If you can increase taxes without affecting growth or the ability of people to pay those taxes, then yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
Printable View
If you can increase taxes without affecting growth or the ability of people to pay those taxes, then yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
What a deception! I thought this topic is about some famous latin quatations......
Isn't that impossible? Not to mention immoral?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark
Why would you do that? It has been proven many times (read the article) that raising taxes decreases revenue, and lowering taxes increases revenue. So what is the purpose of raising taxes?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark
And how can raising taxes NOT affect growth or the ability of people to pay?
Has it been proven that raising taxes decreases revenue? Did Laffer do it?Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_Curve
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...-Curve.svg.png
Laffer's theory suggests that at 0% tax, zero revenue is collected. The rate of revenue collected raised, also rises at some point t, and then drops off to zero revenue at a tax rate of 100%.
The problems with the theory are twofold:
1. What point are we currently at? Are we actually at some point t*¹ to the right of t°? If so then there may be a point to be made. If we are currently at a point to the left which we'll label t², then as we increase tax rates towards t°, then according to Laffer's own theory, taxation revenues should increase.
But since Laffer himself couldn't prove or even guess through actual empirical where t°, t¹ or t² are, then the statement "as been proven many times (read the article) that raising taxes decreases revenue, and lowering taxes increases revenue" is materially false.
Unless you have links to some proper data, then you're reliance on supposed proof is totally unfounded.
2. The theory doesn't work in the real world anyway. The assumption that taxation revenues drops off to zero revenue at a tax rate of 100%, simply isn't true. China currently has marginal taxation rates which exceed 100%, and still experiences economic growth.
Obviously the purpose of raising taxes is to collect more in taxation revenues than the government spends.
The other option is to decrease government spending. I would suggest slashing Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and the Department of Defence spending, because those are the biggest areas pulling the budget, and it is impossible to decrease the interest bill unless you first start running surpluses.
Rollo how can a marginal tax rate exceed 100%?
You are saying that past certain income levels in China, they take everything above that and then a little bit more?
Chuck,Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
You should know better. Never, ever bring up Logic and facts when debating with a Liberal. It just makes them angry like trying to teach a pig how to fly.
Dare you suggest that Rush and hennity and GLAN BECK would lie to the American public???Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
How dare you!!!
Just where do you think these guys get the education in economic theory!??
So before you denigrate the great Americans who single handedly have educated a generation, you better think twice!!!
Remember the inflexible law: if you repeat an outrageous lie loud enough and long enough, it becomes a fact.
OH so now the truth comes out!!! Referencing Communist China!!!Quote:
2. The theory doesn't work in the real world anyway. The assumption that taxation revenues drops off to zero revenue at a tax rate of 100%, simply isn't true. China currently has marginal taxation rates which exceed 100%, and still experiences economic growth.
Oh Noes!!!
What's next? Dredging up NEP in Soviet Union in the 20s?
Why cloud the issue with logic and reasoning?Quote:
Obviously the purpose of raising taxes is to collect more in taxation revenues than the government spends.
The other option is to decrease government spending. I would suggest slashing Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and the Department of Defence spending, because those are the biggest areas pulling the budget, and it is impossible to decrease the interest bill unless you first start running surpluses.
I'm sure all the Laffer curvitchniks studied economics for years, YEARS!
And all of those here and elsewhere referencing it and the several forums I peek in on---all of them all of a sudden having thread pop in in a matter of a day or so, is clear proof these boys have their fingers on the pulse of the AM Talk radio and are well......"informed".
Taxation is slavery.
An armed citizenry is a good citizenry.
Just how do you explain the continuous economic growth and increasing standard of living, indeed the rise to dominance of the American MIDDLE CLASS post WWII--3 decades of mostly rising standards---and taxes higher than later---a period of virtual stagnation for 30 years?
Yeah, 'splain that one!
Sweden did it in the period from 1972-1976.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexamateo
The great novelist Astrid lindgren got on TV with her tax declaration forms and the tax rates tables and sure enough her total added up to over 104%.
In the following days the same crew interviewed several others who also "owed' more than 100%. the slime ball Prime Minister Gunnar Palme suggested on TV that Lindgren should keep her nose out of politics....
This is the same palme who was later shot down on the street in Stockholm, obviously somebody had had enough of his nonsense.
But come on, the rate alone means nothing, it's the deductions and exemptions and all the same ways out as we have here like reducing tax liability by the amount of the interest on a mortage on property owned.
That's how while I paid a total of 32.7% on an wage which was the National average, the Finance Minister, the reptilian slugloid Gunnar Sträng paid only about 6.4% on an total income of around 6 million SEK----Good ol' Gunnar had bought a property in Gamla Stan for a huge sum+++financed for 50 years so lots of mortgage interest, and was having workers completely renovate it----again at stratospheric prices financed at who knows what.
Nobody pays the rates in the book.
Because companies like Chrysler, Ford, GM were employing more and more people with GM peaking at a little under 1/2 million in the seventies.Quote:
Originally Posted by janvanvurpa
Now GM is less than 200,000, and that does not include the losses at Chrysler and Ford.
Fewer people working, oh yes, increase their taxes.
An asinine move but then the majority of millionaire legislators in Wash. are Dem. so they do not give damn. People like the living Kennedy's are trust fund babies, taxes do not touch them.
If John, who was a good friend of R. Nixon had survived, he would have bitch slapped Teddy.