This is the great disconnect. They have not hired more workers and have only increased profits.

Here we go again. The same old song. For the last time hiring did increase once the tax cuts went into effect. Companies not hiring now has zero to do with tax rates and everything to do with the economy.

Here we go again. The same old song. For the last time hiring did increase once the tax cuts went into effect. Companies not hiring now has zero to do with tax rates and everything to do with the economy.

 

Throw in the fear of uncertainity of what Congress may do in the future regarding higher taxes and more regulation on business.

Companies large or small are doing nothing different than what an individual would do in uncertain times. Even if income is the same or might increase, they are holding back in case the future throws them a curve ball.

One of the great debates regarding tax cuts.

 

That is the problem. There shouldn't be a debate when it has worked.

My point on tax cuts is that they are a big part of the reason why the top 1% now take 2.5 times more of the income generated in our economy than they did 30 years ago. They get a lot more of our economy's profit and the other 99% gets much less. I don't think that is good.

That is the problem. There shouldn't be a debate when it has worked.

 

When has it worked, that Laffer curve business is such a joke? There is however mountains of evidence that this theory is complete bull including the current state of the economy, revenues and unemployement.

 

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1692027,00.html

 

If there's one thing that economists agree on, it's that these claims are false. We're not talking just ivory-tower lefties. Virtually every economics Ph.D. who has worked in a prominent role in the Bush Administration acknowledges that the tax cuts enacted during the past six years have not paid for themselves--and were never intended to. Harvard professor Greg Mankiw, chairman of Bush's Council of Economic Advisers from 2003 to 2005, even devotes a section of his best-selling economics textbook to debunking the claim that tax cuts increase revenues.

 

 

 

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1692027,00.html#ixzz1cMZH3Hf1

One of the great debates regarding tax cuts.

 

Tax revenue on incomes does have an Adam Smith like component - i.e. it is driven by a 'market' and saying 'cutting taxes ALWAYS raises revenue' is clearly as wrong as assuming raising rates will 'ALWAYS increase revenue'.

 

We know this because if you keep cutting until the tax rate is 0%, then revenue will be .... 0.

 

Going the other direction. Raise tax rates to 100% and no one will work or do the activity to generate the tax...so at 100% tax rate the revenue would be...0.

 

So somewhere in between is the answer and universal statements on cutting and raising do not apply at all points on the curve.

My point on tax cuts is that they are a big part of the reason why the top 1% now take 2.5 times more of the income generated in our economy than they did 30 years ago. They get a lot more of our economy's profit and the other 99% gets much less. I don't think that is good.

 

"Economy's profit" shows that you believe all money belongs to the government, when the profit belong's to the person or company who produced the product or service.

Only then are person or companies 'profits' are taxed.

 

When it comes to cutting taxes to stimulate the economy to bring in more tax revenues, there are other factors in play beside the tax cut. Government regulation and the fear of more regulation along with any uncertainity of future tax increases, may keep profits from being reinvested. Those who think that government is the answer to our current situation need to look at history, The Depression of the 1930's, Nixon's wage and price controls and Ford's WIN (Whip Inflation Now) were all failures. Tax cuts work, but there are other factors in play that are causing problems.

And how does taking someone else's profits get us out of our current situation? Dollars to stimulate the economy? No, the Depression and current spending that cost taxpayers $100,000's to save or create a job shows that government is not the answer.

When has it worked, that Laffer curve business is such a joke? There is however mountains of evidence that this theory is complete bull including the current state of the economy, revenues and unemployement.

 

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1692027,00.html

 

If there's one thing that economists agree on, it's that these claims are false. We're not talking just ivory-tower lefties. Virtually every economics Ph.D. who has worked in a prominent role in the Bush Administration acknowledges that the tax cuts enacted during the past six years have not paid for themselves--and were never intended to. Harvard professor Greg Mankiw, chairman of Bush's Council of Economic Advisers from 2003 to 2005, even devotes a section of his best-selling economics textbook to debunking the claim that tax cuts increase revenues.

 

 

 

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1692027,00.html#ixzz1cMZH3Hf1

The current state of the economy had zero to do with the tax cuts. In 2003 the majority of the cuts went into effect nad revenue did increase, that is a fact. Now the million dollar question is what would revenue have looked like without the cuts. Going by the trend on the chart not very good.

The current state of the economy had zero to do with the tax cuts. In 2003 the majority of the cuts went into effect nad revenue did increase, that is a fact. Now the million dollar question is what would revenue have looked like without the cuts. Going by the trend on the chart not very good.

 

What I see is that tax revenues rise and fall commensurate with the strength of the economy. Revenues decline in recessions (2001, 2007) and rise when the economy cycles back around (it would be interesting to make one of these charts from the end of WWII to the present and overlay revenue, GDP, unemployment, and the top marginal tax rate). You and marvel say that tax cuts end recessions or otherwise stimulate the economy and thus lead to increased revenue. However, there was a recession in 1991, taxes were raised in 1993, and your chart begins in 1995 showing strong growth in revenue (commensurate with the economy) through 2001. Why do you place all of your emphasis on the 2001 recession and subsequent changes to tax policy and not account for the 1991 recession and subsequent changes to tax policy? It seems one could just as quickly argue the opposite as you have with the same data (for the record, I don't believe tax hikes caused the economy to rise in the 1990s, but I also don't believe the decline in taxes had much to do with the economy of the 2000s either, which is why I raise these questions).

What I see is that tax revenues rise and fall commensurate with the strength of the economy. Revenues decline in recessions (2001, 2007) and rise when the economy cycles back around (it would be interesting to make one of these charts from the end of WWII to the present and overlay revenue, GDP, unemployment, and the top marginal tax rate). You and marvel say that tax cuts end recessions or otherwise stimulate the economy and thus lead to increased revenue. However, there was a recession in 1991, taxes were raised in 1993, and your chart begins in 1995 showing strong growth in revenue (commensurate with the economy) through 2001. Why do you place all of your emphasis on the 2001 recession and subsequent changes to tax policy and not account for the 1991 recession and subsequent changes to tax policy? It seems one could just as quickly argue the opposite as you have with the same data (for the record, I don't believe tax hikes caused the economy to rise in the 1990s, but I also don't believe the decline in taxes had much to do with the economy of the 2000s either, which is why I raise these questions).

To be honest I don't know why I started with 1995. I'm sure there was a reason but I made the chart months ago. I had actually deleted it and had to recover it from my recycle bin when I read 2HC's post. I could probably easily go find that data and create a revised chart.

"Economy's profit" shows that you believe all money belongs to the government, when the profit belong's to the person or company who produced the product or service.

Only then are person or companies 'profits' are taxed.

 

When it comes to cutting taxes to stimulate the economy to bring in more tax revenues, there are other factors in play beside the tax cut. Government regulation and the fear of more regulation along with any uncertainity of future tax increases, may keep profits from being reinvested. Those who think that government is the answer to our current situation need to look at history, The Depression of the 1930's, Nixon's wage and price controls and Ford's WIN (Whip Inflation Now) were all failures. Tax cuts work, but there are other factors in play that are causing problems.

And how does taking someone else's profits get us out of our current situation? Dollars to stimulate the economy? No, the Depression and current spending that cost taxpayers $100,000's to save or create a job shows that government is not the answer.

 

Do me a favor and don't use your right wing labeling on me. Hard right people like you always try to find an easy label to pin on someone so you can put them in your little box and dismiss them. I am not a socialist and I am not liberal and I am not _________ fill in the blank with whatever your simple minded focus wants to put on me. Unfortunately for you, I don't fit any of either side's stereotypical labels.

 

Economy's profit recognizes that the profit generated by the 91% of the employable and working people belongs to all of them. Every one of those people is working their tails off to take care of their families and they deserve their fair share. Our country's infrastructure is falling apart and our government can't hire hard working people to go to work fixing it because your beloved 1% wants it all.

Do me a favor and don't use your right wing labeling on me. Hard right people like you always try to find an easy label to pin on someone so you can put them in your little box and dismiss them. I am not a socialist and I am not liberal and I am not _________ fill in the blank with whatever your simple minded focus wants to put on me. Unfortunately for you, I don't fit any of either side's stereotypical labels.

 

Economy's profit recognizes that the profit generated by the 91% of the employable and working people belongs to all of them. Every one of those people is working their tails off to take care of their families and they deserve their fair share. Our country's infrastructure is falling apart and our government can't hire hard working people to go to work fixing it because your beloved 1% wants it all.

 

Please notice I said you think that you believe the profits are government owned and did not label you anything. I only made statements based on your own words.

Please note that 49% of US citizens do not pay federal taxes. As far as it goes, no matter the economic situation I want less government and lower taxes.

Government at all levels are wasteful and bureuacractic. I do support help for those in need, but not a cradle to grave government.

Unlike you I proudly wear the badge of conservatism. I believe that all individuals have it within theirselves to drag themselves out of any difficult situation, unless you are phyiscally or mentally unable.

Please notice I said you think that you believe the profits are government owned and did not label you anything. I only made statements based on your own words.

 

 

Please note that 49% of US citizens do not pay federal taxes. And they should pay their fair share.

 

As far as it goes, no matter the economic situation I want less government and lower taxes. Agreed, but not to the detriment of a flourishing society.

 

 

 

Government at all levels are wasteful and bureuacractic. I disagree.

 

 

I do support help for those in need, but not a cradle to grave government. Agreed.

 

Unlike you I proudly wear the badge of conservatism.

 

I believe that all individuals have it within theirselves to drag themselves out of any difficult situation, unless you are phyiscally or mentally unable. Agreed.

 

 

See blue above.

See blue above.

 

In regard to the 49%, what would be their fair share in your opinion?

See blue above.

 

It seems that we do have some thoughts in common.

Government may tax profits for legitimate purposes, but money earned first belongs to the earnee. Never the government.