Thanks for the links, Ken!

You really should consider including Leaping Larry L’s Blog O’ Leaps for his fillum reviews.

“Su. Poib.”

~~ B. Bunny

Dunno about them read feeder whatsits that you use to cobble ML together, but.

I only agree 95 per cent because if you choose the right percentile (a fraction of one) then Gummos technocratic elite party went into the last election with a policy which probably delivered 58 per cent of the tax cuts to 0.X per cent of the population.

probably? understand? could be wrong? not an expert?

Stop digging Patrick, I think the hole’s deep enough already

So their tax burden is vastly more weighted to the ‘top one per cent’ than ours.

In relation to the stimulatory nature of the proposals, an upfront deduction for capital expenditure appears to me inherently stimulatory becauses it encourages investment and, er, capital expenditure, most of which (in the US at least) is domestic. In principle it should not be distortionary since you deduct wages outright as well, but it is probably is slightly distortionary since you are not obliged to pay for several years’ worth of wages upfront.

Ultimately, I am not sure if you disagree with me as much as that!

Also I would note that I am not sure that there is anything to prefer in Hillary’s and Obama’s policies since they don’t really have them, but that on the basis of what they have released, their policies are not clearly worse (or better) than McCain’s, except that neither has either agreed to or ruled out cutting corporate income tax.

Certainly any attempt by a political party/candidate in Australia to award 58% of tax cuts to the highest income earners would be something very close to political suicide.

Yes I 95 per cent agree with that. But I understand that we have a far higher proportion of taxpayers and a more equally distributed tax burden (although I could be wrong here, I am certainly not an expert).

I only agree 95 per cent because if you choose the right percentile (a fraction of one) then Gummo’s technocratic elite party went into the last election with a policy which probably delivered 58 per cent of the tax cuts to 0.X per cent of the population.

I also disagree with Patrick on the McCain tax front. I agree that cutting the corporate tax rate is a good idea and stimulatory (thus Hilzoy is wrong there). I somehow doubt that allowing business to deduct capital expenditure in the first year rather than depreciate over the life of the plant is a very effective or well targetted measure, although I’d be interested in the views of Nicholas Gruen, “backroom girl” and others who are expert in the area.

I don’t understand Patrick’s contention that it’s perfectly OK for 58% of McCain’s tax cuts to go to the top 1% of income earners:

It is extraordinary that US tax contribution is so incredibly progressive. That these tax cuts benefit the ultra-rich so much more is largely a function of that, not of McCains desire to make billionaires into trillionaires.

I’m no expert on the US income tax system (or Australia’s for that matter), but a quick Google indicates that the current top rate for federal income tax is 35% and that it cuts in at $357,701. State income taxes are highly variable but a common rate for high income earners is 9%. Thus total income tax for high income earners is around 44%, which is a little lower than the top Australian rate and cuts in at a significantly higher income (it’s even better in some States, which have lower income tax rates or in some cases none at all). That doesn’t look dramatically progressive to me. Certainly any attempt by a political party/candidate in Australia to award 58% of tax cuts to the highest income earners would be something very close to political suicide.

This is a real issue that for some reason only the Herald-Sun seems to care about.

And Kenneth Davidson. He’s been banging on for years about the need for more grade-separation of road and rail – that is overpasses and underpasses – in the metro area.

Why doesn’t it happen? You could point the finger at the Australian Technocratic Elite Party (currently represented in office by its slightly more progressive wing) but that’s just scapegoating. The obsession with maintaining budget surpluses at the expense of necessary public works is only a small part of the story.

Look, Victoria, its very simple. If you want those precious, precious budget surpluses, we cant afford to also give you boom gates at level crossings.

This is a real issue that for some reason only the Herald-Sun seems to care about. How can any prosperous modern state justify not paying whatever piddly amount of money involved in putting boom gates in? I am sure that the total bill would be less than $150m and I would happily give up the State’s advertising budget to finance that.

I don’t as a matter of principle or practice expect the State to do a lot, but surely render its works vaguely safe for the public is not stretching things?

Hilzoy posts about McCains tax policies (not reassuring)

about Hilzoy’s grasp of tax policy.

Let’s start with the conclusion:
We are heading into a very serious recession. It’s worth pointing out that one of our major candidates for President is proposing to drastically increase our deficit without being able to pay for it, in ways that are hugely tilted towards the rich, and will, as a result, not provide the kind of stimulus to demand that we need. This actually sounds like a reasonably sensible policy to be taking into a recession.

Cutting to earlier, where Hilzoy lists the key proposals:

(c) “Cut The Corporate Tax Rate From 35 To 25 Percent.”

(d) “Allow First-Year Deduction, Or Expensing, Of Equipment And Technology Investments.”

Both of which would seem likely to be stimulating, the latter directly.

S/he also stresses about the regressivity of these cuts:

Think about that for a moment: 58% of the benefits of these tax cuts would go to the top 1% of Americans. Not the top ten percent, not the vaguely defined “rich”, but the top 1%. That’s just extraordinary.

It is extraordinary that US tax contribution is so incredibly progressive. That these tax cuts ‘benefit’ the ultra-rich so much more is largely a function of that, not of McCain’s desire to make billionaires into trillionaires.

It may not be anyone’s ideal policy but it surely a more-than-reasonable one!