Large Majority Of Americans, Including Most Republicans, Support Raising Taxes

[ElNono]

I see no one can give an answer as to why they are certain. Just repeating hyperbole.

Already did. You don't like to hear it, that's your problem.

Was revenue higher when the Clinton tax rates were in effect, yes or no.
Answer the question.

[ElNono]

Isn't anyone man enough to answer my simple question?

Already answered.

[ElNono]

If increasing taxes increases revenue, why not just tax the rich at 100% past say $500,000?

This is a stupid premise.

[RandomGuy]

Let me ask a question to anyone willing to answer.

Are you sure that raising taxes on the rich will give the government more revenue beyond the first quarter tax cycle?

Yes.

[George Gervin's Afro]

This is a stupid premise.

he knows...but he wants someone man enough to answer..:lmao

[Blake]

Well, I'm going to take a short trip to Gresham. Hopefully someone can give me an intelligent answer to my stupid question by the time I get back.


The fact of the matter is there are not enough rich people to come anywhere close to satisfying Congress' voracious spending appetite.

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=568737

you're stupid.

[RandomGuy]

Actually it's this statement that is a lie. What's a half truth is the whole "people who don't pay income taxes are paying income taxes" gimmick. Everybody pays those "transitive" taxes. Not everybody gets to pretend that satisfies their tax burden. 50% is simply too high a percentage of the population to be exempted from DIRECTLY having to pay income taxes.

:nope

If it is a half-truth, then what exactly is the half of the truth or bit of context that is left out of that statement?

One might not be directly paying taxes, but they are quite surely indirectly paying income taxes on everything that they buy.

[RandomGuy]

Well?

If increasing taxes increases revenue, why not just tax the rich at 100% past say $500,000?

Because that would be rather markedly unfair and confiscatory.

There is a vast gulf between 37% and 100%. Please leave the slippery slope logical fallacies at the door.

[baseline bum]

Because that would be rather markedly unfair and confiscatory.

There is a vast gulf between 37% and 100%. Please leave the slippery slope logical fallacies at the door.

WC is never worth engaging on any mathematical question.

[CosmicCowboy]

Will you guys agree that the "we only want to tax the rich" argument is more about politics and class warfare than an actual serious attempt to reduce the deficit? The money is simply not there...the simple fact is that every month that goes by the US spends 140 BILLION more than it brings in...we have a spending problem, not a revenue problem...

[George Gervin's Afro]

Will you guys agree that the "we only want to tax the rich" argument is more about politics and class warfare than an actual serious attempt to reduce the deficit? The money is simply not there...the simple fact is that every month that goes by the US spends 140 BILLION more than it brings in...we have a spending problem, not a revenue problem...

so cutting spending and increasing revenue won't do anything to the deficit....oookkk...

[CosmicCowboy]

so cutting spending and increasing revenue won't do anything to the deficit....oookkk...

You could confiscate ALL those evil rich peoples assets and it wouldn't be a drop in the bucket towards solving the deficit issue. If you are gonna try to seriously make up the difference with tax increases you are gonna have to tap the middle class too. Plus, can you name ONE PROGRAM that Obama has proposed to cut? Obama sure couldn't this morning when he was asked after the press conference...

[RandomGuy]

Will you guys agree that the "we only want to tax the rich" argument is more about politics and class warfare than an actual serious attempt to reduce the deficit? The money is simply not there...the simple fact is that every month that goes by the US spends 140 BILLION more than it brings in...we have a spending problem, not a revenue problem...

As I have pointed out repeatedly, there is already a class war being waged by the rich on everybody else.

For me though it is not about punshing rich people, but about the best way to reduce the deficit and pay down the debt.

As for a "spending problem, not a revenue problem" that is akin to looking at a raging forest fire and saying that you have an "too much oxygen problem, not a too much fuel problem"

If half of a working married couple loses a job, and they are stuck with 1/3 their previous income, you would not tell them that their deficit is simply a spending problem, and not to worry about getting new income in the door. You do both as fast as possible to get cash flow back to positive.

Sorry I just don't buy that spin.

[George Gervin's Afro]

You could confiscate ALL those evil rich peoples assets and it wouldn't be a drop in the bucket towards solving the deficit issue. If you are gonna try to seriously make up the difference with tax increases you are gonna have to tap the middle class too. Plus, can you name ONE PROGRAM that Obama has proposed to cut? Obama sure couldn't this morning when he was asked after the press conference...



President Barack Obama said that every federal program and tax break should be scrutinized for potential spending cuts, in his Fourth of July weekend address to the nation Saturday.



Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0711/58243.html#ixzz1SCMQS2MW

[CosmicCowboy]

President Barack Obama said that every federal program and tax break should be scrutinized for potential spending cuts, in his Fourth of July weekend address to the nation Saturday.

He is GOING to look at everything? What the fuck has he been doing? He can't name ONE FUCKING PROGRAM that he would actually cut?

[George Gervin's Afro]

He is GOING to look at everything? What the fuck has he been doing? He can't name ONE FUCKING PROGRAM that he would actually cut?

you do realize that Biden's negotiations have already identified 1.7 trillion dollars in cuts over the next 10 yrs...right?

[boutons_deux]

"we have a spending problem, not a revenue problem"

you lie

the income tax revenue has dropped a few $T due to dubya's 2001+2003 tax cuts and drop in all kinds of taxes at all levels due to the Banksters' Great Depression.

REPUG POLICY decisions have increased the spending: 2 unending wars, Medicare Advantage, Prescription drug benefit, Repugs forbidding govt to negotiate as single-buyer for drugs and medical equipment/devices for Medicare/medicaid/VA.

And now ALL the spending cuts, anybody know where the $4T cuts go?, are laid on the poor, the sick, the young, the old, the disabled, the unemployed, public employees, NONE of whom had anything to with the Repug policies, while the superwealthy and corps and politicians are left untouched.

[LnGrrrR]

You could confiscate ALL those evil rich peoples assets and it wouldn't be a drop in the bucket towards solving the deficit issue. If you are gonna try to seriously make up the difference with tax increases you are gonna have to tap the middle class too. Plus, can you name ONE PROGRAM that Obama has proposed to cut? Obama sure couldn't this morning when he was asked after the press conference...

Actually, it would make a drop in that bucket. Someone posted an article where renowned liberal economist Ben Stein even said such.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Actually, it would make a drop in that bucket. Someone posted an article where renowned liberal economist Ben Stein even said such.



BEN STEIN, ECONOMIST, ACTOR & AUTHOR: We've got to raise taxes. There's just no way around it. The deficit situation is so serious that while I wish we did not have to raise taxes, we just can't cut spending enough. I wish we could. We can't. We have to raise taxes. Mr. Obama is going to have to do it. I don't know if the Republicans in the House will go along with it. If they don't, there will be a genuine crisis, and I am frankly frightened about it. I'm extremely concerned about it.



Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/oreilly/transcript/ben-stein-we-must-raise-taxes-rich#ixzz1SCRKWDfH

[Winehole23]

Nice catch, GG. :tu

[Winehole23]

Lest we malign a comedian unfairly...

[Wild Cobra]

Already did. You don't like to hear it, that's your problem.
No you didn't

Was revenue higher when the Clinton tax rates were in effect, yes or no.
Answer the question.

How many other factors played a part of it? With so many variables, how can you know with certainty?

[boutons_deux]

Here's this King/IA asshole again.

GOP Rep. Steve King Would Reject Debt Ceiling Deal With $3 Trillion In Cuts And Just $8 In Revenue Increases

KEYES: Obviously any type of deal is very fluid at this point, but in terms of what you would be willing to accept and vote for. For instance, say there were $3 trillion in cuts and just $8 in revenue increases, do you think that’s something you yourself could be supporting? [...]

KING: I’m not for raising taxes. I won’t support anything that raises taxes. Revenue increases are a euphemism for raising taxes. Closing loopholes, one person’s loophole is the other one’s legitimate business expense. And tax deduction or tax credit as the case may be. That doesn’t get to the root of the problem. Let’s send a constitutional amendment to the states for ratification and then start talking business.

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/07/15/270661/king-wont-accept-revenue-increases/

[Wild Cobra]

This is a stupid premise.
Well, at first I thought is was a stupid question too. One that is so obvious, it shouldn't need to be asked. I figured it was a good reminder of trends. However, since I am not getting any answers that fit the question, I guess it's not so stupid after all. Maybe you all are too stupid for the question?

[MannyIsGod]

Well, at first I thought is was a stupid question too. One that is so obvious, it shouldn't need to be asked. I figured it was a good reminder of trends. However, since I am not getting any answers that fit the question, I guess it's not so stupid after all. Maybe you all are too stupid for the question?

Logical King right here, TBH.

[boutons_deux]

The New York Times


July 14, 2011

Getting to Crazy

By PAUL KRUGMAN

There aren’t many positive aspects to the looming possibility of a U.S. debt default. But there has been, I have to admit, an element of comic relief — of the black-humor variety — in the spectacle of so many people who have been in denial suddenly waking up and smelling the crazy.

A number of commentators seem shocked at how unreasonable Republicans are being. “Has the G.O.P. gone insane?” they ask.

Why, yes, it has. But this isn’t something that just happened, it’s the culmination of a process that has been going on for decades. Anyone surprised by the extremism and irresponsibility now on display either hasn’t been paying attention, or has been deliberately turning a blind eye.

And may I say to those suddenly agonizing over the mental health of one of our two major parties: People like you bear some responsibility for that party’s current state.

Let’s talk for a minute about what Republican leaders are rejecting.

President Obama has made it clear that he’s willing to sign on to a deficit-reduction deal that consists overwhelmingly of spending cuts, and includes draconian cuts in key social programs, up to and including a rise in the age of Medicare eligibility. These are extraordinary concessions. As The Times’s Nate Silver points out, the president has offered deals that are far to the right of what the average American voter prefers — in fact, if anything, they’re a bit to the right of what the average Republican voter prefers!

Yet Republicans are saying no. Indeed, they’re threatening to force a U.S. default, and create an economic crisis, unless they get a completely one-sided deal. And this was entirely predictable.

First of all, the modern G.O.P. fundamentally does not accept the legitimacy of a Democratic presidency — any Democratic presidency. We saw that under Bill Clinton, and we saw it again as soon as Mr. Obama took office.

As a result, Republicans are automatically against anything the president wants, even if they have supported similar proposals in the past. Mitt Romney’s health care plan became a tyrannical assault on American freedom when put in place by that man in the White House. And the same logic applies to the proposed debt deals.

Put it this way: If a Republican president had managed to extract the kind of concessions on Medicare and Social Security that Mr. Obama is offering, it would have been considered a conservative triumph. But when those concessions come attached to minor increases in revenue, and more important, when they come from a Democratic president, the proposals become unacceptable plans to tax the life out of the U.S. economy.

Beyond that, voodoo economics has taken over the G.O.P.

Supply-side voodoo — which claims that tax cuts pay for themselves and/or that any rise in taxes would lead to economic collapse — has been a powerful force within the G.O.P. ever since Ronald Reagan embraced the concept of the Laffer curve. But the voodoo used to be contained. Reagan himself enacted significant tax increases, offsetting to a considerable extent his initial cuts.

And even the administration of former President George W. Bush refrained from making extravagant claims about tax-cut magic, at least in part for fear that making such claims would raise questions about the administration’s seriousness.

Recently, however, all restraint has vanished — indeed, it has been driven out of the party. Last year Mitch McConnell, the Senate minority leader, asserted that the Bush tax cuts actually increased revenue — a claim completely at odds with the evidence — and also declared that this was “the view of virtually every Republican on that subject.” And it’s true: even Mr. Romney, widely regarded as the most sensible of the contenders for the 2012 presidential nomination, has endorsed the view that tax cuts can actually reduce the deficit.

Which brings me to the culpability of those who are only now facing up to the G.O.P.’s craziness.

Here’s the point: those within the G.O.P. who had misgivings about the embrace of tax-cut fanaticism might have made a stronger stand if there had been any indication that such fanaticism came with a price, if outsiders had been willing to condemn those who took irresponsible positions.

But there has been no such price. Mr. Bush squandered the surplus of the late Clinton years, yet prominent pundits pretend that the two parties share equal blame for our debt problems. Paul Ryan, the chairman of the House Budget Committee, proposed a supposed deficit-reduction plan that included huge tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy, then received an award for fiscal responsibility.

So there has been no pressure on the G.O.P. to show any kind of responsibility, or even rationality — and sure enough, it has gone off the deep end. If you’re surprised, that means that you were part of the problem.

[MannyIsGod]

Oh shit - a Krugman post. Darrin will be in here soon.

[boutons_deux]

His knees bees a-twitchin'

WC will say something about Krugman's taking Repug's insanity out of context.

[scott]

So, WC can't answer these two questions, which I asked serveral times, several pages back:


1) Which one of these scenarios do you advocate?
2) Why do you really want to pay more taxes so people like me can pay less? I honestly don't need your assistance in living a happy life.


Yet, he is getting bent out of shape because no one will answer his stupid question about what would happen if we taxed at 100% above some level of income.

I'll go ahead answer, so that maybe he'll finally answer my questions.

If we all earnings above $X at 100%, then no one would work to earn above $X.

The labor supply curve is upward sloping, like all supply curves - but it important to note that it has a unique characteristic in that it eventually bends backwards as those making higher incomes can more readily afford to substitute leisure for work, and thus need to work less as wages increase. Read more here. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backward_bending_supply_curve_of_labour)

It is absolutely true that an increase in taxes will lead to a decrease in the supply of labor (just as an increase in the price of anything leads to a decrease in the demand).

So, if we increase the tax rate (at any level) it would, theoretically lead to a decrease in the supply of labor (people would choose to work less).

To say, however, that would automatically lead to a decline in tax revenues is as false as saying an increase in the price of toothbrushes will lead to increased revenues for the toothbrush manufacturer (it may... or it may not). Elasticity matters.

In the case, the question is: at what level does an incremental increase in tax rate result in a greater decrease in the supply of labor thus lower wages earned thus a lower tax base thus lower tax revenue. Is it going from 35% to 36%? Probably not. 35% to 100%? Definitely. 35% to X%? Well we really don't know.

This, of course, is the entire theoretical basis for the Laffer Curve (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve). The Laffer Curve holds true, but it is only apparent where it holds true at its extremes. We can easily see how a 0% tax rate would result in the same level of revenue as a 100% tax rate above a certain level of income.

Where the Laffer Curve falls short, is that it isn't sophisticated enough to tell us where the peak of the curve is (tax revenue maximization) or even where any modern levels of taxation fall on it because, quite frankly, that is rather difficult function to attempt to compile - hence, why no one has done it. (Note, you also cannot take a superficial look at empirical data and say "in 19xx rates were XX and revenue was XX and in this other year... yada yada yada... too many exogenous factors at play).

Of course, the next question that needs to be asked is: is the tax revenue maximizing rate even where we want to be? Most economists would agree the answer is no, because the tax revenue maximizing rate creates deadweight loss. So what *is* the optimal tax rate? Well, no one can answer that, because that is where subjective differences come into play.

So, there you go Wild Cobra. Can you answer my questions now?

[coyotes_geek]

I think he's arguing that removing those tax cuts wouldn't increase the revenue. I don't think he's correct in most cases.

Upon re-reading, looks like I missed his point.

I agree with you.

[coyotes_geek]

:nope

If it is a half-truth, then what exactly is the half of the truth or bit of context that is left out of that statement?

One might not be directly paying taxes, but they are quite surely indirectly paying income taxes on everything that they buy.

It's a half truth because someone else paying taxes using revenue from you is not the same thing as you paying taxes. By your logic, it would be a lie to say that GE paid no taxes because their employees paid taxes on the wages they got from GE.

[ElNono]

How many other factors played a part of it? With so many variables, how can you know with certainty?

Because I look at the receipts after the tax cuts, and notice revenue went down. Meaning that prior to the tax cuts, those people were paying more in taxes.

Any other stupid question you have?

[ElNono]

Well, at first I thought is was a stupid question too.

Despite your question being stupid, it was answered. Multiple times by multiple posters.

You 100% tax premise is stupid because that's not currently being advocated.
I already wasted my time answering your stupid question, I'll refrain from wasting more time entertaining your stupid premise.

[ElNono]

Will you guys agree that the "we only want to tax the rich" argument is more about politics and class warfare than an actual serious attempt to reduce the deficit? The money is simply not there...the simple fact is that every month that goes by the US spends 140 BILLION more than it brings in...we have a spending problem, not a revenue problem...

I think we have both. I'll be more than happy with leaving the current taxation rates on the top 5% IF every single one of the tax loopholes they use is closed (that's trillion of dollars right there). Then we would need to hike taxes a bit across the rest of the 95%, and cut spending.

[CosmicCowboy]

I think we have both. I'll be more than happy with leaving the current taxation rates on the top 5% IF every single one of the tax loopholes they use is closed (that's trillion of dollars right there). Then we would need to hike taxes a bit across the rest of the 95%, and cut spending.

What y'all forget is that when you talk about historic tax rates (and how low they are now relative to then) You forget that the 86 tax laws changed deductions dramatically and eliminated a shitload of deductions (like consumer and credit card interest).

You REALLY want to close ALL the tax "loopholes"? Like mortgage interest for example? You will DECIMATE the construction industry and make us a nation of renters in two generations.

[ElNono]

What y'all forget is that when you talk about historic tax rates (and how low they are now relative to then) You forget that the 86 tax laws changed deductions dramatically and eliminated a shitload of deductions (like consumer and credit card interest).

You REALLY want to close ALL the tax "loopholes"? Like mortgage interest for example? You will DECIMATE the construction industry and make us a nation of renters in two generations.

I'm talking loopholes, not tax credits. The loopholes that are used to keep trillions overseas waiting for some form of 'tax holiday'. Or the loopholes GE has been using to avoid paying billions in taxes for business done in the country. I'm not holding my breath, but realistically it has to happen. Otherwise, the other 95% are always the suckers.

I mean, on paper this is a great offer. I'm not even asking to raise taxes on the dividends.

[Wild Cobra]

Because I look at the receipts after the tax cuts, and notice revenue went down. Meaning that prior to the tax cuts, those people were paying more in taxes.

Any other stupid question you have?
I have explained that before, and is why my question went to the next tax cycle afterwards. If you raise taxes, you will get an uptick. If you lower taxes, you will get a downtick. They then settle to where they will settle at. the up or down is temporary.

[Wild Cobra]

Scott has the right idea here. LGN pointed out the zero tax rate. My whole point of the question is to make people consider something. From zero, you get increased revenues as you increase tax rates. However, you top out at taxing collecting zero revenue as you increase tax rates. Since you cannot draw an upward slope to zero, at what rate does the trend change from up to down? Nobody really knows. Some of us believe we are already at the top with the lower marginal rates on the up slope trend and the higher marginal rates on the down slope trend.

What if the 35% rate is on the down slope trend people?

Both zero and 100 are extremes, but anyone with half a brain realizes the trend changes direction at some point.

[ElNono]

I have explained that before, and is why my question went to the next tax cycle afterwards. If you raise taxes, you will get an uptick. If you lower taxes, you will get a downtick. They then settle to where they will settle at. the up or down is temporary.

Not true. Review your own numbers and stop asking stupid questions.

[ElNono]

What if the 35% rate is on the down slope trend people?

Both zero and 100 are extremes, but anyone with half a brain realizes the trend changes direction at some point.

Unless you can prove what the Laffer curve peak point is (and you can't, since it varies literally all the time), your contention remains stupid.

[scott]

1) Which one of these scenarios do you advocate?
2) Why do you really want to pay more taxes so people like me can pay less? I honestly don't need your assistance in living a happy life.

[boutons_deux]

House Republicans brace for compromise on debt

Republican leaders in the House have begun to prepare their troops for politically painful votes to raise the nation's debt limit, offering warnings and concessions to move the hard-line majority toward a compromise that would avert a federal default.

For weeks, GOP conservatives, particularly in the House, have issued demands about what they would require in exchange for their votes to increase the debt limit. In negotiations with the White House, Republican leaders have found those demands were unattainable. Unwilling to risk the economic and political consequences of a federal default, which could come as early as Aug. 2, they have started the difficult process of standing down.

At a closed-door meeting Friday morning, GOP leaders turned to their most trusted budget expert, Rep. Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin, to explain to rank-and-file members what many others have come to understand: A fiscal meltdown could occur if Congress fails to raise the debt ceiling.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-debt-talks-20110716,0,3882923,print.story

[boutons_deux]

Paul Ryan Has to Baby Tea Party Freshmen on Debt Ceiling, Forced to Use "Star Wars" Analogy to Underscore Gravity of Situation

Perhaps we should all adopt Death Star metaphors to communicate more effectively with Tea Party Republicans. It appears to be somewhat effective. In any case, we're seeing precisely what I told you we would see. Boehner had to capitulate. Cantor got to play the role of bad cop. Now basic reality kicks in, and Boehner needs to explain to his caucus that if he has to rely on Pelosi for votes, he's going to have to give on taxes, too, making it that much more painful for Republicans to walk the plank. In an effort to avoid a double defeat, he has scheduled some stupid, pointless votes for the next week that he hopes will satisfy his craziest members.

http://www.alternet.org/module/printversion/newsandviews/635095

======

Barry called the Repug/tea bagger bluff, and they had nothing in their hand.

The House Repugs are still furiously defunding, killing tons of stuff like environmental, employee regulations, financial regulations and so are still doing maximum harm to Human-Americans as to protect, enrich Corporate-Americans and capitalists.

[Wild Cobra]

Not true. Review your own numbers and stop asking stupid questions.
Within small ranges, they do.

[Wild Cobra]

The point, that you are missing, is that there are three scenarios in any flat tax proposal:

1) You keep tax revenues constant, which means that some people get a tax break (those who pay more than the proposed rate, i.e. "the rich") and others get a tax increase (those who pay less than the proposed rate, i.e. "everyone else")

2) You generate more tax revenue, which means you set the proposed rate more heavily skewed towards the top of the tax scale and even more people (or even potentially everyone) get a tax increase and only the very wealthy (or no one at all) gets a tax break. Even then, the bulk of the new tax burden falls on the lower side of the tax spectrum

3) You generate less tax revenue, which means you set the proposed rate more heavily skewed towards the bottom of the tax scale and some people (ranging from a few to most or even all) get tax breaks and only those on the very bottom (or no one at all) gets tax increases. Even then, the bulk of the benefits are concentrated in the hands of the highest earners.

1) Which one of these scenarios do you advocate?
2) Why do you really want to pay more taxes so people like me can pay less? I honestly don't need your assistance in living a happy life.
Sorry you didn't like my answer. I guess I'll be more complete. I advocate #1 which should yield more money to a small extent also. I am also on the record as saying the government is already spending too much money. I did essentially answer the problem with #3 even though it isn't the way you wanted me to answer. Over the course of time I answered all on them to some degree.

It could be said these happen with any tax system change. the 17% does not need to be set in stone, and one key point is that if there is a rate change, everyone is affected. Not just one class.
This essential means we can raise or lower the rate as needed to raise revenue, but hopefully we can lower it and collect enough.

You have to remember. Changing from a marginal rate of 35%/39.6%, to a 17% flat tax with no deductions will tax many rich more money than today, and only some less. It's all the damn loopholes and deductions that allow those with the right circumstances to pay so little.

We have to take a serious stance here. If we want to generate more revenue, we have collect the money from those who cannot shelter it, and already unfairly pay less than some of their peers. Some people would say the single are subsidizing the families. The current tax system is not fair now, and we need to fix it. I say a person should get taxed by income, not by person situation.

If you are one of the unlucky or foolish that has most your money taxable, then yes. I believe you should pay less. Honestly. Once you take all your write-offs, and pay taxes from tax, what percentage of your gross it it anyway? I say, if it's more than 25%, it's way too much. If it's above 20%, maybe not too much. Some rich people because of the tax structure, only pay around 12%. Now i say this is to little.

I have stated numerous times in the past, one way or another, that I believe all people should pay taxes that are subject to increase or decrease. Nobody should be exempt from taxes. The bottom line it I believe in having a form of a poll tax. I believe anyone who votes for local to federal issues should have skin in the game, from the giving side. Not just the taking side. I know this is impossible with our system, so I at least want to get as many voters paying taxes as possible. If you would prefer to have an actual poll tax, then I say OK, lets set the no tax line anywhere you want, as long as the takers of social welfare cannot vote to get more.

Here's something to consider. We all know the rich shelter money. Many are in the position to be paid in assets rater than money also. Who wouldn't shelter from the 39.6%/35% if they could? How much ready cash do you think would come out of hiding if now, it was only taxed at 17%? I believe this would be part of a stimulus we need.

[Wild Cobra]

Unless you can prove what the Laffer curve peak point is (and you can't, since it varies literally all the time), your contention remains stupid.
You're the stupid one.

Why would I even try to prove a "what if?"

[boutons_deux]

"what if"

.... tax rate of 0% or 100% :lol

[Wild Cobra]

"what if"

.... tax rate of 0% or 100% :lol
Then the revenue would be zero.

Do you not understand why I posed the question?

That type of a "what if" is a no-brainer.

[LnGrrrR]

I'm pretty sure advocating a poll tax isn't very libertarian... :lol

[ElNono]

Why would I even try to prove a "what if?"

That's your premise, that's why the one that has to substantiate the claim is you.

[ElNono]

Within small ranges, they do.

Your question was stupid across any range.

[Wild Cobra]

Your question was stupid across any range.
If you refuse to acknowledge why, then you aren't worth debating on the issue.

[ElNono]

If you refuse to acknowledge why, then you aren't worth debating on the issue.

I fully acknowledge your question was stupid... no doubt.

[Wild Cobra]

I fully acknowledge your question was stupid... no doubt.
Never mind. I see you don't know how to think outside the box.

[ElNono]

Never mind. I see you don't know how to think outside the box.

When what's outside the box is stupidity, yeah, I don't.

[boutons_deux]

The criminal Banksters' Great Depression is very much worse than earlier troughs, and without exception, the deep the trough the longer the recovery, L-shaped rather than V-shaped.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/images/newsgraphics/2011/0715-swr-leonhardt-consumer-spending/0717-web-LEONHARDT.png

Considering how consumers have shut down (but of course not at the high end, where multi-M$ homes are now heating up), considering the unemployment rate, it's quite amazing they poll as favoring tax hikes to reduce the deficit. That's clearly NOT was the VRWC intended when they puffed up the deficit scare-mongering as way to cut their own taxes more by destroying the hated govt. so they could reduce taxes more, so they could destroy govt, so they ...