No, the problem IS how to lower our taxes. Take a look at Hauser's Law. The best the US can hope to achieve is about a 20% taxation rate of the GDP. Higher tax rates do NOT generate a higher tax revenue in terms of GDP.
.
So the question is not how to use taxes to get more money, but how to use taxes to stimulate growth. If you want more revenue - dollars - then you want to grow the GDP (Hauser's Law stating that you get a fixed percent of the GDP regardless of tax rate).
It's generally accepted that lower taxation will stimulate GDP growth faster than higher taxation. Keep taxes low, your economy grows faster, and while the Government doesn't get more tax as a percentage of GDP, it gets more dollars overall.
So the question is not how to spread taxes, but how to use tax policy to encourage economic growth. And that is generally through lower taxation.
Many countries have zero taxes for foreign companies. Most of the Caribbean nations (Bahamas, Caymans, Dominica, Nevis, etc) and even Hong Kong and Singapore (hardly considered tiny, insignificant locales).
. Many countries have figured out that taxation of companies really stifles growth, and companies pass the taxes on in the form of higher prices anyway, so why tax companies at all - tax the population directly. And keep the companies to keep the economy growing.
And guess what - they do. Go to the US Customs website, download the harmonized tariff schedule. You'll see thousands and thousands of classifications and duty rates for anything you import into the US. And it's almost always lower cost to source from overseas...
For around $1500 you can move your business overseas, too. And go to a tax-free location like Hong Kong or Singapore. A subsidiary here in the US is what you operate, but it pays management and support fees back to the main overseas corporation that essentially make the US income zero.
.
The little guy can do the same as the big guy... It exists, you just have to be willing to shuck out the initial investment and the ~$800 per year to maintain it. Considering the tax savings that can be realized, if you make more than $5,000 per year you're better off doing just this kind of move.
No, but his father died at age 46, his mother at age 52, and is an admitted cocaine and marijuana user and decades-long smoker. All of which should raise serious concerns about his own health.
Senator Obama, will you at least let some journalists look at your medical records like Senator McCain did? And no, Senator Obama a note from your doctor saying you're in good health is not equivalent.
I am so SICK of people pointing to the Democrats in congress and complaining that they alone have not turned things around.
People have to remember that it takes a 2/3 majority to make a bill VETO proof - and with the very slim majority the Democrats have in
congress currently, they need support from Republicans.
Except the Dems had control of the Senate for most of 2001 and all of 2002 and 2003 - note this is the time when the war was debated and then started.
In reality, from 2001 through 2008 the Democrats will have had control of the Senate, the House, or both for 5.5 years. Hardly a "lockstep" with the President pre-2006. And hardly 8 years of "one party rule" as is often charged from the Democrats.
And in the Senate (and the House), even a one seat majority is immensely powerful in that you get to chair the committees. Voting for bills is one thing; deciding which bills even come to a vote of the full Senate is the real power (and why chairmanships are so coveted).
Stalin said it's not the votes that count, but who counts the votes; essentially with the Congress it's not who has the votes on the floor, but who allows what votes to come to the floor.
I believe Gore would have focused on reducing national debt, not increasing it.
Then he would have done something that Clinton often claims but never achieved: reduction in debt. Never happened. The "balanced budgets" were all a myth, only existing on paper. The national debt continued to grow every year.
.
Oh, you mean Senate Bill 2590, the Coburn-Carper-McCain-Obama bill that had one primary sponsor (Coburn) and 47 cosponsors?
You do know that traditionally the first Senator or Senators (if multiple within the first day any additional Senator joins) becomes the co-sponsor and they are listed alphabetically...
And for the record, it's not the "Coburn-Obama Transparency Act" (for the name, if you want to use that type of convention would be the aforementioned Coburn-Carper-McCain-Obama Transparency Act) but the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006.
That price you can get is strictly a temporary supply of new Prius issue. Give it 8-12 months and the resale value will plummet as more hybrid capacity comes online.
.
For example, I bought my 1963 Mercury Comet Custom for $4500 in 2003, have $2500 in repairs/upgrades to it. Now, at car shows, I'm regularly offered $15,000 for it.
Rare car, getting rarer every year. Appreciates in value. Restrict supply, keep demand constant, price increases. Increase demand, price skyrockets.
Oh, and by the way, even with the 260 cubic inch V8 it gets ~25 MPG around town. Mainly due to the fact it weighs just under 2400 pounds.
Great - next time it happens you can come and have your crew of 5 (all earning $25-$40 per hour) stand around for 3 hours waiting for a union electrician show up and charge you $600 to plug your equipment in. Knowing you'll get to do the same thing when you tear down. Thanks for volunteering the $2000 to cover that cost!
True story... I was setting up my booth at the annual CES show, about 5 or so years ago, and was NOT allowed to plug my own equipment into power strips. Had to be union labor to do that!
.
Never mind that at the time I had my PE for the State of Nevada and was certified by the State to sign off on the wiring for the entire Convention center! No, I had to wait for some union stiff - at $50 per outlet - to come by and PLUG EQUIPMENT I DESIGNED AND PASSED THROUGH UL INTO AN ELECTRICAL CIRCUIT I COULD CERTIFY AS SAFE.
I didn't really care for unions before that, but afterwards earned a healthy hatred for them...
Hey, I'm just a 1/8th black poster on Slashdot; compared to McCain, Obama IS just a boy. And it's not like I'm a Vice Presidential Candidate claiming all Indians work only at 7-11!
.
Or better yet, calling his running mate the first articulate, bright, clean and nice looking African American to run for President. Jesse Jackson notwithstanding...
Those links brought to you by the Slavery Party, now known as the Democrats. Proud slavers since 1824!
Reagan lived his two terms; McCain will be just 6 months older when he would finish 8 years as President. Reagan lived until he was 93.
.
President George HW Bush is still alive and going strong at age 84.
President Carter is out and about regularly at age 83.
President Ford lived to be 93.
President Nixon was 91 when he died.
Seems that for the last 40 years Presidents tend to live well into their 80s at a minimum, meaning the whole Slavery/Democrat Party fear mongering about "he'll die in office!" has really no basis in reality.
Nah, let the Slavery Party - the Democrats - rail against McCain's health. We've all seen his records, and if you haven't, they're publicly available for you to check.
.
However, I wonder if we'll ever get to see Barack Obama's records? His health should also be a concern, as African American men suffer heart attacks at a much higher rate than Caucasian men.
So if you're concerned about McCain's health, how about being honest and call for Obama to release his records?
We've seen John McCain's health records, and they all show a man in excellent shape. Now I wonder if we can see those of Barack Obama? After all, African American men suffer from hypertension and heart attacks at a much higher rate than older white men!
Slashdot Mirror
So the question is not how to use taxes to get more money, but how to use taxes to stimulate growth. If you want more revenue - dollars - then you want to grow the GDP (Hauser's Law stating that you get a fixed percent of the GDP regardless of tax rate).
It's generally accepted that lower taxation will stimulate GDP growth faster than higher taxation. Keep taxes low, your economy grows faster, and while the Government doesn't get more tax as a percentage of GDP, it gets more dollars overall.
So the question is not how to spread taxes, but how to use tax policy to encourage economic growth. And that is generally through lower taxation.
Many countries have figured out that taxation of companies really stifles growth, and companies pass the taxes on in the form of higher prices anyway, so why tax companies at all - tax the population directly. And keep the companies to keep the economy growing.
And guess what - they do. Go to the US Customs website, download the harmonized tariff schedule. You'll see thousands and thousands of classifications and duty rates for anything you import into the US. And it's almost always lower cost to source from overseas...
The little guy can do the same as the big guy... It exists, you just have to be willing to shuck out the initial investment and the ~$800 per year to maintain it. Considering the tax savings that can be realized, if you make more than $5,000 per year you're better off doing just this kind of move.
Now, a multi-loaded rocket launcher - THAT could be fun!
No, but his father died at age 46, his mother at age 52, and is an admitted cocaine and marijuana user and decades-long smoker. All of which should raise serious concerns about his own health.
Follow-up Senator Obama. Senator McCain released all his health records back in 1999. Will you match Senator McCain and release all your records prior to 2000?
I am so SICK of people pointing to the Democrats in congress and complaining that they alone have not turned things around. People have to remember that it takes a 2/3 majority to make a bill VETO proof - and with the very slim majority the Democrats have in congress currently, they need support from Republicans.
Except the Dems had control of the Senate for most of 2001 and all of 2002 and 2003 - note this is the time when the war was debated and then started.
In reality, from 2001 through 2008 the Democrats will have had control of the Senate, the House, or both for 5.5 years. Hardly a "lockstep" with the President pre-2006. And hardly 8 years of "one party rule" as is often charged from the Democrats.
And in the Senate (and the House), even a one seat majority is immensely powerful in that you get to chair the committees. Voting for bills is one thing; deciding which bills even come to a vote of the full Senate is the real power (and why chairmanships are so coveted).
Stalin said it's not the votes that count, but who counts the votes; essentially with the Congress it's not who has the votes on the floor, but who allows what votes to come to the floor.
I believe Gore would have focused on reducing national debt, not increasing it.
Then he would have done something that Clinton often claims but never achieved: reduction in debt. Never happened. The "balanced budgets" were all a myth, only existing on paper. The national debt continued to grow every year.
Other than you proved you're less intelligent than President Bush. You do know that the word nuclear can be pronounced as "nuke-you-lar", don't you?
Got me there! Hard to argue with that...
And I believe Kucinich is a Representative, not a Senator as the GP posted...
Mod parent up... Acts 15 is the answer.
More than meets the eye! I guess the Decepticons don't want us to advance our knowledge!
Oh, you mean Senate Bill 2590, the Coburn-Carper-McCain-Obama bill that had one primary sponsor (Coburn) and 47 cosponsors?
You do know that traditionally the first Senator or Senators (if multiple within the first day any additional Senator joins) becomes the co-sponsor and they are listed alphabetically...
And for the record, it's not the "Coburn-Obama Transparency Act" (for the name, if you want to use that type of convention would be the aforementioned Coburn-Carper-McCain-Obama Transparency Act) but the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006.
Obama is 47 with a good health record.
Really? Has he actually released his medical records, or just a note from his doctor saying he's OK?
I sure see a lot of lying on the Republican side too (Obama raising taxes, when he clearly plans to reduce them for 85% of the population)
Yes, because raising taxes on 15% means he's not raising taxes... Er, I mean, only a partial tax raise means no tax raises. Or, uh...
LOOK OVER THERE! A MAYOR AND GOVERNOR FOR VP!
For example, I bought my 1963 Mercury Comet Custom for $4500 in 2003, have $2500 in repairs/upgrades to it. Now, at car shows, I'm regularly offered $15,000 for it.
Rare car, getting rarer every year. Appreciates in value. Restrict supply, keep demand constant, price increases. Increase demand, price skyrockets.
Oh, and by the way, even with the 260 cubic inch V8 it gets ~25 MPG around town. Mainly due to the fact it weighs just under 2400 pounds.
Great - next time it happens you can come and have your crew of 5 (all earning $25-$40 per hour) stand around for 3 hours waiting for a union electrician show up and charge you $600 to plug your equipment in. Knowing you'll get to do the same thing when you tear down. Thanks for volunteering the $2000 to cover that cost!
Never mind that at the time I had my PE for the State of Nevada and was certified by the State to sign off on the wiring for the entire Convention center! No, I had to wait for some union stiff - at $50 per outlet - to come by and PLUG EQUIPMENT I DESIGNED AND PASSED THROUGH UL INTO AN ELECTRICAL CIRCUIT I COULD CERTIFY AS SAFE.
I didn't really care for unions before that, but afterwards earned a healthy hatred for them...
Or better yet, calling his running mate the first articulate, bright, clean and nice looking African American to run for President. Jesse Jackson notwithstanding...
Those links brought to you by the Slavery Party, now known as the Democrats. Proud slavers since 1824!
Why? I'm just using the words of President Jimmy Carter here. What's the problem?
President George HW Bush is still alive and going strong at age 84.
President Carter is out and about regularly at age 83.
President Ford lived to be 93.
President Nixon was 91 when he died.
Seems that for the last 40 years Presidents tend to live well into their 80s at a minimum, meaning the whole Slavery/Democrat Party fear mongering about "he'll die in office!" has really no basis in reality.
However, I wonder if we'll ever get to see Barack Obama's records? His health should also be a concern, as African American men suffer heart attacks at a much higher rate than Caucasian men.
So if you're concerned about McCain's health, how about being honest and call for Obama to release his records?
We've seen John McCain's health records, and they all show a man in excellent shape. Now I wonder if we can see those of Barack Obama? After all, African American men suffer from hypertension and heart attacks at a much higher rate than older white men!