Re: Tax Cuts Don't Boost Revenues

Ernst Blofeld wrote:

> On Feb 23, 6:36 am, Jeffrey Turner <jtur...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> 
> 
>>>Who says the tax rate is zero?
>>
>>At 100% they would still pay taxes if they expected any gov't contracts.
> 
> 
> Why would they put their own capital and time at risk to do something
> for absolutely no reward? They'd be better off using their capital to
> buy hookers and blow, and their time to consume said hookers and blow.
> 
> 
>>>Do you think tax revenues would increase if the marginal tax rate went
>>>from 95% to 100%? Why or why not?
>>
>>It depends on the level of gov't spending.  Here's a good explanation:
>>
>>http://www.angelfire.com/planet/dragonomics/laffer_ruminations.pdf
> 
> 
> It's a pretty goofy model which ignores the option of participants
> simply checking out of the game.
> 
> Would you put your capital and time at risk if the government promised
> to take away all the income from the project? Let's say you're offered
> a second job. You have to go to work, put up with pointy-haired
> bosses, drink sludge-like coffee, and have your lunch stolen from the
> fridge. Plus you actually have to spend time at your desk, rather than
> drinking beer and watching TV at home. In exchange the government
> promises to take away 100% of the income you get from this job.
> 
> Would you take this offer? Why or why not?

It depends on what it meant to the country, the economy, my community
and me.  And maybe what kind of work it was.  I'm not sure what an
economy of 100% taxation would look like, so it's kind of hard to answer
questions about it.

--Jeff

-- 
It is only those who have neither
fired a shot nor heard the shrieks
and groans of the wounded who cry
aloud for blood, more vengeance, more
desolation.  War is hell.
--William Te***seh Sherman