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.
Look at this this way: Let's raise everyone's tax rates up by 1%. Suppose that equals $10 Billion in new revenue. Well, that means that $10 billion has been TAKEN OUT OF THE ECONOMY. So next year the tax revenue will be even less because companies have had to cut back, downsize, fire employees, decrease benefits, etc. All because the $10 billion that would have gone into the economy went to the government. But now there is going to be even less revenue next year. Because less people will be working, and now more people are going to require even more government assistance (unemployment benefits, etc). Which means MORE SPENDING by the government.
Do you see how this works? It's not complex.
Sure, it will bring in a little more revenue up front, but it will cause more damage in the coming years and decrease revenue even more.
...On the other hand, lowering taxes has the opposite effect in both regards:
If you lower tax rates, you will see less revenue up front (that is a short term loss). But then you will see that revenue increasing in the coming years. As well as a DECREASE in spending, due to fewer people requiring government assistance now that they are working.
In the 80's they called it Reaganomics and "voodoo economics."
But the real term is Classical Economics. It's the only thing that works.
Look at this this way: Let's raise everyone's tax rates up by 1%. Suppose that equals $10 Billion in new revenue. Well, that means that $10 billion has been TAKEN OUT OF THE ECONOMY. So next year the tax revenue will be even less because companies have had to cut back, downsize, fire employees, decrease benefits, etc. All because the $10 billion that would have gone into the economy went to the government. But now there is going to be even less revenue next year. Because less people will be working, and now more people are going to require even more government assistance (unemployment benefits, etc). Which means MORE SPENDING by the government.
Do you see how this works? It's not complex.
Sure, it will bring in a little more revenue up front, but it will cause more damage in the coming years and decrease revenue even more.
...On the other hand, lowering taxes has the opposite effect in both regards:
If you lower tax rates, you will see less revenue up front (that is a short term loss). But then you will see that revenue increasing in the coming years. As well as a DECREASE in spending, due to fewer people requiring government assistance now that they are working.
In the 80's they called it Reaganomics and "voodoo economics."
But the real term is Classical Economics. It's the only thing that works.
It does pay to run the Federal Government for 8 days.
Look at this this way: Let's raise everyone's tax rates up by 1%. Suppose that equals $10 Billion in new revenue. Well, that means that $10 billion has been TAKEN OUT OF THE ECONOMY. So next year the tax revenue will be even less because companies have had to cut back, downsize, fire employees, decrease benefits, etc. All because the $10 billion that would have gone into the economy went to the government. But now there is going to be even less revenue next year. Because less people will be working, and now more people are going to require even more government assistance (unemployment benefits, etc). Which means MORE SPENDING by the government.
Do you see how this works? It's not complex.
Sure, it will bring in a little more revenue up front, but it will cause more damage in the coming years and decrease revenue even more.
...On the other hand, lowering taxes has the opposite effect in both regards:
If you lower tax rates, you will see less revenue up front (that is a short term loss). But then you will see that revenue increasing in the coming years. As well as a DECREASE in spending, due to fewer people requiring government assistance now that they are working.
In the 80's they called it Reaganomics and "voodoo economics."
But the real term is Classical Economics. It's the only thing that works.
Look at this this way: Let's raise everyone's tax rates up by 1%. Suppose that equals $10 Billion in new revenue. Well, that means that $10 billion has been TAKEN OUT OF THE ECONOMY. So next year the tax revenue will be even less because companies have had to cut back, downsize, fire employees, decrease benefits, etc. All because the $10 billion that would have gone into the economy went to the government. But now there is going to be even less revenue next year. Because less people will be working, and now more people are going to require even more government assistance (unemployment benefits, etc). Which means MORE SPENDING by the government.
Do you see how this works? It's not complex.
Sure, it will bring in a little more revenue up front, but it will cause more damage in the coming years and decrease revenue even more.
...On the other hand, lowering taxes has the opposite effect in both regards:
If you lower tax rates, you will see less revenue up front (that is a short term loss). But then you will see that revenue increasing in the coming years. As well as a DECREASE in spending, due to fewer people requiring government assistance now that they are working.
In the 80's they called it Reaganomics and "voodoo economics."
But the real term is Classical Economics. It's the only thing that works.
Too bad how tax cuts always lead to a recession. The Bush recession that happened 5 years after his tax cuts was quite a doozie. Even Bush's stimulus checks given to most people could NOT stop it.
Look at this this way: Let's raise everyone's tax rates up by 1%. Suppose that equals $10 Billion in new revenue. Well, that means that $10 billion has been TAKEN OUT OF THE ECONOMY. So next year the tax revenue will be even less because companies have had to cut back, downsize, fire employees, decrease benefits, etc. All because the $10 billion that would have gone into the economy went to the government. But now there is going to be even less revenue next year. Because less people will be working, and now more people are going to require even more government assistance (unemployment benefits, etc). Which means MORE SPENDING by the government.
Do you see how this works? It's not complex.
Sure, it will bring in a little more revenue up front, but it will cause more damage in the coming years and decrease revenue even more.
...On the other hand, lowering taxes has the opposite effect in both regards:
If you lower tax rates, you will see less revenue up front (that is a short term loss). But then you will see that revenue increasing in the coming years. As well as a DECREASE in spending, due to fewer people requiring government assistance now that they are working.
In the 80's they called it Reaganomics and "voodoo economics."
But the real term is Classical Economics. It's the only thing that works.
You're right. What we need is a $25 per hour minimum wage. That will make dollars flow into the economy, big time.
Too bad how tax cuts always lead to a recession. The Bush recession that happened 5 years after his tax cuts was quite a doozie. Even Bush's stimulus checks given to most people could NOT stop it.
You KNOW that the economy increased after the Bush tax cuts.
The cause of the recession was the government sponsored "affordable housing" collapse. That is common knowledge.
You KNOW that the economy increased after the Bush tax cuts.
The cause of the recession was the government sponsored "affordable housing" collapse. That is common knowledge.
You beat me to it!!
Tax cuts have consistently raised revenues. Anyone who cares would look at a chart of the FED revenues and see that under Bush, it rose every year. Kennedy was the dominant force in the concept, but history is like poison to a fool.
Look at this this way: Let's raise everyone's tax rates up by 1%. Suppose that equals $10 Billion in new revenue. Well, that means that $10 billion has been TAKEN OUT OF THE ECONOMY. So next year the tax revenue will be even less because companies have had to cut back, downsize, fire employees, decrease benefits, etc. All because the $10 billion that would have gone into the economy went to the government. But now there is going to be even less revenue next year. Because less people will be working, and now more people are going to require even more government assistance (unemployment benefits, etc). Which means MORE SPENDING by the government.
Do you see how this works? It's not complex.
Sure, it will bring in a little more revenue up front, but it will cause more damage in the coming years and decrease revenue even more.
...On the other hand, lowering taxes has the opposite effect in both regards:
If you lower tax rates, you will see less revenue up front (that is a short term loss). But then you will see that revenue increasing in the coming years. As well as a DECREASE in spending, due to fewer people requiring government assistance now that they are working.
In the 80's they called it Reaganomics and "voodoo economics."
But the real term is Classical Economics. It's the only thing that works.
EXCELLENT ! ! ! ! ! ! You've just put your finger on a major reason the economy went down the tubes a few years ago. Wages stagnated and, along with tax, corporate America saw fit to raise prices, driving up the costs for the wage earners. People had no extra money to spend, and it went down in a geometric progression from there.
Today, the "jobs" won't mean much if there is not also "PAY" so that people can again spend money to keep the economy flowing. And, you're right..... The more we have to give to the government, the less we have to keep the economy flowing. So, raising taxes is not a good idea.
The economy went down the tubes for reasons other than taxes. Namely irresponsible corporate investment fueled by a sense of essentially passing the buck. No need to worry about the likelihood of a mortgage-backed security defaulting if you can quickly sell it off to some other sap.
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.
