Portfolio's Zubin Jelveh identified two major problems with Hauser's figures:
(1) They don't include corporate tax revenue, which has dropped dramatically.
(2) They DO include revenue from social security and other social-insurance programs, which aren't tied to tax rates and which have grown dramatically.
In other words, the appearance that tax revenue remains flat across the past 57 years of fluctuating top tax rates is a coincidence, to put it nicely, or an accounting fraud, to be a bit more accurate about it.
The corrected charts and the author at that link say that it's inconclusive. Which is pretty safe to say.
Perot charts are interesting, more detailed and transparent. They cover areas you are worried about specifically the breakdown of different types of tax. If they are misleading they are transparent (enough) so that at least the user can figure it out. They cover a number of spending and tax issues:
Or with some context: 'My analysis doesn't prove [something I never claimed] but Hauser's Law doesn't prove the opposite [which Hauser and Ranson did claim].'
In other words, on the growth effects of raising top tax rates he is indeed inconclusive. But on the question of whether Hauser is full of crap, he's pretty conclusive.
Comments
Portfolio's Zubin Jelveh identified two major problems with Hauser's figures: (1) They don't include corporate tax revenue, which has dropped dramatically. (2) They DO include revenue from social security and other social-insurance programs, which aren't tied to tax rates and which have grown dramatically.
In other words, the appearance that tax revenue remains flat across the past 57 years of fluctuating top tax rates is a coincidence, to put it nicely, or an accounting fraud, to be a bit more accurate about it.
More details, including corrected charts, are here: http://www.portfolio.com/views/blogs/odd-numbers/2008/05/20/...
The corrected charts and the author at that link say that it's inconclusive. Which is pretty safe to say.
Perot charts are interesting, more detailed and transparent. They cover areas you are worried about specifically the breakdown of different types of tax. If they are misleading they are transparent (enough) so that at least the user can figure it out. They cover a number of spending and tax issues:
http://perotcharts.com/category/charts/taxation-charts/
http://perotcharts.com/category/charts/
He says it's "inconclusive" in the sense that the evidence doesn't prove what Hauser claims it proves.
My analysis doesn't prove this, but Hauser's Law doesn't prove the opposite.
That sounds inconclusive to me.
Or with some context: 'My analysis doesn't prove [something I never claimed] but Hauser's Law doesn't prove the opposite [which Hauser and Ranson did claim].'
In other words, on the growth effects of raising top tax rates he is indeed inconclusive. But on the question of whether Hauser is full of crap, he's pretty conclusive.