You can't balance the budget by raising taxes, but you can reduce the deficit by raising revenue (a.k.a taxes).
It is two separate issues. Budget is determined by the policies adopted by the Congress and taxes is not directly related since how the revenue are utilized depends on the budget plan.
However in general, higher revenue and lower spending is the only way to close a budget deficit, especially one this big.
It would also seem as good question of, what made up that 18% of GDP in taxes at different points. Income tax has generally remand the same at ~40-45%, but corporate tax as dropped from 25 percent in the 1950s to less then 10% today. That was replaced entirely by the payroll tax, which want from less the 10% in the 50s to 25% today. As the payroll tax is regressive, we can see where the taxes have been moved. Marginal tax rates mean little if the deductions change to make the same effective rate
Someone who is rich enough to be called rich can hire an accountant and mitigate whatever tax you put on them for less than they will ever spend on that tax. Taxing the rich is pointless and only buys votes.
Wait, so raising taxes doesn't raise revenue? Yes, our historical average of government to gdp has been 18%. But that is because the government could maintain itself back then from the 50's up to the beginning of the 80s. Yes, we have had a budget deficit every year from the 60s up to Clinton, but then again Clinton cut spending and raised taxes to a top 39.6%. Also, the examples in Europe tend to disagree. Denmark has a maximum tax rate of up to 60%, and maintains very high government spending.
This is misleading. The graph is "Federal Revenue as % of GDP" verses "Top Marginal Income Tax Rate." "Federal Revenue as % of GDP" does NOT mean "revenue from the top percent." As slide 4 shows, the middle class tax rate affects the revenue so much, that any affect by the top percent would be drowned out.
@DMAN123223 Perhaps you should have read my comment before replying. I said "This is misleading. The graph is "Federal Revenue as % of GDP" verses "Top Marginal Income Tax Rate."" That has noting to do with the truthfulness of the overall idea. However, it does imply that he is lying to us, so anything else he says should be looked at with caution.
@SUMD123 I did read your comment, if you read mine and the pdf, the graphs show that taxes on everyone do increase the revenue at the cost of unemployment like I said. What the video above explains and what you reiterated is that increasing the tax on the top income bracket has little effect on revenue. Now, it could be assumed that he generalises all taxes are like this and is therefore misleading, except he says something COMPLETELY to the contrary (middle class tax revenue), in the full PDF.
Duh, because when rates were lowered so many exemptions were added that the net result was the same. When we eliminate all deductions and credits, then we'll be able to determine what effect tax rates have on revenues.
This presentation is misleading. He's showing the MARGINAL INCOME tax rate but ignores the fact that the tax burden was shifted in other ways at the same time via other taxes and brackets (that their own linked charts show). Also, a little research shows that his chart isn't exactly what he says it is. It is sourced to the IRS, but similar charts from other sources shows attenuated mirroring of revenue to tax rates ranging 22-30% of GDP. The data here was baked in some way not clearly disclosed.
Try this decide how much you want to spend then tax that much and we won't have a deficit! Cutting taxes and then complaining that we have a deficit and need to cut spending is B.S.!
How will you sort out the options when you vote? I suggest that before you get caught up with anyone, including Obama, et al that you FIRST go to this web page (Get - The - Book . com) and grab a copy of a great book that few folks know about, read it, and then vote in a manner that will actually get this country a good President.
@Rcwatson83 because people and therefore politicians have agendas. People understand that in a democracy they can vote themselves money. They can't be arsed with the consequences.
I love this whole 90% tax myth, as if they were EVER paid. People bought up assets before the end of the year statements were done, therefore shrinking the amount in their capital accounts. The 90% taxes were rarely, if ever, paid..
Why does mainstream economics NOT factor in human motivation and action?
No, it was a technological transition which created the surplus. Look up Michael Spence, a Nobel prize winning economist, who says the biggest positive effect on economic growth is technological innovation and change. In the 90s, computers and the internet boosted the economy, as it was replacing old technologies. This increased productivity, and with it came higher than expected tax revenues. The US economy grew at 4.6% in one year in the 90s, extremely high for a developed economy.
@LogicalFlawDetector That's all well and good, but we would not have had the massive surplus under Clinton if he had not raised taxes 3% on the wealthiest Americans. Returning to that rate today makes sense given the massive Bush debt we need to deal with.
How do you know that we would NOT have balanced the budget without raising taxes? Tax revenues have been a constant 18% of GDP in the post WW II era. It was 18% even during 90% tax rate under Eisenhower. Tax rates don't determine tax revenues. It has more to do with economic conditions and the business cycle.
@LordShandor Reagan and W cut taxes substantially, and left us with record deficits. Clinton raised taxes and left us with a surplus. This isn't rocket science.
@Saebeck32 Ever heard the phrase, "correlation does equal causation"? The two were completely and utterly unrelated. Have you even ever balanced a check book?
@LordShandor But the correlation points to the fact that the biggest deficits that occurred under the presidents who cut taxes the most. And the president who raised taxes had a surplus. You are living in a Fox News fantasy land if you honestly think deficit reduction can be obtained by giant tax cuts.
@Saebeck32 Which is a 3rd grade caliber of logic to make such a simplistic assumption. That does not follow at all. Deficit reduction is not created by tax cuts, it is created by SPENDING CUTS. You can always outspend your tax base no matter how large it is. Tax cuts aren't about the deficit in the first place, they are about private sector productivity which is the ONLY thing that causes economic growth. Government always screws this up.
@LordShandor Your response is fundamentally wrong. Government built the Hoover damn. Gov't builds roads, schools, libraries, airports and bridges. Gov't pays for police, firefighters, the FDA, the FAA, the MILITARY!! All of these are jobs created by the government, that improve our country and boost the economy. Some things are just too important to be left up to the private sector, who only cares about profit and not people.
@Saebeck32 This is so dumb, I almost don't know what to say. You are enormously ignorant of history and economics. Government jobs do not create wealth, theu drain it from the productive. Police, military, etc create nothing of value and simply cost. Military spending is the main reason for.the huge deficits we now see. Gov agencies are always inefficient and ineffective as they have no reason to be otherwise, quite the contrary is true.
@Saebeck32 You make firefighters private so they are accoumtable for their actions and competency. The poloce need to go away completely, they are useless for anything but showing up late and harrassing those who have done nothing wrong.
@LordShandor BULLSHIT. Is firefighters or police are privatized, they will only protect those neighborhoods that can pay the most. Firefighters and police are for EVERYONE. Not just the rich.
@Saebeck32 How many people ever need firefighting services? Why should people be forced to pay for something they don't need? Fire insurance could provide security for the worried.
Poloce do not protect, this is a myth. They are thugs acting as glorified ticket writers. As they say, " when seconds count, a cop is minutes away." Defense is your responsibility, period.
Stop emotionalizong everything and try think clearly about what is being said. Stop justifying theft.
@LordShandor Well I should be able to only fund the military when I feel like it then right? People do eat food everyday, and breathe air, and drink water. Government ensure these things are safe with the FDA, the clean water act, the clean air act and the EPA. Some things are too important to be for profit. There is no getting into you thick skull. Why don't you leave the thinking to us real Americans, and you can got watch Glenn Beck with your tinfoil hat on.
@Saebeck32 The FDA doesn't ensure anything but profit and cronyism. 2 you keep saying that people are basically greedy and evil and need government to keep them straight, yet who is governmemt made up of? The greedy and corrupt people you say can't be trusted to be altruistic, yet you want to give them a monopoly on force and trust they will do the right thing? Do you realize how incoherent you sound?
@LordShandor As you just said, there is no profit motive in government. They have no incentive to cut corners on airline safety, or food quality, or drug safety, or a litany of other protections. The profit motive is what causes private health insurance companies to deny care to 50 million Americans.
@Saebeck32 I said no such thing, government is motivated to do a shitty job to justify more spending, the profit motovation is in the form of bribery and donations.
Again, ignorance of history on your part. Healthcare was afforeable until government got involved and mandated higher prices. Ron Paul has spoken about this repeatedly. College used to be affordable as well, then government came and created a mess. Same with the housing bubble. Government can only destroy.
@LordShandor It must be nice to live in the Fox News universe where facts don't matter. I hope one day you will rejoin the rest of us in reality. Good bye.
@Saebeck32 It's relevant because you obviously have experience with life or the things you profess to believe. You need to grow up and study more. Try reading something other than Marx when you do.
@Saebeck32 In which of your 16 years of life? Come back when you're an adult and realize that government is the last entity that gives a shit about the people.
@LordShandor Yeah because government run medicare denies care to so many seniors. Private companies only care about their bottom line and have no social responsibilities. Government does. Government makes no profit from providing police, medicare, social security, clean water, safe planes. Gov't is there to protect our interests as people.
There should be no federal income tax. 0% Prior to 1914 this was the case in America. America got the federal income tax when the IRS and Federal Reserve was created and got it BECAUSE of these two entities. Abolish the Fed and the IRS and then shrink the size of gov't and we can go back to being free in America and not economic slaves to the federal tyrants.
@simonburbank lol The same way we funded those things prior to 1913. BTW income taxes are NOT used for roads and schools. The States are responsible to fund roads and do so through taxes on gasoline, tollways, and license registration fees. The States are also commisioned to fund public schools and do so through property taxes on residents of that local area the school is zoned in. An income tax implies that we are all slaves to the government which is backwards. Florida has 0 income taxes.
@simonburbank The main thing you need to convey with 'progressives' or socialists is that libertarians are classical liberals as was John Locke and Thomas Jefferson. Also making them understand what money is, why we use money, and what gives money value (which requires a well worth self education on your part). After laying the foundation down of what money is to ask what property rights are. Do you feel it's ok to steal from your neighbor as long as your neighbor has more property than you do?
@simonburbank Government has no money. The only money that gov't has is money that it steals through taxation or expanding the money supply (devaluing the currency to liquidate gov't debt) and that this is what makes people poor and go from the middle to lower class. It's not enough to turn the Fed over to the Treasury, the fiat paper money system must end along with fractional reserve banking. Then have them understand why competition is needed to destroy cartels and monopolies...
@simonburbank ...and that regulations is exactly what big corporations want since the smaller mom and pop shops cannot compete with the big corps due to unfair trade advantage given to them through corporate welfare and unfair tax breaks compared to their competition. Their competition is at a disadvantage in the marketplace because corporations use the force of gov't to run their competitors out of the marketplace. Competition is what gives us better quality, better jobs, and cheaper prices.
@residentzombie My teacher in high school recently told us laissez- faire capitalism is bad because big businesses like Microsoft for example can buy their competitors and run them out of business. Is this true?
@simonburbank Free markets don't exist because of government prohibiting new businesses. In a true free market, new companies will emerge when others get bought out or fail. It's only when those corporations use the force of government to prevent or restrict these new competitors from entering the market. I strongly suggest to subscribe to misesmedia and listen to the professors of laissez-faire. Most are excellent speakers like Tom Woods, Bob Murphy, Murray Rothbard, and Lew Rockwell.
@simonburbank Reagan talked the talk, but did NOT walk the walk. He was almost assassinated, so I cannot judge that his heart was corrupt, his life was and may have continued to be threatened if he broke the statist quo.
@simonburbank Ronald played into the game of politics. Like Simon said, he had the right ideas all around, but he did not deliver on all of those ideas. They did help us at the time, but not in the long run with the Debt. Saying that what Ronald did during his presidency is all Conservative ideas is false.
@simonburbank The problem with the conservatives is they are trying to find a hero where no exists, and given their choices between two Bush's and Richard Nixon I guess Reagan was as close as they could come. The trickle down economics policies simply didn't work as the facts can clearly be shown to support. The problem with this Prof's presentation is the problem with all statics where you don't know the source.
Mark Twain said "There are three kinds of lies. Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics !
@residentzombie jeah cutting taxes is working pretty good, just look where the US is now...oh what? they got a huge dept? You americans are so ignorant, you think you only cut taxes and the "pie" getting bigger. Spoiler alert, its not that easy -,-
@MareSwiss Your comment is ignorant. Europe is doing great, right? no problems there? You think that raising taxes will make a bigger pie? Spoiler alert, its not that easy -,-
@MareSwiss You fail to understand why people use money and what gives money value. Money is a unit of account to value labor and goods/services produced with one's labor for trade with another for their labor. Only production creates wealth. Gov't doesn't produce anything so they don't give money value. What gov't does is steal from those of us who do produce and theft is evil. It is against the Bible and is morally wrong. I'm sure you don't want others to steal your property do you?
@MareSwiss I sense you are enamored into the false collectivist philosophy that groups are more important than individuals and individual rights. This is where your logic and morals fail you because theft is no virtue, theft and envy are both a vice.
@residentzombie omg, this is wrong on so many levels. I like those people who claim that taxes are robbery but use a LOT of government provided service and infrastructure. Who do you think payed for the streets in your country? The answer is everyone due to taxes collected by the government. But if they wouldn't tax no one would have an incentive to connect every little town with streets. I'm not saying tax as high as you can, rather you should aspire to a good balance.
@MareSwiss i would disagree, because private infrastructure such as roads and mass transit exist, and in fact function much better than government funded projects because there is competition for money. on top of this, government steals your money to pay for roads, whether you use them or not. this is essentially a subsidy to automotive companies and oil producers that goes largely ignored by the public. the fact remains: government is inept at doing what the private sector can.
@lalem91 I give up, its senseless to discuss with people who have no knoeledge about economics...just look up at wikipedia "natural monopoly" and perhaps you will one day understand a little more about it. I have no time to explain everything to you.
@MareSwiss actually im not sure what your argument is here. if your attempt to "scare" people away from capitalism with the mention of monopolies is the only straw man you have, along with a link to wikipedia, i believe the debate is over, sir.
@lalem91 Jes you are right! the debate is over as i said (you got problem reading?) i give up. it makes no sense to discuss this subject with people who have no understanding of economics. My intention is not to scare people awaye from capitalism, if so i would not study it ;) My intenion was to show you some limits of it where capitalism fails, thats why i showed you one subjct, i could give you a lot more but you wouldn't read it anyway so this hole matter is senseless. BYE
@MareSwiss to be totally honest it seems you havent studied it enough. in the case of the natural monopoly, quite near anything could be called a natural monopoly. why stop at utilities? what about retailers? or operating systems? or insurance providers? but the main issue is you simply threw out a careless red herring in your opening argument regarding monopolies which was not previously a part of the discussion.and yes market failures DO happen; but government can not fix them.
@MareSwiss Taxation is theft period. Noone says that gov't needs to be in charge of building roads and bridges, the private sector can do these things even better thank you. If it is deemed necessary though to have gov't do this function or any similar function not related to the preservation of protecting individual freedom then the only moral way to raise funds is on a fee for service basis. Roads to be paid 100% with tolls and registration fees relating to vehicle use.
@residentzombie Government IS necessary, as the free market does not provide certain resources. You can't toll every single suburban road, you can't turn a profit for public parks. If there was no government who would pay for NECESSARY welfare (I emphasise the word necessary as the government does excessively spend on useless welfare programs) to help those people TRULY in need. The government can't provide these things for free so they take taxes, and the free market is not willing, hence taxes
@acau93 Think of it this way: the majority of people want welfare, right? So, most people feel inclined to help those who aren't as well off, judging by the fact that we have these laws. Would they suddenly not want to help people if the government isn't forcing them to?
@acau93 No? Why are people so concerned about it then? How come homeless people can make so much money begging? Surely you can speculate otherwise but really I don't see why people wouldn't help out those less fortunate than themselves when they want all of these welfare state programs. Why do you think politicians run on things like that in the first place? To appeal to people wanting to help!
@acau93 No? Why are people so concerned about it then? How come homeless people can make so much money begging? Surely you can speculate otherwise but really I don't see why people wouldn't help out those less fortunate than themselves when they want all of these welfare state programs. Why do you think politicians run on things like that in the first place? To appeal to people wanting to help!
@acau93 No? Why are people so concerned about it then? How come homeless people can make so much money begging? Surely you can speculate otherwise but really I don't see why people wouldn't help out those less fortunate than themselves when they want all of these welfare state programs. Why do you think politicians run on things like that in the first place? To appeal to people wanting to help!
@acau93 No? Why are people so concerned about it then? How come homeless people can make so much money begging? Surely you can speculate otherwise but really I don't see why people wouldn't help out those less fortunate than themselves when they want all of these welfare state programs. Why do you think politicians run on things like that in the first place? To appeal to people wanting to help!
@residentzombie You do not hear what you say. The government builds the roads means government subsidize private companies to build it and the road is TALL FREE. If private company builds the road it is TALL road and you are happy because your small brains think I DO NOT USE IT I DO NOT PAY. My question is: who will build roads to remote points where is not profitable to make road? Is your principal valid there?
@residentzombie Taxes are a neccessary evil, that's what happens when the middle-class isn't smashed even in society. But I agree that raising taxes isn't the soultion.
LoL Uses graphs to trick you? Did you feel the same way when you failed your math exam? This is official statistics from the US government. We have all seen these in economics classes and one should be able to know these historical facts. The fact that you think using graphs and math is tantamount to deceiving someone tells us, apart from your intellectual level, that you are the typical American graduate of public schools.
This guy makes a pretty chart graphing MARGINAL tax rates vs tax revenue % of GDP. Marginal Rate means little because there are also wide swings in tax breaks that off set the Marginal Rate. If this guy was honest he would chart the EFFECTIVE tax rate vs tax revenue % of GDP. Since he is not, he obviously has an agenda and not to be trusted. Don't be fooled by numbers so easily.
@LogicalFlawDetector Check out the Wikipedia article I referred to in that first post. It wont let me post links on here. Either you read it and your reading comprehension=fail, or you didn't read it (which would explain the lack of substance in your argument, if you could even call that an argument).
@thunderdragon14 Pretty sure you missed the whole point there...
Simple and low tax code=Better atmosphere for businesses which increases economy, which in turn, increases revenue; including governmental.
Complex and high tax code=Bad atmosphere for businesses which decreases economy, which in turn, decreases revenue;including governmental.
Let's say we both had a pie. You took 50% of your pie and ate it and I only took 25% of my pie and ate it. Who had more? Depends on the size of the pie.
Let's say my pie is 10x bigger than yours. So, even though you had a bigger percentage of your pie, I still had more pie over-all and more pie left over.
So the solution (or at least the one that is being proposed here) is that we not take bigger chunks from the pie, but do what we can to grow the pie so that everyone (not just the government) can benefit from it.
@StateExempt Yes but does it mean what you think it does, as this would mean many corporations that pay zero taxes today would actually start contributing. This seems to always be glossed over by these libertarian hand puppets for corporate America.
@StateExempt That's just a stupid argument to say a corporation shouldn't pay taxes since the employees do. I suggest you come up with something a little less simpleton that that. The huge amount of tax dodges employed by both rich people and corporations makes any discussion about tax rates just foolish unless you eliminate all the loopholes first. Then and only then can you have any discussion about changing the rates. Please spare me your simpleton Libertarian dribble .
@egcroan - I can agree with you on tax loopholes, but my basic point remains:
It is misleading to say that corporations do not pay taxes because it implies that the executives for those firms do not pay taxes either, which is simply not the case.
@StateExempt A corporation =/= employees of that corporation. You and Mitt Romney both need to do a little research. When a corporation (like G.E.) pays no taxes whatsoever, it is robbing the American people of billions of dollars in federal revenue that other taxpayers have to make up, regardless of what it does with that stolen money. If I hire you and pay you a wage, the fact that you pay taxes on that income does not mean I do not have to pay taxes.
@Archronis "If I hire you and pay you a wage, the fact that you pay taxes on that income does not mean I do not have to pay taxes."
Your not paying those taxes. The person hired is paying your part of the taxes as well, in the form of a lower wage. The cost of an employee does not equal the compensation of the employee.
@kahnk009 Regardless of an employer's other expenses (including taxes), wages/salaries are dictated by the market-value of that labor, not what the employer thinks/claims it can afford to pay. The claim that taxing corporations somehow suppresses wages is a lie that corporations use to try to get out of paying their fair share.
@StateExempt This is actually the lower taxes, and get government out of the way of anything that allows the economy to grow bull-crap that has been part of the republican Party's agenda for years. The truth is this kin of deregulation is actually what caused our economy to be where it is today. Well that an electing a moron who lowered taxes on the rich so we would start running a deficit instead of the surplus that President Clinton's tax code left the government.
@StateExempt That's the logical fallacy that the presenter wants you to make. He's showing you a PORTION of the actual data that, without proper context, implies a trend and makes it easy for you (the audience) to make the intuitive leap--even without suggesting a causal mechanism for the trend. However, the rest of the data would reveal that the trend is an illusion, since the steady rate is accounted for in other tax increases.
@Tracywithafacey Yes but the problem is that not only would people keep more of their money (because they have less to spend due to taxes) but that the spending of the government increases every year. With lower taxes, people with less money have more freedom to spend or invest their money and corporations have more money to spend on making their products better helping the consumer.
Check the census of the past few decades and you will see that population growth alone wont solve much.
@Tracywithafacey That is very true. But how much would it grow? the point this guy was trying to make (i think) is that a certain % of GDP can be captured by taxes, and no more. People dodge taxes the higher they get, or they move to low tax areas. Also, there is some evidence that high effective tax rates lower birth rates. This guy is arguing that lower taxes will bring in the same revenue as a % of GDP, and that low taxes will make GDP higher
Um yes, raise taxes on the "job creators", which btw is nothing but Orwellian type bullshit calling the super rich job creators, and closing the loopholes.
Almost half of major corps pay ZERO in taxes because of loopholes.
@mecher3k This statement is incorrect. Corporations pay what is called corporation tax as well as the owners of the companies who pay income tax. Most people that have large corporations find loopholes in the system making it seem that their profits are from capital gains. This means that their tax rates are at 17%.
If you have something in contrast to what I am saying please cite it as it gives it much more validity.
@mecher3k So what just keep the tax rates up for them while dropping for everyone else right? Doesn't that mean that companies across the nation will just raise the prices of their products? and if so, doesn't that mean that you will have to pay for the difference in your paycheck?
Companies control the prices of the products you buy so if you raise your taxes, they will raise the price of the products that you want to buy to compensate.
"Doesn't that mean that companies across the nation will just raise the prices of their products?"
You mean the half of major corps that pay zero taxes anyway?
Lol fool.
And the rest of what you are saying is they should pay zero taxes while having complete control over our government?
Nice FASCIST.
Sorry I'm not a communist, just someone that wants people to pay their fair share. But go a head and raise taxes on those with the least amount of wealth fascist.
Where do you get your information that companies pay no taxes? I see no where that there are any companies that don't/
Lastly:
I never said that I wanted to increase taxes on the people with less money. I was only commenting on the fact that you said to increase taxes on corps solves stuff
@mecher3k The problem with your statement about wanting people to pay their fair share is that is goes against everything you've said previously. The wealthiest individuals pay nearly 35% of their income while the poorest pay less than 10%. The wealthy ARE the people who pay so the poor don't have to.
"Are you saying that you want to tax them more because the top 1% already pay 38% of the taxes in this country?"
Why not? This is Promoted Video from Super-Rich.... lol!? {roll my eyes}
George Carlin - The American Dream....
v=acLW1vFO-2Q
George Carlin - We Like War....
v=sDkhzHQO7jY
If Super-Rich have MONEY to pay 4 these PROPAGANDA Video, they have MONEY to pay even more TAX from their BABY-BOOMER Ted Nugent Vietnam War DRAFT Dodger NEO-CON ChickenHawk TEA PARTY!! >=P
makes no sense unless you accept the laffer curve but federal revenue does not only include income tax but trade tariffs for example and the fact during his simplified graph, that does not include the depression when the government grew in size. to 30 percent GDP. Prof. Scratch and sniff here needs to stop taking money from rich donors who want to pay even lower taxes and understand that correlation does not imply causation.
@thefredsays You have some great examples, but i think i still disagree with some of the things you said. Government does grow well beyond 17% during wars and recessions, but that is deficit spending. People dodge taxes, and the higher they are the more effort they put into avoiding them. I dont think its realistic to enforce a high tax rate.
@MrHamncheez its not all deficit spending but the government, specifically the US, historically borrows at unrealistic low rates than anyone realizes. The chinese government have no choice but to hold treasuries, since they are low risk investments and are prohibited from owning any property or otherwise solid investment since the US government blocks the sale by citing National Security.
@mecher3k I dont follow. Protecting private property is pretty much the only thing a government can do well, and that includes murder. Anything else it tries it will fail at or be highly inefficient. High taxes hurt the taxed and benefit no one, so there is a strong social and personal incentive to dodge. Protecting private property is easier to enforce because people have a natural tendency to support such actions. Laws are to keep the few delinquents in check, not the peaceful majority.
@mecher3k I tried to be polite and reasonable. I'm sorry you aren't.
The entire purpose of government is to protect private property from foreign and domestic theft. Private property includes bodily harm. Every other good/service has a market for it that can be obtained by trade of some sort. Please, before you reply, go read the Constitution. Its only a few pages long and isn't time consuming. If ur watching videos like this, then u are obviously educated. Oh, btw, we do pay cops $thousands
@MrHamncheez Yes, I am, but it's better and maybe rather different from what you would expect. Just type in "I'm Allowed to Rob You!" and it's the first video there.
Common how cam someone have twinkle understanding this unless your younger than 10. It means that taxation has peaked, ever heard of breaking point in economy, sort of like that, low taxes *more biz = same revenue as high taxes *less biz.
wow. this is utter bullshit. as proven by everyone from Bruce Bartlett to David Stockman. but hey, keep sticking your fingers in your ears and going lalalalalal
What he saying here, for those who are a bit slower at this... Is that the govt gets 18% of whatever the GDP is, and that the less govt taxes us the more the GDP is therefor the more revenue they actually get. Savvy?
he just said that the government gets 18% even if the tax rate is low or high, does this actually make any sense to anybody? higher revenues mean a higher income, period.
@CorrerPorVida It's because when we raise rates, the rich just get around it with accounting, investing overseas, etc. Lower taxes invites capital into the country, higher taxes drive capital out. Simple enough, it really makes sense if you look at it reasonably.
@soulforged789 Oddly enough, even with record low tax rates, major businesses still seem to have an easy time sending it overseas and finding accounting loopholes.
Hey Surferdod - you been drinking too much seawater. The jobs are not created by those in the lower income bracket. What ... you think the money to pay you to go out and surf comes from hot air or ... does your mommy and daddy support your habit and you sponge off the rest of America? Jeeze - just when you think it's safe to go into the water again ...
so our marginal tax rates are currently at near-historical lows.... where are all these magical jobs you folks keep promising will just fall from the sky?
jobs are "created" when the economy is growing. the economy grows when there is demand. cutting the rates on billionaires who make all their cash on dividends to 17% does not create demand. that's a fact, bro.
@wvfii When the government takes money from a billionaire, millionaire, you or me, it spends a good chunk simply printing pages and filing them away. This money would be spent by individuals on things like food, or investments, or saved (the money is invested as before). We could increase demand by giving people the job of digging holes with spoons, but there would be absolutely no benefit to the economy. The government only ever shifts around wealth, never creating jobs.
i find that hard to believe. its so easy to fool us simple people with your pie graphs and scientific calculators. now to go watch that video of the guy with the fireworks up his ass...
Left = tax the rich the dont make jobs. When was the first time a poor person hired you to work for them. Rasing taxes is not the answr people. STOP SPENDING. I cna think of a few places to save. Defund the EPA, TSA, Dept of Education, Dept of Heath and Welfare, Dept of (fill in blank). Take the $117B each month and pay , The military, Social securty, Medicare, with the remander going to the debt. Problem solved.
Again with the spending nonsense. If Obama would have let the Bush taxs cuts expire would we even be talking about deficits? The rich don't create jobs! The rich horde money and buy our politicians like cheaps hookers.
How about you teabaggers talk about protecting American Jobs by tarriffs on imports as do the Germans and Chinese? Time for a middle class revolt!
You can't balance the budget by raising taxes, but you can reduce the deficit by raising revenue (a.k.a taxes).
It is two separate issues. Budget is determined by the policies adopted by the Congress and taxes is not directly related since how the revenue are utilized depends on the budget plan.
However in general, higher revenue and lower spending is the only way to close a budget deficit, especially one this big.
Catholic university... *chuckle*.
Neosaigo 2 days ago
This video is a horse shit crap. Tax revenue comes not only from income taxes.
cosmopolite66 2 days ago
my engineering professor always says "keep it simple shitheads!"
ltajambi 2 days ago
43 people have Obama's balls in their mouth.
VegasBilgeRat 4 days ago
@VegasBilgeRat And 204 people have Bush's balls in their mouth, what's your point?
MezaseMaster 3 days ago
It would also seem as good question of, what made up that 18% of GDP in taxes at different points. Income tax has generally remand the same at ~40-45%, but corporate tax as dropped from 25 percent in the 1950s to less then 10% today. That was replaced entirely by the payroll tax, which want from less the 10% in the 50s to 25% today. As the payroll tax is regressive, we can see where the taxes have been moved. Marginal tax rates mean little if the deductions change to make the same effective rate
Loathomar 1 week ago
Keep in mind:
Someone who is rich enough to be called rich can hire an accountant and mitigate whatever tax you put on them for less than they will ever spend on that tax. Taxing the rich is pointless and only buys votes.
AoiKaze2000 2 weeks ago
Wait, so raising taxes doesn't raise revenue? Yes, our historical average of government to gdp has been 18%. But that is because the government could maintain itself back then from the 50's up to the beginning of the 80s. Yes, we have had a budget deficit every year from the 60s up to Clinton, but then again Clinton cut spending and raised taxes to a top 39.6%. Also, the examples in Europe tend to disagree. Denmark has a maximum tax rate of up to 60%, and maintains very high government spending.
andrewvegas11 1 month ago
You'll never get a Democrat to believe that simple is better than complex.
killroy71 1 month ago 15
@killroy71 LOL, so true.
TWSceptic 1 month ago
@killroy71 I agree, that's so true. Stupid Kensyian economics are destroying the US and possibily the EU.
louisiananlord17 16 hours ago
you sir...are an idiot. do your homework
KimPaul14 1 month ago
This is misleading. The graph is "Federal Revenue as % of GDP" verses "Top Marginal Income Tax Rate." "Federal Revenue as % of GDP" does NOT mean "revenue from the top percent." As slide 4 shows, the middle class tax rate affects the revenue so much, that any affect by the top percent would be drowned out.
SUMD123 1 month ago
@SUMD123 You should probably read the link in the description, it describes:
"What is interesting about this data is that there are only two tax rates
that, when raised, increase tax revenue: Social Security and Medicare
tax rates. One possible reason for this is that, because more than 50% of
Americans pay no income tax, the only taxes that hit all working
Americans are the Social Security and Medicare taxes."
However, it also notes that these taxes increase the unemployment rate.
DMAN123223 1 month ago
@DMAN123223 Perhaps you should have read my comment before replying. I said "This is misleading. The graph is "Federal Revenue as % of GDP" verses "Top Marginal Income Tax Rate."" That has noting to do with the truthfulness of the overall idea. However, it does imply that he is lying to us, so anything else he says should be looked at with caution.
SUMD123 1 month ago
@SUMD123 I did read your comment, if you read mine and the pdf, the graphs show that taxes on everyone do increase the revenue at the cost of unemployment like I said. What the video above explains and what you reiterated is that increasing the tax on the top income bracket has little effect on revenue. Now, it could be assumed that he generalises all taxes are like this and is therefore misleading, except he says something COMPLETELY to the contrary (middle class tax revenue), in the full PDF.
DMAN123223 1 month ago
@DMAN123223 Exactly.
SUMD123 1 month ago
Duh, because when rates were lowered so many exemptions were added that the net result was the same. When we eliminate all deductions and credits, then we'll be able to determine what effect tax rates have on revenues.
TheSpeedpacer 1 month ago
Comment removed
RACARNIE 2 months ago
firefighters and police are not funded by the federal government dumbass
hokieday 2 months ago
Where does Prof. Davies teach? I'm about 99% sure I went to school with his kids.
ilikenoodles1 2 months ago
This presentation is misleading. He's showing the MARGINAL INCOME tax rate but ignores the fact that the tax burden was shifted in other ways at the same time via other taxes and brackets (that their own linked charts show). Also, a little research shows that his chart isn't exactly what he says it is. It is sourced to the IRS, but similar charts from other sources shows attenuated mirroring of revenue to tax rates ranging 22-30% of GDP. The data here was baked in some way not clearly disclosed.
Archronis 2 months ago
Try this decide how much you want to spend then tax that much and we won't have a deficit! Cutting taxes and then complaining that we have a deficit and need to cut spending is B.S.!
therichardking4242 2 months ago
I must have missed something. Where was the evidence for his concluding statement?
mnhsty 2 months ago
Why does this video only have 16k views? When on the side, a thumbnail of a girl leaning over has 13 million
scrhamblin 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
How will you sort out the options when you vote? I suggest that before you get caught up with anyone, including Obama, et al that you FIRST go to this web page (Get - The - Book . com) and grab a copy of a great book that few folks know about, read it, and then vote in a manner that will actually get this country a good President.
TMIAmerica 3 months ago
God why can't we have smart non-rhetoric spewing people like this run our government. No bullshit just get the job done!!
Rcwatson83 3 months ago
@Rcwatson83 because people and therefore politicians have agendas. People understand that in a democracy they can vote themselves money. They can't be arsed with the consequences.
Cornampoo 3 months ago
I love this whole 90% tax myth, as if they were EVER paid. People bought up assets before the end of the year statements were done, therefore shrinking the amount in their capital accounts. The 90% taxes were rarely, if ever, paid..
Why does mainstream economics NOT factor in human motivation and action?
AroundSun 4 months ago
Doing the same for less is always great, but HOW to do that is the question.
mechadamuramu 4 months ago
@mechadamuramu No, wrong question. Government does too much, we don't need to do the same with less, they need to do less with less.
LordShandor 4 months ago
Clinton balanced the budget by raising taxes.
Saebeck32 4 months ago 2
No, it was a technological transition which created the surplus. Look up Michael Spence, a Nobel prize winning economist, who says the biggest positive effect on economic growth is technological innovation and change. In the 90s, computers and the internet boosted the economy, as it was replacing old technologies. This increased productivity, and with it came higher than expected tax revenues. The US economy grew at 4.6% in one year in the 90s, extremely high for a developed economy.
LogicalFlawDetector 4 months ago
@LogicalFlawDetector That's all well and good, but we would not have had the massive surplus under Clinton if he had not raised taxes 3% on the wealthiest Americans. Returning to that rate today makes sense given the massive Bush debt we need to deal with.
Saebeck32 4 months ago
@Saebeck32
How do you know that we would NOT have balanced the budget without raising taxes? Tax revenues have been a constant 18% of GDP in the post WW II era. It was 18% even during 90% tax rate under Eisenhower. Tax rates don't determine tax revenues. It has more to do with economic conditions and the business cycle.
LogicalFlawDetector 4 months ago
@Saebeck32Are you really that stupid?
LordShandor 4 months ago
@LordShandor Reagan and W cut taxes substantially, and left us with record deficits. Clinton raised taxes and left us with a surplus. This isn't rocket science.
Saebeck32 4 months ago
@Saebeck32 Ever heard the phrase, "correlation does equal causation"? The two were completely and utterly unrelated. Have you even ever balanced a check book?
LordShandor 4 months ago
@LordShandor But the correlation points to the fact that the biggest deficits that occurred under the presidents who cut taxes the most. And the president who raised taxes had a surplus. You are living in a Fox News fantasy land if you honestly think deficit reduction can be obtained by giant tax cuts.
Saebeck32 4 months ago
@Saebeck32 Which is a 3rd grade caliber of logic to make such a simplistic assumption. That does not follow at all. Deficit reduction is not created by tax cuts, it is created by SPENDING CUTS. You can always outspend your tax base no matter how large it is. Tax cuts aren't about the deficit in the first place, they are about private sector productivity which is the ONLY thing that causes economic growth. Government always screws this up.
LordShandor 4 months ago
@LordShandor Your response is fundamentally wrong. Government built the Hoover damn. Gov't builds roads, schools, libraries, airports and bridges. Gov't pays for police, firefighters, the FDA, the FAA, the MILITARY!! All of these are jobs created by the government, that improve our country and boost the economy. Some things are just too important to be left up to the private sector, who only cares about profit and not people.
Saebeck32 4 months ago
@Saebeck32 This is so dumb, I almost don't know what to say. You are enormously ignorant of history and economics. Government jobs do not create wealth, theu drain it from the productive. Police, military, etc create nothing of value and simply cost. Military spending is the main reason for.the huge deficits we now see. Gov agencies are always inefficient and ineffective as they have no reason to be otherwise, quite the contrary is true.
LordShandor 4 months ago
@LordShandor So because firefighters and police create little wealth for themselves, we should abolish those jobs? What planet are you living on??
Saebeck32 4 months ago 2
@Saebeck32 You make firefighters private so they are accoumtable for their actions and competency. The poloce need to go away completely, they are useless for anything but showing up late and harrassing those who have done nothing wrong.
LordShandor 4 months ago
@LordShandor BULLSHIT. Is firefighters or police are privatized, they will only protect those neighborhoods that can pay the most. Firefighters and police are for EVERYONE. Not just the rich.
Saebeck32 4 months ago
@Saebeck32 How many people ever need firefighting services? Why should people be forced to pay for something they don't need? Fire insurance could provide security for the worried.
Poloce do not protect, this is a myth. They are thugs acting as glorified ticket writers. As they say, " when seconds count, a cop is minutes away." Defense is your responsibility, period.
Stop emotionalizong everything and try think clearly about what is being said. Stop justifying theft.
LordShandor 4 months ago
@LordShandor Well I should be able to only fund the military when I feel like it then right? People do eat food everyday, and breathe air, and drink water. Government ensure these things are safe with the FDA, the clean water act, the clean air act and the EPA. Some things are too important to be for profit. There is no getting into you thick skull. Why don't you leave the thinking to us real Americans, and you can got watch Glenn Beck with your tinfoil hat on.
Saebeck32 4 months ago
@Saebeck32 The FDA doesn't ensure anything but profit and cronyism. 2 you keep saying that people are basically greedy and evil and need government to keep them straight, yet who is governmemt made up of? The greedy and corrupt people you say can't be trusted to be altruistic, yet you want to give them a monopoly on force and trust they will do the right thing? Do you realize how incoherent you sound?
LordShandor 4 months ago
@LordShandor As you just said, there is no profit motive in government. They have no incentive to cut corners on airline safety, or food quality, or drug safety, or a litany of other protections. The profit motive is what causes private health insurance companies to deny care to 50 million Americans.
Saebeck32 4 months ago
@Saebeck32 I said no such thing, government is motivated to do a shitty job to justify more spending, the profit motovation is in the form of bribery and donations.
Again, ignorance of history on your part. Healthcare was afforeable until government got involved and mandated higher prices. Ron Paul has spoken about this repeatedly. College used to be affordable as well, then government came and created a mess. Same with the housing bubble. Government can only destroy.
LordShandor 4 months ago
@LordShandor It must be nice to live in the Fox News universe where facts don't matter. I hope one day you will rejoin the rest of us in reality. Good bye.
Saebeck32 4 months ago
@Saebeck32 Shouldn't you be out occupying wall st or something?
LordShandor 4 months ago
@LordShandor Shouldn't you be masturbating to piles of money and unemployed veterans who had their homes foreclosed?
Saebeck32 4 months ago
@Saebeck32 You can thank government for that.
LordShandor 4 months ago
@LordShandor Your fetish for wealth and watching the poor suffer? Just like Jesus wanted. Interesting.
Saebeck32 4 months ago
@Saebeck32 I'm sorry, what grade did you say you were in?
LordShandor 4 months ago
@LordShandor Well government run schools aren't any good according to you, so I suppose it's irrelevant.
Saebeck32 4 months ago
@Saebeck32 It's relevant because you obviously have experience with life or the things you profess to believe. You need to grow up and study more. Try reading something other than Marx when you do.
LordShandor 4 months ago
@LordShandor Get lost nutjob. I've forgotten more than you or your teabagger cult friends ever knew.
Saebeck32 4 months ago
@Saebeck32 In which of your 16 years of life? Come back when you're an adult and realize that government is the last entity that gives a shit about the people.
LordShandor 4 months ago
@LordShandor Yeah because government run medicare denies care to so many seniors. Private companies only care about their bottom line and have no social responsibilities. Government does. Government makes no profit from providing police, medicare, social security, clean water, safe planes. Gov't is there to protect our interests as people.
Saebeck32 4 months ago
There should be no federal income tax. 0% Prior to 1914 this was the case in America. America got the federal income tax when the IRS and Federal Reserve was created and got it BECAUSE of these two entities. Abolish the Fed and the IRS and then shrink the size of gov't and we can go back to being free in America and not economic slaves to the federal tyrants.
residentzombie 5 months ago 25
@residentzombie So how do we create roads, fund public schools etc. if we have no income tax.
simonburbank 3 months ago
@simonburbank lol The same way we funded those things prior to 1913. BTW income taxes are NOT used for roads and schools. The States are responsible to fund roads and do so through taxes on gasoline, tollways, and license registration fees. The States are also commisioned to fund public schools and do so through property taxes on residents of that local area the school is zoned in. An income tax implies that we are all slaves to the government which is backwards. Florida has 0 income taxes.
residentzombie 3 months ago
@residentzombie I'm a libertarian as well but I wanted to know how to refute the liberal's argument.
simonburbank 3 months ago
@simonburbank The main thing you need to convey with 'progressives' or socialists is that libertarians are classical liberals as was John Locke and Thomas Jefferson. Also making them understand what money is, why we use money, and what gives money value (which requires a well worth self education on your part). After laying the foundation down of what money is to ask what property rights are. Do you feel it's ok to steal from your neighbor as long as your neighbor has more property than you do?
residentzombie 3 months ago
@simonburbank Government has no money. The only money that gov't has is money that it steals through taxation or expanding the money supply (devaluing the currency to liquidate gov't debt) and that this is what makes people poor and go from the middle to lower class. It's not enough to turn the Fed over to the Treasury, the fiat paper money system must end along with fractional reserve banking. Then have them understand why competition is needed to destroy cartels and monopolies...
residentzombie 3 months ago
@simonburbank ...and that regulations is exactly what big corporations want since the smaller mom and pop shops cannot compete with the big corps due to unfair trade advantage given to them through corporate welfare and unfair tax breaks compared to their competition. Their competition is at a disadvantage in the marketplace because corporations use the force of gov't to run their competitors out of the marketplace. Competition is what gives us better quality, better jobs, and cheaper prices.
residentzombie 3 months ago
@residentzombie My teacher in high school recently told us laissez- faire capitalism is bad because big businesses like Microsoft for example can buy their competitors and run them out of business. Is this true?
simonburbank 3 months ago
@simonburbank watch?v=nOBD6v8g1F4
residentzombie 3 months ago
@simonburbank Free markets don't exist because of government prohibiting new businesses. In a true free market, new companies will emerge when others get bought out or fail. It's only when those corporations use the force of government to prevent or restrict these new competitors from entering the market. I strongly suggest to subscribe to misesmedia and listen to the professors of laissez-faire. Most are excellent speakers like Tom Woods, Bob Murphy, Murray Rothbard, and Lew Rockwell.
residentzombie 3 months ago
@residentzombie What do you think of Ronald Reagan? Was he as good of a president as Conservatives think or not?
simonburbank 3 months ago
@simonburbank Reagan talked the talk, but did NOT walk the walk. He was almost assassinated, so I cannot judge that his heart was corrupt, his life was and may have continued to be threatened if he broke the statist quo.
residentzombie 3 months ago
@residentzombie How about Margaret Thatcher?
simonburbank 3 months ago
@simonburbank Ronald played into the game of politics. Like Simon said, he had the right ideas all around, but he did not deliver on all of those ideas. They did help us at the time, but not in the long run with the Debt. Saying that what Ronald did during his presidency is all Conservative ideas is false.
GOllumboy101 3 months ago
@simonburbank The problem with the conservatives is they are trying to find a hero where no exists, and given their choices between two Bush's and Richard Nixon I guess Reagan was as close as they could come. The trickle down economics policies simply didn't work as the facts can clearly be shown to support. The problem with this Prof's presentation is the problem with all statics where you don't know the source.
Mark Twain said "There are three kinds of lies. Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics !
egcroan 3 months ago
@residentzombie jeah cutting taxes is working pretty good, just look where the US is now...oh what? they got a huge dept? You americans are so ignorant, you think you only cut taxes and the "pie" getting bigger. Spoiler alert, its not that easy -,-
MareSwiss 1 month ago
@MareSwiss Your comment is ignorant. Europe is doing great, right? no problems there? You think that raising taxes will make a bigger pie? Spoiler alert, its not that easy -,-
kahnk009 1 month ago
@MareSwiss You fail to understand why people use money and what gives money value. Money is a unit of account to value labor and goods/services produced with one's labor for trade with another for their labor. Only production creates wealth. Gov't doesn't produce anything so they don't give money value. What gov't does is steal from those of us who do produce and theft is evil. It is against the Bible and is morally wrong. I'm sure you don't want others to steal your property do you?
residentzombie 1 month ago
@MareSwiss I sense you are enamored into the false collectivist philosophy that groups are more important than individuals and individual rights. This is where your logic and morals fail you because theft is no virtue, theft and envy are both a vice.
residentzombie 1 month ago
@residentzombie omg, this is wrong on so many levels. I like those people who claim that taxes are robbery but use a LOT of government provided service and infrastructure. Who do you think payed for the streets in your country? The answer is everyone due to taxes collected by the government. But if they wouldn't tax no one would have an incentive to connect every little town with streets. I'm not saying tax as high as you can, rather you should aspire to a good balance.
MareSwiss 1 month ago
@MareSwiss i would disagree, because private infrastructure such as roads and mass transit exist, and in fact function much better than government funded projects because there is competition for money. on top of this, government steals your money to pay for roads, whether you use them or not. this is essentially a subsidy to automotive companies and oil producers that goes largely ignored by the public. the fact remains: government is inept at doing what the private sector can.
lalem91 1 month ago
@lalem91 I give up, its senseless to discuss with people who have no knoeledge about economics...just look up at wikipedia "natural monopoly" and perhaps you will one day understand a little more about it. I have no time to explain everything to you.
MareSwiss 1 month ago
@MareSwiss actually im not sure what your argument is here. if your attempt to "scare" people away from capitalism with the mention of monopolies is the only straw man you have, along with a link to wikipedia, i believe the debate is over, sir.
lalem91 1 month ago
@lalem91 Jes you are right! the debate is over as i said (you got problem reading?) i give up. it makes no sense to discuss this subject with people who have no understanding of economics. My intention is not to scare people awaye from capitalism, if so i would not study it ;) My intenion was to show you some limits of it where capitalism fails, thats why i showed you one subjct, i could give you a lot more but you wouldn't read it anyway so this hole matter is senseless. BYE
MareSwiss 1 month ago
@MareSwiss to be totally honest it seems you havent studied it enough. in the case of the natural monopoly, quite near anything could be called a natural monopoly. why stop at utilities? what about retailers? or operating systems? or insurance providers? but the main issue is you simply threw out a careless red herring in your opening argument regarding monopolies which was not previously a part of the discussion.and yes market failures DO happen; but government can not fix them.
lalem91 1 month ago
@MareSwiss Taxation is theft period. Noone says that gov't needs to be in charge of building roads and bridges, the private sector can do these things even better thank you. If it is deemed necessary though to have gov't do this function or any similar function not related to the preservation of protecting individual freedom then the only moral way to raise funds is on a fee for service basis. Roads to be paid 100% with tolls and registration fees relating to vehicle use.
residentzombie 1 month ago 6
@residentzombie Government IS necessary, as the free market does not provide certain resources. You can't toll every single suburban road, you can't turn a profit for public parks. If there was no government who would pay for NECESSARY welfare (I emphasise the word necessary as the government does excessively spend on useless welfare programs) to help those people TRULY in need. The government can't provide these things for free so they take taxes, and the free market is not willing, hence taxes
acau93 1 week ago
@acau93 Think of it this way: the majority of people want welfare, right? So, most people feel inclined to help those who aren't as well off, judging by the fact that we have these laws. Would they suddenly not want to help people if the government isn't forcing them to?
leeknivek 1 week ago
@leeknivek Honestly, i think, no. Most people would not go out of their way to help these people.
acau93 1 week ago
@acau93 No? Why are people so concerned about it then? How come homeless people can make so much money begging? Surely you can speculate otherwise but really I don't see why people wouldn't help out those less fortunate than themselves when they want all of these welfare state programs. Why do you think politicians run on things like that in the first place? To appeal to people wanting to help!
leeknivek 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@acau93 No? Why are people so concerned about it then? How come homeless people can make so much money begging? Surely you can speculate otherwise but really I don't see why people wouldn't help out those less fortunate than themselves when they want all of these welfare state programs. Why do you think politicians run on things like that in the first place? To appeal to people wanting to help!
leeknivek 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@acau93 No? Why are people so concerned about it then? How come homeless people can make so much money begging? Surely you can speculate otherwise but really I don't see why people wouldn't help out those less fortunate than themselves when they want all of these welfare state programs. Why do you think politicians run on things like that in the first place? To appeal to people wanting to help!
leeknivek 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@acau93 No? Why are people so concerned about it then? How come homeless people can make so much money begging? Surely you can speculate otherwise but really I don't see why people wouldn't help out those less fortunate than themselves when they want all of these welfare state programs. Why do you think politicians run on things like that in the first place? To appeal to people wanting to help!
leeknivek 1 week ago
@residentzombie You do not hear what you say. The government builds the roads means government subsidize private companies to build it and the road is TALL FREE. If private company builds the road it is TALL road and you are happy because your small brains think I DO NOT USE IT I DO NOT PAY. My question is: who will build roads to remote points where is not profitable to make road? Is your principal valid there?
I hardly stand shallow thinkers.
cosmopolite66 2 days ago
@cosmopolite66 Did your shallow brain ever stop to think why we would need roads built where noone lives? lol
residentzombie 2 days ago
@cosmopolite66 That is the point. Only consumers know where roads need to be built. Have you never heard of Solyndra?
residentzombie 2 days ago
@residentzombie Taxes are a neccessary evil, that's what happens when the middle-class isn't smashed even in society. But I agree that raising taxes isn't the soultion.
louisiananlord17 16 hours ago
This guy uses graphs to trick you in all his videos. I like these LearnLiberty videos from everyone else but this guy I can't trust.
Check out "Hauser's law" on Wikipedia.
chifylube 5 months ago
@chifylube
LoL Uses graphs to trick you? Did you feel the same way when you failed your math exam? This is official statistics from the US government. We have all seen these in economics classes and one should be able to know these historical facts. The fact that you think using graphs and math is tantamount to deceiving someone tells us, apart from your intellectual level, that you are the typical American graduate of public schools.
LogicalFlawDetector 4 months ago
@LogicalFlawDetector I go to a private school dumb-ass.
This guy makes a pretty chart graphing MARGINAL tax rates vs tax revenue % of GDP. Marginal Rate means little because there are also wide swings in tax breaks that off set the Marginal Rate. If this guy was honest he would chart the EFFECTIVE tax rate vs tax revenue % of GDP. Since he is not, he obviously has an agenda and not to be trusted. Don't be fooled by numbers so easily.
chifylube 4 months ago
@LogicalFlawDetector Check out the Wikipedia article I referred to in that first post. It wont let me post links on here. Either you read it and your reading comprehension=fail, or you didn't read it (which would explain the lack of substance in your argument, if you could even call that an argument).
chifylube 4 months ago
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOF course, low tax rates. The government just magically gets money.
thunderdragon14 5 months ago
@thunderdragon14 Pretty sure you missed the whole point there...
Simple and low tax code=Better atmosphere for businesses which increases economy, which in turn, increases revenue; including governmental.
Complex and high tax code=Bad atmosphere for businesses which decreases economy, which in turn, decreases revenue;including governmental.
Let's say we both had a pie. You took 50% of your pie and ate it and I only took 25% of my pie and ate it. Who had more? Depends on the size of the pie.
DanteWolfwood 5 months ago
Comment removed
DanteWolfwood 5 months ago
...continued
Let's say my pie is 10x bigger than yours. So, even though you had a bigger percentage of your pie, I still had more pie over-all and more pie left over.
So the solution (or at least the one that is being proposed here) is that we not take bigger chunks from the pie, but do what we can to grow the pie so that everyone (not just the government) can benefit from it.
pie=economy
:P
DanteWolfwood 5 months ago
So it looks like the simplicity of a tax code has a greater effect on revenue generation than the actual rate itself.
Now that is uncommon knowledge you probably will not hear elsewhere.
StateExempt 5 months ago 6
This has been flagged as spam show
@StateExempt Revenue generation? No, you mean theft.
LordShandor 4 months ago
@StateExempt Yes but does it mean what you think it does, as this would mean many corporations that pay zero taxes today would actually start contributing. This seems to always be glossed over by these libertarian hand puppets for corporate America.
egcroan 3 months ago
@egcroan - The individuals in those corporations still file.
StateExempt 2 months ago
@StateExempt That's just a stupid argument to say a corporation shouldn't pay taxes since the employees do. I suggest you come up with something a little less simpleton that that. The huge amount of tax dodges employed by both rich people and corporations makes any discussion about tax rates just foolish unless you eliminate all the loopholes first. Then and only then can you have any discussion about changing the rates. Please spare me your simpleton Libertarian dribble .
egcroan 2 months ago
@egcroan - I can agree with you on tax loopholes, but my basic point remains:
It is misleading to say that corporations do not pay taxes because it implies that the executives for those firms do not pay taxes either, which is simply not the case.
StateExempt 2 months ago
@StateExempt A corporation =/= employees of that corporation. You and Mitt Romney both need to do a little research. When a corporation (like G.E.) pays no taxes whatsoever, it is robbing the American people of billions of dollars in federal revenue that other taxpayers have to make up, regardless of what it does with that stolen money. If I hire you and pay you a wage, the fact that you pay taxes on that income does not mean I do not have to pay taxes.
Archronis 2 months ago
@Archronis - Those that work for the company, including the CEO and board of directors still pay taxes, correct?
StateExempt 2 months ago
@Archronis "If I hire you and pay you a wage, the fact that you pay taxes on that income does not mean I do not have to pay taxes."
Your not paying those taxes. The person hired is paying your part of the taxes as well, in the form of a lower wage. The cost of an employee does not equal the compensation of the employee.
kahnk009 1 month ago
@kahnk009 Regardless of an employer's other expenses (including taxes), wages/salaries are dictated by the market-value of that labor, not what the employer thinks/claims it can afford to pay. The claim that taxing corporations somehow suppresses wages is a lie that corporations use to try to get out of paying their fair share.
Archronis 1 month ago
@StateExempt This is actually the lower taxes, and get government out of the way of anything that allows the economy to grow bull-crap that has been part of the republican Party's agenda for years. The truth is this kin of deregulation is actually what caused our economy to be where it is today. Well that an electing a moron who lowered taxes on the rich so we would start running a deficit instead of the surplus that President Clinton's tax code left the government.
egcroan 3 months ago
@egcroan - Too bad the republican party has yet to put any such thing into practice.
StateExempt 2 months ago
@StateExempt That's the logical fallacy that the presenter wants you to make. He's showing you a PORTION of the actual data that, without proper context, implies a trend and makes it easy for you (the audience) to make the intuitive leap--even without suggesting a causal mechanism for the trend. However, the rest of the data would reveal that the trend is an illusion, since the steady rate is accounted for in other tax increases.
Archronis 2 months ago
@Archronis - Then please enlighten us on the rest of this "data" you speak of.
StateExempt 2 months ago
Is it not true though that if taxes remained high throughout the whole period that revenue would increase due to population growth?
Tracywithafacey 5 months ago
@Tracywithafacey Yes but the problem is that not only would people keep more of their money (because they have less to spend due to taxes) but that the spending of the government increases every year. With lower taxes, people with less money have more freedom to spend or invest their money and corporations have more money to spend on making their products better helping the consumer.
Check the census of the past few decades and you will see that population growth alone wont solve much.
GuitarMan5670 5 months ago
@Tracywithafacey That is very true. But how much would it grow? the point this guy was trying to make (i think) is that a certain % of GDP can be captured by taxes, and no more. People dodge taxes the higher they get, or they move to low tax areas. Also, there is some evidence that high effective tax rates lower birth rates. This guy is arguing that lower taxes will bring in the same revenue as a % of GDP, and that low taxes will make GDP higher
MrHamncheez 5 months ago
@MrIsmailmahmood yeah, because god forbid we have standards.
CorrerPorVida 5 months ago
Um yes, raise taxes on the "job creators", which btw is nothing but Orwellian type bullshit calling the super rich job creators, and closing the loopholes.
Almost half of major corps pay ZERO in taxes because of loopholes.
You can't get lower then 0%.
And no way is that chart true.
mecher3k 5 months ago
@mecher3k This statement is incorrect. Corporations pay what is called corporation tax as well as the owners of the companies who pay income tax. Most people that have large corporations find loopholes in the system making it seem that their profits are from capital gains. This means that their tax rates are at 17%.
If you have something in contrast to what I am saying please cite it as it gives it much more validity.
GuitarMan5670 5 months ago
@GuitarMan5670
What are trying to say? Corps pay too much in taxes?
mecher3k 5 months ago
@mecher3k Are you saying that you want to tax them more because the top 1% already pay 38% of the taxes in this country?
GuitarMan5670 5 months ago
@GuitarMan5670
Um yes. They have the vast majority of the wealth.
Fucking Fascist.
mecher3k 5 months ago
@mecher3k So what just keep the tax rates up for them while dropping for everyone else right? Doesn't that mean that companies across the nation will just raise the prices of their products? and if so, doesn't that mean that you will have to pay for the difference in your paycheck?
Companies control the prices of the products you buy so if you raise your taxes, they will raise the price of the products that you want to buy to compensate.
Don't be a commy
GuitarMan5670 5 months ago
@GuitarMan5670
"Doesn't that mean that companies across the nation will just raise the prices of their products?"
You mean the half of major corps that pay zero taxes anyway?
Lol fool.
And the rest of what you are saying is they should pay zero taxes while having complete control over our government?
Nice FASCIST.
Sorry I'm not a communist, just someone that wants people to pay their fair share. But go a head and raise taxes on those with the least amount of wealth fascist.
mecher3k 5 months ago
@mecher3k
Ok then let's make a solution to your problem:
Make a flat tax on all corporations at 50%
What does that do?
Corporations will raise prices to compensate
Secondly:
Where do you get your information that companies pay no taxes? I see no where that there are any companies that don't/
Lastly:
I never said that I wanted to increase taxes on the people with less money. I was only commenting on the fact that you said to increase taxes on corps solves stuff
Stop being an idiot and wise up
GuitarMan5670 5 months ago
@GuitarMan5670
"Where do you get your information that companies pay no taxes? "
Wow you live in bomb shelter.
"I was only commenting on the fact that you said to increase taxes on corps solves stuff"
Because it does. Again, half of the major corps pay no taxes because of the loopholes the had the politicians pay to put into place.
These same companies then ship job overseas.
Yea good job supporting that fucking corporatist.
mecher3k 5 months ago
@mecher3k The problem with your statement about wanting people to pay their fair share is that is goes against everything you've said previously. The wealthiest individuals pay nearly 35% of their income while the poorest pay less than 10%. The wealthy ARE the people who pay so the poor don't have to.
Vladimus44 5 months ago
@Vladimus44 The poorest don't pay tax. In fact, the bottom 51% don't pay tax.
chifylube 5 months ago
Comment removed
IronJackalTw 5 months ago
Comment removed
IronJackalTw 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
GuitarMan5670,
"Are you saying that you want to tax them more because the top 1% already pay 38% of the taxes in this country?"
Why not? This is Promoted Video from Super-Rich.... lol!? {roll my eyes}
George Carlin - The American Dream....
v=acLW1vFO-2Q
George Carlin - We Like War....
v=sDkhzHQO7jY
If Super-Rich have MONEY to pay 4 these PROPAGANDA Video, they have MONEY to pay even more TAX from their BABY-BOOMER Ted Nugent Vietnam War DRAFT Dodger NEO-CON ChickenHawk TEA PARTY!! >=P
IronJackalTw 5 months ago
makes no sense unless you accept the laffer curve but federal revenue does not only include income tax but trade tariffs for example and the fact during his simplified graph, that does not include the depression when the government grew in size. to 30 percent GDP. Prof. Scratch and sniff here needs to stop taking money from rich donors who want to pay even lower taxes and understand that correlation does not imply causation.
thefredsays 5 months ago
@thefredsays You have some great examples, but i think i still disagree with some of the things you said. Government does grow well beyond 17% during wars and recessions, but that is deficit spending. People dodge taxes, and the higher they are the more effort they put into avoiding them. I dont think its realistic to enforce a high tax rate.
MrHamncheez 5 months ago
@MrHamncheez its not all deficit spending but the government, specifically the US, historically borrows at unrealistic low rates than anyone realizes. The chinese government have no choice but to hold treasuries, since they are low risk investments and are prohibited from owning any property or otherwise solid investment since the US government blocks the sale by citing National Security.
thefredsays 5 months ago
@MrHamncheez
Based that logic we should make murder legal.
mecher3k 5 months ago
@mecher3k I dont follow. Protecting private property is pretty much the only thing a government can do well, and that includes murder. Anything else it tries it will fail at or be highly inefficient. High taxes hurt the taxed and benefit no one, so there is a strong social and personal incentive to dodge. Protecting private property is easier to enforce because people have a natural tendency to support such actions. Laws are to keep the few delinquents in check, not the peaceful majority.
MrHamncheez 5 months ago
@MrHamncheez
Oh I see, privatize everything only until you don't want to pay cops 1000s to investigate the breaking into your house, theft of your car, etc.
Hahahaha, don't even need to say more. You already proved me right.
mecher3k 5 months ago
@mecher3k I tried to be polite and reasonable. I'm sorry you aren't.
The entire purpose of government is to protect private property from foreign and domestic theft. Private property includes bodily harm. Every other good/service has a market for it that can be obtained by trade of some sort. Please, before you reply, go read the Constitution. Its only a few pages long and isn't time consuming. If ur watching videos like this, then u are obviously educated. Oh, btw, we do pay cops $thousands
MrHamncheez 5 months ago
@MrHamncheez As to the constitution....please watch video - I am allowed to rob you
deathclaw555 5 months ago
@deathclaw555 I dont understand what you mean by that. Could you rephrase it? Are you referring to taxation?
MrHamncheez 5 months ago
@MrHamncheez Yes, I am, but it's better and maybe rather different from what you would expect. Just type in "I'm Allowed to Rob You!" and it's the first video there.
deathclaw555 5 months ago
*trouble
answerOfstupids 6 months ago
Common how cam someone have twinkle understanding this unless your younger than 10. It means that taxation has peaked, ever heard of breaking point in economy, sort of like that, low taxes *more biz = same revenue as high taxes *less biz.
answerOfstupids 6 months ago
wow. this is utter bullshit. as proven by everyone from Bruce Bartlett to David Stockman. but hey, keep sticking your fingers in your ears and going lalalalalal
wvfii 6 months ago
What he saying here, for those who are a bit slower at this... Is that the govt gets 18% of whatever the GDP is, and that the less govt taxes us the more the GDP is therefor the more revenue they actually get. Savvy?
sleddineinar 6 months ago 2
he just said that the government gets 18% even if the tax rate is low or high, does this actually make any sense to anybody? higher revenues mean a higher income, period.
CorrerPorVida 6 months ago
@CorrerPorVida It's because when we raise rates, the rich just get around it with accounting, investing overseas, etc. Lower taxes invites capital into the country, higher taxes drive capital out. Simple enough, it really makes sense if you look at it reasonably.
soulforged789 5 months ago
@soulforged789 Oddly enough, even with record low tax rates, major businesses still seem to have an easy time sending it overseas and finding accounting loopholes.
CorrerPorVida 5 months ago
@soulforged789
"Lower taxes invites capital into the country, higher taxes drive capital out. Simple enough, it really makes sense if you look at it reasonably."
Correr owned your dumb ass.
mecher3k 5 months ago
Hey Surferdod - you been drinking too much seawater. The jobs are not created by those in the lower income bracket. What ... you think the money to pay you to go out and surf comes from hot air or ... does your mommy and daddy support your habit and you sponge off the rest of America? Jeeze - just when you think it's safe to go into the water again ...
djk4tube 6 months ago
@djk4tube
so our marginal tax rates are currently at near-historical lows.... where are all these magical jobs you folks keep promising will just fall from the sky?
wvfii 6 months ago
@djk4tube
jobs are "created" when the economy is growing. the economy grows when there is demand. cutting the rates on billionaires who make all their cash on dividends to 17% does not create demand. that's a fact, bro.
wvfii 6 months ago
@wvfii When the government takes money from a billionaire, millionaire, you or me, it spends a good chunk simply printing pages and filing them away. This money would be spent by individuals on things like food, or investments, or saved (the money is invested as before). We could increase demand by giving people the job of digging holes with spoons, but there would be absolutely no benefit to the economy. The government only ever shifts around wealth, never creating jobs.
Thatmakessense356 6 months ago
i find that hard to believe. its so easy to fool us simple people with your pie graphs and scientific calculators. now to go watch that video of the guy with the fireworks up his ass...
TheEgg185 6 months ago
Left = tax the rich the dont make jobs. When was the first time a poor person hired you to work for them. Rasing taxes is not the answr people. STOP SPENDING. I cna think of a few places to save. Defund the EPA, TSA, Dept of Education, Dept of Heath and Welfare, Dept of (fill in blank). Take the $117B each month and pay , The military, Social securty, Medicare, with the remander going to the debt. Problem solved.
btuckwilla 6 months ago
Again with the spending nonsense. If Obama would have let the Bush taxs cuts expire would we even be talking about deficits? The rich don't create jobs! The rich horde money and buy our politicians like cheaps hookers.
How about you teabaggers talk about protecting American Jobs by tarriffs on imports as do the Germans and Chinese? Time for a middle class revolt!
surferdod 6 months ago