Posted by silentpadna on 10/15/2012 10:57:00 PM (view original):
Bottom line is it's not a zero sum game.  Tax cuts have proven that.  Intuition tells us that.  The Laffer Curve (simplified) also tells us that.  In the most extreme form, if tax rates were 100%, there would be zero revenue to the government because no one would produce.  If tax rates were 0%, there would be zero revenue because no one would pay (obviously).  It follows then that somewhere along the tax rate line is an area of peak revenue (I believe it shifts somewhat). 

With tax cuts in place and with businesses being able to better compete in the world marketplace, growth will follow (as it has every time it's been tried since the early 20th century).  The overall GDP growth is the "increase in the tax base".

BTW, when taxes have been cut, the wealthy have paid an even larger share of the revenues.

Those that want to raise tax rates on the wealthy aren't really interested in increasing government revenues, nor are they interested in the "rich paying their fair share".  If they were interested in those things, given the current behavior of revenue versus tax rates, they would not be clamoring for tax increases for the rich.

The best way to increase taxes on the rich and increase government revenue is to allow more wealth to be created.  Stifle opportunity in the name of "fairness" and no one wins - except those who are already rich and those who have the power.

+1

<<http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/3/bush-tax-cuts-boosted-federal-revenue/

Ummm...that's not a study, it's an opinion piece by a columnist at a very right wing newspaper. >>

That's what passes for a "study" when Paul "Washin' the clean pots and pans for a photo op" Ryan cites 6 "studies" that verify the Romney budget and tax plan.

Well for some weird reason I cant get left wing extremists to write the truth about Bush.

Odd huh?

Closing the loopholes and shutting the door on many of the deductions that favor the ultra wealthy will encourage them to invest more in the private sector and less in the game that is our tax code system.

As silentpadna said "allowing more wealth to be created" is a proven winner.

Anyone who has paid attention or cares to start now, can see that the US government is the least efficient controller of funds and has been for a very long time. Not many examples of well run government projects, it is generally the very opposite.

On a different issue:

I am fairly disappointed in the media's insistence on claiming Romney will "increase defense spending by 2 Trillion over the next decade". This is a figure that is just not knowable. His plan is to keep defense spending at 4% of GDP. No one can know what GDP will be in 10 years, so to put a number on it is deceptive. Additionally I'm not even sold that he would actually follow through on it as it seems more like a talking point aimed at the many many out of work defense contractors in Virginia, a state he desperately needs to win.

History teaches us that the last time our military was pared down this much we were attacked at Pearl Harbor. The industrial giant that is the US was able to eventually recover and get back to being the world's preeminent superpower, but any historian can tell you that had our military never been pared down so much to begin with we certainly wouldn't have taken so long making a dent in Japan's advances. We took many more casualties due to this simple fact.

Can we spend wiser and become leaner while still maintaining our standing as the world's greatest super power? I think so. There is far too much fraud and waste going on and THAT is definitely the greatest area where we could actually cut costs in the defense budget. Unfortunately neither candidate is addressing that issue.

If anyone is still under the delusion that al-Quada is finished, I feel sorry for you. Not only are they actively attacking us but now with a hard deadline set for withdrawal in the area we have bolstered the enemies' confidence and they can simply wait us out. When military leaders who are on the ground and in harm's way disagree with policy you have to take their objections seriously. THEY know better what they need to succeed.

I am not partisan on this issue, as I feel that W is responsible for half-a$$in' the Iraq war from its inception. We should have had much more boots on the ground and we could have overwhelmed Baghdad so much earlier and avoided the loss of so many more lives and the loss of so many more billions of dollars.

Target the waste and fraud, but don't weaken our defenses. Stop the scare tactics from both sides and discuss the issues openly and honestly.

I'd also like to see a bill passed where politicians can NEVER exempt themselves from any bill or law they pass on the rest of us. If Obamacare is so wonderful why are Senators and Congressmen exempted from participating in it? Total Bullsh*t!

Could enough citizens petition for such a bill? How many would it take?
Could we protest loud enough that some congressman would eventually take that bill to the floor?

Great picture for me.

Biden seems a little confused.

Is he claiming that spending caused the crash? That does not seem accurate.

Once again the actual VP candidae cannot explain why Bush is responsible for the crash!

Just more partisan bullsh*t.

Bush certainly added to the deficit like a drunken sailor, but it is dishonest to act like Bush is the sole culprit.
The deficit has been a problem for decades, and it is getting to the point that if we don't address it NOW, we may not be able to do so at all.

I Agree 100%.

The point is they are mixing up their lies.

They are confusing the Bush spending attacks with the Bush caused the crash attacks.

Like total idiots!

More food for thought:

Please understand I know that the Fed Govt. HAS to do SOMETHING in a disaster, but that is another area that has kicked our a$$ over the last decade or more.
FEMA and whoever else has had to spend billions and billions on all of these disaster areas.

I don't know what the answer is, but how can we continue to rebuild towns and cities every time a tornado or hurricane strikes?

Posted by silentpadna on 10/15/2012 10:57:00 PM (view original):
Bottom line is it's not a zero sum game.  Tax cuts have proven that.  Intuition tells us that.  The Laffer Curve (simplified) also tells us that.  In the most extreme form, if tax rates were 100%, there would be zero revenue to the government because no one would produce.  If tax rates were 0%, there would be zero revenue because no one would pay (obviously).  It follows then that somewhere along the tax rate line is an area of peak revenue (I believe it shifts somewhat). 

With tax cuts in place and with businesses being able to better compete in the world marketplace, growth will follow (as it has every time it's been tried since the early 20th century).  The overall GDP growth is the "increase in the tax base".

BTW, when taxes have been cut, the wealthy have paid an even larger share of the revenues.

Those that want to raise tax rates on the wealthy aren't really interested in increasing government revenues, nor are they interested in the "rich paying their fair share".  If they were interested in those things, given the current behavior of revenue versus tax rates, they would not be clamoring for tax increases for the rich.

The best way to increase taxes on the rich and increase government revenue is to allow more wealth to be created.  Stifle opportunity in the name of "fairness" and no one wins - except those who are already rich and those who have the power.

When taxes are cut the wealthy pay a larger share because the tax cuts work to further concentrate the wealth at the top.

Source?

What actually happens is overall production goes up and more people move upward in class - increasing the tax base.  The idea is that we want MORE people to become wealthy.  The best way for that to happen is to remove obstacles.  Wealth cannot be created without risk.  Risk cannot be taken without the probability of reward.  Remove the reward ---> remove the risk.  Remove the risk ---> remove weath creation.  Remove wealth creation ---> stagnate the economy.

Punishing people who should be rewarded removes the incentive for those with the ability to take risks to actually take those risks. 

 

If you want to perpetuate the poor and remove the ability for upward class mobility, raise taxes on the "rich" in the name of "fairness". 

(BTW, I am not rich - not even close - just in case you wondered).

Posted by silentpadna on 10/16/2012 5:05:00 PM (view original):
Source?

What actually happens is overall production goes up and more people move upward in class - increasing the tax base.  The idea is that we want MORE people to become wealthy.  The best way for that to happen is to remove obstacles.  Wealth cannot be created without risk.  Risk cannot be taken without the probability of reward.  Remove the reward ---> remove the risk.  Remove the risk ---> remove weath creation.  Remove wealth creation ---> stagnate the economy.

Punishing people who should be rewarded removes the incentive for those with the ability to take risks to actually take those risks. 

 

If you want to perpetuate the poor and remove the ability for upward class mobility, raise taxes on the "rich" in the name of "fairness". 

(BTW, I am not rich - not even close - just in case you wondered).

Social mobility rates have declined as the top tax rate has been brought down. I'm not advocating raising taxes (on anyone - rich or poor), but let's not pretend that the rich haven't successfully lobbied for a lower tax bill, accumulated more wealth, and then lobbied for policy that essentially pulls the ladder up with them, making it harder for anyone to follow.

Here is the source for the wealth accumulation, page 4 specifically.

www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33433.pdf

Thanks for that...there's merit to your case of course.  I believe (not based on any evidence mind you) that most of that is a direct result of not just the lobbying, but the result of the lobbying (an important distinction).  Anything that leads to the government picking winners and losers is troubling.

I don't think lobbying itself is a problem - we all should be able to lobby for our own (special) interests (another taboo phrase that needs to be restored to its true meaning - any interest that we speak out for at the exclusion of others is by definition a special interest).

Tax cuts may correlate to wealth concentration, but what would your solution be?  The alternative seems to be to reduce wealth creation, which to me is not a plausible alternative.

I think true wealth creation is driven by demand from a large, gainfully employed population. Tax rates right now are not high. No one is passing on starting a business because they might be hit it big and end up having to pay 35% or 38% or even 50% in federal income taxes. 

We should set policy that reduces barriers to entry. Liquor licenses can run upwards of $150,000. I'm sure you can find hundreds of examples of fees and permits that make starting a business a very expensive and complicated task.

At the same time, we should be setting policy that strengthens workers rights and increases wages for workers relative to the CEO/CFO/COO's pay.

From April 2011:

A study by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP found that the tax rate faced by U.S. companies between 2006 and 2009 was 27.7 percent, compared with an average of 19.5 percent in the rest of the world. Companies based in Japan, Morocco, Italy, Indonesia and Germany faced higher tax rates.

Excluding the United States, companies based in industrialized countries had an average tax rate of 22.6 percent.

"Our tax system has not kept pace with the rest of the world and is hurting the ability of American businesses to create jobs at home," said John Engler, president of Business Roundtable, an association of corporate CEOs, in an interview with Bloomberg.