Obviously I disagree. If you tax me one dollar today and give me two dollars tomorrow, why should that be counted? And additionally, I think, maybe, income from different sources need to be looked at differently. I think the statistics bear out the fact that when investment income is taxed at a higher rate, less money comes into the government. Obama has already said in answer to a question that even if raising the tax on investment income would lower revenues that he would still do it. Makes sense, not to me, but to some people. Lets do the things that give us less money.

So should different types of income be taxed differently? Probably. If investment income tax rates are raised, and lead to less investment, leading to less job growth, then the answer is 'yes' they should be taxed at a lower rate. The money that was originally invested in say stocks or your home was already taxed there is a possible rationale for taxing it differently the second time around.

Again, I do find things to agree about. The tax code is a mess and many of the corporate deductions need to be eliminated. But what you are confused about is the simple fact that it is the government that causes all of these problems. Less government = more freedon = more prosperity.

And why is it that Texas needs to lay off teachers? Not sure about the answer. But may have something to do with public sector union work rules. Even one of your (assumed) heroes FDR was dead set against public sector unions which in one of your earlier posts (I think) eluded to their being maybe THE major facto rin local and state government fiscal problems.

As for the American public liking or not liking simething, please give me a break. The American public, in general, are idiots.

rush

I think the statistics bear out the fact that when investment income is taxed at a higher rate, less money comes into the government

.

Why do you think this? And a higher rate than What?

First question, the Laffer curve.

Second question, higher than previous.

I think your understanding of the Laffer Curve is lacking somewhat. If it always implied lower rates would bring in more revenue, it would have a different shape.

Key to understanding Laffer is to work out where you are now.

My understanding, I don't think, is lacking. But agreed, there comes a point on the curve when increasing taxes brings in less revenue. So it is all relative (depending on where you currently are on the curve). I think a liberal would find the shape of the curve bulging more to the top of the y axis and a conservative would find the bulge towards the lower end of the y axis.

been a long time since high school. maybe x axis. but depends on which axis revenue or tax rate are positioned.

My point is, rather than calling interpretations of the curve 'liberal' or whatever, is there any objective view as to the shape of it?

Or is your invokation of Laffer just a way of trying to put a scientific gloss over a personal belief?

and again. Laffer curve being a fairly simplistic answer. but it seems intuitively obvious that it, in general, it is fairly correct. at 0% tax rate there is no revenue. as the rate increases to 100%, while maybe $0 revenue is not an absolute, there will definately be a disincetive to create more individual income. why work if every dollar I earn will be confiscated.

but liberal vs conservative I think is valid. generally conservatives favor a lower tax rate and less government so that placing the high-point of the curve at the lower tax end of the graph seems appropriate. conversely, liberals generally favor a larger government which requires more revenue via taxation and therefore would most likely presume that higher revenues would be attained at the higher tax end of the graph

Yes, but if we are close to a peak (Laffer may have more than one 'bulge' for a particular situation), which side of it you are (and which side of it your proposed changes put you) can vary.

also, if tax rates have been going down over the past 10 years, are we likely to be entering a situation of diminishing returns, and a possibility that we already went over the/a peak?

When people just answer questions like that with 'Laffer Curve', all I can say is...

BUELLLLEERRRRRRR?

Laffer curve was a simplistic answer to a less than simplistic question. but again, I agree that it is relative. And yes there can be more than one 'bulge'. my main point all along has been that governments are very poor guardians of a nations wealth. individuals can take better care of their money than a bureaucrat. the only way to have less government is to give them less money. the only way to give them less money is to have lower taxes. or less taxpayers. increasing taxes will do nothing to eliminate the budget deficit. it will just give the politicians(of both parties) more to spend. Obama is on record as saying he doesn't really care about the revenue aspect of the tax rate only the 'fairness'.

As for BUELLLLEERRRRRRR, it would take a much larger discussion to accurately answer the question. And I, and no one that I know of, can definatively prove one way or the other at which point on the laffer curve we are currently at. at best, it can be done as a historical exercise. there is no way to exactly determine what effect a change in tax rates will have. even if everything else in the equation stayed the same which is impossible.

But again, less government is preferable. Therefore, the only solution I see to that is less taxes. If you can present a better way I would be glad to hear it. Or possibly you think that government is the answer.

The Laffer Curve is an example of a conservative/liberal mind at work. Depending on how one approaches the issue. As you say Rush

Laffer curve being a fairly simplistic answer

is exactly the approach of a conservative mind (according to Mooney's latest book) Its simple. Aliberal will look at thuis and come up with thousands of issues that indicate the intuition may be misplaced..because there are complexities the conservtive hasn't considered. (And doesn't want to have to consider them.)
even just by looking at Wikipedia

Laffer assumes that the government would collect no income tax at a 100% tax rate because there would be no incentive to earn income. Research has shown that it is possible for a Laffer curve to continuously slope upwards all the way to 100%.[10] Additionally, the Laffer curve depends on the assumption that tax revenue is used to provide a public good that is separable in utility and separate from labor supply, which may not be true in practice.[11] The Laffer curve is also too simplistic in that it assumes a single tax rate and a single labor supply. Actual systems of public finance are more complex. There is serious doubt about the relevance of considering a single marginal tax rate.[3] In addition, revenue may well be a multivalued function of tax rate - for instance, an increase in tax rate to a certain percentage may not result in the same revenue as a decrease in tax rate, even if the final tax rate in both situations is the same.

Reagans tax decreases on the wealthy that were justified with Laffer began a string of budget deficits and increasing government debt. If Laffer had been right, that never would have happened. After his initial cuts, reagan raised taxes 11 times, without affecting the economy , and still couldn't balance the budget or atack the debt. He was still on the downside of the curve....
Bushes tax cuts were based on the same Laffer theory but they never paid for themselves either.
There are all kinds of calculations as to exactly how Laffer is shaped and where that sweet spot is.... Historically tax rates in the US have never been lower.... The Stimulus was a third tax cuts... And yet the promised effects of Laffer haven't arrived...

If you want simple solutions Rush. Try simply trying to balance the budget...
Romney actually has a good idea. He says that when he thinks of govenrment expenditures he tries to think about whether it is worth borrowing money from China in order to pay for this ? I agree, as long as he includes whether or not he should borrow from China in order to finance a tax cut for a wealthy man or a subsidy for an established and thriving corporation.
It always comes down to priorities...

rushtomyleft wrote:But again, less government is preferable. Therefore, the only solution I see to that is less taxes. If you can present a better way I would be glad to hear it. Or possibly you think that government is the answer.

I just think that dogma is not the answer.

dogma being?

rushtomyleft wrote:dogma being?

A word that anyone who wants to call the majority of americans idiots can easily look up in a dictionary, although I'm surprised such a wise old bird as yourself need ask.