[andyt]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

andyt andyt:

Of course it's a cost. The govt needs the money to function. The more they give back the less there is for government needs. Pretty simple really.

Since you're having problems with English language comprehension again I am providing this valuable service to you:

$1:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cost

: the price of something : the amount of money that is needed to pay for or buy something

: an amount of money that must be spent regularly to pay for something (such as running a business or raising a family)

: something that is lost, damaged, or given up in order to achieve or get something

A reduction in income is not a cost.

I do have to admire your sophistry. Reduce your own income, see if it costs you or not.

[OnTheIce]

andyt andyt:

I do have to admire your sophistry. Reduce your own income, see if it costs you or not.

Income and revenue aren't the same thing.

The government doesn't get 'income'.

[andyt]

What is the distinction?

[martin14]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

andyt andyt:

I do have to admire your sophistry. Reduce your own income, see if it costs you or not.

Income and revenue aren't the same thing.

The government doesn't get 'income'.

They certainly treat it like their 'income'.

[andyt]

0:

Capture.PNG [ 37.8 KiB | Viewed 634 times ]

The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics reports that a comparison of academic studies yields a range of revenue maximizing rates that centers around 70%.[2] Economist Paul Pecorino presented a model in 1995 that predicted the peak of the Laffer curve occurred at tax rates around 65%.[13] A 1996 study by Y. Hsing of the United States economy between 1959 and 1991 placed the revenue-maximizing average federal tax rate between 32.67% and 35.21%.[14] A 1981 paper published in the Journal of Political Economy presented a model integrating empirical data that indicated that the point of maximum tax revenue in Sweden in the 1970s would have been 70%.[15] A paper by Trabandt and Uhlig of the NBER from 2009 presented a model that predicted that the US and most European economies were on the left of the Laffer curve (in other words, that raising taxes would raise further revenue).[12]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve

[stratos]

I do find it odd that the people supporting the Gov. getting more tax revenue are also the people that want the "rich" to pay it. Yet when anyone suggests that they cut taxes these same people are the first to cry that it will hurt people.

How is it that having more money in your pocket hurts you? How is it that you are so adamant that others should pay more tax yet you are unwilling to pay it yourself. You claim it is unfair that the rich don't fork over 50% of their money yet you are unwilling to do the same.

[BartSimpson]

andyt andyt:

I do have to admire your sophistry. Reduce your own income, see if it costs you or not.

On those occasions when my income has been reduced I've reduced my expenses commensurate with the reduction in income and things turned out just fine.

The government can do the same in relation to reduced revenues.

[BeaverFever]

$1:

Incorrect.

For accounting purposes, revenue is not a cost...nor is a a dip in revenue a cost to that business.

We're not talking about a "dip in revenue". Were' talking about a deliberate and permanent reduction to the amorevenue formula.


BOTTOM LINE :

We can argue semantics and terminology til the cows come home. You understand the basic princinciple that reducing the money you take in, reduces the money you have to spend right? If the government decides to take in less revenue each year, then it will have to reduce its expenditures accordingly. That's not lost on you?

[martin14]

stratos stratos:

How is it that you are so adamant that others should pay more tax yet you are unwilling to pay it yourself.

You have just discovered the def'n of a real Socialist.

They just love spending other people's money.

$1:

You claim it is unfair that the rich don't fork over 50% of their money yet you are unwilling to do the same.

They already fork over 50; it's not enough.

France is 75%.

Retards like andy, well they would just take it all.

[andyt]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

andyt andyt:

I do have to admire your sophistry. Reduce your own income, see if it costs you or not.

On those occasions when my income has been reduced I've reduced my expenses commensurate with the reduction in income and things turned out just fine.

The government can do the same in relation to reduced revenues.

Sure. Let's eliminate the military. That will save some money. Let's not build icebreakers. Let's not rebuild and expand infrastructure. Lets not invest in education.

If your income if way down, and your house needs repairs, maybe you have to just put a pot under that leak in the roof. If you voluntarily give up income and neglect your house as a result, then you're just an idiot.

[BeaverFever]

stratos stratos:

I do find it odd that the people supporting the Gov. getting more tax revenue are also the people that want the "rich" to pay it. Yet when anyone suggests that they cut taxes these same people are the first to cry that it will hurt people.

How is it that having more money in your pocket hurts you? How is it that you are so adamant that others should pay more tax yet you are unwilling to pay it yourself. You claim it is unfair that the rich don't fork over 50% of their money yet you are unwilling to do the same.

Nice Straw men.

1) Nobody is advocating that the government get 'more' tax reveneue than current. It's about those who want the government to get 'less' than current.

2) Where have you every heard any "pro-tax" people say they wouldn't also pay more themselves? I'm certain most of us have said we would indeed suport higher taxes for ourselves.

[andyt]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

2) Where have you every heard any "pro-tax" people say they wouldn't also pay more themselves? I'm certain most of us have said we would indeed suport higher taxes for ourselves.

It's just a given in the proposition, but some dolts just don't get that.

I think most of these anti-government, anti-tax people are like this guy at .57:

[OnTheIce]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

We're not talking about a "dip in revenue". Were' talking about a deliberate and permanent reduction to the amorevenue formula.


BOTTOM LINE :

We can argue semantics and terminology til the cows come home. You understand the basic princinciple that reducing the money you take in, reduces the money you have to spend right? If the government decides to take in less revenue each year, then it will have to reduce its expenditures accordingly. That's not lost on you?

Assuming of course that the revenue is gone and never replaced? Because people wouldn't turn around and spend that money, would they?

That's not always the case with taxation. If you lower certain taxes which give people more money to spend, that money ends up back in the system as other forms of taxation.

Just as we say with the corporate tax rate...the left was screaming "giveaway" and "corporate greed" when in fact, the revenue from corporate taxes increased after the reduction.

Tax cuts don't always end with a reduction in revenue.

[BeaverFever]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

We're not talking about a "dip in revenue". Were' talking about a deliberate and permanent reduction to the amorevenue formula.


BOTTOM LINE :

We can argue semantics and terminology til the cows come home. You understand the basic princinciple that reducing the money you take in, reduces the money you have to spend right? If the government decides to take in less revenue each year, then it will have to reduce its expenditures accordingly. That's not lost on you?

Assuming of course that the revenue is gone and never replaced? Because people wouldn't turn around and spend that money, would they?

That's not always the case with taxation. If you lower certain taxes which give people more money to spend, that money ends up back in the system as other forms of taxation.

Just as we say with the corporate tax rate...the left was screaming "giveaway" and "corporate greed" when in fact, the revenue from corporate taxes increased after the reduction.

Tax cuts don't always end with a reduction in revenue.

Of course federal sales tax is only 5%, much lower than the federal income tax rate, especially for the wealthiest 6th of families.

The revenues from corporate tax did not increase because of the tax cut. That Laffer Curve theory has long been abandoned. The corporate tax revenue increased because the WORLDWIDE economy - including places that had no tax cuts - was growing out of recession. And besides, there major cuts to federal and provincial spending programs during that era anyway.

[OnTheIce]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

Of course federal sales tax is only 5%, much lower than the federal income tax rate, especially for the wealthiest 6th of families.

The revenues from corporate tax did not increase because of the tax cut. That Laffer Curve theory has long been abandoned. The corporate tax revenue increased because the WORLDWIDE economy - including places that had no tax cuts - was growing out of recession. And besides, there major cuts to federal and provincial spending programs during that era anyway.

You're certain that the tax cuts had zero effect on the economy? Really?

I know you want to make your point, but let's not go overboard here.

You'd like us to believe that a any tax cut is a permanent and fixed reduction in revenue when history has shown quite the opposite. There are so many variables.