Originally posted by no1marauderDo you deny that taxing any activity, tends to reduce the amount of it?
No one claimed either of the things you said in the last paragraph. YOU claimed that cutting capital gains rates increases revenue in the long run; the data says that is false. And most capital gains are not investment in the economic sense; they are mere speculative trading of paper for paper that produce nothing of value for the economy.
Originally posted by normbenignYes, I absolutely deny that. It depends on which activity and how much it's taxed.
Do you deny that taxing any activity, tends to reduce the amount of it?
In 1993 the Democrats passed the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, which increased taxes, mostly on the wealthy, and increased capital gains taxes.
Talk us through the ill effects that bill had on economic growth, jobs and the stock market in the 1990's.
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperThen you absolutely deny reality. True, economic activity can increase after taxes are raised, and vice versa, that's because there are a billion factors effecting that activity. One thing that there is no getting around is the more something costs the less people will do it. So in those periods that economic activity increased after a tax hike, they just didn't increase as much as they might have without the increase. It's the whole rationale behind sin taxes, i.e. taxes on alcohol, tobacco. And now that those groups are too small they will now impose a sin tax on everyone with the CO2 tax. These taxes are to deter activity, as alllll taxes do. They deter people from helping each other by detering the voluntary trade of value for value.
Yes, I absolutely deny that. It depends on which activity and how much it's taxed.
In 1993 the Democrats passed the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, which increased taxes, mostly on the wealthy, and increased capital gains taxes.
Talk us through the ill effects that bill had on economic growth, jobs and the stock market in the 1990's.
A tax is a fine for doing good.
A fine is a tax for doing bad.
Originally posted by WajomaSo what level of taxes will lead to optimal economic activity?
Then you absolutely deny reality. True, economic activity can increase after taxes are raised, and vice versa, that's because there are a billion factors effecting that activity. One thing that there is no getting around is the more something costs the less people will do it. So in those periods that economic activity increased after a tax hike, they just ...[text shortened]... trade of value for value.
A tax is a fine for doing good.
A fine is a tax for doing bad.
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperBill Clinton's famous retroactive tax increases. When these took place, the nation was already recovering from a very mild recession at the end of kinder and gentler Bush 41. There isn't an economist in the world that will argue that tax increases stimulated the economy. The truth is that the economy sputtered along with very minimal growth for most of Clinton's first term.
Yes, I absolutely deny that. It depends on which activity and how much it's taxed.
In 1993 the Democrats passed the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, which increased taxes, mostly on the wealthy, and increased capital gains taxes.
Talk us through the ill effects that bill had on economic growth, jobs and the stock market in the 1990's.
1 edit
Originally posted by normbenignI'm not arguing that taxes stimulate the economy. I'm arguing that unless you're talking about very dramatic numbers taxes have a negligible effect at best, especially when we're talking about the top two income brackets.
Bill Clinton's famous retroactive tax increases. When these took place, the nation was already recovering from a very mild recession at the end of kinder and gentler Bush 41. There isn't an economist in the world that will argue that tax increases stimulated the economy. The truth is that the economy sputtered along with very minimal growth for most of Clinton's first term.
Actually it did NOT sputter along. Taxes were raised in 2003. Here's 2004 on (you may have to plug in the dates yourself)
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp-growth
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper"I'm not arguing that taxes stimulate the economy. I'm arguing that unless you're talking about very dramatic numbers taxes have a negligible effect at best, especially when we're talking about the top two income brackets."
I'm not arguing that taxes stimulate the economy. I'm arguing that unless you're talking about very dramatic numbers taxes have a negligible effect at best, especially when we're talking about the top two income brackets.
Actually it did NOT sputter along. Taxes were raised in 2003. Here's 2004 on (you may have to plug in the dates yourself)
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp-growth
Of course the economic impact of taxes, increased or decreased rates is in addition to numerous other factors. Increased taxation can't boost the economy, and they may not raise additional revenue, depending on the amount and on their negative factor on economic activity.
Taxes were also raised at the end of Bush 41s presidency.
Two Presidents in a row raised taxes on the "rich". What goes on regardless is the upward spiral of spending regardless of the Party of the current President. Obama is probably no worse than McCain would have been, and Bush no better than Dole or Kerry. Tax cuts aside, spending increases are the common thread. Even if there are no budget increases, baseline increases in the range of 7% to 8% grow the budget exponentially, and that has to stop, whether we get additional tax revenues or not.
$700 b in ten years or $70 b a year doesn't scratch a $1.6 T deficit. That kind of deficit is similar to a guy making $1k a month spending an extra $800 per month. This guy needs to almost double his income, hardly likely, or cut out a lot of spending, at least possible if difficult.