Jump to content

Higher taxes or higher tax revenue?


Cut tax rates on the rich?  

26 members have voted

  1. 1. Cut tax rates on the rich?

    • Yes, if it brings in more revenue.
      13
    • Yes, whether it brings in more revenue or not.
      1
    • No, even if it brings in more revenue.
      6
    • No, it can't possibly bring in more revenue.
      6


Recommended Posts

Higher taxation and spending, big government. Can you give any examples of this working

 

Yes between 1997 and 2008. Last labour government.

 

---------- Post added 31-07-2015 at 14:39 ----------

 

Are you even reading the thread? You've been asked several times what you think the effect of a 100% tax rate would be.

 

I really havent thought about it. And neither will any governments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes between 1997 and 2008. Last labour government.

 

Yes, let's exclude the biggest peacetime recession in living memory from 2008-2010. But I digress.

 

Even Labour didn't think it wise to go above 40% income tax in your time frame. Why do you suppose that was?

 

Yes, you guessed it: The 50% rate when they eventually did try it as they were heading for the door brought in less money.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/448057/2014-15_Income_Tax_Receipts_and_Repayments_National_Statistics.pdf

 

Guess what happened when the rate was cut from 50% to 45%. Look an extra £9billion paid in income tax by the rich. Let's build some schools and hospitals shall we?

 

Having come to realise that the Laffer curve is not some right-wing madness, perhaps you'd care to look at the data available as to where the UK peak is for the top rate. I think you could save us all an awful lot of time if you look into this yourself first rather than having us spend hours convincing you of the blindingly obvious again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you accept that there is a tipping point, despite having said that the laffer curve wasn't real.

/QUOTE]

 

Lol. I didnt say it wasnt real. America has adopted it as federal policy. And successive republican parties have filled in the gaps.

You said yourself its complicated. Laffer failed to comprehend supply side for example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I really havent thought about it. And neither will any governments.

 

Wrong again. The '70s Labour government actually did to, or near enough, they put the rate up to 98% and bankrupted the country.

Kind of like the last Labour government but they went about it differently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, let's exclude the biggest peacetime recession in living memory from 2008-2010. But I digress.

 

Even Labour didn't think it wise to go above 40% income tax in your time frame. Why do you suppose that was?

 

Yes, you guessed it: The 50% rate when they eventually did try it as they were heading for the door brought in less money.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/448057/2014-15_Income_Tax_Receipts_and_Repayments_National_Statistics.pdf

 

Guess what happened when the rate was cut from 50% to 45%. Look an extra £9billion paid in income tax by the rich. Let's build some schools and hospitals shall we?

 

Having come to realise that the Laffer curve is not some right-wing madness, perhaps you'd care to look at the data available as to where the UK peak is for the top rate. I think you could save us all an awful lot of time if you look into this yourself first rather than having us spend hours convincing you of the blindingly obvious again.

 

It is a right wing ideological fallacy. Maybe you should look into that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Laffer failed to comprehend supply side for example.

 

The supply side of a conceptual description of why increasing a tax rate above a certain level actually reduces tax revenue... The supply would be the people earning money and in that tax bracket, and the entire problem is that people aren't stupid enough to continue to do more work or make more money when they gain little benefit from it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is a right wing ideological fallacy. Maybe you should look into that.

 

Oh hell not again.

You've just conceded that there is a revenue maximising rate below 100%. That's all the Laffer curve is. A statement of that fact and the shape of the revenue curve produced as a result of that fact.

If it's true how can it be an idealogical fallacy? It can't be both.

 

I've now provided you with a factual, evidential basis for my assertion throughout this thread that the Laffer curve peak (the revenue maximising rate) is below 45%.

What do you have to offer to counter that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What did you mean then here?

 

Ive read a hell of a lot of economists work and to find two who agree enturely is unusual.

Because logic dictates one thing. But i believe another. Put it this way, if a far left wing party came to power and produced a contradictory theory which was adopted. Would you automatically believe that was right?

 

Isnt it better to look at application as a whole?

For instance who knows 50% tax rate wouldnt work in this moment in time. Denmark seem to do ok.

 

---------- Post added 31-07-2015 at 14:55 ----------

 

You can't make up your mind. One minute you "didn't say it wasn't real". The next it's a fallacy.

 

Youre not reading my posts properly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.