@H2O MAN,
I did. And this was number 2.
http://www.factcheck.org/taxes/supply-side_spin.html
Quote:The Congressional Budget Office, the Treasury Department, the Joint Committee on Taxation, the White House’s Council of Economic Advisers and a former Bush administration economist all say that tax cuts lead to revenues that are lower than they otherwise would have been " even if they spur some economic growth. And federal revenues actually declined at the beginning of this decade before rebounding.
@H2O MAN,
Of course you have nothing valid to present to support your statement. There is nothing in the real world to support it.
Lower taxes does not lead to higher revenues. Inflation and population growth lead to higher revenues. Tax cutting proponents then claim it was the tax cut that lead to the increase while ignoring all other factors.
The tax rate in a 17-22% of GDP range has no discernible effect on GDP growth which is what is claimed by those taking your position. The facts don't support you. I haven't run the numbers for a few years but the low tax rate under Bush while having lower than average GDP growth may finally tilt the numbers to disprove it completely.
If you google lower taxes increased revenues we get something from FactCheck that disagrees with you.
http://www.factcheck.org/taxes/supply-side_spin.html
Ok, let's say company a pays 10% tax and has gross sales of 1 million dollars. That means the gov't gets $100,000 from that company. Now, Tax increases to 15%. Company still makes 1 million dollars and the gov't gets $150,000 in revenue, but the company loses $50k. Good for the gov't, bad for the company. So the company has options... raise prices to make up the difference or get rid of overhead to make up the difference. The following year the comapny only sells $750k and the gov't loses revenue.
So, they raise prices and 2 things can happen. Customers pay more and keep buying at the levels they were or customers go to a competitor with lower prices (China). Option a is great for everyone, but is that realistic? Option 2 sees the company lose more money, still paying taxes and not good.
If they change overhead, people get laid off, unemployment numbers go up, gov't pays the now unemployed the tax money the company gave them. Net gain? No.
Now, Say the gov't lowers taxes to 8%. Company sells 1 million dollars, gov't gets $80,000 but the comapany gains $20k. They hire another worker, make more goods, sell more product. Next year they sell $1.5 mil. Govt gets $120,000, an increase in revenue. Profits go up for company, etc. Then the cycle repeats.
That's the theory anyways.
FreeDuck, to answer your original question, we cannot continue paying for it all. It is not possible at the current rate that Congress continues to spend money, much of it needlessly.
For starters, go through the federal budget and eliminate all the crap that our elected officials put in there that is not directly related to defense or necessary infrastructure. Heck, go ahead and leave Soc. Sec. alone also. There is nothing else in there that the fed. gov. should be paying for. Subsidies for food growers? Take it out. That way maybe Americans will realize how much our food really costs if we are paying the farmers directly for the real cost as opposed to paying both them and the government. There are all kinds of things that we pay for through our federal government that the feds have no need to pay.
Once all the crap comes out of the budget, then maybe we can begin to talk about how we will pay for the rest of it. It should be a lot easier at that point.
Anyway, that's one clown's opinion.
@FreeDuck,
That's the republican way; they don't want to shift wealth from the rich to the poor - only to our children and grandchildren.
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:
That's the republican way; they don't want to shift wealth from the rich to the poor - only to our children and grandchildren.
Liberaltards are some of the wealthiest people I know because they don't practice what they preach.
They are also the angriest people I know.
@H2O MAN,
H2O, Almost all of your posts are without any credible support; just your unfounded opinion. Please provide proof of your claim that "Liberaltards are
some of the wealthiest people I know because they don't practice what they preach?"
@cicerone imposter,
Look in the mirror CI and you will see the proof you are seeking.
@H2O MAN,
Exactly what have I been "preaching and practicing?"
@McGentrix,
Quote:Ok, let's say company a pays 10% tax and has gross sales of 1 million dollars. That means the gov't gets $100,000 from that company.
No, it doesn't. Income tax is on profit not on gross sales.
How do you expect to discuss income taxes when you don't know the difference between gross sales and profit?
Your theory is nothing because it is based on a faulty understanding of the tax system.
Lets say a company makes $1 million in profit. The corporate tax rate is at 10%. If the tax rate goes up to 15%, the company can reduce the profit by investing but they can't get rid of overhead to make up the difference. They can only ADD overhead to reduce the taxes because overhead reduces income.
@H2O MAN,
Not everyone that looks in a mirror sees the same thing you do when you look in one H20MAN.
(Just trying to help you out here.)
@CoastalRat,
Thank you, CR. I am inclined to agree with you.
@McGentrix,
Even if your hypothetical held true (see parados) it is a) only about corporate taxes not personal taxes and b) an argument that raising taxes lowers revenues not that lower taxes increase revenues (or maybe that is your argument -- i assumed you were making H2O man's case). It also assumes that everything else that affects a company's bottom line remains constant.
Thanks, though, for making the case. I don't quite buy it, but at least I understand your argument.
@McGentrix,
McGentrix wrote:
Ok, let's say company a pays 10% tax and has gross sales of 1 million dollars. That means the gov't gets $100,000 from that company. Now, Tax increases to 15%. Company still makes 1 million dollars and the gov't gets $150,000 in revenue, but the company loses $50k. Good for the gov't, bad for the company. So the company has options... raise prices to make up the difference or get rid of overhead to make up the difference. The following year the comapny only sells $750k and the gov't loses revenue.
So, they raise prices and 2 things can happen. Customers pay more and keep buying at the levels they were or customers go to a competitor with lower prices (China). Option a is great for everyone, but is that realistic? Option 2 sees the company lose more money, still paying taxes and not good.
If they change overhead, people get laid off, unemployment numbers go up, gov't pays the now unemployed the tax money the company gave them. Net gain? No.
Now, Say the gov't lowers taxes to 8%. Company sells 1 million dollars, gov't gets $80,000 but the comapany gains $20k. They hire another worker, make more goods, sell more product. Next year they sell $1.5 mil. Govt gets $120,000, an increase in revenue. Profits go up for company, etc. Then the cycle repeats.
That's the theory anyways.
Of course, that 10% is before the lawyers and accountants get at it; write-offs and other deductions, games to hide money in off-shore accounts and shell companies, reduce that number considerably. In fact, many companies pay no tax whatsoever...
Cycloptichorn
@H2O MAN,
H2O MAN wrote:
Liberaltards are some of the wealthiest people I know because they don't practice what they preach.
They are also the angriest people I know.
As evidenced by how they make up clever names for the opposition and inject angry hateful comments whenever they can into every conversation.
@CoastalRat,
The first thing is every corporation would have the same tax rate and the same deductions.
That would make a lot of industries, oil being one, scream bloody murder and pour more money into politician's coffers.
@FreeDuck,
FreeDuck wrote:
H2O MAN wrote:
Liberaltards are some of the wealthiest people I know because they don't practice what they preach.
They are also the angriest people I know.
As evidenced by how they make up clever names for the opposition and inject angry hateful comments whenever they can into every conversation.
The shoe is on the other foot and you don't like it, but it fits.
@McGentrix,
One other thing, individual income tax and payroll taxes (anyone know the difference?) make up the bulk of the government's revenues, not corporate taxes.
@FreeDuck,
Payroll taxes are the social security, medicaid and unemployment taxes withheld from your check and including the employer match on SS.
@squinney,
Thanks, squinney. I had a hunch about that.
