JohnStOnge wrote:I've posted the data on what I'm about to write before and if y'all want I can do it again or you can take my word for it. In the United States, the general trend since the 1970s as been towards the government collecting substantially more per capita in Federal taxes. I'm talking about in absolute terms. Government gets way more per person or per household now in inflation adjusted terms than it did in 1979. WAY more. The problem has not been a decline in how much tax the Federal government is collecting relative to the size of the population it is serving. That has increased substantially. The problem is that the amount of money it's SPENDING per capita has increased even more substantially.
I suppose they can increase the top marginal rate to a point and get somewhat more revenue. But at some point that would be counterproductive. Anyone should be able to see intuitively that the Laffer Curve concept is valid. If you set the top marginal rate at 100% most people aren't going to bother to make money beyond income below that which would be subject to the top marginal rate. I think it's pretty obvious that if you set the top marginal rate at 20% you'll get a lot more tax revenue than you would if you set it at 100% because people will see it as worth their while to make money beyond the level where the top marginal rate kicks in.
Somewhere between 20% and 100% is a point where revenue would be maximized. And a reasonable person has to wonder whether or not 80% is beyond that point. In any case at some point governments are not going to be able to solve the problem of continuing to increase per capita spending by goring the rich more. The long term solution is to change the paradigm with respect to what government is responsible for and reduce spending. It's cliche but it's true: We don't have a revenue problem. We have a spending problem. Increasing revenue, to the extent that that's possible through increasing top marginal rates, will only result in government spending even more beyond what it's taking in. We have plenty of experience to tell us that increasing revenue is associated with government increasing spending beyond that which can be supported by the increase in revenue.
Our infrastructure is crumbling and we're at war with everything, what do you expect?
You matter. Unless you multiply yourself by c squared. Then you energy.
"I really love America. I just don't know how to get there anymore."John Prine
Speaking of Laffer...it's a mixed bag at best of economists agreeing that a cut in taxes would increase revenue according to the University of Chicago School of Business - not exactly a hot-bed of progressive economics. And not a single economist "strongly agrees with the notion.
kalm wrote:Speaking of Laffer...it's a mixed bag at best of economists agreeing that a cut in taxes would increase revenue according to the University of Chicago School of Business - not exactly a hot-bed of progressive economics. And not a single economist "strongly agrees with the notion.
kalm wrote:Speaking of Laffer...it's a mixed bag at best of economists agreeing that a cut in taxes would increase revenue according to the University of Chicago School of Business - not exactly a hot-bed of progressive economics. And not a single economist "strongly agrees with the notion.
kalm wrote:Speaking of Laffer...it's a mixed bag at best of economists agreeing that a cut in taxes would increase revenue according to the University of Chicago School of Business - not exactly a hot-bed of progressive economics. And not a single economist "strongly agrees with the notion.
The question's about GDP and not taxes per se but the two are obviously related so I'll go with it. I think that economists disagree on whether not increasing or decreasing taxes when we're at a given level would increase or decrease revenue. But I doubt that they disagree that there is some point at which either increasing or decreasing rates would result in revenue loss. A "maximum" yield zenith.
It's common sense. I just looked it up and saw that someone like me married filing jointly is in the top tax bracket at $400,001. Right now the top rate is 39.6%. So let's say right now I'm right at $400,000 per year and I'm thinking about whether I should make the effort to increase my income to $500,000. Right now maybe I'd do it as I'd get to keep $60,200 of the additional $100. But let's say the top rate is 80%. Now I'm talking about making $100,000 worth of effort to get $20,000. Is it worth it? I don't know. But you can see that it becomes less likely that I'll make the effort. It's not like I'm poor and need to go through a bunch of trouble to make another $20,000.
Well, I believe that I must tell the truth
And say things as they really are
But if I told the truth and nothing but the truth
Could I ever be a star? Deep Purple: No One Came
We are becoming the United Socialist States of America. They say the middle class is going away because the rich are getting richer leaving everyone else behind. I say the gap is getting wider, yes the rich are getting richer, however more people are going on government paycheck and entrepreneurism is becoming a bad word. Anyone see the 60 minutes piece where 400 people who had their unemployment running out in WV went to a crooked attorney who got them approved for SS Disability? 400 people applied and over 380 were approved. Big investigation going on. Politicians have to get re-elected so Democrats are giving everything away to those illegal aliens (healthcare, education, drivers license etc) as their base grows. Republicans are trying to fight a losing battle as the super wealthy are their donors and have taken advantage of the tax laws for their own benefit. Voters need to get new blood in Washington that is not tainted from years of wrangling and infighting. Start new
"Born in other countries, yet believing you could be happy in this, our laws acknowledge, as they should do, your right to join us in society, conforming, as I doubt not you will do, to our established rules. That these rules shall be as equal as prudential considerations will admit, will certainly be the aim of our legislatures, general and particular." --Thomas Jefferson, letter to Hugh White, 1801
putter wrote:We are becoming the United Socialist States of America. They say the middle class is going away because the rich are getting richer leaving everyone else behind. I say the gap is getting wider, yes the rich are getting richer, however more people are going on government paycheck and entrepreneurism is becoming a bad word. Anyone see the 60 minutes piece where 400 people who had their unemployment running out in WV went to a crooked attorney who got them approved for SS Disability? 400 people applied and over 380 were approved. Big investigation going on. Politicians have to get re-elected so Democrats are giving everything away to those illegal aliens (healthcare, education, drivers license etc) as their base grows. Republicans are trying to fight a losing battle as the super wealthy are their donors and have taken advantage of the tax laws for their own benefit. Voters need to get new blood in Washington that is not tainted from years of wrangling and infighting. Start new
Big shock!
Anyone that makes something of themselves somehow cheated, stole it, or exploited someone to get it. Being successful is 'bad' now in America.
Stifle small business, innovation, creativity....why go on. That is what the left wants in this country...everyone dependant on the government for all of their needs.
putter wrote:We are becoming the United Socialist States of America. They say the middle class is going away because the rich are getting richer leaving everyone else behind. I say the gap is getting wider, yes the rich are getting richer, however more people are going on government paycheck and entrepreneurism is becoming a bad word. Anyone see the 60 minutes piece where 400 people who had their unemployment running out in WV went to a crooked attorney who got them approved for SS Disability? 400 people applied and over 380 were approved. Big investigation going on. Politicians have to get re-elected so Democrats are giving everything away to those illegal aliens (healthcare, education, drivers license etc) as their base grows. Republicans are trying to fight a losing battle as the super wealthy are their donors and have taken advantage of the tax laws for their own benefit. Voters need to get new blood in Washington that is not tainted from years of wrangling and infighting. Start new
Big shock!
Anyone that makes something of themselves somehow cheated, stole it, or exploited someone to get it. Being successful is 'bad' now in America.
Stifle small business, innovation, creativity....why go on. That is what the left wants in this country...everyone dependant on the government for all of their needs.
Ummm hyperbole much? When is the Socialist Party of America taking over ?
I run a business in one of the most highly regulated states in the country. I'm swimming in code compliance, payroll tax filings, etc. Government is a giant pain in the ass
Monopoly and crony capitalism also stifle entrepreneurship. I see more than a few on the right supporting both.
putter wrote:We are becoming the United Socialist States of America. They say the middle class is going away because the rich are getting richer leaving everyone else behind. I say the gap is getting wider, yes the rich are getting richer, however more people are going on government paycheck and entrepreneurism is becoming a bad word. Anyone see the 60 minutes piece where 400 people who had their unemployment running out in WV went to a crooked attorney who got them approved for SS Disability? 400 people applied and over 380 were approved. Big investigation going on. Politicians have to get re-elected so Democrats are giving everything away to those illegal aliens (healthcare, education, drivers license etc) as their base grows. Republicans are trying to fight a losing battle as the super wealthy are their donors and have taken advantage of the tax laws for their own benefit. Voters need to get new blood in Washington that is not tainted from years of wrangling and infighting. Start new
Big shock!
Anyone that makes something of themselves somehow cheated, stole it, or exploited someone to get it. Being successful is 'bad' now in America.
Stifle small business, innovation, creativity....why go on. That is what the left wants in this country...everyone dependant on the government for all of their needs.
We're talking about the 1% dude...
You know the 400 people in America who control 50% of all of the money
Anyone that makes something of themselves somehow cheated, stole it, or exploited someone to get it. Being successful is 'bad' now in America.
Stifle small business, innovation, creativity....why go on. That is what the left wants in this country...everyone dependant on the government for all of their needs.
Ummm hyperbole much? When is the Socialist Party of America taking over ?
I run a business in one of the most highly regulated states in the country. I'm swimming in code compliance, payroll tax filings, etc. Government is a giant pain in the ass
Monopoly and crony capitalism also stifle entrepreneurship. I see more than a few on the right supporting both.
I do the same thing here in the People's Republic of Minnesota. Big pain in the ass is the norm here in MN.
Anyone that makes something of themselves somehow cheated, stole it, or exploited someone to get it. Being successful is 'bad' now in America.
Stifle small business, innovation, creativity....why go on. That is what the left wants in this country...everyone dependant on the government for all of their needs.
We're talking about the 1% dude...
You know the 400 people in America who control 50% of all of the money
Anyone that makes something of themselves somehow cheated, stole it, or exploited someone to get it. Being successful is 'bad' now in America.
Stifle small business, innovation, creativity....why go on. That is what the left wants in this country...everyone dependant on the government for all of their needs.
We're talking about the 1% dude...
You know the 400 people in America who control 50% of all of the money
And yet if we take 100% of EVERYTHING those top 400 have we can't even balance the budget for one year. We have a spending problem not a revenue problem.
If fascism ever comes to America, it will come in the name of liberalism. Ronald Reagan, 1975.
JohnStOnge wrote:I've posted the data on what I'm about to write before and if y'all want I can do it again or you can take my word for it. In the United States, the general trend since the 1970s as been towards the government collecting substantially more per capita in Federal taxes. I'm talking about in absolute terms. Government gets way more per person or per household now in inflation adjusted terms than it did in 1979. WAY more. The problem has not been a decline in how much tax the Federal government is collecting relative to the size of the population it is serving. That has increased substantially. The problem is that the amount of money it's SPENDING per capita has increased even more substantially.
I suppose they can increase the top marginal rate to a point and get somewhat more revenue. But at some point that would be counterproductive. Anyone should be able to see intuitively that the Laffer Curve concept is valid. If you set the top marginal rate at 100% most people aren't going to bother to make money beyond income below that which would be subject to the top marginal rate. I think it's pretty obvious that if you set the top marginal rate at 20% you'll get a lot more tax revenue than you would if you set it at 100% because people will see it as worth their while to make money beyond the level where the top marginal rate kicks in.
Somewhere between 20% and 100% is a point where revenue would be maximized. And a reasonable person has to wonder whether or not 80% is beyond that point. In any case at some point governments are not going to be able to solve the problem of continuing to increase per capita spending by goring the rich more. The long term solution is to change the paradigm with respect to what government is responsible for and reduce spending. It's cliche but it's true: We don't have a revenue problem. We have a spending problem. Increasing revenue, to the extent that that's possible through increasing top marginal rates, will only result in government spending even more beyond what it's taking in. We have plenty of experience to tell us that increasing revenue is associated with government increasing spending beyond that which can be supported by the increase in revenue.
Our infrastructure is crumbling and we're at war with everything, what do you expect?
Cutting non priority defense funding, entitlement funding, non essential programs, duplicative agencies and operations and using that money to pay down the debt and invest in education and science would be a good place to start. How about reduce foreign aid and end subsidies for companies that post billions in profits. We spend too much. WAY TOO MUCH.
houndawg wrote:
Our infrastructure is crumbling and we're at war with everything, what do you expect?
Cutting non priority defense funding, entitlement funding, non essential programs, duplicative agencies and operations and using that money to pay down the debt and invest in education and science would be a good place to start. How about reduce foreign aid and end subsidies for companies that post billions in profits. We spend too much. WAY TOO MUCH.
And yet if we take 100% of EVERYTHING those top 400 have we can't even balance the budget for one year. We have a spending problem not a revenue problem.
I completely agree
and am NOT in favor of changing the present Taxation system or percentages
Taxes is not our Problem
However: Lets not pretend that 400 people controlling (something like 35% to 50%)
of all the assets is just fine
Q: Name something that offends Republicans?
A: The actual teachings of Jesus
Anyone that makes something of themselves somehow cheated, stole it, or exploited someone to get it. Being successful is 'bad' now in America.
Stifle small business, innovation, creativity....why go on. That is what the left wants in this country...everyone dependant on the government for all of their needs.
We're talking about the 1% dude...
You know the 400 people in America who control 50% of all of the money
Which makes it even more understandable that I would want to control what little capital I do have. I don't need millions of dollars. Is just like to hang on to what I earn, and right now Bill Gates and George Soros are just not as much of an immediate threat to me as is a confiscatory government. Taxing the sh1t out of the 1% isn't going to help my own situation because the government is a crappy steward of revenue.
"You however, are an insufferable ankle biting mental chihuahua..." - Clizzoris
Which makes it even more understandable that I would want to control what little capital I do have. I don't need millions of dollars. Is just like to hang on to what I earn, and right now Bill Gates and George Soros are just not as much of an immediate threat to me as is a confiscatory government. Taxing the sh1t out of the 1% isn't going to help my own situation because the government is a crappy steward of revenue.
This ^
It astounds me that we can't run our country on the revenue pulled in through the present tax system
Q: Name something that offends Republicans?
A: The actual teachings of Jesus
Which makes it even more understandable that I would want to control what little capital I do have. I don't need millions of dollars. Is just like to hang on to what I earn, and right now Bill Gates and George Soros are just not as much of an immediate threat to me as is a confiscatory government. Taxing the sh1t out of the 1% isn't going to help my own situation because the government is a crappy steward of revenue.
This ^
It astounds me that we can't run our country on the revenue pulled in through the present tax system
You are obviously confused by the number of fingers in the pie and the externalities placed on the fed's by big industry.
kalm wrote:
You are obviously confused by the number of fingers in the pie and the externalities placed on the fed's by big industry.
Uh-oh, kalm is pulling out the "externalities" argument again. Is the "you didn't build that" speech far behind? Did you write the speech?
Ganny thinks abundant clean air and water, a sold infrastructure, management of public owned natural resources, pollution related healthcare costs, environmental protection, and protecting the straits of Hormuz are all free or self regulated.
GannonFan wrote:
Uh-oh, kalm is pulling out the "externalities" argument again. Is the "you didn't build that" speech far behind? Did you write the speech?
Ganny thinks abundant clean air and water, a sold infrastructure, management of public owned natural resources, pollution related healthcare costs, environmental protection, and protecting the straits of Hormuz are all free or self regulated.
And kalmy thinks all those things entitle the government to treat all income as government-sourced and whatever you get to keep of that income is by the good grace of the same government. Oh, and in that list you basically list environmental protection three separate times.
kalm wrote:
Ganny thinks abundant clean air and water, a sold infrastructure, management of public owned natural resources, pollution related healthcare costs, environmental protection, and protecting the straits of Hormuz are all free or self regulated.
And kalmy thinks all those things entitle the government to treat all income as government-sourced and whatever you get to keep of that income is by the good grace of the same government. Oh, and in that list you basically list environmental protection three separate times.
Well it's really important dammit!
Question: how do we quantify a clean environment and standard of living in theses equations? What's their value? Is it ever measured or considered?
Well, I believe that I must tell the truth
And say things as they really are
But if I told the truth and nothing but the truth
Could I ever be a star? Deep Purple: No One Came
