If you examine this data Kate, you will see why raising taxes on those with capital during periods of economic recession is not the way to go.
Look at the revenue as a percentage of GDP as the nation entered a recession in 2000 and deepened after the attacks on 9/11 and the revenue as a percentage of GDP following the 2003 tax cuts. What you will see is an increase in that metric in the years immediately following the implementation of those cuts.
Now look at the 1990 tax increases, a result of a compromise with the Democrats in Congress, enacted by GHW Bush that broke "Read My Lips". Those tax increases were supposed to increase the revenue of the federal government, right? And while looking at that single tax would show that it did raise some revenue, though not nearly as much as projected, it failed to have any noticeable effect on the revenue as a percentage of GDP; which means it failed in its primary purpose, which was to increase the revenue realized by the federal government above what it had before the tax was raised. If the revenue as a percentage of GDP remains essentially the same both before and after the tax increase, what was it that was accomplished by raising taxes? Especially when we factor in the economic effects of it, which were a 70% drop in yacht sales, a 20% drop in luxury auto sales and thousands of workers who lost their jobs as a result of the loss of those sales. Was it worth thousands of lost jobs to keep the revenue as a percentage of GDP the same? You tell me. Do you think that perhaps the private jet market might also see a drop in sales if the depreciation period is increased by 40%? What do you think the economic impact will be on the people who manufacture those jets, sell those jets and service those jets if that 40% increase in depreciation period results in a 20% drop in jet sales?
What does this tell us Kate? What is the Ockham's Razor conclusion that we see evidenced? Cutting tax rates, especially during a slowing of the economy, encourages growth of economic activity (investments, jobs, private spending) because people are getting to keep more of the money they earn. That increased economic activity results in a growth of the economy, which leads in turn to a greater percentage of the economy being collected as tax revenues.
Reverse that so that they are allowed to keep less and the result is that behavior subject to the tax will be altered and no actual benefit is realized. So yes, soaking the rich a little more may make the class envy crowd feel better as they band together and act in true democratic tyranny of the majority fashion, but it doesn't really raise more revenue than was being raised previously when subjected to an objective measurement.
chickaree wrote: I don't shop at AFW because almost all of their stuff is cheap crap from China. I always try to buy American, and if I can't at least buy from countries whose interest benefit us. I'll check out Ikea once the lines go down.
I think I saw a thread here about a US IKEA factory that was in big trouble for breaking US work rules.
I would like to see what percentage of AFW's product is US made.
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
chickaree wrote: I don't shop at AFW because almost all of their stuff is cheap crap from China. I always try to buy American, and if I can't at least buy from countries whose interest benefit us. I'll check out Ikea once the lines go down.
I think I saw a thread here about a US IKEA factory that was in big trouble for breaking US work rules.
I would like to see what percentage of AFW's product is US made.
We went shopping there for a sofa. Not one was American made. The salesman was flummoxed when we asked him. We ended up at Amish Furniture Gallery. Our sofa was made in the USA, hardwood frame with beautiful fabric. We paid more, but it'll last. Too many people are happy with cheap disposable crap. No pride of craftsmanship.
