PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: Rush on September 03, 2019, 02:00:27 PM
-
Raising the tax RATE on the rich actually results in LESS total revenue.
This is true for all TYPES of taxes except for two: social security and medicare. Only these two does the government receive more revenue when they raise the tax rate. All others, income, corporate, capital gains, and estate, raising the rate results in less revenue.
Fast forward to about 10 minutes if you don't have the patience. I even took a couple screen shots. But listening to the whole thing is well worth it. It's very frightening; the U.S. is literally on the verge of bankruptcy right now. But there is hope at the end, he says how we can fix it in just five years.
-
I think this is the first time a woman has ever said I was right. :)
I'll look at the vid and comment later.
-
The left believes the economy is a fixed pie and that it doesn't expand or contract. They also don't understand how changing tax rates truly affects anything. All they know is "tax hikes good"
-
Economic Illiteracy is among the the hallmarks of democratic politics.
Bigotry, racism, sexism, hypocrisy and violence are the others.
-
Laffer Curve.
If the tax rate = 0, then government income (how much tax they take from us) = 0. If the tax rate =100, then nobody works, so you also get 0. Somewhere in between is a point where the tax revenue is maximized. At this point, either raising or lowering the tax rate lowers the tax revenue.
Because of this, whether the tax revenue goes up or down depends on the current tax rate combined with the Laffer curve for tax income. So depending on the current situation, the tax rate could go up or down.
But a better question is whether or not this is the right metric to use. Maybe the best measure would be the amount of tax rate that ... instead of maximizing government tax income ... maximizes the opportunities for the citizens being taxed. A just government which exists for the benefit of The People should do what is best for The People, not what is best for the government.
This is one of the primary differences between the left and right.
-
Because of this, whether the tax revenue goes up or down depends on the current tax rate combined with the Laffer curve for tax income. So depending on the current situation, the tax rate could go up or down.
That's not the only variable.
Whether tax revenues goes up or down depends on the total amount being taxed. Increase someone's income and the tax they pay goes up even when the tax rate stays the same.
-
But a better question is whether or not this is the right metric to use. Maybe the best measure would be the amount of tax rate that ... instead of maximizing government tax income ... maximizes the opportunities for the citizens being taxed. A just government which exists for the benefit of The People should do what is best for The People, not what is best for the government.
This is one of the primary differences between the left and right.
I agree with the underlined.
-
That's not the only variable.
Whether tax revenues goes up or down depends on the total amount being taxed. Increase someone's income and the tax they pay goes up even when the tax rate stays the same.
That's what the Left refuses to acknowledge. As others have said, a growing economy, with higher personal, and business income generates more tax revenue even at lower tax rates. The total taxes they pay are higher, but they get to keep a higher percentage of it thus giving incentive.
-
This country doesn't have a tax revenue problem. Right now tax revenues are at an all time high.
We have a spending problem. Too much government waste, and too many entitlement programs.
-
Laffer Curve.
If the tax rate = 0, then government income (how much tax they take from us) = 0. If the tax rate =100, then nobody works, so you also get 0. Somewhere in between is a point where the tax revenue is maximized. At this point, either raising or lowering the tax rate lowers the tax revenue.
Because of this, whether the tax revenue goes up or down depends on the current tax rate combined with the Laffer curve for tax income. So depending on the current situation, the tax rate could go up or down.
But a better question is whether or not this is the right metric to use. Maybe the best measure would be the amount of tax rate that ... instead of maximizing government tax income ... maximizes the opportunities for the citizens being taxed. A just government which exists for the benefit of The People should do what is best for The People, not what is best for the government.
This is one of the primary differences between the left and right.
Very interesting. If that theory is true then according to this video 17% is the default sweet spot.
The hope at the end of the video that our national debt could be fixed in five years, I think will never happen. The swamp will never put aside personal greed and do what’s best for the country. Cutting spending by 10% would require getting rid of federal employees or cutting their salaries or cutting back pork to districts or special interest groups and all of these put and keep the politicians in power. Even most of the Republicans, like all of the left, will not actually shrink government despite their promises. How much they promised to repeal Obamacare when they didn’t have the power to do it and the minute they did, they backed off like scared little girls. Nothing is more important to these people than their own personal power and federal benefits, and that includes corrupt connections like Joe Biden’s deals for his son.
The government has absorbed so much of the economy that we cannot shrink it unless we simultaneously loosen regulations so that the sloughed off portion of government can get jobs in the private sector. Trump is the only one who understands that fact and even he doesn’t have the power to cut the budget like it needs to be. When he’s gone in 2024 what are the odds our next president will, never mind Congress. No one under 50 grasps economics and neither do half over 50. This country will never elect politicians with the selflessness and the will and the ability to turn around this runaway train.
As us boomers start collecting social security the house of cards will threaten to collapse and the government will prop it up by printing fake money just like the video says and just like we older folks have witnessed in our lifetime both at home and abroad where it has destroyed other nations. We won’t get SS COLAs to keep up with actual cost of living and our nest eggs will shrink in real value like George Costanza’s johnson in cold water.
The middle class will be driven into poverty as their wealth evaporates and the already poor will have no options except to stay on public dole which means ending up in the the worst quality nursing homes when their net worth gets below $2000. The very few at the top who are responsible for the economic catastrophe will of course be fine and never ever admit fault for fucking things up for The People.
-
I don't know the sweet spot for taxes.
What I do know is that stating higher taxes either raises or lowers tax revenue is not universally true. If you're on the positive slope of the Laffer curve (to the left of the peak), then raising taxes raises revenue. If you're on the negative side of the slope, then raising taxes lowers revenue. Think of the curve as a skewed bell curve plotting tax rate on the x axis and tax revenue on the y axis. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/laffercurve.asp
I think there's fair evidence that tax increases usually affect the middle class the hardest. Super rich people don't really get hurt by taxes, even at punitive rates. What they do is change their spending behaviors, reduce charity giving and lower investment risk, which includes not investing in new companies. They might have to sell their boat or in desperate situations, their airplane. Nobody ever raises taxes on the poor and let's face it, they cannot afford it. That leaves the middle class to take the brunt of tax increases.
-
I don't know the sweet spot for taxes.
What I do know is that stating higher taxes either raises or lowers tax revenue is not universally true. If you're on the positive slope of the Laffer curve (to the left of the peak), then raising taxes raises revenue. If you're on the negative side of the slope, then raising taxes lowers revenue. Think of the curve as a skewed bell curve plotting tax rate on the x axis and tax revenue on the y axis. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/laffercurve.asp
I wonder when was the last time we were on the positive side of the slope. Your logic is sound, but totally irrelevant to us.
-
But, but, but, when the tax rate was 90% in the 50s the economy was booming!
-
But, but, but, when the tax rate was 90% in the 50s the economy was booming!
I'm sure you are being facetious, but I have to say this:
In the '50s, there were so many loopholes and deductions that nobody except stupid people paid that top rate. And stupid people don't make that kind of money anyway, therefore, nobody paid it. And even if they did, there were so few people in that bracket, you could take all their money and not make a dent in the budget.
-
I'm flattered, but it isn't my logic - I'm just echoing what I've learned. The Laffer curve is well recognized by government economists, unfortunately for the wrong reason
Truth - it is effective tax rate that matters. Nobody paid 90%.
-
I'm flattered, but it isn't my logic - I'm just echoing what I've learned. The Laffer curve is well recognized by government economists, unfortunately for the wrong reason
Truth - it is effective tax rate that matters. Nobody paid 90%.
Arthur Laffer was a Reagan advisor, so this concept isn't new. Reagan used the principal to promote his tax cuts which did WORK and the economy boomed. Part of that was due to the Fed being able to drop interest rates as inflation also was lowered.
Way back then I read George Gilder's "Wealth and Poverty" for a grad school course, and it made so much sense it solidified by Supply Side economic views, and led me to support Republicans that were at least talking the talk. We know they don't always walk the walk. Republicans for a long time have realized bigger government gives them more power and wealth.
-
This country doesn't have a tax revenue problem. Right now tax revenues are at an all time high.
We have a spending problem. Too much government waste, and too many entitlement programs.
https://summit.news/2019/09/05/revealed-the-us-government-is-blowing-billions-of-dollars-on-pointless-crap/
-
https://summit.news/2019/09/05/revealed-the-us-government-is-blowing-billions-of-dollars-on-pointless-crap/
Follow the money. Medicare and Medicaid are corrupt. “You need this $500 high tech gadget and it’s free to you because Medicare will pay for it.” And then you can’t find a doctor because Medicare won’t reimburse at market rates. Paying the family doctor doesn’t enrich some company that’s found a good product niche. And I am a hard core pro-capitalist. That does not mean I approve of the corrupt rot that happens when business marries government programs.
All these useless frog studies expenditures will never go away, and we will never fix the hemorrhaging budget, because there is no dragon to kill, it’s thousands of insects.
-
All these useless frog studies expenditures will never go away, and we will never fix the hemorrhaging budget, because there is no dragon to kill, it’s thousands of insects.
But the liberals claim the military is the dragon. Get rid of the military and all the budget problems go away.
-
But the liberals claim the military is the dragon. Get rid of the military and all the budget problems go away.
While the military/industrial complex is out of hand with fraudulent spending, the idiot left doesn't realize how many jobs are tied into the system. The budget would explode even more if millions more people were collecting welfare benefits.
-
While the military/industrial complex is out of hand with fraudulent spending, the idiot left doesn't realize how many jobs are tied into the system. The budget would explode even more if millions more people were collecting welfare benefits.
nah, just raise the minimum wage to $30 or $40 per house and all those problems go away.
-
But the liberals claim the military is the dragon. Get rid of the military and all the budget problems go away.
But the Left knows the politicians of either side are to tied into the military industrial complex and the military is NOT going anywhere. Plus we NEED the military. Maybe not at the size it is, but still a large force. So, they use it as the boogeyman and blame the Republicans because they are more pro military/pro defense.
Then the Democrats try to scare people by saying the Republicans are going to reduce SS and Medicare. Madness.
-
But the Left knows the politicians of either side are to tied into the military industrial complex and the military is NOT going anywhere. Plus we NEED the military. Maybe not at the size it is, but still a large force. So, they use it as the boogeyman and blame the Republicans because they are more pro military/pro defense.
Then the Democrats try to scare people by saying the Republicans are going to reduce SS and Medicare. Madness.
I wonder how fast the left will support the military when they realize it is a large welfare system. Get married and have kids you can't support and a place to live you can't afford on your regular paycheck? We'll give you more money!
-
I wonder how fast the left will support the military when they realize it is a large welfare system. Get married and have kids you can't support and a place to live you can't afford on your regular paycheck? We'll give you more money!
A big problem today is female soldiers, sailors, airpersons, and marines PURPOSELY getting pregnant to avoid a cruise or deployment whether they are married or not. Instant welfare.
-
All of you are correct. The military also suffers from out of control fraud and waste. The difference is the military is the only one of these budget monsters that is actually mandated by the Constitution: It is the federal government’s job to have a good military. None of the rest of this crap was given to it by the highest law of the land, not Medicare, not welfare, not aid to foreign nations and certainly not studying frog croak rates.
As usual the left has things completely upside down, defending the social programs and frog studies but blaming the military for out of control spending.
-
A big problem today is female soldiers, sailors, airpersons, and marines PURPOSELY getting pregnant to avoid a cruise or deployment whether they are married or not. Instant welfare.
As a former Marine NCO, I only had to deal with a few pregnant females, and I don't think any of them got pregnant on purpose, but it was more a problem when the sperm donor wasn't in the picture after. But I do agree it happens. It was way easier for the enlisted female to start banging the senior enlisted or officers to get a choice assignment or get to stay behind on a deployment. It was more of a problem of 19-20 year olds marrying the first piece of ass they got, and having kids on E-2 pay.
-
As a former Marine NCO, I only had to deal with a few pregnant females, and I don't think any of them got pregnant on purpose, but it was more a problem when the sperm donor wasn't in the picture after. But I do agree it happens. It was way easier for the enlisted female to start banging the senior enlisted or officers to get a choice assignment or get to stay behind on a deployment. It was more of a problem of 19-20 year olds marrying the first piece of ass they got, and having kids on E-2 pay.
Thank you for your service. My two uncles were combat Marines in the Pacific during WWI, then one was called back for Korea (totally inactive) to be a DI a Camp Lejeune.
I don't know when you get out, but the problem has become worse over time as more women enter the military. This article is a couple years old, and for some reason won't let be cut and past. The bottom line is in 2017 the pregnancy rate for Navy women was 16%, and takes them out of action for two years and costs the military $30,000 for each women.
https://dailycaller.com/2017/03/01/exclusive-deployed-us-navy-has-a-pregnancy-problem-and-its-getting-worse/
-
I got out in 2003. Every unit I was in had pregnant females. I've been at the ass end or told someone they were getting a raw deal because they had to cover for a pregnant female at the last minute. I wasn't in a grunt unit, but I was in comm. When we went to the field it was for weeks at a time in the middle of nowhere.
-
Just for the record, we all do realize that contractors aren’t really to blame for spending, right? It is government regulations on proving due care that make things expensive.
Put in another way, a toilet seat doesn’t cost $1000. It costs $10 for the seat and another $990 to prove that it is actually a toilet seat as defined by the government contract, because anything less would be fraud. It is perfection getting in the way of excellence. The same holds true in service contracts, the cost of compliance far exceeds the cost of delivery.
I get it. I once had a master chief ask me how I knew that this particular O-ring was the correct one to use in this procedure on a nuclear weapon. My response was that it was delivered to me as being the correct spec and it it wasn’t, then somebody up the line lied to me. If I couldn’t trust them then the entire program has to stop. He didn’t like the answer, but it was truth. Probably good that the COB got involved and the Master Chief’s harassment ended shortly after.
-
Just for the record, we all do realize that contractors aren’t really to blame for spending, right? It is government regulations on proving due care that make things expensive.
Put in another way, a toilet seat doesn’t cost $1000. It costs $10 for the seat and another $990 to prove that it is actually a toilet seat as defined by the government contract, because anything less would be fraud. It is perfection getting in the way of excellence. The same holds true in service contracts, the cost of compliance far exceeds the cost of delivery.
I get it. I once had a master chief ask me how I knew that this particular O-ring was the correct one to use in this procedure on a nuclear weapon. My response was that it was delivered to me as being the correct spec and it it wasn’t, then somebody up the line lied to me. If I couldn’t trust them then the entire program has to stop. He didn’t like the answer, but it was truth. Probably good that the COB got involved and the Master Chief’s harassment ended shortly after.
There are many people who believe that FAA regulations makes things expensive. For example, many people believe that complying with DO-178C drives the cost of software development and certification. I've heard people claim that DO-178B (at that time) compliance costs an order of magnitude more than the software development itself. Unfortunately, they don't know what they are talking about.
bottomline: it's not as simple as saying the contractors are causing exorbitant costs, greed, or government regulations, or any other single contributory reason.
-
There are many people who believe that FAA regulations makes things expensive. For example, many people believe that complying with DO-178C drives the cost of software development and certification. I've heard people claim that DO-178B (at that time) compliance costs an order of magnitude more than the software development itself. Unfortunately, they don't know what they are talking about.
bottomline: it's not as simple as saying the contractors are causing exorbitant costs, greed, or government regulations, or any other single contributory reason.
This makes sense and probably the bottom line is none of these people are bearing the cost. The taxpayer is. On the government side there is no incentive to keep cost down and every incentive to make sure next year’s budget is as big or bigger than this year’s. On the private contractor’s side he is just trying to maximize profit, as he should.
The only upside to this is that jobs exist and citizens benefit although it can be very trickle down. Suppose I am a subcontractor to a subcontractor to a contractor to one department of the DoD. Not saying I am but if I am, I am part of an extensive downline supporting the defense of our country and I’m also benefitting financially which becomes a portion of the economy and from which I pay taxes to keep the whole thing going. A huge portion of private citizens participate indirectly and many don’t even know it.
Hence the problem with military spending isn’t a problem per se but only a problem if the money does not make it back down to the citizens and is lining the pockets of a corrupt few, and even then the individual puts it back into the economy by investing in securities (unless he hides it in his mattress or sends it overseas). As I see it, the insidious thing is when the government becomes bloated and absorbs the private sector. Even then jobs are provided. But in theory (free market capitalism theory) it’s best to minimize the portion of the economy that is government.
In the case of the toilet seat, is that extra $990 going into some individual CEO’s portfolio? Or is the toilet seat company using it to invest in expanding its facility and hiring more people (assuming it is made in the U.S.)? Or is that $990 being paid to military staff to type up a bunch of bullshit documentation attesting to its compliance with military toilet seat standards? And if so, are these staff personnel putting their money back into their local economies? Probably all of the above happens.
So it’s not so bad per se that the military pays $1000 for a toilet seat, unless the whole $1000 is going to a foreign country. Maybe $10 goes to China and the rest stays in the U.S.
The money still stays in the economy and trickles down but the problem is these two tendencies that erode its efficiency: 1. Concentrating in the hands of a few at the top, which as I said does get back into the economy but not under the direct control of the majority of us little people, and 2. Concentrating in the government as opposed to the private sector; and may end up in the hands of “little people” government employees but the growth of the portion of people working for government as opposed to private sector is very problematic.
I think we always have to fight these two tendencies and it’s very hard, and it might be impossible to reverse.
-
The extra $990 goes to pay for people to execute processes to measure, test and track the item as well as for risk. Because that is a service that the company performs, it is revenue and some of that ends up going to the ceo.