salesman who is trying to sell a miracle cure... |
I think you're confused. It wasn't Laffer's tax cut idea, per se. Laffer's basic theory, IIRC, is accepted by most economists, they just disagree at where we are on the curve (at some point if you are taxed too much, you'll jump through hoops to hide any little bit of money).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
siron
|
|
quote:
I wouldn't do this, except you brought it up.
Do you believe that? |
This was a quote from Mankiw. Economist with reputation and he worked for Bush. I could quote several other economists (with similar reputation)...and I saw the data they provided and I assume it was accurate. And I believe in empirical facts.
(Well, of course NRO-"economists" (or similar hacks) are too dumb to deflate the data and they are too dumb to calculate the per capita tax revenue. But these guys there have no reputation.)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
siron
|
|
"It wasn't Laffer's tax cut idea, per se."
You doubt that the Laffer-Wanniski crew was convinced they were on the right side of the curve?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
siron
|
|
"IIUC most studies in the US showed that the substitution effect dominated - IE higher taxes caused folks to work less - but not enough for higher taxes to mean less govt revenue. But that was at tax rates prevailing in the US"
Laffer curve is trivial. But several guys here in the media (and FDP hacks) claim that we are beyond the maximum without any empirical proof. Well, and we had tax cuts recently....and mebbe you heard that we have trouble with the maastricht criteria.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
siron
|
|
quote:
er. uhm, so if you guys had a simple first past the post system, youd have a CD govt right now, no? |
Um, yes. But let me just quote a post from a different forum which I just read:
"Heck, I'd go so far as to say that, in a situation where the electorate is so clearly divided, it's a testament to the wisdom of the German system (and indeed, most parliamentary systems) that the various interests must find a way to share power, thus ensuring that a greater percentage of the population is represented."
I agree with this.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:37.
Apolyton Time is 00:37. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
20-09-2005 18:23
)
|