it seems odd to me that all governments are indulging themselves with fiscal stimulus and intend to pay for it with higher future tax. do they not understand the affect of higher taxes on tax revenue. the laffer curve indicates a tax around 30% is the optimum for tax generation. so if taxes increase it will reduce tax revenue and take longer to pay off the debt. is this just an excuse to enable a larger government surely it would be logical to reduce tax to pay off the debt rather than increasing it. does any one else agree.
"I'm the president of a shadow government The grand governor of the federal reserve Public enemy of the society The one you cannot see The 33 degree" from 33 degree by Thievery Corporation BTW, 33 degree is a reference to free masons
The Laffer Curve created by this Art Laffer? <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/IU6PamCQ6zw&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/IU6PamCQ6zw&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
It's no wonder that after Reagan and the Bushes applied this guy's theories there was nothing to show for it except massive amounts of debt and obsolete weapons.
At 30% you have the optimum number of dead wood employed in the public sector so they are out of the way of the hard workers in the private sector...
It does no such thing. The "30%" figure is an artifact of the Reagan mythology. All the Laffer Curve claims - and it is not unique in this, the concept was first articulated by a Muslim academic approx 500 years ago - is that there is a point at which higher taxation reduces tax revenues. Where that point lies depends on the details of the tax code: for progressive income tax systems, the last research I've seen puts the rollover point at over 70%(!!!) for the highest bracket. But there is no one answer - it is highly dependent on the structure of the society's tax system. And it begs the rather fundamental question of whether or not governments should even be thinking about maximizing tax revenues.
Spoken like a true idiot. Our weapons from Reagan's years as well as Bush's are decades ahead of world weaponery still. You think the F-117 is obsolete? Only 1 has ever been shot down, and the B-2 has never been shot down.
I'm no idiot as I do know that the F-117 you speak so highly of was officially retired/scrapped last year. Hence, obsolete weapon.