Depends on what you mean by “higher,” I guess. Generally speaking, though, no, they do not.
As a review — and as a way to brush up on your economic responses to the left claims that “we can’t afford” to “pay for tax cuts,” etc. (your ideological response should naturally be that the government doesn’t pay for tax cuts, but rather overspends and wastes the tax revenue it already collects; further, it doesn’t allow us to keep our money, it asks for money to fund the necessary functions of a government) — here’s a brief 5-minute piece on the Laffer curve, courtesy Prager U.
The magical thinkers on the left like to use an intuitive economic model: if we take more in taxes from the private sector, we’ll naturally have more in revenue for the government! At least, that’s how they sell it. Because adding in additional variables is tricky. And math is hard.
But of course, reductions in taxes oftentimes will stimulate growth, which in turn increases government revenue — a fact that the progressives must surely know.
Which begs the question, if they really want more revenue for government (and they spend as if they do), why do they consistently push a model that leads to less revenue?
Answer: this isn’t about government revenue. It’s about power, and creating dependents.
It’s loathsome. But again, it is what it is, and until we recognize who our ideological opponents truly are what they are truly up to, we cannot beat them — even when we win elections.
Somebody needs to do a smallish book explaining how budgetary/fiscal policy works using examples drawn from home economics.
Honey we can’t afford to pay that extra $20 dollars a week to the Roth IRA. Jimmy and Sally need that money to hang out with their friends at the food court!
Selfish bastard hates his own kids
Yes.
High rates always come with the promise of breaks if one jumps through the proper hoops. These hoops are the power, as they can be anything that any official wishes. In short high tax rates transfer power to government, the need of more tax revenue is only the lie used to sell them.
Please, just always bear in mind that the fundamental philosophical reasons are more important than the practical/tactical ones. Government must be shrunk because it threatens our freedom and dignity, and promotes dependence, envy, sloth, irresponsibility, and every manner of what Heinlein calls “bad luck.”
Perversely, cutting taxes is likely to increase government revenues. But I don’t want to get people on board with tax cuts for that reason; I want them committed to shrinking the State and getting it out of our lives. Pushing the curve leftward is important, not because it takes us toward the point of maximizing revenues, but because it’s necessary to go over that hump if we’re to restore the government to its rightful proportions.
I’m far too prone to getting caught up in the practical arguments for various policies, and too often it leads me to lose sight of, or to give short shrift to, the fundamental arguments. As a wise man once said: How you get there matters.
You don’t want to have any government at all, Squid. I know that because progressives tell me so, and they wouldn’t lie.
Yup. I realized I was looking at an uphill struggle when my Proggie friends tried to convince me that 100,000 middle-class middle-age Tea Partiers on the National Mall were really anarchists. Smiling, polite, well-dressed, slightly paunchy anarchists.
Progressives are insane. They cannot be reasoned with. Nuke ’em from space. It’s the only way to be sure.
Of course, that’s the wrong song.
dangit.
It’s the only way to be sure.
That’s more appropriate. Fade to black is too mellow.
Those anarchists were so anarchy that they left the place cleaner than it was when they got there.
That’s how those rebels roll.
That actually is how real anarchists roll, cranky. You clean up after yourself, feed and cloth yourself, protect yourself, etc.
These pinheaded vandals you see on tv aren’t really anarchists.
That’s what makes them so dangerous that they must be stopped at all costs, cranky,
their commitment to spontaneous order I mean.
Ernst, actually, the budgetary mess can be covered in just a few sentences and bullet points:
Why the U.S. was downgraded:
• U.S. Tax revenue: $2,170,000,000,000
• Fed budget: $3,820,000,000,000
• New debt: $ 1,650,000,000,000
• National debt: $14,271,000,000,000
• Recent budget cuts: $ 38,500,000,000
Let’s now remove 8 zeros and pretend it’s a household budget:
• Annual family income: $21,700
• Money the family spent: $38,200
• New debt on the credit card: $16,500
• Outstanding balance on the credit card: $142,710
• Total budget cuts: $385
Got it?
OK now Lesson # 2:
Here’s another way to look at the Debt Ceiling:
Let’s say, You come home from work and find there has been a sewer backup in your neighborhood….
and your home has sewage all the way up to your ceilings.
What do you think you should do?
•Raise the Ceilings, or
•Pump out the sewage
Classify it as a swamp and ask for federal aid.
OT: Paid off student loan today.
No debt now.
Congratulations, Mikey. Heading to the gun store? (figure Disneyland is passe)
* Fund a new study that finds any disturbance of sewage will harm the local flora and fauna and destroy the environment.
So, a few things:
-Upper bracket rate and effective income tax rate: two different things. Even if you make the upper bracket rate 33%, no one will actually pay that rate.
-Who didn’ t know how the Laffer curve worked?
-Ima have to check out the Romer & Romer paper, so I come to these discussions better armed.
Even if you make the upper bracket rate 33%, no one will actually pay that rate.
That can be taken a couple of different ways. I suspect you mean that because the first part of income is taxed at the lower rates, one never gets to the full 33% unless one has infinite income. That’s the mathematical argument.
The other argument is behavioral: because nobody wants to pay a third of their hard-earned lucre to Timmy Taxcheat, they engage in behaviors that hide or eliminate that income. It goes into economically inefficient tax shelters, or the earner simply decides that the diminished income just isn’t worth the effort. Not to mention the fact that if you can keep your income $10 below the arbitrary number picked by Your Moral Superiors, it keeps you from being Evil.
Yep, all of that is true.
The IRS Is Attempting An Illegal End-Run Around States Opting Out Of Obamacare
“I know that because progressives tell me so, and they wouldn’t lie.”
Unless it’s for the greater good there Crankster or for teh children.
(except the ones that came into being just to punish the lion-hearted women willing to express their love indiscriminately)
You haters just don’t get it;)
But it’s not lying. It’s revolutionary truth. It’s a superior cognitive technology used by those who open their minds, transcend the boundaries of their false consciousness implanted by the patriarchal while oligarchy, and find themselves on the right side of history.
Three simple words: Revolutionary truth!
Palaeo,
That’s kinda like a three letter word Mr., so best be careful where you use it!
AP Exclusive: Memos show US hushed up Soviet crime
That’s just crazy-talk newrouter!
Their just trying to take the patron saint of liberalism and American savior down a notch!
Next you’ll be quoting a Bob Woodward book critical of Messiobama.
Really?! Because to hear ABC tell it, Woodward’s book is critical of Boehner’s unwillingness to stand up to the teatards in his caucus.
[…] If you have any friends who still believe we can fix our fiscal woes by turning rich people’s taxes to 11, point them to this Jeff Goldstein post for five minutes of pure, sweet reality. […]