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: TopCat who wrote (359390)	11/19/2007 4:17:08 PM
From: Taro	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1587368

First of all, let's not ignore the fact we all - at least secretly for the sake of good arguments - prefer forgetting, that changes in taxation rates short term may well have the opposite effect as compared to longer term. That said I believe we all can agree that hiking the tax rate by say 10% today instantly increases the tax revenues a lot, maybe even close to 10%. Equally, if we cut the rates by 10% today, the instant effect no doubt is a decline in tax revenues of anything up to 10%. The more interesting question being, however, how would the tax revenues develop medium and longer term as a result of same hikes or cuts? Also, what kind of latency can we expect from the time of effect of the cut and until detecting the longer term effects caused? Furthermore, will the longer term impact be a smooth non oscillating approach settling towards a new - higher or lower - level of tax "harvest" for the state - or will it be a fuzzy state of matters before reaching a state stability? Anybody familiar with feed back systems and the stability - or lack of such - of those understand the complexity of this matter. In my opinion, however, due to the limited time in office by any elected administration, we never will be in the position of being able to fully observe the longer term impacts of any deep cut or hike in taxation rates. Thus we can happily proceed arguing about those the best we can in accordance with our political convictions. Taro

To: TopCat who wrote (359390)	11/19/2007 4:22:04 PM
From: Alighieri	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1587368

My only point has been that deficits are the result of spending more than revenues not (necessarily) tax rates. Of course, but this is an incomplete and simplistic argument, assuming I understand the language you use. Al

To: TopCat who wrote (359390)	11/19/2007 4:45:12 PM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1587368

"..only that we probably were when Kennedy made the cuts." No, we were probably to the right then. "My only point has been that deficits are the result of spending more than revenues not (necessarily) tax rates." The two are closely related. Why you choose to argue that they aren't seems sort of weird. After all, tax rates are related to revenue. And insufficient revenue with respect to spending leads to deficit. Now, in an ideal world, spending would be cut if the tax rate is cut. But the reality of politicians is unless there is a push from the voters to cut spending, like it was during the early 1990s, it won't happen.