Economic theory is informative, but it is similar to some psychological theories: it should be empirically moderated with very skilled critical thinking skills, uncertainty, and skepticism.
Why would 20% be optimal? Shouldn't a lower bound be found via evidence?
The modern miracle of Singapore is at 13%. Seems to be better at least that low.
"I would support increasing taxing and spending if it helps raise opportunities, provide a safety net for the disabled, and social mobility in that nation."
What evidence is there that these three outcomes follow from higher taxes? Government has two unique abilities: it can (potentially) be "very fair" (think post-office), and it has a monopoly on the legitimate use of force and coercion. Neither ability is particularly useful for those three outcomes that you desire. Is it possible that Jefferson was right when he wrote "that government which governs best governs least"? Is it possible that socialist are just in love with that coercive ability of government and have found a hammer they will hit everything with?
Envy is a evolutionary mammalian trait that is deeply hardwired in our unconscious brains.
Dogs feel envy. They will pout and refuse to eat treats they like, if another dog near them gets a better treat than them. What I find interesting about socialist, is they are the group of people who allow envy get the better of their conscious mind.
And the central problem in our society is that the envious (socialists) who currently have roughly 80% of the power (5:1 ratios for professors, at best!), and what they adore about that power - is its ability to coerce others. From how I see socialism - the nasty people are in charge.
And of course one metric never describes everything. Obviously oil-rich states can have low tax to GDP ratios, and any erratic governance.
That is why I used Singapore as an example. It has nothing but good governance to attribute its success to. A benevolent dictatorship - to the horror of probably both us socialists, and less-coercive-government types.
The 538 article states, "The average optimal tax rate reported by economists in our data is 41 percent." Which as you state, is factually poor policy given hard evidence.
Yes, thanks. I didn't know. It is a concern that academia perhaps selected for the left in some way. But in the link I put in the article, it was almost 50 50 for economics professors. Now it is mystery as to what percentage is correct.
I am a conservative Professor, so it is not remotely a mystery to me how this selection occurs. And it does annoy me when others pretend they don't know what is happening to us.
We are overtly harassed everywhere. Subtle snubs in meetings, to major snubs in promotions. Leftists consciously or subconsciously loath us. And that message could not be delivered any more clearly, to undergrads, grads, and new faculty.
The I is DEI could not be more hypocritical.
You don't get to 100 to 0 ratios in multiple departments (first link) and then get to pretend that you didn't know what was going on and how that absurdity was achieved. That is pretty gross. Wake up.
My original link seemed to give percentages showing there are more non-leftists in economics departments, compared to other departments in general.
The link you gave was specifically for ELITE liberal arts colleges.
I'm sorry to hear conservatives have been discriminated against, but in my defense I am a rare case in which I was already on this problem years ago, and prepared to support those outside my clan years ago as well (such as conservatives or religious folks, which are not my clans). I have sometimes been a singular voice on this in practice, so I don't understand why you wrote "get to pretend you didn't know" and "wake up". I assume you were not saying that to me, but to people in general?
Actually I was referring directly to you. It is difficult to interpret
"perhaps selected for the left in some way."
as anything but a suggestion of not knowing (or cavalierly just dismissing) "the way" in which quite overt discrimination in academia occurs by the left.
My University has weeping sessions when a Republican gets elected and parties when a Democrat gets elected. That is overt - and it is gross. Does it tell perspective conservative academics everything they need to know about academia. Absolutely.
I get a letter from Dean or Provost about every three months that is overtly and unnecessarily political. The stupidity is profound, and nobody is allowed to push back on it.
Every Hiring committee has to attend a DEI session by a racist. Who explicit tells them to break the law and be racist in their hiring. If you even make a face during this session, that racist lady can blacklist you from all hiring committees.
And I am not even going to start with the tales of my personal harassment by leftists administrators. And I don't even speak out at work - I just don't participate in the stupidity.
Comments like ""perhaps selected for the left in some way." are indeed profoundly annoying to me. Perhaps? Some way? And you are meant to be the guy sticking up for me? Good grief.
And also from the 538 article "Take the area of tax rates for high earners. The average optimal tax rate reported by economists in our data is 41 percent". That high income tax rate is different from tax per GDP I was talking about. Also the threshold is key. In the UK the threshold is low for single income families, but not so in the USA.
On Tax to GDP:
Why would 20% be optimal? Shouldn't a lower bound be found via evidence?
The modern miracle of Singapore is at 13%. Seems to be better at least that low.
"I would support increasing taxing and spending if it helps raise opportunities, provide a safety net for the disabled, and social mobility in that nation."
What evidence is there that these three outcomes follow from higher taxes? Government has two unique abilities: it can (potentially) be "very fair" (think post-office), and it has a monopoly on the legitimate use of force and coercion. Neither ability is particularly useful for those three outcomes that you desire. Is it possible that Jefferson was right when he wrote "that government which governs best governs least"? Is it possible that socialist are just in love with that coercive ability of government and have found a hammer they will hit everything with?
Envy is a evolutionary mammalian trait that is deeply hardwired in our unconscious brains.
Dogs feel envy. They will pout and refuse to eat treats they like, if another dog near them gets a better treat than them. What I find interesting about socialist, is they are the group of people who allow envy get the better of their conscious mind.
And the central problem in our society is that the envious (socialists) who currently have roughly 80% of the power (5:1 ratios for professors, at best!), and what they adore about that power - is its ability to coerce others. From how I see socialism - the nasty people are in charge.
Singapore is one I didn't think of, yes indeed.
but if you look at this table and click on the % GDP column sorry, not all low taxation states are nice countries:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_by_tax_revenue_to_GDP_ratio
So I take this data and I am cautious about it being monocausal.
I used this data.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/tax-to-gdp-ratio-by-country
And of course one metric never describes everything. Obviously oil-rich states can have low tax to GDP ratios, and any erratic governance.
That is why I used Singapore as an example. It has nothing but good governance to attribute its success to. A benevolent dictatorship - to the horror of probably both us socialists, and less-coercive-government types.
But the point still stands. Less tax the better.
And I would contend, less government the better.
On economics professors:
This has the ratio of 5.5 to 1 (liberal to conservative) in 2018.
https://www.nas.org/academic-questions/31/2/homogenous_the_political_affiliations_of_elite_liberal_arts_college_faculty
This has their political leanings affecting their work product.(with 5.5x more bias one way).
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/economists-arent-as-nonpartisan-as-we-think/
Both are strongly leftist sources.
The 538 article states, "The average optimal tax rate reported by economists in our data is 41 percent." Which as you state, is factually poor policy given hard evidence.
Yes, thanks. I didn't know. It is a concern that academia perhaps selected for the left in some way. But in the link I put in the article, it was almost 50 50 for economics professors. Now it is mystery as to what percentage is correct.
"perhaps selected for the left in some way."
I am a conservative Professor, so it is not remotely a mystery to me how this selection occurs. And it does annoy me when others pretend they don't know what is happening to us.
We are overtly harassed everywhere. Subtle snubs in meetings, to major snubs in promotions. Leftists consciously or subconsciously loath us. And that message could not be delivered any more clearly, to undergrads, grads, and new faculty.
The I is DEI could not be more hypocritical.
You don't get to 100 to 0 ratios in multiple departments (first link) and then get to pretend that you didn't know what was going on and how that absurdity was achieved. That is pretty gross. Wake up.
My original link seemed to give percentages showing there are more non-leftists in economics departments, compared to other departments in general.
The link you gave was specifically for ELITE liberal arts colleges.
I'm sorry to hear conservatives have been discriminated against, but in my defense I am a rare case in which I was already on this problem years ago, and prepared to support those outside my clan years ago as well (such as conservatives or religious folks, which are not my clans). I have sometimes been a singular voice on this in practice, so I don't understand why you wrote "get to pretend you didn't know" and "wake up". I assume you were not saying that to me, but to people in general?
Actually I was referring directly to you. It is difficult to interpret
"perhaps selected for the left in some way."
as anything but a suggestion of not knowing (or cavalierly just dismissing) "the way" in which quite overt discrimination in academia occurs by the left.
My University has weeping sessions when a Republican gets elected and parties when a Democrat gets elected. That is overt - and it is gross. Does it tell perspective conservative academics everything they need to know about academia. Absolutely.
I get a letter from Dean or Provost about every three months that is overtly and unnecessarily political. The stupidity is profound, and nobody is allowed to push back on it.
Every Hiring committee has to attend a DEI session by a racist. Who explicit tells them to break the law and be racist in their hiring. If you even make a face during this session, that racist lady can blacklist you from all hiring committees.
And I am not even going to start with the tales of my personal harassment by leftists administrators. And I don't even speak out at work - I just don't participate in the stupidity.
Comments like ""perhaps selected for the left in some way." are indeed profoundly annoying to me. Perhaps? Some way? And you are meant to be the guy sticking up for me? Good grief.
And also from the 538 article "Take the area of tax rates for high earners. The average optimal tax rate reported by economists in our data is 41 percent". That high income tax rate is different from tax per GDP I was talking about. Also the threshold is key. In the UK the threshold is low for single income families, but not so in the USA.
Yes. I just noticed that now too. You are correct, and 41 is an irrelevant data point for our discussion.