State Budgets: Day of Reckoning

[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.

[briansd1]

[quote=SK in CV]
The problem with supply-siders is, they tell the lies so often they actually believe it [/quote]

Same goes for the estate tax killing small family farms. That’s also a big fat lie.

Of course, the foot soldiers, who are never affected by higher taxes and estate taxes, mindlessly repeat the sound bites of Mitch McConnell, Haley Barbour and Glenn Beck. No critical thinking whatsoever.

[briansd1]

[quote=SK in CV]
The problem with supply-siders is, they tell the lies so often they actually believe it [/quote]

Same goes for the estate tax killing small family farms. That’s also a big fat lie.

Of course, the foot soldiers, who are never affected by higher taxes and estate taxes, mindlessly repeat the sound bites of Mitch McConnell, Haley Barbour and Glenn Beck. No critical thinking whatsoever.

[briansd1]

[quote=SK in CV]
The problem with supply-siders is, they tell the lies so often they actually believe it [/quote]

Same goes for the estate tax killing small family farms. That’s also a big fat lie.

Of course, the foot soldiers, who are never affected by higher taxes and estate taxes, mindlessly repeat the sound bites of Mitch McConnell, Haley Barbour and Glenn Beck. No critical thinking whatsoever.

[briansd1]

[quote=SK in CV]
The problem with supply-siders is, they tell the lies so often they actually believe it [/quote]

Same goes for the estate tax killing small family farms. That’s also a big fat lie.

Of course, the foot soldiers, who are never affected by higher taxes and estate taxes, mindlessly repeat the sound bites of Mitch McConnell, Haley Barbour and Glenn Beck. No critical thinking whatsoever.

[briansd1]

[quote=SK in CV]
The problem with supply-siders is, they tell the lies so often they actually believe it [/quote]

Same goes for the estate tax killing small family farms. That’s also a big fat lie.

Of course, the foot soldiers, who are never affected by higher taxes and estate taxes, mindlessly repeat the sound bites of Mitch McConnell, Haley Barbour and Glenn Beck. No critical thinking whatsoever.

[Anonymous]

[quote=Hobie]He is not going to give away his product, but at a discount, he will gain volume thus more profit. [/quote]

You really haven’t thought this through, have you?

Just lower prices and you make more money?

I suppose the guy offering an 80% discount is going to make even more money than the schmuck offering 40%.

It’s not a “lib” vs. “conservative” thing. It’s simple arithmetic.

Even though you’ve just flunked the first exam in Econ 101, the real problem is what you are trying to say has nothing to do with tax policy.

Price/volume relationships have nothing do with taxes. People don’t “buy” more taxes when the price goes down.

[Anonymous]

[quote=Hobie]He is not going to give away his product, but at a discount, he will gain volume thus more profit. [/quote]

You really haven’t thought this through, have you?

Just lower prices and you make more money?

I suppose the guy offering an 80% discount is going to make even more money than the schmuck offering 40%.

It’s not a “lib” vs. “conservative” thing. It’s simple arithmetic.

Even though you’ve just flunked the first exam in Econ 101, the real problem is what you are trying to say has nothing to do with tax policy.

Price/volume relationships have nothing do with taxes. People don’t “buy” more taxes when the price goes down.

[Anonymous]

[quote=Hobie]He is not going to give away his product, but at a discount, he will gain volume thus more profit. [/quote]

You really haven’t thought this through, have you?

Just lower prices and you make more money?

I suppose the guy offering an 80% discount is going to make even more money than the schmuck offering 40%.

It’s not a “lib” vs. “conservative” thing. It’s simple arithmetic.

Even though you’ve just flunked the first exam in Econ 101, the real problem is what you are trying to say has nothing to do with tax policy.

Price/volume relationships have nothing do with taxes. People don’t “buy” more taxes when the price goes down.

[Anonymous]

[quote=Hobie]He is not going to give away his product, but at a discount, he will gain volume thus more profit. [/quote]

You really haven’t thought this through, have you?

Just lower prices and you make more money?

I suppose the guy offering an 80% discount is going to make even more money than the schmuck offering 40%.

It’s not a “lib” vs. “conservative” thing. It’s simple arithmetic.

Even though you’ve just flunked the first exam in Econ 101, the real problem is what you are trying to say has nothing to do with tax policy.

Price/volume relationships have nothing do with taxes. People don’t “buy” more taxes when the price goes down.

[Anonymous]

[quote=Hobie]He is not going to give away his product, but at a discount, he will gain volume thus more profit. [/quote]

You really haven’t thought this through, have you?

Just lower prices and you make more money?

I suppose the guy offering an 80% discount is going to make even more money than the schmuck offering 40%.

It’s not a “lib” vs. “conservative” thing. It’s simple arithmetic.

Even though you’ve just flunked the first exam in Econ 101, the real problem is what you are trying to say has nothing to do with tax policy.

Price/volume relationships have nothing do with taxes. People don’t “buy” more taxes when the price goes down.

[Hobie]

SK: Thanks for pointing out that revenues contain more variables than simply a tax rate(s). If spending were fixed and we don’t complicate the issue by factoring in inflation, population growth, business cycle, environmental costs, etc. the premise holds.

If someone or company keeps more of the money they make ie. smaller tax liability, they will spend it– creating a taxable event!

It is really human nature and Laffer did a great job illustrating it. If the politicians can keep their hands off the checkbook under a lower tax rate, revenues will increase.

[Hobie]

SK: Thanks for pointing out that revenues contain more variables than simply a tax rate(s). If spending were fixed and we don’t complicate the issue by factoring in inflation, population growth, business cycle, environmental costs, etc. the premise holds.

If someone or company keeps more of the money they make ie. smaller tax liability, they will spend it– creating a taxable event!

It is really human nature and Laffer did a great job illustrating it. If the politicians can keep their hands off the checkbook under a lower tax rate, revenues will increase.

[Hobie]

SK: Thanks for pointing out that revenues contain more variables than simply a tax rate(s). If spending were fixed and we don’t complicate the issue by factoring in inflation, population growth, business cycle, environmental costs, etc. the premise holds.

If someone or company keeps more of the money they make ie. smaller tax liability, they will spend it– creating a taxable event!

It is really human nature and Laffer did a great job illustrating it. If the politicians can keep their hands off the checkbook under a lower tax rate, revenues will increase.

[Hobie]

SK: Thanks for pointing out that revenues contain more variables than simply a tax rate(s). If spending were fixed and we don’t complicate the issue by factoring in inflation, population growth, business cycle, environmental costs, etc. the premise holds.

If someone or company keeps more of the money they make ie. smaller tax liability, they will spend it– creating a taxable event!

It is really human nature and Laffer did a great job illustrating it. If the politicians can keep their hands off the checkbook under a lower tax rate, revenues will increase.

[Author]

Posts