Posted on 07/18/2011 4:01:03 PM PDT by Kaslin
Democrats' insistence that the "rich" pay more in taxes is rivaled only by Republicans' apparent inability or unwillingness to engage them on this specific issue. In the following excerpt from testimony submitted to the Senate Finance Committee, economist Thomas Sowell attempts to fill that void.
At various time and places, particular individuals have argued that existing tax rates are so high that the government could collect more tax revenues if it lowered those tax rates, because the changed incentives would lead to more economic activity, resulting in more tax revenues out of rising incomes, even though the tax rate was lowered.
This is clearly a testable hypothesis that people might argue for or against on either empirical or analytical grounds. But that is seldom what happens.
Even when the particular tax-cut proposal is to cut tax rates in all income brackets, including reducing tax rates by a higher percentage in the lower-income brackets than in the upper-income brackets, such proposals have nevertheless often been characterized by their opponents as "tax cuts for the rich" because the total amount of money saved by someone in the upper-income brackets is often larger than the total amount of money saved by someone in the lower brackets.
Moreover, the reasons for proposing such tax cuts are verbally transformed from those of the advocates — namely, changing economic behavior in ways that generate more output, income and resulting higher tax revenues — to a very different theory attributed to the advocates by the opponents, namely "the trickle-down theory."
(Excerpt) Read more at investors.com ...
Why on earth would they think that? After all, it's only worked every time it was tried! < /sarc >
Ping
Thomas Sowell for President!
Ah, yes, the eeeevil rich. They are the reason we can’t have a nice, kumbaya , socialist nation, with rainbow skittles for everyone!
“The Great”?
It’s un American and unpatriotic, aside from the fact that net worth has much more to do in defining “rich” than taxable income.
Not to mention the very low level at which the income tax rates top out. That’s hardly “rich” especially for a single or married taxpayer that busts his/her butt for 70-80+ hours weekly . . . oh and has to deal with all the red tape and Democratic constituencies as employees or customers.
It’s un American and unpatriotic, aside from the fact that net worth has much more to do in defining “rich” than taxable income.
Not to mention the very low level at which the income tax rates top out. That’s hardly “rich” especially for a single or married taxpayer that busts his/her butt for 70-80+ hours weekly . . . oh and has to deal with all the red tape and Democratic constituencies as employees or customers.
“Comrades, with our Maximum Leader, Barak Hussein, we can overcome the imperialistic reactionary forces of Fox, Limbaugh, and Beck!
To the barricades, Blueshirts!”
Can we start calling them brownshorts?
They’re so full of crap that there’s bound to be some leakage.
There is nothing trickle down about it. There is only the fact that capital accumulation and economic progress depend on saving and innovation and that these in turn depend on the freedom to make high profits and accumulate great wealth. The only alternative to improvement for all, through economic progress achieved in this way, is the futile attempt of some men to gain at the expense of others by means of looting and plundering. This, the loot-and-plunder theory, is the alternative advocated by the critics of the misnamed trickle-down theory.
Brownshirts were Hitler’s minions. I prefer blueshirts because the “Young Pioneers” in the Soviet Union wore blue. Obozo is closer to them.
My pleasure
Yes the great. Get over it. If you can’t discuss the article then stay of the thread
Oooh, sounds worshipful. Maybe even naughty.
If you can’t discuss the article then stay of the thread
Your appending "The Great" to his name became part of the article when you posted it.
So.. do y'all tweet pictures back and forth or what?
Get it?
That's wise. I have no ability to confer royalty or whatever it
is your are trying to give him by concocting a title for him.
Second stay of the thread if you can not discuss the article.
If you want folks to stay "of" the thread, why post it?
If you dislike folks questioning the title you make up for someone, maybe stop making up titles.
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.