Higher taxes does NOT equal higher revenues: PROOF

[Hombre]

Quote from trefoil:

If you read your own cite carefully, you'll notice they say the revenue was delayed through stalling tactics as a result of its having been telegraphed, not that it won't ever be collected.
HM's Revenue folks were being more than a little naive if they thought it was going to come rushing in first chance anyone had to pay at the new rate. That would imply a level of stupidity in folks who, merely on the evidence of what they make, aren't stupid when it comes to their money.
But you can only stall so long. Come back this time next year. I'm quite certain the story will be very different.

I am sure you mean that there will be even less revenue .

 

[Brass]

Quote from Maverick74:

Can the left now shut the f*ck up about this now?

You first:

http://www.slate.com/articles/busin...x_cuts_ever_increase_government_revenues.html

Hope you enjoyed that financial history lesson.

You're welcome.

 

[Brass]

Quote from Lucrum:

BINGO!

 

[Tsing Tao]

Quote from tradingjournals:

The left are the republicans. Are you not a republican anymore, or are you just self-insulting?

Will you please crawl back under that rock you occasionally try to surface from? Popping up your empty head every so often to come up with some vapid, asinine comment does no one any good.

 

[Scataphagos]

Quote from Max E. Pad:

'... Historically this is how communism/socialism has always worked, make everyone poor so that everyone can be equal.

Correctamundo!

This is a major part of Odumbo's agenda. "America is the greatest country on the planet... let's work together to change it"... His "Fundamental transformation of America"..

In the end, 90% of Americans will be standing in line for their ration of toilet paper and potatoes while the political elites live high-on-the-hog at the populace' expense...

IOW... "90% of us are supposed to work and slave so that the elites can live the life off luxury off of our backs"..

This has ALWAYS been the objective of Socialism/Liberaism...DEMOCRATS IN AMERICA!

 

[Covertibility]

The republican mind creates myths when reality is too difficult to remember:

Source: The Legend of Margaret Thatcher

Thatcher sure did love to raise taxes and increase spending.

Art Laffer was on CNBC last year and when asked whether reducing taxes generates more revenue, he flat out said no. Why do ya think Reagan raised taxes? It's the revenues dummy!

 

[cgroupman]

Quote from Brass:

You first:

http://www.slate.com/articles/busin...x_cuts_ever_increase_government_revenues.html

Hope you enjoyed that financial history lesson.

You're welcome.

Do Tax Cuts Ever Increase Government Revenues?
Three historical examples of tax cuts paying for themselves,
and how they undercut the GOP claim that tax cuts always
do that.

Nice link, and makes sense. I think that when politicians and economists get together, anything and nothing gets done. Let me explain:

Tax cuts are supposed to help by allowing businesses to hire more people. But, 'scared' business owners just decide to keep the money and hire no one. And, they may not ever hire anyone here in the U.S. again, ever. Technology has replaced millions of jobs, cheap overseas labor has taken millions that may never return. Read Steve Jobs analysis and example.

So, in that example, no sure winner in the debate. Only losers.

Raising taxes on higher incomes will not really help, except to just bring in more 'top line' revenues. Makes some sense, too. To a point. Someone has to pay for the spending. So, right back to cutting spending, and then via sound budgetary accounting, adjust revenues accordingly. Will this happen? Not anytime soon, from either party. It's just that 'our stuff, earmarks, and all that are better than your stuff, earmarks, and all that' from both sides. Stupid, just stupid.


c

 

[cgroupman]

Quote from Covertibility:

The republican mind creates myths when reality is too difficult to remember:

Source: The Legend of Margaret Thatcher

Thatcher sure did love to raise taxes and increase spending.

Art Laffer was on CNBC last year and when asked whether reducing taxes generates more revenue, he flat out said no. Why do ya think Reagan raised taxes? It's the revenues dummy!

She raised taxes and lowered spending. All this with 'socialized medicine' since the 1940's. With citizenry not burdened with high health insurance costs, this leaves room for other useful political ambitions. Single payer pretty much. We, in the US have about half our people covered by 'single payer' in that they have Medicare, military, state workers, city workers, and all the rest. Still don't understand the fight, other than to say Insurance companies own the politicians.

I realize I mixed a couple of things here, but double checking Ms. Thatcher brought out the medical nightmare we're still in.


c

 

[trefoil]

Quote from Hombre:

I am sure you mean that there will be even less revenue .

Look at this carefully:

Francesca Lagerberg, head of tax at Grant Thornton, an accountancy firm, said: “My guess is that because the 50 per cent rate was flagged up in advance many taxpayers, particularly those with their own businesses, decided to extract dividends ahead of the change. It highlights the fact that high tax rates don’t always deliver high tax revenues.”

Her last sentence is a non sequitur. Most small businesses aren't of the sort that can just pick up and move their operations to the Caymans, you know. Given that, next year those dividends will be taxed at the new rate, and the revenues will be higher.
Wishing for something doesn't make it so.

 

[jem]

Quote from cgroupman:

Do Tax Cuts Ever Increase Government Revenues?
Three historical examples of tax cuts paying for themselves,
and how they undercut the GOP claim that tax cuts always
do that.

Nice link, and makes sense. I think that when politicians and economists get together, anything and nothing gets done. Let me explain:

Tax cuts are supposed to help by allowing businesses to hire more people. But, 'scared' business owners just decide to keep the money and hire no one. And, they may not ever hire anyone here in the U.S. again, ever. Technology has replaced millions of jobs, cheap overseas labor has taken millions that may never return. Read Steve Jobs analysis and example.

So, in that example, no sure winner in the debate. Only losers.

Raising taxes on higher incomes will not really help, except to just bring in more 'top line' revenues. Makes some sense, too. To a point. Someone has to pay for the spending. So, right back to cutting spending, and then via sound budgetary accounting, adjust revenues accordingly. Will this happen? Not anytime soon, from either party. It's just that 'our stuff, earmarks, and all that are better than your stuff, earmarks, and all that' from both sides. Stupid, just stupid.


c

That article confirms revenues went up after tax cuts.

Here is the telling quote...

"In all three cases, the tax cuts likely helped to increase tax receipts"

http://www.slate.com/articles/busin...x_cuts_ever_increase_government_revenues.html

Did you all actually read the link.
Revenues went up after the tax cuts.
The leftist in the article... simpley created a model which stated tax revenues would have gone up more had there been no tax cuts. (and they called that the baseline). Brass keeps citing the article and I have to keep explaining it.