Agree with that post, but not so sure corruption has anything to do with being a republic. Corruption is attracted to power and large budgets. For example, you'll be able to find more examples of corruption in a place like Chicago, Illinois vs. Casper, Wyoming because no bureaucrat seeking power would go a small town in the middle of nowhere.
For me personally it worked. Each time I found a cheaper solution I took it. I don't care if it works for government. They don't care about my finances too.
I have examples of governments that made money by lowering taxes. Perfect example is Ireland. There are also countries where the inheriting tax was reduced and the total of taxes cashed in went up.
I also know of taxes on trading that demolished income by 50% or more (Belgium ans Sweden).
So it works, but not always and not everywhere.
Apple has piled up billions in Ireland and elsewhere outside the US. Money that could be in the US. Why? Laffer curve. Amazon is piling up cash in Luxemburg. Same story. Multinationals go where the taxation is lowest.
Last edited:
Wrong. These examples are a result of spending more then receiving. So to tell it is all about Laffer curve is nonsense.
Even with a working Laffer curve but a huge overspending there will be deficits and bankruptcies.
Hi, actually the WSJ did a report on this, most of the money is in the USA, but a document states it Belongs in Ireland or wherever. When the republicans allowed repatriation back in the early George bush years the USA didn't get much of a pop because they investigated and found the money was already here and the money wasn't supposed to be used for stock buybacks and such but was and without penalties. Overseas banks wont guarantee funds like they will in USA if the bank fails, and in USA you can purchase additional insurance in case it does fail so your money is safe. American corporations want the benefits of American banking infrastructure but simply want others to pay for it, just freeloading at its worst.
lol the Laffer Curve and expatriation? Laffer thought that as you lower taxes you get a concomitant rise in GDP which supply-siders contend would make up for the shortfall and result in an eventual surplus. It has nothing to do with companies moving offshore to lower their taxes. Obviously any corp would seek to lower their rate. Hence the repatriation problem. That’s an entirely different issue.
Brownback has a problem with expatriation? Bring those companies back to Kansas you moron?
Absent any increases in spending; Laffer suggests that the rise in GDP and lower prices will more than make up for the initial loss of tax revenues.
Kansas Governor Brownback greatly reduced state tax rates in 2012. The state, which had previously had a budget surplus, experienced a budget deficit of about $200 million in 2012. Drastic cuts to state funding for education and infrastructure have been implemented because of the budget deficits.
Failure with Reaganomics
Failure with Bush43
Failure with Brownback
Soon to be a failure under Trump
You literally are too dumb to debate.
Brownback has a problem with expatriation? Bring those companies back to Kansas you moron?
Absent any increases in spending; Laffer suggests that the rise in GDP and lower prices will more than make up for the initial loss of tax revenues.
Kansas Governor Brownback greatly reduced state tax rates in 2012. The state, which had previously had a budget surplus, experienced a budget deficit of about $200 million in 2012. Drastic cuts to state funding for education and infrastructure have been implemented because of the budget deficits.
Failure with Reaganomics
Failure with Bush43
Failure with Brownback
Soon to be a failure under Trump
You literally are too dumb to debate.
Last edited:
Smart people never make that kind of statement. Smart people are humble and as they had an education (what you clearly missed) they will never post such an insult.
You clearly have no clue what the Laffer curve is.
If lowering the taxes does not increase the amount cashed by the government, it only indicates where on the curve we are (in the decending part). It does not mean the Laffer curve is not working. The Laffer curve is always working. But the people using it can make a bad estimation where on the curve they actually were. As a result it can result in a negative cash move for the government.
Completely wrong. Laffer curve shows that increasing taxes starting from zero, will at start bring more money in taxes, and at a certain point it will turn around and give less money in taxes. Laffer curve is never wrong. The people who use the Laffer curve are wrong.
- If they lower the taxes when the Laffer curve is rising they will lose money, so the Laffer curve is right, the person who decided to lower taxes made a mistake.
- If they lower the taxes when the Laffer curve is descending, they will make money, so the Laffer curve is right, the person who decided to lower taxes made no mistake.
Funny how you want to be the expert in anything that is posted on ET, and that your "opponents" are always idiots or morons. Even on medical issues you seem to think you are the expert, like on any other subject.
If your "opponents" are always idiots or morons it probably means that they are normal and you are the idiot. But as an idiot you will never understand that.
lol wrong. The Laffer Curve shows that all elective production stops at 100% taxation and that the peak of the curve = optimal taxation. It was used by supply-siders to argue for lower taxation w/o lower spending.
You're a cartoon.