shelby
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jan 17, 2011 21:29:02 GMT -5
Posts: 1,368
|
Post by shelby on Apr 21, 2011 16:19:55 GMT -5
So where on the laffer curve would you say we are? Do think we are over taxing or at the apex? I still haven't seen any convincing arguments that trickle down economics work. In fact the wealthy have been hoarding wealth and not reinvesting or if they do it is in other countries. How many jobs have been created since the tax rate fell? How can you say we have no revenue problem, where did you get that idea? Would you be OK cutting corporate welfare or military spending? Or just medicaid medicare food benefits planned parenthood unemployment benefits?
|
|
shelby
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jan 17, 2011 21:29:02 GMT -5
Posts: 1,368
|
Post by shelby on Apr 21, 2011 16:27:47 GMT -5
These are important questions I think too many people look at them with a humongous swooping brush. And a bit too much ego.
|
|
973beachbum
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 16:12:13 GMT -5
Posts: 10,501
|
Post by 973beachbum on Apr 21, 2011 16:28:52 GMT -5
So where on the laffer curve would you say we are? Do think we are over taxing or at the apex? I still haven't seen any convincing arguments that trickle down economics work. In fact the wealthy have been hoarding wealth and not reinvesting or if they do it is in other countries. How many jobs have been created since the tax rate fell? How can you say we have no revenue problem, where did you get that idea? Would you be OK cutting corporate welfare or military spending? Or just medicaid medicare food benefits planned parenthood unemployment benefits? When Laffer made that theory up it was in the early 70's when the top income tax braket was 90%.
|
|
stats45
Established Member
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 16:52:12 GMT -5
Posts: 415
|
Post by stats45 on Apr 21, 2011 17:44:56 GMT -5
What is true about the Laffer curve is obvious, and what is false about the Laffer curve is very misleading.
There are better arguments for tax reductions. Tax reductions very often increase the rate of economic growth. Over time, you can receive the same revenues from a lower tax percentage because there is a larger base of economic growth. The real benefit of tax reductions takes some time, and over time it is probably more realistic to expect similar or slightly higher revenues at a lower rate rather than considerably more revenues at a lower rate. When conservatives make the arguments implied in the Laffer curve and don't look at the revenue numbers, it makes their arguments look ideological rather than practical.
What seem to be very small differences in economic growth (GDP growing at 3.5% per year rather than at 3% per year) have remarkable impacts compunded over a decade. If lower tax rates help create this, they are important and help long-term revenues.
|
|
shelby
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jan 17, 2011 21:29:02 GMT -5
Posts: 1,368
|
Post by shelby on Apr 21, 2011 17:50:17 GMT -5
"When Laffer made that theory up it was in the early 70's when the top income tax braket was 90%."
Well I can see where he gets the idea we have enough or too much tax then lol.
|
|
formerexpat
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 12:09:05 GMT -5
Posts: 4,079
|
Post by formerexpat on Apr 21, 2011 21:31:37 GMT -5
From here: www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/#usgs302aTotal government revenues are 30% of GDP; so 1/3 of production in this country is taken from governments in one way, shape or form. That means nearly 2.5 hours of every day that you work goes towards the functioning of the government and the programs it feels is most important. My mortgage doesn't even cost me that much. The government is more expensive than my home. In fact, the taxes I paid in 2010 exceed the total living expenses of me and my family [wife and two children]. That's when you know it's not a revenue problem.
|
|
flopsy
Well-Known Member
Joined: Feb 5, 2011 23:14:07 GMT -5
Posts: 1,690
|
Post by flopsy on Apr 21, 2011 22:16:12 GMT -5
in response to the original post...
i'm not in favor of more taxes, i do not make 250,000+ (in fact i make $0), and i doubt that i will ever come close to that. i am in favor of less government programs and smaller government.
|
|
tskeeter
Junior Associate
Joined: Mar 20, 2011 19:37:45 GMT -5
Posts: 6,831
|
Post by tskeeter on Apr 22, 2011 12:56:30 GMT -5
People who earn 20% of the AGI pay 38+% of the income taxes. People who earn 13.5% of the AGI pay 2.7% of the income taxes. ... There's some numerical information for you...
(Note that the data included in the quote and the data provided below the quote came from the same data table.)
|
|
txbo
Familiar Member
Joined: Apr 1, 2011 4:07:47 GMT -5
Posts: 547
|
Post by txbo on Apr 23, 2011 5:26:39 GMT -5
Where would they go? I hear this argument a lot and seriously can't imagine. What country is better to live in? Other western countries have higher taxes than us. Countries with lower taxes are not exactly ones I want to live in. It's a hollow threat. Are you kidding? Ask any businessman how he deals with the thousands of pages of laws ranging from tax, to labor, to OSHA, EPA etc., and he will tell you why he can't do business here in the US. If taking a business out of the country is so bad, why would a company like John Deere be spending a 100 million to build in China and India? Go ahead and raise the taxes on the producers and then come here and ask why no one is hiring. Sorry to burst your bubble the reason CAT and DE are building companies in China and India is because they want to sell in China and India. The government of China has a little advantage if you want to sell it here you build it here. Just as GM is doing.
|
|
sunuva
Initiate Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:20:28 GMT -5
Posts: 77
|
Post by sunuva on Apr 25, 2011 9:59:23 GMT -5
I think the apex of the Laffer curve can shift during economic cycles (conditions) and currently we are beyond the apex (that is what I think).
As for government spending I am not using one broad brush and swooping over everything. I feel there is too much bureaucracy within government for theie spending programs and that the money doesn't actually get to where it is destined but gobbled up in the middle. That is where I feel it can be improved and that is where I feel the austerity measures can best be felt.
Many of us in the private sector have had to face these measures through the years. It is just my feeling that the system of government is inefficient. I, certainly, know how I could improve the delivery mechanisms. And I know that would entail a lot of the civil servants becoming part of the world of the unemployed. Perhaps exacerbating the situation in the short term - say two years - but, ultimately, leading to a stronger and more efficient system of delivery.
So be careful when attributing spending cuts as affecting those that are at the tail end of delivery. I feel getting rid of the bureaucracy is the first mode of austerity that should be done.
|
|
formerexpat
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 12:09:05 GMT -5
Posts: 4,079
|
Post by formerexpat on Apr 25, 2011 10:36:46 GMT -5
Also during a time when the US had a manufacturing monopoly on the rest of the world and could tax 90%.
The 30 years following WWII, Germany, Britain and Japan were all rebuilding.
Today, there is no such monopoly and the US needs to be careful about its assumption that it will continue to have the favored status across the world. There are countries that will be more than accommodating to the countries brightest and richest.
The US also needs to recognize that it still wants OTHER countries best and brightest to come here and continue to innovate. Stifling that through high taxation would not be good for the country.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 8, 2024 17:38:45 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 26, 2011 14:25:07 GMT -5
The middle class "DailyKos" types think that their problems will be solved by raising the tax rates of the rich up to 75%. Realistically, with a bloated tax code, it will just give congress the go-ahead to keep spending recklessly. And when the money doesn't come in like they think, we'll be in a deeper hole.
That's why people like Paul Ryan suggest a total overhaul...which would allow for a simpler tax code and greater visibility into the type of revenue the gov't could expect.
But on the whole, I hate the entire idea about "fair share" or all that garbage like "tax cuts cost the gov't money". The premise there is that it's the gov'ts money in the first place.
|
|