In response to:

Merry Christmas, Comrades

Donjindra Wrote: Dec 27, 2012 11:54 AM
"Let all the taxes rise. Over the complete spectrum." Exactly right. If we as a country spend too much, we as a country need to tax ourselves too much. It's the only way to show both the left and right, rich and poor, that there are no free rides. When it affects everyone in the pocketbook, everyone will be more interested in reducing the size of government. Neither debt nor Laffer's fairy tales will never do that.
Donjindra Wrote: Dec 28, 2012 12:23 PM
" In order to be verifiable all that is necessary is that the point be empirically surpassed, which has happened on more than one occasion. "

Name one. Tell me why that point is not 50% or 39% or 33% or 10%. I'd like to know what methodology you plan on using to prove this assertion. Let's assume I'm paid 50k per year and not taxed at all. Then I'm offered a job at 100k but taxed at 50% but get governmental health care. Do I work any harder? Any less? I say, all of these numbers and calculations are bogus when considered in isolation.
FletchforFreedom Wrote: Dec 27, 2012 11:44 PM
Exactly wrong. In order to be verifiable all that is necessary is that the point be empirically surpassed, which has happened on more than one occasion. That the point is not static makes it impossible to set a specific point - that does NOT make its existence unverifiable, That sea level is in constant flux does not mean that there IS no sea level. It is not subject to debate for the same reason the existence of gravity is not subject to debate - not because it is dogma but because it has been so empirically demonstrated that to aregue that there is no historical evidence is to demonstrate stupidity.
Donjindra Wrote: Dec 27, 2012 8:28 PM
"It actually precedes Laffer by a couple of thousand years because it is a fundamental concept not subject to debate."

That's the definition of dogma. You're simply wrong. There's no historical evidence.
Donjindra Wrote: Dec 27, 2012 8:26 PM
"It is not necessary to define any point of diminishing return because that point is different for everyone and every situation."

Exactly. It's unverifiable. There are two many variables involved. And historically it has no empirical support.
FletchforFreedom Wrote: Dec 27, 2012 3:30 PM
Don, thanks for demonsstrating your economic ignorance (yet again). In actual fact, there is PLENTY of empirical evidence for the Laffer Curve. It actually precedes Laffer by a couple of thousand years because it is a fundamental concept not subject to debate. That a specific point is uncefined because it is not fixed is certainly the case, but that does not make it "wishfil thinking" (as opposed to government spending improving the economy which IS wishful thinking completely contrary to all empirical evidence).
Stuart95 Wrote: Dec 27, 2012 2:47 PM
It is not necessary to define any point of diminishing return because that point is different for everyone and every situation. The theory is that the higher the tax rate, the greater effort is put into avoiding taxes. This can be through working less, shifting investments from income to capital gains, holding investments longer, realizing more income outside the US, etc. All tend to reduce total tax revenue. And this theory is demonstrated empirically every time there is a change in taxation.

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." Daniel Patrick Moynihan
Jay Wye Wrote: Dec 27, 2012 2:32 PM
when the price of goods and energy rises,people stop spending,cut back,other people lose their jobs,a vicious downward spiral.
We're already seeing that happen,and this is just the beginning.

Add in FEDGOV "quantative easing",ie inflation,and your dollar is worth less,buys less.
Jay Wye Wrote: Dec 27, 2012 2:29 PM
except that when taxes rise,gov't tax revenue falls.

the way to pay for our debts and spending is to grow the US economy,and Comrade Obama is doing everything in his power against that. He's more for "redistribution of wealth",and stolen wealth at that.
Donjindra Wrote: Dec 27, 2012 2:16 PM
Yes, Laffer's curve is a joke. There is no empirical evidence to support it. There never can be because that point of diminishing or negative returns is not and can never be defined. It ends up being wishful thinking.
Stuart95 Wrote: Dec 27, 2012 12:34 PM
Don, when you mention "Laffer's fairy tales" I assume you are referring to the Laffer curve, which proposes that lower tax rates can result in higher total taxes. And by the "fairy tale" part I assume you don't buy into the Laffer Curve, despite its historical accuracy in predicting or explaining the effects of changes in tax rates.

Suppose you make $10 an hour. A 20% tax rate means you net $8; a 60% tax rate means you net $4. Humans will, at some point, say, "Screw it, I'm not working any longer today for $4 an hour; I'm going home". Their income declines, and worse yet, the economy declines. Total tax revenues trend downward. It ain't rocket science.

Wendy60 wrote: The neoconservatives are the reason why Boehner is not putting up a fight. The neocons do the thinking for the Republican leadership on all matters of strategy and morality in politics. Boehner wouldn't take a dump if the neocons told him not to, and if they told him to do so, he would strain for hours. Neocons want tax increases, because paying higher taxes is a sacrifice. Neocons believe that the little people have to be forced into sacrificing for the "collective self," i.e., the state, because that is the only way to preserve the social order. What they...