Originally posted by WulebgrI'm middle-class and I pay less in taxes, thanks to George Bush's "irresponsible" tax cuts. I view this as a good thing. The mindset of those excited about giving more of their money to the federal government is a complete mystery to me. The only thing I can figure is that those clamoring for higher taxes must not pay them in the first place.
I admire principles, even when their are misguided, and so I don't call them wrong the way I would call Bush's irresponsible tax cuts wrong.
Government revenues have also increased dramatically thanks to these "irresponsible" tax cuts. The federal deficit has, correspondingly, declined by not quite $100 billion. Again and again, as in this case, tax revenues increase when the tax rate decreases. I also view this as a good thing.
What, pray tell, is "irresponsible" and "wrong" about Mr. Bush's tax cuts?
1 edit
Originally posted by gpb0216tax revenues increase when the tax rate decreases.
I'm middle-class and I pay less in taxes, thanks to George Bush's "irresponsible" tax cuts. I view this as a good thing. The mindset of those excited about giving more of their money to the federal government is a complete mystery to me ...[text shortened]... ll, is "irresponsible" and "wrong" about Mr. Bush's tax cuts?
You do understand that this is a second-order mathematical relationship, right? Surely I do not have to show you that this is not a hard and fast rule as SVW once preached.
Edit: I'd also like to know (not just from you, but anyone in this thread), are we talking about an increase in targeted transfers of gov't tax revenue that is heavily skewed toward the upper end of the wealth distribution or are we talking about a decrease in the income tax rate at all levels of the progressive tax structure?
Originally posted by telerionWhat I understand is that we see tax revenues increase time after time when tax rates decrease. I don't care if it's a second-order mathematical relationship, based on the president's astrological sign, or has to do with the lunar tides. Tax rate decrease = tax revenue increase.
[b]tax revenues increase when the tax rate decreases.
You do understand that this is a second-order mathematical relationship, right? Surely I do not have to show you that this is not a hard and fast rule as SVW once preached.
Edit: I'd also like to know (not just from you, but anyone in this thread), are we talking about an increase in targete ...[text shortened]... talking about a decrease in the income tax rate at all levels of the progressive tax structure?[/b]
If we see again and again that tax revenues increase when tax rates decrease (while, incidentally, the economy improves), you're facing a steep uphill battle if want to convince me that tax cuts are "irresponsible" and "wrong".
Putting all of that aside, however, what I find most baffling is the belief in the higher-tax fanbase that only the government knows what to do with my money. It is, after all, my money. I earned it. I realize that statement is anathema to those advocating ever-higher taxes (or certainly never any lower taxes, if taxes temporarily can't be raised). But the fact remains that every dollar pushed down the government's money rathole is one less dollar I'm able to use to support my family and myself.
And before you jump to the conclusion that I'm some heartless Republican bastard, you should know I worked in a county foodstamp / AFDC (aid for families with dependent children) office for two years. The waste, corruption and lying I saw in that one small office in one county in one state convinced me that I needed to keep the government and my money as far apart as legally possible.
Lower taxes good. Higher taxes bad.
1 edit
Originally posted by gpb0216Tax rate decrease = tax revenue increase.
What I understand is that we see tax revenues increase time after time when tax rates decrease. I don't care if it's a second-order mathematical relationship, based on the president's astrological sign, or has to do with the lunar tides. ...[text shortened]... art as legally possible.
Lower taxes good. Higher taxes bad.
Ok. I just wanted to be sure that I had your word on it before I laid into your position.
First, it is provable mathematically that your statement is incorrect. Also, the economics upon which the Laffer curve was hypothesized denies your statements.
I will mix both arguments below. Let t(i) be the income tax rate faced by individual i in the economy (ranges from 0 to 1). Let y(i) be individual i's income. Finally abbreviate tax revenues as TR.
TR= sum over all i of t(i)*y(i). Now from this equation it would first appear that an increase in t(i) for all i would increase, not decrease, TR. The more you tax of people's incomes, the more revenue, right? Well not exactly. The correct way to write the equation is TR= sum over all i of t(i)*y(t(i)). That is the income one generates is also a function of the tax rate. Why? Well the economic argument is that if a rational agent faces a very high tax on say labor income, they will substitute away from labor activities and consume more leisure instead. The real after tax wage has been decreased and so it is optimal to supply fewer hours. In economics, we usually relate this with the following equation:
(marg. utility of consumption)*(real wage)*(1-tax rate)= (marg. utility of leisure). Basically. why work so hard when you aren't really getting paid as much?
So does this mean that if we decrease the tax rate on individuals we will always achieve higher tax revenues? No. The simplest counterexample is a tax rate of 0. At this rate, TR=0. Obviously as low as you can get without subsidizing people. In evidence, what really happens is that there is a second-order relationship. Tax revenues will increase as the tax rate on individuals increases up to a point. After that point tax revenues will decrease as the tax rate gets higher. It basically looks like the trajectory of a baseball thrown into the air, a hump shape. It goes up, reaches a maximum, and then descends.
you're facing a steep uphill battle if want to convince me that tax cuts are "irresponsible" and "wrong".
I never made those claims, nor am I out to convince you of them. Your partisanship has muddled your brain. I'm just here to tell you. Don't go ranting about a subject of which you are ignorant. I don't care what any of your silly hacks tell you. You don't know the arguments behind your claims, and it shows.
I think I'll dig up a link to the drubbing I gave SVW when he brought this up. I actually took him back to real data to prove that he was mistaken. That's always the best bet by the way. Go back to the data. Screw what a liberal or conservative hack is selling you. They probably have no clue what they are talking about either, and frankly they don't care. They're the political equivalent of a used-car salesman.
But the fact remains that every dollar pushed down the government's money rathole is one less dollar I'm able to use to support my family and myself.
I suppose you make no use of any gov't programs or services? I guess you drive on privately owned and maintained roads. When you by beef or poultry, it's never the subsidized kind. You must homeschool your kids, have a private police force that watches your home, and your own private mail courier service to drop of your mail.
Of course, you are happier when you get more money back. First, you take for granted every gov't service to which you are privileged (even ones you don't use like courts, prisons, military, etc.). Second, it is not society's job to look after your particular best interest, but rather the interest of the whole. Such is decided by a mechanism of universal suffrage, if you have a better idea, then let's hear it. I don't think it's going to change the outcome of any elections though.
And before you jump to the conclusion that I'm some heartless Republican bastard, you should know I worked in a county foodstamp / AFDC (aid for families with dependent children) office for two years. The waste, corruption and lying I saw in that one small office in one county in one state convinced me that I needed to keep the government and my money as far apart as legally possible.
That doesn't make you not a "heartless Republican bastard (If you are at all reasonable on social issues, you may be Libertarian). It just means that you were employed by an inefficient gov't agency. Guess I should add "pay your salary" to the list of things the gov't would no longer do for you.
On a lighter note, I will say that I do sympathize. Gov't programs can be very inefficient and taxes are distortionary. I'm just saying don't take those facts and jump on the extremist "no tax" bandwagon. A lot of emotion in that crowd, but no understanding.