Home » Video » ...

Flat tax slovakia Videos

thyssen krupp elevator@house of culture Kramare, Bratislava, Slovakia

build in 2002... a quite nice this was simple heaven for Richie / we saw great theatre for kids (thanx once again mr. hop :D) and also take some (20 maybe lol) ...

EU fines flat-screen panel companies for illegal cartel

The European Commission found Asian flat screen panel makers guilty of forming a cartel and fined them for breaching competition law.

User Comments

crackthecorn commented on 09 Dec 2010

@NIKEISNICKY12345 didn't do anything wrong ......dude they fixed prices for the people in the EU over charging them

Apartment block construction

Construction of a new apartment block in Liptovský Hrádok, Slovakia, March 2013 — July 2014.

The Laffer Curve, Part II: Reviewing the Evidence

This video reviews real-world evidence showing that changes in marginal tax rates can have a significant impact on taxable income, thus leading to substantial ...

User Comments

J commented on 11 Nov 2011

The Laffer Curve isn't always accurate. Just because people are taxed less doesn't mean they're willing to report more to the IRS. It reminds me of trickle-down economics, in that if we give the rich more tax breaks, they'll spend it on jobs. Truth is, more profit does not equal more jobs. The only thing that equals more jobs is more demand for products. And just like taxes don't equal more productivity for the economy, what does equal more productivity is demand and public certainty. I guess...

ContentO TantO commented on 29 Mar 2009

I thot that the erst video on lafer curv was v good so I clicked on part 2. but this one is stoopid. ideological. even stoopid like me knows that 1980 was between a duble dip recesion and comparing it with mid 80 when the markets were hot and there was paper wealth is decitfool. and heck, ireland in 80's had stonehenge and in 04 the world had changed. check out ireland housing prices. i might be stoopid, but u are either stoopid or misleading. pl think cleanly and teach with intelectual honesty.

eyeammi commented on 06 Sep 2010

The yacht example is the reason why I'm against the national sales tax, aka the "fair tax". Income tax really has no effect on peoples spending habits. It gone before anyone takes it into account. Sales taxes do. The people who buy yachts, by all accounts, wouldn't really have been hurt by the sales tax, yet its implementation had a profoundly negative impact on all things yacht related. If you think that was, bad watch what happens when everyone has to pay high sales taxes on everything new.

MentalAtheist commented on 04 Nov 2010

1.The laffer curve is a dishonest way of looking at the economy. Because it make the case that who has the money is more importent then what it's being spent on. Correlation is not causation!!! 2.Government money is recycled back to the very people from which it was taxed. Government taxation acts as the heart of the economy. 3.The richest are the largest siphoners of wealth and they aren't investing it back into the economy fast enough. This is what's choking the economy. Tax the RICH!!!

Fingolfin3423 commented on 07 Dec 2012

"The only thing that equals more jobs is more demand for products." More demand doesn't always create more production, either, since it may not be profitable to expand in order to capture that demand. Your're only thinking about revenues, not costs. Yes, capturing more demand equates to more revenue, but the real question is whether or not the company can take the additional costs associated with the increased production. In the real world, profitability isn't as simple as you think.

liberal scum commented on 01 Apr 2011

I love the way this guy tries to claim more money was taken in under the lower tax rates. I'm doing this math in my head so it will be close but not exact numbers. Before the tax decrease 100K people paid $19b in taxes. After the tax reductions 700K people paid $99B in taxes. While this looks like more tax revenue was achieved, money was actually lost. If those same people in the new tax bracket paid their 70% we would have generated roughly $500b in taxes, a net loss of over $400B

Charles Fisher commented on 20 Oct 2010

Another caveat - Give with one hand take with another. Reagan eliminated many tax shelters and drastically reduced deductions through the Tax Reform Act of 1986. Prior to the reform there were "Rich" who paid no taxes because of the allowable deductions and tax shelters. Deductions for consumer interest and passive activity loss was eliminated; capital gains was taxed at ordinary income; depreciation deduction was curtailed. It also consolidated 15 levels of tax rates to 4 levels.

Patrick Wayne commented on 26 Feb 2008

A Relevant Sample Size??? In his examples of Russia and Ireland other factors played a larger role than the tax rate. Ireland's immigration policy allowed its population or work force to grow and enabling its economy to grow. Russia's economy is closely tied to price of oil. I can't imagine the price of oil dropping and the economy growing if the government lowered taxes. His examples are worst than flipping a coin twice and checking the weather to see if there is a correlation.

Dirk Faegre commented on 12 Jun 2011

Funny thing. Dan Mitchell shows Ireland doing wonderfully by lowering tax rates. Trouble was he coudn't look into the future -- now (2011). Ireland is bust and in very , very serious trouble and dragging down the European Union. If it was all so rosy in Ireland (and it was) how come they fell on their face. Economics is far, far more complex than what Dan shows here. It's a loaded argument he makes. And meanwhile the rich in the USA are getting away with murder (so to speak).

getnbusy2nite commented on 30 Apr 2009

Lower taxes are not necessarily a bad thing and neither is more controversial topics such as redistribution of wealth. Both have ideological principles associated with them, but both are tools that can help the economy, but just like medicine they have to be administered at the appropriate time to have a positive effect. Extra revenue from growth taxation could be used to hinder a downturn in the economy coupled with a stimulating tax decrease for consumers and corporations.

Max S commented on 26 Feb 2008

And what kind of "statistical evidence" are you speaking of? At least, he names his sources in contrast to you. If I look at history, I see that flat tax countries like Estonia and co. are doing good. I see that Luxembourg is just doing so well on the tax department that Germany had to use its "Großmacht-Anspruch" again to bully its smaller sovereign neighbour. I see that Swiss is doing fine with lower taxes and that workers from Germany move there for work...

The Angriest Puppy commented on 26 Feb 2008

The only consensus among economists is that economists never have a consensus on anything. If you get 5 economists in a room, and ask them what the optimal tax rate is for revenue production, you are likely to get 5 different answers. So, I have to disagree with what you've stated. But I do like how you presented your info. such that anyone who disagrees is going against the 'consensus', which is nothing more than a ruse to stifle debate.

speedylarry commented on 30 Aug 2012

First of all the idea of a graduated tax rate goes back to ancient Greece not Karl Marx. Secondly; the yacht companies went under because they were bought out by venture capitalists who did not know anything about building yachts, and ended up destroying the companies. The tax on yachts had nothing to do with the business going under. The book "America: who really pays the taxes" by barlett and steele has a whole chapter on the topic.

dfctomm commented on 06 Mar 2010

Printing money is only half of the inflation equation, the velocity of money is the other half. since the current crisis began we have printed a great deal of money, but it hasn't ramped up inflation because the velocity has dropped sharply. The money isn't circulating through the system, instead it's just sitting there in the large banks, and that's why inflation hasn't ramped up.

Patrick Wayne commented on 26 Feb 2008

He is using loaded examples! Statistical evidence shows that his "evidence" is not typically what happens. Actually, when you look at examples around the world throughout history, the opposite of what he is saying happens. This video is very misleading. DO YOU THINK RUSSIAS ECONOMY ISN'T TIED TO THE PRICE OF OIL??? DO YOU THINK HAVING A LARGER WORKFORCE WILL NOT GROW AN ECONOMY???

David Carvin commented on 28 Feb 2008

Could read Easterly, or Malthus, or Ehrlich, or could consult common sense: At 0% rate and 100% tax rate, revenues are always zero. Only question is the shape of the curve. Our current economic projections are static, therefore seriously distorted and always way off. Resistance to this common sense is like Creationism, based on pure mistrust of common sense.

David Carvin commented on 28 Feb 2008

I saw 'prestable'. At the peak of that curve, there's a big "plateau" where you're merely trading dollars. So the political issue should not be a 71% peak, beyond which tax cuts entirely pay for themselves. Even moreso, the CBO projections need to incorporate such dynamics in their forecasting in the interest of clothing the Emperor. Can I get an AMEN?

J commented on 22 Dec 2012

That's true. Sometimes more production would create less profit. Of course, the demand would have to hit some theoretical benchmark, I'm sure. I agree with you. By the way, I love your avatar. I have a professional handmade model of that exact frame of Archimedes made out of clay. It's like 5 inches tall. He's my favorite Disney character.

liberal scum commented on 13 Apr 2011

@rsbrumwell Why am i a moron ? The video claims 116,000 people generated $19 billion in tax revenue at 70% and 723,000 people generated $99 billion at 28%. I just added up what the extra 600,000 people would have generated in tax revenue if they paid 70%... something this video conveniently left out.

David Carvin commented on 27 Feb 2008

He gives two examples with multiple caveats that the curve is only one factor among many. You ignore the caveat, and make claims without any evidence or examples at all. Where can we see your "statistical evidence"? Shouldn't be hard to find if it is "throughout the world" and "throughout history".

Illyrien commented on 30 Aug 2011

@vickiedavis Not just the rich... While I was studying at the university (in Denmark) I spent a fair deal of effort evading taxation. These efforts included evading the tv tax man (saving about 350 USD/year) and also buying soda and beer from Germany, CD/DVDs from Sweden and books from the UK.

Boeing727223 commented on 06 Mar 2010

Please explain to me why not?? Explain how it happened then..... If you are going to make a statement like you are doing, then back it up with solid facts as to why not? Did we increase infrastructure spending, entitlements, what? Print money, give it away??

UnderseaCaveman commented on 27 Feb 2008

We keep seeing more Millionaires, not because of excellent economy, but INFLATION... At some point in the WEIMAR republic, if you weren't a MULTI-BILLIONARE, you were literally a BUM! History to repeat itself in the good ole USA! Cheers

Superplatanoman commented on 08 Mar 2009

Actually, less taxes didn't help inflation go down. The federal reserve increased interest rates. High interest rates caused the recession of the early 80's. As soon as interest rates came down, we were back on the road to recovery.

agent59717802 commented on 04 Nov 2008

Dude, Didn't you look at the initial explanation. The other factors are: 1. 7% population size 2. 44% cumulative inflation from 1980 to 1988 3. Revenue increased 5 times (400%) Obviously the Laffer curve had a non trivial effect.

BDizzle66 commented on 21 Mar 2008

Dan Mitchell went to Georgia about 50 years ago. Hope the Laffer Curve has better luck than his horrible football and basketball teams since he left. Boy did they ever lay an egg in the 2008 NCAA Tournament in the first round.

20000miles commented on 29 Apr 2008

I've said it before, the laffer curve is a sham based on no empirical evidence of research carried out by Art Laffer. Here, Mr. Mitchell is trying to convince us that all birds are black by showing us a few ravens.

Question and Answer Session: The Fight Against Big Government

In the Q&A session following his speech at the Steamboat Institute conference, Dan Mitchell comments on the financial crisis, so-called stimulus, the rule of law, ...

User Comments

Austin Archibald commented on 09 Oct 2009

Independent? What is an independent? Dan is actually a fellow at the LIBERTARIAN think-tank, Cato Institute. And Republicans haven't always been spenders - that's why they're the lesser of two evils in the eyes of many libertarians.