Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Trump Presidency -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: combjelly who wrote (66478)	4/12/2018 7:51:35 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 362361

Dynamic scoring is very unlikely to be accurate, but that also applies to static scoring. Predicting the future generally isn't easy. Any prediction in this context has to rely on estimates about how big of impact different tax rates will have on incentives to produce and invest and avoid taxes and evade taxes. Such predictions are not likely to be exactly correct, and may even be motivated by the desire to get a certain answer, which would make them even less likely to be correct (and more likely to be well off correct). But you can't avoid making an estimate by doing static scoring. Static scoring is just estimating all of those effects to be zero.

To: combjelly who wrote (66478)	4/12/2018 8:03:05 PM
From: i-node	Respond to of 362361

>> Dynamic scoring is pretty worthless. Ultimately, it depends on who is doing it, what the assumptions are, and how it is done. If you don't know what you're doing it is worthless, but CBO does know how to do this correctly. Today, is quite simple to use multiple models and provide multiple result sets based on varying assumptions. As Tim pointed out, not using dynamic scoring is like assuming zero, and that is often the least likely outcome. When I was hired to do financial projections for a bank, I almost always used multiple models. It is easy to do, and it eliminates a lot of disclosure problems, as well. It solves the problem, or at least mitigates it, of being wrong and looking like an idiot -- which CBO has consistently done. They NEVER get it right because they don't score anything dynamically. I do not understand it. Dynamic effects are often the point of the entire exercise. And today it is near trivial to even apply a probabilistic model to the outcome so that the readers of projections actually have an idea what to expect.