Skip to main content

View Diary: Mitt Romney reveals his magical tax plan math. And it looks just like Bush's. (152 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  when marginal tax rates were much higher (0+ / 0-)

    there were many and easy ways to shelter income from taxes, so the effective tax rates were much lower than one would think from the high marginal rates.

    When the Federal tax rate cuts and deduction changes were made in the 1980s,  tax revenues went up each year, not down and the share of the tax burden paid by the wealthy increased.  

    When marginal tax rates were high right after World War II, US production had a major competitive advantage due to the massive destruction from the war.

    The most important way to protect the environment is not to have more than one child.

    by nextstep on Wed Oct 10, 2012 at 02:49:17 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  That's nice. (0+ / 0-)

      But you haven't supported your core argument, which is that increasing taxes or corporations and the wealthy will cause significant disinvestment.

      •  This has been seen repeatedly in the US and in (0+ / 0-)

        other countries over the past 60 years.  When taxation on investment have been reduced, GDP growth increased over the next few years.  

        All of the industrialized counties with large positive trade balances (as % of GDP) and low unemployment (Germany, Sweden, South Korea, Singapore, Switzerland, Netherlands, Canada, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Australia, etc.) have lower net taxes on investment than the US.   All of the above countries have higher GDP growth and lower unemployment than the US.  You will not find a country with higher taxes on investors that has a lower unemployment rate than in the US, nor one with higher GDP growth.

        The most important way to protect the environment is not to have more than one child.

        by nextstep on Wed Oct 10, 2012 at 03:27:09 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Now THAT is interesting. (0+ / 0-)

          Now by "taxation on investment" do you mean capital gains taxes? Corporate income taxes? Individual income taxes? Something else?

          •  The combined impact of all these investment (0+ / 0-)

            taxes is what matters most.

            The most important way to protect the environment is not to have more than one child.

            by nextstep on Wed Oct 10, 2012 at 05:24:41 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I think the problem with this... (0+ / 0-)

              ...is that what you're calling "taxes on investment" are what everyone else calls "taxes."

              Why are "taxes on investment" so special compared to "taxes on working your ass off"? The exact same logic applies, right? Why should I work another yea many hours this week when I know 35%, or 28%, or 25%, or 15%, or whatever, is coming off the top?

              I get what you're saying about the risk, i.e., you're risking 100% of your investment but only keeping 85% of the upside, but on what basis does risk trump work? Why are capital and risk sacrosanct?

              •  catfood - I don't think nextstep is advocating (0+ / 0-)

                He is just pointing out facts that can be evaluated in public policy discussions. Countries with lower taxes on production have better balance of trade accounts and faster GNP growth. Tax policy is about more than just fairness, it includes how the policy impacts national employment and growth.

                "let's talk about that"

                by VClib on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 08:24:17 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site