The top tax bracket should be 70% or higher. There is no counter-point to this...

The top tax bracket should be 70% or higher. There is no counter-point to this. This is the exact point of optimal taxation where revenue is maximized without impeding economic growth.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=7R9kH_HOUXM
speisa.com/modules/articles/index.php/item.454/sweden-to-become-a-third-world-country-by-2030-according-to-un.html
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

t. expert

There should be no taxes. The government can keep printing money to fund their expenditures.

All people in the top tax bracket leave the country. Country collapses.

such a fucking faggot

thread/

Well, then good thing you're not in charge

>All people in the top tax bracket leave the country.

The entire point of the curve is that they don't.

You're exactly the type of retard who has no understanding of economics. You don't even have to agree with the model, but you don't even know what it means.

LEAVE JOB CREATORS ALONE

Nice source faggot. Sage.
>t. econ grad

What is the Laffer curve?

If gov't taxes at 0% there is no revenue. If it taxes at 100%, it eliminates economic insentive to be productive, therefor also no revenue. The Laffer curve is the point in which revenue to the government is maximum, without being too low or too high.

It's a diagram that shitlibs use to try and justify gibsmedat, but in reality it's a diagram that justifies the importance of IQ in achievement.

>not understanding the only fair tax is a flat tax

scrubloards

>Complain about how arbitrary the original Laffer Curve was
>Create another arbitrary Laffer Curve

Literally, 1980 tax rate for earners who made more than $100k. You want another recession?

tfw you pick an arbitray point on a skewd distribution.

If you take 7 dollars out of every 10 someone earns they won't go to work except to shoot the fuckin place up

If the only goal of government policy was maximizing revenue without impeding economic growth, we'd execute the disabled and anyone on welfare.

based on what? there is no empirical data, just anecdotes from different countries

Optimal taxation means optimal for the government, not the people (and in the short term).

10-30% for the rich is the sweet point to maximize government revenue in the long term.
0% if you want to maximize economic growth and freedom.

Although I would prefer 90% with loopholes, so everybody is happy, but this is politics, not economics.

Why should taxation be regulated so revenue for the state is maximized?

If it's not voluntary then it's theft. You deserve a helicopter ride.

A model for tax revenue
Well it is logical to assume a 100% tax rate and a 0% tax rate would decrease revenue, but this is ultimately the only use the Laffer Curve has. Basically it is just a theoretical to explain that decreasing taxes will result in slightly more economic activity meaning that you will get back some money, but even Laffer knew that it wouldn't be a perfect 1:1 ratio

The Laffer curve is relevant if you need to maximize revenue. But the thing is, even taxes lower than that will hurt economic growth compared to no taxes.

No the place to bring equity via taxation is in inheritance. There should be a cap on wealth transference. Even a cap that allows sums as huge as 50 million would help slow down the economic dynasties that have become worse than nobility

Taxes should always be at the Laffer maximum, but where the hell did you get this curve from?

>10-30% for the rich is the sweet point to maximize government revenue in the long term.

Reagan pls go.

Rich people save (invest) instead of consuming so their children will have money, creating economic grow. You want to stop it because you were the poor kid of the neighborhood. Kys

Unlike your decrepit country, being an American means you have to pay your dues no matter where in the universe you go, unless you were smart enough to move to a country we have a tax treaty with.

Navy Seal protection ain't cheap fucker.

"There is no counter-point to this."

You haven't read the research on this topic, then.

> top 5% of income earners
> earn over $214,000/yr gross
> top 1% of income earners
> earn over $415,000/yr gross
> earn $45,000/yr as a
> taxi driver / warehouse supervisor / chef / service industry manager / mechanic / repairman / plumber assistant / computer tech / phlebotomist / call center worker / bank teller / schoolteacher / tattooo artist
> 18% tax rate
> "i could go to school and learn a highly specialized trade or technical skill, or start a business"
> "... and if after all the money, personal expense (time away from kids/relationships), exhausting effort staying up late and learning new things every day, failing over and over until i make it ... "
> " and as a reward i will get a 70% tax rate and roughly the same take-home income and lifestyle"

now you have no lawyers, no doctors, no entrepreneurs, no investors, no researchers, no engineers, no innovators, no disruptors and risk-takers, because whats the point? only people who acquire their wealth through inheritance or MURKY, CLANDESTINE, BRIBERY, AND TAX-FREE SKETCHY MEANS get to keep it.

welcome to central and south america. enjoy your stay.

The counter-point is that governments tend to doing retarded things with their money so making them richer is retarded

We can maximize revenue under Barron in the run-up to Physical Removal but otherwise nah

>excessive liquidity
>reduced internal comsumption
No thanks. Pass the savings down to the bottom where money leaks back into the economy instantly and get yourself a healthy middle class - empirical data suggests lower income gap relates to better growth.

In the US never has been an actual 94%, you lefties should stop this nonsense.

The laffer curve is not about growth but about revenue. 70% or higher maximizes taxation, but whoever the fuck said that's a good thing? Nothing to do with economic growth, though, not directly at least.

*tend to do

So consuming resources instead of using them to create more resources somehow helps the economy?

economics doesn't make testable predictions, it's not science.

So make the top bracket for people earning over $10 million (or some other absurdly high number) annually.

The only reason it's that low in the first place is so billionaires can make the same bullshit argument you're making now.

Yes it most certainly was.

>BUT THERE WERE DEDUCTIONS

Yeah, and those deductions were used to incentivize positive behavior. Give your employees health insurance? Get a deduction. Donate money to a worthy cause? Get a deduction. Invest in the economy? Get a deduction. This was a way to reward rich people for behaving responsibly, and it worked!

This is retarded and you are retarded, fuck off you retarded fucking nigger.

>The entire point of the curve is that they don't.
Yes, this parabola has the power to stop the rich from taking their money and moving to a tax haven. How could we forget?

...

So do you have Tyrone bang you next to your computer while you shitpost? Do you honestly think that rich people are just going to sit there and get punched in the face by the government?

They squirrel their money away offshore where your black cock loving government can't get it and pretend to be heros for funding all of this shit

Why do the right wing retards of (((pol))) always fight for the billionaires and wealthy elites?

>based on what? there is no empirical data, just anecdotes from different countries

By anecdotes you mean the various economic and tax systems?

You're calling out their lack of data by suggesting an abundance of different examples to draw from.

Wow, the economic illiteracy on Sup Forums is matched only by the arrogance of how well people think they know something about it.

This only makes the company reinvest in itself instead of freeing up resources if it has no economical sense.

For example Company A builds fax machines, Company B printers. So instead of taking money out of company A (resources) to fund company B company A has to spend it on itself.

ITT:

Children who believe they have a right to other people's property.

Literally kill yourself.

There is no difference between corporate shills and Trumptards.

Being the 1% makes you earn less than the 5% at that rate.

...

This. All it takes is seeing dayqual and Shaquita spending your money to set somebody off.

Yes it was, but there's an argument to be made that it was an entirely unique time - at that point the US was either in a total war where personal concerns were outweighed by national demands, or in the immediate post-war economy where Europe and Japan were desolate wastelands and we got away with murder in business.

Regardless, I think we're too low at the moment, which is a long way away from where we were in the 1950s. Furthermore, income tax and capital gains taxes are two different things; I personally believe the captain gains rate is far too low and encourages the reckless gambling investment we've seen on Wall Street over the last two decades.

Stop confusing corporate rates and personal income tax rates.

(((pol))) will always fight against higher wages for workers

really makes you think

>> " and as a reward i will get a 70% tax rate and roughly the same take-home income and lifestyle"
>now you have no lawyers, no doctors, no entrepreneurs, no investors, no researchers

Except you have in Scandinavia the closest real world example to this and all four countries have these jobs anyway.

Not only that they top the charts on development, happiness, education, healthcare..

Please proceed to your next idiotic talking point now.

taxes? dont know her

Only countries with a future can respond, thanks.

>> " and as a reward i will get a 70% tax rate and roughly the same take-home income and lifestyle"

Wait this is even stupider than I thought.

You think the tax rate "becomes" 70%? As in you don't understand progressive taxation? The person affected by the 70% rate would not be taxed at 70% for all earnings you fucking retard.

It's a new level of hilarity to watch people like you complain people don't understand economics.

All you are is a mouthpiece for economic ideas you don't understand by people who see you as nothing but a useful idiot.

Your model ignores that money can move freely

AS long as it's cheaper to move it around than pay taxes the government won't see a single penny

Not a rebuttal.
Not an argument.

>This only makes the company reinvest in itself

That's the entire point. The company is forced to reinvest in itself, thus promoting economic growth and employing more people. Also, you just got BTFO. You falsely claimed that the United States have had tax brackets higher than 90%.

We're ones to talk.

I don't mind seeing the ultra-wealthy get fucked in taxes, but at the same time I don't trust the government to properly use the funds.

>Your model ignores that money can move freely

But it's not my model and money can't move freely. This is the core argument of the free market people, that there are artificial restrictions everywhere.

>AS long as it's cheaper to move it around than pay taxes

You're making a strong case for closing tax loopholes and putting up tarrifs, maybe attacking international banking, but you're not even hitting air against the Laffer curve as a theory.

this

Yeah but when my billionaire globalist overlords stash trillions offshore, it's good for me!

t. trumptards and all right wingers

I'm not saying the laffer curve is wrong, I'm saying in practice there are more variables to take into account

Nigger, you ain't got neither history OR future, you are a "nation" built by losers that couldn't make it in their homelands. For fuck sake, i can trace my pure Swedish bloodline 400 years before you even existed, faggot. Ice yourself.

Those who work and become successful should completely pay for lazy niggers shoot do nothing. Makes tons of sense

Can you send me shekels. Muh EBT run out brah, I need a new PS4.. one of my 8 nigger kids broke it cus they momma was wilin out

agree, also all successful people are going straight to hell.

>Forcibly deport all white trash, niggers, spics, etc
>Put ALL jews in the oven
>Lower tax rates 25% for the middle class
>Give all the gibs back to the middle class
>Increase middle class to 75% + like in the 70s
>Put all subhumans and people with IQs under 100 into slave labor with no gibs
>????
>Profit

The Laffer Curve is maximized tax revenue in the short term.
Long term, the economic growth caused by low taxes on the larger base would outstrip the higher rate of tax on the smaller base.

I said not actual, it means that there as loopholes and deductions.

And as I explained money are resources that you have to invest intelligently, economic growth means producing what the market needs.

But is late and I have to go to sleep, someone start up the rotors for me.

you're competing with other countries, shithead.
if your taxes are way higher than in another country they will invest time and money to move business there to save more money in the long run. that's the main reason why trump wants to cut taxes in the first place - because this is exactly what's happening in practice in america right now.

you dunce.

Of course there are. Nobody's claiming there isn't.

But all you've done is say that if you attacked these things first, you have no argument against the curve.

I don't think anyone promoting the curve would argue with you on that, but rather assert it's a vital part of extracting that optimal tax rate.

So if you're not arguing about anything I said, why did you reply?

Get raped up the ass and blown up fairy boy

No argument is needed. You're trying to flex the might of a nation whose values and history you readily give away. You're going to deserve everything you get.

Is this response some kind of white guilt arousal?

The laffer curve isn't even drawn properly in the OP and laffer curves are different for every country. That being said OP pulled 76% out of his ass

>rich people won't be able to secure citizenship elsewhere
Moron

Cool story, too bad you're country is beyond cucked. Can't wait to hear about the next gang rape from Sweden

Why? What are you possibly basing that off of? Some program you don't understand that sounds stupid on the face of it?

youtube.com/watch?v=7R9kH_HOUXM

You lied. Own it bitch. I will NOT speak with you until you CONFESS the truth. America DID have tax brackets higher than 90%.

who wants to have fucking 70% of their income taxed? god damn you are fucking stupid

>No argument is needed

What you're actually saying is that you can't refute me. The simple reason for that is that I'm right and you have no fucking clue about economics.

Your lefty identity tactics impresses nobody.

>Is this response some kind of white guilt arousal?
Why would I be guilty for things I haven't done?

No, if you kids are any indicator of the future, we might not have one for much longer.

ITT: Right wing retards defending their billionaire globalist overlords Some things never change.

ITT: Literally Retards

Good post for a Swede

The laffer curve merely maximizes government revenue, not wealth creation, not proper spending of money. Why should we give them our wealth? to spend on Nignogistan?

Fuck the (((Rich)))

Fuck you if you defend even a single jew

Auschwitz WILL be real one day and if you get in the way I'll make Mike Pence electrocute the gay away

based

>76% tax rates
>doesn't impede economic growth

EL EM AY OH

Well why not? Would be a flat tax I guess.

It's not necessarily 70%.
I'd like to see what supply and demand curves you're using.
The more elastic the supply and demand curves are, the closer to 0% the Laffer curve's peak is.
Which more importantly, and naturally ever leftist forgets with respect to tax policy, is that you are not only taxing the income on the wealthy, you are also taxing the company that pays the person the high salary.
Given that, for example, CEO labor supply curves are already really elastic (that's why they have high wages, they can negotiate heavily since there are few amazing CEOs) the company (and therefore shareholders) will pay the majority of any tax you place on these high wages.
So who do you end up fucked by raising income taxes on rich people? Normal people's retirement accounts, GG.

>to spend on Nignogistan?
Yes actually.

The small investment you make in foreign aid returns dividends as their economy grows and they become better trading partners. More to the point, it makes foreign governments listen to us when they otherwise would tell us to fuck off.

The laffer curve doesn't support a 76% tax rate. Most prominent economists state that the tax rate should be in the 30's

After Reagan's tax cuts for the rich, the tax revenue generated by the rich actually went up.

The tax revenue generated by the middle class went down as a repercussion of Reagan's tax cuts, but that is another story.

You know I actually had a discussion with my sunday school teacher a few years ago about this passage.

The scripture says it is HARD for rich people to go to heaven. Not IMPOSSIBLE. I know your an atheist piece of shit that has never read scripture but the few passages after that basically say a rich man can enter heaven by being a generous soul and helping his community with his wealth. Remember, helping his COMMUNITY. Not GOVERNMENT.

Because taxing rich people more means that everybody else can have LOWER taxes. What you're basically saying right now is that you don't want lower taxes.

The USA had tax rates even higher that during its ascent to superpowerdom. A mere 70% tax rate for people making millions per year is a very reasonable number.

speisa.com/modules/articles/index.php/item.454/sweden-to-become-a-third-world-country-by-2030-according-to-un.html

400 years of bloodline to watch you smugly join the ranks of Libya.

You'll never have kids.

What job creation ?
Your country has outsourced almost every manufacturing job it had, and right now your most profitable sector is massively hiring foreign engineers and devs instead of the local workforce
Your corporations are actively destroying your middle class for profit and the only thing you cucks can do is blame the government ?

Economist Paul Pecorino presented a model in 1995 that predicted the peak of the Laffer curve occurred at tax rates around 65%. A draft paper by Y. Hsing looking at the United States economy between 1959 and 1991 placed the revenue-maximizing average federal tax rate between 32.67% and 35.21%.

HA! I was also thinking this...

We had much higher JewDP growth back then actually.