- Joined
- Jul 12, 2014
- Messages
- 31,933
- Likes
- 148,151
what are the example of two extremes available today?Bhaiya, wahi to problem hai.
This is a double edged sword.
Eventually, the more this extravagant welfare schemes are expanded, the more the taxes will have to be raised to pay for them.
But will you really be okay with it? Ask yourself. If there is for example, a 70% tax rate. You earn, for example, 100 Rs a month. Will you really work if the government is going to take away 70 Rs and you get to keep only 30 Rs of what you earned? And then give it to Sullas or MSPjeets?
This is already shown by a concept called The Laffer Curve.
View attachment 135169
The Laffer Curve illustrates the two most important things we need to know about taxes: how much money the government can raise from taxes and at what level of taxation the government might start getting less, not more, revenue.
The Laffer Curve is illustrated by a two-dimensional graph. The horizontal line is the tax rate that the government chooses, and the vertical line is the revenue that the government receives from that tax rate.
First, because zero times any number is zero, if the tax rate is zero, then the government receives zero revenue. Accordingly, zero-zero is the first point on the curve. Now suppose the government chooses a very small tax rate, say 1 percent. The government will then begin to receive some revenue from citizens. Now suppose the government charges a 2 percent tax rate, then everyone would agree that it will receive even more revenue. And if the government keeps raising the rate, then revenue will continue to go up. At least when we’re in the low-tax-rate part of the graph.
This means that if we fill in the curve, it has an upward slope -- at least when we’re in the low-tax-rate-part of the graph.
Now suppose the government charges a 100% tax rate. If this happens, then no one would work. That is, why would anyone work when the government is going to take all the money that they make? And if no one works, the national income would be zero. This means that government revenue would be 100% of zero, or zero.
When you complete the curve, you'll see that the curve must have a hump. This is simply because the revenue line has to go up in the low tax-rate part of the graph and has to start going down to reach the point at the 100% tax rate.
But if the curve slopes downward it implies something remarkable -- something that few of those who push for higher and higher taxes want to admit. It means that when tax rates are high, if you make them higher, you’ll actually bring in less revenue to the government.
one side being small arab states like kuwait where there is minimal or no taxations on personal income, what's the other side of this extreme?