- Joined
- Jan 16, 2011
- Messages
- 25,774
- Reaction score
- 21,435
- Location
- Fort Drum, New York
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Socialist
Well, not at the tax rates we're at now. I don't doubt the Laffer Curve's basic premise is right at the 70%+ tax rates. But below 50%, it becomes nothing more than speculation. Furthermore, US effective is low. Obama's own effective tax rate when adding in state tax is around 29%. The idea that we could actually grow revenue by cutting taxes when millionaires pay historically low rates is ignorant of history.
This seems to be logical, but it seems as if this is never done ?Ok, then close the loopholes. Do we give up on the idea of private property and alarm systems because people who break and enter get more sophisticated in their methods over time? Nope, we build better systems.
Well, not at the tax rates we're at now. I don't doubt the Laffer Curve's basic premise is right at the 70%+ tax rates. But below 50%, it becomes nothing more than speculation. Furthermore, US effective is low. Obama's own effective tax rate when adding in state tax is around 29%. The idea that we could actually grow revenue by cutting taxes when millionaires pay historically low rates is ignorant of history.
Perhaps you can clarify. Are you asking about raising tax rates versus raising revenue? Aren't higher tax rates and revenue directly related? Did you mean cutting spending versus raising revenue?
Federal Tax Revenue After The Bush Tax Cuts
I didn't see an option for neither. The government takes too much of our money and tax rates are too high. Free up our capital for private investors!
The past three years of massive inflows into US securities suggest that ther aren't capital projects worthy of capital investment when accounting for risk. Therefore, your point appears to be moot. Lowering rates when there isn't viable projects to invest in will not increase investment or alternatively may cause significent bubbles.
As for "too much" that is merely your opinion. Same for tax rates, which by the way, are historically low.
Just curious. What are your priorities?
Correlation does not imply causation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Try again. With less fail please. Kthxbye.
I'd ask you to provide a period where the only material change was tax rates (I'll let you think about why that matters), but considering the intellectual stock of this place, it's futile.
People invest into that because of the security and guaranteed interest.
It is not because it is more worthwhile, you know this. Get rid of that debt and people will invest in the private sector.
Too much is subjective, but I think anything more than 0 is too much because the private sector does it all better.
LOL......The C/C rebuttle.......seems to be a favorite among everyliberalcollege educated person on this site.
of course the fact that virtually every major tax cut in history has resulted in a MASSIVE GROWTH IN REVENUE.....will of course have to be racked up as COINCIDENCE.
Providing you with 10,000 examples of periods where the only material change was tax rates....where lower tax rates resulted in more revenue 99% of the time.......notarized by Obama......undersigned by God........
.....would only yield a growth in denial from you and every liberal out there.
Tax strategy raising/lowering is how Gov raises revenue.
You poll seems like a FAIL.
Or a way to trick people into thinking lowering taxes on the wealthy with fix everything...
See above. Furthermore, the fact that businesses are sitting on a trillion in cash reserves suggest they themselves don't have good projects to invest in. When businesses themselves don't have good projects, why would investors pour cash into the investment market?
Ok, then close the loopholes.
so.. your plan is to pit the agility, motivation, and raw mental power of a $55,000 a year bureacrat against that of a $500,000 a year tax attorney?
there isn't a point where we can tax high enough to take in significantly more revenue - because revenue isn't a product of tax rates, it's a product of GDP. Top Tax Rates have fluctuated wildly over the last 60 years, yet revenues have reliably held within a pretty tight range.
interestingly, if you compare the last 30 years to the previous 30 years, you will note that revenue as a % of GDP actually rose slightly when we started running with a lower top marginal tax rate.
oh, and the "loophole" that you were suggesting be closed? was the loophole of freedom of movement - the wealthy are more easily able to relocate to low tax environments, and their incentive to do so is greater. so unless you want us to become a nation where you have to get permission from the government to move.....
anyway, so far it looks like only one person agrees with the President.
The fact that only 9 people voted in the poll should be a clue that people find the poll poorly constructed, not that the results are in any way meaningful.
Its one of those gotcha polls that puts people into a false choice. :shrug:
That seems to be the American way.People make dishonest or poorly designed polls? Who'd a thunk it?
LOL......The C/C rebuttle.......seems to be a favorite among every liberal on this site.
.....of course the fact that virtually every major tax cut in history has resulted in a MASSIVE GROWTH IN REVENUE.....will of course have to be racked up as COINCIDENCE.
Providing you with 10,000 examples of periods where the only material change was tax rates....where lower tax rates resulted in more revenue 99% of the time.......notarized by Obama......undersigned by God........
.....would only yield a growth in denial from you and every liberal out there.
.
.
.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?