Glenn Beck- Latest Example of Logic Challenged Arrogant Moron

[David Sklansky]

First and foremost this is not a post about the subject of taxation. Please do not reply regarding that subject. This post is again about those 15% or so of the population who are incompetant in math and logic yet still have the audacity to think that their opinions on subjects that have a mathematical or logical component, can be highly trusted.

It doesn't matter if they happen to be right about a particular issue. If they are, it is either because they got lucky in their analysis or they came to their conclusion through some other means, usually observation, (and then try to find logical reasons to justify that usually correct conclusion). A recent example is Arnold Snyder's mainly correct tournament advice which he detracts from when he tries to explain why it works.

Glenn Beck showed that he was a member of this group when he aired a piece where he condescendingly "explained" why it is a good idea to lower taxes. Repeating the points made by George Bush and many others, he explained how putting more money in people's hands would help the econonomy. More specifically he claimed that tax rate decreases would help the economy to the point that total tax revenues would actually INCREASE. And again he makes this point with a "duh" implying that this should be obvious.

But wait. It is actual simple logic that this CAN'T be obvious. Do you see it? The argument has certain similarities to the refutation of Snyder's chip utility theory.

If cutting taxes by 20% will obviously increase total tax revenues, then why not, tack on a second decrease to raise revenues further? (Remember this is not a debate over whether that is a good thing.) And if that works, why not a third decrease?

Obviously this situation is not linear since revenue clearly must go down with very low or very high tax rates. There is a maximum point on the curve. And that maximum might very well occur at a tax rate below what we have now. But where that maximum is is surely not a simplistic question. If Beck happens to be right it doesn't change the fact that his analysis was flawed. An analysis he thought was obvious. Because he was to stupid to realize that his ineptidude in math and logic makes any of his opinions suspect.

[StregaChess]

[ QUOTE ]



Glenn Beck showed that he was a member of this group when he aired a piece where he condescendingly "explained" why it is a good idea to lower taxes. Repeating the points made by George Bush and many others, he explained how putting more money in people's hands would help the econonomy.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not defending Beck's position as I've not seen the full details (nor do I know what the hell a "Glenn Beck" is, possily I live under a rock). However I have heard these statements before and I thought the logical runs something like this….

“The cut is in personal income tax and personal income tax is less than ½ of the total tax revenues. The additional spending power in personal income creates revenues in taxes on the business side.”

Again I’m not defending Beck’s tax position or taking tax stand at all… but from a logical point of view if the above was true it would be possible to cut taxes (personal) and increase revenues(total taxes). The larger the percentage of personal income tax to the total revenues the less likely this scenario would hold water.

[Phanekim]

Raising or Lowering of taxes depends on consumer spending. Usually if the economy is experiencing a recent downswing, it is encouraged to lower taxes to while consumer spending habits are still high. in short, this way, consumers still "pump" money into the economy.

However, after long periods of economic downswing, consumer spending will have adjusted and a lot more people are "hoarding" money. Lowering taxes will not do anything if conusumer spending is already low. Thats why higher taxes are required to "pump" money into the economy (keynesian).

Usually this is because spending habits adjust slower to the upswings and downswings of the economy.

This is just from taking a few economics classes and having an econ major as a roomie for a couple years. Anyways, thats the "jyst" of it.

[HeroInBlack]

Mr. Sklansky wasn't saying it wasn't possible to cut taxes and raise revenue. He said that it is incorrect to imply that every tax cut would increase government revenues.

[Silent A]

This is a common mantra from those on the laissez-faire right, paticularily those who are politically motivated (i.e. they don't care if they're right, they just want to win).

For the more honest ones out there who continue to say things like this, I can only guess that they have a near religious faith in the belief that we simply must be well past the peak.

I have never heard or seen a proper demonstration of where we are on the curve (I believe some guy has it named after him).

[David Sklansky]

Again this is not about taxes. It is about the idea that poeple who can't spot fallacious arguments CANNOT MAKE UP FOR THAT FLAW WITH EXTENSIVE KNOWLEDGE OF THE SUBJECT. Whether that subject be taxes, God, poker tournaments, or how to run a no kill animal shelter. Period.

[disjunction]

LOL twoplustwo is way ahead of you on this subject. See quote below.

I looked up Glenn Beck, I don't see anything in his biography that validates your point. What gives him more training in this subject than you or I? Someone with a recent bachelors of economics, and mediocre logic ability, should not make this mistake. They will also be able to reason about economics problems better than a person well-versed in logic but not economics.

[ QUOTE ]

His point was that the statement:

cuts = more revenue

Can not be true in all cases, and it is illogical to say this, as you did. There must be a point, .0001%, at which cuts do not generate more revenue. There must be another point, 100%, at which cuts do generate more revenue. Without providing an analysis, it is impossible to determine on which side of the point we are on.

I strongly suspect that at the current levels, cuts generate less revenue in a vacuum, it just makes more sense than the lawyerly arguments on the other side.


[/ QUOTE ]

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...rue#Post7962074

[StregaChess]

[ QUOTE ]
Mr. Sklansky wasn't saying it wasn't possible to cut taxes and raise revenue. He said that it is incorrect to imply that every tax cut would increase government revenues.

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand that but is that what this Beck dude said? It seems we've got someone who's painting with a pretty wide brush.

[Carded]

Clearly, the argument put forth by Glenn is terrible when analyzed from a critical thinking standpoint. Missing the most critical part of determining where we are on the economic curve is unacceptable.

Then again, perhaps it was intended as persuasion rather than a logic argument. Glenn may be more effective in getting the common American to go with position by saying “duh” in so many words than presenting an intellectually pleasing argument to a select few (if he could).

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Mr. Sklansky wasn't saying it wasn't possible to cut taxes and raise revenue. He said that it is incorrect to imply that every tax cut would increase government revenues.

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand that but is that what this Beck dude said? It seems we've got someone who's painting with a pretty wide brush.

[/ QUOTE ]

If Beck was an economic theorist, maybe. But I think it's pretty safe to assume that when a politician or political commentator mentions that tax cuts help the economy - they're referring to the Reaganomic supply-side model.

But like DS mentioned just because something worked, doesn't mean it's based on logic. There could be other factors in play.

The other factors were the business tax cuts and incentives that led to a massive retooling of American industry, along with the jobs that came with it. Then there was implementation of computers and information processing that happened at the same time.

The demand-siders used a similiar erroneous thought process, culminating it the idea that "war was good for the economy."

I guess it all boils down to just because you flip the switch and the light comes on, it doesn't mean you know why it happened.