Democrats set to impose largest tax hike in history, take $2,000/year from you

That is hardly relevent. If tax cuts lead to increased tax revenues, then they would be the solution to those problems, not the cause of them.

 

We are always gonna be better off with the government getting as little of our money as possible.

Here is a solution you liberal dems should go for, How about a national sales tax around 24% (of course we still would not tax food and diapers and the real needs like is the case now).

This would enable us to rid this country of income tax and you can choose to live in a state that will tax you on income (northeast states where liberals run things and cost of living is through the roof) or states like Texas that don't tax you on income.

Also with no income tax the payroll tax would go away thus lowering the cost of goods that a purchased in bulk.

The rich can pay a ridiculious amount on their high end items plus the large tax.

 

Nitpick noted and you are correct. I wrote faster than I could think.

 

I'm not an expert on supply side economics but I don't think tax cuts can correlate that well with increased tax revenues. While tax cuts do stimulate the economy there is a diminishing return out of how much of an increase in revenue happens due to more GDP. At the sametime government spending has been shown to also be the economy but like the tax cuts your still removing money from the government and adding to the deficit even while you're trying to get more tax revenue.

 

The relationship between tax cuts and tax revenue is not linear but dependant on a load of factors including the current tax level.

There is some point where a small tax increase or tax decrease will have no net impact on tax revuenue. Let's say that level is 25% (not considering the progressive issues). Ok, then that would mean if you increased the tax rate to 30%, you reap less then what you expected because the increased tax rate actually slowed the economy down and led to lower taxes....but if you decreased taxes to say 20%, you'd get more tax revenue because of the acceleration in the economy. Of course, we haven't factored in inflation which might make the whole thing moot anyway.

Its basically an "S"-curve. Go to low, and you flatline because the tax rate is so low you get nothing. Go to high and you flat line the other way because you're taxing so much you kill buisness activing and you may actually start to decrease revenue.

So you want to hit that point of "inflection" where there's no more up to go to increase revenue.

Now, if you argue in favor for supply-side economics, you're basically saying we are past the point of inflection (or optimal point) and too high on the S - curve and need to fall back.

Problem, no one has done enough to figure out where this point is. Even if you looked at the past 200 years of budgets and the following year's revenues, and the tax rate - you'd have a mess of a statistical problem not to mention only 200 data points to work with along with 100's of variables.

So the real answer - no one has any clue. Thus supply side economics is just pie-in-the-sky, and it's reckless to based fiscal policy on this.

 

I don't consider myself a "liberal dem," but I am all for a consumption tax. I think it could seriously improve the system of taxation, encourage savings, and even provide a path that would allow us to do away with Social Security eventually.

 

As mentioned above, it is not a linear relationship and the increase in tax revenues is due almost solely to the increased GDP. Increased taxes do not lead directly to a slowdown in the economy, as we saw from '93 to 2000.

Besides, even though we have increased tax revenues, the government has increased spending FAR more than the increased tax revenues, which is the reason for the record (in dollars) deficit we have seen recently.

 

The theory behind tax cuts is that the increase in the GDP is the result of tax cuts. Obviously cutting taxes without increasing the GDP would lower tax receipts, that is simple math. If taxation doesn't affect the economy, then you could simply tax everyone for one year such that we all were leftr with subsistence level incomes and there would be enough money to pay for all of our government services, pay off the debt, have huge stockpiles of money for services in future years, etc. Then the next year, you return taxes to current levels, because of all of the savings from not having to pay anything on the debt, there should be enough money to have a balanced budget, especially if the huge surplus is generating revenue (maybe loaned to other countries that can actually pay). That isn't they way things work in the real world, and there is likely some relationship between taxation and GDP.

Completely irrelevent to the discussion. We were talking about tax cuts and their relationship to tax receipts. You are looking at the other side of the ledger. I am all for cutting spending by the way. I think there is very little the government should be doing outside of the military.

 

you're ignorant of the fact that Dubya inherit a huge SURPLU$$ upon inauguration and proceeded to piss it away in 7 months

The fact is Dubya has been an anti-Republican, a reckless spender Under his watch, his reckless spending has led to the largest Budget deficit in history. remember that, upon his inauguration, he had inherited a huge surplus.

 

No, No and Hell No.

It places disproportionate tax burden on young families w children, and favors empy-nesters. Black-market activites would skyrocket under such a system.

I am for a flat-tax system. there is no incentive to cheat, as there are no tax loopholes. Thus Corporate tax dodgers (such as Accenture, Haliburton, Tyco ,etc) wold have to pay tax. for years, they're been able to sheltered their Bilions from US taxation. When Corporate welfare recipients pay their share of income taxes, the effect is to lessen the tax burden on the middle class.

 

I'll rather pay 2000 dollars in taxes than kill people around the world

 

Children use more resources and should be taxed more, not less, imo. If you can not absolutely afford them, please do not have them. It should not be encouraged. People do not need to have children just to fulfill their own selfish emotional needs. We need to look out more than in. There are enough people in the world already. Our ecosystems are falling apart. The Earth's resources are dwindling. 40,000 people day from starvation every day.

 

I note that you were not able to come up with an intelligent rejoinder.

Taxes went up under the first Bush and also under Clinton. This tax increase was followed by the biggest economic expansion in our nation's history. Thus, it follows that increasing taxes does not, in and of itself, slow the economy.

 

Not if you put in the appropriate exemptions to reduce the regressive nature of a sales tax.

They haven't in other places in the world where they have VAT, national sales tax, or other forms of consumption tax.

But you are still taxing income rather than spending, which does nothing to change our culture from one that values spending to one that values savings. A consumption tax would begin to change that.

 

People were complaining about New Orleans refugees not getting back on their feet after 2 years, and here we have TJ making excuses for the Federal govt. that are 6 years old. Those attacks happened to two cities not the entire nation. Yes it should slow us down for a while, because of the financial centers there, but all those industries and in fact the cities that were hit are all back on their feet.

I don't think the you can excuse the Federal govt. for that anymore.

 

Sadly conservative economic theories are all that Jorge knows about econ, politics or the interaction between the two. It is true that he has learned some detailed stuff at least generally related to this topic at his job to the extent that his bosses believe it will help them make some money off Jorge's work.

 

Well there is good spending and there is bad spending.

Good spending creates value for society later on. For example the Interstate Highway System of Eisenhaer. Education spending, health care expenditures ( not the present system necesssrily in which at least 1/4 goes to insurance company paperwork, advertsing and other wastes as viewed from the delivery of healthcare viewpoint).

Bad spending does not create much value for our society. Spendinggov money forr unnecessary expensive items with no bid contracts,cost plus contracts, or purchasing often times these unnessary items that only have one or two sellers who can easily righ the market. Such an example is much and proably most of our defense (should be relabelled war) budget.

 

I am sure plenty of pork can be found in the budget. Although defense is not where I'd be looking, if the Iraqi war has taught us anything is that the US military does not have enough man/equipment to handle possible future conflicts.