Say Anything Blog

Disputes over where the line is drawn aside, I think the graph itself does indicate the diminishing revenue returns as tax rates increase.

So whine all you want about the line, the economic theory being promoted by the Wall Street Journal is sound.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

The fact that decreasing tax rates increases revenue has been proved over and over again in real life.  This is because each individual taxpayer has more of his or her earnings to spend/invest, which leads to greater revenue to the govt.  A smaller percentage of a larger number is the reason.  Not only that, but the perception of keeping more of one’s money decreases the desire to avoid taxes.  The same is true for businesses, incorporated or not.  We should decrease tax rates until there is a decrease in revenue, then increase them slightly and freeze them at that level.  After all, we aren’t “tax slaves” to the govt, are we?  Don’t they work for us?

Hope and change, in a free world, are the private possessions of motivated individuals.

My only disagreement would be that we should set tax rates at a point where the government gets the amount of revenue it needs, not at a point where it maximizes revenue.

Because I don’t think we should give the government any more money than it actually needs.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Rob: I get your point, but the mistake here is not to realize that the “revenue point” I described accomplishes that by maximizing income.  Now, once that revenue point is reached, at the existing level of govt spending, we can then turn our attention to eliminating needless govt spending, and thus tax rates can be lowered even more, to reach a lower revenue point.  The incentive for govt to lower tax rates is the increased revenue.  We could also vote out the spendthrifts, but the American public can still be bought with false promises, it seems.  The fact that revenues can be increased by lowering tax rates exposes the Dem agenda for what it really is:  power and control.  Even their spending is for that purposes, because it grows govt in both size and power.  They obviously don’t care(since JFK) about the economic health of independent individuals; they want to crush individual liberty, and institute their ideological vision.

Hope and change, in a free world, are the private possessions of motivated individuals.

It does look a bit munged up I suppose. 

But leftie logic being what it is, I’ll repeat the obvious:  There is no government that will survive with a 0% tax rate and no economy that will survive with a 100% tax rate.

Clearly somewhere between 0% and 100% there exists an optimal tax rate.

That’s the logic behind the Laffer Curve, which appears to me to be pretty much unassailable.

"Quick, Pass the Viagra! Hannity’s Overhyped Hit Job on “Sicko” Falls Flat!”

Is this really how the left sees it? Seems to me Sicko is a flop, even among its target audience.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem