cross-posted from: https://lemmit.online/post/5566633
This is an automated archive made by the Lemmit Bot.
The original was posted on /r/todayilearned by /u/MechCADdie on 2025-04-04 08:19:11+00:00.
cross-posted from: https://lemmit.online/post/5566633
This is an automated archive made by the Lemmit Bot.
The original was posted on /r/todayilearned by /u/MechCADdie on 2025-04-04 08:19:11+00:00.
proven likely true means not proven true. Way to many factors. I personally thing the theory has a sorta merit but is very limited and vague (in the sense of there is no identification of where the exact sweet spot of taxation levels are). For example the punitive measures for not paying taxes at very high levels need to be very severe to curtail such behavior. So five figure owning person or mom and pop shop you give a slap on the wrist. Maybe 10% of owed added. Wealthiest individuals and companies get knocked completely out of their level so like 500% of what was owed.
To be clear it isn’t a theory. It really is an idea explained on a cocktail napkin. There seems to be a rate that if you reduce it under you get more recenue which worked once in 1983. There’s nothing to support further cuts though
I would not even say it worked once in 83. Lower rates are one possible reason but like anything with the economy there are plenty of factors including cyclical changes that could explain it.
By all indicators more money was moved back into the USA from abroad and tax revenues were up. That seems to suggest the idea has some degree of merit
I mean that sounds more like a tax haven situation. Honestly to stop that I think countries should require companies meet their tax rate globally where they can deduct what they pay elsewhere.
Yes the money was moved out of the tax havens because it was preferable to have here after the top rates were reduced. That’s why it is considered to be a viable notion
See. to me. we became the tax haven.
That’s a fairly accurate reading of an unintended result of this.