There's a couple problems with this. 1st, the poor already pay a sales tax, in one form or another, on discretionary consumables. Upping it by a few percentage points to offset lost revenue from a mothballed income tax, won't have much effect. Exemptions can be made, like they already are, for most necessities, so to minimize the impact on the working poor (food, rent, medical). 2nd, trashing the income and corporate tax buoys the economy and job creation immensely, creating vast new opportunities for the poor (who can get off their asses and work), to earn more than they do now. The idea is to create wealth and jobs, not to tax everyone with a heavy hand to waste money on inefficient bureaucracies to help the poor. Besides, most of the social programs can be shifted to the States, where they legally ought to reside under the 10th Amendment. With a zero percent federal income tax, States would generate more than enough revenue to cover social programs. Think of it this way. The money exists. It's just who taxes and administers it (at the State, or Federal level).
Exemptions aside, a "few" percentage points would hardly make up for lost revenue associated with foregone income taxes. As for the rest, I think W proved that tax cuts don't automatically create jobs and prosperity for all. And we already know that tax cuts don't actually even pay for themselves: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1692027,00.html http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/13/can-tax-cuts-pay-for-themselves/ http://thebroadermarket.com/post/2580791366/no-tax-cuts-do-not-pay-for-themselves http://www.theatlantic.com/business...r-reagan-and-they-wont-under-pawlenty/240616/ http://www.cnbc.com/id/38810267/Haines_Tax_Cuts_Do_Contribute_to_Nation_s_Deficit http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Colum...y-Tax-Cuts-Dont-Pay-for-Themselves.aspx#page1 http://economistmom.com/2011/06/do-tax-cuts-pay-for-themselves-sorry-no/ http://gulzar05.blogspot.ca/2010/07/do-tax-cuts-pay-for-themselves.html http://economistsview.typepad.com/e...gusto-tax-cuts-do-not-pay-for-themselves.html http://www.forbes.com/sites/briando...les-jfks-advisor-said-tax-cuts-raise-revenue/ http://www.slate.com/articles/busin...x_cuts_ever_increase_government_revenues.html
Hadnt even thought of that before, thx for enlightening me. Out of curiosity, why do you suppose AAPL claims their income over seas? I know im really going out on a limb here, but i think the reason they do that might have something to do with the corporate tax rate....
Yeah, so the idea is to undercut all other countries with lower taxes and essentially enter a "price" war with them. Now there's a "virtuous" circle you want to be a part of, eh? Just ask Ireland: ...In the 1990s, Ireland's parliament enacted legislation that took certain corporate income tax rates down to 12.5 percent, one of the lowest rates on earth. Receipts climbed. The country, in its "Celtic Tiger" boom period, rapidly became richer. Corporate tax revenues jumped from less than 2 percent of GDP to more than 3 percent of GDP... ...The Irish case also offers little support for the idea that tax cuts always pay for themselves by goosing growth. The cut in the corporate tax rate did not aid Irish companies' bottom lines so much as it attracted extraordinary amounts of foreign capital. International firms like Pfizer relocated their European headquarters to the country to take advantage of the low tax rates. All those new companies contributed to an expanded corporate tax base. (Now, Ireland, suffering from crippling debts, is scared to raise the tax rate, which might encourage the companies to leave.) ...The problem, according to most economists, is that Republicans now apply that dogma to all taxes, in all situations, even though there are few times when tax cuts actually pay for themselves. And even the case studies that do argue for supply-side economics are more ambiguous than they seem at first blush... ...In short, those who say that every tax cut pays for itself are simply wrong. President Bush, for instance, insisted, "You cut taxes, and the tax revenues increase." GOP presidential hopeful Tim Pawlenty thinks the same (but adds a wan caveat): "As people look back to the historical examples, there's been other chapters where tax cuts have been enacted, and almost always they raise revenues if you just isolate the effect of the tax cuts." Sorry, governor. A few examples hardly prove the rule. http://www.slate.com/articles/busin...x_cuts_ever_increase_government_revenues.html
That's a shitload of reading, Brass. Look at it this way: if taxes are raised to 100%, who would work? If taxes are dropped to 0%, who wouldn't work? Obviously, taxes negatively affect growth rates. People don't work for free. That's why we don't work for free. Laffer curve etc etc. The "optimum level" is optimum for who, exactly? Not for the worker who actually earns the income. No! For the Government, who wants to maximize their revenue, power, control, and influence over the affairs of the State. That in itself, is antithetical to free-market, libertarian-minded countries, like America, where the primacy of the individual to pursue their own (economic) happiness unmolested by Government, is a God Given Right. Even if revenue could be maximized at 60, 70, or 80% tax rates (bullshit), to what productive end would that serve? The Government is horribly inefficient at administering anything it touches, bureaucrats are notoriously underworked and grossly overpaid, lines are long, paper work takes months. Why pay the Feds, who pay the State, who pay the municipality, who pay the Contractors, when you yourself, can just pay for the services you want, and cut out 3 levels of Government middlemen who do very little but take a generous cut and waste your precious time? The Feds already have gobs of cash and look where it goes: Killing millions of brown people in Iraq, Afghanistan, 25,000 dollar shovels to KBR, drones in America, TSA legions molesting us at airports, cops writing tickets on every corner, cameras in the streets, bloated pensions for bureaucrats that plot to steal our rights. Half the budget is spent on destructive shit that kills people and lines the pockets of defense contractors who make weapons for useless wars. And this Government is what you want to empower with even MORE MONEY? See, Obama was supposed to change all this shit. Mr Touchy-Feely-Big-Heart-Liberal-Nice-Guy. But he didn't. He's a sell-out, like Bush was. The problem with Government taking shitloads of our money: they are corrupt pieces of shit who will waste it on war, fucking our rights, and graft to their corporate donors. Thats why *even if* a 70% tax rate maximized revenue, we should never do it. The criminals in DC cannot be trusted. Ever. It's a pipedream. Maybe if some angel ran Government, but they never do. It's this notion Liberals have in their head that Government is good, and Huge Government is even better. That's wrong. Huge Government is a threat, and small Government is best. This isn't a perfect world, man. We're dealing with the spiritual nature of man, which is corrupt. Empowering gigantic Governments (who are run by people), to Lord over us, even with the best intentions, leads to tyranny and despotism. That's the reality of it. We're getting a healthy dose of it already. And I don't like it. Mr Constitution passes the NDAA, CISPA, and flirting with the Enemy Expatriation Act. This is not the kinda of Government I trust with 70% of my pay check man. DO YOU?
That's a mighty wide yawn you have there. All or nothing doesn't work, or even apply, in the real world. As for 60-70-80%, where did you get those numbers, the '60s? And who's proposing them now? Do you remember the rates under Clinton? Or Reagan, even? And was the economy going to hell in a handbasket then? http://www.rgj.com/article/20110421...ama-than-under-Reagan-Clinton-?nclick_check=1 http://politics.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474977623449
What are you talking about? What's your point, exactly? The entire economy was deficit-financed since Regan. So it's inadmissible. Tax hikes + deficit spending (which more than offsets the tax hikes) = what looks like economic "growth". But it's not. Its deficit-financed "growth". Credit card growth.
You are correct as it relates to Reagan. His economic engine ran on deficit spending, which most Republicans are hard pressed to admit. I just mentioned the rates during his administration, since I don't recall most Rightsters complaining about them. As for Clinton, he handed W a functional budget surplus, on higher rates than are presently the case.
Yes, but. It's all relative. Quoting rates here or there, without accounting for other factors, like the stage in the business cycle, easy or tight policy, recent bubbles or busts, deficits and how much. It all goes in to bake the cake. Often, one side will tout the accomplishments of one Administration, while ignoring all the relevant details, to prove a point. The other side, returns the favor. Its' all sort of meaningless. What were talking about anyway? Im off to bed