22 ms·

> (which are unlikely to work, based on Laffer curve) Doesn't that assume we are currently sitting at the optimal point of the curve? Is there any reason to t

> (which are unlikely to work, based on Laffer curve) Doesn't that assume we are currently sitting at the optimal point of the curve? Is there any reason to think that is the case?

wing-_-nuts 3y ago
Considering that other nations with similar growth rates have much higher taxes, I'd say the evidence is that our current tax rates amount to a giveaway for the rich. Of course, they also happen to be the ones with real political power (see Grover Norquist), so nothing is likely to change any time soon.
- username332211 3y ago
  Considering that other nations with similar growth rates have implemented VAT, I'd say the evidence is current American tax rates don't amount to a giveaway to the rich. Rather the opposite in fact.
  - wing-_-nuts 3y ago
    I don't see anything wrong with taxing consumption. I've long advocated for a revenue neutral carbon tax, for example
    - QuarterReptile 3y ago
      I'll point out what I believe the other commenter was alluding to. 1.Consumption taxes are generally considered regressive because poorer people end up consuming a greater proportion of their incomes and thus paying taxes again on more of their earnings. 2.People who talk about a 'giveaway to the rich' or who advocate for 'tax the rich' generally mean to draw a distinction and say that the rich need to pay an even higher proportion of taxes than the do at the moment. 'The rich' is seldom (I believe never) meant as metonymy. 3. Advocating for consumption taxes is thus advocating against taxing the rich more, and vice versa.
QuarterReptile 3y ago
Since roughly WW2, it seems like exemptions have steadily fallen and marginal rates with them, but generally you get consistent revenue as a percentage of GDP. I'm inclined to believe, based on that, the we are near the cultural maximum for the Laffer curve for the US, given present incentives. It's possible you could chase it higher if you disassembled all social programs so that people would fear more for their livelihoods, I guess. *I'm not going to take the time to source this post, so you can disavow it if you like, but feel free to search for yourself.

> (which are unlikely to work, based on Laffer curve) Doesn't that assume we are currently sitting at the optimal point of the curve? Is there any reason to think that is the case?

wing-_-nuts 3y ago

Considering that other nations with similar growth rates have much higher taxes, I'd say the evidence is that our current tax rates amount to a giveaway for the rich. Of course, they also happen to be the ones with real political power (see Grover Norquist), so nothing is likely to change any time soon.

username332211 3y ago
Considering that other nations with similar growth rates have implemented VAT, I'd say the evidence is current American tax rates don't amount to a giveaway to the rich. Rather the opposite in fact.
- wing-_-nuts 3y ago
  I don't see anything wrong with taxing consumption. I've long advocated for a revenue neutral carbon tax, for example
  - QuarterReptile 3y ago
    I'll point out what I believe the other commenter was alluding to. 1.Consumption taxes are generally considered regressive because poorer people end up consuming a greater proportion of their incomes and thus paying taxes again on more of their earnings. 2.People who talk about a 'giveaway to the rich' or who advocate for 'tax the rich' generally mean to draw a distinction and say that the rich need to pay an even higher proportion of taxes than the do at the moment. 'The rich' is seldom (I believe never) meant as metonymy. 3. Advocating for consumption taxes is thus advocating against taxing the rich more, and vice versa.

QuarterReptile 3y ago

Since roughly WW2, it seems like exemptions have steadily fallen and marginal rates with them, but generally you get consistent revenue as a percentage of GDP. I'm inclined to believe, based on that, the we are near the cultural maximum for the Laffer curve for the US, given present incentives. It's possible you could chase it higher if you disassembled all social programs so that people would fear more for their livelihoods, I guess. *I'm not going to take the time to source this post, so you can disavow it if you like, but feel free to search for yourself.