Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
#1 Simple arithmatic falls into the category of realfact.
We don't do that anymore. We deal in goodfacts now.
Posted by Bobby 2011-04-21 06:16||
2011-04-21 06:16||
Front PageTop
#2 It's long been know that taxing the wealthy produces little or no increase in revenue.
The classic case was the UK, where tax rates were as high as 95%. Along comes Maggie Thatcher and slashes the top rates of tax. Not only did tax revenues rise, but London was suddenly full of rich people, who previously had spent large amounts of time and money staying out the clutches of the tax man.
Posted by phil_b 2011-04-21 06:31||
2011-04-21 06:31||
Front PageTop
#3 It's long been know that taxing the wealthy produces little or no increase in revenue.
It's not that simple. A gov't levying no taxes has no income, except from, perhaps, donations. A gov't attempting to levy 100% taxes will have great difficulty collecting it from everyone. There's a sweet spot in between 0-100% where the government maximizes its income. The sweet spot changes from moment to moment.
Posted by Anguper Hupomosing9418 2011-04-21 07:51||
2011-04-21 07:51||
Front PageTop
#4 But the Marxist drive to tax the "rich" isn't about taxes...or even income. It is about tightening the ideological screws on that segment of the population with the most motivation and the most means to oppose Marxist Socialism. A Socialist government can exempt its employees and its unions from such taxes by simply raising their wages to compensate for increased taxes. And the "poor" are similarly exempt -- through welfare and a host of entitlements and exemptions.
This is social engineering on a huge scale.
Posted by Highlander 2011-04-21 08:53||
2011-04-21 08:53||
Front PageTop
#5 The chart showed that if the government had simply confiscated every dollar from those reporting more than $1 million taxable income in 2008, it would not have gotten the $1.3 trillion needed to close the current federal budget deficit.
In the left wing side of the brain, they actually believe that if you confiscate all that money this year, it'll be around the next year to take again. They failed the elementary school admonition about killing the goose that lays the golden egg.
Posted by Procopius2k 2011-04-21 08:53||
2011-04-21 08:53||
Front PageTop
#6 You are assunming, of course, that Barry's goal is to reduce the Deficit.
It isn't. And never has been. And probably never will be.
Posted by CrazyFool 2011-04-21 09:06||
2011-04-21 09:06||
Front PageTop
#7 Tax the rich? This is everyone over the poverty line? Part of Hype and Change and the Audacity of Hype? More dissembling!
Posted by JohnQC 2011-04-21 10:12||
2011-04-21 10:12||
Front PageTop
#8 The end game (I'm not crazy nor am I a conspiracy theorist gone bats) is to percipitate a collapse of the US economic system of the scale of the Weimar Republic. When the riots start and the violence escalates, the Prez will declare martial law, suspend elections and send Congress home. He will rule by decree and declare himself leader...he's got the czars in place what do you think those are for?
Posted by Bill Clinton 2011-04-21 10:13||
2011-04-21 10:13||
Front PageTop
#9 BC, most likely if things got that bad other things would occur across the country.
Posted by JohnQC 2011-04-21 10:22||
2011-04-21 10:22||
Front PageTop
#10 BC, don't forget the real reason for the 2nd.
Posted by AlanC 2011-04-21 10:56||
2011-04-21 10:56||
Front PageTop
#11 "There's a sweet spot in between 0-100% where the government maximizes its income. The sweet spot changes from moment to moment."
The "sweet spot" was found to be between 14 and 17%. The key to keeping it steady is to CONTROL SPENDING. Means of which may be accomplished by limiting the leviathans growth and spending to within 17% of GDP. Sound Kosher?
Posted by newc 2011-04-21 11:32||
2011-04-21 11:32||
Front PageTop
#12 The key to keeping it steady is to CONTROL SPENDING. Means of which may be accomplished by limiting the leviathans growth and spending to within 17% of GDP. Sound Kosher? Yup, even Kosher for Passover. But 'controlling spending' is so un-PC.
Posted by Anguper Hupomosing9418 2011-04-21 11:59||
2011-04-21 11:59||
Front PageTop
#13 Years ago there were people who volunteered to make a contribution to reducing the national debt. Bet that there are not many takers these days.
Posted by Alaska Paul 2011-04-21 12:00||
2011-04-21 12:00||
Front PageTop
#14 P.S. The Atlantic just posted This article - which solidifies this entire rant.
#15 That article is really about how stupid the Laffer Curve is.
Everyone who reads the NY Times knows how the Laffer Curve has been completely discredited. Reagan tried it and everyone knows he was a failure.
The problem is, a lot of people believe what I just typed. (BTW, I do not).
Posted by Bobby 2011-04-21 13:08||
2011-04-21 13:08||
Front PageTop
#16 the "poor" are similarly exempt -- through welfare and a host of entitlements and exemptions
No, they aren't; they (and we) are just tricked into thinking so. By understating inflation, and because of a time lag between cost increase and transfer payment increase, the protected ones also pay a price for government excesses. And while I can afford to pay an extra dollar for a bag of tortillas, there are people who can't (and they tend not to be the ones screaming at Tea Partiers either.)
Posted by Glenmore 2011-04-21 13:12||
2011-04-21 13:12||
Front PageTop
#17 The link took me to another article about how stupid the Laffer curve was, drawing a straight line for central government corporate tax rate. Higher rates = higher revenue, you morons!
Gee, is that that same as income tax, or overall tax rate? The highest rate shown was Norway, at 10%.
Apples and oranges, perhaps?
Posted by Bobby 2011-04-21 13:13||
2011-04-21 13:13||
Front PageTop
#18 It will increase what Obama can pass to his supporters---the key to staying in power.
Posted by g(r)omgoru 2011-04-21 15:05||
2011-04-21 15:05||
Front PageTop
#19 Someone over at TaxProfBlog actually said Laffer was proven a failure.
And used the 80s as the reason.
Posted by anonymous2u 2011-04-21 16:27||
2011-04-21 16:27||
Front PageTop
#20 Raising taxes is about fairness!
Posted by President Obama 2011-04-21 20:45||
2011-04-21 20:45||
Front PageTop
#21 #8 The end game (I'm not crazy nor am I a conspiracy theorist gone bats) is to percipitate a collapse of the US economic system of the scale of the Weimar Republic. When the riots start and the violence escalates, the Prez will declare martial law, suspend elections and send Congress home. He will rule by decree and declare himself leader...he's got the czars in place what do you think those are for?
Posted by Bill Clinton
With California, Oregon, and Washington State and off-shore drilling are signed over leased to China as payment for debt; when foreign misadventure conflicts news diversions are no longer affordable; the gov't can NO LONGER BORROW; and the US dollar with all of those racists portraits printed on them is worthless, little of the old shall remain. As food lines form the cities go up in smoke, martial law emergency will be declared, weapons and precious metals will be confiscated repatriated and the new script ration stamps issued. The Party will take care of it's own. Homeless former taxpayers will be assigned to KOA FEMA region camps with designated reeducation and medical facilities. Culturally trained and sensitized HIV FREE AFRICOM and UN mercenaries Sub-Saharan Partner peacekeepers will arrive to collect the civilian weapons end the looting and violence and nuetralize hold-out racist US Army rebels. The Revolution CHANGE is coming!
Posted by Besoeker 2011-04-21 21:09||
2011-04-21 21:09||
Front PageTop
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
