// Pin it down: long long S = Spending_back_into_the_economy; // I do not know what Spending_back_into_the_economy is // f(S): long long government_spending_effect_on_incomes (s) { long long bs; // blah, blah, blah // is assumed to have a positive impact on incomes // like I said, "nobody can assume government spending always has a positive impact" // Spending back into the economy goes here // Have no clue what to put here return bs; }
Kind of stupid to repeatedly make one line, snarky comments, eh? Yet some insist on doing it over and over.
Fascinating contributions, except for the above. So is anyone, in light of recent research which we re all aware of, going to here claim that there is a link between effective rates and GDP or incomes over the years? Moreover are you going to claim that there exist historical proof that raising taxes lowers revenues?
I have no idea what anyone else is going to do. Hell no, I will NOT claim "raising taxes lowers revenues." Just want to know if I need to insert a const for S instead of some sudocode f() with some fancy stuff inside.
It would probably be best to use double household size numbers we can relate to instead of long long ungodly gubermint numbers. If we are simply dealing with the Ming household giving 30 yaks, S = 30, to three beggers it may increase revenue, but there is a rand() function; if the begger knows how to husband yaks he makes income and you get revenue, otherwise China did the experiment and only the ones who knew how to deal with yaks made income for revenue.
Do you? (rhetorical question, as you've clearly demonstrated you don't) An equation is simply a mathematical statement showing equality. A function, such as f(x) = 2x + 5, is a type of equation containing variable components. Now, inequalities are another story, but all of this is beside the point. Yes or no, do you agree with the accuracy of the mathematical expressions or not? -Meta
Your pseudocode does not exactly match that format. f(S)... is missing something. it is like f(S) = 0 or in other words 0 = 2x + 5 We need something to plug into f(x) or the x. The way you posted it leaves too much to the imagination. Maybe I missed something other there. I get your point with if...then and it can be easily done with if...else. Give us more to work with, it wouldn't be that long of test program to see what happens, but f(S) is way too vague.
I'm not trying to write code here (or pseudo-code), despite my occasional use of == or !=, and BTW, why are you using Long Long? Wouldn't a Double be sufficient? I mean we're dealing with large numbers here, but not that large. Plus there's a very good possibility we could end up with fractional values, which I'm pretty sure Long Long would not account for. To your statements regarding f(S) though, which BTW also apply to f(ET*I), as to what goes into those two functions, like I mentioned before, it is difficult for us to determine the exact values, again mostly due to the multiplier effect. But what I believe we can do is predict based on different types of spending and taxation what the relationship will be between the outputs of the functions, since they are both related in that their effects are both basically a measure of how much money is available in any given part of the economy to be used for creating income. Or, to put it another way, all else held constant, I believe that there are specific things we can do to ensure that f(S) > f(ET*I) or vice-verse, or something close to f(S) == f(ET*I). I hinted at what those things were in the last topic, but before I go into any more detail, I must point out that it doesn't matter what you plug in for f(S) and f(ET*I) if one does not agree with the formulas that have already been posted. And I believe you already agreed with their accuracy a few posts back, but I am still waiting for squidward (who has already dodged the direct question once) and Ethereal, if he's still reading this, to either acknowledge that the equations are accurate, or point to an actual flaw in them. Its possible though that they believe solving for this particular set of equations/inequalities will lead to an answer that doesn't agree with them ideologically. -Meta
Now now, just because you didn't understand it, there is no need to use the president's slang. Income itself is a multivariable function for which you have not defined an equation that describes the variables and their relationships. You have given an equation for revenues, described as a factor of a constant and Income. You have attempted to break income into components of taxation and spending. You have not however defined the relationship between income, taxation, spending, and a whole host of other variables that you have conveniently left out. So what have you told us ? Revenue is dependent upon a constant times a multivariable function for which you have defined no relationship. Congratulations.
Fascinating, the revenue may indeed be multi variable at least in the long term, but in the short term? Moreover, the relationship may require to be ironed out, but isnt it more important now in this discussion for you to answer the questions given by Meta777? Lastly are you saying that tax rates cannot increase revenue? Or is it a nuanced statement you wish to make that implies that raising rates can reduce growth and therefore incomes? Really Im not interested in more word games here, lets here your position stated clearly and what historical evidence or other makes you think so.
You should be thinking in terms of pseudocode, and better defining variables and functions, so as to keep from confusing brain dead ones like me, otherwise a charge that the equations are both "useless" or have "no real world predictive application" do not seem so wrong. You are right "double" is the way to go, long long freaks on small amounts. I just cannot seem to grasp billions... I would rather deal with a few hundred yaks. My intuition believes you to be right, but it still is afraid of assumptions; you have to consider my noggin got whacked when the ceiling fell on it during the 2004 hurricanes so this could be garbage in, as I have forgotten more than I knew: Say your equation for revenue is R = ET * I : 0 = (ET * I)/ R double Revenue (Effective_tax_rate, Total_household_income) { double R = Effective_tax_rate * Total_household_income; return R; } These variables you could ask for in main() and plug them in to get that, or you could have the Revenue function handle it all: double Income (P, A) { double I = P * A; return I; } double Effective_rate (T, D, TE) { double ET = T - (D + TE); return ET; } Then in the coding we hit, "Houston, we have a problem," as things do not work out this way, so my specific objection is this f(S) which appears to be a const and not a function: f(I) = I - f(ET*I) + f(S) Where, S = Spending back into the economy, I = previous total income, f(I) = current total income, f(ET*I) = taxed revenues impact on incomes and is assumed to have a negative impact on incomes, and f(S) = government spending's affect on incomes and is assumed to have a positive impact on incomes If f(ET*I) == f(S) then R = ET * I if f(ET*I) < f(S) then f(I) > I if f(ET*I) > f(S) then f(I) < I ***** I can probably deal with f(I) is a current_total_income function, I just need to have less (I's) I get confused. This is what is seemed like to me, correct me if I am wrong: pi = previous total income r = Revenue from the function above s = Spending back into the economy or 850 billion...a const? ci = current total income returned by the function double current_total_income (pi, r, s) { double ci = pi - r + s; return ci; } Then you just to straighten out this mess: If f(ET*I) == f(S) then R = ET * I if f(ET*I) < f(S) then f(I) > I if f(ET*I) > f(S) then f(I) < I Because it looks like this, but hey, remember my squashed grape of a head: If (taxed_revenues_impact == S) { cout << "You have malaise, replace Great Leader." << endl; } else if (taxed_revenues_impact < S) { cout << "Current total income is greater than previous total income." << endl; cout << "Keep the president." << endl; } else { cout << "Current total income is less than previous total income." << endl; cout << "Get a new president." << endl; } The taxed_revenues_impact variable, which needs a function for it has not been defined, ERROR! It is simply something that is perceived through rhetoric mostly anyway. Or we could go back to that posting between Iriemon and me on another board, where it was proved (to my satisfaction) that the rate of changes between the rich and the poor were heading in the right direction, or I should say not as starkly in the rich favor before the Bush tax cuts; I have no idea where that is now, and (*)(*)(*)(*), who wants to reinvent the wheel. Historically though, I agree with you and Iriemon on this issue of the Clinton/Newt surplus. We were on the way to a fabulous surplus, then we hit the return the money back to the people thingy championed by Newt (because he saw a fabulous surplus, as has so been quoted as such by me in the previous topic)...regardless of spending or whether taxed_revenues_impact or whatever really was working. We got greater growth through another bubble and irony is the Bush Tax cuts were in response to a bubble of irrational exuberance which should have been left to market correction. This long long post is my way of playing while I wait for the booty--not acquired in war demanding others bow down with those who bow down to the Black Stone Idol and pay the taxes of my Islamic government, as the Jews were directly ordered to do in the Cow or else, according to the rights granted by MoHamMad, which you cannot denigrate--to prepare my feast of green eggs and ham.
The significance of any such effect is irrelevant to whether or not the effect exists, unless that significance can always be deemed to be mathematically negligible. That may be so. But if the government managed to force ET=1, incomes would go downward the following year because the tax rate would kill incentive for folks to generate income. Do you deny that there exists a relationship between ET and I, or are you simply saying that we do not know if such a relationship exists? Your figures do not take population changes into account. Do you believe that the increase in ET contributed to the economy kicking ass in the 90s? Do you believe that the decrease in ET contributed to the economy sucking in the late 00s?
it is a multivariable function today, tomorrow, and always. No, I said that one cannot accurately make the statement that increased tax rates result in increased revenues. I made no claim as to the results, and your "interest" does not concern me.
Yes or No? Do you agree with the accuracy of the following: if R = Revenue, ET = Effective Tax Rate as a decimal, S = Spending back into the economy, I = Base National Income, f(ET*I) = Taxed Revenues affect on incomes and is assumed to have a negative impact on incomes, f(S) = Government Spending's affect on incomes and is assumed to have a positive impact on incomes f(I) or aka f('whatever') = National Income After the Effects of Spending and Taxation have been applied, and P = Number of Households in Population, A = Average Income per Household (Base), T = Marginal Tax Rate, D = Total Deductions, (as decimal percentage) TE = Losses from Tax Evaders, (as decimal percentage) then R = ET * f(I) I = P * A ET = T - (D + TE) f(I) = I - f(ET*I) + f(S) and if f(ET*I) == f(S) then R = ET * I (no affect on national income) else if f(ET*I) < f(S) then f(I) > I (national income will increase) else if f(ET*I) > f(S) then f(I) < I (national income will decrease) -Meta
Just another noodle fragment, noodle went into noodle and produced one without a noodle, they happen all the time when I try to think liberally. I knew I had a bwoken bwain, I just knew it. Why am I voting for Romney again?
Ill try again: R = ET*I R R = ET * I R 0 = ET * I R And I have no idea why I did it the first time. Must have been an abbynormal noodle doodle.
