Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have posted this on several threads but due to the command I will post this again.
What people seem to miss is the less obvious effects of raising taxes. Whether this is right or wrong is not relavent it is true and that is what you should pay attention to.
If you raise taxes beyond a certain level on anyone, let alone the rich, they will consider it theft and eventually refuse to pay or avoid the taxes. This is by no means right and not my point. However, the expense incurred by the taxpayer to seek out and prosecute offenders is obsurred so much so that any increase in tax is nullified by expense that will be held against the deficit and all in all the scales of balance remain tilted or more so to the negative.
Michael Reagan first made this point so I dont take full credit. I have verified a few things and in the 1920's 1960's 1980's and late 90's reducing taxes on the rich boosted the economy that is every attempt with no ineffective results. Now if you would like me to do some homework on the effects of raising taxes on the rich I can but I am confident you are all aware that the policy has not always worked.
Thank you for this illustration. This is so simple, yet people (mostly teabags and righties) just refuse to get this. Poor and working class people go out and spend their extra money (at Target or Wal-mart or Best Buy or whatever), which actually does drive economic growth. "Rich" people spend money too, but, here's the astoundingly simple part...poor and working class people outnumber the wealthy and ultra-wealthy 10,000-100,000:1. A handful of rich families with overstuffed bank accounts who already have most of the crap they could ever want can't possibly create the stimulus to the economy that thousands of working class families spending the paychecks and unemployment checks can.
At this point, the very wealthy are sitting on their wealth and the ones that are actually investing are investing in companies who are then sitting on the wealth...hoarding. The taxes should be raised to a point that there is a disincentive to sit on wealth. The redistribution of the wealth will spur economic activity by putting the money into the hands of those who will actually use it thereby creating commerce, which is vital to an economy. The absolute biggest waste is the elimination or reduction of the estate tax. These people have neither a moral argument nor an economic argument, since they did not earn it and it adds to generational waste.
Therein lies the fallacy of your argument. Of course the wealthy are spending. What gives you the idea the wealthy are not investing and sitting on their wealth? The wealthy are the ones investing. The non-rich are not investing. When the economy was strong, everyone was investing in the market including the non-rich. When the economy soured, the non-rich began withholding their money because they no longer trusted the market whereas the rich are continuing to invest knowing that now is a great time to buy.
Furthermore, the non-rich is what got this country into trouble in the first place. They are the ones who took bad loans to purchase homes they couldn't afford and are now defaulting on their homes and declaring bankruptcy. The rich did this too, the difference being the rich could afford to do so whereas the non-rich couldn't and were forced to default on their homes and declare bankruptcy. Yes, the banks and mortgage lenders were unscrupulous but they didn't exactly put guns to peoples' heads either; people were being greedy and thought they could live above their means and sought out bad loans to do so. These "non-rich" can't afford to invest in the market and the ones who can barely afford to invest are choosing not to (as opposed to the past) as they no longer have confidence in the market. The rich is what is keeping this economy afloat.
Last edited by azriverfan.; 12-14-2010 at 09:31 PM..
"The redistribution of the wealth will spur economic activity by putting the money into the hands of those who will actually use it thereby creating commerce, which is vital to an economy."
But who shall we trust to wisely redistribute the money? The government? They have pretty much demonstrated that they do not have a clue as to how to manage the money. Methinks that our representatives will simply use the money whereever it buys the most votes.
It is your right to is on your assets and to do nothing with them if you want. But it is also the right of the community to limit what you can and can’t do with your property, including letting it sit idle. They have the right to tax your property at a high enough rate that you are obliged to do something with it or sell it to someone that can.
No I am not forgetting this. What was forgotten during the housing bubble and for the last 30 years is that wages support asset values. If you look at the PE ratio for stocks in the last 100 years only 7 were higher than they are now. You and I are taking about the same need. The bad debts need to be made good. One way is to write them off. The other is to increase wages so that the debts are able to be repaid. Take your pick.
We are already in worse shape than we were in the great depression.
The housing bubble was housing going up without wages going up. Housing is over built and over sold. The fastest way to good strong economic growth is to inflate wages to match or exceed the cost of housing at its peak. This will mean that we can get back to making a living in the US we need to stop focusing on making a killing.
Can you explain to me exactly what right the "community" has to tell me what to do with my own property? As long as it doesn't hurt anyone else, what give them that right. Including the right to tax it until I do what they want me to?
Let me guess - you think eminent domain is OK to take people's property to give to developers?
The popular notion that the rich have earned their money and therefore should not be taxed any higher than the middle class is a moral argument and not an economic argument. There are plenty of counter arguments to that including the bible, but that is for another thread.
The popular economic argument is the trickle down theory. Based on the notion that the wealthy create jobs. Yes, in a lot respects that is correct; however, that only holds true if the very wealthy are in fact using their property (for the purposes of this post - Property is considered real and personal). For those who understand economic theory, I apologize in advance for the over simplification but I am trying to make it understandable for those who do not understand economic principles.
John Locke (A Beck favorite), whose principles were instrumental in the founding fathers ideals, believed that the use of property was instrumental in commerce. Without that use the property was wasted and proper commerce could not take place. An example, a man owns 2000 acres of unused land. He does nothing with it. There are no taxes so the man has no reason to get rid of the land. He just sits on it. The land is wasted. Locke believed in these types of situations the government should take action. If the govt., taxes the land to the point where it would be cost prohibitive to keep the land without developing it he would have to sell the land...presumably to some one who would use it for farming business enterprise etc. This creates commerce.
When the rich sit on property (currency) and do nothing with it other than to transform it to a different types of property...buy gold or commodities... then there is waste and according to Locke the government should then step in to see that the property is being used to continue commerce...produce something.
At this point, the very wealthy are sitting on their wealth and the ones that are actually investing are investing in companies who are then sitting on the wealth...hoarding. The taxes should be raised to a point that there is a disincentive to sit on wealth. The redistribution of the wealth will spur economic activity by putting the money into the hands of those who will actually use it thereby creating commerce, which is vital to an economy. The absolute biggest waste is the elimination or reduction of the estate tax. These people have neither a moral argument nor an economic argument, since they did not earn it and it adds to generational waste.
I made this as brief as possible. Thank you to anyone who takes the time to read it.
You are number one! With that said, do you have a clue as to what these are?
2 and 3 are what the liberals are pushing right now along with a host of other assaults. Wake up!
Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) just refuse to get this. Poor and working class people go out and spend their extra money (at Target or Wal-mart or Best Buy or whatever), which actually does drive economic growth. "Rich" people spend money too, but, here's the astoundingly simple part...poor and working class people outnumber the wealthy and ultra-wealthy 10,000-100,000:1. A handful of rich families with overstuffed bank accounts who already have most of the crap they could ever want can't possibly create the stimulus to the economy that thousands of working class families spending the paychecks and unemployment checks can.
