Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
enron_by_the_sea
ParticipantLet’s move forward.
Everyone agrees if taxes were 100%, reducing taxes will bring in more revenue and if taxes were 0%, increasing taxes will more revenue.
We have none of the 2 cases. Clearly there is an optimal level. What is that? 10%? 20%? 50%? 75%?
ParticipantLet’s move forward.
Everyone agrees if taxes were 100%, reducing taxes will bring in more revenue and if taxes were 0%, increasing taxes will more revenue.
We have none of the 2 cases. Clearly there is an optimal level. What is that? 10%? 20%? 50%? 75%?
ParticipantIt is true that outragiously high penal tax rates (say 90%) will result into avoidance. However in this situation cutting taxes to 88% from 90% is not going to make much of a difference. Cutting from 90% to 40% will make a difference.
Unfortunately there is no evidence that cutting taxes by small amount (say 1% or 2%) makes any difference to revenues all else being equal.
The single biggest factor influencing tax revenues is the state of the economy. As economy rises tax revenues rise. As economy falls tax revenues fall.
Small changes in marginal tax rate by themselves make very little change to this big picture rule. They may have have secondary effect in that people may feel happy and rising confidence results into some extra economic growth which results into some more incremental tax revenue. However this effect should be small.
ParticipantIt is true that outragiously high penal tax rates (say 90%) will result into avoidance. However in this situation cutting taxes to 88% from 90% is not going to make much of a difference. Cutting from 90% to 40% will make a difference.
Unfortunately there is no evidence that cutting taxes by small amount (say 1% or 2%) makes any difference to revenues all else being equal.
The single biggest factor influencing tax revenues is the state of the economy. As economy rises tax revenues rise. As economy falls tax revenues fall.
Small changes in marginal tax rate by themselves make very little change to this big picture rule. They may have have secondary effect in that people may feel happy and rising confidence results into some extra economic growth which results into some more incremental tax revenue. However this effect should be small.
ParticipantIt is true that outragiously high penal tax rates (say 90%) will result into avoidance. However in this situation cutting taxes to 88% from 90% is not going to make much of a difference. Cutting from 90% to 40% will make a difference.
Unfortunately there is no evidence that cutting taxes by small amount (say 1% or 2%) makes any difference to revenues all else being equal.
The single biggest factor influencing tax revenues is the state of the economy. As economy rises tax revenues rise. As economy falls tax revenues fall.
Small changes in marginal tax rate by themselves make very little change to this big picture rule. They may have have secondary effect in that people may feel happy and rising confidence results into some extra economic growth which results into some more incremental tax revenue. However this effect should be small.
ParticipantIt is true that outragiously high penal tax rates (say 90%) will result into avoidance. However in this situation cutting taxes to 88% from 90% is not going to make much of a difference. Cutting from 90% to 40% will make a difference.
Unfortunately there is no evidence that cutting taxes by small amount (say 1% or 2%) makes any difference to revenues all else being equal.
The single biggest factor influencing tax revenues is the state of the economy. As economy rises tax revenues rise. As economy falls tax revenues fall.
Small changes in marginal tax rate by themselves make very little change to this big picture rule. They may have have secondary effect in that people may feel happy and rising confidence results into some extra economic growth which results into some more incremental tax revenue. However this effect should be small.
ParticipantIt is true that outragiously high penal tax rates (say 90%) will result into avoidance. However in this situation cutting taxes to 88% from 90% is not going to make much of a difference. Cutting from 90% to 40% will make a difference.
Unfortunately there is no evidence that cutting taxes by small amount (say 1% or 2%) makes any difference to revenues all else being equal.
The single biggest factor influencing tax revenues is the state of the economy. As economy rises tax revenues rise. As economy falls tax revenues fall.
Small changes in marginal tax rate by themselves make very little change to this big picture rule. They may have have secondary effect in that people may feel happy and rising confidence results into some extra economic growth which results into some more incremental tax revenue. However this effect should be small.
ParticipantThe burning question before the city council is –
Do we declare bankrupcy before building a stadium for the Chargers, or do we declare bankrupcy after building a stadium ?
————————————————-
On other note, Vista is turning off its street lights unless residents pay $4 to $20 “lighting fee”! Coming soon to San Diego?
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2010/12/20/state/n112046S30.DTL
ParticipantThe burning question before the city council is –
Do we declare bankrupcy before building a stadium for the Chargers, or do we declare bankrupcy after building a stadium ?
————————————————-
On other note, Vista is turning off its street lights unless residents pay $4 to $20 “lighting fee”! Coming soon to San Diego?
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2010/12/20/state/n112046S30.DTL
ParticipantThe burning question before the city council is –
Do we declare bankrupcy before building a stadium for the Chargers, or do we declare bankrupcy after building a stadium ?
————————————————-
On other note, Vista is turning off its street lights unless residents pay $4 to $20 “lighting fee”! Coming soon to San Diego?
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2010/12/20/state/n112046S30.DTL
ParticipantThe burning question before the city council is –
Do we declare bankrupcy before building a stadium for the Chargers, or do we declare bankrupcy after building a stadium ?
————————————————-
On other note, Vista is turning off its street lights unless residents pay $4 to $20 “lighting fee”! Coming soon to San Diego?
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2010/12/20/state/n112046S30.DTL
ParticipantThe burning question before the city council is –
Do we declare bankrupcy before building a stadium for the Chargers, or do we declare bankrupcy after building a stadium ?
————————————————-
On other note, Vista is turning off its street lights unless residents pay $4 to $20 “lighting fee”! Coming soon to San Diego?
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2010/12/20/state/n112046S30.DTL
Participant[quote=permabear][quote=patb][quote=pri_dk]Clearly this was caused by Fannie and Freddie.[/quote]
Clearly this was Obama’s fault.[/quote]
You forgot the minorities. Wall Street was forced to lend to minorities, who were ultimately responsible for the collapse of Bear Stearns.
[/quote]
Global warming caused this.
Participant[quote=permabear][quote=patb][quote=pri_dk]Clearly this was caused by Fannie and Freddie.[/quote]
Clearly this was Obama’s fault.[/quote]
You forgot the minorities. Wall Street was forced to lend to minorities, who were ultimately responsible for the collapse of Bear Stearns.
[/quote]
Global warming caused this.
-
AuthorPosts
