[W:1422] Federal Deficit Soars

jaeger19 said:

Conservative said:

As usual and right on que, tax cuts are an expense and have to be paid for, wow, economics and accounting ignorance.

/QUOTE]

YET.. the deficit grew.. despite having more FIT revenue.

So you go ahead and tell me what what I said is WRONG. Show us your economic chops here conservative.

See.. i am not going to let you divert the conversation Conservative. You go ahead and point out exactly why .. what I said above is wrong.

Now to the rest:




Well.. you can't make the statement that it increased the revenue.. because a growing economy would do that regardless of a tax cut.. so would increase government deficit spending.. both of those things would increase FIT revenue. As has been pointed out.
However, what you have been instructed in.. is that Reagans tax cuts deepened the deficit because it decreased the percentage of tax collected vs GDP. which is a valid statistic.. while raw FIT revenue is not. And I provided the statistics and the link to prove it.



In the last recession.... it was caused by the bursting of the housing/mortgage bubble.. and the Bush and Obama tax cuts.. helped stabilize the economy and kept money flowing.. it can be credited for keeping the economy from deepening into a depression. And giving the economy time to recover. BUT the real reason for us getting out of recession is the economy recovering.. See... as a real conservative.. I understand that the economy is a lot bigger than the government or one president. You sir.. as a liberal. think that government action is the be all end all of the economy. That's why you think government action.. and big government is responsible for the economy.

Click to expand...

Jaeger, I give up, you have worn me out and now have converted me to your logic and beliefs. No question about it, the American people during the Reagan term would have generated the 17 million jobs, doubled the GDP and actually paid more in FIT than was actually reported by BLS.gov and BEA.gov. How could I be so dumb as to rely on the official data from the govt. when I have you refuting in and posting your opinions and those of economists who interpreted the data differently obviously meaning that the Treasury data was wrong and we paid too much debt service. I have contacted Treasury and will let you know what they tell me about the data. there is absolutely no way that spending causes debt it is the lack of revenue

I also have to agree with you that govt. spending goes directly into the economy and now support much higher taxes from the evil rich people who have actually been taking food out of the mouths of my family. There is absolutely no reason for these people to make this amount of money and not support me, my family, your, yours and all others who have not achieved their level us success

The American economy has certainly suffered when it was based upon individual wealth creation, personal responsibility and risk taking. All this growing wealth created by others has hurt me and my family badly and I am sick and tired of it

Obama's economic policies are a huge success especially bailing out our liberal constituent groups and public union employees like teachers and even though teachers are state and local responsibilities there is no reason that the Federal Govt. shouldn't step in and help them out, after all they support us and we need all the support we can get

I support any program that takes from the rich and gives to the poor and there is no reason that the rich should pay most of their income in Federal, State and local taxes to benefit the whole, 70-80% would still leave these billionaires with enough money to live a good lifestyle

As for our consumer driven economy, we really need to be more like Europe with most of our GDP coming from govt. spending which of course would require higher taxes that is ok as long as the evil rich pay the majority share

There is absolutely no reason to cut taxes and allow people to keep more of what they earn as the bureaucrats in D.C. that created the 21 trillion dollar debt need more money to service that debt and to grow entitlement programs. You have truly opened my eyes to what it means to be a conservative and I need to change my lean to liberal because liberals care, truly care about my family and me so I have decided instead of getting a paycheck I will be having it direct deposited to the IRS and asking them to send me back what they believe I need and should have to live on. You are a Great American and my thanks again for opening my eyes

Click to expand...

So is this a strong economy? Yes, with some big caveats. Does Trump deserve much of the credit? That’s a harder case to make, but it’s clear that he hasn’t derailed what growth we’ve had, which is an accomplishment of a sort.

The question, now, is whether growth continues. A recession would be devastating, as wage increases haven’t come near to making up for the pain caused by the last recession, and Republicans have taken fiscal firepower that could’ve been held in reserve for a future downturn and spent it on tax cuts and military boosts amid an expansion. It’s a risky strategy for the economy long-term, but it’s one that may boost the GOP’s chances in the next few elections.

Click to expand...

Conservative said:

jaeger19 said:

Jaeger, I give up, you have worn me out and now have converted me to your logic and beliefs. No question about it, the American people during the Reagan term would have generated the 17 million jobs, doubled the GDP and actually paid more in FIT than was actually reported by BLS.gov and BEA.gov.

Click to expand...

Yep.. that's what the evidence shows.

How could I be so dumb as to rely on the official data from the govt

Click to expand...

Well the problem isn't the official data from the government. ITS your massive errors in interpreting what that data actually means..

obviously meaning that the Treasury data was wrong

Click to expand...

Nope.. it does NOT mean that the Treasury data "was wrong".. it means that your interpretation of that data.. and your understanding of that data was wrong. As I showed. Heck.. the Treasury would agree with me since its pretty straightforward.

there is absolutely no way that spending causes debt it is the lack of revenue

Click to expand...

Hmmm.. whoever said "spending doesn't cause debt".. because it certainly wasn't me. However, debt is a function of your spending AND your revenue.. and that seems to have escaped you. And now you are making the mistake of thinking that spending doesn;t cause debt. By the way.. when the government deficit spends.. you know what happens..? It also increased FIT revenue.. You simply have had a hard time understanding these relationships.

I also have to agree with you that govt. spending goes directly into the economy

Click to expand...

Domestically yes it does. where else would it go?

now support much higher taxes from the evil rich people

Click to expand...

Well now.. that's wrong as well. first.. being rich doesn;t make you evil. Secondly.. being rich doesn;t mean they are taking food out of the mouths of your family. Youjust want to rush to judgement about things that you don't know. Perhaps you should spend more time listening.. and less time spouting off... Just a suggestion.

Now. as to taxes.. yes.. we need to reverse the Trump tax cuts.. and perhaps increase taxes (mostly by reducing special deductions) to push the tax rate to 18-19% of GDP.

The American economy has certainly suffered when it was based upon individual wealth creation, personal responsibility and risk taking.

Click to expand...

No.. the economy has done great when it was based on that. Unfortunately for America.. Folks like you conservative.... feel that the economy should be based on what government does. They ascribed any improvement on the economy to the government in charge at the time ("look what Reagan did")... When the liberals like yourself.. started that.. then we developed wide swings and instability as the government meddled in the economy when it shouldn;t.

s there is no reason that the Federal Govt. shouldn't step in and help them out, after all they support us and we need all the support we can get

Click to expand...

Which is why I find it interesting that you support MORE money being transferred from the states.. and to the federal government (by virtue of decreasing the deduction for state income taxes).. You sir support making red states further dependent on federal welfare.. and making Blue states.. who send more money to the feds than they get back.. subsidize those welfare red states.

I support any program that takes from the rich and gives to the poor

Click to expand...

That seems pretty ignorant when you consider that some things.. like raising the minimum wage.. without regard to the economic realities could end up causing more trouble for the poor.

As for our consumer driven economy, we really need to be more like Europe with most of our GDP coming from govt. spending

Click to expand...

Well.. I understand that's what you want.. but its not a good idea for the long term health of the economy or country. currently.. you want low taxes.. and high government spending. Which means more deficit spending... which then drives the economy in the short term.

But your liberal view.. has potentially devastating consequences for the future when the debt and deficit get unmanageable.

There is absolutely no reason to cut taxes and to grow entitlement programs

Click to expand...

When taxes are already the lowest they have been in decades? you are right.. there is no reason.. especially when you consider that those low taxes are what encourages the government to grow those entitlement programs.. Like the medicare and social security that you benefit from...

So.. you don't have to pay for those services.. but get them anyway.. and then pass the debt on to my generation and my kids. NOW.. if you had to pay for those entitlements in the form of taxes.. you might just think about how much they should be expanded...

but.. you don't care.. because you enjoy your entitlements.. and your low taxes.. and push the bill onto my generation and my kids.

Click to expand...

jaeger19;1068969686]

Conservative said:

Yep.. that's what the evidence shows.

Click to expand...

Well then I will take your word for it, projections always defeat actual data

Well the problem isn't the official data from the government. ITS your massive errors in interpreting what that data actually means..

Click to expand...

Yep, I am learning that liberal interpretation always defeats actual data and of course we pay debt service on that interpretation

Nope.. it does NOT mean that the Treasury data "was wrong".. it means that your interpretation of that data.. and your understanding of that data was wrong. As I showed. Heck.. the Treasury would agree with me since its pretty straightforward.

Click to expand...

I will let you know what Treasury says about the debt service and whether taxpayers pay it on the actual data or the interpretation numbers

Hmmm.. whoever said "spending doesn't cause debt".. because it certainly wasn't me. However, debt is a function of your spending AND your revenue.. and that seems to have escaped you. And now you are making the mistake of thinking that spending doesn;t cause debt. By the way.. when the government deficit spends.. you know what happens..? It also increased FIT revenue.. You simply have had a hard time understanding these relationships.

Click to expand...

Thank you and we all know that when people are predicting less revenue they always spend more, that is why being a liberal is so easy. Again, I will let you know what Treasury says about the raw numbers showing FIT revenue growing after the tax cuts. Should be interesting

Domestically yes it does. where else would it go?

Click to expand...

Nothing like spending in the public sector, right?

Well now.. that's wrong as well. first.. being rich doesn;t make you evil. Secondly.. being rich doesn;t mean they are taking food out of the mouths of your family. Youjust want to rush to judgement about things that you don't know. Perhaps you should spend more time listening.. and less time spouting off... Just a suggestion.

Click to expand...

Now that I am a liberal I understand completely that it is better for the rich people to pay higher taxes and still be able to deduct my state and local taxes from my federal obligations.

Now. as to taxes.. yes.. we need to reverse the Trump tax cuts.. and perhaps increase taxes (mostly by reducing special deductions) to push the tax rate to 18-19% of GDP.

Click to expand...

Absolutely, although 8-19% isn't enough, we need to get it up to closer to 30% so we can increase entitlement spending and allow the bureaucrats to have more money for they use it so well

No.. the economy has done great when it was based on that. Unfortunately for America.. Folks like you conservative.... feel that the economy should be based on what government does. They ascribed any improvement on the economy to the government in charge at the time ("look what Reagan did")... When the liberals like yourself.. started that.. then we developed wide swings and instability as the government meddled in the economy when it shouldn;t.

Click to expand...

Actually the liberal in me wants bigger govt. and that European economy where most of our GDP is due to govt. spending. People keeping more of what they earn need less of what we liberals have to offer and that destroys power

Which is why I find it interesting that you support MORE money being transferred from the states.. and to the federal government (by virtue of decreasing the deduction for state income taxes).. You sir support making red states further dependent on federal welfare.. and making Blue states.. who send more money to the feds than they get back.. subsidize those welfare red states.

Click to expand...

I think it should be an honor for the state to pay for federally mandated expenses such as pensions, military bases, SS and Medicare, School testing, etc. I love it when federal bureaucrats mandate federal programs at the state level and demand the states pay for them. Makes total sense

Click to expand...

That seems pretty ignorant when you consider that some things.. like raising the minimum wage.. without regard to the economic realities could end up causing more trouble for the poor.

Click to expand...

Well.. I understand that's what you want.. but its not a good idea for the long term health of the economy or country. currently.. you want low taxes.. and high government spending. Which means more deficit spending... which then drives the economy in the short term.

Click to expand...

When taxes are already the lowest they have been in decades? you are right.. there is no reason.. especially when you consider that those low taxes are what encourages the government to grow those entitlement programs.. Like the medicare and social security that you benefit from...

Click to expand...

So.. you don't have to pay for those services.. but get them anyway.. and then pass the debt on to my generation and my kids. NOW.. if you had to pay for those entitlements in the form of taxes.. you might just think about how much they should be expanded...

but.. you don't care.. because you enjoy your entitlements.. and your low taxes.. and push the bill onto my generation and my kids.

Click to expand...

Conservative said:

Well then I will take your word for it, projections always defeat actual data

Click to expand...

Well.. I don't know where you got that.. because I never used projection (we know what happened with FIT as a percentage of GDP in Reagans time.. and we know what it is doing now)..
And the problem again.. wasn;t with the data. it was your interpretation of that data.

Yep, I am learning that liberal interpretation always defeats actual data and of course we pay debt service on that interpretation

Click to expand...

I know.. you have learned that lesson well. I have been trying to get you to realize that mistakes of 1. using the raw data to assume that improvement in GDP is due solely to government and 2. stop making erroneous assumptoms about "debt service".

One day hopefully.. you will stop using your liberal emotion to make invalid assumptions about economic data.

I will let you know what Treasury says about the debt service and whether taxpayers pay it on the actual data or the interpretation numbers

Click to expand...

Great.. I strongly suggest you take what I have said to the Treasury.. and what you have said to a Treasury accountant... because you will find that I am right.. and that the Treasury account will tell you that what you say doesn;t make sense at all.. because taxpayers don't "pay on actual data"..

Thank you and we all know that when people are predicting less revenue they always spend more

Click to expand...

Nope.. that's what you don't get. When you know that you will not have any consequences for high spending (i.e.. not have to pay for your spending with taxes.. because taxes are low).. you will want the government to spend more.

Nothing like spending in the public sector, right?

Click to expand...

Right.. because that spending ends up in the private sector. Unless you think that those darn government officials don't buy.. say groceries.. or cars. etc.

not to mention that spending on welfare... because of course man.. poor people put that money right in there large bank accounts. You got me there. :lamo

Now that I am a liberal I understand completely that it is better for the rich people to pay higher taxes and still be able to deduct my state and local taxes from my federal obligations.

Click to expand...

Well.. good for you.. you are starting to be more of a conservative.... yes.. its is better for rich people to pay higher taxes and keep those taxes local.. in the states for local problems.. rather than have to be double taxed and send more money to the federal government and then have to be redistributed to welfare states.

Absolutely, although 8-19% isn't enough, we need to get it up to closer to 30% so we can increase entitlement spending and allow the bureaucrats to have more money for they use it so well

Click to expand...

Actually if you want to increase entitlement spending.. you would LOWER taxes. When you raise taxes to 30%... of GDP.. then wealthy people will go bat crap crazy because then they will actually be paying for all that entitlement spending...and they will not accept that. now.. if taxes are low and you are deficit spending.. then all that entitlement spending doesn;t cost wealthy people.. and in fact.. most of it is going to end up in the wealthy persons bank account. Where do you think all that welfare money goes? To a rich persons bank account.

Actually the liberal in me wants bigger govt. and that European economy where most of our GDP is due to govt. spending. People keeping more of what they earn need less of what we liberals have to offer and that destroys power

Click to expand...

Absolutely true... you are a liberal.. and that's why you think the economy needs to be run by the government and that its the presidents responsibility.. its why you want low taxes.. and enjoy that entitlement spending.. because you don't care about defict and debt..

In fact..as long as the short term economy is good for you.. its absolutely fine that you pass the debt and deficit on to me and my kids generation.

I think it should be an honor for the state to pay for federally mandated expenses such as pensions, military bases, SS and Medicare, School testing, etc. I love it when federal bureaucrats mandate federal programs at the state level and demand the states pay for them. Makes total sense

Click to expand...

Yes.. that's why you support reducing or eliminating state income tax deductions.. so more money can be taken from individuals and the states.. to go to the federal government and then get dolled back out to the states.. mostly to welfare red states.

Click to expand...

Conservative said:

I will never understand why we don't have a minimum wage of $30-$50/hour and $15 hamburgers. Just think what other things these minimum wage earners will buy as I know businesses will never raise their selling prices

Click to expand...

You are right, I want a lot more govt. spending especially on social programs to truly help those poor people capable of working but choosing not to.

Click to expand...

I do indeed feel guilty collecting my money that I was forced to contribute for 35 years

Click to expand...

jaeger19 said:

Well.. actually its probably true that they cannot raise their selling prices.. because if they COULD raise their selling price.. they would have already done it. you don't base your prices on your costs.. you charge what the public is willing to spend.



naw.. you are a right wing liberal.. you want government spending on.. well YOU.. you love your entitlements in medicare and social security and then push the debt to my generation and my kids. You love the spending that bails out banks and large companies.. that gives subsidies to them.. all because you make money from that. Its the new way wealthy people make money now.. from government welfare..

Well considering that you only put in for 35 years..and the amount your generation put in.. is not paying for what you are taking out.. (medicare and social security are running a deficit).. you are actually probably collecting MY MONEY.. and my kids.. or at least your generation is.

Click to expand...

Conservative said:

You are so right being forced into Medicare and SS was the highlight of my business career and losing my wife and her SS contribution confirms that reality. Glad that her SS contributions can help someone else because it was our money and never helped us or her family.

You are paying for me and I appreciate it for after all my contributions were spent on the Vietnam War and other social programs that the bureaucrats wanted, all obviously of value and necessary. I am certainly not entitled to getting any of that money back so because it was spent contrary to its purpose. Thanks for sending me your money

Click to expand...

JasperL said:

If government revenue grows with each tax rate cut, government gets bigger, spends more, with each tax cut. If we just keep cutting tax rates, we'll pay off the debt and when we're done can do universal healthcare! Sounds good!



You cited the Laffer Curve but not even Art Laffer will claim that tax rate cuts from anywhere near current rates increase revenue. He talks all around it but won't state it outright because he knows it's a lie. So the Laffer Curve has been used as a propaganda tool to justify tax rate cuts on the fat cat donor class to tell us that the tax rate cuts have no cost, no downside! It's either funny or tragic, but it's a damned lie.

Click to expand...

code1211 said:

And yet during this fiscal year during which tax cuts were implemented, the United States has collected more tax revenue than any country at any time in the history of the world.

Seems that reality has risen up to counter your thesis.

Click to expand...

code1211 said:

And yet during this fiscal year during which tax cuts were implemented, the United States has collected more tax revenue than any country at any time in the history of the world.

Seems that reality has risen up to counter your thesis.

Click to expand...

Carleen said:

The Republican Party used to stand for fiscal responsibility. Now both parties spend, spend, spend, but Trump is really spending.

Click to expand...

JasperL said:

The only people paying taxes in January are individuals and businesses making their final 1/15 estimated tax payment for the 2017 tax year UNDER THE OLD LAW. So you're picking months under the old law to prove taxes under the new law go up after tax rate cuts. It's nonsense.



That's a different argument. Let's do some simple math. Let's assume corporate profits in 2017 were $100 at a rate of 35% and in 2018 are $110 at a rate of 21%. And we can assume ALL that growth is entirely due to the tax cuts, that without tax cuts income would have grown 0%. We can also assume inflation is 0% and population growth is 0%. In other words, the tax rate cuts boosted corporate activity and taxable profits by 10%, which is just a massive impact. So let's see what the impact on revenue is:

$100 X 35% = $35
$110 X 21% = $23

So profits went up by $10 - a full 10% after accounting for inflation!!!, but revenue still dropped by $12!, or over 33% from previous levels Tax rate cuts did not increase revenue!! So it's not enough to say that tax rate cuts will increase corporate activity, boost growth a bit. This is the other lie that lying hacks in the GOP tell us to pretend that tax rate cuts are a no-lose proposition - we give the donor class huge gifts of increases in after tax income and it doesn't cost anybody anything because revenue goes UP! No need to cut spending, or raise taxes on anyone else - everyone wins! Yes Virginia there really IS a Tax Santa Clause!!

Click to expand...

JasperL said:

That is correct. And what the GOP does is cut tax rates which lowers revenue, promise spending cuts which never come and in fact INCREASE spending which everyone loves, blow up the deficit, and claim the mantle of "fiscally responsible."

"You know, Paul, Reagan proved deficits don't matter. [We won the election. More tax cuts] is our due." That's it for GOP fiscal policy. Period. The end.

Well, then when a Democrat gets in the WH, start whining and crying constantly about the awful, terrible deficits they didn't care about when a Republican sat in the WH, and when a Democrat raises taxes to deal with the deficit, run a $billion worth of ads against tax-raisin' big spendin' liberals.

The theory is explained here - the Two Santa Clause theory, which is basically that the Democrats won elections by promising more spending. The GOP can't win by promising spending cuts, so they'll promise spending like the Democrats (Santa Clause #1) AND tax cuts (Santa Clause #2). And the beauty of the Laffer Curve which came after Wanniski's two Santa Clause theory is that it promises that tax cuts not only don't require offsetting spending cuts, but that tax cuts allow for MORE spending, BIGGER programs, BIGGER government!

Click to expand...

code1211 said:

Your little equation is not representative of what a tax cut causes.

Let's assume instead of your equation that there is one tax payer paying taxes at a 20% rate.

After the tax cuts, there are suddenly two tax payers paying taxes at a 15% rate. THAT is where the extra revenue comes from.

Click to expand...

Cut the corporate rate on profits or on the penalties to bring off shore profits home and that will create additional activity and additional tax revenues.

Click to expand...

Out of curiosity, do you receive a pay check? if yes, then you may have noticed that there was Federal Withholding occurring on your January paychecks. If not, your employer was violating the law. Yes, Virginia, there are tax receipts in January.

The promise of the tax cuts was an economy stimulator before it was even passed.

After it was passed, things started to pop. Apple paid about $38 billion to repatriate money from overseas. That was a reduction from what it would have paid under the punitive rates from which there was a reduction. After the reduction, the Feds got the $38 Billion. Before: zilch.

The problem with trying to outsmart the folks who got rich by being smarter than the average is that they are smarter than the average. If you don't let them have a taste, they ain't gonna bake the pie.

Click to expand...

JasperL said:

That stat doesn't address any point we're discussing. Since the tax cuts, and excluding January and April for reasons I've discussed, revenues have DECLINED. It's the math. Even the biggest proponents of tax cuts don't expect the trickle down magic to happen in months - even if the "tax cuts pay for themselves" nonsense is proved TRUE, we won't see the impact from increased investment ==> more business ==> higher taxable profits ==> more jobs ===> more personal income taxes leading to more revenue for at least 2-5 years.

Click to expand...

code1211 said:

As far as I can tell, there is very little difference between the lying thieves in one political party and the lying thieves in the other.

Are you somehow thinking that I DO see a difference?

The topic that i'm discussing is whether or not a reduction in tax rates from a punitive rate to a reasonable rate will increase revenue.

You are avoiding this pretty simple topic by throwing in all of this other crap that has nothing to do with that one, single question.

Politicians are lying cheating thieves who would sell their daughter or mother to pimps for a campaign contribution. Can we simply stipulate that this is a fact?

Whether the Democrats are the lying thieves you hate or Republicans are the lying thieves you hate makes no difference to me.

The Laffer Curve says nothing about spending at all. It says only that if the tax rates are too high, it will slow economic activity.

It is a ridiculously simple and obvious concept. Reduce the reward and the risk to get it will also reduce. If the tax rate is zero %, you will get no revenue at all. If the tax is 100%, you will also get no tax revenue at all. The Laffer Curve states that there is a sweet spot between zeo and 100 where the revenues are at their peek. That sweet spi=ot is neither zero nor 100.

Click to expand...

code1211 said:

And yet the economy is already humming, there are more Americans working than at any point in history, the profits as reflected by the all time high record closes on all four major stock exchanges just keep happening and the personal wealth of Americans has increased by about 6 trillion dollars since the election.

If you haven't noticed all of this, you'r just not watching.

By the way, all of those Americans working are all paying taxes. They are all pretty optimistic. They are spending lots of money and the cycle just keeps on turning.

The Fed just revised the last GDP complete quarter to above a 4% growth rate.

Things are working and they are evident in everything all around you. Saying it ain't so don't make it go away.

Click to expand...

code1211 said:

And yet the economy is already humming, there are more Americans working than at any point in history, the profits as reflected by the all time high record closes on all four major stock exchanges just keep happening and the personal wealth of Americans has increased by about 6 trillion dollars since the election.

If you haven't noticed all of this, you'r just not watching.

By the way, all of those Americans working are all paying taxes. They are all pretty optimistic. They are spending lots of money and the cycle just keeps on turning.

The Fed just revised the last GDP complete quarter to above a 4% growth rate.

Things are working and they are evident in everything all around you. Saying it ain't so don't make it go away.

Click to expand...

JasperL said:

You're effectively arguing straw men. The economy has been on a YEARS long expansion - since well before Trump took office, and tax cuts and goosing the deficit by a bunch will help throw some more sugar to that hungry beast. That's not what we're discussing.

The point is there is no tax free lunch. I'm going to leave it here because I've been looking at the EVIDENCE on this topic for year and I know what it says - all of it. We can't tax cut our way to more spending, bigger government. You resist acknowledging that's your argument, but that is the assertion - the way to INCREASE government spending, GROW government, EXPAND programs, PAY for wars and all the rest is to cut tax rates. It's just not true.

Click to expand...

jaeger19 said:

The problem here is that you assume that all that growth is due to the government and a tax cut that went into effect.. what? a few months ago?

Seriously.. is that even reasonable to even BEGIN to assume?

Click to expand...

code1211 said:

The argument against cutting tax rates is that cutting the rates will reduce the income.

The income has risen.

Art Laffer argues that if governments tax all income at zero % or at 100% the tax revenue will be zero dollars.

There is a sweet spot somewhere along the continuum where the tax revenue will be the highest.

Cutting tax rates from a punitive level to a rational level will increase revenues.

Art Laffer explains that the first time statement of the "Laffer" Curve was made about 1000 years ago. He also explains that in any particular economy, there are two tax rates that will produce the same tax revenue: One is high and the other is low.

The impact of a tax rate has both an economic and an arithmetic effect. The arithmetic effect is the simple percent of the cash taken from individuals to fund government. The economic effect is the personal cost-benefit ratio all tax payers employ to see if their labors are profitable for them. This is stated in another way as, "What's in it for me?".

If you go to work and get a check, then the tax rate is below 100%. If you go to work and get an invoice, then the tax rate is at 100% or higher.

When the tax rate moves to a high enough point, people determine that working is not profitable for them and people stop working.

When the tax rate moves to a low enough point, the government ceases to function because the government workers are not showing up because they are not getting paid, anarchy reigns and people stop working.

The trick is to find that sweet spot that incentivizes expanding economic activity while taking the smallest percent possible that still funds the workings of the wisely run, fiscally responsible government.

https://video.search.yahoo.com/yhs/...=7bde642b07b953f7493c2263f6ec6f90&action=view

Click to expand...

ttwtt78640 said:

The problem is that federal spending exceeds federal revenue creating a deficit. If the 'sweet spot' for federal taxation is at or below 18% of GDP then federal spending must be adjusted to fall within that range as well.

Click to expand...

code1211 said:

No argument there.

The Feds spend too much.

That's the problem in a nut shell.

Emphasis on the nut.

Click to expand...