Jul 25th 2011, 4:02:59
I stated either here or in another thread...
They will end, whether controlled or not, they will end. Take a look at Greece, how's that working out for them? The money, no matter the tax rate, will never be enough to pay for the social programs we have, so they will end. It's only of matter of how and when.
No good examples? The problem when you put something in those terms is that no example will ever suffice. Would it suffice to say that America had the lowest taxes the entire 19th century and became the worlds largest producer? You'd say no. Would it suffice to say that tax rates were dropped by half and we had the roaring 20's? No, you'd say not. Would it suffice to say that Reagan's tax cuts in the 80's spurred us out of stagnation? No, you'd say no again. How about whether the Bush tax cuts somehow kept us out of a recession despite 9/11 and the crash of the stock market straight after? Again you'd say no.
There is no example that will suffice for you and thus I have no reason to try. I only have logic. No matter what tax rate there is, if I can find a better way to make money, I will do it another way. Right now businesses are leaving America for many reasons, among them regulations and taxes. For example, what tax rate did Google pay this past year? Or GE? Or what about Exxon? Chevron? Paypal? It just doesn't work to tax wealth, it will leave.
Just ask the co-founder of Home Depot about our regulations and you can see how it also stops others from starting.
http://pajamasmedia.com/...are-choking-the-recovery/
Business owners know whats going on, just like Steve Wynn from my other link. They want to get out as quick as they can to avoid any possible regulations that will end their businesses. You can try as you might, but the wealth will leave rather than fill your coffers when you punish them with class warfare taxes.
And one last approach...
Increasing the wealth <i>enough</i>. By that quote you admit it lowers the total wealth to pay for these social programs. Was that intentional logic, or accidental?
They will end, whether controlled or not, they will end. Take a look at Greece, how's that working out for them? The money, no matter the tax rate, will never be enough to pay for the social programs we have, so they will end. It's only of matter of how and when.
No good examples? The problem when you put something in those terms is that no example will ever suffice. Would it suffice to say that America had the lowest taxes the entire 19th century and became the worlds largest producer? You'd say no. Would it suffice to say that tax rates were dropped by half and we had the roaring 20's? No, you'd say not. Would it suffice to say that Reagan's tax cuts in the 80's spurred us out of stagnation? No, you'd say no again. How about whether the Bush tax cuts somehow kept us out of a recession despite 9/11 and the crash of the stock market straight after? Again you'd say no.
There is no example that will suffice for you and thus I have no reason to try. I only have logic. No matter what tax rate there is, if I can find a better way to make money, I will do it another way. Right now businesses are leaving America for many reasons, among them regulations and taxes. For example, what tax rate did Google pay this past year? Or GE? Or what about Exxon? Chevron? Paypal? It just doesn't work to tax wealth, it will leave.
Just ask the co-founder of Home Depot about our regulations and you can see how it also stops others from starting.
http://pajamasmedia.com/...are-choking-the-recovery/
Business owners know whats going on, just like Steve Wynn from my other link. They want to get out as quick as they can to avoid any possible regulations that will end their businesses. You can try as you might, but the wealth will leave rather than fill your coffers when you punish them with class warfare taxes.
And one last approach...
Originally posted by qzjul:
there's no good examples of tax cuts increasing wealth in the taxrate < 30% enough to offset the tax cuts
Increasing the wealth <i>enough</i>. By that quote you admit it lowers the total wealth to pay for these social programs. Was that intentional logic, or accidental?