[Rondec]

I guess if you stick your head deep enough into the sand and only look at the direct cost that results from lawsuits then you are correct. But if you will step back and actually look at the total impact that lawsuits and the threat of lawsuits have on the healthcare industry it is a very different picture. How many people are exposed to unnecessary and possible harmful/dangerous tests just so a doctor can protect himself/herself from ambulance chasers? What is the cost of these tests to the bigger picture?

A majority of neurosurgeons engage in defensive medicine practices, according to a national survey of more than 1,000 members of the American Association of Neurological Surgeons. The survey, designed to gauge perceptions of malpractice liability and defensive medicine practices, showed that 72% of respondents order extra imaging studies, 67% order extra laboratory tests, 66% refer.....
PLOS ONE: Malpractice Liability and Defensive Medicine: A National Survey of Neurosurgeons

More than a quarter of 627 family practice and internal medicine physicians who participated in a recent survey said they personally were practicing more aggressively than they would like, and almost a third said they believed their local peers were doing the same. Fear of being sued appears to be a major contributor to the...
JAMA Network | Archives of Internal Medicine | Too Little? Too Much? Primary Care Physicians' Views on US Health CareA Brief Report

Study after study, including recent findings from Jackson Healthcare surveys, pinpoints fear of merit-less malpractice lawsuits as the driving force behind defensive medicine practices.
Frivolous Lawsuits, Defensive Medicine and the Nation?s Healthcare System

The legal system defines the standard of care as the care that an average physician would deliver under similar circumstances. As 91% of physicians admit to practicing defensively excessive care, the legal care standard is therefore excessive care. However, the new health care legislation passed by Congress does not address tort reform. Instead, it reduces physician remuneration and increases penalty-driven cost care control regulations.
The Current State of Health Care Reform

According to surveys by Jackson Healthcare and Gallup, physicians estimate that defensive medicine practices cost the U.S. between $650 – $850 billion annually.
Their estimates placed annual defensive medicine costs in the $650-$850 billion range. In light of a Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services estimate that overall U.S. healthcare spending in 2009 was $2.5 trillion, this means that $1 of every $4 spent on healthcare each year is spent on unnecessary tests and treatments ordered by physicians solely to protect themselves against lawsuits.The rising C-section rate sheds light on the economic impact of defensive medicine at a micro-level. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services reports that one in every three babies is now born by Cesarean section, an increase of 53 percent since 1996. Obstetricians interviewed in our study estimated that 38 percent of all C-sections are performed to avoid litigation. Using 2007 data from the National Center for Health Statistics and the March of Dimes, we estimate the total annual cost for medically unnecessary C-sections in the U.S. to be more than $5 billion (multiplying 1.4 million C-section births by an average cost of $10,958, then dividing by 38 percent claimed to be defensive).

I'm sorry Gene, but I agree with Winder. The issue isn't really just the cost of malpractice insurance for physicians (which can approach 100,000 dollars a year for certain specialties in certain locations), but also the fear of lawsuits that drives increased ordering of tests, more to protect the health care provider from law suit, than because they are necessary. Every unnecessary MRI, CT Scan and lab test adds cost to a system, not to produce better health care outcomes, but just to ward off a possible lawsuit down the road.

The issue of bringing down the cost of health care must be multi-factorial and controlling lawsuits is an issue. Negligence should be punished, not just by lawsuits, but by medical boards putting licenses on probation and dealing appropriately with offenders.

[kswier]

The issue of bringing down the cost of health care must be multi-factorial

I think this is the key. Tort reform will not suddenly make healthcare affordable, but it is a step that has the potential to help.

[les3547]

It is quoting numbers, the 2 percent against the 98 percent, the 53 percent versus the 47 percent that really bothers me. Being wealthy or being poor doesn't exempt you from doing your part to help make this country great, but there are an awful lot of free-riders in both categories.

I agree mere numbers tell us nothing about the people who fall into various personal wealth categories. I think what people are upset about when they refer to the 2/98 percent is primarily the policies and laws that create conditions of disparate wealth, not the people themselves.

Those people they are upset with are the ones who support the policies and laws that lead to an unfair distribution of wealth. There are people in the 2 percent crowd like Buffet and a great many of the Hollywood rich, but then there are people like Romney and the Koch brothers.

[Winder]

There is a problem with the idea that raising the marginal tax rate for the wealthiest Americans will "help" with our spending problem.

In 1954 the top marginal rate was 91% and tax revenue per-capita was $2,525.66.
In 1963 (the last year it was 91%) per-capita revenue was $2,593.54 (inflation adjusted).
From 1964-1981 the top marginal rate was 70% and per-capita revenue rose to an average of $4,500 +/- (inflation adjusted).
From 1982-1986 the top rate was cut to 50% and again we see per-capita revenue rise to and average of $5,700 (inflation adjusted).
1986 had a per-capita revenue total of $6,077.75. This date includes the recessions of the 1970's and 1980's.

After 1986 the government jumps the marginal tax rate all over the place with 38% (1987), 28% for 3 years, 31% for 2 years which makes it difficult to see an trend or correlation because it takes time for the economy to adjust from changes.

From 1993-2001 the top rate was 39% and in the year with the lowest revenue was 1993 with $6,727.45 and the year with the highest revenue per-capita was 1999 with $8,967.50 (inflation adjusted).

If we take every year since 1954 and graph out the tax rate on the horizontal and the per-capita revenue on the vertical we see that tax revenue declines as the marginal rate increases over 35-40% depending on the strength of the economy. Regardless of the marginal tax rate the effective tax rate has never been over 35% and tax revenue as a percentage of GDP has NEVER been higher than 18% or lower than 14%.

The reason Democrats never produce hard economic or financial data to support higher marginal tax rates is that this data does not exist. The argument always falls back on a subjective moral narrative with no factual foundation. If we are going to actually live in a society that is based on the idea that all people are created equal and recognized as equal by the government and the law then that needs to apply to tax rates as well. No one person is more or less responsible for the burden of government just because he was born in a rich or poor family anymore than if he were born into a white or black family.

[jeffkrol]

snip

Plenty of disagreement w/ your laughable Laffer curve,.................

This is the Laffer curve issue. There is little (if any) evidence that rates exceed revenue-maximizing levels. See Mankiw, Feldstein.

Or David Autor:
Not aware of any evidence in recent history where tax cuts actually raise revenue. Sorry, Laffer.

Or Michael Greenstone:
All evidence that I'm aware of suggest that cutting tax rates "marginally" from their current levels would DECREASE revenues, even 5 yrs out

Or Kenneth Judd:
That did not happen in the past. No reason to think it would happen now.

Or Anil Kashyup:
May look plausible on a cocktail napkin (or at a cocktail party), but not true empirically in the US.

Or Pete Klenow:
Not enough time for capital to respond much (physical, human, technology), so it would require implausibly large labor supply elasticities.

Or Robert Hall
See previous question. In addition, few studies suggest we are already at the max of the Laffer curve, though we may be close.

Or Austan Goolsbee:
Moon landing was real. Evolution exists. Tax cuts lose revenue. The reasearch has shown this a thousand times. Enough already.

There are many people who have an interest in making you believe otherwise, but tax cuts are inconsistent with deficit reduction -- they make the deficit problem worse.

Economist's View: Laughing at the Laffer Curve

Rattner Refutes Laffer | TIME.com

In 1974, the economist Arthur Laffer drew a protuberance on a napkin at a White House meeting “demonstrating” that the higher the tax rates are, the lower the revenues they produce. Thus, the birth of supply side economics, a theory that has been disproved dispositively over the past 40 years. The reason why the Laffer Curve is nonsense was demonstrated in a single sentence by Steve Rattner in a New York Times op-ed over the weekend:

During my 30 years on Wall Street, taxes on “unearned income” have bounced up and down with regularity, and I’ve never detected any change in the appetite for hard work and accumulating wealth on the part of myself or any of my fellow capitalists.

Read more: Rattner Refutes Laffer | TIME.com

[Winder]

Plenty of disagreement w/ your laughable Laffer curve

I'm saying that since 1954 the data has not shown that higher marginal tax rates generate more government tax revenue.

Tax revenue as a percentage of GDP has never exceeded 18% and never dropped below 14% regardless of the marginal tax rate. The expansion and contraction of the economy play a much bigger role in determining tax revenue than the marginal rate, and policies need to be focused on expanding the economy.

The "Laffer Curve" was his attempt to visually explain the historical data. Laffer never argued for a specif tax rate, only that there is a rate that maximizes tax revenue, and that a rate above or below this level would generate less tax revenue. The rate that maximizes tax revenue may or may not be the optimal rate for economic growth.

For the record John Maynard Keynes also supported the idea in General Theory. I know Keynes is probably too far to the right for most people on this forum, but here is a quote from his book.

"When, on the contrary, I show, a little elaborately, as in the ensuing chapter, that to create wealth will increase the national income and that a large proportion of any increase in the national income will accrue to an Exchequer, amongst whose largest outgoings is the payment of incomes to those who are unemployed and whose receipts are a proportion of the incomes of those who are occupied...

Nor should the argument seem strange that taxation may be so high as to defeat its object, and that, given sufficient time to gather the fruits, a reduction of taxation will run a better chance than an increase of taxation in balancing the budget. For to take the opposite view today is to resemble a manufacturer who, running at a loss, decides to raise his price, and when his declining sales increase the loss, wrapping himself in the rectitude of plain arithmetic, decides that prudence requires him to raise the price still more--and who, when at last his account is balanced with nought on both sides, is still found righteously declaring that it would have been the act of a gambler to reduce the price when you were already making a loss."

Keynes says two very important things in the above quote:
1. that to create wealth will increase the national income - If we focus on policies that grow the size of the economy everyone is wealthier and the government gets more tax revenue (national income).
2. Nor should the argument seem strange that taxation may be so high as to defeat its object, and that a reduction of taxation will run a better chance than an increase of taxation in balancing the budget. - Higher tax rates DON'T equal more revenue.

Art Laffer took this concept on the relationship between taxation and revenue (which had existed for hundreds of years (14th century)) and graphed it for a presentation for members of the Ford administration. It is not Laffer's concept, his idea, his theory, his.... anything.

[kswier]

Tax revenue as a percentage of GDP has never exceeded 18% and never dropped below 14% regardless of the marginal tax rate.

Why only look and the United States? I am not disagreeing with the underlying theory of your post, but I do challenge the notion that 18% is a magic number.

List of countries by tax revenue as percentage of GDP - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For instance, many European countries have percentages around 40% (including Germany).

Perhaps the revenue that can be gained depends on how the money is collected (i.e. are there loopholes or deductions that can be used) and how it is spent? Of course the question on top of this is should we try to increase revenue.

---

Last edited by kswier; 12-05-2012 at 04:58 AM.

[Nesster]

Keynes says two very important things in the above quote:
1. that to create wealth will increase the national income - If we focus on policies that grow the size of the economy everyone is wealthier and the government gets more tax revenue (national income).
2. Nor should the argument seem strange that taxation may be so high as to defeat its object, and that a reduction of taxation will run a better chance than an increase of taxation in balancing the budget. - Higher tax rates DON'T equal more revenue.

I'm not sure what you are arguing here, it seems consistent with what us liberals are saying.
1. marginal tax rates do not impact the health of the economy overall, but these do have the effect of being more inclusive in the participation in economic growth.
2. if the Republicans are concerned about 'starving the federal government' then would not increasing marginal rates be a good thing, if this is supposed to limit government revenues?
3. I always thought the correct thing to do (and let's not get into MMT here!) on a national, corporate, and personal level is to build up margins during good times so one has room to react during bad times. On a personal level that means 'taxing' yourself in order to build up your savings. On a corporate level it also means doing similar, so you are in a position to expand at times your competition is weak. On a national level it means feeding your nation so you can milk it - i.e. increase revenues, collect additional taxes via higher rates or reduced subsidies, and moving up interest rates gradually... so when recession hits, you don't start out with huge deficits, historically low tax rates and high subsidies, and near-zero rates. In this respect Clinton had it right - and in retrospect, GHWB, and GW 43 had it spectacularly wrong.

Note that on a personal and corporate level this is entirely capitalist and sane conservatism.

[jeffkrol]

The "Laffer Curve" was his attempt to visually explain the historical data. Laffer never argued for a specif tax rate, only that there is a rate that maximizes tax revenue, and that a rate above or below this level would generate less tax revenue. The rate that maximizes tax revenue may or may not be the optimal rate for economic growth.

The Laffer Curve is Wrong

The problem isn't that the Republicans or the Democrats are misinterpreting the Laffer Curve, but that the model itself is not right. The Laffer Curve assumes that there is a "magical" tax rate in which the government can maximize its revenues and which will allow the economy to grow organically. The problem is that as the government continues to pump billions of dollars of fiat money into the money supply, the maximum tax revenue number becomes a moving target. That makes the Curve itself impossible to quantify in actual dollar terms, and instead it becomes a concept or philosophy rather than an actual fiscal policy tool. As inflation grows and wages remain stagnant, the tax burden as a proportion to income will continue to grow for the middle class and the poor while the ultra-wealthy continue to benefit from billions in free money.

The "Laffer Curve" is Laughable

From the Laffer Center:
Funny
On one hand:

Importantly, the Laffer Curve does not say whether a tax cut will raise or lower revenues, nor does it predict that any and all tax rate reductions would necessarily bring in more total revenues. Instead it says that tax rate reductions will always result in a smaller loss in revenues than one would have expected when relying only on the static estimates of the previous tax base. This also means that the higher the starting tax rate, the more dramatic the supply-side stimulus will be from cutting the tax rate. It is possible that this economic effect will swamp the arithmetic effect, causing an actual increase in tax revenue.

However, the Laffer Curve does not say that “all tax cuts pay for themselves” as many people claim. What is true is that tax rate cuts will always lead to more growth, employment, and income for citizens, which are desirable outcomes leading to greater prosperity and opportunity.

http://www.laffercenter.com/arthur-laffer/the-laffer-curve/
Which is fine and MMT/Keynsian/chartalist..
So technically you could eliminate all taxes on say those earning 200,000 or less and "stimulate" the economy..

Of course from my perspective it is more a matter of what intake to the Fed is OK and what deficit is OK.. No talk of a "surplus" or "balance" since, as you will agree ANY tax is anti-stimulus.

Unfortunately I find myself arguing against tax cuts for the "rich" simply because it always seems to lead to "stimulus cuts" to the poor/middle class...........not my rules........
and if you are going to make it a zero sum game.. I favor the most good for the most people...which in times like these is NOT those already flush w/ cash..........

most of the rest of Laffer is still laughable....same old same old failed "trickle down"...........

On MSNBC’s Up with Chris Hayes on Sunday, conservative economist Veronique de Rugy attempted to make the same argument. However, Bruce Bartlett, a former economic official in both the Reagan and the George H.W. Bush administrations, blasted her and other conservatives as “goddamn dogmatic” on taxes, adding that they believe the deficit will be reduced solely through “abolishing Medicare and other ludicrous ideas”:

We need higher revenues, both to restrain spending and to change the dynamics of the fiscal process…Your idea is so goddamn dogmatic. You’re living in a fantasy world where we’re going to balance the budget by abolishing Medicare and other ludicrous ideas. [...]

Let me point out something very important. Federal revenues today, right now, are about 15.8 percent of the GDP. That is way, way below the historical average. If we can just get up to the post-war average, we cut $500 billion a year off the deficit.

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/12/03/1272621/bartlett-right-wing-dogmatic/

Federal revenues today, right now, are about 15.8 percent of the GDP. That is way, way below the historical average.


not sure where you get your figure from:




how much "correlation" do you see here???

historical average is 17.9%
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1143980

[jeffkrol]

Note that on a personal and corporate level this is entirely capitalist and sane conservatism.

agreed.. as to a mater of discussion.. Clinton's surplus arguably was a cause of the Bush recession.. The Fed running a surplus is never a good idea.. unlike you and states and corporations..
Running large deficits that DO NOT increase general prosperity is also a bad idea (aka Bush tax cuts and war spending.. you can add "bank stimulus" to this but NOT GM)

In the recession of the early 1990s, the mild recession of the early 2000s and the “great recession” since 2007, the private sector has run either small or (in the last case) very large financial surpluses. The government’s position has been the mirror image: when the private sector has boomed, the government has been in financial surplus (as in the later 1990s). When the private sector spends more, relative to its income, the economy booms, the government’s revenue surges and its counter-cyclical spending shrinks; when the private sector spends less, the government’s revenue shrinks and its counter-cyclical spending rises. This happens without any deliberate government decisions. It is essentially automatic.…

The government’s deficit then exploded, almost without any decisions being taken (this being well before the impact of the Obama administration’s negligible stimulus package, of about 6 per cent of GDP over three years). The idea that the huge fiscal deficits of recent years have been the result of decisions taken by the current administration is nonsense. No fiscal policy changes explain the collapse into massive fiscal deficit between 2007 and 2009, because there was none of any importance. The collapse is explained by the massive shift of the private sector from financial deficit into surplus or, in other words, from boom to bust.

Not sure his last statement is not a misprint.. but the chart explains it well...


http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/07/20/balance-sheet-recession.html

you CAN'T get around this........
Government sector saving is a negative source of profits

http://www.levyforecast.com/assets/Profits.pdf

Private sector cannot realize profits in monetary sense unless the govt issues the appropriate deficit, a conclusion that is mathematically true, but which "free marketers" absolutely hate.

http://www.levyforecast.com/assets/Profits.pdf

Government deficits are necessary for economic growth, period.

http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/93365/no-long-term-deficit-problem

again it is not how much the Fed spends but what they spend it on......... war.. not so good... not like the old WW2 days.......

The financial conditions revealed by the profits perspective are not always destabilizing or unhealthy. The period following World War II is a prime example. At the time, many
feared that the falloff in defense spending and the discharge of ten million soldiers and sailors from the military would throw the economy back into depression however, the difference between private sector balance sheets in 1929 and at the end of the war was like night and day. Instead of dangerously high asset valuations, extensive excess business capacity, and high levels of debt, by 1946 businesses and households had little debt and were awash in cash. The red-hot wartime economy had created strong incomes, yet personal consumption and business investment had been severely curtailed by quotas and shortages, forcing vast
private saving and debt reduction.When wartime restrictions were lifted, there was not only enormous pent-up demand for both consumer goods and business plant and equipment,
but also the cash with which to buy and a great capacity to add debt. GI bill financing further expanded household spending capacity. In the early postwar period, business
investment boomed, personal saving plunged, and profits soared. From the profits perspective, the prospects for a great period of prosperity were readily apparent at the end
of World War II.

The only way to fix this is get the priv. sector out of debt.. and the only one capable of doing that is the "money creators"....at least in an expedient way.
for the sake of morals you see..

In contrast to monetary policy, government fiscal policy has an immediate and also direct impact on profits, since a government deficit is a positive source. That is why, during the
Great Depression, public works programs—deficit spending—helped boost profits.During the same period, monetary policy had little stimulative effect. Cutting interest rates was
“pushing on a string” because it could only alter profits indirectly by influencing individual decisions, and people were generally too pessimistic to consume or invest, regardless of
financing costs. Fiscal policy also has indirect effects on the profit sources. Identifying and measuring them are controversial exercises, but undoubtedly the level of government saving or lack thereof can affect expectations in financial markets, long-term interest rates, and general confidence in the nation’s economy and currency. However, the analysis of the Levy Forecasting Center suggests that these effects are often smaller than commonly claimed, and that at least in the postwar history of theUnited States, the direct impact of fiscal policy as a profit source has overshadowed any indirect effects.

[jeffkrol]

My major point being (and maybe I have not been making this clear enough) is you CAN'T CUT economically valid things i.e soc sec, medicare, UC and expect the economy to boom.. Technically it is contrary to any real world evidence.
You can (if you MUST) increase top marginal tax rates without much damage if it allows you to continue the MORE stimulative course.. see above..

Obama's "plan" though weak and still not stimulative above follows this more closely that "plan" then the Rep. plan.. which fails on many levels because of the unfounded fear (and creates the spiral down) of "federal deficits".. which are BY MATH PHYSICS DEFINITION private sector "profits"...........

Whether those "profits" create stimulus (and concurrently feed back to the Fed) is a matter of WHERE (yes we have done major errors in placement, but that is another topic) you place it.. not how much you place..

simple enough..(yes it is a bit simplistic but the premise holds)

As I've argued (and realize it would not be nor ever be "morally/politically" possible) paying the mortgages and freeing the "little people" from debt and giving the banks their "due" would have been a WHOLE lot more stimulative than just giving the banks a "pile of money".

Call that the "liberal trickle down theory" if you like....

Now the "inflation boogy man" would exist .... somewhere down the road .. but once we really understand (and I believe many do) and conscript the correct "wise people" (certainly leaving out most in Congress) this is not a threat.. at least any more than more years of stagnation or worse.... recession/depression caused by removing more money from the economy via federal cuts to spending....

And again, if you want my support to no tax increases ...stop talking about cuts to spending (in things that ADD to spending in the economy.. even food stamps puts real money in the pocket of someone.

HR2990 is the "wisest" thing I've read in a long time.. though TOTALLY impossible on a political/ideological level.. and I stand by it's premise...

"WE" have built a flawed and unworkable system yet, as is human nature, refusing to see it is normal.. and trying to patch it is normal.. It will probably take more to finally do what a sane business person would do.. "scrap it" and start over............ admit failure and accept reality...........

for fun read the comments:
http://mises.org/community/forums/p/25924/434953.aspx

and for fun I'll answer this question:

I agree with pretty much everything you've said, but the fact that the private sector can not make a profit in dollars without the government running a deficit in dollars does not at all imply that deficts are necessary for economic growth.

Yes it is UNTIL world population starts to decrease .............. 9maybe that is the insidious bottom line here)
and going to a "gold standard" thus fixing the pool to a defined size will not create "expansion" either.. You cannot expand a fixed thing.. only possible course is inflation..

[Winder]

Why only look and the United States? I am not disagreeing with the underlying theory of your post, but I do challenge the notion that 18% is a magic number.

List of countries by tax revenue as percentage of GDP - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For instance, many European countries have percentages around 40% (including Germany).

Perhaps the revenue that can be gained depends on how the money is collected (i.e. are there loopholes or deductions that can be used) and how it is spent? Of course the question on top of this is should we try to increase revenue.

I'm not saying 18% is a magic number. I just saying that regardless of the marginal tax rate, revenue generated from taxes has never exceeded 18% (it might be 19.5% I am going by memory). 18% may be the average percentage since 1954. I will have to look it up. Loopholes and exemption (tax law) obviously play a part in this number, and it has dropped down as low as 14%. The bigger picture is economic expansion and contraction. Expansion and contraction play be bigger role in tax revenue than manipulation of tax rates.

You have a maximizing tax rate that produces the highest amount of revenue over a period of time and you have the optimal tax rate which represents the tax rate that allows for the most economic growth. A country can sustain a high tax rate that maximizes revenue and still be hurting economic growth while slowing making itself poorer. Ideally you want the optimal tax rate as it is better for the long-term prosperity of the citizens. How long a country can maintain a large gap between these two rates would depend on how wealthy and prosperous a country has been in the past. Smaller countries with fewer economic resources would not be able to maintain a large gap between these two rate for very long.

In the case of Germany I don't have enough enough information on Germany to have an opinion. The optimal tax rate would depend on many factors and in the case of Germany 40% may very well be the optimal rate. It may be that Germany's tax rate is too high and that it is slowly making itself poorer. Hong Kong has a tax rate (as a percent of GDP) 13% and government spending as a percentage of GDP is 18.6% and it ranks 5th in the world for per-capita GDP (Personal Purchasing Power) while Germany ranks 17th.

It is really hard to make comparisons across these countries without adjusting for differences in scale and diversity.

[Winder]

My major point being (and maybe I have not been making this clear enough) is you CAN'T CUT economically valid things i.e soc sec, medicare, UC and expect the economy to boom.. Technically it is contrary to any real world evidence.

I pretty much stopped reading after this point.

Economies existed and "boomed" long before any of these programs that you mentioned ever existed. That is fact and your statement can be demonstrated as false by looking at the historical evidence.

As a second point. I never said anything about cutting any of those benefits. My post was to show that raising the marginal rate have never increased government revenue.

[jeffkrol]

I pretty much stopped reading after this point.

Economies existed and "boomed" long before any of these programs that you mentioned ever existed. That is fact and your statement can be demonstrated as false by looking at the historical evidence.

As a second point. I never said anything about cutting any of those benefits. My post was to show that raising the marginal rate have never increased government revenue.

My point is "revenue" is an incomplete equation.. Revenue is meaningless by itself.. and "revenue" doesn't really "pay" for anything..............

since you really don't follow I wouldn't mind if you stopped reading everything I write............

[Winder]

I'm not sure what you are arguing here, it seems consistent with what us liberals are saying.
1. marginal tax rates do not impact the health of the economy overall, but these do have the effect of being more inclusive in the participation in economic growth.

How does raising the marginal rate make the economy more inclusive? Increasing economic participation is based on job creation. High tax rates weaken the economy (fewer job) and lower revenues.

2. if the Republicans are concerned about 'starving the federal government' then would not increasing marginal rates be a good thing, if this is supposed to limit government revenues?

I'm not sure what the Republican goal is. There is an optimal rate that produces the most revenue, and anything above or below that rate will cause a drop in revenue. That is what I was trying to communicate. I was quoting Keynes to show this is not a "left or right" issue.

3. I always thought the correct thing to do (and let's not get into MMT here!) on a national, corporate, and personal level is to build up margins during good times so one has room to react during bad times. On a personal level that means 'taxing' yourself in order to build up your savings. On a corporate level it also means doing similar, so you are in a position to expand at times your competition is weak. On a national level it means feeding your nation so you can milk it - i.e. increase revenues, collect additional taxes via higher rates or reduced subsidies, and moving up interest rates gradually... so when recession hits, you don't start out with huge deficits, historically low tax rates and high subsidies, and near-zero rates. In this respect Clinton had it right - and in retrospect, GHWB, and GW 43 had it spectacularly wrong.

I can agree with you in theory to some degree. The problem is that politicians have never been responsible enough to "build up that savings". When times are good they spend like drunk sailors on leave, and then max out the credit card. They have raided every fund ever created and I can list numerous war time taxes that were enacted under the premise that they would be temporary, only to become permanent. There have been several attempts to create surplus accounts for future (emergency use) but politicians can't keep their hands off of the money. I agree that Clinton did many good things which include massive government spending cuts and welfare reform while growing the economy.