Forums | MacLife

Farmerkev wrote:

What is true is corp, indeed all business taxes, are passed on to the consumer.

They're typically shared by both buyers and sellers, but the point is it doesn't matter whether you tax producers or consumers, the effect is the same.

after-life wrote:

Here's a link off the top of Google.

It's become their new "LIBERALIZE YOUR LABOR MARKET!"

I'm amused by where they placed the Laffer Curve.  I thought it was widely accepted it was a very flawed theory for policy.

JakeTheTall wrote:

after-life wrote:

Here's a link off the top of Google.

It's become their new "LIBERALIZE YOUR LABOR MARKET!"

I'm amused by where they placed the Laffer Curve.  I thought it was widely accepted it was a very flawed theory for policy.

Wow, the Laffer Curve, that takes me back.

My brother had his shop up to 4 employees when one pulled a "hurt my back on the job" scam. Even the Doctor said it was something mainly caused by his fat gut over several years and the best thing he could do was to keep working.
Didn't matter with the board, he got his disability checks and now smokes dope all day long.
Insurance went sky high.
The other 3 got fired and bro is back to a one man shop.

I'm all for capitalism, but the idea behind the Laffer Curve is absurd.

This is the same WSJ that called minimum-wage workers "lucky ducks" because they were taxed at a lower rate than investment banker types (and that was before News Corp bought them).

Can't they talk about tax arbitrage without having to resort to the Laffer Curve myth ?

Duke Stratosphere wrote:

It would be nice if insurance companies would not put the screws to small business ... or anyone else, for that matter ... but, for some reason, the insurance companies seem to be just out to smurf everybody.

Careful now son ... you're edging toward advocating SOCIALIZED MEDICINE.

freecat wrote:

JakeTheTall wrote:

I'm all for capitalism, but the idea behind the Laffer Curve is absurd.

I completely disagree. The basic idea is irrefutable. At high enough tax rates, compliance falls, growth stagnates, and revenues fall in real terms. What's arguable is the shape and where the effects actually take place.

Sure, but those tax rates will never be seen in any country.  70% or 80% ?

JakeTheTall wrote:

freecat wrote:

JakeTheTall wrote:

I'm all for capitalism, but the idea behind the Laffer Curve is absurd.

I completely disagree. The basic idea is irrefutable. At high enough tax rates, compliance falls, growth stagnates, and revenues fall in real terms. What's arguable is the shape and where the effects actually take place.

Sure, but those tax rates will never be seen in any country.  70% or 80% ?

Come on Jake, it was 70% here when Reagan made his tax cut.
There are many years where it's been over 90%.
Take a walk through history here-
http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.php

I think the corporate tax rates shown in the Wall Street Journal article are very different things than the top marginal income tax rate for the highest bracket in that truthandpolitics web page.

Farmerkev wrote:

JakeTheTall wrote:

freecat wrote:

I completely disagree. The basic idea is irrefutable. At high enough tax rates, compliance falls, growth stagnates, and revenues fall in real terms. What's arguable is the shape and where the effects actually take place.

Sure, but those tax rates will never be seen in any country.  70% or 80% ?

Come on Jake, it was 70% here when Reagan made his tax cut.
There are many years where it's been over 90%.
Take a walk through history here-
http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.php

Technically you might be almost correct, but what tiny percentage of the population was paying that marginal rate ?  That's really going to affect the economy ?

JakeTheTall wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

JakeTheTall wrote:

Sure, but those tax rates will never be seen in any country.  70% or 80% ?

Come on Jake, it was 70% here when Reagan made his tax cut.
There are many years where it's been over 90%.
Take a walk through history here-
http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.php

Technically you might be almost correct, but what tiny percentage of the population was paying that marginal rate ?  That's really going to affect the economy ?

A very low percentage pays the absolute top rate, the thing is the sliding scale on the way up tends to also have higher rates when that top rate is outrageous.
Look at this one again
http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html
Now check out the brackets in past years, you can do the inflation math to convert to constant $'s.

JakeTheTall wrote:

Technically you might be almost correct, but what tiny percentage of the population was paying that marginal rate ?  That's really going to affect the economy ?

Only the most extreme versions of supply-side economics would claim that it's about affecting the economy in general. The Laffer Curve is, at its most basic level, about the relationship between tax rates and tax revenues. I think if you have a 90% top marginal rate, you can actually increase revenues a bit by cutting that top rate (or eliminating it). It's too much to argue that the economy will improve dramatically, or that revenues will increase dramatically. My point would be that super-high marginal rates are simply wasteful.