GOP's official report says tax cuts for the rich just don't do much of anything to help the economy.

[Ben Kenobi]

Yes, we want to make the system progressive. We can do this by reducing or eliminating the taxes for poorer individuals.

What you want are fewer poor people. You want to eliminate things like payroll taxes altogether to encourage people to work and encourage businesses to hire people. Obamacare is a massively regressive tax, as seen by Obama's desire to cut the hours for which folks are required to pay the benefits. He wants to make sure that people who are only working part time pay the same as someone who works full time.

[Zevico]

Time to trundle this out again...

http://www.tsowell.com/images/Hoover%20Proof.pdf

[Kidlicious]

The analogy is that there are too many factors affecting the economy that simply doing a historical analysis will not actually establish any meaningful cause and effect. Simple logic demonstrates that Peru increases its odds of winning olympic medals through participation, but they also need to have a good team. If they didn't compete, it would obviously affect their ability to attain olympic medals, but would historically not end up changing the ultimate number of medals achieved because their team really sucks.

Yeah, similarly speaking, when taxes are cut it doesn't generate economic growth because it doesn't change peoples spending behavior.

[Zevico]

Of course it does. More money in hand means more money spent and more money invested by private citizens and less by government. Government spending generates far less wealth than private businesses. It is true that some public spending is necessary for various purposes, but all else being equal it does a far worse job of utilising goods and services than private individuals capable of achieving the same ends would. This is self-evident free market economics.
More broadly, low taxes encourage investors to spend in one jurisdiction and high taxes discourage spending in that jurisdiction. Witness Senator Kerry's yacht. Kerry's conduct was a perfect example of how high taxes encourage people not to invest in a given jurisdiction because of its high taxes. Competition between jurisdictions is just one reason why high taxes reduce economic growth: people decide not just how to spend their money but where to spend it. As Sowell recounts in this article:

http://www.tsowell.com/images/Hoover%20Proof.pdf

There have been many times in history when this has been recognised. Kennedy recognised it and his tax cuts brought prosperity. So too Reagan.

High taxes create disincentives that have a proven negative effect on the economy in which they are situated.

[Kidlicious]

Of course it does. More money in hand means more money spent and more money invested by private citizens and less by government. Government spending generates far less wealth than private businesses. It is true that some public spending is necessary for various purposes, but all else being equal it does a far worse job of utilising goods and services than private individuals capable of achieving the same ends would. This is self-evident free market economics.

That's your political opinion. It isn't self-evident or obvious to others who do not share that opinion.

Taxes reduce the deficit. Reducing them increases the deficit which takes money out of people's hands.

More broadly, low taxes encourage investors to spend in one jurisdiction and high taxes discourage spending in that jurisdiction.

Fiscal policy is much more complicated than that.

There have been many times in history when this has been recognised. Kennedy recognised it and his tax cuts brought prosperity. So too Reagan.

Again, that's your political opinion. Yes it's true that we had economic growth during those times, however, if anyone looks at history objectively they have to conclude that it was not the tax cuts that caused the economic growth during those times.

High taxes create disincentives that have a proven negative effect on the economy in which they are situated.

Nope. In fact the data says otherwise.

[Hauldren Collider]

Kidicious, your understanding of economics rivals some inanimate objects.

[Guynemer]

How appropriate. You fight like a cow.

[MRT144]

Time to trundle this out again...

http://www.tsowell.com/images/Hoover%20Proof.pdf

LMAO, my mom worked for hoover for 20+ years.

Sowell was a dick.

[MRT144]

Of course it does. More money in hand means more money spent and more money invested by private citizens and less by government. Government spending generates far less wealth than private businesses. It is true that some public spending is necessary for various purposes, but all else being equal it does a far worse job of utilising goods and services than private individuals capable of achieving the same ends would. This is self-evident free market economics.
More broadly, low taxes encourage investors to spend in one jurisdiction and high taxes discourage spending in that jurisdiction. Witness Senator Kerry's yacht. Kerry's conduct was a perfect example of how high taxes encourage people not to invest in a given jurisdiction because of its high taxes. Competition between jurisdictions is just one reason why high taxes reduce economic growth: people decide not just how to spend their money but where to spend it. As Sowell recounts in this article:
http://www.tsowell.com/images/Hoover%20Proof.pdf

There have been many times in history when this has been recognised. Kennedy recognised it and his tax cuts brought prosperity. So too Reagan.

High taxes create disincentives that have a proven negative effect on the economy in which they are situated.

And yet, here we are with the lowest taxes in the history of our nation and where's the growth?

I posit that taxes don't matter that much in influencing economic growth over time and if this is the case, why not get a little more scratch from the ones that can afford it.

[MikeH]

Cutting tax rates for the rich does **** all because they are already avoiding paying any whatever the rate is.

[DaShi]

It's fascinating. HC, you post so much of which there is no supporting evidence, yet you believe it so strongly. Where do you get these ideas?

[Ben Kenobi]

And yet, here we are with the lowest taxes in the history of our nation and where's the growth?

Not so. Obama just passed the highest tax increase in the history of the United States. If raising taxes stimulated economic growth - we'd expect to see a booming economy. We do not.

[Kidlicious]

Kidicious, your understanding of economics rivals some inanimate objects.

Coming from someone is doesn't understand the concept of opportunity cost, that means didley.

[Dinner]

A payroll tax like FICA would work nicely, in my opinion.

Yes, payroll taxes are the simplest and best taxes. However, you usually don't want to collect all of your tax revenue at a single point - it makes black market transactions too tempting.

So you would be better off finding two other taxes that are economically identical. Fortunately, such alternatives exist: one is a sales tax, and the other is a tax on certain classes of business transaction.

Then you can split the burden equally between these three to minimize the black market.

The problem there is that FICA is a flat tax, so I believe we would need rebates to make it progressive.

Yes, we want to make the system progressive. We can do this by reducing or eliminating the taxes for poorer individuals.

If we're trying to make this tax reform revenue neutral, we probably want it to raise about 25% of GDP before the exemptions for poorer individuals. That should be 8.3% for each of our three taxes, but when you appropriately account for the compounding, you'll need 9%, 9%, and 9%.

Incidentally, this tax plan is much more intellectually serious than anything proposed by any actual elected official.

That actually sounds plausable and doable.

[Kidlicious]

Not so. Obama just passed the highest tax increase in the history of the United States. If raising taxes stimulated economic growth - we'd expect to see a booming economy. We do not.

First, Obamacare hasn't costed tax payers a thing yet. Second, the Bush tax cuts add twice as much to the deficit that the Obamacare taxes will decrease it. So, what are you talking about?