How long does federal tax revenue have to increase at 4 times the rate of inflation before the Left admits that tax rates and tax revenue are interrelated, that there IS a Laffer Curve, and that these particular tax cuts have in fact worked?
2007-09-22 05:02:11 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
idiogenetic, how do you explain the smoothing out of the boom-bust cycle that we've experienced in the last quarter century?
How do you explain that tax revenue continues to dramatically increase at the peak of the rate cycle and over 3 years after the Fed started a record long series of interest rate HIKES?
The only real capital is earnings. The only real growth comes from reinvestment of earnings. Thus a tax on earnings leaves less to reinvest - it is precisely when earnings are taxed away that the economy relies more heavily on monetary policy to support growth - but that is unsustainable - it must end up in runaway inflation and no growth (e.g., the 1970s) or the money must get pulled back in, causing a deep recession or depression. In the high tax New Deal regime we were more dependent on the Fed - now we're LESS so, which is why the Fed can focus on inflation, which is why we have almost no inflation.
2007-09-22 05:14:13 · update #1
Your problem idio is that you cannot tell the difference between money and capital. Also you seem to think it's the government's money, hence your use of the word "give." For the sake of everyone in the economy, if you want all people to have more wealth, you can't tax it all away, you can't reduce the creation of wealth - you want to allow it. That is why the lower tax regime has allowed greater wealth-creation and why, wherever you draw the line to define "wealthy," more and more people are crossing it. The rich are richer, true, but they're also a lot more numerous.
In freer, less-regulated, lower-tax regimes, the rate at which people BECOME wealthy increases dramatically. That's good for the middle class.
2007-09-22 05:16:54 · update #2
How long is forever? They have never admitted that JFK believed in the same policy, so that's 40+ years....you think they're going to change now?
2007-09-22 05:06:54 · answer #1 · answered by makrothumeo2 4 · 4⤊ 2⤋
Giving the wealthy a tax decrease is affecting me. through not pulling in sufficient funds to cover uncomplicated government working expenses, the government borrows funds to fulfill its desires, and reasons a devaluation of the dollar. whilst the dollar has much less finding out to purchase ability, it has an identical effect as though the government replaced into gathering extra taxes from me. So tax cuts for the wealthy ability much less funds in my pocket, era. or maybe nonetheless every person have been given a injury from Bush's tax cuts, it particularly is the wealthy that have been given greatest tax cuts. the two way, the government is heavily in debt good now and there are 2 wars happening, why in international do you think of it fairly is a good time for tax cuts? Whoever will become president will ought to advance taxes at last, via fact government finance because it stands isn't sustainable on an eternal foundation. What approximately this do you not comprehend?
2016-10-19 10:11:04 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You're wrong. The Laffer curve is laughable and low interest rates are responsible for the boom and bust.
Productive investment didn't increase as the supply-siders predicted, it decreased. If anything, investment increased in India and China- the exact opposite of a sound domestic policy. In fact, remember the tax holiday when corporations could repatriate all those profits they'd squirreled-away overseas? That was a huge revenue windfall.
You don't give tax breaks to those who need it least. You tax those who need the money the least to help those who need it most.
That's the moral thing to do.
Addendum:
[The only real capital is earnings.]
Wrong again....see.....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_(economics)
By the way, the Fed smoothed boom and bust by blowing perpetual bubbles. Now they can't stop the bust. We're the largest debtor nation on earth thanks to the Fed, supply-side economics and the Conservatives who didn't get it.
2007-09-22 05:06:59 · answer #3 · answered by ideogenetic 7 · 3⤊ 3⤋
Let's see... it's impossible to sail off the edge of the earth, so you're either saying that the Bush tax cuts will never be allowed to expire or that a program can never be paid for by increasing taxes.
Since the Republicans are still having their way in Congress, it's possible the cuts will be re-authorized, so you could be right.
If taxes are increased, it's also possible they won't pay for new programs because we have too much debt to pay. The national debt (the total borrowing of the US for all of its history), has nearly doubled during the 7 year Bush administration. So when Bush goes, we will all pay, like it or not.
idogenic and Kurt are completely right on the economics and the effect on the middle class.
2007-09-22 05:15:40 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 2⤋
Worked for who? The corporations? The super wealthy who are getting the cuts? Tax the rich and redistribute the wealth...that is what this country was founded upon. What percentage of the population benefits from repealing the estate tax?, or the luxury tax on 2nd and 3rd houses? or the new 60 ft. boat? I don't know of any "middle" class Americans benefiting from these cuts. It sure didn't work for me! Get rid of these tax cuts for the rich and ALL will benefit.
2007-09-22 05:14:26 · answer #5 · answered by kurt k 3 · 2⤊ 4⤋
Democrats will never admit anything has been successful unless they did it. Pretty sad. They have been trying for the past 8 years to get the draft reinstated. That way the draft can be blamed onto Bush and the Republicans. Blackwater is just the newest ploy. That way we won't have enough troops to replace the mercenaries.
2007-09-22 05:07:31 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
a ten percent flat tax across the board is the best thing that could happen to this country
its about time for it to happen
Ron Paul 08
time for a real change
2007-09-22 05:17:28 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
getting pelosi and the pelosi/reid regime to see the patently obvious is going to be a tough fight...good luck...i agree with you totally.
2007-09-22 05:47:06 · answer #8 · answered by koalatcomics 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't get it either. Increased tax rates do not equal increased revenue, in all likelihood revenue will fall after a tax increase.......
2007-09-22 05:11:08 · answer #9 · answered by Brian 7 · 3⤊ 2⤋
you can rant about simple economic theory all you want, but it doesn't counter the goals of the left.
you say those tax cuts worked, but a tax cut of any kind doesn't "work" for what they want. i don't think i need to spell it out. someone above has already asserted that robbing from the rich to give to the poor is "the moral thing to do"
such thinking is easy to argue against, but the fact is, morality is not the motivation
2007-09-22 05:12:34 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 5⤋