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.
It sounds like you agree with the general point though. Taxes and regulation should be as low as possible, substantially lower than they currently are. The other questions are political in nature. Ideally, from an economic standpoint, taxes would be zero for everyone and people would pay only for what they consume. This would create the greatest level of prosperity for society.
I think they should be at an absolute minimum, yes. But we do have to have taxes, and when it comes down to that I'm starting to shift my position towards a more progressive rate. In my opinion, the whole "fairness" argument isn't really valid. After all, taxes will never be 100% fair unless everyone is paying a flat dollar amount.
If anything, it seems like it would spur more growth to keep more money in the middle class. I would think that money is much more likely to be spent than if we put it back in the pockets of the rich in the hope that they will invest it. On top of that, the vast majority of that money that we allow the middle class to keep will probably find its way back up to the rich anyway.
I think they should be at an absolute minimum, yes. But we do have to have taxes, and when it comes down to that I'm starting to shift my position towards a more progressive rate. In my opinion, the whole "fairness" argument isn't really valid. After all, taxes will never be 100% fair unless everyone is paying a flat dollar amount.
A lean and efficient government ought to be able to exist on a minimal income such as income derived from public lands. We can pay for the institutions of a representative democracy solely on oil proceeds from federally owned Gulf of Mexico oil rights and the competitive leasing of federally owned natural gas in the western states and Alaska. If managed properly, there is no need for taxes when the production dries up in a hundred years or so.
The resulting economic boom in the private sector and the re-directing of tax money to charitable purposes will provide an efficient social safety net that is difficult to abuse and reserved for the truly needy. Further application of free market principles will "stimulate" the economy far more than merely lowering taxation to a rate of theft that the populace resigns itself to accept. Simply allow the middle class to save and invest and they will be much better off than merely giving them "progressive" tax rates.
First off, I would consider myself a conservative, but I'm not buying this one. The claim that lower taxes on the rich creates jobs doesn't make sense to me.
I run a small business. I make as much money as I can. I get taxed on profit. Lower taxes wouldn't encourage me to create jobs or expand. I hire when I need to hire (based solely on profit before taxes), simple as that. Once I put money in for expansion, that money is no longer profit since it goes straight to expenses. If anything, I'll put more money back into my business if I know I'll be taxed higher, since if I don't invest it I'll have to pull it out as income and be taxed on it.
Shouldn't we be making it as easy as possible on the smaller businesses by shifting the tax burden upwards? Doesn't small business provide most of the employment in the country? Wouldn't we see much more expansion giving thousands of small businesses lower taxes instead of a couple larger corporations?
yes.
Then you have the people not employed in small business, such as the public sector workers, who spend less in a recession anyway.
First off, I would consider myself a conservative, but I'm not buying this one. The claim that lower taxes on the rich creates jobs doesn't make sense to me.
I run a small business. I make as much money as I can. I get taxed on profit. Lower taxes wouldn't encourage me to create jobs or expand. I hire when I need to hire (based solely on profit before taxes), simple as that. Once I put money in for expansion, that money is no longer profit since it goes straight to expenses. If anything, I'll put more money back into my business if I know I'll be taxed higher, since if I don't invest it I'll have to pull it out as income and be taxed on it.
Shouldn't we be making it as easy as possible on the smaller businesses by shifting the tax burden upwards? Doesn't small business provide most of the employment in the country? Wouldn't we see much more expansion giving thousands of small businesses lower taxes instead of a couple larger corporations?
Imagine upper middle class people having less expendable income?
That's what it's all about.
With expendable income, people eat out more, go to movies more, buy more things. Therefore, more businesses stay open.
Besides, who gives anyone else the right to one mans labor?
A lean and efficient government ought to be able to exist on a minimal income such as income derived from public lands. We can pay for the institutions of a representative democracy solely on oil proceeds from federally owned Gulf of Mexico oil rights and the competitive leasing of federally owned natural gas in the western states and Alaska. If managed properly, there is no need for taxes when the production dries up in a hundred years or so.
Maybe so, but I'm just speaking hypothetically here, assuming we have income tax.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheEconomist
The resulting economic boom in the private sector and the re-directing of tax money to charitable purposes will provide an efficient social safety net that is difficult to abuse and reserved for the truly needy. Further application of free market principles will "stimulate" the economy far more than merely lowering taxation to a rate of theft that the populace resigns itself to accept. Simply allow the middle class to save and invest and they will be much better off than merely giving them "progressive" tax rates.
Imagine upper middle class people having less expendable income?
That's what it's all about.
With expendable income, people eat out more, go to movies more, buy more things. Therefore, more businesses stay open.
That's my point though. I'm not talking about the upper middle class, I'm talking about the ultra rich. The middle class (upper and lower) are the ones who may actually use those tax savings to eat out, see a movie, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by alphamale
Besides, who gives anyone else the right to one mans labor?
Well a 100% tax free society would be nice, but I don't see how that would work out.
What's funny? It's self explanatory, had you read the preceding post.
I read it, and the preceeding post. It doesnt change my response..
Quote:
Originally Posted by walidm
So, Who cares about Bush's term?
You quoted the unemployment rate under Bushs term.. If they didnt matter, then why did you list them?
Quote:
Originally Posted by walidm
I'm laughing at the neocon disappearing act...they left you again...didn't get the memo eh?
lol...
You arent making any sense, nor are you disputing anything..
Quote:
Originally Posted by walidm
Hey we're still waiting for the 20MILLION job proof you were presenting.
No source for that data?
Actually they've already been quoted on this thread. If you cant follow along with the rest of the class, you might get held back a grade level..
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.
