I often bring up "Hauser's Law" in this forum. Here's an op-ed from him that explains the relationship between tax revenue and gross domestic product better than I could. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...209741952.html?mod=WSJ_article_MoreIn_Opinion
Taking tiny snapshots here and there in time and using them to "prove" such a dubious claim of effect proves nothing. Bottom line is people with more money than they need will invest it unless they are absolute morons, and investments off every kind end up creating jobs. What we DO know is that whenever the uber-wealthy have been given huge tax cuts (Reagan and Bush eras) our economy stumbles badly, unemployment rises disastrously, and 95% of America suffers.
The wealthiest in american have increased their wealth of the last 10 years. Why do they need tax cuts?
http://www.businessinsider.com/nobel-economist-says-we-have-to-prosecute-fraud-or-else-the-economy-wont-recover-2010-11
I'm fine with throwing the book at the white collar criminals. However, the idea of taxing the rich "more" misses the point of the OP article. Lower tax rates on the rich results in a bigger GDP. Taxes are effectively a flat 19% tax on whatever GDP is. If the govt. is to have more revenues, grow GDP. But like the taxes being a flat 19% of GDP, the richest X% are going to make a good chunk of the income. Consider the math: If GDP is $100 and the rich get 50% of it, there's $50 left for everyone else. If GDP is $1000 and the rich get 50% of it, there's $500 left for everyone else. That $500 divided among the rest of us sure makes it easier to be middle class than splitting $50 among us.
Who is talking about cutting their taxes? Democrats want to raise their taxes from their existing level.
The point is that we should focus on raising GDP rather than focusing on tax rates. According to Hauser, no matter the tax rate we've tried (and clearly there's a collar on the rates), the government takes 19% of GDP. In other words, tax rates don't really matter. So, why shouldn't we lower taxes for everyone who pays taxes?
They want to let the cuts EXPIRE on them, and it only goes up a few percentage points. LOL at the end of the world. Expire =/= raise unless you are seriously into republican talking points. Isn't it like 37% to 39%?
are we not already in huge amounts of debt? The first thing people learn when investing is to pay off any debt you have, right?
lol at somebody always thinking it is fine to raise somebody ELSE'S taxes. You really should be the one to decide when somebody has enough wealth. We could give you some sort of title.
It has always killed me that if you tax a person making 10K a year 19% and someone making 1M a year 19%, it will be the guy making 10K a year complaining. $1900 vs $190,000 Thanks for your contribution $1900 guy. Is there anything else the government can do for you?
Johnny has a debt of $10k. He now has a good job, and decided he would take out $500 a pay check for his retirement, and only pays the minimum on his $10k debt. Is this a bad idea? edit: the minimum is the interest payment
Maxiep's reason for posting was to show the relative meaninglessness of tax rate in relation to actual revenue collected. This thread has nothing to do with how the government spends it afterwards.
It all depends on the incentives for retirement saving and the cost of only making minimum payments on his 10k loan.
Depends on what the $10K loan was used for. If it bought you a house and you live in it and your payment is $100/month, you probably don't care so much about paying it off. If you bought a computer (kick ass one!) and use it to earn your living, the interest is a cost of doing business. &c
No. If the govt. wants to build a bridge, it should issue bonds to build it and pay those off over time.
