The Motley Fool Discussion Boards
Retirement Discussions / Retire Early CampFIRE
|Subject: Re: Taxes Are Much Higher Than You Think||Date: 12/18/2012 9:54 AM|
|Author: spookysquid||Number: 660746 of 847212|
It figures that you would pick one of the most economically harmful taxes to increase.
Link? Support? Something? Besides, I'm pretty sure that's the corporate taxes that have the most impact to growth, not the rate most relevant to the top earners. Therefore your criticism as "the" most economically harmful, I think, is not accurate. But fighting over "not the worst" is hardly a strong position on my part, I admit. :)
But didn't the CRS just debunk this? The strongest criticism of the CRS report was that it doesn't fully look at the top rate's impact to corporate income taxes. Doesn't focusing on long term capital gains bypass that criticism as well?
Last, and this could just be severe ignorance on my part (I'm fully prepared for this eventuality), but the numbers I've seen say things like "A 1% reduction in tax type X leads to an increase in GDP of 1.4%" or something along those lines. But who cares? If I collect 10% tax on $100 of GDP for a total of $10 in revenue, if I drop my rate by 1% and thus increase to $101.80, then I now collect $9.16. I don't get back to my old level of revenue until growth gets to $111.11, which would take about 6 years, assuming nothing else changes. How does that increase my tax revenue now?
I guess all of this comes down to what problem you are trying to solve with your tax structure. Balance of power (through growing concentrations of capital), relief for the poor (tax credits and what not), or least impact to growth. The answers (proposed tax structures) in large part are reflections of the question, yet everyone assumes the other's failure to address their preferred question means that they are "evil". That's certainly not constructive either.
|Copyright 1996-2016 trademark and the "Fool" logo is a trademark of The Motley Fool, Inc. Contact Us|