As I've already pointed out the seminal ideas for the internet DID NOT come from "government initiatives", but rather the ideas of a single individual, where all good idea come from.

__________________
Blade: "more educated and literate people than Justabubba"

Justabubba: "that would include everyone"

http://politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=27847

Ahuh, and what precludes that one, or any, of the things Obama is getting behind is not likely to suceed in just the same way?

Edit: its just the funding coming from government, the ideas are from elsewhere. That has been consistently clear in this thread to me.

They can't BY DEFINITION succeed the same way, "government initiatives" aren't the same thing as individual innovation. I've said this about six times now - at what repetition are you going to understand?

__________________
Blade: "more educated and literate people than Justabubba"

Justabubba: "that would include everyone"

http://politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=27847

Ahh, a man familiar with the Laffer Curve.

The answer is that I have a declining incentive to create jobs, as the government is stealing 99% of the fruits of my labor, so eff em.

My position is not absolute, if you understand the Laffer Curve.

There is an ideal point where taxaes are lowered to the point where the maximum revenue is gained by increased production. That point is known as "T".



The only way to know when we reach "T" is to cut tax rates until revenue falls, and then raise it slightly to "T". That gives the taxpayer the least burden, and the highest opportunity to thrive, and the goverment the maximum revenue stream from the increased worker productivity.

So the answer is "no", as we have not seen declining revenues, but an increase, so taxes can, and should be cut further.

Laffer Curve, no kidding. Seems to oversimplyfy things- that taxes and production are the only factors influencing each other. Increased government services from more taxes- better roads, safer streets for instance- would contribute to overall production.

Doesn't note that it becomes easier to make more money the more money you have- so say if the profit made from you 100th worker is indeed taxed at 99%, you've still got 99 others making profits at less of a percentage taxed. Personally I'd keep hiring (he says in admitted ignorance).

Also, if you don't like the deal, it leaves others to take your absent worker's place. So say theres a progressive tax on each worker's profits( in effect) 1% for the 1st, 99% at the 99th and onwards; You stop at say 100, figuring its not worth your while to hire more, than theres the demand for me to hire some of my own workers. More diversity and competition- can't be a bad thing.

I sort of get the feeling that the Laffer Curve was conceived by those that it has worked out serving- those that want to be taxed less and don't want competition.

We're kind of off-topic btw.

A man wants to be able to send Chuck Norris jokes to everyone in the world. He goes to the government, which likes the idea and therefore gives him money. This Chuck Norris joke delivery system is extremely successful.

A man wants to power things, like the afformentioned joke delivery system, with the power of the sun. He goes to the government, which likes the idea so therefore gives him money. This Solar power system is __________.

The analogy fails how? No-one, except you, has said that its Obama's ideas- hes just doling out the money.

You get less revenue from more taxes, so if you want more money to spend on those services you cut taxes more.

Every dollar the goverment takes out of the economy in taxes to re-spend gets a large piece taken out for overhead. It's far more efficient to let that dollar buy a full dollar's worth of prosperity than it is to leech it dry.



The Laffer Curve was invented (before Laffer) in the 14th century by Ibn Khaldun, a Muslim economist and philosopher.

Arthur B. Laffer points this out:

The Historical Origins of the Laffer Curve

The Laffer Curve, by the way, was not invented by me. For example, Ibn Khaldun, a 14th century Muslim philosopher, wrote in his work The Muqaddimah: "It should be known that at the beginning of the dynasty, taxation yields a large revenue from small assessments. At the end of the dynasty, taxation yields a small revenue from large assessments."

President Kennedy also understood the basics of the Laffer Curve even before it was called that, as is shown by his tax cuts of 1963.

Tax reduction thus sets off a process that can bring gains for everyone, gains won by marshalling resources that would otherwise stand idle--workers without jobs and farm and factory capacity without markets. Yet many taxpayers seemed prepared to deny the nation the fruits of tax reduction because they question the financial soundness of reducing taxes when the federal budget is already in deficit. Let me make clear why, in today's economy, fiscal prudence and responsibility call for tax reduction even if it temporarily enlarged the federal deficit--why reducing taxes is the best way open to us to increase revenues.
John F. Kennedy

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/bg1765.cfm


Yes, the Laffer Curve is simple, but it has worked every single time it has been tried. Brilliance is often simple. The carrot is better than the stick.

When you say "overhead", who exactly is getting that piece? The government spends all the money (plus more with all the deficits spending), so not a dollar taxed is taken out of the economy. Every government worker or contracted company will spend the money at the same private enterprises as anybody else. Taxing does not make wealth magically disappear. It all is payed out to people who build our roads, defend our lands, and perform many other functions required for secure global business transactions.

The entire principal behind taxing is that resources that would otherwise be sitting around get distributed evenly throughout the economy for infrastructure that drives all private business. With strong transportation and communication systems that all private companies can access, trade and competition flourish. As a result, productivity and morale improve as well.

Taxing and spending isn't all bad. We just need to eliminate the wastes (like the Iraq war) and spend the money in ways that benefits all private interests.

Also, there's no point in taxing people who are living check to check, since all their money is already flowing back into the pool. Only people with vast amount of excesses should pay a high rate in taxes. They have the most assets being protected by our military, so it only makes sense that they pay more for it.

__________________
Sarah "Barracuda" Palin: 10 Red Flags

Are you seriously arguing that the government can spend money more efficiently than individuals?


Not counting the Post Office or the military, the Feds have 1.8 million civilian employees, and are the largest employer in the country. That's overhead.

That's the way Marx drew it up.

In Capitalist countries, the individual decides best how he spends his own money, since it is he who earned it, not the Government.

Welfare or vote buyimg is not an infrastructure that drive busniness. The leass government you have, the better business does, in most cases.

There are times to raise taxes, and times to lower them. It depends on the situation. If you kept lowering taxes forever, eventually we'd have no military or upkept roads. But if you overtax people, the burden may impact their productivity.

In general, most developed nations take around 30 to 40 percent from the higher brackets of income earners. To me, that seems fair enough, as long as the tax code is simple and everybody in your bracket is paying their full share.

In the past, when this nation was below 30 percent, we were vulnerable to violent swings in the job market. After the last major crash in 1929, we put in a tax/spending program that never went away. And although it can be wasteful, it does stabilize the economy, proven by the fact that we haven't had a major recession since we switched to the 30 to 40 percent (for the higher brackets) taxing/spending model.

__________________
Sarah "Barracuda" Palin: 10 Red Flags