Last edited by kelly4; 06-19-2012 at 09:33 AM.
"Kelly has underestimated my powers of being stupid!!!!! RAWR KELLY! FEAR MY POWER!"-Some dumb Polak
this nicely illustrates what I was about to bring up to beenthere.
Beenthere raises a valid point, what will happen to the extra revenue that is collected from an increased tax on the rich? why, it will only go toward more government says he. that may be the case, but beenthere fails to mention that government expands even when those expansions are not funded. Given this reality, it would be better if the money were at least collected. Furthermore, it is claimed by some that revenues collected by the government stagnate - this is not so, there may well be far more stagnation of money when it is left in the hands of the rich. But I have said that before.
Come on Beenthere, tell us how limiting revenue to a government that can effectively borrow unlimited amounts, and when in need, mint it's own will curtail government expansion.
Is that a fact? So are you saying that an increase in tax revenue automatically becomes discretionary outlays and are signed as appropriation bills? Get real, if that were the case, we wouldn't have an annual budget, and need a budget committee, or congress for that matter?
With your logic, it would be impossible to ever pay down the national debt! LOL
Definition of 'Effective Tax Rate'
The rate a taxpayer would be taxed at if taxing was done at a constant rate, instead of progressively.
Calculated as total tax paid divided by taxable income.
Read more: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/...#ixzz1yH68kDbY
Now try again!