Posted on 07/23/2016 1:01:38 PM PDT by Jim W N
Love to see everyone enjoying the afterglow of this amazing GOP Convention. Haven’t felt like this politically since 1980. I think morning is once again coming to America.
Art Laffer, economist, has analyzed Trumps chances and it brought up some thoughts I have on the Laffer Curve. I love the curve but I hate the terminology...
Laffer and Reagan brought us an unprecedented and historic 25 years of growth and prosperity until the Left finally shut it down.
Tax cuts are a must, but we need to flip the reasoning - we need to change the terminology and the paradigm in all of this. Have you noticed that terms and phrases used by the Right and the Left are those engineered by government and parroted by the Leftist MSM? Examples are “supply side” and “revenue”. They are terms and phrases defined and applied solely from the viewpoint of government, not the American individual. Same with judicial opinions since around the 1900’s. You never see a court’s decision anymore based on the interest of the individual citizen but the “public interest” which is nothing other than “government interest.”
So I hate acquiescing to terms like “supply side” and “revenue” in this context because they are terms solely from the viewpoint of government, not the individual. And yet the Constitution, the Law of the Land, and the Declaration of Independence, the values from which the Constitution was derived, is focused primarily on individual interest. America is about protecting the individual, his freedom and interests, NOT about government interest.
“Supply side” says cutting taxes is justifiable because it will actually increase government “supply” and government “revenue”. And although that is true, it is NOT the JUSTIFICATION for cutting taxes. Cutting taxes is justifiable because individuals have the right to their property which includes their earnings. The brain-damaged Leftist government actually think the wages you earn belong to the government. And you have the right to keep your wages only to the extent it can be shown that government somehow benefits. Hogwash. I couldn’t care less about stupid government’s supply. And as far as “revenue” goes, the only revenue that matters is OUR revenue - your revenue and my revenue, not government revenue.
We are smack dab in the center of Orwell’s prophetic “1984”. One of the things I hope this Trump Movement triggers is a focused change in terminology and thinking back to the interests of the individual and away from government self-interest, political correctness, government greed, and government corruption.
God bless you, God bless Trump, and God bless America.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/art-laffer-trump-should-win-easily/article/2003371
The central theme here is that the individual can plan and spend their money better than the gov’t can. The Laffer Curve says that there are two tax rates that produce the same tax income to the gov’t. One rate, say 17%, is low enough to induce individuals to go out, work, innovate, and get the economic engine going again. Another rate, say 70%, will produce exactly the same income for the gov’t because now it pays to hire lawyers to avoid paying taxes, discourage workers from going back to work because so little is left it’s not worth the effort, and the reward to investing is too small to take the risk.
This is not some pie-in-the-sky theory. It’s worked in the US, India, and Great Britain. Taxes distort the allocation of resources in every case where there are deductions to be had. A 17% flat (not Fair) tax with no deductions would raise the same amount of tax revenue we see now, but without the allocative effects. Also, you could file your tax return on a postcard instead of reading through 27,000 pages of tax code that even the IRS can’t give you a consistent answer to if you ask a question.
It ludicrous to hear politicians bitch about how the tax code favors the rich. Come on, guys...who the hell do you think wrote the code?
My point was that although the Laffer Curve is correct, that lower taxes lead to more government revenue, more government revenue is not the justification for low taxes. It isn’t government’s interest we in America care about. It is the interests of the individual we care about. It’s not “supply side” that justifies low taxes, but an individual’s right to his property.
A man’s right to his property is equal to his right to Life, Liberty, and Free Pursuits. As Madison said, “As a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights.” A man has as much right to his property of money and land as he does to the property of his freedom.
People like Arthur Laffer have rightly observed that there is a marginal tax rate that produces the greatest level of government revenue. When the tax rate is above that number, reducing the rate actually results in more revenue. It is interesting to note that socialists (er, “progressives”) always seem to agitate for a higher rate, no matter where the optimum is. Conservatives tend to lobby for a lower rate.
(Neither party seems to care about the Rahn Curve, which indicates that when the total tax burden exceeds about 20%, people change their behavior to reduce the amount of taxes they pay. This is the psychological point where leisure starts to become more valuable than work.)
Having said this, the entire discussion misses the most important issue. Here in the land of the (stilll somewhat) free, our government was instituted in order to “secure the blessings of liberty.” The bigger that government becomes, the less liberty it can allow us to have, if only that we must work more hours in a month to pay for it.
So similar to the Laffer Curve, the Liberty Curve has zero liberty when we have 100% government (like in North Korea) and zero liberty at 0% government (like in Samolia).
Our goal as citizens must NOT be to tune the tax tables to optimize government revenues and thus government’s intrusion in our lives, it must be to tune the size and scope of government in order to optimize our liberty.
While the Laffer Curve is useful for this purpose, but we must pay more attention to the Liberty Curve instead.
The Rahn Curve shows us that when tax rates get above about 20%, people who do have some measure of control over how they structure their financial affairs take active steps to decline to pay more in taxes. It is just a fact of life that any politician attempting to increase revenues by raising taxes will be disappointed, and any plans and budgets that depend on those higher revenues will fail.
see: The Rahn Curve and the Growth-Maximizing Level of Government
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uj6lRFXC5rA
I think you get my point about the Laffer Curve, that although correct (lower taxes lead to more government revenue), more government revenue is not the justification for low taxes. It isn’t government’s interest we in America care about. It is the interests of the individual we care about. It’s not “supply side” that justifies low taxes, but an individual’s right to his property.
A man’s right to his property is equal to his right to Life, Liberty, and Free Pursuits. As Madison said, “As a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights.” A man has as much right to his property of money and land as he does to the property of his freedom.
I like the sound of your Liberty Curve, but I've never heard of it nor seen it.
I was agreeing with you, which is why I said that I know how to spend my money better than the gov’t does. I was arguing the gov’t income side because the Left will never allow something that gives them less power (e.g., the ability to spend other peoples’ income).
Although that is also true, it still isn't the JUSTIFICATION for lower taxes. The justification for lower taxes regardless of how you spend your money, is that it is YOUR MONEY, not feds'.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.