 | septrose14 on Reddit layoffs |
 | shelldigger on Thought of the day |
 | The Sauciest Duck on Chauvin and Rittenhouse |
 | Michael on Chauvin and Rittenhouse |
| Stephen Moreton on Chauvin and Rittenhouse | |
 | Mele Kalikimaka | Fo… on Merry Christmas |
| Mele Kalikimaka | Fo… on Mele Kalikimaka |
 | somdeblahiriyahoocoi… on Thought of the day |
| Michael on Wuhan virus and one last… |
| Quick correction | F… on The A-Unicornist, Bernie Bro… |
In 1992, the 400th richest person in America made $24 million.
In 2007, the 400th richest person in America made $138 million (or $87 million, inflation-adjusted).
As the United States has clearly demonstrated, lower taxes for the wealthy result in nothing but jobs.
Filed under: Politics and Social | Tagged: Taxes |
Blog at WordPress.com. WP Designer.
For the Sake of Science
As has been demonstrated every time taxes are raised on anyone anywhere at anytime by any government, the primary effect is giving those people an incentive to cheat more and otherwise change their behavior.
The Bush tax cuts for the wealthy will supposedly reduce the governments possible intake next year by around 80 billion dollars. While I kind of doubt that a little bit, lets assume it’s true.
So by letting the cuts expire they could raise another “80 billion dollars”. On the other hand if we just made an effort to collect the taxes owed, there are more than 300 billion dollars in taxes not collected EVERY YEAR.
Clearly we need to raise taxes on someone, not just do a better job collected what is already due. You seem to be continuing on the assumption that the rich put all that money in mattresses or burn it or something.
Are you really so naive to imagine that the rich aren’t spending their money (jobs), investing it (jobs), or saving it (more accessible credit/loans for everyone)? What exactly do you think will happen by the government taking that cash and doing something with it? Do you think the government can better allocate capital than private citizens? The weight of history would tend to show that not to be true.
I might mention that if we are going to run things on the Keynesian model, tax cuts are supposed to be effective stimulus as government spending is and where the money actually goes isn’t that important as long as money is going.
Whether or not that is true, the Austrian view is that private individuals can allocate capital better then any central organization can, the government included. Central planning = waste.
So I don’t see why you aren’t on board with tax cuts for everyone. The aversion to extending all of the tax cuts seems to be 100% political and not related in any rational way to raising funds for the government, which as I said could be more effectively done by just enforcing the law we have right at this moment.