Liberals: what is the cutoff point where tax cuts for the rich isn't "trickle down"?

quote:

---

what is the cutoff point where tax cuts for the rich isn't "trickle down"?

---

I don't know.

I do believe the laffer curve is a thing. If the gov't taxed 100% of income, people would stop working. But that curve does inflect at some point, although I am not qualified enough to say where that curve would reach an inflection point.

Depends on your income.

Fun Fact: In the 50s The richest people in this country were taxed in the 90% range.

I know you conservatives love the 50s.

quote:

---

republicans why do you always want to cut taxes on the wealthy? has it ever worked? i thought trickle down economics didn't work. Kansas is a great example of republicans cutting taxes and giant deficits follow.

---

It is much better to invest in lobbying for a tax cut than it is to invest in production or workforce development because there us nearly no risk in investing in such lobbying....it is as close to a sure thing as there us in life. Investing in improved processes or workforce development is relatively very risky.

None of the proposed tax cuts that have been put forth since Kennedy promoted the idea of making the wealthier even wealthier and lifting all ships on a rising tide have paid for themselves. It is not even possible to determine their effect on the economy because they have all be coupled to staggering increases in spending so it is impossible to determine where the economic bounce came from if indeed there is one.

Trickle down economics has doe exactly what it was meant to do from day one...make the already incredibly wealthy even wealthier....there has never been any consideration for this country or the middle class when tax cuts were concerned...it has always been about making the rich richer and to hell with debt and deficits and the country......and the aristocracy can depend on their serfs among the right to carry their water for them.....

quote:

---

Under your logic, simply dumping trillions of dollars onto an African country would result in that country becoming wealthy

---

see Zimbabwe

quote:

---

It is much better to invest in lobbying for a tax cut than it is to invest in production or workforce development because there us nearly no risk in investing in such lobbying....i

---

i hear that's what Apple does. They just lobby for tax cuts instead of making products.

Question for you... if you have no revenue how do you get a tax cut?

quote:

---

Fun Fact: In the 50s The richest people in this country were taxed in the 90% range.

---

Fun Fact: I get a chuckle every time I see this posted

quote:

---

i hear that's what Apple does. They just lobby for tax cuts instead of making products.

Question for you... if you have no revenue how do you get a tax cut?

---

SO you really think it is possible that someone like Apple does not weigh the advantage of lobbying for a tax cut? If you have no revenue my friend you don't care what tax rates are....100% of nothing is nothing. Companies like Apple already have revenue...its what they do....and theya lso spend a lot of money lobbying for favorable taxation because it is money well spent....

You can only cut taxes for the wealthy. Net effective tax rates are very low for 90% of the population.

I mean, the Laffer curve would certainly have merit at 80, 90, or 100 percent (duh).

However, even the wealthiest people in the country are only paying an effective tax rate of less than 25%. If we increase the top bracket by 4-5%, that's probably only 1-2% difference in effective tax rates for the top earners.

If we were to implement a flat tax, it would have to be 15% or so. That's best case for rich people.

So, really it's a comparison of the effects of the following rates:
15%
25%
~27%

Not a huge difference in trickle down effects.

To liberals, "the rich" don't pay enough taxes now so any cut is labelled trickle down economics.