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.
Cutting taxes does not necessarily lead to higher revenues. If it did then the increased revenue would have continued past 2007. According to the theory of the Laffer Curve, if you are on the left side of the curve then a cut in taxes will lead to lower government revenue, if you are on the right side of the curve then it will lead to higher revenue. Therefore its important to know were on the curve you are.
It could just be that the increased revenue during the mid 2000s was because of the expansion of the housing bubble and even if taxes had been raised or stayed the same that government revenues would have increased.
There is no evidence that cutting taxes yields more revenue. Laffer's curve has been discredited for decades. Reagan cut taxes and the result was an immediate drop in revenues. Bush cut taxes and the result was an immediate drop in revenues.
Let's look at your first two myths, namely that, "0bama's policies have artificially increased the costs everyone pays for electricity and health care." The chart below shows the relative price of electricity since 2000. Notice how it rose consistently from 2000 and that growth slowed from 2009-present?
Verdict:
Now, let's look at health care. Below is a chart from 2000 to the present. Please show us where "0bama's policies have artificially increased the costs everyone pays for health care?" I don't see it. What I do see is a relative constant increase in medical costs.
0bama has been subsidizing wind power, which is expensive, and when wind power comes into an area their electricity costs go up. when 0bama's EPA writes new onerous regulations against coal power plants, they raise their rates.
Health care costs went up for everyone, we don't need a flipping damn chart to tell us our rates went up.
We have people being laid off from work, or have their hours reduced, or businesses raise their prices to pay for their 0bamaCare increases.
Five Guys: Obamacare will boost burger prices | WashingtonExaminer.com
The fight over Obamacare, so far held at the 30,000-foot level, is about to hit home. The latest impact hot off the grill: prices of burgers and hot dogs at Five Guys, the national chain that started in Washington, are going to rise to cover the president's mandated insurance coverage.
"Any added costs are going to have to be passed on," said Mike Ruffer, a Five Guys franchise holder with eight of the popular restaurants in the Raleigh-Durham, N.C. area. He will need all the profits from at least one of his eight outlets just to cover his estimated added $60,000-a year in new Obamacare costs.
What's more, he's iced plans to build another three restaurants until after the administration explains the exact rules and penalties employers will face. The law's plan to have those available March 1 has been pushed back to October.
There is no evidence that cutting taxes yields more revenue. Laffer's curve has been discredited for decades. Reagan cut taxes and the result was an immediate drop in revenues. Bush cut taxes and the result was an immediate drop in revenues.
I think the point people are making is that when taxes are too high they discourage risk investment and reduce purchasing power and lessen the available investment capital.
I think the point people are making is that when taxes are too high they discourage risk investment and reduce purchasing power and lessen the available investment capital.
Of course they are...
Realized Gains as a Percent of GDP were the at their highest point when capital gains were at their lowest. Those years were 1986, 2000 and 2007.
1986 the rate was at 20% and the realized gains were 7.15% of GDP.
2000 the two rates, 29.19% and 21.19% were dropped to just one rate, 21.19%. The realized gains were 5.91% of GDP.
2007 the rate was dropped to its lowest starting in 2005 to 15.7 and the realized gains as a percent of GDP was 6.14%.
It just goes to show that lower rates drove the economy. Three steps forward, one step back. Higher rates drove the economy to a lessor degree. One and a half steps forward and one step back.
I think the point people are making is that when taxes are too high they discourage risk investment and reduce purchasing power and lessen the available investment capital.
I'll give you a chance to win me over. Why would would say a domain name value tax discourage productivity? Perhaps you could overturn the same arguments Ricardo used against the corn laws? If you could cure me of this rent seeking , toll booth economy concept I have, then I shall be you most enthusiastic disciple.
Store.com $514,000
We DON'T valuate businesses, we DON'T valuate sites. We ONLY valuate DOMAINS!
How would lowering taxes help if say someone decided to "invest" in this domain name and not sell it until it went for 1 million? What was supplied? Who created the value of the domain name? Why don't we pay more so we can have two of them?
It just goes to show that lower rates drove the economy. Three steps forward, one step back. Higher rates drove the economy to a lessor degree. One and a half steps forward and one step back.
Of course they did because that prints money. Lowering taxes on assets creates more asset values which command more bank leverage. The problem is the equity eventually runs out and the debt money engine stalls with nothing left but bank credit carrying charges and debt deflation. Lowering interest rates does the same thing until it ends. Bloating asset prices and asset equity will create more bank leverage....until there is no equity.
Which tax cuts? I believe only dead weight taxes only have this effect. I also suspect that lifting taxes can result in an increase in the cost of doing business.
Yes, please. Help me to understand some other way. I am rather tired of the money model I use now.
That is a shame since I have yet to find anyone who can help me with these questions.
If you have to ask "which tax cuts," then I think you better do some research first before asking more questions.
I'll give you a chance to win me over. Why would would say a domain name value tax discourage productivity? Perhaps you could overturn the same arguments Ricardo used against the corn laws? If you could cure me of this rent seeking , toll booth economy concept I have, then I shall be you most enthusiastic disciple.
Store.com $514,000
We DON'T valuate businesses, we DON'T valuate sites. We ONLY valuate DOMAINS!
How would lowering taxes help if say someone decided to "invest" in this domain name and not sell it until it went for 1 million? What was supplied? Who created the value of the domain name? Why don't we pay more so we can have two of them?
People will still do what they have to to survive. There's. difference between surviving and thriving though.
So you think having $20 million versus $22 million has no real impact?
For that extra $2 million I could add a covered Cabana with built-in grill, outdoor fireplace, really nice furniture, 20,000 extra gallons for the pool and a saltwater generator, real Teak pool furniture, outdoor TV (for football and such), outdoors fans, more lighting, heated pool, more fitness equipment, etc.
And you don't see how that adds value? How that means I spent more money on nicer things and put more money in those suppliers pockets? How that gives me an advantage in the market? How that means I can gain higher occupancy levels and gain higher revenue to pay of loans and build more investment properties?
Or how about manufacturing? How I could use that extra money to invest in newer technology, better equipment, better facilities, more efficient heating/cooling systems, better supply chains, etc.?
You really can't see that and how that generates more activity in the economy?
If you have to ask "which tax cuts," then I think you better do some research first before asking more questions.
I am not asking for information. I am asking for a well defined position. Which Reagan tax cut was stimulative? Some taxes have no dead weight loss as a tax on economic rent. Others are DWL taxes. Do you deny this?
Of course they did because that prints money. Lowering taxes on assets creates more asset values which command more bank leverage. The problem is the equity eventually runs out and the debt money engine stalls with nothing left but bank credit carrying charges and debt deflation. Lowering interest rates does the same thing until it ends. Bloating asset prices and asset equity will create more bank leverage....until there is no equity.
You sound like you're stuck in a classroom and are trying to mesh what you've learned with what you're learning via the real world. Maybe you should get out some time and visit some businesses and ask them what they could do with more money from lower taxes and then evaluate how that affects the overall economy.
Right o you're stuck on a broken record and your needle is about to run off the turntable.
If I use your examples and what you've been taught I'd be at the bottom of a bridge rotting away because the world is going to end soon and there's no point on doing anything else but committing suicide.
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.
