...and that's where the middle class is in the US. Add to that the deficit and it's well above 50%.
See: Taxman (Beetles 1966)
The same thing happened here. Ronald Reagan talked about only doing two movies a year because he made nothing on #3.
Over half of the people pay nothing. That's wrong, too.
They pay nothing!
Nonsense. Obviously the tax shouldn't be above the "Laffer line" but taxation should only cover necessary expenses. One shouldn't just spend money because it's available. Do you?
Doesn't change the stated fact. The Laffer curve is obvious, to all but lefties.
Which is neither efficient nor just.
Agreed but tell that to the lefties here.
: :
the Laffer Curve.
el of
, it need not be stable with time, and nobody seems to operate anywhere nea r it.
ocumenting any Laffer curve - perhaps because nobody has worked out how to get a useful range of tax levels to look at.
e of any practical use at all - apart from letting right-wing politicians j ustify tax cuts on the grounds on the spurious grounds that the increased e conomic activity will generate more tax income from the smaller bite on mor e numerous transactions, which doesn't actually happen.
s) do
is an
rs
will
ced
ny useful insights. I have consulted quite enough sources over the years to be perfectly confident about that.
bled!
est-tax-rate
Wishful thinking.
It might seem to be, until you think about who you'd be trying to tax, whic h is beyond krw's cognitive capacity.
earned.
Krw misses the point, as usual.
?Obviously not. But what counts as a "necessary expense"?
Raising welfare payments to Scandinavian levels pretty much wipes out the d isadvantage of having a single mother as a your parent.
The long term beneift to society is better educated kids, but that is a bit too long term for right-wing politicians (some of whom clearly aim to appe al to the less well-educated voter anyway).
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
:
n the Laffer Curve.
vel of
, it need not be stable with time, and nobody seems to operate anywhere nea r it.
ocumenting any Laffer curve - perhaps because nobody has worked out how to get a useful range of tax levels to look at.
e of any practical use at all - apart from letting right-wing politicians j ustify tax cuts on the grounds on the spurious grounds that the increased e conomic activity will generate more tax income from the smaller bite on mor e numerous transactions, which doesn't actually happen.
ts) do
is an
ers
will
nced
ny useful insights. I have consulted quite enough sources over the years to be perfectly confident about that.
led!
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wr ong."
Though the Laffer curve is not so much wrong as useless.
Silly conservatives think that the very well-paid don't work as hard if the ir direct income is heavily taxed. In reality, they put in bit of time on t ax avoidance schemes, and end up working just as hard for better disguised remuneration.
Society didn't bloom after Thatcher and Reagan cut the maximum rates of tax ation on very high incomes down to sensible levels - the CEO's and the like who benefited got more income directly but nothing suggests that their act ual remuneration changed much, or the hours they worked, or their effective ness when they were working (as opposed to stacking remuneration committees ).
More or less efficient than what? No government?
And justice is an even more slippy concept. Granting that krw hasn't graspe d that "efficiency" involves a comparison, the idea that he has any real un derstanding of what "justice" might mean in this context is a trifle comica l.
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
Scientific American published a refutation of the Laffer curve, justified by this curve:
namely that the various effects in an economy make the curve too complex to exist.
They could have applied the identical reasoning to refute the universal gas laws.
I never subscribed again.
The recent tax reforms limited the deductability of state income tax on federal taxes. That was brilliant. Lots of high-income people are leaving New York for Florida and North Carolina, and California for Nevada.
-- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc lunatic fringe electronics
snipped-for-privacy@notreal.com wrote in news:o38gaepdi7b30pheb6mqtbet1pldgbimmo@
4ax.com:
No such group.
Somebody should maybe beet ewe upside da haed for dat wun.
Hahahaha... if only.
:
te:
te:
n the Laffer Curve.
evel of
ed, it need not be stable with time, and nobody seems to operate anywhere n ear it.
documenting any Laffer curve - perhaps because nobody has worked out how t o get a useful range of tax levels to look at.
be of any practical use at all - apart from letting right-wing politicians justify tax cuts on the grounds on the spurious grounds that the increased economic activity will generate more tax income from the smaller bite on m ore numerous transactions, which doesn't actually happen.
nts) do
e is an
ters
u will
anced
any useful insights. I have consulted quite enough sources over the years to be perfectly confident about that.
oubled!
.ED
ax
ghest-tax-rate
ey earned.
0%?
It
d, countries with no government at all woukd be spectuculary successful, an d countries deep in civil wars would be more successful than their neighbou rs.
re close to it.
by any desire to raise money, but rather the desire to take resources from political opponents, and to be seen to be doing that.
Really? Those stupid, confiscatory rates only applied to people of a certain party, not to your own party?
t high earners not working, but rather tax avoidnance schemes that let the high earners get compensated less directly.
Or avoiding investments in a productive economy and parking the money elsewhere, offshore, tax free municipal bonds, etc and also deciding to work less. You act like any and all income taxes could be avoided. That was never the case. And if it was, then it was obviously very stupid for the libs to have done it to begin with. It's still stupid for the reasons outlined. Instead of investing in the next Apple that creates jobs and wealth, people choose to park it in municipal bonds.
:
te:
te:
n the Laffer Curve.
evel of
ed, it need not be stable with time, and nobody seems to operate anywhere n ear it.
documenting any Laffer curve - perhaps because nobody has worked out how t o get a useful range of tax levels to look at.
be of any practical use at all - apart from letting right-wing politicians justify tax cuts on the grounds on the spurious grounds that the increased economic activity will generate more tax income from the smaller bite on m ore numerous transactions, which doesn't actually happen.
nts) do
e is an
ters
u will
anced
any useful insights. I have consulted quite enough sources over the years to be perfectly confident about that.
oubled!
.ED
ax
ghest-tax-rate
ich is beyond krw's cognitive capacity.
We were taxing them in the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s under presidents of both part ies and a House controlled all that time by Democrats. I didn't see any disaster or widespread complaining. Under Bush43, the number of people who paid no income tax was greatly expanded. HArd to imagine rolling that back is going to be a disaster. As many people as possible should have skin in the game so that they don't think there is a free lunch from big govt.
ey earned.
0%?
It
disadvantage of having a single mother as a your parent.
And encourages more single mothers. Before the libs started the modern welfare state here in the 60s, the black out of wedlock birthrate was in the teen percent. Now it's two thirds? Gee, why would that be? If you have a father, he's supposed to work. If you don't the family qualifies for welfare. The more kids you puke out, the more welfare benefits you get. If you're an illegal alien, you can't qualify for most welfare benefits. As soon as you puke out a kid, you do.
it too long term for right-wing politicians (some of whom clearly aim to ap peal to the less well-educated voter anyway).
The long term benefit is encouraging personal responsibility and not subsid izing mothers to have kids they can't support, then expecting other people to pay for it all.
They applied to everybody who had that kind of income. It may not have been true that the very rich were uniformly unsympathetic to socialism, but the exceptions were rare, and didn't bother complaining all that loudly.
The "deciding to work less" doesn't seem to have happened in real life.
Their impact could certainly be reduced.
It was certainly one of the less sensible features of the socialist agenda, but it played well with people on low incomes who voted for the left-wing parties in substantial numbers from time to time.
Think of it as the left-wing equivalent of Trump's Mexican Wall.
Municipal bonds may be tax free where you live, but that isn't universally true.
And Apple has created lots of jobs in China, and created lots of wealth for Steve Jobs and the people who backed him, but it's still more of a confidence trick that a massively productive corporation.
There are other ways of funding technological innovation, Linux demonstrates that you can get technological innovation without making anybody all that rich.
The anarcho-syndicalist branch of the socialist movement generateda a lot of cooperative enterprises, some of which turned out to be very productive.
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
At that time & place, in that case, yes.
NT
:
e:
in the Laffer Curve.
evel of
d, it need not be stable with time, and nobody seems to operate anywhere ne ar it.
documenting any Laffer curve - perhaps because nobody has worked out how to get a useful range of tax levels to look at.
be of any practical use at all - apart from letting right-wing politicians justify tax cuts on the grounds on the spurious grounds that the increased economic activity will generate more tax income from the smaller bite on mo re numerous transactions, which doesn't actually happen.
nts) do
e is an
ters
u will
anced
any useful insights. I have consulted quite enough sources over the years t o be perfectly confident about that.
bled!
Actualy they couldn't. The universal gas law is a pretty good approximation for all real gases, and the van der Waals constants deal with pretty much all of the gas-to-gas variations.
John Larkin doesn't know enough about science or economics.
Probably a wise choice. It's not aim at the scientifically illiterate.
Clearly they aren't earning those high incomes any more.
You can't do much serious business in Florida, North Carolina and Nevada.
Where's the problem?
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
AlwaysWrong just *has* to prove the name right. Always.
That's not a refutation of the Laffer curve. In fact, it's an example of same.
It exists and is known at its end-points and is nonzero between. It indeed does exist.
Scientific American was a leftist rag in the '60s.
I thought it brilliant too, though some of my cow-orkers are being bitten by it even here. There are high-tax areas and expensive homes everywhere.
The other problem with it is that it will chase more people from New York to Florida and they'll bring the nanny state with them.
snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote in news:c2e10902-2d3b-40b7-8690- snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:
Really? Are they driving around in Escalades?
Tell us what it is about a welfare recipient's life and situation which you think is some kind of free ride.
Especially those with family situations. I have seen entire familys out on the street and staying in a mission facility at night. In those facilities, the people that stay there get kicked out onto the street every day. They have to walk the street, as in NOT looking for a job or in a condition presentable for a job interview.
Essentially, I'd be willing to bet that you know nothing about ANY welfare recipients, much less any that you think are defrauding the system and taking home the $50k+ a year a normal US tandard of living demands.
I'd bet that you know next to nothing about it.
snipped-for-privacy@notreal.com wrote in news:q1riaetfhd6861ee9s4bbf70f34udfo9fe@
4ax.com:
Whereas you've been a retarded punk since the same period.
Not that I know of, they don't get enough for that. Everyone else knows that.
They receive money other people have earnt at no cost. Is that news to you?
We don't do that here, but what does that have to do with the simple fact that welfare recipients receive money others have earnt?
With that level of thinking failure you should stop betting.
what do those 2 issues have to do with the subect?
Stop betting, with an inability to get he basics straight you'll keep losing.
NT
Don't forget Parliamentarians and other beggars.
-- This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other protocols, whether for profit or not, is conditional upon a charge of GBP10.00 per reproduction. Publication in this manner via non-Usenet protocols constitutes acceptance of this condition.
?
Dan
snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote in news:10e204b0-2d3c-4909-97ef-32a2118efbd8 @googlegroups.com:
So now you want to be a nit pik retard too? Nice try.
No. You have a job and a salary and taxes are extracted from day one, and unless something happens you WILL owe, and HAVE ALREADY paid some or all of that.
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.