An interesting graph and a bump to the political forums. I found this while doing research for my Money and Banking class. It's seems a bit nonsensical but it obviously has some merit/value to it.



Essentially what it says is that raising taxes (Specifically on the rich) does not provide more tax revenue. It would in fact typically provide less because higher taxes lower GDP causing the 19.5% of GDP that is our Tax revenue to be smaller.

You can read the full article here: http://online.wsj.com/public/article_pr ... 05693.html

sorry, but the revenue GDP looks like a strait line for over 50 or so years. So lets continue taxing the fuck out of the rich

Econ major?

I graduated last year with a Bachelors in Economics and another in International Business...

If you are it would be cool to finally have another economist on here who actually has an idea of what they are talking about when US and World economics are talked about.

Its revenue as a percent of GDP not just straight revenue.. Those are completely different numbers and the implications each one brings are different.

I look at the cost to run the country and all of it's programs for the year. And it seems since we have a bunch more of millionaires here in the USA than the 1950s, the more we can tap from their un-used money and put towards the cost to run said country; that means the more millionares we have here in the USofA, the less resources taken from my pocket book. Hmmm I like taxing the fuck out of the rich.

I am not saying I disagree with your thought process, I was simply pointing out that revenue and revenue as a percent of GDP are completely different things.

I will say this though, while your idea has merit there are so many other factors to consider when dealing with monetary policy. Simply taxing the hell out of the rich would cause just as many problems as it would solve.

Obsoleet I think you're not really understanding what I'm saying here. The point of that graph is that no matter what the highest margin tax rate is, the amount of money collected from taxes is unchanged. The only reasonable explanation I could find/come to was that when taxes are increased people are less likely to invest money here meaning that our Financial Account (Which is like 70% of our balance of payments and balances out of HUGE trade deficit) decreases. It is odd however that it seems to do this one a one-to-one ratio (With the tax rate) keeping tax incomes level. Regardless of why it happens it still happens.

Simply put, no one gains anything by highly taxing the rich. In fact you lose something because tax income (Social benefits etc.) are directly effected by GDP and when you have high taxes GDP does not grow as quickly.

Tax Income - Other Costs = Money spent on social services/wealth distribution
GDP x Constant = Tax Income
Higher Taxes = Lower GDP

Higher Taxes = Lower Tax Income
Higher Taxes = Less money spent on social services/wealth distribution.


And yeah I'm planning on going Econ. nothing else really interests me although I'll probably have a heavy focus on finance from a more micro perspective.

Looks like you have a pretty good grasp of the subject matter at hand... If you do decice to go the econ route and ever have any questions or an idea you want to bounce back and forth, post it here I have always enjoyed a good economic debate/conversation. Have you taken intermediate microeconomic theory yet? This was one of the more challenging classes for me in my undergrad.

Taking it next semester over int. Macro, I've always been better at Micro and the materials more real-world applicable as far as I can tell. Can't take them both as I'm trying to transfer and was told that a diverse course-load looks better but I'll wind up doing Macro as well I'm sure. Took Money and Banking this semester, pretty interesting with the current event aspect thrown in and my professor who used to work for the Fed.

the main problem is we have no way of accouting for all taxes paid.
income tax, okay...
what about gasoline tax? federal tax on alcohol, tobacco?
federal tax on guns, ammo?
fuel tax (paid on interstate trucking, possibly rail too)

people are against a national flat rate sales tax in place of income tax, most claiming they shouldnt have to pay same amount of tax on item as a rich person but...you pay exactly the same amount of tax on a gallon of gas as a rich person does already.

same with alot of items.

dissolve, or seriously diminish the IRS and replace the income tax with a national sales tax would work wonders for our nation.

1 you would have less government employees to pay by decreasing size of IRS
2 individuals would have more money to spend, and if they choose to bank it and collect interest so much the better, more money would be available for lending etc.
3 income that is not derived legitimately, IE drug money et all, would still be able to be collected via a NST (national sales tax) because even drug dealers have to buy certain items...
4 welfare recipients would cease having numerous kids in order to get fatter refund checks, because there would no longer be refund checks, perhaps some of them would actually get jobs instead of living off the rest of us.
5 if income tax were no longer around, people wouldnt be hesitant to make more money because of fears of falling into a higher tax bracket, therefore they would have more money to spend, which would mean more revenue for the government as well.

cant remember the name of the presidential candidate who suggested it, atm, but he was suggesting a flat 17% which is ridiculous, a much smaller amount would suffice.

the only reason to be opposed to a NST would be people who are rigid against change, welfare recips, and of course people employed in the current tax industry, IRS, hr block, jackson hewlit etc.

otherwise, lets "get er done!"