State Budgets: Day of Reckoning

[briansd1]

Economists agree that there is a optimal point where revenue is maximized, but there disagree on where that optimal point is.

Porsche is the most profitable car maker not because they charge less, but because they charge more.

Often times charging more a premium product is better than charging less for junk.

[Hobie]

It’s not simply the price point. Take a look at Walmart…

[Hobie]

It’s not simply the price point. Take a look at Walmart…

[Hobie]

It’s not simply the price point. Take a look at Walmart…

[Hobie]

It’s not simply the price point. Take a look at Walmart…

[Hobie]

It’s not simply the price point. Take a look at Walmart…

[briansd1]

I would rather our government provides Toyota quality services than Walmart services (and I’m a supporter of Walmart). I would rather pay more.

But that said, Chevy charges the same prices as Toyota for worse products. Using that metaphor, from a value-for-the-money standpoint, our government services could be improved.

[briansd1]

I would rather our government provides Toyota quality services than Walmart services (and I’m a supporter of Walmart). I would rather pay more.

But that said, Chevy charges the same prices as Toyota for worse products. Using that metaphor, from a value-for-the-money standpoint, our government services could be improved.

[briansd1]

I would rather our government provides Toyota quality services than Walmart services (and I’m a supporter of Walmart). I would rather pay more.

But that said, Chevy charges the same prices as Toyota for worse products. Using that metaphor, from a value-for-the-money standpoint, our government services could be improved.

[briansd1]

I would rather our government provides Toyota quality services than Walmart services (and I’m a supporter of Walmart). I would rather pay more.

But that said, Chevy charges the same prices as Toyota for worse products. Using that metaphor, from a value-for-the-money standpoint, our government services could be improved.

[briansd1]

I would rather our government provides Toyota quality services than Walmart services (and I’m a supporter of Walmart). I would rather pay more.

But that said, Chevy charges the same prices as Toyota for worse products. Using that metaphor, from a value-for-the-money standpoint, our government services could be improved.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Hobie]

Suppose you are looking at the Sunday ads. Your favorite store is offering a 40% off coupon. Are you going to take the discount? You bet.

Now ask yourself: Why is the shop offering the deal? Simple: to gain more traffic. Higher volume=higher profit.

He is not going to give away his product, but at a discount, he will gain volume thus more profit.

It is really a no brainer. Same concept with taxes. C=mon Pri_dk

The problem with libs is that very few actually have to produce something somebody will pay for to earn a paycheck. Once you do, you will see the light;)[/quote]

The problem is, lowering tax rates have never actually worked to increase revenues. It didn’t work when Reagan tried it. It didn’t work when Bush II tried it, a budget surplus turned into a deficit and the economy was stagnant, before it fell into the worst recession in 90 years. When Clinton raised marginal tax rates, revenues increased, and the economy prospered.

A growing economy increases revenues. Always have. Slight downward adjustments to tax rates never have.

The problem with supply-siders is, they tell the lies so often they actually believe it, despite no empirical evidence that it actually works.

Neither does your analogy to the 40% off sale. Taxes aren’t optional. Nobody “buys” more taxes because the rates are 5% lower.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Hobie]

Suppose you are looking at the Sunday ads. Your favorite store is offering a 40% off coupon. Are you going to take the discount? You bet.

Now ask yourself: Why is the shop offering the deal? Simple: to gain more traffic. Higher volume=higher profit.

He is not going to give away his product, but at a discount, he will gain volume thus more profit.

It is really a no brainer. Same concept with taxes. C=mon Pri_dk

The problem with libs is that very few actually have to produce something somebody will pay for to earn a paycheck. Once you do, you will see the light;)[/quote]

The problem is, lowering tax rates have never actually worked to increase revenues. It didn’t work when Reagan tried it. It didn’t work when Bush II tried it, a budget surplus turned into a deficit and the economy was stagnant, before it fell into the worst recession in 90 years. When Clinton raised marginal tax rates, revenues increased, and the economy prospered.

A growing economy increases revenues. Always have. Slight downward adjustments to tax rates never have.

The problem with supply-siders is, they tell the lies so often they actually believe it, despite no empirical evidence that it actually works.

Neither does your analogy to the 40% off sale. Taxes aren’t optional. Nobody “buys” more taxes because the rates are 5% lower.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Hobie]

Suppose you are looking at the Sunday ads. Your favorite store is offering a 40% off coupon. Are you going to take the discount? You bet.

Now ask yourself: Why is the shop offering the deal? Simple: to gain more traffic. Higher volume=higher profit.

He is not going to give away his product, but at a discount, he will gain volume thus more profit.

It is really a no brainer. Same concept with taxes. C=mon Pri_dk

The problem with libs is that very few actually have to produce something somebody will pay for to earn a paycheck. Once you do, you will see the light;)[/quote]

The problem is, lowering tax rates have never actually worked to increase revenues. It didn’t work when Reagan tried it. It didn’t work when Bush II tried it, a budget surplus turned into a deficit and the economy was stagnant, before it fell into the worst recession in 90 years. When Clinton raised marginal tax rates, revenues increased, and the economy prospered.

A growing economy increases revenues. Always have. Slight downward adjustments to tax rates never have.

The problem with supply-siders is, they tell the lies so often they actually believe it, despite no empirical evidence that it actually works.

Neither does your analogy to the 40% off sale. Taxes aren’t optional. Nobody “buys” more taxes because the rates are 5% lower.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Hobie]

Suppose you are looking at the Sunday ads. Your favorite store is offering a 40% off coupon. Are you going to take the discount? You bet.

Now ask yourself: Why is the shop offering the deal? Simple: to gain more traffic. Higher volume=higher profit.

He is not going to give away his product, but at a discount, he will gain volume thus more profit.

It is really a no brainer. Same concept with taxes. C=mon Pri_dk

The problem with libs is that very few actually have to produce something somebody will pay for to earn a paycheck. Once you do, you will see the light;)[/quote]

The problem is, lowering tax rates have never actually worked to increase revenues. It didn’t work when Reagan tried it. It didn’t work when Bush II tried it, a budget surplus turned into a deficit and the economy was stagnant, before it fell into the worst recession in 90 years. When Clinton raised marginal tax rates, revenues increased, and the economy prospered.

A growing economy increases revenues. Always have. Slight downward adjustments to tax rates never have.

The problem with supply-siders is, they tell the lies so often they actually believe it, despite no empirical evidence that it actually works.

Neither does your analogy to the 40% off sale. Taxes aren’t optional. Nobody “buys” more taxes because the rates are 5% lower.

[Author]

Posts