Comments on: Amazingly Bad Reporting http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/amazingly_bad_reporting/ Online Journal of Politics and Foreign Affairs Wed, 25 Nov 2009 18:37:55 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: jpe http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/amazingly_bad_reporting/comment-page-1/#comment-98729 jpe Sat, 23 Sep 2006 21:49:42 +0000 http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2006/09/amazingly_bad_reporting/#comment-98729 I read the article as being primarily about the lobbying culture, with special breaks added to bills as political favoritism. I read the article as being primarily about the lobbying culture, with special breaks added to bills as political favoritism.

]]> By: yetanotherjohn http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/amazingly_bad_reporting/comment-page-1/#comment-98691 yetanotherjohn Fri, 22 Sep 2006 20:11:11 +0000 http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2006/09/amazingly_bad_reporting/#comment-98691 But surely the country is better off with the 2.4% in the hands of the government rather than in the hands of the dog owners. To take this to its logical conclusion, anything less than the government taking 100% of your wages is bad for taxpayers because anything less than 100% would reduce the flow of money into the treasury. Of course 100% is clearly on one end of Laffer's curve, but I suspect that anyone who would be persuaded that the higher the taxes the better it is for taxpayers is not going to be persuaded by Laffer's curve. Since the 2.4% is supposed to be bad for taxpayers, why don't the dog leash buyers who are also tax payers send an additional 2.4% in to the government. You can send additional funds if you want, nothing is stopping you. If that additional 2.4% is good for taxpayers and you are a taxpayer, why not make it twice as good and send in twice as much? It kind of reminds me of Kerry and Kennedy who advocate increasing taxes on the rich (e.g. Kerry and Kennedy), but who don't check the box to send in the optional higher taxes in Massachusetts. It would seem their zeal for taxing the rich is not backed by any sort of personal conviction. But surely the country is better off with the 2.4% in the hands of the government rather than in the hands of the dog owners.

To take this to its logical conclusion, anything less than the government taking 100% of your wages is bad for taxpayers because anything less than 100% would reduce the flow of money into the treasury. Of course 100% is clearly on one end of Laffer's curve, but I suspect that anyone who would be persuaded that the higher the taxes the better it is for taxpayers is not going to be persuaded by Laffer's curve.

Since the 2.4% is supposed to be bad for taxpayers, why don't the dog leash buyers who are also tax payers send an additional 2.4% in to the government. You can send additional funds if you want, nothing is stopping you. If that additional 2.4% is good for taxpayers and you are a taxpayer, why not make it twice as good and send in twice as much?

It kind of reminds me of Kerry and Kennedy who advocate increasing taxes on the rich (e.g. Kerry and Kennedy), but who don't check the box to send in the optional higher taxes in Massachusetts. It would seem their zeal for taxing the rich is not backed by any sort of personal conviction.

]]>