On Feb 16, 4:24=A0pm, "Doorman" <nos...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> <gjohn...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>
>
news:51715033-4613-429f-a967-ff8c07d4dc58@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
>
>
> > =A0No amount of evidence will ever convince usenet Republicans that
you
> > can't get something from nothing, but here's more evidence proving
> > that wrong anyway.
>
> >http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1692027,00.html
>
> > If there's one thing that Republican politicians agree on, it's that
> > sla****ng taxes brings the government more money. "You cut taxes, and
> > the tax revenues increase," President Bush said in a speech last year.
> > Keeping taxes low, Vice President Dick Cheney explained in a recent
> > interview, "does produce more revenue for the Federal Government."
> > Presidential candidate John McCain declared in March that "tax
> > cuts ... as we all know, increase revenues." His rival Rudy Giuliani
> > couldn't agree more. "I know that reducing taxes produces more
> > revenues," he intones in a new TV ad.
>
> > If there's one thing that economists agree on, it's that these claims
> > are false. We're not talking just ivory-tower lefties. Virtually every
> > economics Ph.D. who has worked in a prominent role in the Bush
> > Administration acknowledges that the tax cuts enacted during the past
> > six years have not paid for themselves--and were never intended to.
> > Harvard professor Greg Mankiw, chairman of Bush's Council of Economic
> > Advisers from 2003 to 2005, even devotes a section of his best-selling
> > economics textbook to debunking the claim that tax cuts increase
> > revenues.
>
> Birmingham Alabama granted tax abatements to Home Depot to convince them
t=
o
> build a new distribution center there. =A0States routinely grant
companies=
tax
> abatement deal to attract them to build. =A0If your assertion is true,
the=
n
> the correct thing to do would be to promise prospective builders that
they=
> will enjoy ever increasing taxes and will pay more to build "here", than
> there. =A0Reduced taxes stimulate building, which increases hiring,
which
> increases economic activity, which increases taxes collected.
>
> And, if your economic prowess is correct, putting a 50% tax on vehicles
> would stimulate the automotive industry and help General Motors recover
fr=
om
> a $39 billion dollar loss. =A0Huh?
>
> If every purchase is taxed, how many transfers of money does it take to
> completely consume a dollar out of circulation?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
You are missing a small point. The government can invest tax revenue
to boost the economy. Why do you think the countries of Europe have
high taxes, stable economies and low poverty rates?
In any case, why would cutting taxes increase revenues in a country in
which the majority of the population don't make enough money to even
pay a significant ****tion of their income in taxes? This is currently
the case in the U.S. It just amounts to a subsidy for the rich, who
don't need it, and won't spend any more money because of it. They
might well just invest it in stocks in Europe, Mexico or Europe. Or
in land in the Cayman Islands. Indeed, a lot of rich Americans brag
that they do just that!
|
