http://ask.xbase.ac.uk/question/64/what-do-you-think-about-tobacco…

Mew

Mew

The new people that are entering Congress should be aware that one big job they have is to restore that trust in them and the system. Talk won’t do it.

However, there is nothing to preclude the existence of other nodes as well–other rates could match or surpass at other times. High rates might do better during boom times.

Tax theory must include the following:

Increased income tax rates directly increase the cost of labor.
Increased income tax rates indirectly increase the cost of everything else.
Taxes are the price we pay to live where we live.
Tax dollar costs are directly tied to tax rates on an individual transaction, but aggregate tax dollars paid/collected are not.
Increased tax rates necessarily result in downward pressure on the economy, while that is not true for increased tax dollar payments.
Every dollar collected by the government eventually buys less than it would have on the open market.

There is more, but I’m tired.

I’d like to see the research that indicates “Most economists agree that the point for the curve is somewhere around 60-70% when you?re talking about the short-term Laffer Curve.”

I’d question “most economists” and “short-term,” among other things. Yes, a pop up to 60-70% income tax rates might increase revenues for a very short time, but it wouldn’t take long at all to go south. One driver of the economy is aggregate expectations. That’s why most competent economists agree that rapid changes to tax codes are counter productive.

Mew

Of course, I once knew a lady who was not eligible for Social Securiy:. she retired in the 1930′s and was dependent on her husband’s fixed $50/mo WWI Veterans’ Pension! That was in the 1970s and 80′s (she died, really old). She was a descendant of Gen. Nathaniel Greene, of the Continental Army. Please rest assured that her family took care of her when the Government could not.

For many years (before and after Reagan), I paid my “employees’ share” of taxes, often on the maximum amount allowed For the past decade, I’ve had to pay BOTH “employer” and “employee” taxes, because I am independent. Trust me, it sucks to pay about 15% of your income to the Feds even before you pay actual income taxes.

Incidentally, all those “evil corporations” that pay no income taxes DID pay their share of payroll taxes and even workers’ comp fees.

GE is often excoriated of late. Despite media reports to the contrary, they paid their share of FICA for over 300,000 employees. They paid taxes.

I cannot but agree with you youngsters. who will never receive any SSA retirement benefits, courtesy of the politicians that have been elected whether you voted or not.

Thanks to Congress, I can’t “withdraw” my two-score and change contributions to Social Security for a few more years, if I live that long.

I might also note that I knew a lady who was “better off,” and devoted most of her school nurse’s salary to pay the 85% tax on her SSA benefits (which come into effect if you actually earn money in retirement). Our Congress takes money wherever they can find it.

I agree FICA should be optional. Congress took on the obligation, and they should feel obligated to pay what they promised to those who contributed. You should “opt out” and save whatever you can for your own retirement. I have told my children the same. Should you run out of money, please don’t ask “The Government” for a bail-out … it would be your neighbors who might have to pay.

I ramble. Y’all won’t likely listen. I hope y’all will remember and eventually take heed.

.

and the idea that tax cuts can be revenue increasers predate Reagan by at least 20 years because Kennedy made the same supply side argument in his term circa 1960.

I just get tired of seeing democrats and their lap dogs in the so called “Objective Press” redfine terms and seeing the Republicans slavishly going along with it.

In any case, the Reagan-era solutions have died, and it is time to reduce the unfair payroll tax, which is actually a tax on jobs (employers) and a tax on work (employees), coupled with serious reforms to raise the retirement age and slow the growth in benefits for the better-off in order to ensure Social Security’s sustainability.

If we have to maintain current FICA revenue levels, raise the threshold, but only according to wage growth as it was meant to be.

$1.3 Trillion income taxes (including corporations)

$0.8 Trillion Social Security contributions

$0.1 Trillion “ad valorem” taxes

$0.1 Trillion business and other revenue

Imagine an American Government that ran on the last two categories alone, no more than 100 years ago … when the Federal “take” was based solely on tariffs, fees, and other charges.

On any corporate balance sheet, income is stated as “revenue.” At the Treasury, all revenue is basically taxes, because the Government produces nothing; it just taxes everything. The other side of a corporate cash flow balance sheet is “expenditures.” Only on the Treasury balance sheet are there three categories: income, expenses, and deficit.

The Democrats phrase “spending” as “investment,” but continue to call taxes taxes (the more, the merrier, as long as only “the rich” are taxed).

EVERY politician says “I will reduce taxes and bring more money to my District.” What is wrong with that statement?

According to Laffer, reducing tax RATES often results in more REVENUE. That has been true since the Democrat Congresses under Reagan. (Incidentally, only the House can raise taxes.)

If we are to pretend that Income Taxes should be lowered, we are deluding ourselves. The corollary to “no more taxes” is actually “no less taxes!”

And, somewhere along the line, our politicians should come clean and admit that Social Security is a tax we owe to our elders.

Reagan’s Congress adopted an actuarily sound solution to Social Security, establishing a “trust fund” that would keep the program solvent during the years when income exceeded outgo … but Congress has spent all that “trust” money every year since.

FICA (as it is commonly known) is a tax on paychecks that almost everybody pays. The recent reduction (for which many Republicans voted) simply de-funds Social Security and undoes what Reagan’s Congress achieved.

You’re right: media and Parties redefine definitions. If we Republicans are to be honest, we must equate taxes and “contributions” and balance them against expenditures