If lower taxes increases revenue, if we lowered taxes 99% would the treasury be overflowing?

Answer 1

Lower the taxes, raise the debt. Period, it has only worked once and that was JFK because he lowered the taxes across the board, Reagan and now Bush have lowered the taxes for the very rich only and this has never worked. Didn't for neither of them and don't let the repuglicans tell you it does. We have record debt under Bush and this will have to be paid off sometime and mean while the rich have more money and hoard it. Supply side economics never has worked.

Answer 2

Yet again more spin. Seriously, is the DNC paying you to post on here?

Buy a book on economics. Better yet take a class on it. Art Laffer's economic principles have been proven true time and time again. Every single time taxes have been lowered federal revenues have increased. Reseach it for yourself.

It seems you just can't understand the concepts behind the market economy. You are not alone almost no Democrats do. A rising tide lifts all boats.

Answer 3

No, just as it would not be if we raised taxes 99%.

We have to find a point where there's a happy medium - where revenue is maximized.

Read up on the Laffer Curve.

PS the Bush tax cuts did indeed result in higher total tax revenues, so it seems he did the right thing.

Answer 4

enable's look at this logically . . . i'm a goalkeeper for a soccer team. If I went out in the previous a game, ate 5 cheeseburgers, guzzled six beers, and then shutout the different team, i might end that guzzling beers and pounding down cheeseburgers ends up in shutouts. This needless to say might or might no longer be real. perchance the shutout had something to do with different components, which contain my team no longer permitting any photos on me. the comparable logic applies to tax cuts and sales for the government. it relatively is real that tax cuts bring about an extra suitable sales for the government, in spite of the incontrovertible fact that it is likewise simply by different components. perchance the financial device became into on an upswing in the previous the tax shrink. perchance the extra suitable sales may be a short term prospect, and spending might regulate lower back to previous tiers after the shrink. in case your logic is real, then that would propose that the extra you shrink taxes, the extra sales the government might acquire. for this reason, the government may be superb off via having 0 taxes, as this might deliver in the main sales. needless to say, it relatively is not any longer the case. There might desire to be some form of optimal tax cost that would deliver in the main sales, whilst permitting taxpayers to maintain as much as conceivable. in case you prefer to argue for tax cuts, do it on the muse of freedom. In a rustic that announces to be "the land of the unfastened", you mustn't could spend 3, 4 or 5 months working to pay your taxes for the 365 days.

Answer 5

the whole idea is; if taxes are lower then the people will have more money to spend on things they want. and that will put more people to work producing them. so if high taxes were here then people would have less money to spend on the things they want. so if the clinton crew gets there way they will raise taxes and then no one will have any money to buy things. meaning less jobs.

Answer 6

Mold a new reality closer to the heart. Taxes will increase greatly very soon. Get Ready.

Answer 7

That was called reaganomics.......how does a higher debt increase revenue? And how are we going to repay it?

Answer 8

haha...

try understanding the laffer curve.

The "best" tax rate is somewhere between 1% and 99%.

It can be too high ... just like before Reagan reduced it.

Answer 9

the Tax rate of around 27 percent is compulsory, But as a liberal if you feel you want to pay more please send it in. We conservatives tend to like less Government and Less taxes.

Answer 10

There would be a limit.
But, as you well know, 3 presidents have now proven that cutting taxes increases revenue:
JFK, Reagan, and Bush.
(Everyone knows it.)