Lower taxes and all of a sudden everyone gets close to their true wage (100k gets 90k instead of 60k) and therefore, the entire nation has more money to spend which flows into the retail stores. The opposing argument could say that the extra money that is made will probably be saved, and the state will no longer make that money, and the extra money won't flow into the retail, so no sales tax either.
What's the problem with this? Discuss. I'm interested.
Other urls found in this thread:
thebalance.com
youtube.com
twitter.com
Never skip leg day!
...
Nothing. It's our money. We can do what we want with it. Government can get fucked. Taxation is theft.
her ass would break my dick off
Stop posting here nigger.
mor
No taxes = no government = anarchy = no law enforcement = businesses will bail.
There is a reason why businesses don’t bother with lawless shitholes like Africa and the mid east. It has nothing to do with them not wanting to exploit the niggers and more to do that their shit will get stolen more often than sold.
Are you asking as far as actual policy what is best to raise wages?
It's hard to salute women who take PED, and she has literally admitted to it on cam. Also, she has male voice now because of it.
Nothing to do with policy, I'm just generally interested in what would happen with this scenario, would the economy boom? Would it crash? Etc.
Those legs on a woman are fucking gross. All this degeneracy with soy boys and super masculine big assed, ripped women has to stop.
I'm starting to understand why Muslims want to cut our heads off.
I can never remember her name, would tap
> Why don't you come to the gym with us, user? You do lift don't you?
Equality of opportunity is a good thing. It means no matter what your start of life is, you still have a decent chance of exploiting your talents. This means you need decent investment in education and healthcare, at least what you can afford. Minimising taxes to the bare minimum is a short term gain for long term loss
Why are you posting what I can only assume is a shitty fetish photoshop? Do you WANT to make the classic blunder?
If I don't post a girl picture, no respones.
If I post a girl picture, the thread gets derailed.
Sup Forums..
But the roads? Who will pay for the roads
>Lower taxes and all of a sudden everyone gets close to their true wage
But how are we going to pay welfare for our 3rd world invadors ? Or pay our politicians insane salaries so that they can create laws to import more 3rd world welfare parasites ?
Cutting taxes would be racist, and we don't want to be called racists do we ? What can be worse than being called racist ?
>PED
Do you have a clip where she speaks? Also, no shit she takes drugs, you don't get those kind of legs naturally.
Amazon women is a very divisive topic, you need to go safe with these kids and use some instagram thot walking through wheatfields
Sort of the same thing as what I'm asking then. Tax Cuts historically do have an effect on the economy, but it's not as grand as we'd expect:
"A U Mass/Amherst study found that unemployment benefits were more productive. The research showed that $1 billion dollars in tax cuts created 10,779 jobs. That's fewer than the 19,000 created if the same funds went to the unemployed. That's because those who have a job will only spend half of their tax cuts. Since they receive income, they can use the tax cuts to pay down debts, save, or invest the rest. For more, see Do Tax Cuts Create Jobs?
Studies showed that each dollar from the 2008 Bush tax rebate only generated $1.19 in additional economic growth. Looked at this way, the $168 billion from the Bush rebates generated $200 billion in demand.
Reductions in the tax rate may ultimately damage the economy. Every dollar in lost tax revenue only creates 59 cents in economic growth. That's because people usually don't realize they're getting a break until tax time. Since they are paying out money in taxes, they are less likely to spend anything extra. It just doesn't feel like a bonus. As a result, people are more likely to save anything they get or use it to pay down other debts."
Source: thebalance.com
Bakhar nabieva aka Lady_sport
It was on an MFC cam show. I dunno if I can find it.
But here you can clearly hear she has lost her female voice:
youtube.com
racist
ˈreJsJst/
noun
noun: racist; plural noun: racists
1.
a person who shows or feels discrimination or prejudice against people of other races, or who believes that a particular race is superior to another.
"I had a fear of being called a racist"
> "I had a fear of being called a racist"
We're brainwashed
He didn't say no taxes he said lower taxes, nice try though. The US survived over 100 years without the IRS, and lowering tax rates can stimulate growth leading to higher tax revenue in the long run. Google laffer curve
the global jew: globalism pits nations against one another in competing to offer lower corporate taxes
in a world of nation states the corporations would server the national interest rather than the other way around
kek, ok absolutely ruined
I am not against lowering taxes, but people really don't spend that much more until their income increases way more (doubles/triples?).
Your economy went to shit every time you lowered taxes
FUG
mommy!
>Lower taxes and all of a sudden everyone gets close to their true wage (100k gets 90k instead of 60k) and therefore, the entire nation has more money to spend which flows into the retail stores. The opposing argument could say that the extra money that is made will probably be saved, and the state will no longer make that money, and the extra money won't flow into the retail, so no sales tax either.
>What's the problem with this? Discuss. I'm interested.
I suppose it's about the United States of A. because practically no other nation is that obsessed about wax rates or pays attention to Laffer BS.
Thus the USA-specific answer:
The U.S. have a trade balance deficit and a savings rate close to zero and a huge underinvestment particularly in public infrastructure, but also in private industries.
A policy that redistributes resources towards consumption may provoke more investment in industries to meet that demand with greater supply, but much of that additional demand would be met by additional imports. Many more imports are hardly bearable because the deficit is at about USD 40 bn/month already and the U.S. is large enough relative to rest of world economy that substantial increases of imports lead to bad consequences. USD would weaken in currency exchange rate, for example - which makes imports very expensive, an effect that's easily in the hundreds of dollars per capita and year in itself.
Moreover, government spending less has a negative effect on the economy (short term at least - I'm not interested in the long term discussion because it's way too complicated for this forum). The government might instead add debt, but this only means that money it would have taken in as taxes is instead being taken in as loans - so no national-level advantage in there.
Now let's assume that somehow money was taken away from the already weak investment to increase consumption. That's detrimental to jobs and income even in the short term, as investment is almost entirely domestic, while consumption is in greater part about imports.
In the end, bolstering consumption is the exact wrong way to go.
The U.S: has to reduce government consumption (especially military spending) and increase taxes on teh rich.
Those revenues allow for more public infrastructure spending, which will boost private industry investments which will add jobs and more importantly add production capacity. Some of this additional production capacity can go into exports and repair the trade balance.
The generally increased revenue (first and second order effects) will bring deficit and likely even debt down.
It's the egoism and lack of patriotism (=national solidarity and community) that makes the U.S. so economically sick and unsustainable. And it's the rich who paid for the propaganda that bolstered these poor traits and led to decline after the 60's.
I wish we could just defund the MIC and welfare state then we could lower taxes and increase spending in infrastructure and schooling and still start saving money to pay off the debt.
There is literally no reason we shouldn't defund the MIC by reducing spending to 200 billion a year and stop playing world police.
I will say cutting the Corporate Tax rate to 15% is a good idea; the Nordics (Denmark, Sweden, etc) all have rates in that area, and are thus able to do $15 minimum wages.
This I was on student welfare for two years at tafe, Now I pay back 400+ a fortnight in tax and I don't even have 6 months experience yet so i'm paying it back into the system.
That being said I think taxes are a little to high. Ideally the $37,001 - $87,000 32% tax rate would be brought down to about 20-25% with the upper brackets also being lowered.
there isn't much incentive to earn 100+k a year when almost half of it is getting taxed before you even buy anything, that is also Taxed with GST or whatever additional taxes it also has on top of the GST eg alcohol tax.
Totally different cases.
Look, I majored in this at universtity, and the American (non-academic) debate about corporate income tax is idiotic.
Corporate income taxes can be deducted from income taxes in many countries and have then practically ZERO effect on the economy. It's one of the most genius tax designs after Pigou taxes actually.
A properly-designed corporate income tax is de facto only paid by foreign investors because they cannot deduct it from their (foreign) income tax.
Most Americans are utterly ignorant and disinformed about the corporate income tax, victims of propaganda.
You also have to consider the economic client in 2008 considering you also had a recession, of course people would be inclined to save/pay debts of in that time period. It would take a few more years before peoples confidence would grow.
>Of course I lift. Can't you tell?
>there isn't much incentive to earn 100+k a year when almost half of it is getting taxed before you even buy anything, that is also Taxed with GST or whatever additional taxes it also has on top of the GST eg alcohol tax.
The highest tax bracket used to be 90% and that was during the 1950's boom years when the middle class developed for real. The rich are going to compete with other rich - regardless of at what level. And relatively few jobs that pay 100 grand or more a year are really that useful to the economy. Most very high income people get their income from capital income, are working in the finance industry or are gaming the system to their advantage.
The government should rather may attention that many people climb into middle middle class instead of caring about the upper middle class and the rich.
There's very little (if any) empirically documented gain in happiness or quality of life once you got rid o debt, insecurity, uncertain future, uncertain medical care, lack of education and can afford a good home, good interior, good car and vacations.
Red Pill, Based Kraut on this. I'm currently taking an entry class in Economics, so your insight will be appreciated.
true enough, but I think they also looked at past tax cuts to compare, they just used the Bush example as the most recent. Investing in education, infrastructure, and unemployment benefits seems to be the best strategy, and that makes sense to me at least.
women with the body of men worst fucking combintion possible
Wealthy guy gets really powerful and hires mercenaries to install himself as head of new government. The state is inevitable. All forms of liberalism and libertarianism assume the best intentions in people but the truth is that Machiavellianism is the defining trait of the most successful people
Lmao, literally sounds like a tranny
>used to be 90%
Not on all income. Only on income past a certain amount.
A flat 90% tax would never work for multiple reasons.
yeh, because we are not over consuming every product out there
You that like overconsumption is a bad thing or something. Are you a fucking communist, user?
Well, that's not the case for you guys
flatearth, christian, climate change denier?
Don't change the subject you fucking commie filth. Just answer the question.
What would be better, your dick between those flexed cheeks, or taking advantage of cammy while chun keeps her on lock down?
no. Just answer my question.
None of them. Now answer if you're a fucking commie!
my island runs ENTIRELY on 22% sales tax. My paycheck i pay no taxes.
And i can easily put away half my wage. AND, the economy here is fine. And *shock face* government actually has to operate on a budget. So they train their people and expect more out of their employee's for less.
gee. Utopia...nope. But pretty damn close.
when you allow everyone to keep the majority of their income. It's a long game.
Meaning. No, it's not an economic boom. But business's rarely go out of business.
Which means you can lessen the tax write off's for them. Saving the gov more money again. which makes up for the tax cuts
BUT...this is where the long game comes in.
In my country. Retirment is 60. Why?
because everyone is able to save enough money to retire. So it means younger people get into the work force sooner. And with better jobs. Because the 60YO's leave. many leave early (i will be done at 55)
That is where the benefit of not taxing people lays.
means younger gen, doens't have to flip burgers until your late 20's. Infact, kids in their early 20's are landing bank teller jobs, with little to no experience.
/thread
The abyss stares back through her eyes.
But to stay on topic, you'd have to crash the economy to make people accept lower wages before lowering taxes. They'll feel filched if they have to take a pay cut, even if take home pay is higher.
As for savings and investing habit, that is taught and most Americans show little to no will to learn this until it's too late. I wouldn't be concerned about people squirreling away money. They'd probably spend more money with more take home pay.
It's strange how most burgers establish their financial logic.
People are fucked up in the head when they don't want tax cuts because muh the rich people get tax breaks too, ergo no one should get tax breaks! Fucking retards.
lol. why would i be a commie? retard.
"taking care of nature is taking care of your country" - hitler
That's in part due to our financial liabilities. We have a massive welfare bubble ready to pop from boomers, niggers, spics, degenerates, and single moms. Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, and the dictionary of government assistance programs are absolutely overloaded and this carries a high tax load far higher than we could ever hope to pay.
Lowering taxes only makes it worse. The issue is the culture of dependency that's been created and it's killing the country silently like an asymptomatic, metastasizing cancer.
>lel
Chun Li probably turned a lot of guys into leg and ass men.
>flag looks common but actually rare
Having the expectation to give results gives results. Who knew?
Also are the islands still known as tax havens too?
just post soem pic of a wome that doesnt look like a men, with her name as the filename, also preferable no fake tits, ez no derailed thread
lower taxes and all of a sudden american military has smaller budget and america can't control other countries of the world therefore american economy started to go shit
your biggest unique investment is your military
many countries produce what you produce even better
>If I don't post a girl picture, no respones.
If you posted interesting threads you wouldn't have this problem.
>my island runs ENTIRELY on 22% sales tax
What? No property taxes?
This thread is far better than yet another Sup Forums btfo with a reddit screenshot or a youtube celeb thread