If cutting taxes is the answer to Republicans fixing our economy why not cut them by 90% if that is the logic?

Question

I guess my point is the less you tax now the more you will have to tax later. Cutting taxes in a time of war makes no sense unless you dont what people to complian about the war.

Its funny that some of you thought I really wanted to cut taxes by 90% you must not know me yet.

Ethan
I seem to remeber us having a surplus of money we Bush came into office.

What really funny to me is I have to phrase good questions with childish logic to get people to respond in big numbers. Try asking well thought up question in this place and people dont know how to respond. Thanks for the prof

Answer 1

you can't really be this stupid. but maybe you are. at 0%, you get 0 taxes. at 100%, you also get 0 taxes, because no one will work if they lose everything to taxes. the total amount of taxes collested in a year cannot exceed the wealth created, which is manufacturing. services simply transfer money, nithing is created. regardless of the lies by the media, manufacturing is always about 20% of our economy. these jobs drive the economy, and create the other jobs, which are manufacturing support, IE trucking, sales, installation. also service jobs are created, in maitenance of the manufactured goods. if the tax rate is too high, there is not enough money left over for most services. you mow your own lawn, clean you own pool, this increases manufacturing as a % of the economy, but not by increasing manufacturing, but by decreasing the rest of the economy. so, the overall tax rate should be 20% minus the growth rate, which is currently 3% or so, making the desired tax revenue 17% of GDP

Answer 2

They still need money for defense spending, social security, road repairs, the post office, etc. If they cut taxes that much, they wouldn't have enough money. In reality, Republicans favor tax cuts only for the richest American citizens. They argue that there is a "trickle down" theory--that the richest citizens will use that money that they would save in taxes to buy goods such as cars and boats, goods that blue-collar Americans produce. So, by cutting taxes to the rich, middle and lower class Americans stay employed.

Unfortunately, this is a flawed theory because many of these goods are no longer produced by Americans--these jobs have been outsourced overseas.

Answer 3

The idea behind cutting taxes was that people would work harder/more, then there would be greater production and ironically overall tax REVENUES would increase. However, at some point you cut so much that people won't work enough extra (they'd prefer leisure) and over tax revenues decline. I think it's called the Laffer curve in economics. The real argument is about which point on the curve we're on. Assuming we're on a point where a cut in taxes can lead to enhanced overall revenues, the next issue is about who gets those cuts....the rich or the poor?

Answer 4

The goal is to find an appropriate tax rate. Too much taxes and we become like Europe (much higher unemployment than the US) and too little taxes and you dont have enough to pay for any Federal programs or assistance (remember that each state depends on federal money to survive). We need to find an appropriate level at which we can not punish people for making more money but at the same time, still allow the government to take care of it's citizens.

Answer 5

because we have too many people that live off the govt that if we cut funding by 90% most of all the poor would have no food or place to live. democrats have handicapped a majority of Americas poor by these programs and without them death or crime would be there only options. although most programs are essential a majority do nothing but enable people to continue being a drain on society these programs need to be reworked to teach people how to take care of themselves instead of just take care of them. we should also do away with budgets. with budgets if money is not needed it is spent anyway to keep the same amount of money coming in next year. all programs should have a needs basis funding. this would also decrease the amount of money needed. also all programs should be evaluated for there use fullness.

but when you lower taxes companies have more money to spend on labor and new technology which increases there profitability. look at our current economy.

not a very bright question lib

Answer 6

Don't be ridiculous. Republicans want to cut taxes enough to make sure we have to cut Medicare, education funding, health funding, and other things that working people need -- not to cut taxes so far we can't afford our military spending, corporate welfare, or paybacks for campaign contributors. After all, what's the good of being in power if they don't get to plunder the public's wealth?

Answer 7

You are just upset because the Bush tax cuts worked. Funny thing, we cut taxes and tax revenues went up.

I guess that Art Laffer was right. We were being overtaxed by the Democrats.

Answer 8

We could, but then we would have to cut most of the federal budget too. I've got no problem with that, about 75% of everything the federal government does is not in the constitution. The only problem is, the politicians use the money to control our lives. If they give up the money, they give up control. They aren't going to do that, they're too greedy and power hungry (both sides).

Answer 9

The Bush tax cuts brought in $425 billion more than expected. Sorry libs no country ever taxed its self into prosperity.

Answer 10

It’s an economic principle that is based on the Laffer curve. It states that there is a median point where the most revenue is received at a certain point of taxation.

Do your homework.