[luchabee]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=EconProf]
The clear message: total government revenues collected go UP in the years following the tax cut as the economy expands and people earn more and pay more in our progressive tax rate structure. [/quote]

I think that message is far from settled. From US Treasury numbers:

You’ll note that in the years immediately following the Kennedy tax cuts, revenue was relatively flat. In the years following the Reagan tax cuts in 81 and 82, revenues declined, and it took almost 6 years for them to return to levels before the cuts. In the years immediately following the Bush I tax increases, revnues increased. And after a small decline during the recession of the early 90’s, after the Clinton tax increase, revenues sharply increased (as the economy grew at historically high rates). After the Bush II tax cuts, revenues initially fell sharply for 4 years(beginning with the recession of the early part of this decade), and have risen since but still not to the level they were in 2000.

As I said, there is no empirical evidence that tax cuts raise revenues. Historically, that has simply not consistently been the case. Other factors, of course, have been present. The economy is cyclical, and marginal tax rates are not the only factor which drives it. But the perfect model has not been created. At best, supply side theory has provem to be an incomplete model. At worst, a total failure.[/quote]

SK: I didn’t want to get into a discussion of the potential association between reducing marginal tax brackets and increased revenue or increasing them and less revenue. From what I have seen, the left has their arguments, the right has its arguments. This issue is far from settled and is highly political, though I think a common sense argument can be made that human nature will lead most to work less where there is less reward. Is this triggered simply with an increase in rates? Perhaps? Does it harm marginal businesses? I think so, as indicated possibly in the recent business study I referenced, though not specifically addressing fed rates.

With that said, as repeated before, however, the aggregate impact of these discussed taxes and regulations (yes, if they are enacted) will cause American businesses to export jobs to less regulated areas and states and cause additional layoffs.

Unfortunately, as I have also mentioned before, American businesses and government, I don’t think have truly appreciated the monumental shift that globalism has brought about, endangering whole sections of our economy. Intense government regulation and taxes, as proposed by some Democrats, will as a whole increase this decline in our business infrastructure. Accordingly, using California as a leading example, these businesses will downsize, outsource, and move, leading to significantly decreased revenue for government programs.

I think the Democrats are playing with fire. I appreciate their passion to pass these new social programs, but I don’t think they have adequately addressed the tremendous demographic and global economic threats to the American economy. Their first mission should have been job creation, but it is like they assumed it would come simply with a new president and government spending. It hasn’t and I don’t think much has changed, other than additional debt.

Without addressing the job issue, I think the Obama administration may unravel and die on the hill of cap and trade and healthcare reform.

[luchabee]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=EconProf]
The clear message: total government revenues collected go UP in the years following the tax cut as the economy expands and people earn more and pay more in our progressive tax rate structure. [/quote]

I think that message is far from settled. From US Treasury numbers:

You’ll note that in the years immediately following the Kennedy tax cuts, revenue was relatively flat. In the years following the Reagan tax cuts in 81 and 82, revenues declined, and it took almost 6 years for them to return to levels before the cuts. In the years immediately following the Bush I tax increases, revnues increased. And after a small decline during the recession of the early 90’s, after the Clinton tax increase, revenues sharply increased (as the economy grew at historically high rates). After the Bush II tax cuts, revenues initially fell sharply for 4 years(beginning with the recession of the early part of this decade), and have risen since but still not to the level they were in 2000.

As I said, there is no empirical evidence that tax cuts raise revenues. Historically, that has simply not consistently been the case. Other factors, of course, have been present. The economy is cyclical, and marginal tax rates are not the only factor which drives it. But the perfect model has not been created. At best, supply side theory has provem to be an incomplete model. At worst, a total failure.[/quote]

SK: I didn’t want to get into a discussion of the potential association between reducing marginal tax brackets and increased revenue or increasing them and less revenue. From what I have seen, the left has their arguments, the right has its arguments. This issue is far from settled and is highly political, though I think a common sense argument can be made that human nature will lead most to work less where there is less reward. Is this triggered simply with an increase in rates? Perhaps? Does it harm marginal businesses? I think so, as indicated possibly in the recent business study I referenced, though not specifically addressing fed rates.

With that said, as repeated before, however, the aggregate impact of these discussed taxes and regulations (yes, if they are enacted) will cause American businesses to export jobs to less regulated areas and states and cause additional layoffs.

Unfortunately, as I have also mentioned before, American businesses and government, I don’t think have truly appreciated the monumental shift that globalism has brought about, endangering whole sections of our economy. Intense government regulation and taxes, as proposed by some Democrats, will as a whole increase this decline in our business infrastructure. Accordingly, using California as a leading example, these businesses will downsize, outsource, and move, leading to significantly decreased revenue for government programs.

I think the Democrats are playing with fire. I appreciate their passion to pass these new social programs, but I don’t think they have adequately addressed the tremendous demographic and global economic threats to the American economy. Their first mission should have been job creation, but it is like they assumed it would come simply with a new president and government spending. It hasn’t and I don’t think much has changed, other than additional debt.

Without addressing the job issue, I think the Obama administration may unravel and die on the hill of cap and trade and healthcare reform.

[luchabee]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=EconProf]
The clear message: total government revenues collected go UP in the years following the tax cut as the economy expands and people earn more and pay more in our progressive tax rate structure. [/quote]

I think that message is far from settled. From US Treasury numbers:

You’ll note that in the years immediately following the Kennedy tax cuts, revenue was relatively flat. In the years following the Reagan tax cuts in 81 and 82, revenues declined, and it took almost 6 years for them to return to levels before the cuts. In the years immediately following the Bush I tax increases, revnues increased. And after a small decline during the recession of the early 90’s, after the Clinton tax increase, revenues sharply increased (as the economy grew at historically high rates). After the Bush II tax cuts, revenues initially fell sharply for 4 years(beginning with the recession of the early part of this decade), and have risen since but still not to the level they were in 2000.

As I said, there is no empirical evidence that tax cuts raise revenues. Historically, that has simply not consistently been the case. Other factors, of course, have been present. The economy is cyclical, and marginal tax rates are not the only factor which drives it. But the perfect model has not been created. At best, supply side theory has provem to be an incomplete model. At worst, a total failure.[/quote]

SK: I didn’t want to get into a discussion of the potential association between reducing marginal tax brackets and increased revenue or increasing them and less revenue. From what I have seen, the left has their arguments, the right has its arguments. This issue is far from settled and is highly political, though I think a common sense argument can be made that human nature will lead most to work less where there is less reward. Is this triggered simply with an increase in rates? Perhaps? Does it harm marginal businesses? I think so, as indicated possibly in the recent business study I referenced, though not specifically addressing fed rates.

With that said, as repeated before, however, the aggregate impact of these discussed taxes and regulations (yes, if they are enacted) will cause American businesses to export jobs to less regulated areas and states and cause additional layoffs.

Unfortunately, as I have also mentioned before, American businesses and government, I don’t think have truly appreciated the monumental shift that globalism has brought about, endangering whole sections of our economy. Intense government regulation and taxes, as proposed by some Democrats, will as a whole increase this decline in our business infrastructure. Accordingly, using California as a leading example, these businesses will downsize, outsource, and move, leading to significantly decreased revenue for government programs.

I think the Democrats are playing with fire. I appreciate their passion to pass these new social programs, but I don’t think they have adequately addressed the tremendous demographic and global economic threats to the American economy. Their first mission should have been job creation, but it is like they assumed it would come simply with a new president and government spending. It hasn’t and I don’t think much has changed, other than additional debt.

Without addressing the job issue, I think the Obama administration may unravel and die on the hill of cap and trade and healthcare reform.

[luchabee]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=EconProf]
The clear message: total government revenues collected go UP in the years following the tax cut as the economy expands and people earn more and pay more in our progressive tax rate structure. [/quote]

I think that message is far from settled. From US Treasury numbers:

You’ll note that in the years immediately following the Kennedy tax cuts, revenue was relatively flat. In the years following the Reagan tax cuts in 81 and 82, revenues declined, and it took almost 6 years for them to return to levels before the cuts. In the years immediately following the Bush I tax increases, revnues increased. And after a small decline during the recession of the early 90’s, after the Clinton tax increase, revenues sharply increased (as the economy grew at historically high rates). After the Bush II tax cuts, revenues initially fell sharply for 4 years(beginning with the recession of the early part of this decade), and have risen since but still not to the level they were in 2000.

As I said, there is no empirical evidence that tax cuts raise revenues. Historically, that has simply not consistently been the case. Other factors, of course, have been present. The economy is cyclical, and marginal tax rates are not the only factor which drives it. But the perfect model has not been created. At best, supply side theory has provem to be an incomplete model. At worst, a total failure.[/quote]

SK: I didn’t want to get into a discussion of the potential association between reducing marginal tax brackets and increased revenue or increasing them and less revenue. From what I have seen, the left has their arguments, the right has its arguments. This issue is far from settled and is highly political, though I think a common sense argument can be made that human nature will lead most to work less where there is less reward. Is this triggered simply with an increase in rates? Perhaps? Does it harm marginal businesses? I think so, as indicated possibly in the recent business study I referenced, though not specifically addressing fed rates.

With that said, as repeated before, however, the aggregate impact of these discussed taxes and regulations (yes, if they are enacted) will cause American businesses to export jobs to less regulated areas and states and cause additional layoffs.

Unfortunately, as I have also mentioned before, American businesses and government, I don’t think have truly appreciated the monumental shift that globalism has brought about, endangering whole sections of our economy. Intense government regulation and taxes, as proposed by some Democrats, will as a whole increase this decline in our business infrastructure. Accordingly, using California as a leading example, these businesses will downsize, outsource, and move, leading to significantly decreased revenue for government programs.

I think the Democrats are playing with fire. I appreciate their passion to pass these new social programs, but I don’t think they have adequately addressed the tremendous demographic and global economic threats to the American economy. Their first mission should have been job creation, but it is like they assumed it would come simply with a new president and government spending. It hasn’t and I don’t think much has changed, other than additional debt.

Without addressing the job issue, I think the Obama administration may unravel and die on the hill of cap and trade and healthcare reform.

[luchabee]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=EconProf]
The clear message: total government revenues collected go UP in the years following the tax cut as the economy expands and people earn more and pay more in our progressive tax rate structure. [/quote]

I think that message is far from settled. From US Treasury numbers:

You’ll note that in the years immediately following the Kennedy tax cuts, revenue was relatively flat. In the years following the Reagan tax cuts in 81 and 82, revenues declined, and it took almost 6 years for them to return to levels before the cuts. In the years immediately following the Bush I tax increases, revnues increased. And after a small decline during the recession of the early 90’s, after the Clinton tax increase, revenues sharply increased (as the economy grew at historically high rates). After the Bush II tax cuts, revenues initially fell sharply for 4 years(beginning with the recession of the early part of this decade), and have risen since but still not to the level they were in 2000.

As I said, there is no empirical evidence that tax cuts raise revenues. Historically, that has simply not consistently been the case. Other factors, of course, have been present. The economy is cyclical, and marginal tax rates are not the only factor which drives it. But the perfect model has not been created. At best, supply side theory has provem to be an incomplete model. At worst, a total failure.[/quote]

SK: I didn’t want to get into a discussion of the potential association between reducing marginal tax brackets and increased revenue or increasing them and less revenue. From what I have seen, the left has their arguments, the right has its arguments. This issue is far from settled and is highly political, though I think a common sense argument can be made that human nature will lead most to work less where there is less reward. Is this triggered simply with an increase in rates? Perhaps? Does it harm marginal businesses? I think so, as indicated possibly in the recent business study I referenced, though not specifically addressing fed rates.

With that said, as repeated before, however, the aggregate impact of these discussed taxes and regulations (yes, if they are enacted) will cause American businesses to export jobs to less regulated areas and states and cause additional layoffs.

Unfortunately, as I have also mentioned before, American businesses and government, I don’t think have truly appreciated the monumental shift that globalism has brought about, endangering whole sections of our economy. Intense government regulation and taxes, as proposed by some Democrats, will as a whole increase this decline in our business infrastructure. Accordingly, using California as a leading example, these businesses will downsize, outsource, and move, leading to significantly decreased revenue for government programs.

I think the Democrats are playing with fire. I appreciate their passion to pass these new social programs, but I don’t think they have adequately addressed the tremendous demographic and global economic threats to the American economy. Their first mission should have been job creation, but it is like they assumed it would come simply with a new president and government spending. It hasn’t and I don’t think much has changed, other than additional debt.

Without addressing the job issue, I think the Obama administration may unravel and die on the hill of cap and trade and healthcare reform.

[luchabee]

SK: There is too much noise and variables in an economy for me to present certain proof that a very small increase in the marginal tax brackets will “damage” the economy. However, absence of proof is not evidence of absence.

I am confident, though, that these increases will destroy some small businesses at the margins, costing jobs. For example, there is this recent business study showing the following (from a tax law professor’s site):

“Consistent with the growing tax burden on small-business owners, as well as the growing body of evidence linking higher tax burden with limited entrepreneurial growth and higher closure rates, this study has found that tax problems constitute an important reason for bankruptcy filings for a sizable number of entrepreneurs. Interestingly, those entrepreneurs that attribute their business collapse to tax problems do not come from disadvantageous background. Instead, the average entrepreneur in the bankruptcy sample that has faulted tax problems for his financial woes was typically older male, white, native-born, well-educated and an experienced business owner. Nonetheless, the typical entrepreneur with tax problem in the bankruptcy sample was facing enormously higher debt burden with more than five times as much debts as other entrepreneurs in the bankruptcy sample.

While this study confirmed the prevalence of tax problems as a cause of business failure, it did not ascertain the exact nature of the tax problems faced by many of these entrepreneurs in bankruptcy. Future research might explore the pervasiveness and the nature of tax debts among bankruptcy petitioners; ascertain the amount of tax debt bankruptcy entrepreneurs typically report at the time of bankruptcy filing; identify the tax burden at the time of bankruptcy filing relative to outstanding debt and income of the petitioners; and determine the characteristics of bankruptcy petitioners that tend to report tax obligations.”

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2009/06/taxes-as-a.html

Perhaps you experienced a survivor bias in your experience, dealing with well capitalized and healthy corps that could afford to higher a business advisor?

So, whether it is real or imagined, it does look like this study does confirm an association with taxes and bankruptcy, at least businesses at the margins that had high levels of debt, leverage, nominal profits, etc. And I know a lot of businesses in that situation. Also, of course, it doesn’t show how much new business is hampered by people who “don’t want to deal with the taxes and regulation,” whether LLC fees, business franchise tax, permits, licenses, required insurance, ordinary income tax, etc.

Besides, my original point, as you may remember, was that a simple-then-and-now-comparison with respect to tax rates is not instructive. We all know the AMT has crept up, as well. Throw in higher state taxes, as in CA, and you have a recipe for disaster with a little cap and trade for flavoring.

[luchabee]

SK: There is too much noise and variables in an economy for me to present certain proof that a very small increase in the marginal tax brackets will “damage” the economy. However, absence of proof is not evidence of absence.

I am confident, though, that these increases will destroy some small businesses at the margins, costing jobs. For example, there is this recent business study showing the following (from a tax law professor’s site):

“Consistent with the growing tax burden on small-business owners, as well as the growing body of evidence linking higher tax burden with limited entrepreneurial growth and higher closure rates, this study has found that tax problems constitute an important reason for bankruptcy filings for a sizable number of entrepreneurs. Interestingly, those entrepreneurs that attribute their business collapse to tax problems do not come from disadvantageous background. Instead, the average entrepreneur in the bankruptcy sample that has faulted tax problems for his financial woes was typically older male, white, native-born, well-educated and an experienced business owner. Nonetheless, the typical entrepreneur with tax problem in the bankruptcy sample was facing enormously higher debt burden with more than five times as much debts as other entrepreneurs in the bankruptcy sample.

While this study confirmed the prevalence of tax problems as a cause of business failure, it did not ascertain the exact nature of the tax problems faced by many of these entrepreneurs in bankruptcy. Future research might explore the pervasiveness and the nature of tax debts among bankruptcy petitioners; ascertain the amount of tax debt bankruptcy entrepreneurs typically report at the time of bankruptcy filing; identify the tax burden at the time of bankruptcy filing relative to outstanding debt and income of the petitioners; and determine the characteristics of bankruptcy petitioners that tend to report tax obligations.”

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2009/06/taxes-as-a.html

Perhaps you experienced a survivor bias in your experience, dealing with well capitalized and healthy corps that could afford to higher a business advisor?

So, whether it is real or imagined, it does look like this study does confirm an association with taxes and bankruptcy, at least businesses at the margins that had high levels of debt, leverage, nominal profits, etc. And I know a lot of businesses in that situation. Also, of course, it doesn’t show how much new business is hampered by people who “don’t want to deal with the taxes and regulation,” whether LLC fees, business franchise tax, permits, licenses, required insurance, ordinary income tax, etc.

Besides, my original point, as you may remember, was that a simple-then-and-now-comparison with respect to tax rates is not instructive. We all know the AMT has crept up, as well. Throw in higher state taxes, as in CA, and you have a recipe for disaster with a little cap and trade for flavoring.

[luchabee]

SK: There is too much noise and variables in an economy for me to present certain proof that a very small increase in the marginal tax brackets will “damage” the economy. However, absence of proof is not evidence of absence.

I am confident, though, that these increases will destroy some small businesses at the margins, costing jobs. For example, there is this recent business study showing the following (from a tax law professor’s site):

“Consistent with the growing tax burden on small-business owners, as well as the growing body of evidence linking higher tax burden with limited entrepreneurial growth and higher closure rates, this study has found that tax problems constitute an important reason for bankruptcy filings for a sizable number of entrepreneurs. Interestingly, those entrepreneurs that attribute their business collapse to tax problems do not come from disadvantageous background. Instead, the average entrepreneur in the bankruptcy sample that has faulted tax problems for his financial woes was typically older male, white, native-born, well-educated and an experienced business owner. Nonetheless, the typical entrepreneur with tax problem in the bankruptcy sample was facing enormously higher debt burden with more than five times as much debts as other entrepreneurs in the bankruptcy sample.

While this study confirmed the prevalence of tax problems as a cause of business failure, it did not ascertain the exact nature of the tax problems faced by many of these entrepreneurs in bankruptcy. Future research might explore the pervasiveness and the nature of tax debts among bankruptcy petitioners; ascertain the amount of tax debt bankruptcy entrepreneurs typically report at the time of bankruptcy filing; identify the tax burden at the time of bankruptcy filing relative to outstanding debt and income of the petitioners; and determine the characteristics of bankruptcy petitioners that tend to report tax obligations.”

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2009/06/taxes-as-a.html

Perhaps you experienced a survivor bias in your experience, dealing with well capitalized and healthy corps that could afford to higher a business advisor?

So, whether it is real or imagined, it does look like this study does confirm an association with taxes and bankruptcy, at least businesses at the margins that had high levels of debt, leverage, nominal profits, etc. And I know a lot of businesses in that situation. Also, of course, it doesn’t show how much new business is hampered by people who “don’t want to deal with the taxes and regulation,” whether LLC fees, business franchise tax, permits, licenses, required insurance, ordinary income tax, etc.

Besides, my original point, as you may remember, was that a simple-then-and-now-comparison with respect to tax rates is not instructive. We all know the AMT has crept up, as well. Throw in higher state taxes, as in CA, and you have a recipe for disaster with a little cap and trade for flavoring.

[luchabee]

SK: There is too much noise and variables in an economy for me to present certain proof that a very small increase in the marginal tax brackets will “damage” the economy. However, absence of proof is not evidence of absence.

I am confident, though, that these increases will destroy some small businesses at the margins, costing jobs. For example, there is this recent business study showing the following (from a tax law professor’s site):

“Consistent with the growing tax burden on small-business owners, as well as the growing body of evidence linking higher tax burden with limited entrepreneurial growth and higher closure rates, this study has found that tax problems constitute an important reason for bankruptcy filings for a sizable number of entrepreneurs. Interestingly, those entrepreneurs that attribute their business collapse to tax problems do not come from disadvantageous background. Instead, the average entrepreneur in the bankruptcy sample that has faulted tax problems for his financial woes was typically older male, white, native-born, well-educated and an experienced business owner. Nonetheless, the typical entrepreneur with tax problem in the bankruptcy sample was facing enormously higher debt burden with more than five times as much debts as other entrepreneurs in the bankruptcy sample.

While this study confirmed the prevalence of tax problems as a cause of business failure, it did not ascertain the exact nature of the tax problems faced by many of these entrepreneurs in bankruptcy. Future research might explore the pervasiveness and the nature of tax debts among bankruptcy petitioners; ascertain the amount of tax debt bankruptcy entrepreneurs typically report at the time of bankruptcy filing; identify the tax burden at the time of bankruptcy filing relative to outstanding debt and income of the petitioners; and determine the characteristics of bankruptcy petitioners that tend to report tax obligations.”

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2009/06/taxes-as-a.html

Perhaps you experienced a survivor bias in your experience, dealing with well capitalized and healthy corps that could afford to higher a business advisor?

So, whether it is real or imagined, it does look like this study does confirm an association with taxes and bankruptcy, at least businesses at the margins that had high levels of debt, leverage, nominal profits, etc. And I know a lot of businesses in that situation. Also, of course, it doesn’t show how much new business is hampered by people who “don’t want to deal with the taxes and regulation,” whether LLC fees, business franchise tax, permits, licenses, required insurance, ordinary income tax, etc.

Besides, my original point, as you may remember, was that a simple-then-and-now-comparison with respect to tax rates is not instructive. We all know the AMT has crept up, as well. Throw in higher state taxes, as in CA, and you have a recipe for disaster with a little cap and trade for flavoring.

[luchabee]

SK: There is too much noise and variables in an economy for me to present certain proof that a very small increase in the marginal tax brackets will “damage” the economy. However, absence of proof is not evidence of absence.

I am confident, though, that these increases will destroy some small businesses at the margins, costing jobs. For example, there is this recent business study showing the following (from a tax law professor’s site):

“Consistent with the growing tax burden on small-business owners, as well as the growing body of evidence linking higher tax burden with limited entrepreneurial growth and higher closure rates, this study has found that tax problems constitute an important reason for bankruptcy filings for a sizable number of entrepreneurs. Interestingly, those entrepreneurs that attribute their business collapse to tax problems do not come from disadvantageous background. Instead, the average entrepreneur in the bankruptcy sample that has faulted tax problems for his financial woes was typically older male, white, native-born, well-educated and an experienced business owner. Nonetheless, the typical entrepreneur with tax problem in the bankruptcy sample was facing enormously higher debt burden with more than five times as much debts as other entrepreneurs in the bankruptcy sample.

While this study confirmed the prevalence of tax problems as a cause of business failure, it did not ascertain the exact nature of the tax problems faced by many of these entrepreneurs in bankruptcy. Future research might explore the pervasiveness and the nature of tax debts among bankruptcy petitioners; ascertain the amount of tax debt bankruptcy entrepreneurs typically report at the time of bankruptcy filing; identify the tax burden at the time of bankruptcy filing relative to outstanding debt and income of the petitioners; and determine the characteristics of bankruptcy petitioners that tend to report tax obligations.”

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2009/06/taxes-as-a.html

Perhaps you experienced a survivor bias in your experience, dealing with well capitalized and healthy corps that could afford to higher a business advisor?

So, whether it is real or imagined, it does look like this study does confirm an association with taxes and bankruptcy, at least businesses at the margins that had high levels of debt, leverage, nominal profits, etc. And I know a lot of businesses in that situation. Also, of course, it doesn’t show how much new business is hampered by people who “don’t want to deal with the taxes and regulation,” whether LLC fees, business franchise tax, permits, licenses, required insurance, ordinary income tax, etc.

Besides, my original point, as you may remember, was that a simple-then-and-now-comparison with respect to tax rates is not instructive. We all know the AMT has crept up, as well. Throw in higher state taxes, as in CA, and you have a recipe for disaster with a little cap and trade for flavoring.

[luchabee]

Entertaining video. It can’t be that bad in Canada . . . is it?

[luchabee]

Entertaining video. It can’t be that bad in Canada . . . is it?

[luchabee]

Entertaining video. It can’t be that bad in Canada . . . is it?

[luchabee]

Entertaining video. It can’t be that bad in Canada . . . is it?

[luchabee]

Entertaining video. It can’t be that bad in Canada . . . is it?

[Author]

Posts