Відео

kennedy also screamed his lungs out to lower taxes, and the economy saw a boom when he did, Reagan ended the stagflation of the 70's, and the economy boomed, unemployment and inflation went down. he did not balance a budget because he got into an arms race to topple the soviets.

I got to watch that in person my sis was in it

Considering you both said something completely different in regards to government revenues and the reagan tax cuts. Source it plz so we can all know where you guys are gettin the information. "deficits went up as well because the Democrat controlled congress would not control spending." Interesting, i knew there was a reason given by supporters of trickle down for his huge debt and ultimately decrease in unemployement. Now i know.

Awesome! The audio is too quiet -- may need to boost it.

"non-partisan"

That was a great simple explanation!

yeeeah lets make up some statistics!

This is nonsensical. The "socialist" government of Norway actually introduced a tax system that means you can literally tax a company 100% (of course no one does that) without that affecting the company at all. Profit tax. Since the profit is tax,all that is taxed is what would otherwise go to stockholders.

@lurchutube You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts. There is nothing inaccurate or misleading in the video. Government revenues did indeed increase after the Reagan tax cuts, deficits went up as well because the Democrat controlled congress would not control spending. Bush spend way too much. How's Obama doing at controlling spending? Democrats are willing to shut the government down to keep spending up.

Unfortunately they had to lie at the end in order to try to make supply-side look legitimate. In fact, govt revenues went down so much after Reagan's 1982 tax cuts that even after explosive spending growth, he still had to raise taxes at highest levels in history to make up for lost govt revenue. Bush just spent like a drunk sailor and still created double the debt of Reagan. SS economics requires you pretend deficits and unemployment don't count under SS'ers.

It is true that Supply-side economics creates jobs, but the only flaw about that job creation is that those jobs are in other countries like India and China.

Idea of this is fairly good. The curve could be shifted by elasticity. There got be a fair way to tax the rich and peak revenue is the way to do it. Ever since Reagan America has face competition by third world counties would just want a job and care less about the rich. All they want is job and they are will to work lot less and lot harder. Americans getting poor because we let our post ww2 success go to our heads.

I totally agree, right up to the last mistake. We know for a fact that the maximum efficiency of that curve remains to the right of where it currently is. Study after study shows it. As well, laffer's curve has been proven flawed. Only 18% of the top 1% work at all, end European economies are better than ours right now. It has been suggested by numerous studies that the level of taxes under Clinton was as close to perfect as possible.

@bryce2197 I tried it off the 2010 budget. And that 30% income tax, 25% social and corp tax is in addition to the current taxes, which I agree, law of diminishing returns would probably take effect here in a big way. We're really screwed, we have roads and bridges that need repair, an education system that needs reform, not necessarily more money to education, but higher knowledge progression, no reason 10th graders shouldn't all know calc. etc. We in for some interesting times ahead.

@jmitterii2 And I agree, raising taxes right now wouldn't be very smart either on the growth side of things. I've actually tried balancing a particular years federal budget and its really messy. I've cut lots of items that wouldn't effect business like small buisness admin. Tried leaving all entitlement progams with no cuts therefore had to raise taxes 30% individual income tax, 25% social security and corporate taxes. Still budget deficits of 72.48 Billion :(

@bryce2197 Many programs across the board would need to be cut. But looking at the budget, some of big ones are DOD. One thing I noticed, is that Marines are used quite a bit, you can cut DOD spending and not effect marine budget. I saw there's a way to cut DOD by 50%, but it would be political suicide. But so is cutting entitlements at too much, especially since that's actually 40% of tax revenue. I agree with most part but not in education that would be really bad, esp w/ higher ed.

@bryce2197 The gripe about entitlement spending is frustrating, yes it must be reformed, but the government wouldn't have 40% of its tax revenue without it. Of which it has been spending into as if its another income tax. We really need to cut DOD spending by 50% and raise age of Social security benefits for 40 or younger, and a complete tax expenditures reform on many items.

@bryce2197 No i think the laffer curve is laughing at you because it has yet to be peer reviewed and if you were to actually use it, the best tax rate to set is 50%. Second, wages you speak of sound like nominal, not adjusted to inflation. Check out real wages chart one exists from US Bureau of Labor Statistics-- from 1980 weekly wages were $281.27 in 2004 $277.57. It never did get above 281.27 in the past 30 years. And no law of diminishing returns isn't stupid, you are.

@Newenlightenmentnow or the man that made the laughed at economics with his Laffing curve! Unfortunately, his influence on economic policy over the 30 years has made the working class do anything but laugh.

@Newenlightenmentnow GOOD JOB! Economic teachers need to let their students know when they are discussing normative and positive economics. We all have biases. But the truth does not. By the way, I still have yet to find very many economics or business majors who weren't republican. Maybe why we keep getting further into economic trouble. I'm hoping this next generation will use truth to help us get out of the 30 year screw up.

After WWII, the biggest economic boom in history, the top tax rate was 90%. When does all this 'supply' from the tax breaks for the super rich corporate elite start to 'trickle down'?

Governments all throughout history have staged wars/genocide because they are controlled by the global elites throughout the centuries. This is why federal government and agencies should be removed altogether.

higher taxes for everyone especially at the top

The supply side argument is weak! Taxes are paid on Taxable Income net of deductions and credits. Rates are incremental so 95% of the people will never hit the top rate. Technically, tax rates can go up 3% and the individual can still pay less in taxes that year. The tax debate is not about paying 100% taxes vs current rate. It's about letting the Bush tax cuts expire and taking the rates up to 10 years ago when Government had a Budget surplus.

Supply-side Economics is easy to understand: it doesn't work.

A good explanation of the curve however neither the Reagan nor Bush tax cuts resulted in an increase in revenue. Even factoring in lag time.

@HoGraz Of course the elimination of the minimum wage would reduce the median income. You'd suddenly have a bunch of new people entering the workforce at the bottom end of the wage scale. Naturally that would decrease the median wage. It's simple mathematics. By the same token you could reduce the median wage by imposing a "maximum wage", thus eliminating top income earners from your sample.

@Piglatinsuperstar That is the revenue-maximizing point for government but not necessarily the "best" point on the Laffer Curve from a societal standpoint. For example, should the tax rates on cigarettes be set at the revenue-maximizing point? Anti-tobacco advocates would likely prefer rates set significantly higher than that since the goal of tobacco taxes in their minds is to reduce tobacco use, not raise revenue. Similarly, should the goal of income tax be to maximize government revenue?

@cnimsz Actually it's based on the fact as as your tax burden rises the "return" on efforts to reduce that burden become larger. If your tax burden is 90% it becomes profitable to devote time and effort towards reducing that burden, if it's 10% then your time and effort are more profitably spent elsewhere. The tax rate is only one factor that determines how much time and effort you divert away from genuinely productive activities to mitigating your tax burden but it IS a factor.

get it jameson!

@TheRockeieio I don't agree that "the fundamental problem with Communism is that it is based on theft". Ant & bee colonies function well because every member does his part for the common good. Some members, depending on their function, work harder than others. Those systems can't be said to be based on theft. The fundamental problem with Communism is that we're not ants or bees.

@eatitl8r One has to explain supply side economics in simple terms so that even liberals can understand it. If you need proof, just read through all the comments here. That should be convincing. Apparently many would continue to work even after tax rates go to 100%. It's an IQ test and many fail it miserably.

@TroyOi Sure, there are a lot of variables in any economic model. Most based on human behavior. The Pilgrims attempted Socialism when they first arrived in the New World. They nearly starved. They experienced plenty only when each person had to depend upon themselves for their support. The fundamental problem with communism is it is based on theft. Funny thing with democracy; the only people that run for office are those who want power and they are the last people that can be trusted with it

The Laffer curve was used as a very simplistic way of justifying tax cuts with regard to "supply-side" (voodoo) economics. One must realize that economics requires a bit more thought than merely deciding which side of a line we're on. Economics is, after all, a social science that deals with the production, distribution and consumption of goods and services. It involves markets, moods and behaviors. Beware when someone tries to explain something so complex in such a simple way.

@TheRockeieio It's a bit more complex than that. After all, the gov't giveth as well as taketh away. If the tax rate were set to 100% what you'd have is total dependence on gov't to provide all the services and material needs you require. I guess that would be Communism, in its ultimate form. Motivation to work would have to come from an abandonment of personal aspirations, and a dedication to "comradery". That's the core problem with Communism: a refusal to acknowledge true human nature.

@forsubmoves it looks like the best spot on the laffer curve is about 42-43% tax rate. the commentator isnt honest enough to mention it tho. this is propaganda that the govt is after everyone's money

@dukee155 because unlike today, everyone paid that tax. Rich couldn't transfer it into another frame of income that is taxed at a lower rate like today. This graph is false because the rich isn't equally taxed as we are but this graph represents that we are all are.

@TheRockeieio My 2nd main point is that, all wealth passes through the government at some-point. Meaning that over the course of 4-5 year, %100 of wealth will be taxed! This is possible because, government money is recycled back to the very people from which it was taxed. Government taxation acts as the heart of the economy. The richest are the largest siphoners of wealth and they aren't investing it back into the economy fast enough. This is what's choking the economy ◄♦ Continued ♦►

@TheRockeieio Ouch... An Ad-hominem attack! Sorry for not being a spell-Nazi. You know, ownership over wealth isn't the only motivator. And it wouldn't matter if it was, because that wasn't my main point. My main point was that the “Laffer curve” is a poor and dishonest way of looking at the economy. The Laffer Curve would have you believe (among other things) that government is the largest siphoner of wealth. Its not. Bank fraud, medical expenses, and insurances are #1 ◄♦ Continued ♦►

@MentalAtheist It is spelled "false". So I presume that you would work for nothing. Your IQ is commensurate with what is expected of liberals. No free man would work for nothing with an IQ above 70. When you can cobble together a cogent argument, come on back and we can have an intelligent discussion.

@MentalAtheist Ooops "Maybe you wouldn't work with a $100" thats should be %100 tax rate ^_^

@PacificBallroomDance Your point that no one would work if taxes were 100% is out right faults. In many cultures and religions owning wealth was a bad thing. People would be given a “Guardianship” position rather then an “Ownership” position when it came to having wealth. Lords and King have set up such systems that have lasted hundreds of years! Maybe you wouldn't work with a $100 tax rate but I wouldn't be so arrogant as to declare that no one would. ◄♦ Continued ♦►

@PacificBallroomDance "Wealth is not fixed. Money is just a tool to facilitate trade" When I say wealth is fixed, I'm only referring to a single moment in time. I said there is only so much wealth "AT ANY GIVEN TIME" In a single moment you can't say truthfully that you only have $100 and $1100. It's only one, the other or Nether. For this reason 2 of your 3 comments are misguided. I never said wealth couldn't grow. ◄♦ Continued ♦►

@bauler The problem with the Laffer Curve is that it would have you believe that government is the largest siphoner of wealth. Its not. Bank fraud, medical expenses, and insurances are #1. Government money is recycled back to the very people from which it was taxed. The top 2% of America are the largest siphoners of wealth and aren't investing it back. People are having trouble making ends meet because of a lack of wealth in the system. But thats not the governments fault, it the top 2%.

This Video is a joke... But to understand why you need to know that there is a fix amount of wealth in the world at any given time. Meaning that if the government needs 3-trillion dollors, there is a fix number that will need to be taxed. The idea that wildly differing percentages can be taxed "15%-65%" to get the same number of 3-trillion is the most idiotic idea I've ever heard. Low taxes makes more money for the government!? You know a Conservative is lying when they try using math.

no matter what there need to be a flat tax, those men at the top dont spend that money they arent getting taxed. billions of american dollars are just SITTING in accounts in other countries. but u will never REALLY hear about it, nor will u ever admit to the possibility, because "CEOs are honest ppl". they are greedy. these men have planes they can ship CASH to switzerland and the us econ. will never see that money. ur response "thats a theory, no facts" but come on, i would, wouldnt u?

@Rockeieio This theory is based on an the unprovable assumption of a direct correlation between tax rate and motivation to earn income. While the extremes of the curve are true (the 0 and 100) the rest of the curve is unprovable without ignoring all other economic variables of a prospective time period. This eliminates any reasonable comparison to be made and is also the reason why this theory is difficult to base a functional economic plan on. You yourself use this argument for the 1950s.

Using the Laffer Curve to argue for tax cuts makes me Laff (sorry, had to do that). Even the guy who thought it (he wrote it on a napkin) didn't take it seriously. It was an overly simplistic method of expressing an idea to people who didn't understand economics. But those (idiotic) people took it seriously and ran with it, despite no evidence to it having a real-world model. And the people who continue to shill it ignore all the actual evidence that says it doesn't work like that.

@dukee155 Quite simple. This was the post war boom period. The troops had come home and were setting up housekeeping. We were also rebuilding Europe and Japan. These were major projects. The rest of the world's industrial complex was destroyed in the war. We had a near monopoly on all things manufactured. We also fed the world. The tax rate at the time was 90%, not 45%. The real question is "Why did the economy boom when JFK cut taxes from 90% to 71%?

@forsubmoves If the tax rate were set to100% you would get nothing. Any reasonable person would stop working, so the government would get nothing. It is self evident that with a tax rate of 0% the government would also get nothing. I pay taxes and so do millions of others so the government does get something in between. The fact that you do not believe in supply side economics indicates that you would continue to work for nothing. Like I said, "Room Temp. IQ"