Real world contradicts right-wing tax theories

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: buster2010

Even when wealth is put only in a savings account (which wealthy people don't do because of the piss poor return rate on that), that is the money from which banks can loan money to less-wealthy individuals--for business loans, for personal loans, for mortgages, etc.

So, yes, a tax on income removes every cent that is taxed from the economy, unless someone stuffs it in a freezer and forgets it's there.

Ever hear of something called fractional banking? The bank doesn't lend out your money they lend out money they create out of thin air. If normal people were to do this it would be called counterfeiting.

Oh - Oh - Oh - I have to quote this part of the article:

Just cause I'm a mean sob:

The Laffer curve refers to a theory of marginal effects of tax rates on tax revenues, which goes back hundreds of years, at least to a 15th century Muslim scholar named Ibn Khaldun.

The right wing's only financial policy is based on 15th century (that's the 1400s, y'all) Muslim scholarship. That's priceless.

Great find. I especially like the final bit about 'real world' vs 'theory world' when it comes to raising the minimum wage.

But real world data does not support the theory. Various studies have shown that employment and income may both rise with increases in the minimum wage.

The best data comes from counties that border one another but belong to different states, with one state raising its minimum wage and the other not.

A rigorously designed analysis of 504 such bordering counties by economists found “strong earnings effects” — meaning workers were paid significantly more in those counties which raised minimum wages — with “no detectable employment losses from the kind of minimum wage increases we have seen in the United States.”

america.aljazeera.com...

Tax the rich feed the poor till there are no rich no more.
a reply to: AlaskanDad

The only solution is to abandon federal taxation of income and instead start taxing wealth. Charge a flat tax on corporate income. Continue to tax capital gains as they do now.

a reply to: AlaskanDad


Did you really think this 'mob' would read or understand the article?

Good try, good article.

originally posted by: sligtlyskeptical
The only solution is to abandon federal taxation of income and instead start taxing wealth. Charge a flat tax on corporate income. Continue to tax capital gains as they do now.

Here, here!!!!! I've been about taxing Net Worth for years for both individuals and corporate peeeeoples. It's a much better indicator of wealth.

I guess keeping capital gains, since they happen in one year, similar would encourage investment over speculation.
ur
And your 'flat'? Would that be on gross or net (after COGS) revenues? Doing in on net would encourage a better quality of product one would think.

Well said.

a reply to: FyreByrd

The Laffer curve refers to a theory of marginal effects of tax rates on tax revenues, which goes back hundreds of years, at least to a 15th century Muslim scholar named Ibn Khaldun.

That makes it a "Laugher" curve.

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: FyreByrd

The Laffer curve refers to a theory of marginal effects of tax rates on tax revenues, which goes back hundreds of years, at least to a 15th century Muslim scholar named Ibn Khaldun.

That makes it a "Laugher" curve.

Credit where credit is due. That's good.

Real world facts contradict almost everything that Far Right Christian Republicans will tell you.

A new study today shows that Obama has now outperformed Reagan on almost every single economic indicator, but this hardly got mentioned on the news today.

originally posted by: babybunnies
Real world facts contradict almost everything that Far Right Christian Republicans will tell you.

A new study today shows that Obama has now outperformed Reagan on almost every single economic indicator, but this hardly got mentioned on the news today.

Would LuuuuV to see that masterpiece.

Tax hikes did not hurt California job growth because the taxes were not on jobs but on high incomes.

Maybe that's because people had to get 2nd jobs because of the higher taxes.

originally posted by: FyreByrd
Oh - Oh - Oh - I have to quote this part of the article:

Just cause I'm a mean sob:

The Laffer curve refers to a theory of marginal effects of tax rates on tax revenues, which goes back hundreds of years, at least to a 15th century Muslim scholar named Ibn Khaldun.

The right wing's only financial policy is based on 15th century (that's the 1400s, y'all) Muslim scholarship. That's priceless.

The Laffer Curve is a sound theory for the most part, the only exception is that a curve at a 100% tax rate doesn't result in 0 work and thus 0 taxes. People still work in order to get the services those taxes pay for, they just work inefficiently. So really the curve is going from a scale of 0 income at 0 tax to say 25 income at 100% tax. We know that by the end of his term Reagan felt the curve was somewhere to the right of 40%. Going by european nations it's to the right of 60% though it does seem to vary by nation. The only flaw in the theory in the US is that some people thinking the break point on the curve is at 10%, and no one ever makes policy recommendations based on data relating to the curve, they go with other talking points.

The optimum number of employees one should have can be graphed out if you're into economics. It has nothing to do with taxes. The optimum number of employees, efficiency, has nothing to do with taxes. The pervasive myth is, or should be, obvious in its intentions. To the "average person on the street" they'd think pretty much "hmm that does make sense" but that's like being in financial peril and upset over having to curtail your daily doughnuts so you resort to selling an organ on the black market.

a reply to: buster2010

So is it your claim that all banks are doing this?

Also, if that's the case, the out-of-thin-air money reduces the value of the dollar, thereby reducing the spending power of each dollar not taxed by the government. This scenario isn't any better, nor does it negate my comment to which you replied.

originally posted by: babybunnies
Real world facts contradict almost everything that Far Right Christian Republicans will tell you.

A new study today shows that Obama has now outperformed Reagan on almost every single economic indicator, but this hardly got mentioned on the news today.

You do understand that ATS has the ability to provide links in replies, right? That way you can back up claims with facts.

So, do you have the study, or is this just something that you heard and therefore deem it a fact important enough to regurgitate without proof?

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Slapmonkey, you could simply try using a search engine!

Even his critics agree that Ronald Regan did great things for the U.S. economy. Just look at these numbers: the best job creation record in American history, with an estimated unemployment rate of 5.6 percent by the seventh year of his term; sixty-three straight months of economic expansion; and 25 straight months of manufacturing expansion. Investors had an unprecedented gain of 220 percent in their investments in a 5.5-year period, a feat which benefited every aspect of the economy.

Just to be clear, the above statistics are for the current administration. Here is what a recent article in Forbes had to say, “Economically, President Obama’s administration has outperformed President Reagan’s in all commonly watched categories. Simultaneously the current administration has reduced the deficit, which skyrocketed under Reagan. Additionally, Obama has reduced federal employment, which grew under Reagan (especially when including military personnel) and truly delivered a ‘smaller government.’ Additionally, the current administration has kept inflation low, even during extreme international upheaval, failure of foreign economies (Greece), and a dramatic slowdown in the European economy.” (Forbes, 9-5-2014, Adam Hartung)

source

Forbes article mentioned above

originally posted by: FyreByrd
a reply to: AlaskanDad


Did you really think this 'mob' would read or understand the article?

Good try, good article.

imho

To many folks just use the belief system for anything political,

if it fits their beliefs it's right,

if not it is wrong! then of course they attack vociferously with opinions