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.
Wrong. It's according to what type of taxcuts are instituted. A taxcut for only lower income taxpayers will not sustain an extended period of economic growth. However, a reduction in capital gains taxes will do so and will eventually increase revenue.
This is absolute nonsense and all trained economist know it. The Laffer Curve was a political gimmick to sell Reagan's tax cut. Ronnie might not have been smart enough to know that it wouldn't work, but everybody else knew.
There really isn't even any empirical evidence that tax policy as practiced in the United States since the 20s has any long term impact on economic growth.
This is absolute nonsense and all trained economist know it. The Laffer Curve was a political gimmick to sell Reagan's tax cut. Ronnie might not have been smart enough to know that it wouldn't work, but everybody else knew.
There really isn't even any empirical evidence that tax policy as practiced in the United States since the 20s has any long term impact on economic growth.
"trained economists" aka keyensians. lol what a joke. go home socialist. you can't collect from me. you can't supress America with your fascist agenda of state run programs.
"trained economists" aka keyensians. lol what a joke. go home socialist. you can't collect from me. you can't supress America with your fascist agenda of state run programs.
No University of Chicago trained monetarist, who actually knows Art Laffer. But nice try at name calling.
BTW when the Reagan Administration tried to get University of Chicago Nobel Laureate George Stigler to endorse supply side economics, he characterized it as a political slogan.
Best solution for a "graduated flat tax" ... IMHO.
#1. Everyone pays something into the system, regardless of level of income. Why should those who rely most on government services pay absolutely nothing?
#2. Everyone pays the same rate for the first $50,000 in income ... say 2%. This does not create undue burden on the lower income individuals and families and still ensures everyone pays the same rate on income needed to meet basic living expenses.
#3. As income increases, the tax pecentage increases, but only on that next tier of income. For example ... regardless of how much you make, you still only pay 2% on your first 50k in income. If you make 100k a year, you pay 2% on the first 50k and say ... 4 % on the next 50k ...for an effective rate of 3% on your first 100k. As your income goes up, so does the rate on that additional income only ... 6% on income between 100 and 150k, etc.
#4. No deductions, no exclusions, no exemptions, no credits, no different rate for unearned income versus earned income, etc. Couple this with a very small consumtion tax on "non basic living expense" purchases and services (exclude food, cars, homes, etc) and now you have a fair system that everyone pays something into (even non-citizens with no US income who choose to spend time in our country and benefit from our government's services).
That is a progressive tax (not a flat tax) process, just like we have today. You just cut the collection (tax) rates, without analyzing the impact on overall revenue.
I find it funny that so many people who claim they're for a "flat tax" would have their taxes INCREASED via that system. Reagan implemented a more of less, graduated flat tax, 3 tiers, 15%, 28% 35% (I'm probably wrong on those %).
I keep hearing flat tax advocates say 13% or 15%, but IIRC it would take a flat tax of about 23% (man I'm tired, I should remember this stuff) to be "revenue neutral". So only the high income folks would benefit under this.
I guess it's more Republican BS designed to fool lower wage workers into voting against their own self-interest. I guess it's tied into a ban on gay marriage!
golfgod
I don't want another tax system that is 'revenue neutral'. The government gets way too much of our money as it is. Any new tax system should take less money out of our pockets.
As for your statement that only high income earners will benefit. So what? Are those high income earners somehow preventing others from earning money? Why is it that some people feel that high earners need to somehow be punished for earning more money than others by having even more of it taken away?
And please explain to me how taking even more money away from high income earners will make lower wage earners more wealthy. I only want an explanation because I have yet to hear a single person calling for more taxes on "the rich" say how those taxes will let lower wage earners salaries go up. Because according to my common sense (and according to history) those kinds of policies do nothing more than pull everyone's income down, especially the lower wage earners.
The purpose of taxes is not to make the incomes of lower wage workers go up. It's to pay our bills. If we don't pay our bills ourselves, we have to borrow the money from China. Good plan, do you think, to be doing that all the time?
Eight years ago, our total revenues covered our total expenses. Since then, things have gone horribly awry. We need to fix that. The people who are going to come up with the money needed to fix that are the people who have all the money...not surprisingly, the very same people who got back all the money that put us into this situation to begin with. That would be the so-called rich people. Get ready for it...it's coming...
1. Would you support changing the present convoluted tax system quagmire to a graduated flat tax?
2. What do you think are the primary reasons the tax system hasn't been overhauled to a graduated flat tax?
3. Would you include any income deductions from taxes due under a system that is a graduated flat tax? (E.g. cost of treatment for major/ catastrophic illness)
4. Do you think the majority of U.S. voters would support a change to this system?
5. What would it take to get a majority of political representatives of each party to support such a system reform?
1-No
2-Money
3-No (it is irrelevant, imo)
4-Yes
5-Tell 'em they'll still have 'job-security'...
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.
