[SK in CV]

[quote=Hobie][quote=SK in CV] It is no more than a failed theory. [/quote]

Sorry I lost you on the concept. So many in government tend to rule out ideas before they take the time to understand them. It really comes down to politics and power rather than directly solving a problem.

Have a good holiday![/quote]

Of course you lost me on the concept. That’s what idealogues do. Ideas they don’t like, they dismiss as irrelevant. They dismiss actual facts in favor of politics. When Laffer first proposed his theory, I questioned its validity. As a trained economist, that’s the proper thing to do with an unproven, untested theory. I didn’t dismiss it. Reagan’s tax reform included so many other good things, many of which have survived and proven to be good, it was worth a try. It failed. And then failed again.

And good holidays to you.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Hobie][quote=SK in CV] It is no more than a failed theory. [/quote]

Sorry I lost you on the concept. So many in government tend to rule out ideas before they take the time to understand them. It really comes down to politics and power rather than directly solving a problem.

Have a good holiday![/quote]

Of course you lost me on the concept. That’s what idealogues do. Ideas they don’t like, they dismiss as irrelevant. They dismiss actual facts in favor of politics. When Laffer first proposed his theory, I questioned its validity. As a trained economist, that’s the proper thing to do with an unproven, untested theory. I didn’t dismiss it. Reagan’s tax reform included so many other good things, many of which have survived and proven to be good, it was worth a try. It failed. And then failed again.

And good holidays to you.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Hobie][quote=SK in CV] It is no more than a failed theory. [/quote]

Sorry I lost you on the concept. So many in government tend to rule out ideas before they take the time to understand them. It really comes down to politics and power rather than directly solving a problem.

Have a good holiday![/quote]

Of course you lost me on the concept. That’s what idealogues do. Ideas they don’t like, they dismiss as irrelevant. They dismiss actual facts in favor of politics. When Laffer first proposed his theory, I questioned its validity. As a trained economist, that’s the proper thing to do with an unproven, untested theory. I didn’t dismiss it. Reagan’s tax reform included so many other good things, many of which have survived and proven to be good, it was worth a try. It failed. And then failed again.

And good holidays to you.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Hobie][quote=SK in CV] It is no more than a failed theory. [/quote]

Sorry I lost you on the concept. So many in government tend to rule out ideas before they take the time to understand them. It really comes down to politics and power rather than directly solving a problem.

Have a good holiday![/quote]

Of course you lost me on the concept. That’s what idealogues do. Ideas they don’t like, they dismiss as irrelevant. They dismiss actual facts in favor of politics. When Laffer first proposed his theory, I questioned its validity. As a trained economist, that’s the proper thing to do with an unproven, untested theory. I didn’t dismiss it. Reagan’s tax reform included so many other good things, many of which have survived and proven to be good, it was worth a try. It failed. And then failed again.

And good holidays to you.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Hobie]
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.[/quote]

Laffer did do great job of illustrating it. But what he didn’t do, nor did any of the tax policies based on his theory, is prove that his theory has any validity. Pretty pictures don’t validate a theory. His theories have never been supported by any empirical evidence. There is no evidence that the economy reacts as he theorized. It is no more than a failed theory. Glad you like the pretty pictures though. Kinda like air-brushing a photograph of Ernest Borgnine to look like Cindy Crawford. Ernie still isn’t a pretty woman.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Hobie]
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.[/quote]

Laffer did do great job of illustrating it. But what he didn’t do, nor did any of the tax policies based on his theory, is prove that his theory has any validity. Pretty pictures don’t validate a theory. His theories have never been supported by any empirical evidence. There is no evidence that the economy reacts as he theorized. It is no more than a failed theory. Glad you like the pretty pictures though. Kinda like air-brushing a photograph of Ernest Borgnine to look like Cindy Crawford. Ernie still isn’t a pretty woman.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Hobie]
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.[/quote]

Laffer did do great job of illustrating it. But what he didn’t do, nor did any of the tax policies based on his theory, is prove that his theory has any validity. Pretty pictures don’t validate a theory. His theories have never been supported by any empirical evidence. There is no evidence that the economy reacts as he theorized. It is no more than a failed theory. Glad you like the pretty pictures though. Kinda like air-brushing a photograph of Ernest Borgnine to look like Cindy Crawford. Ernie still isn’t a pretty woman.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Hobie]
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.[/quote]

Laffer did do great job of illustrating it. But what he didn’t do, nor did any of the tax policies based on his theory, is prove that his theory has any validity. Pretty pictures don’t validate a theory. His theories have never been supported by any empirical evidence. There is no evidence that the economy reacts as he theorized. It is no more than a failed theory. Glad you like the pretty pictures though. Kinda like air-brushing a photograph of Ernest Borgnine to look like Cindy Crawford. Ernie still isn’t a pretty woman.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Hobie]
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.[/quote]

Laffer did do great job of illustrating it. But what he didn’t do, nor did any of the tax policies based on his theory, is prove that his theory has any validity. Pretty pictures don’t validate a theory. His theories have never been supported by any empirical evidence. There is no evidence that the economy reacts as he theorized. It is no more than a failed theory. Glad you like the pretty pictures though. Kinda like air-brushing a photograph of Ernest Borgnine to look like Cindy Crawford. Ernie still isn’t a pretty woman.

[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.

[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=meadandale][quote=deadzone]Right or wrong I’m all for higher inheritance tax. What did those worthless, spoiled rich kids to do deserve that financial windfall? They didn’t do shit, their parents did, or their grandparents. I say tax the shit out of em. You can call it “double taxation” if you want but all the same, it would rather them pay more than the rest of us.

Anyone who relies on their family for their financial well being is a loser in my book.[/quote]

Envy much?

The irony is that this tax often hits the children of family owned farms…who end up having to sell the family property in order to pay the estate tax. Awesome..more land for the corporations to gobble up. More unintended consequences…[/quote]

Really? Often hits the children of family owned farms? Sad story. At least it would be if it really happened that way. Having done estate planning for many years, it never made sense to me when I first heard the “sad family farm” story. I dug into it a bit a few years ago. Couldn’t find a single credible instance of it actually happening that actually included the facts of the case. Not a one. Not even one where I could pick it apart and explain why it didn’t make any sense. Nothing. Maybe it has happened. But I suspect it has been so incredibly rare over the last 10 years as to be a non-issue.

It is as absurd an argument as that in support of continued tax cuts for the wealthy so that small business doesn’t suffer.

[Author]

Posts