What would you do if your tax rate went up by 5%
- Thread starter degsme
- Start date
Corruptbuddha
Governor
Let's see....lose 5% in income......cut 5% in spending.
Simple.
Simple.
ya-ta-hey
Mayor
Mr. D,
The supply side is the 5% reduction in spending. You are confusing cause and effect. If a supply sider takes a hit his bottom line, rather than working less hard, he would reduce spending to make up for it (in the case of small business, not hire, cut wages, not upgrade infrastructure, etc.), not reduce your wages. In the case of small business, it may mean reducing operations, but only if cost savings cannot be achieved.
ya-ta-hey
Mayor
Mr. D,
And my apologies for the name calling. Being called a liberals is pretty heinous. I'm sorry for the slur.
degsme
Council Member
So you still have not contributed anything meaningful to the discussion. Other than to attack people claiming they don't understand economics or math
Grow the fack up.
degsme
Council Member
Nope - because the government spends it vs. the private sector. This is purely a question of whether or not higher taxes make you work less http://www.google.com/#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=supply+side+higher+taxes+disincentive+to+work&oq=supply+side+higher+taxes+disincentive+to+work&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=3&gs_upl=658l8988l0l9216l47l41l1l4l4l1l164l3090l34.7l46l0&gs_l=hp.3...658l8988l0l9216l47l41l1l4l4l1l164l3090l34j7l46l0.frgbld.&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=ce76e0bba54de561&biw=1600&bih=1094
And we even had a local Chamber of Commerce Chairman claim that during the last election cycle. Sorry, failure to spend the 5% is NOT the supply side claim
C'mon - you can't even stay consistent within the same sentence (cut wages - not reduce your wages). Again. cutting infrastructuer upgrades is a reduction in the expansion of the business. Thus a reduction in productivity. And the data shows this does not happen.
RIIGGGHHHTT.. You reduce operations which means cutting productivity. But just a few posts ago you claimed this was mathematically stupid - because in doing so you not only reduce your income by the wages lost to taxes but by the wages lost to productivity reductions
So instead of working harder - you are saying exactly what I claim Supply Side predicts - that you work less hard. You do NOT seek to offset the lost take-home.
YTH - you cannot sit on both sides of the metaphorical fence. Either the logical response is to INCREASE operations and thus keep revenue steady - or the logical response is to cut back operations.
But it cannot be "BOTH".
degsme
Council Member
Ok... so you don't work harder to offset the loss? You passively sit and reduce your standard of living. OK.
degsme
Council Member
So far Supply Side arguement is headed for the tank.
degsme
Council Member
Not sure I parse this. And no, there were no gains to GDP contribution. There was an 18mo capital reallocation period in which previously marginal LTCG Losses were now wins and hence profit taking took place, but the percent of GDP reinvested as Capital Gains investment DID NOT CHANGE AT ALL.
If you look at it purely from the non-normalized numbers - yes. But then again, that's the only way the Supply Side arguement has any traction. The indepth econometric work all shows that the Tax Cuts REDUCED GDP growth more than it increased it.
Agreed. But that is CONTRARY to what Supply Side econ argues.
If taxes are raised by 5%, the incentive isn't necessarily less, depending upon the total taxes taken away. There is a tipping point in the total percentage taken by the government in taxes where it becomes more feasible for a person to not work and go on the dole than it is to work and give it all away. For some incomes, it may only require 5% more than what they are paying in now to where a person makes more money by not working than by working.
That is what is meant by removing initiative.
That is what is meant by removing initiative.
degsme
Council Member
#1 thank you for the civil and content rich answer
Now as to the "tipping point" to address this please go answer the other poll that addresses this (which can be found HEREhttps://www.politicaljack.com/forums/showthread.php?19412-I-would-reduce-the-amount-I-worked-if-my-taxes-went-up-by ). But Supply Side Economists claim that ADDITIONAL TAX CUTS will result in MORE GROWTH. That means the opposite ALSO is true. And if it is, then a 5% increase in YOUR TAXES will mean that you will work less - at YOUR CURRENT RATE OF TAXATION
Is that true?
(btw the data shows that the "tipping point" is around 90% marginal tax rate, not 35%, not 50%, not even 60%).
I was thinking that the "tipping point" would be near 90%. But for some people it may be less. While it doesn't mean that a person will work less at his or her job, it could mean that the quality of work goes down as the person is working and realizing that they don't want to work really hard and get barely anything back to show for it. So the quality of work reflects what they are able to take home. If I am making 50 cents for doing a job, I may not be willing to put out as much effort for that job as I would if I were making $2 for doing the same job.
Taxation has to be there. But government needs to figure out how much it can tax and still get people to go to work to begin with AND then how much a person must be paid to do an adequate or good job while there.
Taxation has to be there. But government needs to figure out how much it can tax and still get people to go to work to begin with AND then how much a person must be paid to do an adequate or good job while there.
degsme
Council Member
And the research on this is pretty clear -
http://www.nber.org/papers/w4496.pdf?new_window=1
http://www.nber.org/papers/w15012
the plateau in the "Laffer Curve" starts at a marginal tax rate of around 70% - and starts to fall at aroud 90%...
An alternative way of looking at it is when your NET Tax Burden approachs 40% - you start to hit the plateau. Currently the USA is at ONE HALF of that.
degsme
Council Member
Ah yup we will... Except that the data will be complicated by 30% across the board spending cuts.
degsme
Council Member
Well its on the books. That's what the result of the Super Committee's failure is.a 30% cut...that one..i'll put a wager on... against.
So consider 2013
Romney elected witha GOP House.... Are they going to now repeal spending cuts that are in place? How long do you think the GOP Congress would last?
Obama elected with a GOP House.... again is the GOP House going to repeal spending cuts that are in place? How long do you think the GOP Congress would last?
The only way this changes is if Obama is elected with Dem coattails in The House.
degsme
Council Member
ONLY with Dem coattails do we NOT see that level of cuts.
