Blog

14/04/2014 11:47

Some of the most often discussed issues in economics is how tax rates relate to economic growth. Supporters of tax cuts promise that a decrease in the tax rate will lead to increased economic growth and prosperity. Others claim that if we all reduce taxes, virtually all of the benefits will visit the wealthy, as those would be the people who pay the most taxes. What exactly does economic theory imply concerning the association between economic growth and taxation?

Income Taxes and Excessive Cases

In examining economic policies, Joseph Plazo claims thatit is always beneficial to examine excessive instances. Extraordinary cases are situations such as "What if we had a 100% income tax rate?", or "What if we increased the minimum wage to $50.00 an hour?". While completely unrealistic, they do give quite bare examples of what focus vital economic variables will transfer when we alter a government policy.

Joseph and Andrea speculate that the postulate. Suppose that we lived in a society without tax. We'll worry about the way in which the government finances its programs later on, but for now we'll suppose they have adequate cash to fund most of the programs we have nowadays. In case there are no taxes, then the authorities doesn't earn any income from tax and citizens do not spend any time worrying about the best way to evade taxes. If someone has a wage of $10.00 an hour, then they really get to keep that $10.00. If this type of society were possible, we could observe that people would be quite productive as any income they earn, they keep.

Now think about the opposing instance. Taxes are actually set to be 100% of income. Any cent you get goes to the government. It may appear the government would bring in a lot of money this method, but that's not likely to happen. If I don't get to keep anything out of what I earn, why would I go to work? I'd rather spend my time reading or playing baseball. In fact, going to work would risk my skill to endure. I'd be a lot better off spending my time attempting to come up with ways to get the things I need without granting them to the authorities. I'd spend a lot of my time looking to grow food in a hidden garden and bartering with others for the things I have to endure. I'dn't spend any time working to get a business if I did not get anything from it. Society as a whole would not be that productive if everybody spent a sizable portion of their time trying to evade taxes. The authorities would get very little income from tax, as very few individuals would go to work if they did not get an income from it.

While all these are extraordinary instances, they do exemplify the consequence of taxes plus they are useful guides of what goes on at other tax rates. A 99% tax rate is really just like a 100% tax rate, and should you dismiss collection costs, having a 2% tax rate is not much different from having no taxes at all. Go back to the person bring in $10.00 an hour. Can you think he'll spend more time at work or less if his take home pay is $8.00 rather than $2.00? I'd bet you that at $2.00 heisn't planning to spend plenty of time on the job and he is going to spend a lot of time attempting to earn a living from the prying eyes of government.

Taxes as well as Other Ways of Funding Authorities

In the instance where government can finance spending outside taxation, Joseph Plazo and Andrea Trent see the following:

Productivity fall as the tax rate increases, as individuals choose to work less. The more complicated the tax rate, the more time people spend evading taxes and the less time they spend on more productive task. So the lower the tax rate, the more complex the worth of all goods and services made.
Authorities tax revenue doesn't necessarily increase as the tax rate increases. The government will get more tax income at 1% rate than at 0%, however they will not bring in more at 100% than they'll at 10%, as a result of disincentives high tax rates cause. Therefore there's a peak tax rate where government revenue is greatest. The relationship between income tax rates and government revenue could be graphed on something called a Laffer Curve.
Clearly, government systems aren't self-financing.

This leads to the issue on tax cuts. Are tax cuts as lousy as Capitalists like to exhort?

A tax cut does not absolutely help or hurt an market. You need to consider exactly what the revenue from those taxes is being spent on before it is possible to ascertain the effect the reduction will have about the market. From this discussion, though, we see the next general tendencies:

Cutting taxes and wasteful spending may help an economy because of the disincentive effect caused by taxation. Cutting taxes and useful programs might or might not help the economy.
A certain quantity of government spending is required in the military, the police, along with the court system. A state which doesn't spend an acceptable amount of cash in these regions will get a miserable economy. Too much spending in these places is wasteful.

A state also needs infrastructure to have a high level of financial activity. Much of this infrastructure cannot be adequately supplied by the private sector, so authorities must spend cash in this area to ensure economic growth. However too much spending, or spending on the incorrect infrastructure might be wasteful and slow economic growth.

If people are naturally inclined to spend their particular cash on education and health care, subsequently taxation used for social systems will probably impede economic growth. Societal spending which targets low income families is much better for the market than universal programs.

If people are not inclined to spend towards their own instruction and health care, then there could be a advantage to suppling these goods, as society as a whole gains from a healthier and well-informed workforce.
Before I get an inbox filled with hate mail, I am not proposing the government end all social programs. There can be several advantages to these programs which are not quantified in economic growth. A slow down of economic growth is likely to occur as these programs are expanded, yet, so that should continually be taken into account. If the plan has plenty of other benefits, society as a whole may want to have lower economic growth in return for further social programs.

True this post oversimplified some crucial issues. However that's generally crucial in a first look for an economic problem. I anticipate dealing with some of those specific issues in more depth later on. I'd want to hear your take in the problem and that which you'd like to see covered in more depth later on

Joseph Plazo is an entrepreneur and attorney from the Ateneo De Manila University. He provides pro bono consulting to local government and SMEs. Andrea Trent serves as a finance adviser at the ADB and delivers bookkeeping supervision at the WHO.
visit

14/04/2014 11:33

One of the most often discussed issues in economics is how tax rates relate to economic growth. Promoters of tax cuts promise a decrease in the tax rate will result in increased economic growth and prosperity. Others claim that if we reduce taxes, nearly all of the gains will proceed to the rich, as those would be the ones who pay the most taxes. What exactly does economic theory indicate regarding the relationship between economic growth and taxation?

Income Taxes and Extraordinary Cases

In studying economic policies, Joseph Plazo claims thatit is consistently helpful to analyze extreme cases. Extraordinary cases are situations like "What if we had a 100% income tax rate?", or "What if we raised the minimum wage to $50.00 an hour?". While completely unrealistic, they do give quite bare examples of what direction crucial economic variables will move when we change a government policy.

Joseph and Andrea suppose that the postulate. Suppose that we lived in a society without tax. We'll worry about the way the government fund its plans later on, but for now we'll assume they have enough cash to fund all the plans we've nowadays. If there are no taxes, then the authorities will not get any income from tax and citizens do not spend any time worrying about the best way to evade taxes. If a person has a wage of $10.00 an hour, they get to keep that $10.00. If this type of society were possible, we could observe that people would be quite productive as any income they make, they keep.

Now consider the opposing case. Taxes are now set to be 100% of income. Any cent you bring in goes to the authorities. It might seem the authorities would make a lot of money this way, but that is probably not going to occur. If I do not get to keep anything out of what I earn, why would I go to work? I'd rather spend my time reading or playing baseball. Actually, going to work would risk my ability to survive. I'd be a lot better off spending my time attempting to think of means to get the things I need without giving them to the authorities. I'd spend lots of my time looking to grow food in a hidden garden and bartering with others for the things I must endure. I wouldn't spend any time working to get a firm if I didn't get anything from it. Society as a whole would not be really productive if everybody spent a substantial part of the time attempting to evade taxes. The government would bring in very little income from tax, as very few folks would visit work if they did not get an income from it.

While all these are extraordinary instances, they do exemplify the result of taxes and they're useful guides of what occurs at other tax rates. A 99% tax rate is really just like a 100% tax rate, and if you discount set costs, having a 2% tax rate isn't much different from having no taxes at all. Return to the individual bring in $10.00 an hour. Can you think he will spend more time at work or less if his take home pay is $8.00 rather than $2.00? I'd bet you that at $2.00 he's not likely to spend a great deal of time at work and he's going to spend a lot of time wanting to earn a living away from the prying eyes of authorities.

Taxes and Other Ways of Financing Authorities

In the instance where authorities can finance spending beyond tax, Joseph Plazo and Andrea Trent see the following:

Productivity drop as the tax rate increases, as folks choose to work less. The higher the tax rate, the more time people spend evading taxes and also the less time they spend on more productive activity. So the lower the tax rate, the higher the value of all the goods and services created.
Government tax revenue doesn't necessarily improve as the tax rate increases. The authorities will make more tax income at 1% rate than at 0%, but they will not get more at 100% than they'll at 10%, as a result of disincentives high tax rates cause. Consequently there's a peak tax rate where government revenue is greatest. The relationship between income tax rates and government revenue can be graphed on something called a Laffer Curve.
Naturally, government programs aren't self-funding.

This contributes to the problem on tax cuts. Are tax cuts as lousy as Capitalists like to exhort?

A tax cut does not absolutely help or damage an economy. You have to consider exactly what the revenue from those taxes is being spent on before you're able to discover the result the reduction will have on the economy. From this discussion, however, we see the following general trends:

Cutting taxes and wasteful spending may help an economy due to the disincentive effect due to tax. Cutting taxes and useful plans might or might not benefit the economy.
A certain sum of government spending is required in the military, law enforcement, along with the court system. A state which doesn't spend an adequate amount of money in these areas will obtain a depressed economy. A lot of spending in these types of regions is wasteful.

A nation also wants infrastructure to really have a high amount of economic activity. Much of this infrastructure cannot be adequately provided by the private sector, so governments must spend money in this area to make sure economic growth. Nonetheless too much spending, or spending on the incorrect infrastructure can be wasteful and slow economic growth.

If folks are naturally inclined to spend their very own money on schooling and health care, subsequently tax employed for social programs probably will slow economic growth. Social spending which targets low income families is much better for the economy than universal plans.

If folks are not inclined to pay towards their particular schooling and health care, then there could be a advantage to suppling these goods, as society as a whole benefits from a healthier and well-informed workforce.
Before I get an inbox full of hate mail, I'm not suggesting that the authorities end all societal programs. There may be many benefits to these programs that aren't quantified in economic growth. A slowdown of economic growth is likely to occur as these plans are enlarged, however, so that should often be considered. When the plan has plenty of other advantages, society as a whole may wish to have lower economic growth in return for further social plans.

True this post oversimplified some essential issues. However that is normally crucial in a first look for an economic problem. I plan on dealing with some of these specific issues in more depth as time goes on. I'd love to hear your take to the issue and what you'd like to see covered in more depth later on

Joseph Plazo is an entrepreneur and lawyer in the Ateneo De Manila University. He provides pro bono consulting to local government and SMEs. Andrea Trent serves as a finance advisor in the ADB and renders bookkeeping supervision at the WHO.
More suggestions

14/04/2014 11:03

One of the most often discussed issues in economics is how tax rates relate to economic growth. Advocates of tax cuts maintain that a decline in the tax rate will lead to increased economic growth and prosperity. Others assert that if we reduce taxes, nearly all of the advantages will proceed to the rich, as those would be the people who pay the most taxes. What does economic theory suggest concerning the connection between economic growth and tax?

Income Taxes and Extraordinary Cases

In examining economic policies, Joseph Plazo claims thatit is consistently helpful to study extraordinary cases. Excessive instances are situations such as "What if we had a 100% income tax rate?", or "What if we increased the minimum wage to $50.00 an hour?". While completely unrealistic, they do give very blunt examples of what direction vital economic variants will move when we shift a government policy.

Joseph and Andrea speculate that a postulate. Suppose that we lived in a society without tax. We'll worry about how the government finances its programs later on, but for now we'll assume that they have adequate cash to fund most of the plans we've nowadays. In case there are no taxes, then the authorities doesn't earn any income from taxation and citizens do not spend any time worrying about how you can evade taxes. If someone has a wage of $10.00 an hour, then they get to keep that $10.00. If this type of society were potential, we could see that people would be quite productive as any income they earn, they keep.

Now look at the opposing case. Taxes are now set to be 100% of income. Any cent you bring in goes to the authorities. It might seem that the government would get a lot of money this method, but that's not likely to happen. If I don't get to keep anything out of what I bring in, why would I go to work? I'd rather spend my time reading or playing baseball. In fact, going to work would risk my power to survive. I'd be much better off spending my time trying to think of means to get the things I want without giving them to the authorities. I'd spend a lot of my time looking to grow food in a hidden garden and bartering with others for the things I must endure. I'dn't spend any time working to get a business if I did not get anything from it. Society as a whole would not be that productive if everybody spent a sizable part of their time attempting to evade taxes. The government would bring in hardly any income from taxation, as very few people would head to work if they didn't earn an income from it.

While these are extraordinary instances, they do illustrate the result of taxes and they're useful guides of what goes on at other tax rates. A 99% tax rate is very just like a 100% tax rate, and if you ignore set costs, having a 2% tax rate is not much different from having no taxes whatsoever. Go back to the person getting $10.00 an hour. Would you believe he'll spend more time on the job or less if his take home pay is $8.00 rather than $2.00? I'd bet you that at $2.00 he's not planning to spend plenty of time at work and he's going to spend a lot of time looking to make a living from the prying eyes of authorities.

Taxes along with Other means of Funding Authorities

In the instance where authorities can fund spending outside of taxation, Joseph Plazo and Andrea Trent see the following:

Productivity drop as the tax rate increases, as folks decide to work less. The more complicated the tax rate, the more time individuals spend evading taxes as well as the less time they spend on more productive activity. So the lower the tax rate, the higher the value of all goods and services made.
Government tax revenue doesn't necessarily improve as the tax rate increases. The government will make more tax income at 1% rate than at 0%, however they will not earn more at 100% than they will at 10%, as a result of disincentives high tax rates cause. Thus there's a peak tax rate where government revenue is greatest. The connection between income tax rates and government revenue could be graphed on something called a Laffer Curve.
Obviously, government programs are not self-funding.

This results in the problem on tax cuts. Are tax cuts as lousy as Capitalists like to exhort?

A tax cut does not absolutely help or hurt an market. You have to consider what the revenue from those taxes is being spent on before you're able to ascertain the effect the cut will have to the market. From this discussion, however, we see the next general trends:

Cutting taxes and wasteful spending may help an economy because of the disincentive effect caused by tax. Cutting taxes and beneficial programs might or might not help the economy.
A certain sum of government spending is needed in the military, the police, as well as the court system. A country which doesn't spend an acceptable amount of cash in these types of areas will obtain a miserable economy. A lot of spending in these places is wasteful.

A country also needs infrastructure to have a high degree of economic activity. Substantially of this infrastructure cannot be sufficiently provided by the private sector, so governments must spend money in this area to ensure economic growth. Nevertheless too much spending, or spending in the incorrect infrastructure could be wasteful and slow economic growth.

If folks are naturally inclined to spend their own money on schooling and health care, subsequently taxation employed for social programs is likely to impede economic growth. Social spending which targets low income families is much better for the market than universal programs.

If people are not inclined to pay towards their own education and health care, then there could be a gain to suppling these goods, as society as a whole gains from a healthy and educated workforce.
Before I get an inbox full of hate mail, I'm not suggesting that the authorities stop all social programs. There may be many benefits to these programs that are not quantified in economic growth. A slow down of economic growth will probably occur as these programs are enlarged, however, so that should continually be considered. When the plan has plenty of other benefits, society as a whole may wish to have lower economic growth in return for further social plans.

True this article oversimplified some essential issues. However that is generally essential in a first look for an economic problem. I intend on coping with some of those specific problems in more depth in the near future. I'd want to hear your take on the matter and everything youwant to see covered in more depth as time goes on

Joseph Plazo is an entrepreneur and lawyer in the Ateneo De Manila University. He provides pro bono consulting to local government and SMEs. Andrea Trent functions as a finance adviser at the ADB and delivers accounting supervision at the WHO.
view publisher site

10/12/2013 19:33

Matt Cutts revealed on Oct 2013 that no pagerank upgrade would occur this year. That was far from the fact. Days earlier on December 4, 2013, Google rolled out a new set of pagerank updates which downgraded over 90 % of internet sites. Expedia ammed among those hardest struck- the travel leviathan was penalized. It now suffers a pagerank 0. Joseph R. Plazo

In today's SEO Roundtable Top at Marco Polo Hotels and resort, several digital marketer convened to talk about the future of internet marketing. The state of mind is naturally stressful. Among the keynote speakers, Joseph R. Plazo, recommended to following tips to regain lost ranking for websites hit by the current google shift:.

1) Concentrate on clean content. The even more shareable material you create, the more most likely other sites will mention yours. This will raise your ranking.
2) Offer to visitor blog site on high pagerank websites. By providing quality material on external websites, you are privileged with plugging in back links to your penalized site.

3) Create silo sites structured such that pagerank power flows within the internal connecting properties of the site. This little recognized SEO technique helps plug ranking power leakages and boosts the site's SERPs.

4) Deal with government and universities pro bono. Once the job is accomplished, government might mention its benefactor on official networks- resulting in bolstered ranking for your business.

Joseph R. Plazo is a lawyer, architect and digital marketer. He worked as VP of Operations for Syntures LLC and is presently Chief Technical Policeman of Midas Internet Engineers. Contact Joseph Plazo at his blog. To attend the next SES 2014 Summit at Hongkong, enroll at http://sesconference.com/hongkong/.
internet marketing

23/09/2013 10:01

[Boston, USA] - BrightSparx LLC will present Joseph Plazo, Esq, Ph.D in the Hr Summit 2013 occuring at Beijing China on Oct 12, 2013, and including some of the best HR management speakers including

Kevin Henry, Snyder's-Lance Incorporated,
Mary Beth Moore, Allegheny Technologies Incorporated,
Ann Weiser, Activision Blizzard, Inc.
Tracy Suitt Keogh, Hewlett-Packard Company.
Michael Bonds, Continental Airlines, Inc.

BrightSparx is very pleased to present Joseph R. Plazo at the Beijing Convention Center at No.8 Beichen Dong Road, Chaoyang District, Beijing P. R. China 100101 the first time. The HR Summit 2013 will talk about the subsequent topics:

Technique & Control
Skills Administration & Engagement
Execution & Efficiency
Learning & Development
People Ideas
Who Killed Creativity? - Rebuilding Organisational Creativity
People Modification at Maybank
Personal and Organisational Conversion to bring in Creativity and Affirmative Results
Developing Employee Skill-Sets by Touching on Young Minds
Find the Best Skill by Increasing Your Recruiting Efficiency

For full details, please visit: http://www.hrsummit.com.sg/

"I've more than doubled operational income since attending the 2012 HR convention. This was well worth the money", says Peter Draft, CEO of IncoDyne.

"I attended the 2008 Expo and it took my division to the next level. I'm happy to share the latest in emerging work-from-the-road trends of the new digital warriors", says lawyer Joseph Plazo, guest speaker at the 2013 Summit

.

Call us today!

Eternal Rise Management New York
140 Clarendon St., Boston, MA 02116
617/585-5770; fax: 617/585-5789


link

23/09/2013 03:41

Our new blog has been launched today. Stay focused on it and we will try to keep you informed. You can read new posts on this blog via the RSS feed.