USAs high tax and laffer curve

[Ariux]

Many of the richest American companies are infamous for paying almost nothing in taxes.

 

[Euro]

USA is more like Greece, very low taxes and quit high government spending.

more accurately, you would say American liberals are much like Greece,i.e., irresponsible.
.

The problem started with Bush, cutting taxes and going to a ten year war. Clinton did quite well and Obama does what he can to reverse the stupidity caused by Bush. War and tax cut is not a good combination.

What’s the logic behind first cutting taxes and then going to war for then years, can you explain that Edward?

 

[itfitzme]

If you are stupid enough to price your product based on cost, your competitors will indeed take you out, over time.

Econ 101:

a) if you price below cost you go bankrupt

b) if you price much above cost your competitors under sell you; you go bankrupt

Hence, price is directly related to cost in the long run

Econ 101

Market imperfections, including oligopolies.

Pricing of product is as high as the consumer's willingness to pay. Profit = Revenues - Cost. Revenues = price * quantity and price <> 1/quantity. Revenues peak at a point that does not supply all demand.

The advertisement, "Will beat any price in town" is a message to other competitors not to lower their prices below that of the market leader. If they do, they will be crushed. The market leader will set pricing.

You are wrong, Ed, because you haven't taken Econ 101 and haven't studied the sections on market imperfections.

 

[Polk]

USA is more like Greece, very low taxes and quit high government spending.

more accurately, you would say American liberals are much like Greece,i.e., irresponsible.

You cant have both a good welfare system and low taxes.

more accurately, you would say you cant have a good welfare systems as long as liberals use it to create dependency and buy votes rather than as an incentive to help people in need.

While I disagree with his characterization of the United States as being like Greece, I find it pretty funny that you have nerve to call liberal irresponsible when every program Obama has proposed has included measures to pay for it, while Bush whipped out the national credit card like a college kid at spring break.

 

[Polk]

If you are stupid enough to price your product based on cost, your competitors will indeed take you out, over time.

Econ 101:

a) if you price below cost you go bankrupt

b) if you price much above cost your competitors under sell you; you go bankrupt

Hence, price is directly related to cost in the long run

Econ 101

Market imperfections, including oligopolies.

Pricing of product is as high as the consumer's willingness to pay. Profit = Revenues - Cost. Revenues = price * quantity and price <> 1/quantity. Revenues peak at a point that does not supply all demand.

The advertisement, "Will beat any price in town" is a message to other competitors not to lower their prices below that of the market leader. If they do, they will be crushed. The market leader will set pricing.

You are wrong, Ed, because you haven't taken Econ 101 and haven't studied the sections on market imperfections.

Eddie gets his economic lessons from Walter Williams and such.

 

[itfitzme]

No, cost is not a determination of supply. Supply of manufactured product will not increase unless there is enough demand to buy the product at the PRICE that the product is being sold at. If costs go down, the
sellers may well be willing to sell for less, moving the price downward. Again supply and demand. Again, in a competitive market. However, if not competitive (ie, monopolistic) then all bets are off. Typically proffits will increase. Take for example, the increases in gas prices lately. Supply was up, demand was down, but prices increased. Why? Monopolistic industry which allows the seller to set prices.

A structural change in the cost curve will shift the supply curve causing a change in demand. So, if a new technology makes widgets cheaper to manufacturer, the supply curve shifts downward and demand increases. The increased demand is caused by the lowering of costs.

Your statement that empirical evidence shows that lowering corporate taxes increases tax revenue would be good news for the Reagan economists, who found just the opposite. What is your bempirical evidence? I have been unable to find any. I keep asking, no one will provide the date of when this happened.

Another case you may want to look at is when w decreased taxes. Deficit again increased due to shrinking tax revenues. Where is the evidence???

Tax cuts on corporate income increase the corporate tax share as a percentage of GDP

http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbb/tbb_1107_49.pdf

Decreasing payroll taxes and instituting a flat corporate income tax would triple entrepreneurial activity.

Taxes and Entrepreneurial Activity

Taxes on wireless services destroys more economic value than the tax revenues it brings in.

Taxes on Wireless Services Burden the Economy

Higher tax rates on labor income and consumption expenditures lead to less work time in the legal market sector, more time working in the household sector, a larger underground economy, and smaller shares of national output and employment in industries that rely heavily on low-wage, low-skill labor inputs.

Effects of Taxes on Labor Income

High Income Taxes Inhibit the Growth of Small Firms

High Income Taxes Inhibit the Growth of Small Firms

Taxes Discourage Mutual Fund Investors

Taxes Discourage Mutual Fund Investors

Differences in taxes across countries are a very important piece of the explanation for the vastly different levels of hours of market work hours of work in the United States were roughly the same in 1956 and 2004, while hours of work in Germany decreased by about 40 percent over this same period.

Higher Tax Rates Reduce Working Hours In OEC D Countries


There is also evidence that low taxes on natural resource royalties brings in more revenues than high taxes, but I can't be bothered to look for it at the moment.

According to the graph in the CATO article, revenues have begun to fall so it's time to stop decreasing taxes.

 

[KissMy]

Tax cuts on the rich are not growing our wealth. Tax cuts must only go to R&D, start-ups, innovators & companies who increase US employment. Subsidizing the rich is a stupid idea that has failed. The Fed says Household net worth has dropped nearly 40 percent! Our net worth has now reverted back to almost 20 years ago. We are sliding backwards as China powers ahead. They will pass US in 3 years to become the worlds #1 economy.

Subsidizing the rich who do not need a subsidy negatively impacts the economy. Subsidy should only go to new cash poor start-ups with plans that benifit many.

If a socialist derp like Senator John Kerry can collect hundreds of millions in risk free money from Heinz Foods as steady as an employee gets a paycheck, does he really deserve to skate on taxes? - HELL NO!!! It's no different than paying a bum welfare.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Subsidizing the rich

of course thats a perfectly stupid, liberal thing to say since we don't subsidize the rich, they subsidize us by inventing the products that got us from the stone to here and by, for example, the top 1% paying 40% of all federal taxes.

 

[KissMy]

Subsidizing the rich

of course thats a perfectly stupid, liberal thing to say since we don't subsidize the rich, they subsidize us by inventing the products that got us from the stone to here and by, for example, the top 1% paying 40% of all federal taxes.

Did you consider the tax cut on Ethanol a subsidy?

Did John Kerry invent any products that got us from the stone age? Or is he just collecting a paycheck?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Did you consider the tax cut on Ethanol a subsidy?

yes a liberal subsidy that was supposed to create cheap energy for all. So??? It turned out to be another liberal Solyndra bridge to no where

Did John Kerry invent any products that got us from the stone age?

do you want liberal government to steal your money to prevent you from sharing it with your family?

 

[Rshermr]

Subsidizing the rich

of course thats a perfectly stupid, liberal thing to say since we don't subsidize the rich, they subsidize us by inventing the products that got us from the stone to here and by, for example, the top 1% paying 40% of all federal taxes.

Ed, you stupid slut.
Here are some facts, quoted in Wikipedia:
Quote--
WiA 2011 study by the CBO[16] found that the top earning 1 percent of households gained about 275% after federal taxes and income transfers over a period between 1979 and 2007, (although this number has decreased somewhat since 2007 as a result of the Great Recession [17]). From 1992 to 2007 the top 400 earners in the U.S. saw their income increase 392% and their average tax rate reduced by 37%.[18] The share of total income in America going to the lower earning 80 percent of American households (also after federal taxes and income transfers) has dropped to less than 1/2 in 2007.
End Quote.

During the same period that the upper 1% income grew 392%, the average worker income grew 17%. So, ed, these are actual facts. Not your opinion. Just the facts. The poor are poorer, the lowest class in the US has grown significantly in numbers, the middle class has decreased in numbers, and the upper class has grown significantly in the percentage of income.

Though not addressed here, we could discuss wealth, where the numbers are similar.

So this is the effect of lowering taxes at the top, and eliminating services at the bottom. So, ed, Where Are The Jobs?? The repub "job makers" are getting the $, just as the repubs say will help the economy. So where are the jobs??

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

So, ed, Where Are The Jobs??

1) Make unions illegal ( 10 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

2) make minimum wage illegal ( 5 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

3) end business taxation; especially tax incentives to off-shore jobs ( 5 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

4) make inflation illegal ( 2 million new jobs) Democrats oppose


5) make Federal debt illegal( 2 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

6) send illegal workers home(8 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

7) Pass Balanced Budget Amendment to Constitution( 3 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

8) cut pay of government workers in half( 4 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

9) Make health insurance competition legal( 6 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

10) end needless business regulations ( 2 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

11) restrict Federal spending to 15% of GNP( 2 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

12) support unlimited free trade( 2 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

13) reduced unemployment compensation, welfare, food stamps, medicaid.( 2 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

14) privatize education, social security ( 4 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

15) end payroll taxes ( 1 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

Since Democrats always oppose wisdom and common sense the only serious option is to make them illegal as the Constitution intended.

 

[KissMy]

Did you consider the tax cut on Ethanol a subsidy?

yes a liberal subsidy that was supposed to create cheap energy for all. So??? It turned out to be another liberal Solyndra bridge to no where

Did John Kerry invent any products that got us from the stone age?

do you want liberal government to steal your money to prevent you from sharing it with your family?

So a tax cut on ethanol that lets me keep more of my own money is bad but a tax cut on the rich who don't need it is good. I would rather pay a little more tax than face the coming currency collapse from an unsustainable debt. When that happens there will be no sharing money with family. There will be no amount that you can save that will see you through retirement. It will make us all government dependants.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

So a tax cut on ethanol that lets me keep more of my own money is bad

what?? in theory liberal support for ethanol raised your taxes

but a tax cut on the rich who don't need it is good.

in a free country you don't get to decide what the rich need as if you're some kind of Nazi. Our poor are rich compared to much of the world. Also, there is not cut really when they are already paying most of the tax

I would rather pay a little more tax than face the coming currency collapse from an unsustainable debt.

only stupid people predict the future

When that happens there will be no sharing money with family. There will be no amount that you can save that will see you through retirement. It will make us all government dependants.

no idea what you mean

 

[Rshermr]

So, ed, Where Are The Jobs??

1) Make unions illegal ( 10 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

2) make minimum wage illegal ( 5 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

3) end business taxation; especially tax incentives to off-shore jobs ( 5 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

4) make inflation illegal ( 2 million new jobs) Democrats oppose


5) make Federal debt illegal( 2 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

6) send illegal workers home(8 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

7) Pass Balanced Budget Amendment to Constitution( 3 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

8) cut pay of government workers in half( 4 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

9) Make health insurance competition legal( 6 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

10) end needless business regulations ( 2 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

11) restrict Federal spending to 15% of GNP( 2 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

12) support unlimited free trade( 2 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

13) reduced unemployment compensation, welfare, food stamps, medicaid.( 2 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

14) privatize education, social security ( 4 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

15) end payroll taxes ( 1 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

Since Democrats always oppose wisdom and common sense the only serious option is to make them illegal as the Constitution intended.

Same 15 again. Really helps to show your ignorance. Thanks for that.