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.
And for those of you who genuflect at the altar of the Party of the Jackass (Democrats), JFK was the first when he pushed Congress into passing his tax-cut agenda which, among other things, reduced the top rate from 90% to 23% and guess what - revenues increased because the economy increased
well, you prefer other ways they can "increase revenue" as you so simplistically put it?.
George Bush's grandfather, the late US senator Prescott Bush, was a director and shareholder of companies that profited from their involvement with the financial backers of Nazi Germany.
The Guardian has confirmation from newly discovered files in the US National Archives that a firm of which Prescott Bush was a director was involved with the financial architects of Nazism
well, you prefer other ways they can "increase revenue" as you so simplistically put it?.
George Bush's grandfather, the late US senator Prescott Bush, was a director and shareholder of companies that profited from their involvement with the financial backers of Nazi Germany.
The Guardian has confirmation from newly discovered files in the US National Archives that a firm of which Prescott Bush was a director was involved with the financial architects of Nazism
well, you prefer other ways they can "increase revenue" as you so simplistically put it?.
George Bush's grandfather, the late US senator Prescott Bush, was a director and shareholder of companies that profited from their involvement with the financial backers of Nazi Germany.
The Guardian has confirmation from newly discovered files in the US National Archives that a firm of which Prescott Bush was a director was involved with the financial architects of Nazism
Why do liberals think taxing the rich is the be all and end all solution to everything? Working people in this country are not going to magically see bigger paychecks, more food on the table, less inflation, if we tax the rich more. In the end, nothing is accomplished. If high taxes equaled more prosperity, then why is a place like Oakland, or south-central L.A. down in the dumps? Why are there a lot of poor people in Washington Heights, Manhattan or Harlem?
You've really swerved right into the simple truth here.
Taxing the "rich" only serves to enrich government, and bureaucrats waste the money they receive on useless programs, ridiculous studies, and hand outs for people who don't deserve them. Hells bells, we are even giving cell phones to food stamp recipients now! Did you know that? People who have them refer to them as "Obama phones".
All the while, bureaucrats speak of reductions in spending on defense, the one thing that, according to the Constitution, they are expected to spend money on, as one of the reasons for establishing the Federal Government is "to provide for the common defense"! That is a requirement. It is not optional.
Further, the Constitution says that the Federal Government is to promote (key word, "promote") the "general welfare" (read, "well being"); in other words, see to it that it does not impede, but enables prosperity.
Excessive regulation, over taxation of business, and burdensome standards placed on auto manufacturers, for example, is not how you "promote" and enable prosperity.
The more money left in the private sector, the more prosperous as a nation we become, the more our standard of living increases because of the inovative products that are produced.
That is how this nation became the richest nation in the history of the world, and the envy of all nations (except for Muslim nations who hate us because of our prosperity!).
I think the better argument to make is simply that the rich own a super majority of all of the wealth in the U.S. Raising taxes on the poor or middle class would barely have any affect at all while raising taxes even a tiny bit on the rich would yield substantially more revenue. It's a simple matter of mathematics. I think the simplest solution is to just let the Bush tax cuts end for EVERYONE. We survived without it (and quite well by the way). Having said that, aside from maybe getting rid of tax loopholes or even reforming the tax system (which won't happen anytime soon), that's all that should be considered on the revenue side of things. Another issue is that the government is simply not collecting enough taxes (the popular figure of ~50% of Americans not paying any taxes right now).
Please read the below, I think it says it all. Who wants to give away their heard earned work, be it grades OR money. Just because someone has earned their money you want to take it away and give it to someone else? I think we need to do totally away with all entitlements, with the sole exception of those that help the kids get food and medical. If you are an adult, you can either get a job, or work for the government for your entitlements, you get nothing else for free, unless you get charity from your local religious organization.
You've really swerved right into the simple truth here.
Taxing the "rich" only serves to enrich government, and bureaucrats waste the money they receive on useless programs, ridiculous studies, and hand outs for people who don't deserve them. Hells bells, we are even giving cell phones to food stamp recipients now! Did you know that? People who have them refer to them as "Obama phones".
All the while, bureaucrats speak of reductions in spending on defense, the one thing that, according to the Constitution, they are expected to spend money on, as one of the reasons for establishing the Federal Government is "to provide for the common defense"! That is a requirement. It is not optional.
Further, the Constitution says that the Federal Government is to promote (key word, "promote") the "general welfare" (read, "well being"); in other words, see to it that it does not impede, but enables prosperity.
Excessive regulation, over taxation of business, and burdensome standards placed on auto manufacturers, for example, is not how you "promote" and enable prosperity.
The more money left in the private sector, the more prosperous as a nation we become, the more our standard of living increases because of the inovative products that are produced.
That is how this nation became the richest nation in the history of the world, and the envy of all nations (except for Muslim nations who hate us because of our prosperity!).
Historically, raising taxes on the rich equals a better economy for everyone else.
it does NOT say that "when tax rates are increased, revenue decreases," or vice-versa.
it simply says that there is a point in the tax code where it is possible that increased rates lead to lower revenues, or vice-versa.
it's scary to me how many people misunderstand this small but important distinction. The whole idea is really only relevant when you have insanely high tax rates, like 80 or 90%.
Baloney!
Look, I have heard Art Llaffer discuss this and explain this "curve" on many ocassions as he has appeared on various news and other forums. It has been called the "Llaffer Curve"; but, he says the concept is not his, but has been known and discussed even by people such as John Maynard Keynes:
"Nor should the argument seem strange that taxation may be so high as to defeat its object, and that, given sufficient time to gather the fruits, a reduction of taxation will run a better chance than an increase of balancing the budget. For to take the opposite view today is to resemble a manufacturer who, running at a loss, decides to raise his price, and when his declining sales increase the loss, wrapping himself in the rectitude of plain arithmetic, decides that prudence requires him to raise the price still more--and who, when at last his account is balanced with nought on both sides, is still found righteously declaring that it would have been the act of a gambler to reduce the price when you were already making a loss."
Moreover, the graph shows what has been proven historically, as various administrations have increased or decreased taxes. I cited the Kennedy, Reagan, and Bush tax cuts, which proved to increase revenues.
As Llaffer himself explains:
"The basic idea behind the relationship between tax rates and tax revenues is that changes in tax rates have two effects on revenues: the arithmetic effect and the economic effect. The arithmetic effect is simply that if tax rates are lowered, tax revenues (per dollar of tax base) will be lowered by the amount of the decrease in the rate. The reverse is true for an increase in tax rates. The economic effect, however, recognizes the positive impact that lower tax rates have on work, output, and employment--and thereby the tax base--by providing incentives to increase these activities. Raising tax rates has the opposite economic effect by penalizing participation in the taxed activities. The arithmetic effect always works in the opposite direction from the economic effect. Therefore, when the economic and the arithmetic effects of tax-rate changes are combined, the consequences of the change in tax rates on total tax revenues are no longer quite so obvious."
Suffice to say, there is ample proof of the effect of increasing or decreasing tax rates on federal revenue. If the Obama administration were to increase rates now, as he and the left advocate for (believing that it is the solution to the lack of revenue), they will be sadly disappointed by the result, because economic activity, already slowed to a near standstill by a lack of confidence in the near future, will not increase, but likely decrease further.
What we need are more tax payers. This will only happen when the federal government realizes their folly in the over regulation by this administration, the threat imposed by the Obamacare albatross, and other policies that are driving businesses to close, rather than new businesses starting up.
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.
