The question should not be "How much can the government tax before it becomes detrimental?" The question should "How much is the minimum amount of tax revenue the government needs to cover necessary spending?"
The problem is that it will be politicians deciding on what that minimum spending level should be and they will do so in a way that best serves their own interests. And you must not forget that the level of taxes can either encourage or discourage economic activity. You can actually lower tax revenues by raising tax rates and vice versa.
Two points. First when it comes to where the rate should be we have an interesting reference point. No matter what situation we were in (war, depression, prosperity, etc.) or what the tax codes were federal revenue has NEVER exceeded 19% of GDP and has never been lower than 15% of GDP since the start of 20th century. Therefore, if you want to grow federal revenue you grow the economy. The government has never grown the economy through high taxes. There is pattern of lowering taxes stimulating growth, though. Secondly, their insistence we raise taxes to pay for things ASSUMES the government is the best entity to fix those problems. Many of us who oppose tax hikes and growth of government do so because we honestly believe government is NOT the best entity to fix those problems. There are examples in history of where the government trying to fix something made things worse than if they hadn't acted at all. As well as examples of government inaction that led to a historically fast recovery.
The Government will NEVER have enough money. Set a flat tax rate of 15% and in no time government will over spend and demand an increase to 16 or 17%. You want more tax revenues? Grow the economy.
What none of the punditry seem to understand is that bureaucratic government is the absolute worst manager of any source of revenue. It takes decades for even a local government to repair a road, yet private companies build massive toll roads for hundreds of miles in no time. If you gave government 100% of revenue, there would still be "poor" people. Ever heard of Soviet Russia or modern China? I've seen people in Beijing who were far poorer than villagers in Bangladesh. Taxes should be paid yes but they will not end poverty.
But the government borrows from the mega wealthy billionaires who are the ones who finance wars and everything else. The government knows they cant raise our taxes to finance wars because we would be outraged. So the government borrows money (Japan #1 lender, China #2 Lender) The thing is the mega rich get interest on these loans that the Government pays for so either way the mega rich win win and win while USA debt stands at 34.9 trillion. This debt will eventually have to be paid for. Who’s going to flip the bill? Us, the people.
face it -we cannot spend our way to prosperity, especially when a highly inefficient bureaucratic government will spend $2 dollars for each $1 dollar they distribute to specific groups just to stay in power. The other issue is that the government focuses on confiscating money for optics rather than on job growth.
@@tomdailey6915 no my brother there exists many unutilised resources which you can put into production process with entreprise, labour and capital. Blaming rich won't work is
The very first words out of the host's mouth contain a false premise. He stated that the rich "aren't doing anything productive" with their money. As a matter of fact, no billionaire is stuffing his money in a mattress. Their money is in investments: in stocks to fund the growth of private business, in bonds to finance debt for various projects including municipals, in newspapers and charitable foundations. Sure, they've got sports teams too, and society has indicated quite clearly that they want that. But the idea that the government could actually use that money more productively than the people who earned it is a fantasy disproved by hundreds of years of experience to the contrary. It is simply the politics of envy and excuses for confiscation.
I invest...it's no game; It's risk/reward for ones choices based on the information used to make said decision. No one likes a bad outcome, but you don't get to villainize individuals for being successful. Are there dishonest people? Of course; however, to approach it as the vast majority would be a gross indictment of a system that allows for free individual choice. Are government official nowadays corrupt? As the day is long. Trump called it out; The Swamp....and it is. Trump isn't a savior....he's an indicator. If he's elected again, it will be damage mitigation at best and who knows by what margin. His second presidency would certainly be a moral victory. If you're here and an actual legitimate citizen, then you must keep fighting.
Always wanting other people's money. Gawd forbid we talk about the insane amount of money our government spends/wastes ($6.5 trillion- 2024) and only bringing in $4.6 trillion.
"Moving some of the wealth that the rich people have that they don't use for anything productive" is the original argument in this conversation. I get that when people talk about solving the issue of poverty or lack of resources, the "solution" that's most tempting and probably easiest too (for those asking for or doing the confiscation) is to Robin Hood our way around the issue, stealing from those who have more and giving to those who have less. Logistically, you're asking for the worst managers of wealth in all eras (the federal government) to solve a money issue by stealing and redistributing. They've been struggling to manage money since the beginning of time. You can't possibly be a good manager when the game is rigged in your favor, when the rules don't apply to you, and when you're given the green light to bully everyone else into giving you their money with threats of institutional violence (aka robbery), and then using it however you see fit during your term, even throwing current and future generations into a debt pit whose depth reaches the core of the Earth. Entire revolutions throughout history have been started for much less than what these guys do, without a need to throw rocks at a great distance, we could say, uh, the American Revolution for example. Ethically, how do you enforce "Moving some of the wealth that the rich people have that they don't use for anything productive"? Who decides how much is too much, and how you should use your own money if you want to avoid having it confiscated? Even if you try this absurdity, if you tell the wealthy "if you don't use this money we'll just take it and redistribute it", don't you think for a second at least that right after you say that, the wealthy aren't going to put that money to work? Usually the wealthy are wealthy because they make their money work.... their money funds existing companies, new companies, debt service, projects of all kinds.
Thats why the only way to deal with this problem is to raise capital gains taxes to 70%. If you want passive income youre going to pay for it. No one can escape it.
@Nationwide Bandwidth That essentially punishes those who are funding true wealth creation in the country; rewards those who hoard their wealth or go to other countries and spend it.
The problem isn't how to tax the rich or the working class. The problem is state and federal spending, That's the problem. People who have no idea running a state or a country that has never even ran a simple business. In CA we went from the end of 22 with a hundred billion surplus to 2 months into 23 with a 25 billion deficit. Did the roads get better? NO we got more "government" up our butts more crime, more homeless, and more welfare. These text book geniuses and common sense idiot running not only the state but the federal government are crooks. Where else can you become a congressman or senator on 175-200K a year and in the length of 4-6 years become a millionaire? The person making the same money don't become millionaires in the same time frame. The government are filled with crooks. Rules for us but not for them. We've seen this time after time. Then we have interviewers that ask some of the stupidest questions. If we could hear Arts thought? I think it would be hilarious.
Confíscate money that is not yours? The notion that we can simply take away money from a person or group of people who earn large amounts has no valid consciousness. These people are not out there telling you that you can’t earn as much as them. We live in a capitalist society, I’m pretty sure that’s what the founding fathers intended, not theft. What law prohibits you from earning as much as your next door neighbor? Through the history of economics we have seen the virtues of productivity specially when aligned with job market creators. I think Dr. Laffer is on a right track, or at least has a more feasible proposition than to create disproportionate tax disparities / or stealing money.
Yes, I agree. People need to treat others how they want to be treated. I don't want to pay 90% in taxes and neither do the rich. They're human, too, and they're our fellow Americans. This is leading to major division in this country and I'm not sure how much longer we can hold out.
Exactly, people talk as if wealth is this giant mass of stuff that is just there ,like the air ,and ofcourse those with more are causing others to have less,that was true in the past, under feudalism and their rigid class system where landowning was the only significant source of wealth and it wasn't meritocratic at all how much land you ended up with...but that's not how it works today,wealth is CREATED not TAKEN from the big imaginary pool of universal wealth. When Henry Ford introduced mass production and the assembly line to make cars,not only he made himself very rich, but he made the car more AFFORDABLE but lowering production costs, no,he didn't put his money in YOUR pocket, but he made the money you ALREADY have gain a little bit more BUYING POWER, same thing with canned food,kerosene from Standard Oil ,railroads bulk carrying goods all over the country...now tax those evil billionaires and yes a few people might get welfare checks but then go out and buy expensive food,fuel, cars and all other goods because the investments to make those innovations possible wouldn't exist...the evil rich are constantly looking for ways to cut costs,wich is what results in lower prices of goods and services wich increase buying power of whatever little money the rest of us have...Capitalism doesn't redistribute horses so that everyone has transportation, some had dozens of horses and most had NONE...Capitalism didn't redistribute the horses, Capitalism made it possible for most people to own tens even hundreds of horses, by mass producing something BETTER and cheaper than horses with the internal combustion engine...in terms of horsepower I personally own close 1000 horses myself...200 years ago not even emperors owned that many...I'm just a simple average blue collar guy in the 21st century
This discussion is framed in a wrong way. It has never been about punctuating the of notion success. Think about it, money management firms constantly help the rich to get richer. Billionaire philanthropists work hard to open our borders. Every time banks run into trouble it's always the hard tax paying citizen that bails them out. It's not about stopping rich peoples shopping habits, it's about making them take responsibility for what is best for the society as such.
Shareholders need to learn how to enrich themselves by CONTRIBUTING to the success of the businesses they own. Simply having OWNERSHIP does not contribute to a businesses success. Stockholders must, at some level, take responsibility and accountability for a businesses successes and failures. Businesses rely on the work and dedication of the people CONTRIBUTING! from the janitor to the CEO.
@@josebocanegra4477 In my country Russia, the only reason by President Putin went after the Oligarchs is because they are destroying the Russian economy to death by their reckless unregulated activities and illegally infiltrating the economic-political agencies in order to subvert and their wealth came from the SYSTEMATIC LOOTING OF RUSSIAN ASSETS WITH THE HELP OF THE OLIGARCHIAL U.S GOVERNMENT CONTROLLED BY THE OLIGARCHIAL CORPORATE FASCISTS! With them either exiled and-or legally stripped of their stolen wealth that they stole during the GREAT RUSSIAN CONFUSION IN THE 1990s and kept in check by the KGB-GRU FSB. President Putin was able to systematically implement a series of FDR styled economic regulatory policies as well as all of the New Deal policies. His aim is to create a predominantly middle class Russia with a safety social welfare net. No one cares if you become rich as long as you FOLLOW THE RULES! Most of those rules are to protect the workers and employees of the lower rank and file. Nobody's perfect and we still have a lot to go through but we are slowly and surely going toward our goal. As for the regulations, they are fair but we use the FLAT TAX POLICIES.
Tax unproductive wealth? Billionaires don't keep their money in a sock. If they buy a yacht, workers build, operate, & maintain it. The same people apoplectic about ostentatious wealth bemoan the loss of jobs when manufacturers of luxuries downsize or bankrupt. Sorry, pick a theme.
Well, he fails to mention that Reagan just after that massive tax cut he had to increase it slowly year after year during his presidency to reduce deficit. The real problem in the United-states is that tax revenue is politicized. It's not anymore a concern of just finding the right amount of tax of every one and every sector.
@@dimmacommunication , the let them move to another country. They weren’t worth being here in the first place then. Pay Americans what they’re worth. Don’t pay them to increase your profit margin.
The question should not be "How much can the government tax before it becomes detrimental?" The question should "How much is the minimum amount of tax revenue the government needs to cover necessary spending?"
From Reagan to Trump Republican administrations have always left huge deficits. Look at the data!
That's exactly correct
You sound far too sensible.
The problem is that it will be politicians deciding on what that minimum spending level should be and they will do so in a way that best serves their own interests. And you must not forget that the level of taxes can either encourage or discourage economic activity. You can actually lower tax revenues by raising tax rates and vice versa.
absolutely, also : how much is state theft? How much is unethical ?
Two points. First when it comes to where the rate should be we have an interesting reference point. No matter what situation we were in (war, depression, prosperity, etc.) or what the tax codes were federal revenue has NEVER exceeded 19% of GDP and has never been lower than 15% of GDP since the start of 20th century. Therefore, if you want to grow federal revenue you grow the economy. The government has never grown the economy through high taxes. There is pattern of lowering taxes stimulating growth, though.
Secondly, their insistence we raise taxes to pay for things ASSUMES the government is the best entity to fix those problems. Many of us who oppose tax hikes and growth of government do so because we honestly believe government is NOT the best entity to fix those problems. There are examples in history of where the government trying to fix something made things worse than if they hadn't acted at all. As well as examples of government inaction that led to a historically fast recovery.
This is the right answer. The only way to grow tax revenue is to grow the economy.
The Government will NEVER have enough money. Set a flat tax rate of 15% and in no time government will over spend and demand an increase to 16 or 17%. You want more tax revenues? Grow the economy.
What none of the punditry seem to understand is that bureaucratic government is the absolute worst manager of any source of revenue. It takes decades for even a local government to repair a road, yet private companies build massive toll roads for hundreds of miles in no time. If you gave government 100% of revenue, there would still be "poor" people. Ever heard of Soviet Russia or modern China? I've seen people in Beijing who were far poorer than villagers in Bangladesh. Taxes should be paid yes but they will not end poverty.
Did you that know under Ronald Reagan the US had the greatest inflation than under any other president?
Simplistic view of Econ.
But the government borrows from the mega wealthy billionaires who are the ones who finance wars and everything else. The government knows they cant raise our taxes to finance wars because we would be outraged. So the government borrows money (Japan #1 lender, China #2 Lender) The thing is the mega rich get interest on these loans that the Government pays for so either way the mega rich win win and win while USA debt stands at 34.9 trillion. This debt will eventually have to be paid for. Who’s going to flip the bill? Us, the people.
face it -we cannot spend our way to prosperity, especially when a highly inefficient bureaucratic government will spend $2 dollars for each $1 dollar they distribute to specific groups just to stay in power. The other issue is that the government focuses on confiscating money for optics rather than on job growth.
Laffer has lost every tax cut debate
instead of stealing a fish from a rich man why not just give out fishing poles?
Because the rich men own the lake!!
@@tomdailey6915 no my brother there exists many unutilised resources which you can put into production process with entreprise, labour and capital. Blaming rich won't work is
The very first words out of the host's mouth contain a false premise. He stated that the rich "aren't doing anything productive" with their money. As a matter of fact, no billionaire is stuffing his money in a mattress. Their money is in investments: in stocks to fund the growth of private business, in bonds to finance debt for various projects including municipals, in newspapers and charitable foundations. Sure, they've got sports teams too, and society has indicated quite clearly that they want that. But the idea that the government could actually use that money more productively than the people who earned it is a fantasy disproved by hundreds of years of experience to the contrary. It is simply the politics of envy and excuses for confiscation.
I invest...it's no game; It's risk/reward for ones choices based on the information used to make said decision. No one likes a bad outcome, but you don't get to villainize individuals for being successful. Are there dishonest people? Of course; however, to approach it as the vast majority would be a gross indictment of a system that allows for free individual choice. Are government official nowadays corrupt? As the day is long. Trump called it out; The Swamp....and it is. Trump isn't a savior....he's an indicator. If he's elected again, it will be damage mitigation at best and who knows by what margin. His second presidency would certainly be a moral victory. If you're here and an actual legitimate citizen, then you must keep fighting.
EXCELLENT POINTS!!
One of the Seven Deadly Sins = Envy!
Lot a people at CNBC just can't learn the lessons of the past.
How delusional...Tax cuts explode the deficit
Cut spending and tax rates won't matter nearly as much as they do because of yearly deficit spending.
Idealistic
The smuggest part of the interview is at about 6:35. You don't need me to explain it....just watch.
Art Laffer : The guy who said a recession wasn't going to happen in 2008. I guess CNBC thinks Americans have a short memory.
The step up basis is to treat cash and property other than cash equally.
"The best you can do for the economics is to reduce taxes for billionaires. And if you have any doubts - ask a billionare!" Jonathan Pie
Says the ultra rich himself
Does this guy thinks we’re idiots. How is he taken seriously. He used 1929 as an example. You know what else happened in 1929? Jeez.
Lol IKR. I did a double take too, he just skips over the trifling matters which were the 1929 stock market crash and the Great Depression.
Always wanting other people's money.
Gawd forbid we talk about the insane amount of money our government spends/wastes ($6.5 trillion- 2024) and only bringing in $4.6 trillion.
"Moving some of the wealth that the rich people have that they don't use for anything productive" is the original argument in this conversation. I get that when people talk about solving the issue of poverty or lack of resources, the "solution" that's most tempting and probably easiest too (for those asking for or doing the confiscation) is to Robin Hood our way around the issue, stealing from those who have more and giving to those who have less. Logistically, you're asking for the worst managers of wealth in all eras (the federal government) to solve a money issue by stealing and redistributing. They've been struggling to manage money since the beginning of time. You can't possibly be a good manager when the game is rigged in your favor, when the rules don't apply to you, and when you're given the green light to bully everyone else into giving you their money with threats of institutional violence (aka robbery), and then using it however you see fit during your term, even throwing current and future generations into a debt pit whose depth reaches the core of the Earth. Entire revolutions throughout history have been started for much less than what these guys do, without a need to throw rocks at a great distance, we could say, uh, the American Revolution for example.
Ethically, how do you enforce "Moving some of the wealth that the rich people have that they don't use for anything productive"? Who decides how much is too much, and how you should use your own money if you want to avoid having it confiscated? Even if you try this absurdity, if you tell the wealthy "if you don't use this money we'll just take it and redistribute it", don't you think for a second at least that right after you say that, the wealthy aren't going to put that money to work? Usually the wealthy are wealthy because they make their money work.... their money funds existing companies, new companies, debt service, projects of all kinds.
Asking Art Laffer, the perpetrator of Reaganomics and trickle-down is like asking the fox to how best to guard the chicken coop.
Ibn Khaldun was the founder of Reaganomics
No such thing as ‘trickledown’.
To sum up this video, he's saying "The best way to tax the rich is to give them a huge pay cut overtime."
Thats why the only way to deal with this problem is to raise capital gains taxes to 70%. If you want passive income youre going to pay for it. No one can escape it.
@Nationwide Bandwidth
That essentially punishes those who are funding true wealth creation in the country;
rewards those who hoard their wealth or go to other countries and spend it.
The problem isn't how to tax the rich or the working class. The problem is state and federal spending, That's the problem. People who have no idea running a state or a country that has never even ran a simple business. In CA we went from the end of 22 with a hundred billion surplus to 2 months into 23 with a 25 billion deficit. Did the roads get better? NO we got more "government" up our butts more crime, more homeless, and more welfare. These text book geniuses and common sense idiot running not only the state but the federal government are crooks. Where else can you become a congressman or senator on 175-200K a year and in the length of 4-6 years become a millionaire? The person making the same money don't become millionaires in the same time frame. The government are filled with crooks. Rules for us but not for them. We've seen this time after time. Then we have interviewers that ask some of the stupidest questions. If we could hear Arts thought? I think it would be hilarious.
👊
Confíscate money that is not yours?
The notion that we can simply take away money from a person or group of people who earn large amounts has no valid consciousness. These people are not out there telling you that you can’t earn as much as them. We live in a capitalist society, I’m pretty sure that’s what the founding fathers intended, not theft. What law prohibits you from earning as much as your next door neighbor? Through the history of economics we have seen the virtues of productivity specially when aligned with job market creators. I think Dr. Laffer is on a right track, or at least has a more feasible proposition than to create disproportionate tax disparities / or stealing money.
Yes, I agree. People need to treat others how they want to be treated. I don't want to pay 90% in taxes and neither do the rich. They're human, too, and they're our fellow Americans. This is leading to major division in this country and I'm not sure how much longer we can hold out.
Exactly, people talk as if wealth is this giant mass of stuff that is just there ,like the air ,and ofcourse those with more are causing others to have less,that was true in the past, under feudalism and their rigid class system where landowning was the only significant source of wealth and it wasn't meritocratic at all how much land you ended up with...but that's not how it works today,wealth is CREATED not TAKEN from the big imaginary pool of universal wealth. When Henry Ford introduced mass production and the assembly line to make cars,not only he made himself very rich, but he made the car more AFFORDABLE but lowering production costs, no,he didn't put his money in YOUR pocket, but he made the money you ALREADY have gain a little bit more BUYING POWER, same thing with canned food,kerosene from Standard Oil ,railroads bulk carrying goods all over the country...now tax those evil billionaires and yes a few people might get welfare checks but then go out and buy expensive food,fuel, cars and all other goods because the investments to make those innovations possible wouldn't exist...the evil rich are constantly looking for ways to cut costs,wich is what results in lower prices of goods and services wich increase buying power of whatever little money the rest of us have...Capitalism doesn't redistribute horses so that everyone has transportation, some had dozens of horses and most had NONE...Capitalism didn't redistribute the horses, Capitalism made it possible for most people to own tens even hundreds of horses, by mass producing something BETTER and cheaper than horses with the internal combustion engine...in terms of horsepower I personally own close 1000 horses myself...200 years ago not even emperors owned that many...I'm just a simple average blue collar guy in the 21st century
So, am I to understand that you’re a billionaire?
LMAO..Laffer like yourself redistribute wealth from the mass population to the top one percent...
Trying to imagine the review of Laffer’s book by that economic heathen at the NYT.
This discussion is framed in a wrong way. It has never been about punctuating the of notion success. Think about it, money management firms constantly help the rich to get richer. Billionaire philanthropists work hard to open our borders. Every time banks run into trouble it's always the hard tax paying citizen that bails them out.
It's not about stopping rich peoples shopping habits, it's about making them take responsibility for what is best for the society as such.
They already pay almost 40 percent of federal taxes. 40 percent of Americans don't pay any federal taxes. Income redistribution doesn't work
Banks ,as reckless as they are, don't take your money at gun point to be bailed out,only the government does that...
The jury is in and the Laffer curve doesn't work.
funny how reagan economy was the best ever
@@bigboots6114What a joke..He tripled the national debt...Phony growth..
You dont get rich by making the rich poorer.
nobody gets rich by making the rich richer...
Actually yes you do
The rich have gotten richer by making the rest of us poorer.
@@CountBifford not really
@@yeralkhanslam1571 America has been doing what Laffer suggests for 40 years. What have the results been?
laffer has lost every tax cut debate. !
Shareholders need to learn how to enrich themselves by CONTRIBUTING to the success of the businesses they own. Simply having OWNERSHIP does not contribute to a businesses success. Stockholders must, at some level, take responsibility and accountability for a businesses successes and failures. Businesses rely on the work and dedication of the people CONTRIBUTING! from the janitor to the CEO.
60 words without a coherent argument. Take ownership of your rant, and organize your thoughts in order to make a more substantive contribution.
@@josebocanegra4477 In my country Russia, the only reason by President Putin went after the Oligarchs is because they are destroying the Russian economy to death by their reckless unregulated activities and illegally infiltrating the economic-political agencies in order to subvert and their wealth came from the SYSTEMATIC LOOTING OF RUSSIAN ASSETS WITH THE HELP OF THE OLIGARCHIAL U.S GOVERNMENT CONTROLLED BY THE OLIGARCHIAL CORPORATE FASCISTS! With them either exiled and-or legally stripped of their stolen wealth that they stole during the GREAT RUSSIAN CONFUSION IN THE 1990s and kept in check by the KGB-GRU FSB. President Putin was able to systematically implement a series of FDR styled economic regulatory policies as well as all of the New Deal policies. His aim is to create a predominantly middle class Russia with a safety social welfare net. No one cares if you become rich as long as you FOLLOW THE RULES! Most of those rules are to protect the workers and employees of the lower rank and file. Nobody's perfect and we still have a lot to go through but we are slowly and surely going toward our goal. As for the regulations, they are fair but we use the FLAT TAX POLICIES.
shareholders supply the capital in Capitalism.
That guy's hair...
They take advantage of the tax code? So why not fix the tax code?
@Keoni Mana - That's patently false. Nice try. Fixing the tax codes means removing the loopholes.
Tax unproductive wealth?
Billionaires don't keep their money in a sock. If they buy a yacht, workers build, operate, & maintain it. The same people apoplectic about ostentatious wealth bemoan the loss of jobs when manufacturers of luxuries downsize or bankrupt. Sorry, pick a theme.
Well, he fails to mention that Reagan just after that massive tax cut he had to increase it slowly year after year during his presidency to reduce deficit. The real problem in the United-states is that tax revenue is politicized. It's not anymore a concern of just finding the right amount of tax of every one and every sector.
did this guy give Peter his penny
Switzerland has a wealth tax which is not avoided.
The problem with this country is the existence of the middle class. 🙃
Wow, lot of mouthing off going on by i
It should be pointed out there is value alone in reduction of inequality. And that the rich mostly earn what they have is at least questionable
Except with the flat tax, it hurts the poor people more than it hurts the rich people. That’s a proven fact.
That's not true. If you tax too much a rich guy he will find ways to pay less or just move to another country.
@@dimmacommunication , the let them move to another country. They weren’t worth being here in the first place then. Pay Americans what they’re worth. Don’t pay them to increase your profit margin.
Flat tax?????