Shawn:  No. It's been tried in every Marxist/communist country that ever existed and has always failed miserably.
2011-08-05 09:50:12

Barney Frank's pet Gerbil:  Yes Millions of business people are just waiting on the side lines, for taxes to skyrocket and regulations to increase, before going into business People LOVE to work for free - so welfare parasites don't have to
2011-08-05 09:50:41

Their Constitution rules them:  The power to tax is known as the power to destroy, So no taxing will not help but actually hurts the economy.
2011-08-05 09:50:50

Hejhog:  No, it's common sense If you are taxed less, you have more money to spend
2011-08-05 09:54:38

hi0 loves you.:  This might sound a little counter-intuitive, but yes, it does in some ways stimulate the economy. While sure, over taxation can lead to killing jobs small increases, five percent or less, can help stimulate. The reason for this is that people are greedy. Republicans and conservatives argue that if taxed people will simply stop trying to make money. That's inherently against capitalism. If you want 200,000 dollars, you're going to get 200,000 dollars, you aren't going to give up because of taxes. I'm not going stop working at 40 hours because I get taxed more in overtime. It's just not the way things work. This gives the government increased revenue, and people feel the need to make more money. When taxed little they get complacent and stack money. Look at corporations now, they're sitting on millions.
2011-08-05 09:55:39

Sparky:  By itself--no. What one does with taxes may, but is not guaranteed. Raise the taxes too much and the economy suffers. Imagine a world where taxation was at 100%. You can't get higher than that. What would the economy be like? In the toilet. Why would anyone work? Why would anyone want to live in such a place? For all that they do and produce, the government would take every last scrap of it away. It would be slave labor. Another very important aspect has to do with what the government does with the taxes it collects. Would literally burning all that money help? No. Would burying it? No. I admit that these are contrived examples, but they are designed to drive home the point that what the government does with the money is important. Governments do have a proper role (and taxes are to be spent to support that) , but I stand with those who say it is far less than the roles they have been playing lately.
2011-08-05 10:01:26

Home-School-produces-winners:  To answer your question briefly. We must cut taxes to stimulate the economy. This will, paradoxically increase federal revenue because it will increase GDP. We must decrease spending so we aren't accumulating any more debt. Worse still, we certainly don't need to be paying even more interest on the debt to China and other hostile nations. Hauser's law in economics states, no matter what the top marginal tax rate on the rich is, the federal tax receipts stay at 19.5% of GDP. This means, when you tax the rich, it won't increase Federal revenue and the poor and middle classes end up paying less because they earn less. Jobs are lost and wages are cut when you tax the rich more. They just pass the cost of taxation on to customers, shareholders and employees. As it turns out, you must spend to repair the damages caused by taxation. Reducing taxes stimulates the economy and causes no decrease in tex revenue. In fact, when taxes are cut, federal revenue increased. Federal government trying to spend more than we take in has, always caused the debt to increase. it happened under Reagan when Federal revenues increased and the democrats in congress increased spending by $1.15, for every extra dollar of revenue tax cuts on the wealthy generated. Then Democrats predictably blamed tax cuts for the deficit. There is another concept in economics - The broken window fallacy - Taxation may help the poor, however it decreases the amount of money people spend and causes an even greater amount of economic damage. There are administration costs of government officials confiscating the money, then more costs for government officials to distribute the money. In the end, those who receive the money take in much less than the actual amount of money gained by taxation. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703514904575602943209741952.html http://thelakewoodview.com/local-news/frederic-bastiats-broken-window-fallacy-and-our-tax-burden/
2011-08-05 10:11:12