Overview Chat Bike Members News Women
Viewing 13 posts - 241 through 253 (of 253 total)
1 2 3 … 5 6 7
  • 30% flat tax rate?
  • TandemJeremy
    Free Member

    THM

    Crossed posts but quite honestly I am going to ignore you from now on as yo spout such nonsense in such an unpleasant way. You ruin every debate you enter.

    Elasticity does not prove laffer. I can accept and it is probably true that increase taxation by 10% only gives less than 10% increase in revenue in some circumstances, however I cannot accept that increasing tax by 10% gives less total revenue.

    I was going to post up a load of links to critiques of laffer but its just pointless.

    Posted 11 years ago
    tron
    Free Member

    TJ, you’re talking total tosh here. Pretty much the entirety of economics is theoretical. If you say the laffer curve is only a theory then you might as well not comment on any of it.

    And the point on benefits fraud is a straw man argument.

    Posted 11 years ago
    Junkyard
    Free Member

    well I got an B last time so who knows which is greatest the decline in my knowledge or the decline in standards 😀

    Posted 11 years ago
    TandemJeremy
    Free Member

    Tron -the point is THM treats theory as fact when it suits his arguement and the benefits arguement shows the illogic of the laffer curve nonsense.

    Posted 11 years ago
    teamhurtmore
    Free Member

    Forget Laffer, that is irrelevant (and remember how I referred to it). Explain elasticity and why the HRMC is wrong in its conclusion. Stop hiding behind insults (which on this thread you started remember) – its very simple. Openly and clearly explain where this is wrong? You have stated several times now that the conclusion of the HRMC is incorrect. Please explain why to all of us, then we can agree with you (perhaps).

    And forget theory if you want, explain Russia in practice. How on earth did that happen?

    Posted 11 years ago
    TandemJeremy
    Free Member

    THM
    1) where did I start the insults?
    2) Where have I “stated several times now that the conclusion of the HRMC is incorrect”

    Bye.

    You are back to inventing stuff yo claim I have said

    Posted 11 years ago
    TandemJeremy
    Free Member

    Here is some of many links I found debunking laffer as nonsense for anyone who wants to see

    The notion that governments could raise more money by cutting rates is, indeed, a glorious idea,” Goolsbee wrote in his final paragraph, adding: “Unfortunately for all of us, the data from the historical record suggest that it is unlikely to be true at anything like today’s marginal tax rates. It seems that, for now at least, we will have to keep paying for our tax cuts the old fashioned way.”

    http://www.nationaljournal.com/economy/laffer-lines-drawn-20110414

    http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2007/07/yet-again-tax-c.html

    Posted 11 years ago
    Junkyard
    Free Member

    glitch bump
    EDIT: Wished I had not bothered

    Posted 11 years ago
    tron
    Free Member

    The benefits argument doesn’t make any sense. One that does is if petrol were 2 quid a litre, would we see more people on buses? Would people seek to follow their own interests and minimise their costs?

    Another example I suspect a lot of people have experience of first hand is of getting paid overtime at a time and a half. Once you pay the extra tax, you’re not seeing much above your regular hourly rate after tax. So you tend to less overtime.

    Posted 11 years ago
    loum
    Free Member

    Online comment-writers to get own internet

    Posted 11 years ago
    El-bent
    Free Member

    Is this still going on?

    Arguing over something that wont be implemented in this country.

    Posted 11 years ago
    teamhurtmore
    Free Member

    TJ

    1. Top of page 2
    2. Several times indirectly – stated clearly on the pervious page. The conclusion of the HRMC is “nonsense”, pretty categorical that.

    And how does Goolsbee explain what happened in Russia?

    Or run away when the hard, simple facts get in the way? Alternatively you may well understand this better than Keynes, the HRMC and most economists!

    Anyway last post on the issue. Not going to let you get others dragged into a ban.

    Posted 11 years ago
    GrahamS
    Full Member

    I am pretty sure you have just proved that £52,400 in indeed more than £42,000.

    Yep 🙂

    But if you only consider individual income then the couple on £52,400 are “average” whereas the couple on £42,000 are “rich” (or at least one of them is!) and are paying more tax.

    Hence why it is a flawed approach.

    Posted 11 years ago
Viewing 13 posts - 241 through 253 (of 253 total)
1 2 3 … 5 6 7

The topic ‘30% flat tax rate?’ is closed to new replies.

Overview Chat Bike Members News Women