Do Higher Taxes = More Revenue?
- Thread starter lonesomebob
- Start date
Jim Rosenthal
Supporter
There you go again, Bob.....
Pete McCluskey.
Lifetime Supporter
I guess there is a certain amount of logic in what is said, an over simplification of a complex subject though.
Perfect timing on this thread Bob.
My daughter a high school senior did a presentation in her economics class this morning, using the info in video. The teacher a democrat was impressed and considering it was contradicting his propaganda throughout the school year, he was lost for words. She did receive an "A" on both the subject matter and the presentation. I'm sure he will be up all night thinking about this and will have comments tomorrow.
Bob, thanks for posting.
You know that I took all the credit.
Wayne
My daughter a high school senior did a presentation in her economics class this morning, using the info in video. The teacher a democrat was impressed and considering it was contradicting his propaganda throughout the school year, he was lost for words. She did receive an "A" on both the subject matter and the presentation. I'm sure he will be up all night thinking about this and will have comments tomorrow.
Bob, thanks for posting.
You know that I took all the credit.
Wayne
Terry Oxandale
Skinny Man
I can't add anything to Pete's comments. It holds merit to some degree, but what errors or assumptions were made in the study? All in all I found LBs posting somewhat enlightening, but I'll never admit to that if asked.
Jim Craik
Lifetime Supporter
There is no doubt that at some point too much taxes will become counter productive. The real question is where is that line?
I submit that we are nowhere near that point. Here is my reasoning:
Median tax rate for highest earners 1955................51.2%
Median tax rate for highest earners 2007................16.6%
A quick look at our economy in the 1950s shows incredable growth and the almost total paydown of the Depression/WWII debt.
So, although there is a number where deminishing returns is met, it seems to be north of 51.2%
************************
Data from North Pennsylvania Business Journal
America's highest earners - the top 400 - have seen the share of their income paid in federal income tax plummet from 51.2 percent in 1955 to 16.6 percent in 2007, the most recent year with top 400 statistics available.
I submit that we are nowhere near that point. Here is my reasoning:
Median tax rate for highest earners 1955................51.2%
Median tax rate for highest earners 2007................16.6%
A quick look at our economy in the 1950s shows incredable growth and the almost total paydown of the Depression/WWII debt.
So, although there is a number where deminishing returns is met, it seems to be north of 51.2%
************************
Data from North Pennsylvania Business Journal
America's highest earners - the top 400 - have seen the share of their income paid in federal income tax plummet from 51.2 percent in 1955 to 16.6 percent in 2007, the most recent year with top 400 statistics available.
Last edited:
Terry Oxandale
Skinny Man
I wondered the same thing. Plus, as some point in the curve, even at the end (100% tax rate), the money being paid in taxes is somehow being returned to its payers in some form or fashion, thus the assumption that 100% taxes paid result in no workers working, may not be as accurate as at first assumed. In that scenario, one could reasonably see the government as providing all the "needs" of the individual. Thus there would be some kind of return on the taxes, and I'm sure there would be some kind of "incentive" (brutal or not) to work. Needless to say, I wouldn't want to live in that world (we've seen similar societies in the past). The point is, I don't believe the crest is as low as 32%, but not as high as 90%, and probably varies in time with social pressures, attitude, and the political climate.
Wayne, I am more than pleased that your daughter learned something from this and even got one on the teacher! How sweet is that? It is the schools that are creating the political, financial, and behavioral thoughts of our future generations. Both sides need to be represented again.
YOU'RE A GREAT DAD, too!
YOU'RE A GREAT DAD, too!
How does all of that get skewed with the fact that so many pay no federal income tax (I don't want to get into the actual number because that has become another slogan by some)? With no skin in the game, larger and larger numbers of people willingly vote for more and more taxes. :~)
I have yet to figure out how our existing tax situation is "fair" and by what the media and Liberals think "the rich people paying their fair share" is.
God is fair and he has come up with a plan. He only wants 10% and everyone pays. If He thinks that is fair, so do I.
God is fair and he has come up with a plan. He only wants 10% and everyone pays. If He thinks that is fair, so do I.
Jim Craik
Lifetime Supporter
Gee Tom,
I think the last election proved beyond a shadow of a doubt, that it is not just Liberals, but "Americans" by a wide margin, that think the wealthy need to pay more in taxes!
58% think the rich should pay more!
26% think the rich pay enough.
But please stick to what you believe in! I'm sure that going to the wall for the rich is a great plan and will be a big help for you in the next election!
Please send us over the "CLIFF" before make me pay one penny more!
National polls show that Republicans would take the brunt of the blame for a dive over the so-called fiscal cliff. A Washington Post/Pew Research Survey released this week found that a majority of the public (53 percent) would point the finger at Republicans if Congress fails to reach a deal on taxes and government spending. Just 27 percent would blame President Obama.
Last edited:
I would support such a plan.
10% of GROSS income, no fat-cat deductions or exemptions, just a flat/fair 10% tax on us all.
Not gonna happen when the laws are made by the fat-cat politicians and they are influenced by their campaign contributors, though---and not gonna happen until ALL income, gross income, is taxed at the same rate for everyone....no "Capital Gains" tax at 50% the rate of earned income.
Simplify the income tax laws...they are a morass of conflicting regulations right now, too dificult for even many CPA's to deal with.
Not a good situation...
Doug
Ian Anderson
Lifetime Supporter
I'd prefer 3%
Each time any money is paid into any account in the country the bank removes 3% and sends it daily to the government.
If funds are remitted outside the country the bank removes 6% (incentive to bring production on shore)
Then cancel all other taxes.
Example
Your earn £2000 and your company pays this by bank transfer your account is credited with £1940. The government gets their £60
Your decide to pay £100 into your saving account your only get £97 because again the £3 is taken and paid to the government.
You pay your kids £100 pocket money - guess what they also pay tax now!
But no more fuel duty, no more death duty, no more any type of tax.
3% of GDP is enough for any government to run on.
And just think of the savings the government can make - it can fire all the legislators on tax, all the tax inspectors, Customs inspectors etc - no longer needed to be there to collect revenue.
Best thing about it is the banks are legislated that they must do this free of charge as pay back for all the billions that the Government bailed them out.
Would anyone mind paying just 3%??????
Ian
Each time any money is paid into any account in the country the bank removes 3% and sends it daily to the government.
If funds are remitted outside the country the bank removes 6% (incentive to bring production on shore)
Then cancel all other taxes.
Example
Your earn £2000 and your company pays this by bank transfer your account is credited with £1940. The government gets their £60
Your decide to pay £100 into your saving account your only get £97 because again the £3 is taken and paid to the government.
You pay your kids £100 pocket money - guess what they also pay tax now!
But no more fuel duty, no more death duty, no more any type of tax.
3% of GDP is enough for any government to run on.
And just think of the savings the government can make - it can fire all the legislators on tax, all the tax inspectors, Customs inspectors etc - no longer needed to be there to collect revenue.
Best thing about it is the banks are legislated that they must do this free of charge as pay back for all the billions that the Government bailed them out.
Would anyone mind paying just 3%??????
Ian
Sounds like a good plan Ian, but where will all the tax men and lawyers go after they lose thier jobs!!
Exactly!
Like I said, no one has been able to quantify what "fair" is to me. You didn't. I would like to know your definition of what "fair" is and why you think this would be fair.
If everyone had "skin in the game", more people would be interested in how their money was spent, congress would be held more accountable for their spending habits.
As far as this fiscal cliff is concerned, here is an idea, let's all go over it! All the fiscal cliff means is that there are preset limits to spending and tax hikes. I feel that this may be better as the spending cuts would be addressed as spending cuts are not being taken seriously by Obama.
As long as spending cuts are taken (with a cleaver) and there are some adjustments to tax increases on everyone equally, that would be a good thing.
Ian Anderson
Lifetime Supporter
It is not ALL about revenue anyway. The name of the game is behavior modification.
Similar threads
