Attracting The Rich by Taxing Them Less?

[ArthurWilborn]

Here's the central flaw in your theory, and it comes down to one word: incentive. What incentive does a public service have to cut cost or provide better service?

They're called KPIs :!:

You remember Bush, right? When the army cut its recruitment goals to 10% of their previous level, then claimed they were exceeding their goals?

How about no child left behind? Funding was based on improvement; schools raced for the bottom so that they could "improve".

A performance indicator that you can chose to vary is almost meaningless. Profit is the most reliable performance indicator.

Each middleman increases efficiency.

That's a false dichotomy. Everything is so black and white to you (and you only seem to pick one colour) :geek:

Fine; the purpose of a middleman is to increase efficiency; and they usually do so.

Ex: A publisher prints a book at the cost of 3 shiny stones. If they were to try to sell the book directly to the customer, it would cost them 6 shiny stones and the price would 11 shiny stones, for a total of 2 shiny stones of profit. A store can sell to the customer at a cost of 2 shiny stones per book. They buy the book for 6 shiny stones and sell it for 10 shiny stones. The publisher has made 3 shiny stones, the store has made 2 shiny stones, and the customer has saved 1 shiny stone. Everyone benefits. That's a middleman for you.

 

[JustBusiness17]

Context:

Hmmm... profit is really waste in the system. There's a fact no one wants to talk about.

[Profits] get invested back into the system.

:?:

Profits are divided into dividends and retained earnings. Additionally, an emerging trend is for large bonuses to be paid for maximizing profit. There is also the frequent use of unnecessary company funds for personal uses (ie: luxury cars, luxury resorts, luxury strip clubs all tax exempt expenses). I hope you understand that every business has internal struggles for company resources. Regions, branches, departments, and employees all lobby against one another to acquire as many resources as possible in order to make their jobs easier or more profitable for themselves. Profit motive doesn't go away just because you work for a profit motivated organization. All of it serves to inflate the amount of waste in an organization.

There is one more important waste that needs to be considered and the entire reason that the US health care bill was so weak and full of loopholes: US Health Insurance Expenditures on Political Lobbying.

$2,517,360,133 spent in a five year period between 2004 and 2009 in order to influence laws and facilitate increased profits. This is achieved through the modification of regulations put in place to prevent externalities and the prevention of competition through implementation of entry barriers. Lobbyist salaries are also extremely high because they serve as an "implicit bribe" of future employment for compliant politicians. The salaries are paid for using company profits.

Profits go to building new business. New businesses are created by people who've proven they're good at creating businesses by making money as profit. Feedback!

How do you know where profits go? A lot of capital ended up in hedge funds which really don't add much to the economy at all. Billionaires gambling that the economy will crash... AWESOME!! You really have no idea how money is made at the top, do you.

Also, Social Security? It seems to me like a giant "screw you, you're too stupid to plan for yourself so we're going to do it for you"

Jesus Fucking Christ! How about a screw you to all the people that ARE too stupid to plan? You think programs like that exist just to tamper with your life? You have how many Baby Boomers going into retirement and you're willing to gamble that they all managed their money properly? You're so blinded by words like "freedom" and "liberty" that you have no clue what the ramifications of what you're saying are. I mean seriously, imagine (since you're so good at it) millions of elderly pan handlers roaming the streets dependent on emergency rooms for geriatric care :geek:

I could certainly do better things with the money I pay into FICA then shoveling it into the world's largest Ponzi scheme.

FICA saved about 200 banks from insolvency between 2008 and 2009. I wonder how people had their life savings in those banks?

Please, explain how your ideal economy looks in the "short", "long", and "very long" run (I trust you understand the ACTUAL economic definitions of those terms)... Oh, and try to make it all fit together because it seems like you're playing with a mixed set. Good luck, bro :geek:

Well, generally, maximum freedom and minimum regulation.

What do you even mean by any of this :!:

How are you defining "freedom"?

More importantly, minimize WHAT regulation? What is your litmus test for a good or bad regulation? In other words, what standards are involved in your deciding to either support or oppose a regulation.

You can't simply have a polar opposition to regulation otherwise you're simply an anarchist.

Short term; corporate taxes and federal taxes decrease, capital is freedom up, investment creates new business, prosperity ensues.

This is not short RUN economics. Capital investment is held constant in short run economics.

Also, what does "capital is freedom up" mean? Am I reading this wrong or are you saying that the wealthier you are, the more freedom you have?

Most importantly, what unit is prosperity measured in? You're not seriously basing your economics on buzzwords like "prosperity", are you? Have you ever heard of the word "Quantitative"?

This is also the most simplistic and absurd string of logic I've ever read. Why wouldn't you just lower interest rates if you want to increase investment? Better yet, subsidies induce direct investment and contributes directly to the growth of aggregate demand of the country. But why would you do any of this without regard for inflation?

Long term; investment leads to innovation, new resources are discovered and included into the economy, efficiency continues to increase, the total amount of wealth increases. There's unequal distribution, but the relative value is still higher then if forced equalization was attempted.

This is not long RUN economics.

If "investment lead to innovation" how would you deal with the job losses?

How are "new resources discovered". Are they volatile to the market place? What's driving demand for these resources?

By "efficiency continues to increase" are you forgetting that the world just suffered a massive financial crisis? You realize that was all caused by banks that were "too big to fail" with balls big enough to risk it...

RED: you really have no idea what you're talking about. Your entire line of reasoning is based on pure fantasy. You haven't got the slightest clue how the economy works with the exception of a few simple principles that are taken entirely out of context.

A strong economy != the fastest growing, but that seems to be the general theme of your argument. Your ideal country (assuming it even worked the way it does in your imagination) is designed to collapse in Hyperinflation. Have fun taking a wheel-barrel to the store for a loaf of Monsanto bread

I don't know that there's an agreed upon definition for "very long term", but I'll presume it means something on the order of centuries; I wouldn't prognosticate that far ahead. The world is too chaotic for that.

You don't know very much about economics is the general theme of what you do and don't know.

What they fail to realize is that if someone invents something life saving in the health industry, you better believe Canada is going to pick up a bunch.

Then why aren't the life saving inventions coming from Canada? Most new health technology is invented in America by people seeking profit. That's why they invented it in the first place.

[/quote]
By "life-saving" I assume you mean innovations in health technology and/or medical research. I'm also not sure what you mean by "why aren't the ...". Do you have some reason to believe that Canada isn't invested in such things? Also, can you please quantify "Most new health technology" in comparison to Canada.



Have you noticed that ALL YOUR CLAIMS ARE UNSUBSTANTIATED!!!

 

[JustBusiness17]

Now its my turn:


A healthy economy is one that MANAGES growth. This means a minimization of both degree and frequency of growth cycles. Axing a program like social security puts a massive question mark ( :?: ) into the future of the economy which causes all sorts of market volatility. Think about it:

Millions of people retiring with no savings ---> decreased aggregate demand ---> recessionary gap ----> lower price level AND quantity of GDP exchanged! Not only that, but the expectations leading up to the market volatility would create volatility in itself.


All these "socialist" programs that your crew hates so much are purely designed to smooth out the economy. Things like unemployment insurance which you guys absolutely despise can actually be cleverly designed to stabilize a shrinking economy:

Economy starts shrinking ---> Government Expenditure increases ---> Aggregate Demand increases ----> Restoration of Long Run Aggregate Supply... What more could you ask for?


So I repeat, the strongest economy is the one that best MANAGES growth. NOT the one that RECKLESSLY STRIVES FOR IT!!!!


Here's something to think about... By the time the rest of the world comes out of the recession, Canada is going to have thousands of newly trained workers who were able to use automatic fiscal policy to upgrade their education. And with a better education, they are more productive workers who can contribute to the economy in the future. Are you jealous yet? Maybe 75% job recovery will strike your envy?


It's all Pretty straight forward shit when you THINK ABOUT IT!!!


===

Bottom line is that your country is run by hosers who convince people to hose themselves. Now stay the fuck out of CANADA, Eh!!

 

[ArthurWilborn]

Profits are divided into dividends and retained earnings. Additionally, an emerging trend is for large bonuses to be paid for maximizing profit. There is also the frequent use of unnecessary company funds for personal uses (ie: luxury cars, luxury resorts, luxury strip clubs all tax exempt expenses).

Oh, you and your jealousy. Bonuses for generating profit are a good thing. People make money, they spend it on things they like. Good for them.

I hope you understand that every business has internal struggles for company resources. Regions, branches, departments, and employees all lobby against one another to acquire as many resources as possible in order to make their jobs easier or more profitable for themselves. Profit motive doesn't go away just because you work for a profit motivated organization. All of it serves to inflate the amount of waste in an organization.

Divisions in a company are generally expanded through cost cutting and increased profit. Not to say waste doesn't occur, but it is minimized. Also, are you going to look me in the eye and tell me this kind of thing doesn't happen with state-run agencies?

$2,517,360,133 spent in a five year period between 2004 and 2009 in order to influence laws and facilitate increased profits. This is achieved through the modification of regulations put in place to prevent externalities and the prevention of competition through implementation of entry barriers.

Oh, you. If it's to facilitate increased profit, that money isn't waste. It's investment.

Also, its interesting that it never occurred to you that stuff like this is part of the reason why I want to limit government power to regulate. If the government can't award multi-billion dollar contracts to favored customers, there would be less motive to lobby them. Government power to regulate can be used to hurt as well as help. I don't know why this eludes you.

quote]The salaries are paid for using company profits.[/quote]

Nooo... this is a cost. Profits are what's left over after cost.

How do you know where profits go? A lot of capital ended up in hedge funds which really don't add much to the economy at all. Billionaires gambling that the economy will crash... AWESOME!! You really have no idea how money is made at the top, do you.

Do you? That's not the function of a hedge fund. A hedge fund is part of a healthy, diversified portfolio. And, surprise, they didn't do well in the economic downturn either.

http://www.hedgeco.net/news/03/2009/funds-of-funds-hit-hard-by-economic-downturn.html

Jesus Fucking Christ! How about a screw you to all the people that ARE too stupid to plan?

Your failure to plan does not constitute my emergency.

You think programs like that exist just to tamper with your life?

Vote buying, mostly.

You have how many Baby Boomers going into retirement and you're willing to gamble that they all managed their money properly?

Of course many didn't. Why would they, when they were counting on the government to save them. Social Security would need to be disassembled slowly. When that net isn't there any more, people will plan better, families will take in older members. I'm not saying everyone will be saved, but not everyone is anyway.

You're so blinded by words like "freedom" and "liberty" that you have no clue what the ramifications of what you're saying are. I mean seriously, imagine (since you're so good at it) millions of elderly pan handlers roaming the streets dependent on emergency rooms for geriatric care :geek:

Strawman. :roll:

I could certainly do better things with the money I pay into FICA then shoveling it into the world's largest Ponzi scheme.

FICA saved about 200 banks from insolvency between 2008 and 2009. I wonder how people had their life savings in those banks?

Conflation. I can support the actions of the FDIC without also supporting SS.

How are you defining "freedom"?

Ah, people have been asking that for centuries. The ability to choose what you want to do and how you want to act. Notable I don't agree with many (not all) typical "freedom from" aspects that progressives usually add on; those are more properly called entitlements.

More importantly, minimize WHAT regulation? What is your litmus test for a good or bad regulation? In other words, what standards are involved in your deciding to either support or oppose a regulation.

Good: To minimize extrernalities; notably most (not all) environmental impacts. To insure accurate product data. Preventing fraud.

Bad: Advancing unscientific dogmatic positions. Favoring or subsidizing a product or company at the expense of another. Limiting personal freedoms. Advancing one social group at the expense of another.

You can't simply have a polar opposition to regulation otherwise you're simply an anarchist.

Limited regulation != no regulation.

This is not short RUN economics. Capital investment is held constant in short run economics.

Yeah... you got me. Not an economist. Still, if I don't occasionally go out of my expertise, how would I ever learn?

Short run, business would change relatively little.

Also, what does "capital is freedom up" mean? Am I reading this wrong or are you saying that the wealthier you are, the more freedom you have?

Sorry; if it makes you laugh, my kids constantly tease me over my writing troubles.

I meant "capital is freed up".

Most importantly, what unit is prosperity measured in? You're not seriously basing your economics on buzzwords like "prosperity", are you? Have you ever heard of the word "Quantitative"?

Average income adjusted for inflation isn't a perfect measure, but I'll go with that.

http://faculty.fuqua.duke.edu/areas/health_sector_management/seminar_series/Global%20Market%20Analysis%20Presentations%20AY08-09/India%20with%20notes%2012.03.08.pdf

This is also the most simplistic and absurd string of logic I've ever read. Why wouldn't you just lower interest rates if you want to increase investment? Better yet, subsidies induce direct investment and contributes directly to the growth of aggregate demand of the country. But why would you do any of this without regard for inflation?

Why would I not talk about interest rates and then not worry about something that would result from changing interest rates? Huh? Strawman.

Long term; investment leads to innovation, new resources are discovered and included into the economy, efficiency continues to increase, the total amount of wealth increases. There's unequal distribution, but the relative value is still higher then if forced equalization was attempted.

If "investment lead to innovation" how would you deal with the job losses?

A certain rate of unemployment is inevitable in any economic system; no system is perfect. Government intervention should be minimal; most responsibility for saving and regaining employment should be left to the individual. People who lose jobs in one field are picked up by people who need labor in another field.

How are "new resources discovered". Are they volatile to the market place? What's driving demand for these resources?

New resources are discovered by improvement to existing technology, creation of new technology, and new sources of resources. There's some room for government action in pure research, certainly, but regulations designed to put technology on the market before it becomes economically feasible are completely misguided. New sources are like the giant mineral find in Afghanistan; perhaps asteroid mining in the next few centuries.

Of course new resources are volatile to the market; that's not necessarily a bad thing. Lantern makers fared poorly after electricity production became widespread, but how many unemployed lantern makers are still around?

What drives demand for new resources is what drives demand for any resource. People find a way to use it to replace a resource already in use or they find a new use for it. Natural gas used to be burned off as waste until someone found a way to harvest it. Many rare earth metals were considered useless until the advent of modern electronics.

By "efficiency continues to increase" are you forgetting that the world just suffered a massive financial crisis? You realize that was all caused by banks that were "too big to fail" with balls big enough to risk it...

"Too big to fail" is a socialist label, not a libertarian one. What they bet on was a massive government bailout if they failed; and what do you know, they got it. What would happen if they had failed? A lot of their resources would have been bought up by companies that were less crazy, who would have grown to fill the void they left. Capitalism isn't a guarantee that nothing bad will ever happen to you; sometimes you have to take the losses.

A strong economy != the fastest growing, but that seems to be the general theme of your argument.

Uh... no it isn't. Higher growing, certainly. Less assurances and safety nets. People will need to take more responsibility for themselves and rely less on the benefice of others.

Your ideal country (assuming it even worked the way it does in your imagination) is designed to collapse in Hyperinflation. Have fun taking a wheel-barrel to the store for a loaf of Monsanto bread

... What? Where did I suggest running printing presses to exhaustion, massive government borrowing, massive government spending, interest free lending, or anything else that would cause a catastrophic increase in the money supply? I played with straw as a kid, but you're just in love with the darn stuff...

You don't know very much about economics is the general theme of what you do and don't know.

Again, you have the better of me. I suppose most of my predictions would fall into this category.

Have you noticed that ALL YOUR CLAIMS ARE UNSUBSTANTIATED!!!

Shrug... I tried including links, you ignored them and strawmanned me. I'll exert more effort into getting some good links for you as long as you're vaguely on topic.

... Unfortunately this doesn't include your next post, which again supposes I want sudden, massive growth and changes. Heck, I know getting an economy off a dependence on government would be a long, slow process. Hell, I'd be satisfied if we could just stem the bleeding right now. We can't keep borrowing from China for our massive entitlement programs indefinitely.

 

[JustBusiness17]

Almost everything

:facepalm:

I guess we have a libertarian in the conversation

Certainly, the lack of ability to make a substantive defense, instead resorting to some sort of character assassination, points to a libertarian mindset. He'll next claim something stupid, like I'm jealous of rich people or that I hate capitalism... anything to avoid the fact that libertarian views are both stupid and hypocritical. That's why I refuse to engage with that sort of person. It is like screaming at a dog... it raises your blood pressure but the dog is incapable of understanding a word you say, so why bother?

Joe has proven he is much wiser than me...

 

[ArthurWilborn]

Well, upon further reflection I realized the source of your confusion. I talked about increasing wealth; you assumed I meant increasing money. Of course increasing money without increasing wealth would be catastrophic for exactly the reasons you mentioned. Wealth is the average amount of resources (including their own life and health) this is available to a person.

Adding wealth comes from three things; adding lifespan, gaining resources, and increased efficiency.

Gaining resources I've already talked about. Capitalism helps increase resources by rewarding people for coming up with new ways to use existing materials.

Adding lifespan, as you've suggested before, is a function of carrying capacity. As long as this lifespan produces more then it costs, then it adds to the economy. This also includes increasing population, also as a function of carrying capacity. Health is the big one; generally people value health as higher then its ability to contribute to the economy; and there's nothing wrong with this. My proposed solution is to give the individual more resources with which to improve their own health.

Where capitalism really shines is increased efficiency. You and Joe seem to have this idea of the parasite; really, as I indicated in my little thought model, profit is a reward for efficiency. If someone is doing something for a cost of X, I can do it for X - 2, and I charge them X - 1 to do it, I earn profit and they spend less. We both benefit. There is the issue of increasing efficiency by shifting the cost to a third party (externality); and I agree there that some small amount of government regulation is necessary.

 

[JustBusiness17]

My proposed solution is to give the individual more resources with which to improve their own health.

How?

My proposed solution is for everyone to have infinity resources. Oh wait, that's just my utopian solution.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

How?

My proposed solution is for everyone to have infinity resources. Oh wait, that's just my utopian solution.

That's more practical than the libertarian/conservative position which is to do nothing and claim that poor people are also bad and lazy and deserve to be poor, in order to pretend that doing nothing is something noble, and not just being a selfish jerk.

 

[ExplorerAtHeart]

People are not stupid about money/planning ahead. They are ignorant. The schools do not teach people how to be financially smart.

 

[ArthurWilborn]

How?

What was that entire post about? By increasing their wealth.

What process do you use to respond? It seems to me you pick out one thing of what I say at random, claim I'm using it to advance some crazy idea of your own invention, and then criticizing that crazy idea. I say I'm against big-government socialism, you claim that I'm a conspiracy theorist railing against secret enemies. I say I want to increase wealth, you claim I want to start handing out thousand dollar bills. I propose we let people use their resources to make their own decisions, you claim I think things are free.

That's more practical than the libertarian/conservative position which is to do nothing and claim that poor people are also bad and lazy and deserve to be poor, in order to pretend that doing nothing is something noble, and not just being a selfish jerk.

Well, some people are lazy, and malingering is a part of human nature. Deny that if you can.

What government charity often does is encourage malingering. If you pay people for doing nothing, then you're creating an incentive for them to do nothing. If we paid every unemployed person $150k a year, how many people do you think would want to stay employed? Why should you try very hard to save for retirement if you're counting on the government to provide for you? Why would you avoid a risky venture if you know the government is going to bail you out if you bet wrong?

People are not stupid about money/planning ahead. They are ignorant. The schools do not teach people how to be financially smart.

Oh, don't put this on us. Home economics, consumer protection, call it what you want; when it is taught in schools, kids ignore it. Maybe the Canadians here recognize something called CALM, career and life management? From my discussions with people there, they often remember it as the most boring and useless class they took. And of course, if we taught people financial wisdom we'd be teaching them things about, you guessed it, Capitalism. Guess how much that would make the progressives whine and moan. You want to be smart with your money, invest in stocks, maybe open up your own business... oh, wait, now you're a greedy, exploitative monster.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

People are not stupid about money/planning ahead. They are ignorant. The schools do not teach people how to be financially smart.

People also get fooled by the so-called experts spouting their "tax cuts fix everything" and "the housing market will never go bust" nonsense in the face of the evidence to the contrary.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

How?

My proposed solution is for everyone to have infinity resources. Oh wait, that's just my utopian solution.

Wait, I forgot the conservative/libertarian retard's answer to everything: tax cuts and deregulation... and if we can cut minimum wage, they'd like to claim that helps too. After all, paying people less money for the same job proves that poor people are just lazy.

 

[JustBusiness17]

How?

What was that entire post about? By increasing their wealth.

You've already demonstrated that you have no idea how to increase wealth. You've also demonstrated that you have no comprehension of the ramifications of your ideology.

"Increasing wealth" (however you may define that) is a what you want to achieve. The policies that you use to achieve that goal is the 'how'. So HOW do you propose to "increase wealth" within the context of the marketplace (keeping in mind that 95% of your understanding of the marketplace is an oversimplification designed to elicit an emotional appeal)

If we paid every unemployed person $150k a year, how many people do you think would want to stay employed?

I've never used this word before but your points are so hyperbolic and detached from reality that they're hardly worth addressing. I've already explained this point so PAY ATTENTION this time!

(emphasis added to key terminology from economics)
A recessionary gap occurs when the economy is operating at below full employment. In order to correct the economy and maintain it's inflation target, the government engages in both Monetary and Fiscal Policy. The former manipulates the market through the money supply (via interest rates) and the latter works through government taxation and expenditure. Since overemployment is as big of a problem as underemployment, taxation in this sense serves as a deterrent from over production (something you seem to advocate based on your policy positions).

Underemployment is a serious problem because it reduces consumption expenditure. Reduced consumption expenditure slows the economy down and BUSINESSES DECREASE INVESTMENT EXPENDITURE! This can have a domino effect and spiral out of control. In order to restore the economy to a state where there are enough jobs to support full employment, the government injects money into the system through the use of transfer payments. By providing employment assistance, the government is giving money to the people most likely to spend it on consumption. This creates the economic climate required to boost job creation.

People are not stupid about money/planning ahead. They are ignorant. The schools do not teach people how to be financially smart.

Oh, don't put this on us.

Who the fuck is "us"? Please don't tell me that you actually speak on behalf of anyone...

 

[JustBusiness17]

How?

My proposed solution is for everyone to have infinity resources. Oh wait, that's just my utopian solution.

Wait, I forgot the conservative/libertarian retard's answer to everything: tax cuts and deregulation... and if we can cut minimum wage, they'd like to claim that helps too. After all, paying people less money for the same job proves that poor people are just lazy.

Believe it or not, minimum-wage is not always ideal - Although in the context of the American economy, I would say it's warranted.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Believe it or not, minimum-wage is not always ideal - Although in the context of the American economy, I would say it's warranted.

See, that's an important point... nothing is ALWAYS good, or ALWAYS bad. Sometimes tax cuts are good, sometimes they are bad. Sometimes regulations work, sometimes they don't. Some things are better privatized, and many things are better when handled by the government for the public good.

Right now, tax cuts are a ridiculously bad idea. Tax cuts are in large part responsible for our current deficit, we have the lowest tax rates in 60 years, and people are STILL talking about more tax cuts. That's off the deep end into stupidity. Taxes don't stifle productivity or investment, and depending on the taxation those things can be improved by taxes. Claiming that the world will grind to a halt if we raise taxes back to what they were under Reagan is just foolish nonsense, that hurts the economy for the benefit of billionaire parasites.

Here's how you can tell when an idea is bad, BTW: when it is seen as the solution to contradictory situations. When we had a surplus, the right-wings nuts cut taxes and the economy tanked. So, what did they suggest? More tax cuts! It is like medical quackery, where you see some herbal nonsense sold as a solution to help you sleep and help you wake up, to help you gain and lose weight, to make you relaxed and perky all at the same time. When there's no situation where you won't suggest the same idea, then you're probably making an religious-style appeal to ideology regardless of the facts.

 

[JustBusiness17]

When we had a surplus, the right-wings nuts cut taxes and the economy tanked. So, what did they suggest? More tax cuts! ... When there's no situation where you won't suggest the same idea, then you're probably making an religious-style appeal to ideology regardless of the facts.

You seem to be describing "Supply Side Economics".

When it comes to taxes, the ideal rate would be at the top of the Laffer Curve, but "Supply Siders" are somehow convinced that we're always to the right of maximum revenue.

... Both Wanniski and Laffer were prominent supply-side advocates, and as such the concepts of the Laffer curve and supply-side economics are often conflated. Further, supply-side advocates have at times argued for lower taxes on the basis of supply-side benefits while citing the Laffer curve as a reason that such cuts would also raise revenue. However, the objective of supply-side theory is to maximize the supply of goods and services, and to achieve this one should, in theory, always lower taxes. In contrast, the Laffer curve would suggest that a tax cut would raise tax revenues only if current tax rates were in the right-hand region of the curve.

Meanwhile, it's believed that even France is still to the left of peak revenues...

 

[ImprobableJoe]

You seem to be describing "Supply Side Economics".

When it comes to taxes, the ideal rate would be at the top of the Laffer Curve, but "Supply Siders" are somehow convinced that we're always to the right of maximum revenue.

See, there's that word "always" again. 90% tax rates seem like they would stifle things. Going from mid-30s to high-30s or even low 40s would solve most of our fiscal problems and boost the economy. Our economy as a whole thrives on higher taxes, probably because those taxes encourage reinvestment in business. High taxes keep people from looking to cash out and take the tax penalty. Reinvestment means long-term planning, which means companies value workers more. Valuing workers leads to better wages and benefits, which leads to greater societal health.

It discourages the sort of profiteering that hurts the long-term health of the economy and that causes instability to the system. Of course, for the tiny percentage who get to remove wealth from the system, who cares about long-term or stability?

 

[ArthurWilborn]

Ah.. interesting points. I must ponder. Thank you for finally giving a vigorous and on-topic defense.

 

[JustBusiness17]

Ah.. interesting points. I must ponder. Thank you for finally giving a vigorous and on-topic defense.

Let me know if you have any questions :geek: