Home › Forums › Financial Markets/Economics › Taxes!
- This topic has 278 replies, 14 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 2 months ago by CA renter.
-
AuthorPosts
-
June 8, 2011 at 1:57 PM #702931June 8, 2011 at 2:05 PM #701740jstoeszParticipant
[quote] little empirical evidence that rate changes, by themselves, either promote or reduce the availablity of capital or labor.[/quote]
This statement is just asinine. Rates change behavior…incentives and disincentives work. Small changes of the tax code are just too hard to tease out of all the other factors that go into the economy
If you tax labor at 100% you will get less labor then if you tax it at 90% and even less than if you tax it at 80% etc.
The same goes passive income and investing. Incentives work.
June 8, 2011 at 2:05 PM #701839jstoeszParticipant[quote] little empirical evidence that rate changes, by themselves, either promote or reduce the availablity of capital or labor.[/quote]
This statement is just asinine. Rates change behavior…incentives and disincentives work. Small changes of the tax code are just too hard to tease out of all the other factors that go into the economy
If you tax labor at 100% you will get less labor then if you tax it at 90% and even less than if you tax it at 80% etc.
The same goes passive income and investing. Incentives work.
June 8, 2011 at 2:05 PM #702431jstoeszParticipant[quote] little empirical evidence that rate changes, by themselves, either promote or reduce the availablity of capital or labor.[/quote]
This statement is just asinine. Rates change behavior…incentives and disincentives work. Small changes of the tax code are just too hard to tease out of all the other factors that go into the economy
If you tax labor at 100% you will get less labor then if you tax it at 90% and even less than if you tax it at 80% etc.
The same goes passive income and investing. Incentives work.
June 8, 2011 at 2:05 PM #702581jstoeszParticipant[quote] little empirical evidence that rate changes, by themselves, either promote or reduce the availablity of capital or labor.[/quote]
This statement is just asinine. Rates change behavior…incentives and disincentives work. Small changes of the tax code are just too hard to tease out of all the other factors that go into the economy
If you tax labor at 100% you will get less labor then if you tax it at 90% and even less than if you tax it at 80% etc.
The same goes passive income and investing. Incentives work.
June 8, 2011 at 2:05 PM #702941jstoeszParticipant[quote] little empirical evidence that rate changes, by themselves, either promote or reduce the availablity of capital or labor.[/quote]
This statement is just asinine. Rates change behavior…incentives and disincentives work. Small changes of the tax code are just too hard to tease out of all the other factors that go into the economy
If you tax labor at 100% you will get less labor then if you tax it at 90% and even less than if you tax it at 80% etc.
The same goes passive income and investing. Incentives work.
June 8, 2011 at 3:04 PM #701760anParticipant[quote=SK in CV]
Straw man argument. Nobody has suggested such a preference. Historically, the US tax code has provided preferences both for earned and various types of unearned income. With very minor exception there is little empirical evidence that rate changes, by themselves, either promote or reduce the availablity of capital or labor.[/quote]
Are you sure nobody has suggested such a preference? Here, I’ll help you out:[quote=CA renter]IMHO, we need to discourage gambling and encourage work. That’s why I would lower the rate on **earned** income, and tax investment income at a much higher rate, with steeply progressive rates.[/quote]
What does “much higher rate” mean to you?June 8, 2011 at 3:04 PM #701859anParticipant[quote=SK in CV]
Straw man argument. Nobody has suggested such a preference. Historically, the US tax code has provided preferences both for earned and various types of unearned income. With very minor exception there is little empirical evidence that rate changes, by themselves, either promote or reduce the availablity of capital or labor.[/quote]
Are you sure nobody has suggested such a preference? Here, I’ll help you out:[quote=CA renter]IMHO, we need to discourage gambling and encourage work. That’s why I would lower the rate on **earned** income, and tax investment income at a much higher rate, with steeply progressive rates.[/quote]
What does “much higher rate” mean to you?June 8, 2011 at 3:04 PM #702451anParticipant[quote=SK in CV]
Straw man argument. Nobody has suggested such a preference. Historically, the US tax code has provided preferences both for earned and various types of unearned income. With very minor exception there is little empirical evidence that rate changes, by themselves, either promote or reduce the availablity of capital or labor.[/quote]
Are you sure nobody has suggested such a preference? Here, I’ll help you out:[quote=CA renter]IMHO, we need to discourage gambling and encourage work. That’s why I would lower the rate on **earned** income, and tax investment income at a much higher rate, with steeply progressive rates.[/quote]
What does “much higher rate” mean to you?June 8, 2011 at 3:04 PM #702601anParticipant[quote=SK in CV]
Straw man argument. Nobody has suggested such a preference. Historically, the US tax code has provided preferences both for earned and various types of unearned income. With very minor exception there is little empirical evidence that rate changes, by themselves, either promote or reduce the availablity of capital or labor.[/quote]
Are you sure nobody has suggested such a preference? Here, I’ll help you out:[quote=CA renter]IMHO, we need to discourage gambling and encourage work. That’s why I would lower the rate on **earned** income, and tax investment income at a much higher rate, with steeply progressive rates.[/quote]
What does “much higher rate” mean to you?June 8, 2011 at 3:04 PM #702961anParticipant[quote=SK in CV]
Straw man argument. Nobody has suggested such a preference. Historically, the US tax code has provided preferences both for earned and various types of unearned income. With very minor exception there is little empirical evidence that rate changes, by themselves, either promote or reduce the availablity of capital or labor.[/quote]
Are you sure nobody has suggested such a preference? Here, I’ll help you out:[quote=CA renter]IMHO, we need to discourage gambling and encourage work. That’s why I would lower the rate on **earned** income, and tax investment income at a much higher rate, with steeply progressive rates.[/quote]
What does “much higher rate” mean to you?June 8, 2011 at 3:08 PM #701765bubba99ParticipantIMPORT Tax, or Tariff.
In 1789 the U.S. did not need income taxes because all was paid for with tariffs on imports.
America’s strength is consumption. Unless we are willing to compete for $1.00/hour manufacturing jobs, we must go with our strength – consumption. Add $1,000/container import duty and kill all the other taxes.
Yes, other countries will also add tariffs, but we are a net importer and need to offset Chinas currency manipulation.June 8, 2011 at 3:08 PM #701864bubba99ParticipantIMPORT Tax, or Tariff.
In 1789 the U.S. did not need income taxes because all was paid for with tariffs on imports.
America’s strength is consumption. Unless we are willing to compete for $1.00/hour manufacturing jobs, we must go with our strength – consumption. Add $1,000/container import duty and kill all the other taxes.
Yes, other countries will also add tariffs, but we are a net importer and need to offset Chinas currency manipulation.June 8, 2011 at 3:08 PM #702456bubba99ParticipantIMPORT Tax, or Tariff.
In 1789 the U.S. did not need income taxes because all was paid for with tariffs on imports.
America’s strength is consumption. Unless we are willing to compete for $1.00/hour manufacturing jobs, we must go with our strength – consumption. Add $1,000/container import duty and kill all the other taxes.
Yes, other countries will also add tariffs, but we are a net importer and need to offset Chinas currency manipulation.June 8, 2011 at 3:08 PM #702606bubba99ParticipantIMPORT Tax, or Tariff.
In 1789 the U.S. did not need income taxes because all was paid for with tariffs on imports.
America’s strength is consumption. Unless we are willing to compete for $1.00/hour manufacturing jobs, we must go with our strength – consumption. Add $1,000/container import duty and kill all the other taxes.
Yes, other countries will also add tariffs, but we are a net importer and need to offset Chinas currency manipulation. -
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.