Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If cutting 67 million in taxes allows businesses to bring in 200 million more in tax revenue you pay off debt.
It's a common misconception that merely cutting the business income tax increases the amount of businesses that move to your state. Other factors come into play, such as housing costs, cost of living, WEATHER (I hear Wisconsin is lovely in the wintertime) etc.
Do you have examples, where this has happened before?
Or did you find this sketched on the back of a napkin by some clown named Laffer?
Yes it does happen but it just keeps the control and manipulation going.
Look at 1986, the last year of the lower cap gains rate. Revenue sky rocked and then dropped as the higher rate kicked in. After 97 revenue sky rocketed again after rates dropped.
Yes it does happen but it just keeps the control and manipulation going.
Look at 1986, the last year of the lower cap gains rate. Revenue sky rocked and then dropped as the higher rate kicked in. After 97 revenue sky rocketed again after rates dropped.
i'm asking for examples where a lowered tax rate brought in more revenue, and you're showing me an example where an increased tax rate brought in a year with more revenue (1986), followed by several years of less revenue (1987-1994). I'm not sure how that answers my question.
if you're talking about 1996, just look at the stellar performance of the stock market in those years where revenue was increasing, and then notice how the revenue falls once the market falls. obviously a surging stock market will generate more tax revenue from capital gains, which has nothing to do with the tax rate.
Yes it does happen but it just keeps the control and manipulation going.
Look at 1986, the last year of the lower cap gains rate. Revenue sky rocked and then dropped as the higher rate kicked in. After 97 revenue sky rocketed again after rates dropped.
If only continually raising existing taxes and implementing new ones, without checks on spending, didn't snuff out the economy, socialism might have something going for it... well aside from the whole lack of freedom thing.
Maybe becsue there is also spending cuts? Government doesn't have a revenue problem, they have a spending problem.
Wisconsin has a revenue problem. And so has the USA as a nation since 2001. In fact, the USA as a nation has had the same problem as an average American household... incomes have stayed put at below 2000 levels (in constant dollars) but inflation has not.
In fact, the federal revenue in 2009 was lower than it was in 2001. So, even with spending frozen at 2001 levels, we would still see a deficit. And you still think there is no revenue problem?
I don't think the case with Wisconsin, or any other state, is any different. How about Texas and out massive deficit projection for next two years? Spending problem?
PS. On capital gains tax, under Bush, capital gains tax was reduced from 20% to 15% in 2003. Revenue from the tax in 2000 (at a higher capital gains tax rate) was $119 billion. In 2007, with lower rate, the revenue was $122 billion. One could try to sell that as an increase of $3 billion. To them, I advise that when comparing historic numbers, the proper way is to convert to constant dollars to see any gain or loss. Using that basic principle, revenue from capital gains tax in 2000 was $143 billion. In other words, revenue dropped by 15% between 2000 and 2007.
Last edited by EinsteinsGhost; 02-23-2011 at 01:47 PM..
Walker didn't GIVE anyone anything, a Tax cut isn't giving anyone anything it's TAKING less.
One day liberals will wake up and realize that there is a difference between giving and taking and they'll also realize that the money a person earns doesn't belong to the gov. who then allows them to keep whatever they feel is fair.
You're exactly right without intending to be...what Walker is doing has anything to do with helping the economy, it simply has to do with an ideology that despises taxation.
The myth that cutting taxes sparks job creation gets thrown around like it's the theory of gravity.
If you cut a rich person taxes and they invest the money in a hedge fund that destroys American companies, how does that help the economy? If they invest in an American company that lays off American workers and ships the jobs to China, how does that help the American economy?
It's unbelievable the fantasy world that some of you supply siders live in. "Sqwawk, investment spurs job growth, sqwawk, Reagan said so"
In some instances it may, but increasingly, it does not.
If only continually raising existing taxes and implementing new ones, without checks on spending, didn't snuff out the economy, socialism might have something going for it... well aside from the whole lack of freedom thing.
Last edited by World Citizen; 02-23-2011 at 03:03 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Trickle down economics doesn't work...
