Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (287552)	5/10/2006 6:10:54 PM
From: TigerPaw	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1571708

You're debating where the apex of the Laffer Curve is, not the validity of it. No, the Laffer Curve is backwards. It is certainly possible to set taxes such that the taxpayers don't have the resources to survive (and assuming that the tax isn't used for a program that aliviates the problem). The Laffer curve is just plain wrong when taxes are not at such a level. It's especially wrong if the taxes are put back into the economy at some level providing stimulation which is usually more efficient than just putting more money back at those who need it least. TP

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (287552)	5/10/2006 6:47:58 PM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1571708

re: If only raising the rates on the top tax brackets made the truly rich pay more ... That's pretty cynical. You don't think we can write tax law that enforces the top brackets? On the other hand, cutting rates on investment income, as the congress is in the process of doing at the moment, certainly does little for anyone but the very wealthy. It's not much of a benefit for the working poor, is it? Not that you care. I wonder what a back test of a balanced budget would show with regard to the economic performance. I suspect it show better results than the laughter curve. Voodoo tmGeorge Bush.