Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.

A Q for the Wealth Creators

13567…10

Comments

  • PurpleJ
    PurpleJ Member Posts: 37,778
    1. Cutting tax rates only results in increased tax revenue if you're on the right side of the curve. I'm pretty sure we aren't on the right side of the curve.

    2. The ideal result of taxation isn't to maximize tax revenue, but to maximize economic growth. All the Laffer Curve illustrates is the point where taxable revenue is maximized. Maximum levels of growth occur on the left side of the curve, with rates below that of the revenue maximizing point.

    3. Even if that survey was valid, it wouldn't prove shit. Those are opinions.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • topdawgnc
    topdawgnc Member Posts: 7,840
    The ultimate question: Who can spend money more efficiently. The government or the private sector. I believe in the private sector. However, it can't just be about taxes.

    Here in Texas we have low taxes, however, we also have other factors that create a "surround sound" of savings. Tort laws are very much in favor of the business community, property is abundant and there is not a lot of regulation to prevent growth. Unions are kept in check, which allows for a business dollar to go farther.

    We also have a large population, which helps. And we have a great family draw. Cities are clean, vibrant, and our education system is strong.

    Let's face facts. People aren't anxious to move to Topeka, Kansas. And if they move to Kansas City, there is a good chance they end up in Missouri.

    I am also amused we are assuming Kansas' success/failure after only one year.

    If we use that measuring stick Reagan would never had seen a second term ...

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • PurpleJ
    PurpleJ Member Posts: 37,778
    topdawgnc said:

    The ultimate question: Who can spend money more efficiently. The government or the private sector. I believe in the private sector. However, it can't just be about taxes.

    Here in Texas we have low taxes, however, we also have other factors that create a "surround sound" of savings. Tort laws are very much in favor of the business community, property is abundant and there is not a lot of regulation to prevent growth. Unions are kept in check, which allows for a business dollar to go farther.

    We also have a large population, which helps. And we have a great family draw. Cities are clean, vibrant, and our education system is strong.

    Let's face facts. People aren't anxious to move to Topeka, Kansas. And if they move to Kansas City, there is a good chance they end up in Missouri.

    I am also amused we are assuming Kansas' success/failure after only one year.

    If we use that measuring stick Reagan would never had seen a second term ...

    The key is, as always, what is the most efficient allocation of resources. Spot on.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • AZDuck
    AZDuck Member Posts: 15,468
    edited July 2014
    http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blog/2010/09/14/the-laffer-curve-debunked-part-one/

    image
    [T]he problem is, something very destructive happened in the translation of this economic theory into political language and policy. In the popular conservative version of the Laffer Curve, no debate over the location of Point A is even tolerated, because cutting tax rates is said to ALWAYS generate more government revenue.

    In effect, Region B, the part of the curve in which lower tax rates produce sharply lower government revenue, has simply been banished from the discussion.

    image

    Once you do that, however, the Laffer Curve no longer functions as a curve at all (see Figure Three). If lower rates always produce more revenue, as the right likes to claim, the Laffer Curve becomes the Laffer Line, and Point A, the sweetspot, stands at a tax rate of zero.

    While that makes no sense mathematically, politically it is an enormously appealing notion. It’s like telling someone with an obesity problem that the best way to lose weight is to always eat more ice cream — more times than not, their eagerness to believe overwhelms any skepticism.
    Purp - the thing is that as a matter of policy, nobody seems to want to discuss the utility of the curve. Since a bunch of trained economists don't think that it can be used to guide policy, the Laffer Curve probably shouldn't be used to formulate policy.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • AZDuck
    AZDuck Member Posts: 15,468
    edited July 2014
    Mike said:
    We know that states that on average sates without an income tax have had double the population growth and more than double the income growth of states with very high income taxes over the last 10 years.

    We know that Texas (with no income tax) gained 1 million jobs over the last five years, California (high income tax), lost jobs.
    Not the case.

    http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-california-job-growth-beats-rest-of-us-ucla-anderson-forecast-says-20140613-story.html

    http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/march_april_may_2014/features/oops_the_texas_miracle_that_is049289.php?page=all

    image
    But this model of economic development, which also combines a highly regressive tax system with minimal levels of public investment, has not allowed Texas to keep up with America’s best-performing states in per capita income or rates of upward mobility. And that’s what most people, including in Texas, most want the economy to deliver.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Swaye
    Swaye Moderator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 41,741 Founders Club
    edited July 2014
    I left Maryland and moved to Virginia after I retired for a number of reasons, but chief among those was taxes. Single example I know, but I cannot think that I am alone in searching out states that give me more economic freedom. I was willing to move everything I own for it. Who wants to pay a tax for the economic impact of their roofwater runoff? Yes, that's correct, MD taxes the rain that hits your roof. Fuck Maryland.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • MikeDamone
    MikeDamone Member Posts: 37,781
    AZDuck said:

    PurpleJ said:

    AZDuck said:

    Grundle, I know we disagree on this, but I'm of the belief that more money sloshing around in the economy is good for everyone. Even paying useless fucks like me a government salary is good because I spend most of it and the money continues to slosh around the economy - paying other useless fucks at the liquor stores and massage parlors.

    Spending goes down as income rises, and Laffer has been disproven. Also, the structures established by government are notoriously difficult to dismantle - part of the reason why every tax-cutting Republican administration has left ruinous deficits in their wake at the national level, and Brownback is about to crash Kansas into the fucking mountain.

    Laffer has been disproven? This should be good.
    image

    probably not citrus
    Where is the U.S. currently on the Laffer curve? Does anyone know? The laffer curve also demonstrates that at a point, tax cuts will result in less revenue. It doesn't say cutting all taxes to zero will generate more revenue. It simply states there is a level that at which raising or cutting taxes will generate the most revenue. Would a 100% tax rate increase revenue? The whole thing is too simplistic, but if your going to "disprove" it, at least acknowledge what it is trying to communicate.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • AZDuck
    AZDuck Member Posts: 15,468
    Swaye - that's fine. Nobody likes paying taxes. And your circumstances as a retiree are significant because you lost untaxed income in the form of BAH and BAS and are on a limited (and fixed) income as a retiree. States like Florida, Arizona and, I guess, Virginia have made a decision to capture retirees.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • AZDuck
    AZDuck Member Posts: 15,468
    Where is the U.S. currently on the Laffer curve? Does anyone know?
    Nobody does. That's my poont. And we never will.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter