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 (530280)	11/18/2009 1:17:28 PM
From: i-node	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575154

>> No one disputes the end points. It is all the stuff in the middle that is under dispute. You're full of shit. Smith, Friedman, and Keynes never suggested for a moment it was about the "end points" (0% and 100%, which would yield zero taxes). You will remember this much from the Extreme Value Theorem. Nobody, not even nonbelievers, can dispute the mathematics of the end points. The economists I mentioned ALL recognized there is some point -- less than 100%, in which tax revenue declines as a result of incremental bracket rate increases. And the converse. It isn't about the end points. So, there is a range, perhaps of 30 or 40 percentage points, about which people disagree (e.g., 25% to 65%). Everyone who knows anything about the subject agrees that if you raise incremental rates beyond 65% you will start having an adverse effect on collections. And obviously, if you get the rate too low, as well. So, the Left today advocates increasing taxes, but even THEY recognize that if rates get too high you will kill the economy (except for those few, like some of you on this thread, who essentially want a socialist economy). You've long since left any factual basis for your argument behind.