<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The Earnings Tax Is Still Bad, for All the Reasons We&#8217;ve Already Said</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.showmedaily.org/2010/03/the-earnings-tax-is-still-bad.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.showmedaily.org/2010/03/the-earnings-tax-is-still-bad.html</link>
	<description>Advancing liberty with responsibility by promoting market solutions for Missouri public policy</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 24 May 2012 12:24:42 -0400</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Josh Smith</title>
		<link>http://www.showmedaily.org/2010/03/the-earnings-tax-is-still-bad.html/comment-page-1#comment-5988</link>
		<dc:creator>Josh Smith</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 31 Mar 2010 16:56:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.showmedaily.org/?p=16493#comment-5988</guid>
		<description>Professor Haslag&#039;s methods are those of the academic economist. His paper was reviewed prior to publishing by other academics, and the method of response employed by the SLU professors was an attempt to criticize his model on it&#039;s own merits, rather than undermining his methodology.
You are free, of course, to disagree with any part of his paper, from his methods to his conclusions. My point was that the critique by Gladson and Strauss was not an effective one.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Professor Haslag&#8217;s methods are those of the academic economist. His paper was reviewed prior to publishing by other academics, and the method of response employed by the SLU professors was an attempt to criticize his model on it&#8217;s own merits, rather than undermining his methodology.<br />
You are free, of course, to disagree with any part of his paper, from his methods to his conclusions. My point was that the critique by Gladson and Strauss was not an effective one.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: David Johnston</title>
		<link>http://www.showmedaily.org/2010/03/the-earnings-tax-is-still-bad.html/comment-page-1#comment-5969</link>
		<dc:creator>David Johnston</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Mar 2010 18:34:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.showmedaily.org/?p=16493#comment-5969</guid>
		<description>I, for one, disagree with Haslag&#039;s methods and THEREFORE his conclusions. Running a study mirroring his methods then is not of interest.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I, for one, disagree with Haslag&#8217;s methods and THEREFORE his conclusions. Running a study mirroring his methods then is not of interest.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Josh Smith</title>
		<link>http://www.showmedaily.org/2010/03/the-earnings-tax-is-still-bad.html/comment-page-1#comment-5967</link>
		<dc:creator>Josh Smith</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Mar 2010 16:13:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.showmedaily.org/?p=16493#comment-5967</guid>
		<description>It seems to me that Gladson and Strauss are making one central argument, namely that the earnings tax is a bad idea. If you agree, that&#039;s ok. The point of my post is to illuminate for everyone that the argument made by the SLU professors is not an appropriate response to Haslag&#039;s paper. 

Haslag constructed a model and found a correlation, and then explained his findings with what academic economists might consider common-sense economic logic. Gladson and Strauss attempted to replicate what they thought was his model and didn&#039;t get what they thought his results were. The fact that they refuted something Haslag did not contend was the point of my post.

If you disagree with Haslag&#039;s findings, I encourage you to comment further with links to academic papers with contrary findings, or flaws in the economic logic of his conclusions. If you have a particular reason for siding with Gladson and Strauss, feel free to share that as well.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It seems to me that Gladson and Strauss are making one central argument, namely that the earnings tax is a bad idea. If you agree, that&#8217;s ok. The point of my post is to illuminate for everyone that the argument made by the SLU professors is not an appropriate response to Haslag&#8217;s paper. </p>
<p>Haslag constructed a model and found a correlation, and then explained his findings with what academic economists might consider common-sense economic logic. Gladson and Strauss attempted to replicate what they thought was his model and didn&#8217;t get what they thought his results were. The fact that they refuted something Haslag did not contend was the point of my post.</p>
<p>If you disagree with Haslag&#8217;s findings, I encourage you to comment further with links to academic papers with contrary findings, or flaws in the economic logic of his conclusions. If you have a particular reason for siding with Gladson and Strauss, feel free to share that as well.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Gerard</title>
		<link>http://www.showmedaily.org/2010/03/the-earnings-tax-is-still-bad.html/comment-page-1#comment-5957</link>
		<dc:creator>Gerard</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Mar 2010 00:50:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.showmedaily.org/?p=16493#comment-5957</guid>
		<description>Right. I guess you&#039;re missing that Gladson and Strauss are saying that the SMI study &quot;missed the point entirely.&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Right. I guess you&#8217;re missing that Gladson and Strauss are saying that the SMI study &#8220;missed the point entirely.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

