Patters

The reality is that entitlement programs put money into the hands of the poor, which passes through small business into large businesses and their shareholders. Thus, the higher taxes that wealthy people pay is recouped because the tax money benefits their interests.

The reality is that there are countless extremely poor people. Some of these people are stupid, some lack social skills, some are physically ugly, some have serious illnesses, some are recovered addicts, some have CORIs, some are in abusive relationships, some have had horrifically bad luck, and so on. While a small number of these people game the system, most of them are simply struggling to live, let alone get ahead. How do you build up these communities if you cut benefits and services? Do you think jobs are going to appear out of nowhere? Or should we simply let these people rot on the vine?

chicowalker

OT: I don't think you can verify that claim, and even if it's true, some of us would rather not have the government deciding to take our money because of the claim that in the end it's a wash.

There are good arguments for progressive taxation, just like there are good arguments for a flat tax, but this argument is a weak one.

Patters

You don't see a correlation between GDP and the stock market? You don't see a correlation between wealth and the stock market? I think the correlation is very obvious. Investors have an interest in government spending. They do recoup a substantial part of their tax dollars through the market. If the market was to lose a few trillion of government spending, I think it would hurt stock valuations.

Harry Boy

The whole world is changing, there are to many people, our own country needs a new form of government, our leaders no longer care about their country they care only for themselves, the people we have today in Washington all belong in prison or thrown out of office as soon as possible ALL OF THEM but how is this done “Revolution, Riots” you can see it coming, things get hotter and hotter each day soon the straw that breaks the camels back will come, America has become the country that our Immigrant relatives fled from, our city streets are no longer safe, millions of our children have no idea who their father is, we have been invaded by millions of Illegal Aliens while our Democrat & Republican leaders just look the other way, there is no work for poor people, homes are being foreclosed, silly stupid loony teachers are teaching some children how to f-ck instead teaching them how to read.

Running your own home:
If you take away decency, honesty, law and order, discipline and common sense your family and your home will fall apart you will no longer have a home and your family will be ruined.

There is only one way left to save the country, FIGHT to save it, Remember Concord & Lexington, Remember Pearl Harbor but first Clean The Vermin Out Of Washington.

GOD DAMN AMERICA (this guy would have been hung a few years ago)

__________________
Harry Boy (Genius)

In The Absence Of Law And Order Society Will Surely Destroy Itself

chicowalker

Isn't the better question if you want to go that route whether there's statistical evidence of tax increases causing increases in the stock market?

Even if there were -- which I'm confident there isn't -- there is the second part of my point, that if the justification for a tax is that you'll get it back through the benefits of the spending it's used for, many of us would rather just make that decision for ourselves.

PatriotsReign

I think if we are talking about increases taxes on the very wealthy and continuing to provide current levels of social welfare, the tax increase will definately pay out.

Say we increase taxes on a household making over $1MM annually by $25k. I could almost guarantee that money is better off in the hands of the poor who will spend every dime of it. Whereas, the household paying that tax increase would not have spent it.

I'm not a fan of raising taxes, just making a point about economics of the wealthy vs. the poor.

Personally, I don't want our govn't to raise taxes to help the economy. I don't want gov't services to become MORE vital to our economy than they are now. I'd prefer to see improvements in the private sector of our economy. Once gov't gets too big, we become a purely socialist nation.

__________________
"No one walking this earth knows what is truly righteous"

chicowalker

Define "better off." What I'm objecting to is the notion that the rich will get their money back from their higher taxes. I don't think it's true, and I don't think it's a valid justification for tax policy.

(and btw, getting OT a bit, but how does the notion here that spending $ is desirable fit with anti-spending measures such as a consumption tax (something I am adamantly opposed to)?)

Real World

By this logic we should increase entitlement programs since in the end, everyone ends up getting their money back.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him."
Leo Tolstoy, 1897

PatriotsReign

When our economy is doing well, ALL Americans are "better off". That's what I meant. So if a bunch of very wealthy Americans suddently decided to go on a spending spree, it would benefit the economy. My point was that it would benefit the economy more if wealthy people paid more taxes rather than hold onto it for themselves.

BUT...I also stated I don't want our gov't becoming a vital part of the US economy (even though it already is). Patter's point is that the more consumer spending there is, the more profit companies make and the higher their stock values (Wall Street) go...thus benefitting those who have the most invested in the markets (wealthy people). And he's right...to a point.

But no one can use that logic ad-infinitum because the statement;

Higher taxes = More social welfare dollars = better economy is simply FALSE.

So the "net/net" is that I agree with YOU, not Patters...if that makes any sense....

__________________
"No one walking this earth knows what is truly righteous"

Patters

How can there not be evidence of that. If you took away government expenditures (other than interest on loans), isn't it obvious that certain industries would be hurt. For example, isn't it reasonable to suppose that if tax rates were cut, there would be increased savings by those who could afford to save and less spending by those who needed food stamps? While some savings might be reinvested, a substantial portion would not and reinvestment reduces the multiplier effect.