Redstate

...then Secretary of Commerce, Herbert Hoover, agreed to John Lewis' demands that his coal miners be given large monetary raises. Unfortunately, after the raises were granted, less miners ended up working. Independent mining companies sprung up overnight, offering plentiful work at less than union wages.
During the early stages of the Great Depression, Hoover, good Republican(?) that he was, ordered employers to increase their employees wages. They did. Then they stopped hiring new employees.
Both Hoover and Roosevelt raised taxes, extending the length of the Depression. Fiscal and financial folly by both parties made the length of the 1920'2-1930's Depression, Great.

The true shame is that most people, including fairly intelligent ones, care so little about reality and the why's/how's of things these days that unless it's easy to counter in a 30 second commercial, it'll never see the light of day.

Imagine if the American people could see what philosophy the Dems operate under, ie. the 100% tax over 200K wouldn't have ANY effect on the economy and most sane people with an IQ above their waist size would never allow them to be "in charge" again.

If I was head of the RNC, my biggest goal after the presidential election would be the Senate... and building the best firewall we can.

I find there is only one response to the constant refrain about record corporate profits -- that is the record corporate tax payments made as well.

Liberal sister remarked on the $60 billion Exxon made last year, and my remark was isn't that great Exxon also paid a record $30 billion in taxes. I remarked isn't that wonderful that they earned so much so they could pay so much in taxes.

Response from liberal sister -- "Oh, I didn't realize they paid that much in taxes." I guess she would understand the concept of making $1.00 and having the government take $.50 away.

M Penny

I'm not trolling here. I'm an independent (no lean) and I'd genuinely like to read your responses to a couple of rebuttals for your arguments.

First, it's often said that corporate tax breaks are ineffective in producing job growth or wage gains (the so-called "trickle down" economics). It indisputably creates more investment capital, but this can then go anywhere in the global market while the wealth remains concentrated in the upper echelon. Do you have links to any sources citing actual examples of trickle-down economics benefitting lower- and middle-class workers?

Second, the Laffer Curve appears to be as straightforward as any other bell curve and I don't think anyone would dispute that decreasing the tax rate actually increases governmental operating income - provided that you can demonstrate that you're operating only on the right half of the curve. The counterintuitive revelation that lower taxes equate to more income is reversed on the left side, where the traditionally Democratic paradigm of higher taxes yielding greater gains is true. Ideally, given the symmetry of the curve, revenue is maximized with a moderate tax rate, the problem of course being the subjectivity in the definition of "moderate". The degree to which this midpoint actually feels moderate hinges on the political climate at the time. Regardless, it's difficult to justify the assumption that we're operating on one side of the curve as opposed to the other without some corroborating evidence, which is notoriously difficult to come by. One cannot isolate the tax rate variable from outside factors ( e.g. 35% flat tax may lead to Asian growth but domestic recession, a group pyschology complex beyond modelling capability, etc.), in addition to the lack of political will required to mount a sustained, controlled tweaking of the tax across multiple administrations in order to achieve accuracy and precision in the event that you WERE able to isolate it. Even then, you're chasing changing lag measures in lieu of a crystal ball.

The other problem, as I see it, is that the axes of the Laffer Curve are unvalued, necessarily so because the revenue generated will always be dependent on the reactionary behavior of individuals and entities, a variable difficult to meaningfully quantify, even with metrics that are "dynamic" as opposed to "static". In fact, who's to say that this behavior is not only in response to the tax rate at a given instant, but also to the rate of change of the tax rate? The derivative of the Laffer Curve would not be a bell curve and not all large-sample data distributions follow that pattern.

If the Laffer Curve is correct, one still has to prove their current position to say anything worthwhile. Anyway, just wanted to share a few thoughts and spark some discussion.

Thanks.