Tax Cut

Explains why we need to cut taxes further

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Economics
• taxes
• Supply
• Side
• Laffer
• Curve

[TheNextTurn]

Yea give money to big powerful corporations and hope that falls to the poor, yet the poor never see it.

If you get your head out of you ass you see REALITY and notice that the economy is going down the shitter becuase of Bush.

[TheRockeieio]

Dear TheNextTurn,

If you want to contest the message contained in the video, by all means do so.

You have been blocked because of your use of profanity (didn't your mother ever tell you that profanity is disgusting?).

Address this issue using facts and data. Your reply was nothing more than a temper tantrum.

[MentalAtheist]

@TheRockeieio

My 2nd main point is that, all wealth passes through the government at some-point. Meaning that over the course of 4-5 year, %100 of wealth will be taxed!

This is possible because, government money is recycled back to the very people from which it was taxed. Government taxation acts as the heart of the economy.

The richest are the largest siphoners of wealth and they aren't investing it back into the economy fast enough. This is what's choking the economy

◄♦ Continued ♦►

[MentalAtheist]

@TheRockeieio

Ouch... An Ad-hominem attack! Sorry for not being a spell-Nazi.

You know, ownership over wealth isn't the only motivator. And it wouldn't matter if it was, because that wasn't my main point. My main point was that the “Laffer curve” is a poor and dishonest way of looking at the economy.

The Laffer Curve would have you believe (among other things) that government is the largest siphoner of wealth. Its not. Bank fraud, medical expenses, and insurances are #1

◄♦ Continued ♦►

[TheRockeieio]

@MentalAtheist

It is spelled "false".

So I presume that you would work for nothing. Your IQ is commensurate with what is expected of liberals.

No free man would work for nothing with an IQ above 70.

When you can cobble together a cogent argument, come on back and we can have an intelligent discussion.

[MentalAtheist]

@MentalAtheist Ooops

"Maybe you wouldn't work with a $100"

thats should be %100 tax rate ^_^

[MentalAtheist]

@PacificBallroomDance

Your point that no one would work if taxes were 100% is out right faults. In many cultures and religions owning wealth was a bad thing. People would be given a “Guardianship” position rather then an “Ownership” position when it came to having wealth.

Lords and King have set up such systems that have lasted hundreds of years! Maybe you wouldn't work with a $100 tax rate but I wouldn't be so arrogant as to declare that no one would.

◄♦ Continued ♦►

[MentalAtheist]

@PacificBallroomDance

"Wealth is not fixed. Money is just a tool to facilitate trade"

When I say wealth is fixed, I'm only referring to a single moment in time. I said there is only so much wealth "AT ANY GIVEN TIME"

In a single moment you can't say truthfully that you only have $100 and $1100. It's only one, the other or Nether. For this reason 2 of your 3 comments are misguided. I never said wealth couldn't grow.

◄♦ Continued ♦►

[PacificBallroomDance]

@MentalAtheist

Continued from previous post.

Wealth, in a very real sense, is manufactured, mined or grown. As we become more efficient at these activities we can create even greater wealth.

A farmer takes a few seeds, adds water and fertilizer, and a great deal of work and can received 30 or 100 times the seed in return.

That is wealth creation.

[PacificBallroomDance]

@MentalAtheist

Wealth is not fixed. Money is just a tool to facilitate trade. A farmer with a bumper crop is more wealth than one with a failed crop. When the McCormick Reaper was invented it did the work of 100 men. It automated a back breaking process and more could accomplished with less.

Earth moving equipment greatly reduced the effort required to build highway and those highway in turn reduced the cost of transporting goods to market.

Wealth is measured in products that can be sold.

[PacificBallroomDance]

@MentalAtheist

Nobody knows exactly what the Laffer curve looks like. 15% and 65% were just examples.

It is undeniable that if the tax rate was set to zero that the government would get nothing. It is also undeniable that nobody would work for nothing (unless forced to do so and that is called slavery) so if the tax rate were set to 100% the government would still get nothing.

It is possible to raise taxes so high that revenue goes down.

Engage that on an intellectual level or go away.