tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5724595763985149011.post4140898366520119874..comments2023-04-04T03:36:39.078-05:00Comments on Coach Sal: Taxes, Part 3-The Laffer Curve and GoldilocksCoach Salhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13942541698409058923noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5724595763985149011.post-45435441258406947492008-06-25T12:30:00.000-05:002008-06-25T12:30:00.000-05:00"...to have the government get only what is requir..."...to have the government get only what is required to do the job the government has been assigned by our Constitution..."<BR/><BR/>Unfortunately, this is like asking a fox how many eggs are in your hen house.Goode Designhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12722749588441207715noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5724595763985149011.post-11202799273497587022008-06-25T09:56:00.000-05:002008-06-25T09:56:00.000-05:00You said, "but if we cut taxes to the point that r...You said, "but if we cut taxes to the point that revenue goes DOWN, then we may be making moral or political sense, but we're not making economic sense."<BR/><BR/>I may be reading into (or just plain misreading) what you said, but taking you literally would imply that maximizing tax revenue makes economic sense. I do not agree with this position as a foundational principle at all. What makes the most economic sense to me is to have the government get only what is required to do the job the government has been assigned by our Constitution, and to leave the rest of the country's money in the hands of those who earn/generate it. My personal opinion is that the government has taken on so many roles that do not have any precedence or permission from the founding documents (or any legitimate extension thereof) to the point that there is WAY too much Fabian Socialism in our representative republic for my taste.<BR/><BR/>I am also a big supporter of consumption taxes instead of income taxes. If only...MichaelPoluttahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17323419529329808450noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5724595763985149011.post-63442155465244153802008-06-25T08:35:00.000-05:002008-06-25T08:35:00.000-05:00Yeah, Becky beat me to the punch! I'm actually jus...Yeah, Becky beat me to the punch! I'm actually just catching up! <BR/><BR/>First off, Becky said: <I>"Still, Obama's plan does strike me as a [not well thought out] ploy to get votes."</I> Y'know... it would be great if the general populous could figure this out. However, the Obama cheerleaders aren't thinkers either. <BR/><BR/>I have become an advocate for a Consumption Tax (Federal Sales Tax). Some say that a consumption tax then removes the benefit for Charitable Giving. Well, 2 points on that: 1. I'm sure our government could come up with something. 2. Is that why we give?<BR/><BR/>As for an optimum INCOME tax rate, I think I'm for the lower, the better. If we stick with an income tax model, then the solutions that present themselves:<BR/><B>1. Reduce government spending</B><BR/>Let's cut the fat and pork-barrel policy. Let's start a program where we wean farmers and the ilk from subsidized living. <BR/><B>2. Let's get creative with Gov't Income</B><BR/>The government could lease out public lands (interstate medians & right of ways) for farming & cultivating Cash Crops. <BR/><B>3. Be counter intuitive.</B><BR/>I've found that Giving is a great way to see increase grow. What IFF, and it's a big "if..." What if our nation decided to GIVE 10% of all total revenues to a handful of notable causes. (aids in Africa, feeding the hungry, etc.) What If a nation actually tithed. Okay, I'm even making it less of a Faith giving, and turn the national tithe into a Charitable Gift.<BR/><BR/>As Becky said, taxes are a political football. A ploy to get people to vote. No electable politician wants a Fair tax nor a national sales tax... it wouldn't be good for their image. Obama needs the lower income levels to think it's not FAIR that they're not rich and that it's the government's job to help them get there. The first time one of them sticks their head above the status quo, the taxes on the rich now hit them squarely in the face. <BR/><BR/>I believe it's immoral to tax our incomes. Tax what we spend! That's fine! But don't tax our backs. <BR/><BR/>Larry, is there any way to find out what the government is actually SPENDING our tax dollars on?Goode Designhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12722749588441207715noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5724595763985149011.post-83894731372413708522008-06-24T22:58:00.000-05:002008-06-24T22:58:00.000-05:00Wow. That was a lot to read, especially with all ...Wow. That was a lot to read, especially with all of the links.<BR/><BR/>This issue does seem a little hard to figure out, like looking at an image inside of a prism. You can look at it from many different angles and at each angle it looks different. Still, Obama's plan does strike me as a [not well thought out] ploy to get votes. (Yeah, I know, that comes as a big surprise.) I have some other thoughts (and questions) that I will share with you later, but the bottom line (to me) is that there needs to be incentive for [rich] people to earn MORE money, but also enough "freedom" (less tax oppression) for [poor to middle-class] people to be able to invest what they do have to earn more money. Overly taxing poorer people would just discourage them and make it harder for them to get ahead, and overly taxing richer people would take away their incentive to produce more taxable income, BUT it does make sense that, proportionally, those with more money would get taxed more aggressively than those with less money.<BR/><BR/>Your Laffer Curve makes a lot of sense. However, it focuses on the amount of "revenue" brought in. (According to the chart, taxing less brings in less revenue, and that is assumed to be a problem.) Really, I think the government should focus on better managing the revenues it already gets.<BR/><BR/>I cannot believe that Pete has not already commented.beksterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15724637942561747185noreply@blogger.com