|
45414. alistairconnor - 11/29/2012 3:42:38 PM It's good to read you Rick, and making so much sense too. 45415. judithathome - 11/29/2012 6:23:32 PM 45400.
Okay, perhaps I give you too much credit...sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander: we didn't particularly think Bush was all that great as President, either. 45416. concerned - 11/29/2012 7:10:53 PM Soaking the rich will increase revenues near a Trillion.
No. The top 10% of US incomes earned in 2011 TOTALED about a trillion dollars. You'd have to take 100% of it to get a trillion dollars of revenue. And, btw, these higher bracket incomes are largely, if not predominantly capital gains, not salaries, so only a fraction of this $1 trillion would be affected by taxes on salaries.
The Democrats want to increase the top marginal tax rate by 5% which would work out to only $50 billion, based on the above numbers. That's assuming, of course, that people with these incomes would stand still to have their pockets picked by Uncle Scam. The examples I gave upstream regarding GB and California strongly suggest that even a 5% top marginal tax increase would cause many of them to re-allocate their incomes to reduce exposure to US income taxes.
Looks like you'll have to abandon your dreams of balancing the budget by 'soaking the rich'. It just ain't gonna happen.
45417. concerned - 11/29/2012 7:15:21 PM That will not destroy them, it will not cause a mass exodus.
It will cause them to adjust their incomes to be relatively immune from this sort of taxation. When the top marginal rate was 93%, virtually nobody paid anything like that. They moved their investments offshore or reallocated them into tax free bonds, non profit foundations, etc. etc.
It's a lock that they'll do this again as soon as stupid Democrats start trying to 'soak' them. The result will be a drop in US based job making investments. Lefties will be aiming for the rich, but they'll wind up wounding, perhaps mortally, the middle class, all the time denying all responsibility.
45418. concerned - 11/29/2012 7:23:07 PM Five Secrets about the Bush Tax Cuts
Btw, in 2007, the Federal deficit was under $170 Billion and dropping with the Iraq and Afghanistan wars in full swing. What changed after that? Democrats began taking over, first in Congress, and then the presidency. 45419. judithathome - 11/29/2012 7:31:44 PM It will cause them to adjust their incomes to be relatively immune from this sort of taxation.
Yeah...and if the taxes don't go up, they will create jobs with all that excess money...riiiiight.
You are so gullible. They will not even notice a tax rate change. How often do you think they check their overseas accounts? It will result in barely a ripple on the pond of their wealth...chump change.
Hemingway was soooo right...the rich ARE different than you and me. 45420. judithathome - 11/29/2012 7:33:17 PM Are you seriously weeping for a rich person who can spend more on a designer dress for his wife than many houses in this country cost? 45421. concerned - 11/29/2012 7:53:08 PM Re. 45418 -
Gee, Lefties - looks like you had the Bush tax cuts wrong all along. 45422. concerned - 11/29/2012 7:58:34 PM JAH -
Come off of it. The rich most certainly do respond to marginal tax rate changes of a few percent. You sound like you have never heard of investments or financial advisors. Sheesh.
I'm only weeping for the middle class and the impoverished and how Democrat stupidity is making their lot in life much worse than it has to be.
Never forget, JAH, that I sued a hundred million dollar corporation and WON based on their unethical dealings and breach of warranty. I have less actual sympathy for the 'rich' than you do, if anything.
I just don't think that going through life being a partisan Democrat sockpuppet and hating on people because of their financial status is good enough for me. 45423. concerned - 11/29/2012 8:00:16 PM Hating on private sector job creators (or anybody else) is a terminally stupid move. 45424. concerned - 11/29/2012 8:07:21 PM Btw, nobody's claiming that the top 10% of incomes total $20 trillion (that's substantially more than the entire GDP of the USA!) which is what would be required for $1 trillion in new revenues with a 5% top marginal tax increase. 45425. arkymalarky - 11/29/2012 8:35:12 PM Private sector job creators---HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Yw, China . 45426. concerned - 11/30/2012 1:16:03 AM Re. 45425 -
Glad you agree with me - if you didn't you would have proposed an alternate source for private sector job creators, right? 45427. concerned - 11/30/2012 1:20:44 AM Yeah...and if the taxes don't go up, they will create jobs with all that excess money...riiiiight.
That's right, JAH. Ever hear of anybody getting a good paying job from a poor person, or any government bureaucrat who ever added value to a product?
Didn't think so.
Guess that pretty much leaves people with money to invest.
45428. concerned - 11/30/2012 1:23:12 AM 
What's wrong with this picture?
45429. concerned - 11/30/2012 1:27:40 AM I can say right now if Democrats get their way with the Federal budget negotiations, the result will be somewhere between a clusterfuck and kicking the can down the road a bit further before the final collapse. The deficit will still be in the trillion dollar range, unemployment will probably rise significantly, but, regardless, I'm sure that Lefties will convince themselves that it's all the fault of Republicans. Today's Democrats 'think' pretty much with the reptilian parts of their brains. 45430. concerned - 11/30/2012 1:30:10 AM I'd say Laffer definitely has the last guffaw on Keynes. Too bad Democrats don't have a sense of humor about this. 45431. concerned - 11/30/2012 1:47:32 AM Regarding 45412 -
The Time article is just stupid. What the Democrats are doing today hardly even rises to the level of Keynesianism, as marginal as Keynesianism itself is. Reference my earlier post regarding the Keynsian 'multiplier' and how Democrat fiscal and monetary policies fall abysmally short.
The second link attempts to criticize Laffer over a total irrelevancy - the effect of TARP which Laffer did not address being that there was no related change in taxation rates.
The third one does not dispute the validity of the Laffer Curve in any way but critiques a paper he wrote about the economics of certain European countries over a very limited period of time - all in all this is the only reference that RN came up with that isn't a total waste of the readers' time.
45432. concerned - 11/30/2012 1:50:47 AM And as far as 'embarrassing himself', Laffer never stoops to the level of the Marxist clown Paul Krugman. 45433. RickNelson - 11/30/2012 3:19:06 AM Check out the whole article and follow links
Where a $Trillion is mentioned
Taxes on the rich will do the trick. Yupper!
|
