The Laffer curve is not linear

IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO

1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User

Welcome to IWETHEY!

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

Almost half on the free ride plan - (beepster) - (44) - April 7, 2010, 05:00:41 PM EDT

Heh. Make that nearly 2/3. - (Another Scott) - (39) - April 7, 2010, 05:27:54 PM EDT

So why aren't we... - (beepster) - (38) - April 7, 2010, 05:48:14 PM EDT

Who's we? - (Another Scott) - (37) - April 7, 2010, 06:34:48 PM EDT

@00k peanuts depending on where you live - (boxley) - (36) - April 7, 2010, 07:44:48 PM EDT

Top 2-3% says otherwise. - (Another Scott) - (35) - April 7, 2010, 09:26:34 PM EDT

Tell them to pay some - (beepster) - (34) - April 8, 2010, 12:12:12 AM EDT

If you're in the top 2-3%, what are you? "Middle class"??? - (Another Scott) - (32) - April 8, 2010, 07:57:25 AM EDT

Re: If you're in the top 2-3%, what are you? "Middle class" - (folkert) - April 8, 2010, 09:10:48 AM EDT

In NYC...pretty much. - (beepster) - (30) - April 8, 2010, 12:03:52 PM EDT

WOT - (jbrabeck) - (2) - April 8, 2010, 12:23:14 PM EDT

:-) -NT - (Another Scott) - April 8, 2010, 12:29:10 PM EDT

NYC, not SLC ;-) -NT - (beepster) - April 8, 2010, 12:29:13 PM EDT

Only if you twist the words to mean something else. - (Another Scott) - (25) - April 8, 2010, 12:28:51 PM EDT

These terms define a standard of living - (beepster) - (24) - April 8, 2010, 12:31:16 PM EDT

And so are the opportunities - (crazy) - (23) - April 8, 2010, 01:02:12 PM EDT

So you think the folks in Brooklyn or the Bronx are making.. - (beepster) - (22) - April 8, 2010, 01:37:30 PM EDT

Huh? - (crazy) - (21) - April 8, 2010, 01:58:46 PM EDT

What I'm saying - (beepster) - (20) - April 8, 2010, 03:59:26 PM EDT

The tax in question is an *income* tax. - (Another Scott) - April 8, 2010, 05:02:37 PM EDT

Curious - (drook) - (18) - April 9, 2010, 01:08:12 AM EDT

Yup - (crazy) - (17) - April 9, 2010, 07:16:43 AM EDT

Missing point of the article, aren't you. - (beepster) - (16) - April 9, 2010, 11:10:48 AM EDT

AKA - "The way to Utopia is via a race to the bottom." :-/ -NT - (Another Scott) - (1) - April 9, 2010, 12:46:17 PM EDT

Hardly - (beepster) - April 9, 2010, 01:22:16 PM EDT

You argue tactics while assaulting our motives - (drook) - (7) - April 9, 2010, 03:52:12 PM EDT

How is it that you "know" this.. - (beepster) - (6) - April 9, 2010, 05:47:28 PM EDT

That's not the argument I'm making - (drook) - April 9, 2010, 09:27:39 PM EDT

The Laffer curve is not linear - (mhuber) - (4) - April 10, 2010, 04:05:14 AM EDT

No duh - (beepster) - (3) - April 10, 2010, 02:36:41 PM EDT

Look at your own argument - (drook) - (2) - April 10, 2010, 02:55:39 PM EDT

each person - (beepster) - (1) - April 10, 2010, 03:12:20 PM EDT

What was your point then? - (drook) - April 10, 2010, 03:34:22 PM EDT

So, is the strategy - (mhuber) - (2) - April 10, 2010, 04:24:29 AM EDT

No, the strategy should be.. - (beepster) - (1) - April 10, 2010, 02:33:36 PM EDT

"Creativity" is always the wrong answer - (drook) - April 10, 2010, 02:58:55 PM EDT

1.5% sound about right? - (Another Scott) - (2) - April 10, 2010, 07:15:04 AM EDT

Apples and Oranges - (beepster) - (1) - April 10, 2010, 02:40:59 PM EDT

That's just one example. - (Another Scott) - April 10, 2010, 03:47:13 PM EDT

I've used the same example - (crazy) - April 8, 2010, 12:55:04 PM EDT

That's the problem beep - (jake123) - April 8, 2010, 01:24:11 PM EDT

Re: Almost half on the free ride plan - (malraux) - (3) - April 7, 2010, 06:14:20 PM EDT

Thanks for the pointer. -NT - (Another Scott) - April 7, 2010, 06:36:28 PM EDT

he's missing a key point... - (beepster) - (1) - April 8, 2010, 12:18:36 AM EDT

The rest of the first world - (jake123) - April 8, 2010, 01:27:37 PM EDT

He makes Murphy look like a babbling optimist.
116 ms