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: combjelly who wrote (353445)	10/3/2007 2:48:56 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1577402

Your attacking someone else's argument, not mine. My point is simple. Federal revenue does not equal economic activity, and increases in federal revenue to not equal economic growth. There is some correlation between the two, but its not strong enough to make one a proxy for the other, esp. when you also have tax rates changing. So your argument that lower revenue (or a long time to get equal revenue) showing poor economic performance is faulty. The "tax cuts pay for themselves" idea, isn't relevant in this context.

To: combjelly who wrote (353445)	10/12/2007 4:59:19 AM
From: Joe NYC	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1577402

cj, Tim, it is the measure that most tax cutters like to use. Remember the claim that tax cuts pay for themselves? The original argument was Arthur Laugher's, and it was regarding tax rates. It said that if taxes are beyond certain point, you can actually collect more revenues at reduced tax rates then at the original, higher tax rates. The truth of the validity of Laugher curve is self evident. What is less self evident is where exactly is that point, at what tax rate do you maximize your revenue? Remember, before Reagan came to office, highest marginal tax rate was 70%. I think it is very likely that 70% is above the point of revenue maximization. But when you get down to 30 to 40% range of late, it is not as clear. As much or more important consideration than the dollar amount of tax revenue raised is the health, size and growth of the economy. Consider a hypothetical example where you have a tax cut of say $10 billion, which results in economy growing by $100 billion, and the increased economic activity brings back $9 billion. Now, it didn't exactly pay for itself, but consider this: It is entirely possible that the $100 billion growth of the economy reduced the need for government assistance by at least a $1 billion. Maybe more. Joe