When would a 10% tax rate generate more revenue then the current tax rate?

[NYcarbineer]

If you can't afford the losses............then don't play the casino of Wall street.........

dear, is there even one economist who believes that Wall Street speculators alone caused the Great Depression and current Great Recession???

We're not in a recession, Grandma. Read a paper or something.

 

[eagle1462010]

“It is universally accepted that China and other major countries intentionally manipulate their currency to create an advantage for themselves in the marketplace”

The solid line in the chart above shows that the yuan has strengthened 35% against the U.S. dollar over the past decade. All else equal, this represents an effective rise in the price of Chinese exports to the United States by more than one-third, which is certainly not consistent with the charge of continued intentional underpricing.

The case against China’s currency manipulation is even weaker if we consider a more relevant indicator of the overall cost of Chinese exports: China pegs its currency to the U.S. dollar, but it exports to many countries beyond the United States. The world price of Chinese exports must reflect prices among the full range of its trading partners.

Also, the price of Chinese exports depends on the yuan price of what it costs to manufacture in China, not just the yuan price of foreign currencies, and inflation in China has been higher than that of its trading partners. Currency manipulation is not like pornography–you don’t know it when you think you see it. It’s hard to define and even harder to prove. At one level, any country that has a fixed exchange rate–such as France, Germany, Greece, and China–is, by definition, a currency manipulator


What you may not know about China and currency manipulation

https://www.richmondfed.org/~/media...search/econ_focus/2013/q2/pdf/cover_story.pdf

It is no longer clear whether the RMB is substantially undervalued. Conventional measures indicate a wide range: from a 49 percent undervaluation to even being overvalued, according to a recent paper by economist Yin-Wong Cheung at the University of California, Santa Cruz. Since one cannot necessarily determine whether a currency has been manipulated just by looking at its price — as a Depression-era central banker put it, “only God could tell” what a currency should trade at — many people point to the Chinese government’s interventions in foreign exchange markets as proof of currency manipulation. Hoarding foreign assets is the traditional way in which a country holds down its exchange rate. Most governments hold foreign assets, but buying them in extremely large quantities can shift exchange rates because a government must buy foreign currency to do it, which decreases the relative global demand for its own currency. China’s central bank, the People’s Bank of China (PBOC), holds almost $3.5 trillion in foreign exchange reserves. China doesn’t reveal how much of that is denominated in dollars, but based on past snippets of information, many economists estimate the number is around two-thirds, held mostly in U.S. Treasury securities. That would be more Treasuries than even the Federal Reserve owns. China holds nearly three times as many total foreign reserves as Japan, the world’s secondlargest holder, and almost as many as all advanced economies combined.

 

[eagle1462010]

“It is universally accepted that China and other major countries intentionally manipulate their currency to create an advantage for themselves in the marketplace” Graham said.

and the USA too- right??? The Fed now has $4 trillion balance sheet- right?????????????

With a $4.5 Trillion Balance Sheet, What’s Next for the Fed?

First, the Fed’s policy of “accommodative financial conditions” has not ended. The Fed believes that it is the accumulated size of its balance sheet that matters most, not the relatively small changes that occur month to month with quantitative easing.

How much has the balance sheet grown? When the Great Recession hit, the Fed’s balance sheet was approximately $700 billion dollars, and over the course of the recession and recovery, the asset purchases the Fed made through its various quantitative easing programs expanded the balance sheet to over $4.4 trillion at the end of October of this year. The Fed plans to reinvest the proceeds from any financial assets that mature, so the size of the balance sheet will stay relatively constant, at least for now.

Yes.....you are correct..........yeah right............my 4 Trillion number was wrong..........

It is actually up to 4.5 TRILLION.

 

[eagle1462010]

https://www.richmondfed.org/~/media...search/econ_focus/2013/q2/pdf/cover_story.pdf

Currency manipulation and large-scale asset purchases are similar in that they are both strategies to stimulate a domestic economy. They could even have some similar byproducts, like a weaker currency and greater exports. But there’s one critical difference, says economist Joseph Gagnon at the Peterson Institute for International Economics: With asset purchases, “you’re trying to increase total spending, not just grab someone else’s spending.” Still, negative spillovers from monetary easing are possible, and they happened during the Great Depression. Many countries supported their economies by expanding the money supply, which required exiting the gold standard. Countries that did so saw weaker currencies, which improved their trade balances at the expense of those that stayed tied to gold, according to a famous 1985 study by economists Barry Eichengreen at the University of California, Berkeley and Jeffrey Sachs at Columbia University. In that situation, Eichengreen noted in a recent paper, there may have been an argument for matching currency depreciation with currency depreciation — what some now call a currency war, but is more favorably known as policy coordination. That would have given all countries a domestic boost while avoiding “beggar-thy-neighbor” effects on trade

 

[NYcarbineer]

SO BECKY!!!!
If people pay 10% instead of 15.2% that means they would have $500 billion more to spend!
If corporate taxes were 10% instead of 25%.. that would leave. $204 billion more to spend!
Over $700 billion more in companies and people's pockets to spend!

Assume the GDP in 2014 was $18 trillion... which generated the $3.18 trillion in tax revenue.
Or 17% of GDP generates the $3.18 trillion in taxes.
Increase the GDP by 35% or $24.3 trillion.
Using 17% then Tax revenue would INCREASE $4.1 trillion!!!

Your thinking is wrong because the $700 billion you claim would be more for individuals and corporations to spend comes from a zero sum game of taking that revenue away from the government,

which then presumably must make $700 billion in cuts. Those cuts represent layoffs throughout both government and the private sector.

That leaves GDP in a hole that the $700 billion now in the private sector has to fill before you see any gains.

 

[Skylar]

SO BECKY!!!!
If people pay 10% instead of 15.2% that means they would have $500 billion more to spend!
If corporate taxes were 10% instead of 25%.. that would leave. $204 billion more to spend!
Over $700 billion more in companies and people's pockets to spend!

Assume the GDP in 2014 was $18 trillion... which generated the $3.18 trillion in tax revenue.
Or 17% of GDP generates the $3.18 trillion in taxes.
Increase the GDP by 35% or $24.3 trillion.
Using 17% then Tax revenue would INCREASE $4.1 trillion!!!

Your thinking is wrong because the $700 billion you claim would be more for individuals and corporations to spend comes from a zero sum game of taking that revenue away from the government,

which then presumably must make $700 billion in cuts. Those cuts represent layoffs throughout both government and the private sector.

That leaves GDP in a hole that the $700 billion now in the private sector has to fill before you see any gains.

Which is probably why I was able to cite half a dozen republican sources affirming that tax cuts don't pay for themselves.

Which is also right about when Health abandoned his OP.

 

[eagle1462010]

Trashing JFK's Tax Cuts, One of the Greatest Policy Successes of All Time

John F. Kennedy beat Ike’s vice president (Richard Nixon) in 1960. JFK’s pitch in that legendary campaign was to “get this country moving again.” He was talking about economic growth. And that growth would get unleashed via tax policy, namely two big tax cuts, one on business and the other on personal income.

These tax cuts became law, the business ones in 1962 and the personal ones early in 1964, a few months after the assassination. The economic results that anticipated and accompanied these tax cuts remain among the most whopping ever recorded.

The eight-year expansion from 1961 to 1969 saw growth of 48%, a third more in an eight-year period than in the sixteen years ending in 1960. 1944-69, the “postwar prosperity” quarter century, saw growth at the nice peak-to-peak rate of 3% per year, but only because the 1960s lifted everything up.

Further statistics show more of the same. Unemployment was stuck around 6% in the 1950s, and then settled below 4% in the 1960s. 13 million jobs were created in the 1960s, 7 million in the 1950s. And how about federal receipts: they went up more than the epic rate of economic growth, rising by 55% in real terms in the seven years after 1961.



JFK of yesterday......is a moderate Republican of today............He cut and exploded the economy.

 

[healthmyths]

SO BECKY!!!!
If people pay 10% instead of 15.2% that means they would have $500 billion more to spend!
If corporate taxes were 10% instead of 25%.. that would leave. $204 billion more to spend!
Over $700 billion more in companies and people's pockets to spend!

Assume the GDP in 2014 was $18 trillion... which generated the $3.18 trillion in tax revenue.
Or 17% of GDP generates the $3.18 trillion in taxes.
Increase the GDP by 35% or $24.3 trillion.
Using 17% then Tax revenue would INCREASE $4.1 trillion!!!

Your thinking is wrong because the $700 billion you claim would be more for individuals and corporations to spend comes from a zero sum game of taking that revenue away from the government,

which then presumably must make $700 billion in cuts. Those cuts represent layoffs throughout both government and the private sector.

That leaves GDP in a hole that the $700 billion now in the private sector has to fill before you see any gains.

WHAT $700 billion in cuts are you talking about?
There would be NO need in any spending cuts because the Federal tax revenue would increase from $3.18 trillion to $4.1 trillion or more then $1 trillion
in additional tax revenue!
That's the point.
Government jobs do NOT create any businesses. Government employees are paid out of TAX revenues.
The whole point of tax cuts is giving more money to people and companies to spend OR invest!
What do you think would happen to the $700 billion that businesses/people would gain?
They spend it!

Ever hear of the "multiplier affect"??? I'm not making this up. Please check the article!
Then maybe you can understand how cutting taxes INCREASES tax revenue.

The economic multiplier states for every $1 million spent, IT is multiplied by 1.18 or the economy grows with that $700 billion to $826 billion.
• $1.188 million in total economic activity takes place for every $1 million spent..
• Each $1 million spent provides $205,829 in labor incomes
• Each $1 million represents 7.7 workers and assuming 35% (payroll taxes, FICA, FUTA, Medicare, SS) ($80 billion equals 6,360,200 jobs!
http://www2.econ.iastate.edu/research/webpapers/paper_13143.pdf

By the way... THIS response isn't for NYCarbineer...as this person will NEVER change their mind because FACTS meaning nothing...ideology is
more important.
NO this is for those of you on the fence in understanding basic economics and especially how companies and businesses operate.

I simply ask you to really think. What do people do if they have more money to spend?
They spend it or they invest it. They certainly don't bury it in the backyard or under their mattress.
So when they spend or invest it multiplies! $1 dollar spent in a community or where ever has a multiplier affect of 1.18 times.
That is a fact.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Now back to the original topic, the principles of the Founders:

1. Protectionist

Our Founders were not economists. In fact the world's economists did not agree on free trade till protectionism caused the Great Depression trade wars and collapsed world trade.

Common sense will tell you that protection is stupid if you want to have world class goods and services.

dear, in 1980 you paid 10 years pay in Hungary for a car without a gas gage(dip stick instead) that had to be backed up a hill because of a gravity fed carburetor.
They employed engineers by the 1000's all of whom swore that was the best they could do. It is not until you have had years and years of free Republican international competition that you have any idea how many engineers are needed and at what salary to produce a world class car.

Can you have the IQ to understand why the world has moved to free trade ?

the founders, idiot, lived before the industrial revolution and existed in an agrarian economy.

they never contemplated ANY economic system but for farming and trade.

it would be nice if YOU had the IQ you wish others had.

Facile analysis from Shillian is

perfectly expected.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

That leaves GDP in a hole that the $700 billion.

Still 100% stupid, liberal, and proud of it I see? GDP is up from stone age to here thanks to the supply of Republican inventions. If govt spending contributed to GDP we'd never have recessions or depressions, we'd just tax and spend to keep GDP growing!!

See why say a liberal will be 100% stupid? IS any other conclusion possible?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Now back to the original topic, the principles of the Founders:

1. Protectionist

Our Founders were not economists. In fact the world's economists did not agree on free trade till protectionism caused the Great Depression trade wars and collapsed world trade.

Common sense will tell you that protection is stupid if you want to have world class goods and services.

dear, in 1980 you paid 10 years pay in Hungary for a car without a gas gage(dip stick instead) that had to be backed up a hill because of a gravity fed carburetor.
They employed engineers by the 1000's all of whom swore that was the best they could do. It is not until you have had years and years of free Republican international competition that you have any idea how many engineers are needed and at what salary to produce a world class car.

Can you have the IQ to understand why the world has moved to free trade ?

the founders, idiot, lived before the industrial revolution and existed in an agrarian economy.

they never contemplated ANY economic system but for farming and trade.

it would be nice if YOU had the IQ you wish others had.

Facile analysis from Shillian is

perfectly expected.

Not facille, just 100% stupid and illiterate. She's a brainless lightweight at the bottom of the liberal sewer.

 

[imawhosure]

That leaves GDP in a hole that the $700 billion.

Still 100% stupid, liberal, and proud of it I see? GDP is up from stone age to here thanks to the supply of Republican inventions. If govt spending contributed to GDP we'd never have recessions or depressions, we'd just tax and spend to keep GDP growing!!

See why say a liberal will be 100% stupid? IS any other conclusion possible?

There have been many, many profound posts in this thread. This one is absolutely the best though!

He is correct lefties, if government created jobs and wealth, why not just tax and spend? There would never be a recession, nor depression.

I will tell you why! Because to have value, money must be tied to goods; like I trade my wheat for your corn, and guess who makes those goods. That is correct, the PRIVATE SECTOR, the rich private sector you want to hose; which is exactly why we always claim how brilliant you lefties are. You want to kill the goose who lays the golden eggs.

What does the government make? NOTHING, absolutely nothing but policy. Now I may trade my wheat or corn for a computer, or a cellphone. Now if you lefties want to trade your wheat or corn for a policy, go ahead!

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Why exactly do we want the government to take more revenue instead of simply cutting costs?

Because we are liberal leeches

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Why exactly do we want the government to take more revenue instead of simply cutting costs?

Because we are liberal leeches

Because they do so many important and caring things with the money, like the near genocide against blacks!!

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Now back to the original topic, the principles of the Founders:

1. Protectionist

Our Founders were not economists. In fact the world's economists did not agree on free trade till protectionism caused the Great Depression trade wars and collapsed world trade.

Common sense will tell you that protection is stupid if you want to have world class goods and services.

dear, in 1980 you paid 10 years pay in Hungary for a car without a gas gage(dip stick instead) that had to be backed up a hill because of a gravity fed carburetor.
They employed engineers by the 1000's all of whom swore that was the best they could do. It is not until you have had years and years of free Republican international competition that you have any idea how many engineers are needed and at what salary to produce a world class car.

Can you have the IQ to understand why the world has moved to free trade ?

the founders, idiot, lived before the industrial revolution and existed in an agrarian economy.

they never contemplated ANY economic system but for farming and trade.

it would be nice if YOU had the IQ you wish others had.

Facile analysis from Shillian is

perfectly expected.

Not facille, just 100% stupid and illiterate. She's a brainless lightweight at the bottom of the liberal sewer.

She is not quite brainless although she is very deep down in the mire that passes for "thinking" in the realm of modern American liberal political philosophy.

But facile is also a correct term for her "arguments" here.