Usa 2011 Economic Collapse

[_w_]

These points don't disprove the laffer curve, they're covered by the theory. If taxes are raised and revenues increase then you move up the curve closer to the the maximum. The same goes for lowering taxation too, it all depends on your starting position.

Nothing can disprove the Laffer curve, just like nothing can disprove that 42 is the meaning of life (the two make just about the same amount of sense to me, sorry for being obnoxious).

Of course, even under communism people still have to work, otherwise they starve. But it just means more resources are devoted to the avoidance of being collared by the state for working 'illegally', it's incredibly ineffiicient. Which is why communist regimes suffer from incredibly low living standards.

Communist regimes don't work because they are centrally planned. Are there even taxes in communist regimes?

This sounds like a punishment for consumers rather than corporations (but then I know you dislike the importation of goods and services, it's damaging for the economy and all that )

Whether goods production is taxed upstream or downstream makes about no difference. It may look unfair but what is more unfair is to encourage corporations to move offshore (with the loss of jobs this entails) because you don't take a pragmatic and reasoned view of taxation.

P.S. I don't mind imports, I mind imbalances.

Perhaps they're of equal importance, roughly speaking.

Before you can pay taxes you need to be able to make money. Not equal IMO.

All taxes on production incur costs, costs that don't outweigh the benefits imo. There's an easy way to test this, simply give people the option of paying tax, so when I purchase a cup of coffee I can opt out of paying VAT for example. If people choose to opt in then the benefits of taxation would clearly be of more importance.

The bit in bold sums up the rest quite well I think. I raises the question "of benefit to who?". Beware of confusing our society for an economy.

But I think there's a reason why citizens aren't given a choice over this matter.

It's called majority rule. Some prefer oligarchies or plutocracies, I guess it's a question of personal taste.

[Authoritarian]

Nothing can disprove the Laffer curve, just like nothing can disprove that 42 is the meaning of life (the two make just about the same amount of sense to me, sorry for being obnoxious).

You appear to have taken the view that Mr Laffer is advocating lower taxation with his curve and find that politically and logically inconvenient. This misses the point a bit, lowering taxation may increase revenues they may not, he's not saying one way of the other. But he does suggest that overtaxation does more harm than good to public revenues, which I happen to agree with.

It's a bit like the housing market. People can tolerate a certain amount of theft (I believe that there's a theft based element in housing) but when they ask to much - they whole thing collapses are they start getting less. The host has been bled dry and cannot continue to provide the parasite with what it needs.

Communist regimes don't work because they are centrally planned. Are there even taxes in communist regimes?

100% taxation, people aren't allowed private property. Your wages are what the gov't decides they are.

Whether goods production is taxed upstream or downstream makes about no difference. It may look unfair but what is more unfair is to encourage corporations to move offshore (with the loss of jobs this entails) because you don't take a pragmatic and reasoned view of taxation.

I agree with the bit in bold, people often argue for taxation on consumption rather than production without realising that they're the same thing.Taxing either production or consumption costs jobs, raises prices, increases dependency and encourages scarcity in the good/service being taxed. I would like the UK to become something of a tax haven, the gov't has no moral right to the wealth that it currently takes.

P.S. I don't mind imports, I mind imbalances.

So you have an objection to savings? (which is another form of trade 'imbalance') Or do you only mind when saving occurs in foreign countries rather than domestically.

It's called majority rule. Some prefer oligarchies or plutocracies, I guess it's a question of personal taste.

Majority rule? I'm not sure about that, Labour won the 2005 election with only 22% of the electorates vote, I doubt whether I'll sea true majority rule in my lifetime the way turnout figues are going.

Not that majority rule allows any action to be legitimate, would it be ok for a mojority of people to decide to take away all the wealth of a minority? I don't think so, but absolute majority rule makes no exceptions for human rights issues, the majority is correct because they're the majority. It's v.dangerous imo.

If it was a question of personal taste then we would also be allowed a 'no' vote, we have 'democracy' forced onto us from above and we're not allowed to opt out.

Edited June 13, 2010 by Chef

[Tiger Woods?]

Nothing can disprove the Laffer curve, just like nothing can disprove that 42 is the meaning of life (the two make just about the same amount of sense to me, sorry for being obnoxious).

The Laffer curve is about as close to a mathematical truth as there can be in economics:

cf. Rolle's theorem: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolle%27s_theorem

The bit that is contentious is where the optimum (or optima) are.

Edited June 13, 2010 by D'oh

[Injin]

Nobody's taxing me by force.

Yes, they are.

Unlike many I'm quite happy to pay tax, I understand the benefits I get in return and I like it that way.

And it really doesn't matter what you think - you will pay or else.

Even when I have to pay taxes in foreign countries I don't mind.

And if the tax rate was 100% so that you got to keep nothing that you produced, you'd still be as happy?

All you have really done with your post is prove the laffer curve is valid because at the current tax rate you'll carry on as normal but if the tax rate is much higher you'll cease to function. That is, it's not worth it for you to evade tax right now, and it's still worth you working. At some point it will be worth avoiding as much tax as possibl or it won't be worth you working.

It's a different rate for everyone - but that rate does end at a zero return to the taxman for everyone at 100% because if you give everything to the state you will die of starvation and dehydration in no time.