nice

How many rounds? Go get NONE!

Congrats Casey and Natalie!

I printed this one earlier, but have yet to read it, can't wait. Paul

Rock on Natalie and Casey! Congrats and best wishes representing this beautiful land.

Congratulations Casey and Natalie!!

Don't forget to check out:
www.CrossFitGames.com

Congratulations Casey and Natalie!!

Don't forget to check out:
www.CrossFitGames.com

My comments keep getting "held by the blog owner for approval" but they're not going up! What's up with that???

yeah that kept happening to my friend today, what's going on, please?

tuesdays wod 28:08.
After 5k. I destoryed myself yesturday.
Feel amazing.
19/m/175

glad to have an off day!!

Great interview of Pat "the Manimal" Barber on the CrossFit Games website. He's going to interview the strong and beautiful Jolie next.

Check it..

CrossFitGames.com

C & J's just completed and still have to make up the Row/Burpees tomorrow so no rest day for me yet.

Wonder if John is around for comment?

Congrats Casey & Natalie! I know there's aleast 2 athletes that will take representing this country seriously.

HOO-YA America!

Get some, Go again!

Way to go Casey and Natalie. What a great couple to represent the USA and the legacy of Coach Mike Burgener!

basic econ

Increase the GDP? Simple: Repeal the Federal Income Tax and replace it with the National Consumption Tax. The government should stop artificially manipulating the market and people should stop letting themselves be manipulated by political demagogues who never worked in the private sector.

save me!!! was doing an oil change on my jeep before the gym, then the filter wouldnt come off and i was stranded way out in the country and had to wait until 930pm to go to walmart and get an oil wrench, then that didnt work and i had to cut the seal then use the wrench!

now i have missed a day and i was doing so well recently, im pretty new to crossfit only a couple months

arghhhh :(

So...What does this mean?

If an "economic stimulus" check comes to me in the mail, should I give to someone in the top 1% of our wealthiest citizens- say to alleviate their urge to hide, shift and under-report their own income- thereby dampening the economic climate.

Could I, with my $300, or $600- could I give it to a fantastically rich person-, stimulate GDP and save the country from itself????

Let me just get right on that

Anyone want to talk about porn? HAHAHA KIDDING!

I saw Casey & Natalie lift at the Olympic trials here in Atlanta -- it was incrediblly amazing to say the least. I uploaded a few (faraway) pix to my site if you wanna check 'em out http://photos.crossfitnorthatlanta.com/gallery/4961043_zFPSe#296890230_gbgmy
Afterwards we snapped a picture with his dad and CF-Atlanta folks, that was pretty durn cool too.

Congrats to you both!

I want to learn how to snatch a fridge too hehe.

Looks like Obama is going to be the next President. If you make over 100k a year, watch out!!

Nice. Thank goodness for rest days.

Anyone going to the 29 Palms Level 1 cert next week? I am going and would like to know at least one person going.

Very interesting and important article. Often we think we can cover up a problem with a band aid and it will go away. Raising taxes does not solve any problems. The only way to increase tax revenue is to produce more things (work harder). This is very similar to what we do in Crossfit. You get in better shape by working harder and more often. No shortcuts. Very simple. The US is far too lazy these days. That's why we owe so much. Produce more and work harder and problems take care of themselves.

Re: The Article

Ah, yes. A new twist on our old friend "supply side economics" -- a crackpot belief system that deserves an entry in the Encyclopedia of Discredited Ideologies alongside Communism and psychoanalysis.

As usual in such articles, the author presents a misleading picture by omitting all mention of payroll taxes. Many Americans pay more in payroll tax than income tax. And payroll tax is highly regressive because it's capped at $97,000. The payroll tax rate is:
- 6.2% on the first $97,000 of income
- 0% on all income over $97,000

So the payroll tax rate is 6.2% for middle class people and some small fraction of 1% for millionaires. But why stop there? Surely, we should be rewarding virtue. And here's a big deficit problem. So let's raise the payroll tax to 8%, but maintain the current cap. That would provide incentive for people to make more than the $97,000 threshold.

That was sarcasm, folks.

Th author is right on one thing. Soaking the rich isn't the answer. Tax measures that reward risk-taking have their place. But soaking the poor and middle class by having them subsidize tax cuts and tax exemptions for the rich isn't the answer, either.

How about restoring a little balance and common sense?

Economic justice could be the sleeper issue of this election. Smart conservatives like David Frum and David Brooks are saying that the Republican Party is living in the past by continuing to think tax cuts and small government are still the main issue with most voters.

And they're right.

Jneal,

I agree with you 100%. There is a book written by Neal Bortz called the 'Fair Tax Book'. and it talks about just that, no income tax, no embedded taxes of any sort, and April 14th would be another day.
A sales tax would mean that everyone pays the same rate. So finally no more political arguments about raising or lowering taxes.

With the fair tax it would be just that.... Fair.

Congrats Natalie and Casey! Awesome. Proud to say I visited Mike's Gym and trained for a day with the guy in the background.

Enlightening article, though I've heard similar statements in the past. Successful entrepreneurs and business people know well how to maximize returns and minimize losses. This is how most achieved their financial success. Thus, its not surprising that the financially successful will find methods to reduce their tax burden resulting in less revenue for the Government.

I can tell you this. If I have to pay more taxes, then I will invest less in my affiliate and other businesses. Less money invested in my businesses does not help my employees, my customers, my vendors, nor our Country.

There are as many ideas and thoughts on how to fix the over taxation of the populous as there are people paying them. I agree with #17 JNeal

“Increase the GDP? Simple: Repeal the Federal Income Tax and replace it with the National Consumption Tax. The government should stop artificially manipulating the market and people should stop letting themselves be manipulated by political demagogues who never worked in the private sector.”

Great idea!

How much fairer can things get than to pay a tax on what you actually consume, not based upon a random line in the sand that you pay more taxes if you cross that said line. Those that make more spend more, "Simple" and then they pay their "Fair" share based upon what they consume, not on how hard they work to earn bucks.

Problem is the politicians make enough money to desire and benefit from keeping the current system up and running because there are plenty of ways to skirt the actual payment of the actual taxes they would be paying under a consumer taxation system...

Expect "zero" changes regardless of who is in power...Business as usual!

hey i posted this question on yesterday's comments, but it was like 180somethin so it may have gotten kinda lost in the middle of everything. thought i may try again...

i'm a college student in central illinois, and i'm moving to Colorado for the summer to be a whitewater rafting guide. because they're going to have us moving around all the time i'm literally going to be camping out and living out of my car all summer...does anyone do a lot of camping and have suggestions for meals/nutrition? i have pretty minimal opportunity to keep fresh food, so i was planning on canned beans, tuna, nuts, and jerky...

"Th author is right on one thing. Soaking the rich isn't the answer. Tax measures that reward risk-taking have their place. But soaking the poor and middle class by having them subsidize tax cuts and tax exemptions for the rich isn't the answer, either."

Stop it, stop it! Your making-sense points have no place in this world!

Hey Jason MrNiceguy,

That's 100% right. And don't forget John Linder, too. He's a good man and we had him speak before when he first started running for the House. The problem has to do with a lack of economic literacy. People think a progressive tax in fair because the rich "have too much money" (my old high school classmates words).

They allow themselves to be manipulated by politicians. The thing is "the rich" assume all the risk, work from can't-see to can't-see, suffer through stress, waiting for that idiot architect who won't give the schematics to the zoning board when he promised, go before the zoning board and wonders why, deals with irate customers, makes payroll, works on the budget, wonders how can keep from firing Justine, tries to be a good boss, tries to expand the business and then the government says he makes too much money, that he's greedy. So they raise their rates to make things fair.

#27 - Craig H.

You make a good point.

But the author seems to be talking about marginal tax rates on personal income tax. That's only part of the overall tax picture.
He is drawing large conclusions from he small evidence of cherry-picked data. I cry foul.

I just watched the crossfit games interview with Pat and Jolie. Pat seems to be prepping for the games by supplementing full beard for scruffy face. As previously stated a long time ago in one of my other posts, the key to Pat's success is his glorious beard growing capabilities. I think he is shaving consistently to grow a Kimbo beard for the games. As a matter of fact if he grows a Kimbo beard, then he will be my pick to win it all

I am really excited 2 crossfit affiliates have opened pretty close to me. CF south Philly and another one is coming to Bryn Mawr, which is around 20 minutes drive from my house. Finally I will be able to drop weights and kip my ass off.

#28: "How much fairer can things get than to pay a tax on what you actually consume, not based upon a random line in the sand that you pay more taxes if you cross that said line. Those that make more spend more, "Simple" and then they pay their "Fair" share based upon what they consume, not on how hard they work to earn bucks."

I agree in principle, but wouldn't this be disproportionately burdensome on the lower and middle classes? Let's say two families, one making a million a year, the other $40K, each spend about $500/month on groceries. (Figures pulled directly from ether.) Now, if the "Consumption Tax" figures to 10% of that, there would be $50 of tax burden to each family. The millionaire family laughs, and goes back to polo on the lawn with the Devonshires. The $40K-aire family sighs and thinks, gee, that would've been a nice pair of sneakers for Johnny, or enough to go camping overnight, but oh, well. Tighten the ol' belt.

Now, I'm not saying that there shouldn't be any tax on consumption, but relying on it entirely would cause it to be incredibly unfair.

gotta make up Mondays death workout, aim is just to complete it

Ive always hated Econ...

was that the best 3 day stretch in recent memory or what!?!?

I am so pumped for the next work out...gonna go do some more burpees.

I AM PERSONALLY OUTRAGED AT THE FACT THAT CROSSFIT SUPPORTS ECONOMICS....

I'LL NEVER DO CF AGAIN!!!!!!!!!

*sorry.....i couldnt resist.*

Vance

#32: At the outset it sounds that way, but actually the important thing to realize is our income is not static. People have the freedom to buy or not buy. Plus, if they really want something bad enough, they can do extra work, limited only by their resources, time, creativity, market demand, etc.

That way, the market is helped by increasing efficiency. Never underestimate the creativity of the consumer. With the extra savings, that family can invest because the new system discourages spending and encourages savings. Remember, there are no tax deductions from paychecks.

As an aside, a quick way to get a new tax system is to get rid of automatic tax deductions from paychecks and they write a check every quarter.

congrats to the Burgener's, Casey, and Natalie Woolfolk. Proud!

I think taxation policy is not a safe conversation topic. More like religion and politics, combined, as in "nothing is sure but death and taxes." A kind of cocktail party conversational napalm.

That said I think commenter #25 is a bit of an odd duck. The only point I like was his mention communism as a discredited philosophy. Sadly, not according to all the che and castro lovers in the world. (e.g. oliver stone, barbara walters, danny glover)

Anyway, taxes, "a little balance and common sense." OK, how about we abolish the tax code and pay the same rate on earnings? What's that I hear? Silence b/c our tax code is already extremely progressive and the highest earners pay the vast majority of tax revenue? The same rate on consumption might be a better approach. You can decry the Laffer curve as much as you like but capital does flee taxes. Just look it Mexico. Imagine that, keep raising taxes and the more people evade them and tax revenue remains flat. Shocking, just shocking.

I acknowledge that the payroll tax is regressive but I am not convinced it is the bogey man you make it out to be. i am pretty sure that if the payroll tax is a major issue for you then you aren't paying income taxes.

Higher taxes = lower growth = lower GDP (real terms of course). I am pretty sure the article is right and no economist disagrees with this one... unless they are a crackpot ;>

by the way who raised/imposed income tax on social security (payroll taxes are for income tax, social security and medicare btw)? Could it have been Clinton, that paragon of liberal virtue? Rubbish you say? Sad but true ;>

In my real black helicopter moments the complexity of the tax code does seem to exist to provide fees for lawyers and opportunities for politicians to extort, I mean provide employment opportunities lobbyists and a reason for people to give donations/bribes.

sorry, had a moment, back to logsitall to post my workout.

I think taxation policy is not a safe conversation topic. More like religion and politics, combined, as in "nothing is sure but death and taxes." A kind of cocktail party conversational napalm.

That said I think commenter #25 is a bit of an odd duck. The only point I like was his mention communism as a discredited philosophy. Sadly, not according to all the che and castro lovers in the world. (e.g. oliver stone, barbara walters, danny glover)

Anyway, taxes, "a little balance and common sense." OK, how about we abolish the tax code and pay the same rate on earnings? What's that I hear? Silence b/c our tax code is already extremely progressive and the highest earners pay the vast majority of tax revenue? The same rate on consumption might be a better approach. You can decry the Laffer curve as much as you like but capital does flee taxes. Just look it Mexico. Imagine that, keep raising taxes and the more people evade them and tax revenue remains flat. Shocking, just shocking.

I acknowledge that the payroll tax is regressive but I am not convinced it is the bogey man you make it out to be. i am pretty sure that if the payroll tax is a major issue for you then you aren't paying income taxes.

Higher taxes = lower growth = lower GDP (real terms of course). I am pretty sure the article is right and no economist disagrees with this one... unless they are a crackpot ;>

by the way who raised/imposed income tax on social security (payroll taxes are for income tax, social security and medicare btw)? Could it have been Clinton, that paragon of liberal virtue? Rubbish you say? Sad but true ;>

In my real black helicopter moments the complexity of the tax code does seem to exist to provide fees for lawyers and opportunities for politicians to extort, I mean provide employment opportunities lobbyists and a reason for people to give donations/bribes.

sorry, had a moment, back to logsitall to post my workout.

#32 Nick

If we think of consumables in the sense of the only requirements to live; Food, Shelter, and clothing...perhaps?

Food as your example, yes on the surface it would seem unfair, however, each person eats only so much, so the amount is limited (relatively speaking) that each and every person would spend for the same food.

In your example you mentioned the rich enjoying Polo on the lawn at the Devonshire’s, this in itself would create extra taxes paid by the wealthier you have mentioned.

I won't deny your context that those who earn less would need to be more prudent with their spending; they already are due to a lesser amount of income.

Back to your example of food, how many multi-millionaires (or those who think they are) out there spend every mealtime sitting at home. No, they go out and travel often to "SPEND" their monies on fine dining. Read: creating yet again another taxable event of consumerism.

Please understand that I think taxes suck and in a big way. Some are necessary to provide for essential services, however, there are too many folks who are solely dependent upon big brother being there to fill their empty hands because of some life choice they made along the way.

Life is not much different than the results learned through a simple endeavor like lets say; Crossfit

The harder you work, the more disciplined you are with your diet, the more you learn how to perform movements (Education), simple, you will be more successful. But wait, now you have someone out there when every time you reach a PR, adds just an extra pound of weight you need to carry the next time you perform (AKA TAXATION);

What do you think this would do to your motivation to be one of the overachievers here?

Is there anything sweeter than collapsing on the gym floor after the 75th burpee, with a crowd of people wondering why anyone would voluntarily put themself through such a workout?

Burpees were brutal! I could barely jump for the last few.....

Lets face it...a consumer tax will never occur...

How many Tax-men would that take to enforce...Just not possible.

Possible; Flat Tax!

However, I for one would not like that system due to the fact that I would end up paying more taxes. I enjoy employing a savy tax accountant and utilizing the current system to my benefit...

Now does that sound like a politician...

One thing to keep in mind is that the taxes we have now don't target "the rich" at all. The federal government taxes *income* rather than *wealth*. As a result, increases in income taxes really only serve to make people who are already wealthy even more elite and untouchable because anyone else who tries to build wealth through income stands to have it confiscated by the federal government because they are "the rich". If you've ever wondered why Buffett, Soros, et al always support the high tax candidates, I submit that as one reason.

Also, the top 10% of taxpayers already pay 70% of all taxes paid by individuals, while the bottom 50% of taxpayers pay 3% of the same. How cuts at the top can be construed as unfair is beyond me considering that the bottom half pays virtually no federal income tax whatsoever. The fact that such rhetoric finds a receptive audience actually suggests the possibility that politicians will manage to shift the entire tax burden onto the top 25% or so, a minority sufficiently small that an unbreakable majority will have no reason to care what tax policies their representatives pursue. Hopefully they at least won't be so dumb as to ignore Hauser's observations when that happens.

BTW the stats I posted above are from http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/indtaxstats/article/0,,id=96981,00.html (wfs), and a concise analysis of it is at http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/22652.html (wfs)

Also, I can't move my arms after the 5/19 wod.

Full disclosure: I am not rich. I hope someday to be. I'm certain that even today a destitute soul could be found who would call me rich, relatively speaking. But I tire so at this nation's vilification of "the rich," though they (as a group, as a concept) are conveniently never defined. To a stumping politician, "the rich" are those people richer than you, the audience. You decide who they are, and then we'll milk 'em.

Below is a pasted bit of spam that puts our progressive tax system in such great perspective. If you've already read it in some email fwd, I apologize. If not, please discuss.

HOW OUR TAXES WORK
Bar Stool Economics:

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it
would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing. The fifth would pay $1. The sixth would pay $3. The seventh would pay $7. The eighth would pay $12. The ninth would pay $18. The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59. So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. 'Since you are all such good customers, he said, 'I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20. Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?' They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings). The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings). The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28% savings). The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings). The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings). The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings). Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.
'I only got a dollar out of the $20,'declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,' but he got $10!'
'Yeah, that's right,' exclaimed the fifth man. 'I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!'
'That's true!!' shouted the seventh man. 'Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!'
'Wait a minute,' yelled the first four men in unison. 'We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!'

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

soo...in the exit poll for the Kentucky Democratic primary, 21% of voters said that race played a part in their decision...sad day for America

So what everyone is saying is... since we all have a different income, we may all feel juuuuuust a little differently about taxes.

I would love to opt out of Social Security (just throwing that beautiful thought out there), and how many of you government employees (AKA: Soldiers/Policeman/Fireman/Government Worker/"fill in blank") enjoy contributing to each others paychecks, and paying yourselves? Just another thought... let my ideas go in one eye and out the other. :-)

Congrats, you two bad-asses. We'll all be rooting and cheering a watching and hoping. Coach B must feel proud like an Eagle!

#35 thats funny stuff. I wonder if John is gone for good? I couldn't really take his comments seriously, and I want to give him the benefit of the doubt that he doesn't take the posted articles too seriously and his comments were just dramatic acting to give us a laugh. its probably not the case though.

An excellent addition to a consumption tax would be to dismantle the largest state-run socialized system -- education. If Sam and Joanne want to have three kids, they should pay to educate them, instead of expecting the government to pick up the tab. At the state level that would result in a huge reduction in taxation because ~33% of state budgets is spent on an inefficient, socialized education system. A privatized sytem puts the financial burden where it belongs (on the people who use the services), provide a higher quality product and lowers taxes. Goodness all around (much like health care in fact!).

Essentially, moving away from a socialist system ("Tax those who have any money to give education, healthcare, roads n' stuff to everyone!")means having people take responsibility for more of their own, unique needs (getting that weird lump examined, teaching the kids how to read). I think that communal services (fire, police, national defence) need to be shared fairly as we all benefit from them.

DANG IT! I thought I could wait until tomorrow before my ‘capitalist’ friend Daniel showed up. No such luck.

How in the face of the 80’s Reganonomics can you say supply side economics has be discredited? The Laffer Curve is where it is at buddy.

I swear at times you have read “The Way the World Works” at least the redistributionist part. Did the rest of it not sink in? Please explain how supply side economics hasn’t worked?

We may indeed be soaking the middle class (because they are not smart enough to shelter their money) but come on now, the poor? The poor aren’t paying anything. In fact we are paying them. Stay poor. We will give you money for it.

I will agree with Daniel about the selective data but from a different point of view. I like how the author says we should ignore the Laffer curve b/c it is controversial but everybody should jump on the short bus of Hauser’s Law even though it hasn't gotten a 1/10th of the press or scrutiny as Laffer.

jNeal#16 In order for the ‘Fair Tax’ to be legitimate you would have to pass a constitutional amendment repealing the income taxes. Other wise we would get a consumption tax with a momentarily decreased income tax that would be increased at the first available opportunity. A flat tax would be a much better option.

FunnyMoneyLoanShark You would be better off giving your money to a rich person to invest. The wealthy didn’t get that way on accident they did it by how they think and live. It would be appear your thought process is anathema to that lifestyle.

Nick you hit the nail on the head that a consumption tax will affect the poor and middle class to a greater degree than the rich because basically they have to use a higher percentage of their income to live. The rich don’t have to spend (although they do or what is the point of being rich. If I could just get my wife to believe that so I could buy more stuff.)

Kevin Z. Well said. You stole my argument. Take that Daniel.

Oh yeah and in memory of John

BOOBIES!

Oh rest...Like death, we await your sweet embrace.

Kevin,

Umm...I think it is pretty well proven/accepted that public education is a shared communal service that we all benefit from. If you don't teach the kids to read (and many parents won't/can't) it costs society a lot more to deal with them later.

Sure, it is an inefficient, expensive system, but do you really think we'd be better off without it?

48--We all benefit from an educated, healthy population. Ignorance and and physical decay are not the foundation for a strong economy or functioning democracy

Do you really think that the majority of poor people are poor just because they are lazy?

Not going to join in on the discussion, but this makes sense. If you were to go back in time, during WWII though before the federal income tax got hidden, it would he a drastically different story.

Congratulations, Casey and Natalie. Even when the Chinese are around: "light weight....light weight...."

You guys rock!

Best,

Jon

Before I was introduced to Crossfit I had a mostly endurance and bodyweight movement athletics/sport background (racket sports, boxing, running), so when I started five months ago I was impressed but not overly surprised that my major gains have been strength based, while I was just pleased that my cardio side didn't appear to be getting worse. I expected that I'd need to build a strength base to where I could do most of the girls as Rx'd and without mostly doing singles on the weight portions before I'd start to see big improvements in my times.

How wrong I was. Last year I was running three times a week, with a bit of gym work thrown in; a fairly standard running programme. Since January the only running I've done has been the prescribed WODS, so a lot of sprinting, and hardly any 5k/10k distances.

Yesterday I competed in an 8km race and dropped my race time from last year of 36 minutes to 33 minutes (I thought I'd be lucky to match my time from last year, having done little specific training).

I feel totally vindicated in moving to Crossfit, and the best part is *running was something I used to train for anyway! And the components of "complete fitness" I was poor at before crossfit are getting better even faster!*

38/m/242/

as rx'd
3 rounds + 2C&J

Body Armor as rx'd- 46:36. First time doing it with weight. Noticeably harder, definitely a workout that will turn heads at the local track.

Congrats Casey and Natalie. I'm not smart enough for economics so I'll stay out of it.

Xfit Rocks.

m/29/205

Did the C&J/400m workout from the weekend.
3rds + 15 c&j

subbed 30 cals on the airdyne for runs, as the treadmills are a bit of a hike from the bar.

#31

Adam, what's the info on a CF affiliate in Bryn Mawr? I'm very close by!

I think much the discussion involving the Rest Day articles tends to be about nothing more than the titles of the articles.

There is a tendency to substitute titles for the content itself. I think in many instances, it is clear that the writers have not read the actual articles, assuming they already know the argument and proceeding from there.

This seems to me to be part of a growing tendency for people to read only what they agree with because they assume there are only two possible positions on any given issue. Consider last Rest Day's discussion. One phrase from the link title was enough for the battle lines to be drawn.

In my opinion, if you regularly participate in these discussions and you don't find yourself shifting your viewpoint a bit from time to time, you are missing out on something valuable.

With the exception of the occasional troll, we're friends here. This is a safe place to let down your guard, think, listen, and debate.

I have a row machine for yesterday's wod but doesn't have a distance meter. how many reps will i have to do to achieve 1000m?

Day 4 of CF Thank God for a rest day. Im sore as Heck

Hari #63:

Aye. Second that. I read the article yesterday and shared the "highlights" with my co-workers. While I rarely agree with Daniel his point about the payroll tax has prompted me to think more broadly about "income" taxes already, and will undoubtedly affect the thoughts that I will share later when I have more time. My experience already today is an example that proves your point in the affirmative, and the fact that my two posts on Saturday's Rest Day were universally ignored proves it in the negative.

Let's all hope that we hear more from Hari, jakers, and Daniel among others today.

Who wants higher taxes? raise your hand. didn't think so. you work hard for 10-15 years "climbing the corporate ladder" and god willing you are making an okay salary and hopefully so is your spouse. Believe me, a total combined income of lets say $150-$200K is not rich, in fact in many cities and their suburbs with that salaray and 1 or 2 kids, you are not living "large" at all and that doesn't even get you to first base. but the Dems say you are rich. bullschitt. doesn't the guy/girl who is making $40K per year right now want to be doing better and doesn't want to get slammed when he/she is making more.
many people making between $50K-$100k have stocks and mutual funds so Obama's proposed increase in capital gains from 15% to 28% will affect, even in his definition the "not rich".
I and many people like me don't have tax shelters, hide money, etc, we pay taxes, a lot more than someone who is making $30K or $40K.

The young people that love Obama in their 20's just started working or are still in college and they may change their tune if they were in their late 30's at a job for a while.

all these candidates truly suck. there are no great politicians anymore.

Congratulations to Casey and Natalie!

Today
BW 223

Total Practice.
Squat (in lbs)
55/5
143/3
231/2
275/1
319/1
341/1

A few reps with bands @ 407 lbs to get used to loading on the back.
Easy in the hole heavy on the top!

Press - shoulders are destroyed so did my best
55/5
99/2
121/1
143/1
148/1

Deadlift
143/3
231/2
319/1
385/1
431/1

Back squat empty bar x30 just to stretch a bit better.

Farmers walk 2x60 lbs Kettlebells x400 meters - 4:40

That was a nice finisher.

What are burpees? Is it where you burp as RX'd?

I have been following the WOD for a few months now and I feel great. However I my strength isn't up to par with alot of the athletes. I want to improve my strength without stopping the WODs completely because they are just so much fun.

... My plan is to sub Rippetoes Starting Strength routines with every 3rd wod (just before the rest day)

Can someone give me their opinion, will little extra focus on strength training help me out or will it not really make a difference?

I'm 6ft 168lb with hardly any fat. My diet isn't zone because I'm at college... :P

Does anyone have the data showing the correlation between the top income tax rate and rate of increase of GDP? Surprisingly for an article that bases itself about empirical evidence, and argues for a scientific approach to economics, "a tax rate hike will reduce GDP" is presented as accepted orthodoxy rather than supported by evidence. And while it may be true in general that higher taxation reduces growth, there are questions about the distribution of this tax burden, even if we only consider the major contributors to economic growth and ignore the effects on the majority of people. I'd expect capital gains and corporation taxes to have greater effect on investment and therefore growth than personal income taxes, but again, I'd want to see the data.

(I'm not going to get into the debate about whether GDP is necessarily the best metric for determining the "success" of a society. I guess it is if you're at the top of the pile, but it's less obvious if you're near the bottom, unless it's accompanied by progressive redistribution; even then it's not clear cut.)

sorry gotta call bs on this one...

take a look at the chart showing US growth rates over the same period as the author's misleading chart---
http://www.data360.org/dsg.aspx?Data_Set_Group_Id=354

if what ranson was saying were true, then we could expect the growth rate chart to be the inverse of the 'changes in highest tax bracket chart' (the growth rate would spike up after the sharp cuts to tax rates on the rich in the mid 60s and the reagan years). but the growth rate does not follow this pattern in the slightest.

take a look also at a chart comparing various countries in terms of their corporate tax rates and tax revenues. it's quite clear that as one might expect, the amount of money you collect INCREASES with the increase in tax rates, despite all the loopholes and fraud.

http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2007/07/yet-again-tax-c.html

time to lay all the laffer bs to rest. i think even laffer himself has admitted that the concept was purely ideologically motivated.

"The economics of taxation will be moribund until economists accept and explain Hauser's Law."

No, the economics of taxation will be moribund until politicians stop pushing an economic policy of ideals. If your tax position can be summed up as "lower taxes" or "more taxes for the rich", you're doing more harm than good.

Question for those using the Zone....

Since all blocks are equal based on protein block requirements. Should this be split up between the 3 "meals" or split between all meals and snacks equally?

The reason I ask is because I am Rx'd 20 protein blocks which breaks out nicely at 4 per meal or snack. As long as I give 4 hrs between each I would think it was okay?

If I have 20 blocks and only have 1 block for each snack as recommended, then that leaves me with 18 blocks / 3 meals = 6 blocks per meal or 42g of protein which would seem like a waste if the maximum absorption is 35g?

#24 Daniel Freedman

You say . . .

"Economic justice could be the sleeper issue of this election. Smart conservatives like David Frum and David Brooks are saying that the Republican Party is living in the past by continuing to think tax cuts and small government are still the main issue with most voters."

David Frum and David Brooks are classic Neo-conservatives. There is more to their agenda than "economic justice" and I find it disturbing you don't see that. I love people that have just simply accepted the fact that lower taxes and limited government is "out of date". In my opinion its because they are just too lazy to push for it because in many ways it has become a lost cause. Furthermore, I can assure you that people that don't make a lot of $$$ are very concerned when the government decides to take more money out of their paycheck. People like Frum in my opinion, live in an alternate reality.

Anyone watching the champios league final tonight?
It is U.S.A v's Russia after all!
Go Manchester United!

Anyone watching the champions league final tonight?
It is U.S.A against Russia after all!
Come on Manchester United!

re #24: Daniel, are you familiar with who pays the most in taxes? You come out and say "supply side economics, a crackpot belief..." then you present ONE piece of information that is supposed to demonstrate your theory, and expect us to believe it? Come now... Heck, you didn't even attempt to discredit the guys statement about tax rates vs tax revenue.

And seriously, what are you talking about? This 6.2% of taxes you're talking about is the Socialist Security tax, and it is capped at 6.2% of just over $102,000 for 2008 (or the $97,500 you mentioned earlier for 2007). This has ALWAYS been this way, and this money is NOT supposed to be part of the general revenue. As a matter of fact, until your "screw the rich" buddies in congress (that'd be the Democrats) had their way in 1968 (thanks LBJ, you socialist dolt), Socialist security was a completely separate pot of money.

Thankfully, in 1983 (that'd be Reagan's turn, one of those "supply side crackpots..." according to you), it was taken off budget again, and today the Socliast Security is not included in the unified budget - http://www.ssa.gov/history/BudgetTreatment.html

Get your facts straight dude, and wake up to reality.

How come rest days can hurt more than training days....I'm sore.

Didn't think i would be reading economics on the blog but whatever.
Just finished mon. WOD just can't seem to catch up.
Sub 25pds for the pullup section. took me 19:04. Doing tues. WOD tomorrow, I don't know about all those burpee's. I have never done them before. Looks exhausting.
Gonna have to power straight thru this week. No Pain No Gain.

Been out 5 days now with a lower abdominal strain (i think). Can't wait to get back to it tomorrow tho!

If anyone has any suggestions for faster recovery or prevention tips they are all welcome.
Thanks

re #70: Apparently you aren't familiar with how the real world works. Wealthy people make money with businesses, and businesses don't just spring up in a day when you decrease taxes. Most franchise businesses (often regarded as the "easiest" businesses to start and least risky) take a minimum of five years before they start to make a profit off the investment (aka they're still paying back their initial investment used to start the business), and that's not counting any interest if they took on debt to pay for it. And consequently, you're not going to see this massive spike in GDP when taxes are lowered, it takes years, usually decades, to see the results.

I am sore today! Really sore today! After those two days my upper body and my abs feel a lot. CrossFit makes you tough and it is amazing!

#70 bklynsteve

Your first chart is slightly skewed for several reasons. OK. I'm bluffing I have no idea what is wrong with the first chart if anything. Like Bingo said I'm actually going to have to think about that one. But I know it's a damn lie because it's a statistic. :-)

Your second chart is misleading. Where is China, Vietnam & North Korea? I would guess they would be at the far right hand of the chart and make Norway look like the outlier it is.

I do notice Ireland on the chart off by itself on the left. I was under the impression the "Celtic Tiger" was created by cutting taxes? Is the point of taxes to transfer the maximum amount of wealth from the citizens to the state? If it is why not just tax at 100%?

Thank God... Coach does still love us. Why is it after every WOD it seems like they put up the "correct way to do it" the following day? Cruel and unusual punishment and I personally Love it!

I'm New to Crossfit but so far I'm loving it!
There seem to be some pretty serious unproven assumptions in many of the arguments above: Poor people are poor because they are lazy, Rich people are rich because they work hard. It is pretty easy to come up with real world examples to the contrary.
Also, If it is true that taxes are a disincentive then would not a consumption tax only encourage the growth of a black market?

The 6.2% tax is FICA, the tax that funds SS. There is a separate Medicare tax. It is my understanding that the PAYROLL TAX, an income tax, is NOT capped. My understanding of this is twofold: I employ many people and therefore remit payroll taxes every two weeks; I have received a "paycheck" that eventually exceeds the FICA limit, giving me a boost in take-home pay equivalent to the FICA tax and not equivalent to the rest of the payroll tax.

Am I right in my understanding that the payroll tax on earned income (not FICA or medicare tax) paid by employers does NOT have a cap?

#70: What your first chart in effect says is that the upper end rate of progressive taxation has little effect on GDP growth, which has remained relatively constant since the 50's.

What he is arguing is that the total taxes collected, as a percentage of GDP, has remained constant through many taxation programs.

The two are not contradictory. Wealthy people find ways to avoid taxation, but still to invest in growth, which increases their wealth. While it contributes to economic output, it does not in turn get captured in the public coffers. He is not arguing that the amounts people are supposed to pay is in fact what they do pay.

Your second graph only discusses rates of corporate taxation, not net revenues. You will note the rates center around 4%, when in fact the graph for today's article centers around 20%.

Daniel,

You will note that Social Security and Medicare are also fixed in their benefits, so that benefits that will be paid out will likewise be proportionally larger to the beneficiaries, and for that reason more important. This is not an unfair arrangement, as even a moments reflection will show.

Moreover, it is not clear that he did not include those in his calculations. He is trying to relate total tax receipts to GDP. The argument on the left is that raising taxes on the rich will increase net revenues. This will allow to better fund the sorts of programs they know won't work, but which poll well at the box office--er voting booth.

He is arguing that "tax cuts for the rich"--which I think we can more accurately call "release of capital to the investing class"--are in fact a good idea. Certainly, they do no harm.

Me, personally, if the screws get put on me too hard, I figure out ways to cheat. This is human nature, which of course does not figure into leftist ideology, which thinks of people as inert things, and not reactive systems.

31/m/190

Partner Box Jump Ladder 1-20-1 (20" box, w/ protective mask). 420 total box jumps.

31:24

I was the partner...sick workout if you hate oxygen as much as we do.

Fountain: 23m/160/66"
Hendo: 21m/190/70ish"

Partner Box Jump Ladder 1-20-1 (20" box, w/ protective mask). 420 total box jumps.

36:55

Thank you MWade for conjuring this madness.

Hey
Just looking for a quick hint on the Xfit workout as I'm new. When I start a big set of an exercise, like the burpees yesterday, I always want to push myself as far as I can go (do say 35 of 75 or something like that). I always end up killing myself early and finishing with sets of 3 or 4 or so towards the end. I was wondering if this is less beneficial in the workout than say splitting things up into sets of 10 or so with a rest in between. Any comments?

m/37/197

Since most of the views on taxes/econ seem to have been expressed...

WOD as Rx'd
3 rounds of 8 hours

John Fitzgibbons

I think most people call this "gaming" a workout. You will just have to experiment with yourself, because I have a feeling its very much based on the individual, their level of fitness, and ability to recover.

For instance, in the 120 pullup / 120 dip workout, I perform faster if I do 12 rounds of 10, instead of 6 rounds of 20 (each). So, although I can do 20+ straight pullups, I cut myself off at 10. Through trial and error I discovered this is faster overall.

Another example: Fran. I did it the other day, got through the 21 thrusters in one round, and got to 18 pullups. I stopped and rested because I felt that doing the next 3 immediately would burn me out and eventually make the workout longer. I don't know if it was a wise strategy, but I did get a pr.

So, experiment with yourself. The goal is a shorter workout (more power output in shorter time), so if you can't power straight through, strategize.

Hi All,

I have a question. I was doing the WOD and the sumo lift at 95lbs killed me. I was wondering if you have to scale the weight down if you weigh less. I weigh 150, so compared to someone weighing 200 it would be alot easier. Just wondering.

Is it bad that it makes me feel good that people weighing 200 are having trouble with it also :)

#90

Bret (#92) is exactly right, I've noticed the same thing. I think everyone has that tendency to just rush out and get it all done, but I have noticed a big difference when you listen to your body and just stay moving consistently, with short but useful rests. Most of the time, when you do a few big sets, you dont even realize how much time you are taking on rest in between sets. Plus, that extra 5 percent effort you put out for a few seconds can burn you out for the rest of the entire exercise. So listen to Bret, and dont worry, it will take some time to get it, but it will come to you.

Wow, that economic link is so simple, yet so many people dont understand basic concepts like these. I really liked Ayn Rand's book Atlas Shrugged, it is definitely a must read if you haven't already. There are parts of it that you might agree with, but I think it makes a very strong case. And I really disliked Mike Huckabee on a number of issues, but I think he was on to something with the Fair Tax plan, where it is consumption that is taxed, and not your income. There's a pretty evident problem when people turn down promotions because it puts them into the next tax bracket.

Caught up with my workouts
95 pound Clean and Jerk, 15 reps
Run 400 meters

Started my fifth round and realized the clock was at 21 minutes, so I just finished it all up at around 25 minutes. I was expecting to get a few more rounds, but I guess everyone was in the same boat. I think transitions slowed me down a good amount.

followed by
3 sets of 50 burpees and 400 meter run, but I was ashamed as to how slow I was going, my last set of burpees was pretty horrendous.

Congrats to Casey and Natalie! Your selection for the Games is awesome! Best of luck to you both! We'll be cheering for you and your teammates!

Thanks
Brett and Zo
John

WOD as RXed. Much needed. Was going to play basketball, but instead decided to take my black lab on a hike.

When I was doing BB routines I usually wouldn't be sore the next day. Now doing CrossFit I feel sore every single day after the WOD. Soreness everyday = you know you are doing something right, and different. The variety of WOD is amazing. Glad to be part of the CrossFit Community.

#93 I believe the WOD weight exercises are based on a 175# person. Adjust accordingly.

Today was my first CrossFit workout, and I'm on a different schedule due to some sport-specific workouts mixed-in during the week.

35 push-ups
25 SDHP - 20 lbs
25 dips
20 pull-ups - kipped, cheated on form
30sec handstand - I need to learn HSPU

20:00 including time to figure everything out...

I'm stoked on CF and look forward to incorporating it into my weekly routine.

Off topic:

One of the Fitness Centers on base sponsored a "TotalFit Challenge" today. It consisted of sprinting to a desinated spot, filling sand-bags, carrying a 150 lb litter, cleaning and pressing a 100 lb towel bail, and more running and litter-carrying. This was a timed event, with teams of two.

There were about 10 teams involved. Can you guess who the top three teams were? Yup...you got it - all CrossFitters! The rest of the competition was at least a minute or two (in some cases many minutes behind) the top three teams. And yes...I was part of the top three - unfortunately my buddy and I didn't place 1st, but we gave it all we had.

I love CrossFit, I love CrossFit, I love CrossFit!

Brian

Does anyone have a link to a video that was posted under a WOD a while back, I believe it was called "The Bear". I can't seem to find it. Thanks.

What about a strict tax on pornography. Talk about a stimulus!

27/m/5'10"/155lbs

Thanks for the input Mr. Freedman and Mr. Nice Guy (comments 24 and 25),

After reading your comments and rethinking the article and what the author was saying it seems elementary. If the GDP increases, of course tax revenue will increase because we are taxed on everything we do. So if American businesses and consumers are more active the Fed will get more of our money to waste on things like say space travel (my own personal opinion on space travel).

I like the idea of a solitary sales tax. I get my money before the Fed instead of looking at that big bite they took out in my pay stub. In my opinion it once again it comes down to the issue of freedom and how much do we as Americans really have? I realize we are free relative to other cultures but I don't think that is what the founding fathers had in mind.

I did yesterdays WOD at about 10pm last night after eating a turkey pot pie and almost meet pukie. 30 minutes as Rx'd.

I do my WOD's at a local fitness club in Baltimore and I think the staff and clientele are slightly disgusted with how much I sweat on everything.

Well after watching and reading everything about Crossfit, I am happy to say that I am hooked! Up until 3 weeks ago, the only workouts were you're typical bodybuilding routines. (some jogging) Crossfit has shown me how to loose weight without loosing strength. I have gone from 241 pounds to 227 pounds. Amazing... Goodbye Bodybuilding.

Crossfit how ironic you can be. It wasnt but 2 or 3 days ago when the discussion about cursing crossed the post and i popped off and said because of my job (i am an high school teacher)i have all but almost cut cussing out of my vocab. Now because of crossift and its WOD's...actually i am pretty sure it was becasue of the Burpees...not only does my wife not want to workout with me but i am fairly sure some neighboring mothers think i have a big potty mouth due to last nights workout. Thanks crossfit, for making me eat my words and then for making me throw up what i ate. you're the best!

KWOOD

Hey! I know them from being a strength coach intern at the oly training center. they are very cool people. congrats to them!

Is that Shrek & Fiona?

sorry I couldn't resist...

The Bear
http://media.crossfit.com/cf-video/CrossFit_TheBear.wmv

Comment #49 - Interesting idea so I will take it a step further. If we remove the education system from the state level (i.e. taxpayers dollars) should we then propose to remove the Social Security Administration - as isn't that where nearly half or more of the governments money is spent each year? Should we be allowed to privatize these departments or choose how to save for ourselves? Essentially your a portion of your tax money is paying for retirees, that will be depleted upong my retirement.

See Page 4: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2008/pdf/08msr.pdf
Social Security and Medicare account for 41.5% of the government's spending. I sincerely doubt all of that money is coming from the monies collected through FICA. If people are able to save for their own mortgages, and college, why should we pay into a system that will bring no return to me (oh lets say 30-40 years) in the future?

#50 Jakers - I couldn't agree with you more...
"We may indeed be soaking the middle class (because they are not smart enough to shelter their money) but come on now, the poor? The poor aren’t paying anything. In fact we are paying them. Stay poor. We will give you money for it."
I thought the greatness about America was the ability to choose to work, to work hard, and to be great. And if you choose not to do so, you suffer the consequences...

#94 - I definitely agree: See Atlas Shrugged...

Congrats Casey and Natalie!
I've known them both since 2001 when we all lived at the Training Center together and it couldn't have happened to nicer people. They've both worked at this for so long and completely deserve it. Special thanks to Casey for introducing me to Jack Johnson way ahead of the curve too!

Allison_NYC Comment #7 - Same thing happened to me after I wrote an essay as a response to the article. Blah

Very interesting article.

It seems to me that the tax system is unecessarily complicated (I speak for both Canada and the US, assuming the issues are substantially the same). A simple flat tax makes sense to me - certainly a consumption flat tax. I'm leery of income tax and think it would be better to do it all on sales/consumption, but if it is indeed necessary, then why not a flat income tax as well?

And to digress a little further from the article, I've also been considering health, responsibility, and healthcare costs - perhaps applying more to Canada with our federal/provincial healthcare system, but again in substance, could apply to private healthcare insurance/provision as well.

I believe the following to be true:

1. Healthy people cost less than unhealthy people
2. The reins of health are largely in our individual control

If these are indeed true statements, then I'd like to see credit given towards those who exercise (pun intended) healthy lifestyle choices. I'd like to see our tax system rewarding good choices.

Of course, this raises the issue of reaching agreement and consensus on good choices and good methods of cultivating health, but really at this point, I'm sure that's not too big a hurdle.

Comments?

Comment #90 John FitzGibbon,
The goal is to do them as Rx'd. All reps and then onto the next exercise unless specifically broken up into rounds.
That said, with some of these workouts it is a lofty goal! :)
You may get a better time breking them up into sets but that isn't meeting the stated intent of the workout and means little when comparing your time to someone else's.
Just be honest with yourself and post how you did it so others aren't comparing themselves to you and always strive toward the goal of doing the WODs as Rx'd. :) My 2 cents...

#49-
LMFAO!

Obviously someone who has never worked in either education, social services or lived in a poor part of town.

You have no idea how screwed over kids are just because their parents are idiots. And now you would like to add to that.

These are parents that don't even bother to feed their kids healthy meals...you think they are going to bother with education...

Public Education isn't inefficient...it really is dependent on local property taxes...public schools in nice neighborhoods have more money. This means higher pay, so they attract better teachers. They have newer, and more, books, computers and other tools.

m/34/218/5'11

No rest for the lazy! Still making up for lack of motivation over the weekend

For time:
75 Push-ups
95 pound Sumo-deadlift high-pull, 50 reps
50 Ring Dips
45 pound Weighted Pull-ups, 30 reps
25 Handstand Push-ups

***21:24***

Modifications:
Subbed 150 bar dips for ring dips
No added weight on Pull-ups
Used ankles to balance and assist on HSPU using squat rack.

I did the "Spartan Mile" today: 1.5 mile run with a 22# homemade med ball (read non-bouncing), where the ball cannot touch your body. If you drop it, which I did three times, you must complete 30 jumping ball slams. My time: 26:00. Killer on the core. Just had to share.

Rest schmest,

w/u burpee ladder to 10, handstand holds

5x5 Front Squats - 95,115,135,155,175(PR),185(PR)
'nother big fat PR

RE: taxes - Democrats want to raise taxes in almost all situations, this is flawed. We can't have 100% taxation. Republicans solution is to always cut taxes, this is also flawed - we can't have 0% taxation. Obviously there must be an optimal rate/scheme. The algorithms/modeling can't be nearly as complex as missile guidance systems, etc. Why hasn't there been a convincing study? Instead, all we get is politicians politicking.

P.S. - I believe the consumption tax idea includes many non-taxed items such as groceries.

#113

I def. agree with you on kids getting the raw end of the deal. I think we need to find a way to revamp our culture, and make it a virtue among adults and kids to actually do well in school, to push people to work hard at it. One of the problems (I know it went on in my school district when I was in school) was some of the ridiculous attempts to integrate everything, to the point that over half of the kids in our region got sent across town, while that side of town got bussed to our school for diversity. Now dont get me wrong, I think diversity is something that you need to be exposed to, but when its forced like that people just gravitate to their own cliques anyways, so its not even effective. Plus, I think it is much more effective when schools are administered and run by local communities (with some standard guidelines), which in effect is telling each area's parents "hey, this is your school...take care of it, get involved, and take some personal responsibility for your own school." Yes, you are absolutely correct, a lot of adults are absolute idiots and set their kids up for failure, and I think it is situations like that where we can try to provide some outside help. But some of the best schools that I have seen were in the poor regions of China, because the community grouped together and took an active interest in the welfare of their children. They didn't have the newest technology, but with 10 year old books and a chalkboard they had some amazingly smart kids that could speak english, and with math skills well beyond where I was at their age. So yeah, I agree with you, especially when you have to consider that it is in EVERYONE's best interest that our country is intelligent and that our children today will be able to make a living for themselves tomorrow. However, I do think education should be sustained by a community's willingness to contribute time and effort, and take an active interest in their community's school, rather then simply taxpayer dollars.

Hello crossfit my name is mike and I have been doing crossfit for about 2 months now and I must say it has changed my life. I went from drinking red bull and eating junk to crossfitting daily and following the zone diet and I feel like a machine. I could do 7 pull-ups when I started and now I can do 20 at once. Cool!!! Every aspect of my life has improved times ten literally over night. Crossfit is so effective because there is no ego, and I feel like it is a very positive way to improve your health. Don't get me wrong I die every time but the results are well worth it. Thank you coach. Mike Craft

The Laffer curve is wrong. Supply side economics doesn't work. It was tried, and it failed.

For a detailed discussion, see the second half of the Wikipedia article on Supply Side Economics. (Unfortunately, some crackpot true believers have slapped a bogus "in dispute" label on the article).

On a more important matter, comments #87 and 88:

What's a partner box jump ladder? Two guys face each other, with the box in between and alternate? Do they both "climb the ladder" together (i.e. they always do the same number of box jumps one after the other?). Or does one start at the bottom by doing one box jump while the other does 20? However implemented, this sounds like it could be 'fun' in a team competition.

The Laffer curve is wrong. Supply side economics doesn't work. It was tried, and it failed.

For a detailed discussion, see the second half of the Wikipedia article on Supply Side Economics. (Unfortunately, some crackpot true believers have slapped a bogus "in dispute" label on the article).

On a more important matter, comments #87 and 88:

What's a partner box jump ladder? Two guys face each other, with the box in between and alternate? Do they both "climb the ladder" together (i.e. they always do the same number of box jumps one after the other?). Or does one start at the bottom by doing one box jump while the other does 20? However implemented, this sounds like it could be 'fun' in a team competition.

42yom 182lbs

Since I missed monday, i decided to do my girlfriend's WOD.

“Lindsey” Part 2

For time:
14-10-9-8-6-4 of
Squat Cleans(85lbs), DB Swings(60lbs).

Time: 12:55.

Post WOD:
Kipping PU 4 sets of 20.
Bench Dips(45lbs on lap) 30-25-20-15.

http://seekingalpha.com/article/78256-lying-with-charts-wsj-edition?source=feed

Linked article makes some interesting points some things the WSJ article didn't address.

#117, 113,

Having grown up in a fairly low income, backwards, backwoods community, I can vouch for the idiocy of parents ruining bright kids. All because "I don't got no high school,and I dun fine"

The example of the school in China is what we should be. That entire country wants to play on the world stage either for China or themselves, but more importantly they have pride in accomplishment. Their kids aren't told from nursury school "it's ok that you failed, at least you tried, here's a gold star anyway."

We can't be successful by breeding mediocrity.

Maybe not everyone who's poor is poor because they're lazy, But there's certainly alot of people like that. If you want more money, take responsibility for your own future and find a way to do it oter than waiting for the government to take care of you.

I know I'm not even replying to the article, but what comes out in the discussion is usually moe interesting to me.

Boxing 50 mins.

#50 jakers: Of course the Constitution must be amended. My point for bringing up the Fair Tax was to show an optimal scenario for increasing the GDP.

Until Civic and Economic Literacy occur among the American people, will we not have ANY significant tax reform. Also, they need to stop letting themselves be manipulated for votes and stop going to the trough of income redistribution and entitlement programs. This will be akin to rehab for them. People must understand that free markets yield free people.

#116 infidelsix: We did not always have an income tax; we survived before without it and I firmly believe we can survive again without it.

Again, the problem has to do with cultural and political conditioning. We as free people must stay informed and educate our fellow citizens, not depend on conventional wisdom.

And Daniel Freedman, Steve Forbes in his column always talks about success stories of nations which instituted Supply Side reform, to great success, ex. Montenegro, Albania.

#119: Is it your understanding that total revenues have not gone up in the period since the tax cuts were enacted? How do you explain that other than economic growth, and how do you divorce economic growth from reductions in taxes?

In any event, the argument being made here is very simply that higher taxes do not translate to higher revenues. For that reason, tax cuts do not apparently reduce revenues. The argument that they do is a cornerstone of liberal attacks on Bush. And like every liberal stance of which I am aware, they are wrong.

Can we agree that with respect to payroll taxes it is fair that those who benefit disproportionately should pay disproportionately?

Everyone missed the guy right next to Casey.
Coach B, lookin' good. And Mrs. Burgener, right above Casey's head.
Hey Mrs. B!

On Economics - if this is a "science", why does no one agree about whether supply side economics works? Also, what's the opposite of supply side economics? If supply side is lower marginal tax rates and people (both the wealthy and those less so) will have more income to spend, invest, use, etc., what is the alternative? Raise taxes so that people will have less money in their pocket but the government will have more and..... do what with it? I'm being serious (mostly). I don't know much about economics, but I always hear this disparagement of "supply side economics" and I wonder what "demand side economics" looks like and I've never heard anyone articulate a better, countervailing position that makes any sense. All I hear is rhetoric about "the rich". I would like to be one of "the rich". I thought the American Dream consisted in part of the idea that you could achieve great things here through hard work. All I keep hearing is that if I do get there, I am (a) morally wanting somehow and (b) the rest of the population wants to drag me right back down because I've done something wrong (evidently) by achieving that status.

I think the current tax rates make it almost impossible to transition from upper middle class to well-to-do. I own an affiliate - if I had more cash free for it, I'd buy more stuff for both my law practice and for my affiliate. I'd probably lease a better space on my own, add more bumpers, offer more class times, buy better equipment for my office, hire a full-time paralegal, in the hopes of being more efficient so that I could generate more revenues. As it is now, my taxes take a HUGE chunk out of that capital. Did I mention they take a HUGE chunk out of my income? Like a really big one.

#102-Sounds good to me, in Oklahoma they have sin taxes on everything it seems, so why not porn. Since it is one of the greatest (as in largest) exports we have here in the US I think we should also we should also levy large export taxes on it. Let the world pay off our national debt.

M/48/150

6 rounds for time:

30 Squats
15 Box Jump 20"
200M Run

16:05 (PR)

Blackjack of pullups and ring dips: 37'17"

This is why I am studying for a degree in economics. It probably didn't take much work to come up with Hauser's Law, just some creativity and intelligence. I mean, not to oversimplify, but he just put two parameters that everyone thought were correlated onto a graph and showed that they are probably not. And yet the debate rages, because, well... everyone has a hand in national tax policy, which means that extreme (but rational, logical, and effective) ideas get ignored or abridged.

I haven't read every comment before mine, but I do agree with many of my fellow Crossfitters that income taxes are defunct. Consumption taxes sound like a good alternative, but I imagine the effect on inflation might be troublesome. Aside from that, consumption taxes are grounded on theoretical bedrock: GDP is calculated additively, and consumption (money spent on consumer goods) is one of the addends.

On a side note, does anyone else see a parallel between the fields of economics and nutrition? Economic policy affects pretty much everyone on an intimate, daily basis. So does diet. Even the most passive, mild-tempered person will get up in arms when their economic or nutritional beliefs are challenged. I think a large part of this is due to the murky nature of both sciences; there are a lot of theories in both economics and nutrition, but few laws.

The penultimate paragraph in the article asserts that progress will be stymied until Hauser's Law is incorporated into the body of accepted economics. Many of you will probably also agree that nutritional progress has been halted, and perhaps reversed, by the government's public dietary policies of the past few decades. I'd love to go into a tirade here, but this debate is about taxes, not nutrition and diet. Just wanted to draw a few parallels and keep the idea fresh :-)

-heady

after this last cycle i only have one thing to say "Holy Trapezius Batman"

KWOOD

#113

I'm always a bit wary of the "you don't know me/you aren't an X so you can't comment" style of argument rebuttal. It is effective in the short term, but by turning the focus away from ideas and to the speaker it ultimately stifles productive discussion (the cynic in me guesses that is what a lot of people use it for).

I'm quite fascinated by the parallels between socialized medicine and socialized healthcare. Both supposedly provide broad benefits (a healthy and/or educated population) at the cost of lower quality and inefficiencies. The weird thing is that socialized medicine is anathema but socialized education is scrosanct. This leads to the weird situation where state-run university graduates argue against Canadian-style healthcare with no sense of irony whatsoever. Taxing for education is particularily painful to the wealthy as you end up paying double -- once for the state-run school system and once for the higher-quality private education you send your kids to.

The easiest way to lower taxes is to slash the biggest expense and In the states I looked at the education system is about 1/3 of the state budget. Dropping income tax and sales tax rates by 1/3 would provide a huge boost to the state's economy.

29/f/112

Complete as many rounds in 20 minutes as you can of:
95 pound Clean and Jerk, 15 reps (65#)
Run 400 meters (treadmill)

4 rounds plus 15 pc+jerk
0.1 of 400m

finished 5 rounds in 21:45

took almost 45 sec from c+J to get to tm and get it going each round

pre: wux2
post: stretching

man i haven't sweat like this in a long time...im dripping like crazy

Daniel,

That is a lazy cop out and I expect better from you (even if you are wrong.)

Supply side economics doesn't work for what? What are you trying to accomplish? If it is a straight redistribution scheme than no supply side economics is not the way to go.

While I may be in danger of sounding like a one not band America is not the only economy that has tried supply side economics (See President Kennedy and Regan) but Ireland tried it and had an enormous influx of capital and an economic expansion.

32/m/315

Did 13 rounds in 15 minutes (yeah, not 20 minutes, but you will see why below) of the LA Petranek Fitness workout - 1 clean, 2 front squats, 3 jerks, 4 rear squats.

Then, I did one of Eva's workouts to make it a heavy leg day - 10 minutes of running (on elliptical) and every minute stopping to do 20 air squats.

I read the article and some of the posts. Shared it with people at work. Seems to make quite a bit of sense.

I wonder what the curve looked like before 1950. This is what I call a misleading graph. I know that we have measured GDP far longer back than 1960. I would like to see more of this data analyzed before I just give this a thumbs up.

Besides that, what happened in 1950 that allowed for less and less taxes to be paid by the upper class and not have the proportion of GDP change?

Furthermore, you see the tax cuts on capital gains in 1980 and again in 1984. The revenue as part of the GDP stayed flat while the rich got tax cuts.

Let's not forget one thing - this guy needs to compare GDP adjusted for inflation since 1950 to see if this curve is really as flat as shown. The dollar in 1950 was worth considerably more than it is now.

In economics, this curve makes sense. In free market systems, this makes sense. Yet, do not just throw in the towel and not even question all of the data. I can give you a pile of data and prove almost anything.

Dale,

Good questions about economics. Why doesn't everyone agree if it is a science? It's a science is the same way nutrition is. And by that I mean that Nutrition and economics is not studied as a whole but very small portions are studied with the standard caveat of "all things being equal" or "all other variables being held constant" or a closed system
Well all things aren't equal. The only closed system is the entire planet. Models that look great in the micro (meat is bad, can't we all just share equally) look very bad when applied to the whole.

I would say the type of economics that you are looking for isn't "Demand" side but Keynesian Economics.

jNeal-What effect would the fair tax have on the incentive for people to save & invest? Is there a point where "not enough consuming is going on?" (eg the Japanese)

Barry,
Dang it how come your posts always say what I wanted to say but better? Can I just tag along for some comedy relief and put my signature on those?

finally recooped after wknd cert
did tuesdays wod:

Hard as all hell

75 push ups
50-65# sumos
50 low and locked at the top ring dips (took forever)
35# strict pullups for 5
had to scale the remaining to 25# cuz it was taking so long
25 1/2 way down hspu's
by the time I got to the hspu's, my arms were fried so a little dissapointed I couldn't get all the way down

38:45
this was a bioche and a 1/2

please Coach, no more new wods...I wasn't the one complaining. I liked things just the way the were :)

Taxes! Yep, a great subject as it affects us all equally as far as sapping wealth, but unequally in it's percentage of our wealth. (Fran - saps us equally of our strength, but unequally based upon the weight used (i.e. scaling).)

Hey, taxes are scalable just like WODs. You pay a price, but those who make more pay more. Maybe not payroll tax, but in other ways, many other ways. Who do you think owns those corporations the Dems want to put all the taxes on? The wealthy. And do you think the wealthy will just sit back and say, ok, I'll pay more taxes without passing that back to the consumers? No way.

The present system isn't exactly fair, but the progressive tax does work to some extent better than some of the alternatives out there. Reducing the tax rate stimulates economic growth, which produces more spending, which in turn produces more income, which produces more people with more money, who pay more in taxes despite the reduced tax rate.

By the way, it is a good idea for business owners to pay payroll taxes for social security purposes down the road, and for a few other tax reasons. However, it's much better to earn money outside of payroll so you (especially business owners) don't get hit so much on taxes. Rental income, capital gains, and other investment income doesn't come with a payroll tax hit. But for those who make a lot, you have to watch out for that nasty little thing called AMT! Make too much, and AMT kicks in and negates all of your deductions, making you pay even more taxes at the end of the year. Look on the brightside, though, if you aren't paying taxes, you aren't making money!

Random question;

I had someone come up to me and ask me what a 'cousin' exercise was. Any thoughts, answers, idea? Thanks a lot.

Re: Ranson, You Can't Soak the Rich

Sally in Peanuts recited her book report to the class. It was brief. “This book told me more about penguins than I ever wanted to know.” I'll follow her lead.

Nonsense.

Explanation:

Hauser's Law is no law at all, and the graph is a fraud.

The IPCC graphs the rate of manmade CO2 emissions alongside a metric for the ratio of 13C to 12C, two isotopes of carbon, allegedly measured in the atmosphere. The IPCC adjusts the scale of the metric and inverts it so the two curves are smartly parallel. Voila! It accepts the results as proof that manmade CO2 is the cause of the increase in atmospheric CO2. In fact, and beyond the scope of penguins, the cause and effect conclusion leapt to is impossible based on the IPCC data.

Just for openers, the two graphs in Ranson's figures, being percentages of quite different things (reportable income vs. GDP), are subject to wildly different scales, too. If this isn't clear, consider that the top individual tax bracket must lie between 0% and 100%. The revenue as a percentage of GDP has no chance of being 100% of GDP. The percentage of GDP curve is squashed flat because it is being divided by a huge number. Ripples caused by the top individual tax revenue are not perceptible because of the graph scale.

And why would the top individual tax bracket have much of an effect on total federal tax revenue anyway? If you're in the top bracket, you should be in tax free munis, everything possible should be a business deduction, and you should be making money from capital gains - at least until the code changes again. Tax avoidance is legal, alive and well.

Next, Ranson claims,

>> The data show that the tax yield has been independent of marginal tax rates over this period, but tax revenue is directly proportional to GDP.

The first clause is patently false. Neither curve shows the tax yield or, equivalently, the tax revenue. Two things are missing: the history of the GDP during this period, and the share of the revenue from the top individual bracket.

If GDP is rising smartly during the period, then revenue is, too. If dropping the top bracket caused GDP to rise, then it caused revenue to increase because of the nearly constant rate observed by Hauser. Hence, the Laffer analogy. On the other hand, if GDP dropped, the opposite effect might have occurred. In fact, on this scale, the GDP grew at a nearly constant rate of just under 3%. Ranson's conclusions are premature. His chart is not ready for policy making.

BTW, never rely on a curve like the one bklynsteve #70 linked (ending with Id=354). If you do, you'll be in the company of hundreds of published economists, among other specialists, such as in medicine and global warming, who routinely divine physical truth from randomness and artifacts. (For you engineers, they differentiate noise!) Instead, change his link to end with Id=230. The noise is gone, and you can see how persistent US GDP growth has been.

The only remarkable thing about “Hauser's Law” is the appearance that the revenue as a share of GDP is nearly flat.

The two graphs appear to be uncorrelated. But correlation is a number, not a perception. It needs to be calculated. The top individual tax bracket is probably uncorrelated with sun spots, too.

Ranson uses the curves to claim that soaking the rich is pointless. It will be used instead by the left to justify increasing tax rates on the rich - not for revenue, but for populism.

I must applaud Ranson for being careful to distinguish between tax rates and tax revenues. Is there any politician who makes that distinction? The pols routinely talk about increasing taxes, which is ambiguous and meaningless. They are either ignorant or pandering. The left WANTS and NEEDS the two to be the same, and the fact that they are quite different upsets their economic justice theories. The difference is explained in part by the so-called Laffer curve (even Laffer didn't claim it originated it), and that is why the Laffer curve is routinely disparaged. E.g., “The Laffer curve is wrong.” Daniel Freedman, #119.

Daniel, to prove the correctness of the Laffer curve, you need to recognize the following three truths. (1) If the tax rate is zero, the tax revenue will be zero. (2) If the tax rate is 100%, the tax revenue will certainly be zero! (3) For other tax rates, the revenue will not be a negative number. Now graph it! QED.

The Laffer curve is like a thermodynamic principle of macroeconomics - quite unavoidable.

Here are a handful of other thoughts from the comments today. (1) The tax code will not change in any important way until Congress is limited to one term. It is largesse, exchanged by legislators from the public coffers for re-election contributions, which they convert to personal fortunes. They also modify legislation and call off regulators for the same end. Term limits must be a goal of conservatism.

(2) If you get a flat tax (a.k.a. consumption tax, fair tax, value added tax), it will be in ADDITION to the income tax.

(3) The personal income tax should be phased out, maximizing personal freedom, in exchange for all taxes being collected from businesses. That puts Congress, which naturally tries to maximize tax revenue, in the business of maximizing business profits! What could be better (unless you hate corporations)? This, too, should be an ultimate principle of conservatism.

Businesses don't pay taxes anyway. Their customers do. And just think how many lawyers we could surplus.

You know, it just occurred to me that I should be passing on my taxes to the poor(er) - namely, my clients. I mean, if I charge X for my services (either CF or legal) and then get hammered on taxes, consequently lowering my personal income, then I need to up my rates in order to make a decent living. The problem, of course, is that at some point, you can price yourself out of the market for clients because they simply can't afford the services. So, they're shut out. And I have to market or tap into higher income clients who can afford my services. So wait, raising taxes was good again for the poorer because why?

Man, this economics crap is tough.

#135 jakers: Regarding savings and investments-when you eliminate an income tax in favor of a sales tax, the people will have more money in the front end and instead of immediately spending it, they will save that.

When the government taxes income, it discourages savings and investment: you get taxed on your income and when you make a gain on investment, you tax the gain. When you eliminate income tax, you will encourage more investment and savings, thus building up the capital markets and providing better credit risks for lending institutions.

In other words, you will have more funds because your payroll deductions will be smaller. Now if we can privatize Social Security into personal accounts we can invest on our own, thus flooding the capital markets more.

31/m/5'10"/88.7kgs!!!!!

Not to hijack the conversation with some excercise information but I've got to tell someone.

1 year ago I was 102kgs, working too hard and drinking too much. I started riding to work and managed to get down to 95kgs but then just leveled out. Nothing I would do at the gym would help shift the excess weight and I was getting very demotivated.

Stumbled across Crossfit when I was looking at the 300 workout, started it in early April, cut out the booze (by about 80%) and started getting more sleep. I'm feeling fitter, more aware of my body, more co-ordinated if that's possible, stronger and according to the fiancee, getting nice bumps here and there where I used to be a bit wobbley.

Most importantly, I'm now under 90kgs, one of my medium term goals. I haven't weighed this much/little since I was in my early 20's.

I'm hooked and I can't thank Crossfit and the community here enough. I still can't do pull ups without jumping or HSPU's so I know there is still lots of room for improvement. The motivation of that really helps.

This place rocks!

RE: #120 Daniel Freedman -

Box jump ladder explanation...

You and your partner are both standing behind your own individual boxes (height doesn't matter)

Partner 1 (P1) jumps 1 time...

P2 jumps 1 time...

P1 jumps 2 times...

P2 jumps 2 times...etc

You continue this progression (i.e. the "ladder") all the way up to 20 and then back down to 1.

While one partner is working the other partner is resting. For added difficulty we wore chemical protective masks to restrict our breathing--similar to a painters mask.

We had a good time today racing through the ladder. One group of partners racing the other group. Fastest group was the winner.

Hope that answers the question. Take care!

Mark

Some of us (accountants) make a living off this tax system. We like complexity! Stop trying to simplify it! lol.

#86 Barry said "What your first chart in effect says is that the upper end rate of progressive taxation has little effect on GDP growth, which has remained relatively constant since the 50's."

Precisely. The author was attempting to suggest the opposite: that decreases in the upper bracket tax rates would lead to increases in GDP (and, by implication, that a return to the higher upper bracket rates of the 70s would cause a decrease in tax revenues). The chart I linked to proved him wrong. See Jeff's re: populism, #139.

#86 Barry continued "Your second graph only discusses rates of corporate taxation, not net revenues. You will note the rates center around 4%, when in fact the graph for today's article centers around 20%."

Noted. I couldn't find a similar chart for overall revenues. Presumably, though, what Ranson and his ilk suggest is true for income tax (higher taxes mean lower revenues) would be especially true for corporate taxes-- since capital is much more footloose globally than labor. The second trend line in the second article I linked to suggests that the relationship Ranson suggests does not hold up to international comparison. Indeed, though the data do not plot neatly along a line, the relationship seems exactly the opposite.

Rest day...Ha, who needs it!
16 minutes for the following:
100 Jumps on jump rope
50 Sit-ups
15 Dumbell swings @ 30lbs
80 Jumps on jump rope
40 Sit-ups
15 Dumbell swings @ 30lbs
60 Jumps on jump rope
30 Sit-ups
15 Dumbell swings @ 30lbs
40 Jumps on jump rope
20 Sit-ups
15 Dumbell swings @ 30lbs
20 Jumps on jump rope
10 Sit-ups

These last few days have destroyed my body! Can't wait for tommarow!

#144 - Partner Box Jumps

Thanks for the explanation. Sounds great.

But how about bringing together both threads in this discussion:

* Liberal team vs. Libertarian team in partner box jumps

* Better yet, EACH team has members with opposing political views

congrats Casey and Natalie!

34/m/6'3"/315(I'm a big boy)

1000m Row
20 Burpee
750m Row
25 Burpee
500m Row
30 Burpee

37:15

P.S. One of the globogym trainers came running over to me after I collapsed when I was done and was all worried I passed out. I guess she's not used to seeing people work so hard in a gym.

8 rounds.
25 air squats
5 bodyweight bench press

then:
4 X 500M row sprints with 1min interval.

Did the bear today, Took my rest day yesterday. I really hated missing out on all those burpees.

50/55/60/65/70

Failed on rep 4 of set 5. Took a short rest and
finished the last 3. Bested myself by 5 pounds
from 1 month ago.

Anyone have a hotel recommendation for the VA beach cert. at Blauer tactical?

WOD 3 DL/ max rep HSPU X 5

300/25
325/15
315/15
300/12
300/15

1000m relaxed row cooldown

took about 4 minutes between sets. form suffered on last set of deadlifts, should have dropped a bit but you know how that goes...

Daniel Freedman:

Mankiw noted on his blog a couple months ago that the editors of the 4th ed. of his text suggested that he remove that paragraph; he agreed that such editorializing is improper in a college text book and he did, in fact, remove that statement.

#151: Let's boil this down to the relevant political points.

1) Is it your belief that eradicating the "tax cuts for the rich" a (aka tax cuts designed to spur investment in the economy) will increase tax revenues?

2) Could it not be plausibly argued that what has enabled continuing GDP growth was in fact ongoing reduction of tax rates, enabling the investing class to keep more of their money invested in our economy in productive ways?

3) In your own view, what is the best means by which to support GDP growth, other than freeing up as much capital as is consistent with maintenance of the government function?

Dale Saran, #131

You asked,

>>On Economics - if this is a "science", why does no one agree about whether supply side economics works?

Bits of economics could be composed as a science. An 8-folio tract might be sufficient to encompass all of it.

Much less facetiously, science is not about agreement. Science is about models of the real world that have predictive value. It's not a battle of experts, nor consensus taking, nor voting. Science advances by the creation of new, more powerful models, and these are the creations almost always of just one person breaking from common knowledge. The proof lies not in the majority, but in the validation of novel predictions or in the economy of the prediction itself.

In post #145, I said,

>>on this scale, the GDP grew at a nearly constant rate of just under 3%.

More precisely, and using the data I recommended (Id=230), inflation-adjusted GDP (real GDP) grew 2.96% between 1/1/47 and 1/1/08. It grew 3.88% until 7/18/67, then 3.14% until 3/19/96, and 2.56% thereafter, using the best fit, three-segment linear fit. This tends to contradict not the Laffer curve, but where we think we are on the Laffer curve, and the conventional wisdom that reducing tax rates increases GDP (assuming the top income tax bracket is indicative of the total tax rate). However, the scale is not helpful in evaluating the effects of tax rates.

Real GDP shows serious declines in growth, generally known as recessions, especially in the period of the late 50s through the early 80s. A magnifying glass is almost needed to resolve these serious disruptions. The decreases in tax rates appear to be correlated with recoveries, although that needs to be measured not guessed, and the recoveries may have been natural anyway. To the contrary, a minor slowing occurred between 1990 and 1992, and the recovery appears correlated with an increase in income tax rate! GDP affects tax policy mostly in the short term.

Back to science in economics, certain high level truths exist as generalizations. The Laffer curve is an example. Another is, what you tax you get less of, and what you subsidize you get more of. Often government bans when it ought to simply tax.

Government has little known capacity to create anything. It can divert capital, but at a net loss. It is best at destroying (especially as in the value of money). GDP is not a government creation. It is a consequence of capitalism, which is a consequence of liberty - freedoms not taken by the government.

Exceptions to such generalizations lie, for example, in the protection of markets (as in competition and the auction for prices), the infrastructure of commerce (as in communications and transportation), and the public health.

The answer to Barry Cooper's questions at #160, I submit, lies within these concepts of limited government.

Taxes should support and reflect what they are used to pay for. When you subsidize something, you get more of it. Likewise, when you tax something, you get less of it.

Here are some sample taxes in such a system:

Gas Tax: % Tax on on combustible fuels such as gas, jet fuel, ethanol, etc. Used to fund roads/transportation. (we already have this one)

Child Tax: % Tax on Income which increases with the number of children one has. Used to fund K-12 education and free access to birth control.

Unhealthy Food Tax: % Tax on foods found to increase the risk of heart disease, diabetes, and cancer--such as alcohol, cigarettes, fast food, junk food, etc. Used to fund health care and health education. Note that healthy foods such as fruits and vegetables will be tax-free.

Felony Tax: % Tax on Income of those convicted of crimes which directly impact others (e.g. rape, murder, theft, assault, fraud). Increases as the number of offenses increase, but could decrease over time. Used to fund the police, judicial, and correctional systems.

Carbon Tax: % Tax on kilowatt-hour electricity usage. Used to fund alternative energy such as wind, solar, and geothermal.

Sales Tax: % Tax on disposable goods (TVs, cars, ipods, etc). Used to fund general administration, national defense, and emergency response systems.

This system favors an inherently small and efficient government since as the number of services increases, the number of taxes to support them must increase as well.

31/M/170

CFWU X 2

275X3/15
285X3/15
315X3/11
335X3/11
350X3/7

350 ON DL IS PR......

The WSJ column is poor reporting at best. First it seems the author did not contact a public finance economist to discuss this.

I am a public finance economist and I do not and frankly cannot imagine that any other one would not have pointed out the crucial and obvious point that

1) This chart includes no information on tax bases. It is possible to decrease tax rates and increase tax burden because of base broadening.

This is significant because most of the large cuts in tax rates in US history have base broadening built in precisely so that they will have minimal impacts on revenue

2) There is no discussion of inframarginal rates or the bracket to which the top rate is applied. If the top tax rate is 90% but applies to less than 10 tax payers then it is not economically meaningful

3) Is it the authors arguement that tax evasion is at the core of this phenomenon? If he truly believes that statutory burdens are increasing but tax AS A PERCENTAGE of GDP is not increasing then it must be the case that evasion is increasing.

Lastly on supply side economics. I don't think there is much disent among academic economists. Even Art Laffer said a while back "I never said tax cuts will pay for themselves"

He argues that his point was simply that there yield changed as rates changed.

Karl,

Your points are well taken, but I think you are missing the political point, which is the argument of the Left that the "tax cuts for the rich" were somehow not only unfair and pandering, but economically damaging.

What this chart shows is that, as an example, say Bush took a tax rate of 40% for those earning $1 million a year, and reduced it to 37%. That is a "tax cut for the rich". The question is what effect this has.

As you note, most taxes are paid by the middle class. What the distribution looks like, I don't know, but we could likely agree that "soaking the rich" does not do much to increase net revenues, and that it does encourage the movement of money out of our economy. This is not necessarily tax evasion per se--although there is likely a lot of that--but either less aggressive investing, or investing in other nations and other economies, with income likewise reported and taxed elsewhere.

If you want a clear lesson on how to wreck an economy, look at Chavez, and the flight of capital he can only stop through legislative fiat and physical confiscation of property.

With respect to supply side economics, I would like someone to define what exactly they think has been rejected.

From my perspective, the merit of not taking the capital of people who invest it is quite clear. Bush's tax cuts paid for themselves. The problem is spending went up, netting us on-going deficits. A large part of that problem is that Bush is functionally a liberal when it comes to social spending, even though no liberals want to admit it.

Karl Smith #164, Barry Cooper #165,

Karl's points may be “well taken”, but they are irrelevant to the article.

Ransons's point is that reducing the top individual personal income tax rate, which he impliedly characterizes as unsoaking (drying out?) the rich, had no effect on income tax revenues. As evidence, he plots that tax rate for half a century alongside the ratio of federal revenues to GDP, which is remarkably constant at that scale. But he does not show the revenue from income taxes, as from the top bracket or even total, to support his conclusion.

Revenue might have increased because GDP went up when the rates went down. Or revenue might have gone down because GDP went down. Or whatever did happen might not be resolvable in time or amplitude.

Karl points out that either the base or the brackets for the top rate might have been adjusted so that the rate cut was revenue neutral. He also points out that tax evasion by those in that bracket might have caused no increase in revenue. As Barry and I have said, evasion is not necessary since tax avoidance is also possible, and legal. And Karl suggests that inframarginal analysis might, at last, explain something. All this might account for, and gives credence to, a phenomenon that Ranson failed to show ever occurred.

Science starts logically with the data and builds models thereupon. Social science starts with theories and then selects supporting data. These are not rationally equivalent.

#166. That makes sense. The big difference between social science and the physical sciences, though, is the feedback loop between postulate and behavior. Atoms don't care what we think about them, and they don't form opinions about how they ought to interact with other chemicals. People develop theories about what is true and act on them. This means there is no base state for comparison.

You are quite right, though, that in this case the amount of evidence presented is insufficient to draw genuinely informed opinions.

Here is an article by Hauser:

http://www.hoover.org/publications/digest/4488561.html

Here is his book on the topic:

http://www.amazon.com/Taxation-Economic-Performance-Essays-Public/dp/0817957324/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1211565020&sr=1-1

Does not appear to have sold all that well.

I am currently reading an intellectual biography of Friedrich Hayek, and it is amazing how deep things get piled how quickly, even without calculus. You wind up asking questions like "what is money"? Barter economies represent a "stable equilibrium", which Hayek feels is necessarily made unstable by the introduction of money. Many disagree, and on it goes.

Ultimately--without making a career of studying a discipline with a history of being unable to fully predict the past, much less the future--we are left with common sense as applied to basic principles. Is private property safe or not? Am I getting from my government what I am paying for, and would I not prefer to spend most of that money myself?

Sooner or later--likely later--we are going to be forced to make massive changes in the way we do things. One would like to think a proactive stance might be possible, but I don't see it. It will take a strong leader coupled with exigent circumstances to force something like a serious revision of the tax code, or major, serious fixes to the long term problem of unsupportable social programs.

And no, that leader is not running this year.

Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose.

A thought experiment: if one were to design a system of taxation from scratch, a system that was designed solely to generate whatever revenue was necessary to fund whatever government obligations might be chosen by said government, what type of system would you choose and why?

Provide concrete, real world examples to support your choice.

A prequel to my thought experiment: Why do we collect taxes? Is taxation simply the vehicle to fund government? Or is taxation in and of itself a manifestation of a governing philosophy?

Bingo,

I can't tell you what the best form of taxation is, but it's clear enough that if the Federal Government were smaller, the need for all forms of taxation would likewise be smaller.

It seems to me taxation ultimately is intrinsically a form of income redistribution brought about by the division of labor in a complex society. It is no longer reasonable to expect yeoman farmers to defend the country, so we need professional soldiers, who have to be paid.

Taking this further, it can plausibly be asked by what sort of calculus doing nothing becomes a task which should be funded by the government. Perhaps we are paying people not to commit crimes. Yet even before the government got in the "safety net" business, charities kept people from starving. People gave their money willingly to help feed the poor. I no longer have any faith that my money is truly needed to feed the poor. Rather, it is used to support their lifestyles, which are not lavish, but nonetheless quite good by Third World standards. It is only the cultivated resentment , stirred up by professional apologists for the success of our social order, that causes people to want to do anything but work harder, educate themselves, and build a better life for their kids.

On a semi-related note, I was listening to a CD series on the Civil War, and I didn't know it, but one could very reasonably argue that Lincoln's calling for a 75,000 man volunteer army on April 15, 1961--which led directly to the secession of important hold-out states like Virginia, Tennessee, and North Carolina--which began the Civil War. The firing on Fort Sumter on April 12 was the precipitant of his action, but only his order generated the necessary energy in the upper South--most importantly Virginia--to lead to an actual large scale Civil War.

As many of you likely know, it was during the Civil War that income taxes were first introduced, ultimately leading over a period of time to the 16th Amendment. The first tax rate was 3%.

There is a short history here, which is worth reading:

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005921.html

"stirred up by professional apologists for the success of our social order"

This is wrong. I will point out generally that I am an idiot a certain percentage of the time. I personally use 10%, which I would encourage everyone to adopt as a minimum. Some people exceed this considerably.

What I meant to say was something on the order of rejecters, or--better yet--subversives, intent on disabling our social order.

The problem is that most people understand that not only should you not expect to get something for nothing, but that the very act of taking something without the intend of repaying it in some way is destructive of self respect, which is foundational, in my view, of genuine happiness.

This reasonable, and socially sustainable, perspective does not support leftist political agendas, so they insist--as Obama did in Chicago in his overt agitation days--that those who are less well off at any given moment are owed something, and that resentment is a logical and even practical response to that "problem".

The problem then becomes how to soak the rich, because they "owe" it to the poor. This aspect of the debate has not yet been mentioned on this thread, presumably because those so inclined know that is an unpopular position here. Yet it is still in many peoples minds, and there is no point pretending otherwise.

Barry Cooper, #167

Let me argue with your epistemological observation,

>> The big difference between social science and the physical sciences, though, is the feedback loop between postulate and behavior. Atoms don't care what we think about them, and they don't form opinions about how they ought to interact with other chemicals. People develop theories about what is true and act on them. This means there is no base state for comparison.

Carbon 14, denoted 14C, a radioactive atom is created in Earth's atmosphere with some regularity by cosmic ray bombardment of stable nitrogen, 14N. Those radioactive atoms decide all on their own to decay back to 14N. A single atom could expire the next day, or live 100,000 years. Science has no model by which to predict when one particular atom or another of 14C will be born out of 14N or die.

An atom of radioactive carbon is something like a human baby. Created by luck from imperfect processes, the baby is nurtured by its mother, supported by its father, and trained by the state. It is suckled into dependence, until one day, it either dies not fully developed or becomes an independent, productive individual. Being a Liberal is to be harmfully radioactive, and decay creates a useful Conservative. The objective of the Democrat party, most of our Universities, trade unions, and the mainstream media, of course, is to make the suckling state indelible in order to sustain the plantation of a dependent electorate. Science cannot predict when a particular human baby will become conservative or productive.

Science cannot predict when the 14C atom will be born or die, but a very excellent empirical model says that the decay is exponential with a half-life of 5,730 years. That model provides an estimate of the age of all earthly things containing natural carbon. Archeologists can assess the age of their digs. Geologists can estimate when earthquakes occurred, and thereby model their frequency by strength.

Molecules of DNA mutate randomly as they alone might decide. The mutation doesn't destroy the biological model of reproduction, but instead allows biologists to estimate when God created Eve. The mutation, along with other process which also randomly err, allows one to model the processes by which God created the species and mutations occur within them and among us.

We radio images to earth from space probes, and bits of the signal are randomly reversed by independently minded interference. Science cannot predict when any single bit might decide to flop. Less than a century ago, the range over which we could transmit a picture was of earthly proportions, and even with prodigious amounts of signal power, the picture was quite grainy and pock marked. Since we have learned empirically how often the disruptions occur, we now signal using error detecting and correcting codes to transmit perfect pictures with quite low power across the galaxy.

Science has no idea when a particular human might buy a share of Google, or decide to quit school, or change jobs, or have a child. Nor can science predict whom a particular individual might decide to marry or become a family. Nevertheless, science can apply game theory with a likely set of rewards and punishments, material or spiritual, to predict how a society might behave statistically, and test the validity of the model with actual measurements.

Atoms, like molecules, photons, electrons, and humans, each possess a certain contrariness to confound our ability to predict what they might do. Science, however, is THE method by which man makes powerful predictions in the aggregate.

Science is the branch of knowledge that teaches man how to deal with randomness. You're quite correct that “People develop theories about what is true and act on them.” In one sense, this is the normal brain process of generalization, but the models are quite deceptive and situational, and often tragic. Certain people, called scientists, also create models based on facts (measurements) that can be shared and tested. These models comprise a unique branch of human knowledge.

Social science is the method by which man documents the rationalizations of his brain to create shared tales or theories of the real world. Not being bound necessarily by facts or validation, the horizons of social science are unlimited.

Should a model in social science prove to have predictive power, it automatically becomes a part of science on the subject. Social science comprises the residue of romantic, elaborate, and entertaining beliefs, historically illuminating but with no predictive power. It comprises the unlimited philosophical isms, e.g. Marxism, Freudianism, creationism, and the myths, e.g., Piltdown man, anthropogenic global warming.

In other words, accurate statistical approximations subject to empirical verification ought to be possible, and need to take place more often, lest the field be renamed the Social Arts.

That's fair. You are right to call me on that. I saw that problem, but after I hit post. Honestly, I was either too tired or too lazy to correct myself.

I will add that your sardonic humor was noted and appreciated. I'm betting you had an evil grin on your face while you were typing that.

60 min spin

push-ups, box jumps, jump rope for 15 min