Pages:
Author

Topic: Why do higher taxes on the rich historically correlate to higher economic growth (Read 7800 times)

sr. member
Activity: 420
Merit: 250
Actually, In the USA - poor does equate with lazy... or crazy.
Actually, that isn't true.  It is what would generally be considered a prejudiced, or bigoted, opinion. Poverty has many causes.  While laziness and mental instability can lead to poverty, they are by no means the only two reasons that poverty exist.

13 states revolted over a ~15% teatax.
Perhaps I've been mislead.  It was my understanding that the "Boston Tea Party" and the American Revolution had more to do with lack of representation than with taxation.

On Bigotry: Poverty isn't a persistent (like a genetic disorder) or a permanent (like death) condition. It's a situation, the 'cause' doesn't matter in the slightest. Everyone has been down and out at some time or another. The will to change the situation is all that is needed. The people who live in poverty in this nation do so because they choose to... the only reasonable explanation for that choice is mental disorder or laziness.

On the American Revolution: http://www.americassurvivalguide.com/declaration-of-independence.php

Just read that, then tell me it was about lack of representation. Really it was about defending the colonies from tyrannical rule that was generally abusing, killing and plundering what they were building.
 
legendary
Activity: 3388
Merit: 4615
Actually, In the USA - poor does equate with lazy... or crazy.
Actually, that isn't true.  It is what would generally be considered a prejudiced, or bigoted, opinion. Poverty has many causes.  While laziness and mental instability can lead to poverty, they are by no means the only two reasons that poverty exist.

13 states revolted over a ~15% teatax.
Perhaps I've been mislead.  It was my understanding that the "Boston Tea Party" and the American Revolution had more to do with lack of representation than with taxation.
legendary
Activity: 1666
Merit: 1057
Marketing manager - GO MP
Ah this thread.

On that contracts without government thing: It proposes that when I enter a restaurant and am really unsatisfied with it I should pay and never return, while in hindsight under anarchism I'd just leave without paying.

In a serious scenario I'd more likely would be asked for payment when the food is served not after I have eaten, which would make a contract, again unnecessary.
I would propose that for almost all transaction instant payment is preferable to a contract. And while this would make credit impossible I think we don't need credit.

That's one of the rare things where I would agree with some of the popular religions: Profiting from interest is usury.
sr. member
Activity: 420
Merit: 250
Too bad that:
Wealth!= productive
Poor!=lazy

Actually, In the USA - poor does equate with lazy... or crazy. There literally isn't anyone who is sane and poor unless they choose to be.

This whole debate comes down to the same thing it always does - why do some people want a nanny state?

13 states revolted over a ~15% teatax. Isn't it ironic that 200 years later we've got people paying between 30% and 80% - and half of us think we aren't paying enough.





sr. member
Activity: 527
Merit: 250
Because you are messing with inflation.

GDP (or AD)= C + G + I + (X - M)

higher taxes on the rich, means more G (Government spending) that will lead to more C (consumption) and less I (Investment) but more X...

In other words, inflation. Money will worth less, prices will rise, so your  gross domestic product will look higher, but real salary will be decreasing.

Your assumption of a 'higher economic growth' comes from the fact that the gross domestic product is calculated by multiplying the output of each sector by their respective market price. Because inflation leads to higher demands, market price will artificially rise.

(Sorry if i'm using the keynesian model, but so are you.)
donator
Activity: 1419
Merit: 1015
There are two major problems with utilitarianism:
1) Utility monster
2) Mere-addition paradox

If you are arguing for a social system such as universal health care on utilitarian grounds you must account for both of these or the system will fail. Each of these is why countries that have such systems also tend to have rationed health care (sometimes referred to as "death panels") and birth regulations (like in China), respectively.
legendary
Activity: 1666
Merit: 1057
Marketing manager - GO MP
"Rob the rich because they won't fight back as much" is hardly a justification for tax inequity. I think that each person should be taxed the same amount regardless of their income or wealth.

You know what? I actually agree 100% with this... 0% across the board matches your definition.

Then who is gonna enforce your contracts? You know that thing which I said shouldn't backed by law which makes me an evil person Wink
http://bit.ly/PTgJSJ

hehe, ok I've earned that Grin

I'll read it, thanks.
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM
"Rob the rich because they won't fight back as much" is hardly a justification for tax inequity. I think that each person should be taxed the same amount regardless of their income or wealth.

You know what? I actually agree 100% with this... 0% across the board matches your definition.

Then who is gonna enforce your contracts? You know that thing which I said shouldn't backed by law which makes me an evil person Wink
http://bit.ly/PTgJSJ
legendary
Activity: 1666
Merit: 1057
Marketing manager - GO MP
"Rob the rich because they won't fight back as much" is hardly a justification for tax inequity. I think that each person should be taxed the same amount regardless of their income or wealth.

You know what? I actually agree 100% with this... 0% across the board matches your definition.

Then who is gonna enforce your contracts? You know that thing which I said shouldn't backed by law which makes me an evil person Wink
legendary
Activity: 1904
Merit: 1002
Because you can take a higher % from richer people without them disassembling your body.

If the people you control are generally poor they have hardly anything that you can take without causing them great pain. If they would still be the most comfortable people in the world with half of their wealth you can take quite a large fraction of it without them risking their lives to try to end yours.

"Rob the rich because they won't fight back as much" is hardly a justification for tax inequity. I think that each person should be taxed the same amount regardless of their income or wealth. There is no logical reason for taxing a person more if they are more productive, and taxing a person less if they are lazy. Both the cost and benefit of government should be the same for everyone.

Too bad that:
Wealth!= productive
Poor!=lazy




That would really simplify things.  Too bad it's easy for the wealthy to believe those are equal.
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM
"Rob the rich because they won't fight back as much" is hardly a justification for tax inequity. I think that each person should be taxed the same amount regardless of their income or wealth.

You know what? I actually agree 100% with this... 0% across the board matches your definition.
hero member
Activity: 728
Merit: 500
Because you can take a higher % from richer people without them disassembling your body.

If the people you control are generally poor they have hardly anything that you can take without causing them great pain. If they would still be the most comfortable people in the world with half of their wealth you can take quite a large fraction of it without them risking their lives to try to end yours.

"Rob the rich because they won't fight back as much" is hardly a justification for tax inequity. I think that each person should be taxed the same amount regardless of their income or wealth. There is no logical reason for taxing a person more if they are more productive, and taxing a person less if they are lazy. Both the cost and benefit of government should be the same for everyone.

Too bad that:
Wealth!= productive
Poor!=lazy

legendary
Activity: 4298
Merit: 3209
Because you can take a higher % from richer people without them disassembling your body.

If the people you control are generally poor they have hardly anything that you can take without causing them great pain. If they would still be the most comfortable people in the world with half of their wealth you can take quite a large fraction of it without them risking their lives to try to end yours.

"Rob the rich because they won't fight back as much" is hardly a justification for tax inequity. I think that each person should be taxed the same amount regardless of their income or wealth. There is no logical reason for taxing a person more if they are more productive, and taxing a person less if they are lazy. Both the cost and benefit of government should be the same for everyone.
legendary
Activity: 1246
Merit: 1014
Strength in numbers
Because you can take a higher % from richer people without them disassembling your body.

If the people you control are generally poor they have hardly anything that you can take without causing them great pain. If they would still be the most comfortable people in the world with half of their wealth you can take quite a large fraction of it without them risking their lives to try to end yours.
hero member
Activity: 728
Merit: 500


Relevant Zerohedge Chart, especially for comparing to electric mucuses.
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM
The U.S. dollar can not be considered money according to wikipedia, because it is not a store of value.

It's a store of value, it's just doing a shitty job of it. Is a bucket not a water container any more because someone punched a hole in the bottom? It still contains water, just not for very long.
hero member
Activity: 717
Merit: 501
I might have a poor economical background, but I don't get your points: Why would money or taxes matter?

Money is not wealth. It's not a resource. If you have people starving in your country because of food shortage, then taxing the rich 100% won't solve it. Growing food for the next year will do the thing. Certainly, in a global world this is different since you can buy food from outside. But again, taxing the rich won't resolve your trade deficit issue.

In my simple vision, what an economy needs is:

Millions of people survive in the USA by taxing the rich to provide food stamps.  Farmers monopolizing land plant fields based on these food stamps.  So money can cause action.

The U.S. dollar can not be considered money according to wikipedia, because it is not a store of value.
hero member
Activity: 717
Merit: 501
Because high taxes on the rich means overall less taxes.

The lower the overall taxes the higher economic growth, it's as simple as that.

taxing the rich more does work, without penalising the poor

If the rich work less because it isn't worth the money after tax, then it does penalize the poor.  That is less money for the rich to loan to the poor or to pay the poor to work for them.  There are consequences.

Keep believing the party line all you want, it's what they want you to believe, that is why so many loop holes exist in the first place.
You really think any of the fortune 500 companies actually pay total taxes of 40, 30 or even 20%? No, they don't.
In the past 10 years, a good portion of those, have paid from total tax in single digits, to tax rebates, worth millions or even billions.
Doesn't sound like they are paying their fair share to me. Especially if they are suppose to be some of the most profitable companies in the world.

Fact is, the super rich, boast massive million or even billions of Net profits when it comes to pleasing their shareholders.
However, when it comes to taxing season, will find any way possible to make out they companies profits are low or obscured so can't be taxed or are owed a refund etc.

So no, when a company can make out business is booming, I don't see anything wrong with taxing them properly and getting rid of all these loop holes.

Corporations are not people they don't pay tax.  However small investors pay about 80% in tax.

35% corporate
15% capital gains/dividend going up to 23.7%/40% with fiscal cliff
30% inflation (cash, capital expenditure/depreciation,capital gains tax)
income tax is really paid by investors as people work for after tax wage.
sales tax 10%
15% paperwork and misc taxes.
================
80% small investors
40% Romney.

high taxes can redistribute wealth gained from monopoly.
full member
Activity: 133
Merit: 100
I might have a poor economical background, but I don't get your points: Why would money or taxes matter?

Money is not wealth. It's not a resource. If you have people starving in your country because of food shortage, then taxing the rich 100% won't solve it. Growing food for the next year will do the thing. Certainly, in a global world this is different since you can buy food from outside. But again, taxing the rich won't resolve your trade deficit issue.

In my simple vision, what an economy needs is:

1. Full (or almost full) usage of its human and material resources.
2. A sane trade balance.
3. Technology and productivity growth, which will lead to a progress in our living standards over time.

So why our we in a crisis? Well, in my opinion, we handled the economy very badly. We are now in a huge global mess and it'll take time and effort to get clean.
Pages:
Jump to: