| TheRealMafoo said:
Again, this is all great, but where does it discredit what I have said? All you have said is I did not show due diligence in my assertions, thus they are wrong. prove to me they are wrong. Have we not collected more taxes in the years we lower taxes then in the years we have raised them? If you think not, show me. What's in red, is what I said at the start of this thread. Our issue is spending. Can you show me where Obama plans to spend less? |
So you can make a ridiculous claim, I can show you why your claim is ridiculous, and you claim that until I enact a complete analysis on your lack of any logic whatsoever that I have yet to prove you wrong? I hope you never go to law school, because you will fail, miserably.
Obama is going to raise taxes on the rich, thus allowing him to spend more. His tax cuts for the middle class are also lower than McCain's. And yes, raising taxes on the rich (top 1%) will raise revenue. Their Laffer Curve midpoint is much higher than lower economic brackets because they have more overall income.
And if you think the rich will stop trying to make money just because their taxes are slightly higher you are sadly mistaken. Many of those taxes are computed after their personal income taxes as well, so it wouldn't even be a tax they could immediately foresee, which would make it even less likely that they would modify their behavior to account for that tax.
You have yet to explain why higher taxes discourage someone from working more? Obviously excessively high taxes (such as 70%) may do so, but why would someone in being taxed 35% have less incentive to make money than someone being taxed 40%. The Laffer Curve itself is hopelessly flawed because it assumes that people actually stop wanting money more if they are taxed higher. People always want money, no matter how high they are being taxed, its human nature. The Laffer Curve has some rationale behind it, but it oversimplifies the situation way too much.
You are making the claim, so the burden of proof is on you to show why the Laffer Curve is even accurate (and oddly enough, I was the one who had to fill in your sloppy analysis by bringing up the idea of the Laffer Curve in the first place...)
We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls. The only thing that really worried me was the ether. There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke
It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...." Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson
