You argue tactics while assaulting our motives

Post #324,322 by drook 4/9/10 3:52:12 PM Reply	You argue tactics while assaulting our motives * Raising corporate taxes won't work, because they'll just pass it along to (poor) customers. * Lowering corporate taxes will increase revenues, because corporations will stop offshoring their income. (Let's ignore for the moment why they'll stop offshoring revenue. We'll just wave our hands, say "more costly to hide the money", and assume it's true.) * Raising taxes on the richest 2-3% won't bring in as much as recovering more from corporations bringing their income back onshore, so we shouldn't bother. (And we'll continue ignoring the fact that there's no evidence lowering corporate taxes actually would bring any of that income back, so that we can keep putting off raising income taxes.) Those are all tactical arguments why raising taxes won't bring in any more tax money from corporations, or from the richest 2-3% of the population. (Lots of overlap there, by the way.) But they all assume the goal is, in fact, to obtain more tax revenue from those people and corporations. Then you claim that supporters of raising taxes don't care about increasing tax revenues, but merely "beating down the rich". I don't know if that's just a rhetorical tactic, but assuming it's not, I'll try to explain: We don't believe you. We think you are wrong. Lowering corporate taxes won't bring in more tax revenue. The wealthiest 2-3% of the population are rich, and they are not overtaxed. There is historical evidence that higher tax rates in the top brackets were good for the economy overall. Those of us who support raising the top tax rates and corporate tax rates know that the entire economy would benefit. -- Drew
Post #324,332 by beepster 4/9/10 5:47:28 PM Reply	How is it that you "know" this.. ...while at the same time dismiss how someone else may "know" otherwise? Wouldn't you say thats a bit arrogant. Those off shoring strategies exist SPECIFICALLY because of higher tax rates. Thats why they are designed and located where they are. They cost money to maintain. Raising taxes further just makes it more profitable to keep those strategies in place. Its a pretty standard course in B school nowadays. There is equally as much evidence supporting Laffer as government revenues increased after Kennedy and Reagan tax >cuts>. And this is not an argument of over-under taxation. If it were, I could easily say that the 47% of filers paying nothing are certainly UNDERtaxed...and that no one should turn a net profit from the federal income tax system. (thats going to be some 15% of filers IIRC). Your historical evidence of better times under different tax structure also happened under a completely different structure of business/demand. Attributing all of the growth of middle class and bettering of wealth distribution simply to tax code is entirely too simplistic an argument. I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
Post #324,346 by drook 4/9/10 9:27:39 PM Reply	That's not the argument I'm making Attributing all of the growth of middle class and bettering of wealth distribution simply to tax code is entirely too simplistic an argument. Which is why it seems to be the only argument you're willing to have. I didn't say all growth was due to any one factor, did I? And if offshoring profit to hide it from taxation is a problem, reducing the taxes is solving the wrong problem. What ideas do you have to make offshoring profit unappealing? (Other than lowering taxes, of course.) -- Drew
Post #324,356 by mhuber 4/10/10 4:05:14 AM Reply	The Laffer curve is not linear Contrary to current Republican dogma. --------------------------------------- Why, yes, I did give up something for lent. I gave up making sense.
Post #324,382 by beepster 4/10/10 2:36:41 PM Reply	No duh thats why its called a curve. And there is impact at both ends..where overtaxation AND undertaxation are at issue. So why is it that the continued focus is on one side of the equation (those that pay alot) and not at all on the other side (the half that pay nothing). Or are we saying that a family of 4 making 60k is "poor". Too poor to pay? I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
Post #324,386 by drook 4/10/10 2:55:39 PM Reply	Look at your own argument You've said we shouldn't look at raising taxes on the richest individuals because having one large corporation bring its income back onshore would generate more revenue. That's why there's no focus on a family of 4 making $60k and paying nothing. If you make me spell it out more explicitly I'll know even you don't believe what you're saying. -- Drew
Post #324,389 by beepster 4/10/10 3:12:20 PM Reply	each person posting here is posting around a different subject. That was on laffer... I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
Post #324,392 by drook 4/10/10 3:34:22 PM Reply	What was your point then? Laffer describes voluntary behavior in response to higher or lower costs. Your example family of 4 making $60k doesn't have the option to offshore their income to hide it from taxation. So why should we be looking at them? You asked the question: Why aren't we? My answer is, because it doesn't apply. After you show why Laffer is meaningful at the bottom end of the income scale, then you can show how much tax revenue we could expect to gain from changes there. Then you can compare that to the amount that could be gained from returning the top tax rates to historical averages. If you can do all of that, then I'll believe you honestly think tax rates at the bottom end are a meaningful part of this discussion. I'm convinced they're not. And I'm pretty sure you know that too. -- Drew

Welcome to IWETHEY!