The deficit charted

[schapm]

I believe Dross is referring to Hauser's Law. I was going to try to find an interesting WSJ article I read some time ago, but I have to run. Google is your friend if you want to learn more about this.

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

dross is spot on here.

Jayhawk - look up the Laffer curve. Just because you increase the tax RATE doesn't mean you collect more TAX REVENUE. And just because you lower the tax RATE doesn't mean you collect less TAX REVENUE.

 

[jayhawk]

Yes, guys I understand the theory behind Reagonomics...it is just that, theory, which doesn't necessarily work in a globalized economy. In any event, it would be pretty difficult to demonstrate that the Bush tax cuts didn't result in a net loss of tax revenue.

What you're missing in my points is that although the tax rates have remained the same, the tax burden has shifted. Corporations do pay taxes, and they pay them at a lower rate than they ever have in history.

But hey, if you're stuck on decades old theory, who am I to tell you you're wrong. I guess we just have different ideologies.

 

[drobpk]

I can not believe people actually think raising income taxes is a good idea. Its a strangle hold on the American worker. There is an estimated $11 trillion US in foreign banks, to avoid our income tax. Thats $11 trillion not working in the economy, all of which would be used to create jobs and stimulate growth. Even if we taxed 100% it wouldnt be enough to cut our overall debt. The only true way is to stop spending and let the free market work.

Even JFK new this. All the income tax is, is another way for the controlling class to keep class warfare alive.... tax the rich!! tax the rich!!... sorry but the rich create wealth and jobs and growth. Not the average blue collar worker. The income tax basically states that its the governments money and you are allowed to keep so much. Thats way they always say, "let you keep more of your paycheck" F-U!! Its ALL of my paycheck.

End all of these stupid entitlements, that were only created to ensure that Democrats had someone to vote for them.

“The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But under the name of Liberalism, they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without knowing how it happened.” Norman Thomas Socialist Party

Good Point. Every socialist system fails when you run out of other peoples money to spend.

 

[Hotdoger]

Yes, guys I understand the theory behind Reagonomics...it is just that, theory, which doesn't necessarily work in a globalized economy. In any event, it would be pretty difficult to demonstrate that the Bush tax cuts didn't result in a net loss of tax revenue.

What you're missing in my points is that although the tax rates have remained the same, the tax burden has shifted. Corporations do pay taxes, and they pay them at a lower rate than they ever have in history.

But hey, if you're stuck on decades old theory, who am I to tell you you're wrong. I guess we just have different ideologies.

The Laffer Curve isn't decades old theory.

Yet you want me to go with one of Jimmy Carter's speechwriters? LOL


Corporations don't pay taxes their customers do. When corporate taxes are increased the customer pays them. Citizens cannot cost shift their personal tax burden.

 

[Pocketman]

... End all of these stupid entitlements, that were only created to ensure that Democrats had someone to vote for them.
...

Herein lies a big part of the problem. No party or administration can be singled out for buying votes. It's a systemic practice.

 

[dross]

Yes, guys I understand the theory behind Reagonomics...it is just that, theory, which doesn't necessarily work in a globalized economy. In any event, it would be pretty difficult to demonstrate that the Bush tax cuts didn't result in a net loss of tax revenue.

What you're missing in my points is that although the tax rates have remained the same, the tax burden has shifted. Corporations do pay taxes, and they pay them at a lower rate than they ever have in history.

But hey, if you're stuck on decades old theory, who am I to tell you you're wrong. I guess we just have different ideologies.

Rather than lump my specific points into an attack word "Reagonomics" why don't you address my points on their merits? The fact that the percentages of total revenues may have changed is not an argument that the tax burden has shifted. That would depend on the relative increases, the makeup of the population and many other factors not in evidence in the simplistic chart you provided.

I explained why corporations don't pay taxes. Corporations collect taxes from their customers. That's not rhetoric, philosophy, theory, or politics - that's economic fact. If you don't understand that, you don't understand anything you're talking about.

 

[88GT]

So I'm to believe that the top four expenditures of federal tax revenue--which aren't even accounted for on that graph--totaling roughly 60% of all the extortion money Americans pay would have little to no effect on the deficit?

I'm so calling BS on that one.