Increasing taxes does not necessarily increase revenues. If you increase sales tax people buy less. If you increase income tax then you reduce the incentive to work hard and take risks in order to get rich. If the government wants to increase revenues, raising taxes is a horrible way to do it. Especially during a economic downturn.
Can you point to a single instance of a small increase in marginal income or sales tax rates resulting in decreased revenue? Or a slight decrease in either resulting in increased revenue. History strongly and universally disagrees with your assertion.
Again, show me the evidence. What business will stop trying to generate profits if they are taxed at 39% instead of 36%? History tells us the exact opposite. Marginal tax hikes always increase revenues. Marginal tax decreases always decrease revenues.
Businesses would leave the country/state. To somewhere with lower taxes. This must be true because you claim it. Stop asking people to dig up evidence/charts that I am sure won't satisfy you when you provide none yourself.
Name one that did so after the 1990 or 1994 tax hikes. 2001 Bush Tax Cuts. 1994 Clinton Tax Increases. 1990 Bush Tax Increases. Can you point to anything? Or are you stuck just repeating standard GOP talking points?
correct. it doesn't prevent them from wanting to make more money. It hinders there ability to make more money.
the 2003 Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act. If I thought just blurting out something qualified as proof for you I would of done that to begin with.
I sometimes wonder if we have become a neo-feudal nation. So much of the wealth and power in now concentrated in the hands of the few, and through media manipulation people are persuaded to keep those same powers invested. The Tea Party is clearly a reaction to that, and it almost could be revolutionary except that it was hijacked by the very people whom it originally targeted - a dark twisted irony that is part Machiavelli and part Orwellian. Where else does the rich redirect a movement born out of discontentment with a declining standard of living into a movement to cut taxes for the rich! The tax burden has shifted to the middle class ever increasingly since the mid-80's and wealth has shifted rapidly to the rich. It would actually have been ok since the standard of living was rising for everyone fueled by woman's liberation and massive edges in resources, technology and education. But lets face it, woman's lib really meant that when both parents willing to work you could actually squeeze more out of families and I think that has a lot to deal with the higher divorce rate and growing psychosis of younger generations. Have we really come so far when it use to be a family could live well with just one breadwinner? Working mom isn't the exception, it's the norm now. And our edges have been diminished significantly, which is why labor gets squeezed. Essentially globalization has allowed companies to reap huge wealth cross markets in part by exploiting cheap labor in foreign markets. At the end of the day, this model isn't sustainable as eventually our country isn't capitalism really but more like one massive Amway economy. Dependent on ever increasing consumer spending which is gone for good. That means employment might never recover since demand won't shift up unless consumers foolishly return to their poor habits and restart another bubble period. Unless new wealth is created for the middle class - but where will that come from? Increases in productivity are the main driver but we've already reaped the benefits of the IT revolution and again, in a global economy the cost differentials blows any advantage in productivity we have. It's like we have to work twice the number of hours to match what some dude in India and China prouduce So the question is - when is the breaking point? It's a true test of our democracy - will the public be able to push politicians to change things for the better (i.e. finally decide that wealth must be re-distributed) or will bind faith in the status quo somehow deliver us from a disturbing 30 year trend? Perhaps the answers is simply for the rest of the world to catch-up so that once again our labor force can excel due to the inherent natural advantages of a resource rich country and relative availability of land? I am not sure, but I do think we are in for a bit of a roller coaster for the next few decades.
The tea party has and is been about reducing the deficit by cutting spending. "discontent with the declining standard of living"; what are you referring to?
the momentum that formed the tea party was the anger that banks and AIG were getting bailed out while average people were not - and in fact they were getting hit with taxes that basically few into the wealthy companies. Then the neo-cons took it over in early 2009. But it's roots was the economy, not deficit cutting and spending but that all that money was being moved to the wealthy. It might not have been called the Tea Party but those were the seeds. Rich powerful wealthy Republican organizations took advantage of it and turned it into their movement. The Tea Party then became the movement of well-off conservatives who didn't want to make taxes and were anti-democrat.
Flat tax rate, flat tax rate, flat tax rate Every single penny you earned, above certain number (20K for instance), should pay tax, at the same rate, for every single person. Did I say every single penny? No loopholes, no incentives, no deductibles, no but and if. Rich people should pay more tax because they earn more, but it has to be fair. No random tax break for this or that group, for this year or that year. Billions of dollars will be saved if the tax system is NOT intentionally made over-complicated with millions of loopholes. 75% of tax lawyers can be fired and 50% of IRS employees can be cut. Maybe 20% of congress' "precious" time can be saved and spent somewhere else. Every taxpayer pays flat 25% and ONLY 25% of tax for every penny they earned above 20K. State and Federal government can fight over how those 25% should be distributed. HongKong government can live with 15% of flat tax rate, I can't imagine why US can't live on a 25% rate.
Tax revenues in 2003 dropped by nearly $100 billion from 2002 levels, despite economic growth. In fact, 2004 taxes were still below 2000 levels and no sustainable growth was generated as a result of the tax decreases, as seen by the current recession. Nice try, though. It helps to blurt out things that are true instead of just blurting things out. The latter just makes you look silly. http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200 As it turns out, bailing out the banks (AIG included) was free - and actually profitable to the taxpayer. Pesky facts.
So you want to take a system where the middle class has been stagnating for the last 10 years which the rich are making virtually all new income, and you want to lower the net amount the wealthy pay and increase the burden on the middle class and poor. And that's supposed to somehow improve things for society? Yeah, I can't imagine any differences between Hong Kong and the US.
Because Kerry threatened to rescind them if he won the presidency. Before this it had the intended effect. http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/09/Obama-Tax-Hikes-Dividend-Tax-Increase-Hurts-Seniors-and-the-Economy
But Gates's, Dell's and Buffet's accomplishments far outstrip what their parents could have done for them, and alot of their partners like Steve Wozniak or Charlie Munger could have been jo-blo middle or lower class. A better argument would be 100 years from now against their great grand-children.
