If tax cuts really work to bring in more money how far should we cut them .?

Question

You republicans make me laugh . Cut taxes and increase revenues .
By your logic then all we need to do is eliminate taxes and we will have all the money we need .

Maybe we just need a flat tax and adjust it to the needs of government .
A set budget .

Answer 1

I wanted to get another job to get more income so I could put a new roof on my house, and then it dawned on me that I'd be JUST LIKE a "tax-and-spend" Democrat-- so I quit my job and charged a brand new big-screen TV on my son's credit card! That way, I get what I want and my son has to pay for it!

No, wait... I didn't do that because I'd rather increase my income and buy a necessary item than slash my income and buy frivolous things and make future generations pay for it.

I guess I could NEVER be a Republican....

Answer 2

You democrats also make me laugh why not tax 100% only problem what do you do the following year when everyone quit. There is a fine line when it comes to taxes it is call the point of diminishing returns usually when you start going over 30% individuals start looking at ways to hide money.

The sad thing about democrats they don't realize that cutting taxes actually spur economic growth spurring more revenue the reason we have deficits is not tax cuts but RUNAWAY SPENDING. The fastest growing economy in Europe in the 90's was Ireland guess how they did it magic no! simply they cut individual, and corporate taxes, which had companies flocking to Ireland. If only democrats could learn by example.
Just a food for thought no society has been able to tax it way to prosperiety.

Answer 3

Yes, the Laffer Curve. What Laffer explained is that, as tax rates increase beyond some (undefined) point, taxpayers, feeling the crunch, will evade taxes more and more, lowering the overall taxes collected. So, he reasoned (and it has worked many times), lower the rate and collect more tax. This (collecting more tax) helps no one except the government, which doesn't do anything productive.

That's one part of the answer. The other has to do with the increased incentive for productive people to continue being productive. Under a graduated income tax, the more you earn, the higher rate you pay -- so when you earn your, say 30,001st dollar, you pay 28 cents in income tax on that dollar; but when you earn your 90,001st dollar, you may be paying 60 cents on it. There is less incentive to be more-productive.

So, lowering the tax rate encourages not just "tax honesty," it also spurs productivity, which is actually a good thing for everybody (unlike taxes, which are good mostly for politicians). Then the government collects a smaller percentage of more production, leaving more to the people who actually earned it, and still getting more for the government.

Answer 4

A tax, by definition, is a drain. Government taxation always eliminates a certain number of jobs. As tax goes higher, more jobs are eliminated and less wealth is created. As the amount of wealth declines, tax revenues decline.
Here's an example.
In the mid 1970s, the US government levied a federal tax on diesel fuel for commercial trucks. This happened in the middle of double digit inflation, and trucking companies complained they couldn't afford the tax, which almost doubled the cost of fuel, and keep operating.
The government's solution was to help trucking companies eliminate jobs. Up until that time, there had been an overall length limit on trucks of 60 feet bumper to bumper. There also was a gross weight limit of 55,000 pounds. Both of these allowable limits were increased. Truck were allowed a gross weight of 80,000 pounds.
This increase in weight allowance made it possible for trucking companies to elinimate 1/3 of their drivers. In other words, the federal fuel tax wiped out 33% of the truck driving jobs in the 1970s.
Today, the federal fuel tax cost a trucking company about $9.60 per hour of highway operation of a single unit. For every truck you see on the highway, the federal government is earning an hourly rate in taxes in excess of a minimum wage job.
Taxation and government spending always cost jobs and shrinks the economy. Given that, you idea of a flat tax really isn't such a bad idea. Right now the federal budget consumes 23% of the GDP and growing. It needs a cap.

Answer 5

Your question is flawed. Since the only source of revenue the federal government has, it needs taxes of one sort or another, you could not cut them to zero. One the same line of thinking, to raise tax rates to 100% would result in no revenue as well. Who would work for free?

Here are the facts. There is a point of diminishing returns. The higher a tax rate, the less taxable activity will occurr. The lower the tax rate the more that taxable activity will occurr.

For reference, look at the revenues received after a tax cut and compare them to revenues received before a tax cut.
Revenues alway increase after a tax cut and always decrease after a tax increase.

The people in a given country cannot spend money they do not have. If the government takes it, they no longer have it to spend, save or invest. This retards the throttle of the economy and pretty soon a lot less taxible activity occurrs. For example, more people will be unemployed. If people keep more of their wages they buy more stuff or invest in more stuff. That creates demand and that demand must be filled by people working and comerce in general all of which is taxed.

See?

Answer 6

The tax cuts did work, government revenue increased by over $800 billion from 2000 to 2006. The problem lies in all the spending done by the Republican party, not the tax cuts.

Answer 7

That's not a fair characterization. One could just as well say that Democrats want to increase taxes to 100%.

There's the Laffer curve. Arthur Laffer, an economist, explained that past a certain point, taxes are too high and act as a disincentive to work, etc. And total tax revenues go DOWN.

The trick is to maximize total tax revenues. Too high is as bad as too low, in terms of tax rates.

We need an economic Goldilocks! But the theory is sound.

Answer 8

Excuse me, but Reagan cut taxes and that increased the revenue to the Treasury. The annual take by the government doubled in his eight years. Don't be absurd that the tax could be zero.

Answer 9

GEORGIE! Man, ignorance abounds on this site...abortions occurred WAY before Roe v Wade, in fact, they are going down in numbers since Roe. Also, do you think all of those poor babies would be paying taxes today, or is it more likely that they would be COLLECTING welfare? Anyhow,to answer the question, LOL! Yes, how far do we cut them? And yes, I support a flat tax.

Answer 10

Write or call your Democratic Congress and tell them to quit adding pork to the bills they pass. Maybe if the government didn't spend more than they take in, we could all get a break. By the way, do you know when the Dems. plan on paying back the money that has been stolen from SS to try to balance the budget?

Answer 11

Such economic ignorance typical of people of your ilk.

There exists a thing called the Laffer Curve, which is based on empirical data that shows that if tax rates are too high or too low, then the government takes in less tax revenues.

It is apparent from the empirical evidence that tax receipts rose (but not immediately, of course) following marginal tax rate reductions from excessive rates. This has occurred when top marginal rates have been reduced rates in excess of 35%.

This is because people with money will shelter it from taxes, and will use tax avoidance (not evasion) methods to prevent greedy government from taking so much of their money.

We've never said that no taxes were needed, just that the "soak the rich" class-envy of the economic illiterates would not be beneficial to the economy or the nation in the long term. We say this because it is true.

Conversely, I could say that people like you believe we can tax ourselves into prosperity.

At least my opinions on this are born of facts and truth, rather than irrational class envy.