The economy

[edczxcvbnm]

I figure we should make a new thread about the economy in general. This does not apply to just the United States government but the concept of how to run a government and the economy and debate the positives and negatives of theories. What is moral and what isn't. Flat tax vs progressive tax. Lower taxes vs higher taxes. Things to fix in government spending.

Yeah. Lets just carry the debate from the high jacking over to this one in other words.

The lower taxes = greater revenue theory is false. Look at graphs and charts through out the years. You will see that revenue was highest during Clintons time. But keep it there too long and you will eventually start to lose revenue. As I have stated before it is a balancing act and knowing when to do what to the tax levels to keep the economy moving. Low taxes will eventually hurt the economy in the long run just as high taxes will. Low taxes will allow it to eventually get out of control and eventually implode while high taxes for too long will destroy future growth. In the end no one way is best. You need to use both. There is no line in the middle to set things at.

I will get into the morality of higher taxes for the rich later.

[gokufusionss1]

i've been up all night so forgive me if this lacks subtle tones



Small government =big individual =GOOD
Low tax = good

[eestlinc]

it is perfectly moral to tax the rich more heavily. The cost of being rich is higher taxes. Anyone who collects a large income and pays high taxes can always choose to quit their job and give away all their money. Then they won't have to pay the taxes anymore.

If the government has a certain amount of revenue it needs to collect, it makes more sense to collect it from those who have the means to pay than from those that do not.

If you think the government doesn't do anything for you, you should see how life is without a government and then decide if the taxes are worth it.

[gokufusionss1]

i don't see why rich people should pay more then their share in tax, why punnish success. Also it doesn't make economic sense back when we had a 80% of tax for earners over $100,000 in England it destoryed the country driving every entrepenuer and buisnessman out of the country taking there buiness with them.

[eestlinc]

80% is a bit high I would say. It is very possible to prosper under higher tax rates, as can be evidenced by the prosperity of the mid and late 1990s in the US.

[edczxcvbnm]

Taxes use to be at 91% here in the USA. Now it is at 35% for the highest. Or at least that is what I have read. 35% or 45% is that much or that big of a deal if you make 10 million a year or more. They earned it under a system that allowed them to earn it so that is the price they have to pay for being so fortuante(had to take that argument eest as it was soo good )

[CloudSquallandZidane]

The bigger the government the better they can protect you from terrorism, and all the other things Republicans are afraid of, yet refuse to fund. Also bigger government the better it can care for its citizens, which is the government's first duty of all. However there are those who'd rather let these people sit out in the rain/starve.

I will gladly pay all the taxes my government will come up with, because i know they will not pass any tax to expensive or riddiculous, and my money will go towards protecting the United States and helping those citizens would need the 5 cents out of my check more than i do. Whatever tax they pass will not cripple, or debilitate me financially and i love this country so much i will gladly pay my share.

in England it destoryed the country driving every entrepenuer and buisnessman out of the country taking there buiness with them.

While i agree 80% is too high we pay nowhere near that much in taxes. Not even close. Nobody does, unless u win the lotto maybe. Its funny though the Euro is still worth more than the dollar.

i don't see why rich people should pay more then their share in tax, why punnish success.

What could be a more noble cause than comfortably helping fund the Freedom and democracy? I dont beileve its a punishment, its a prerequiste towards keeping the Freedom, Liberty and Justice that the government stands for.

Anyone else get mad when u hear someone complain about tattered roads, flying being unsafe, or poor education stands and then getting angry that they have to pay extra in taxes to man these organizations. Or someone demanding lower taxes and complaining about we are falling behind in the test scores. Because it really makes me mad.

[Azure Chrysanthemum]

The fact that some of the rich have the audacity to whine about how overtaxed they are pisses me off to no end. The taxes imposed upon the rich are far from crippling and they fit the income of the rich. Even with the "exhorbitant" taxes, they STILL make far more than just about anybody else in this nation. Remember, the top 1% of American citizens own about 90-95% of the property.

Honestly...

[jrgen]

I believe rich people should pay higher taxes. It is a good way of making the society more even. You take the money from the rich and give it to wherever it is more needed. It is not a matter of "punishing success". The rich people will still remain richer then most people and it's not like the people with lower income work less hard.

[lordblazer]

i don't see why rich people should pay more then their share in tax, why punnish success. Also it doesn't make economic sense back when we had a 80% of tax for earners over $100,000 in England it destoryed the country driving every entrepenuer and buisnessman out of the country taking there buiness with them.

because they hold most of the wealth in the united states.

[Skogs]

Basically, I support a free market within the framework of appropriate governmental welfare and safeguard systems. A fully free market will always drift to monopoly. It's just human nature. It is the role of the government to provide a counterbalance to this destabilisation.

[The Redneck]

The lower taxes = greater revenue theory is false. Look at graphs and charts through out the years.

Actually, it's true--as Reagan's and Kennedy's tax-cuts proved quite thoroughly.

Low taxes will allow it to eventually get out of control and eventually implode while high taxes for too long will destroy future growth.

Out of control? First, let me ask why you think the government has the right to "control" how or whether other people do business.... Then, let me ask what in the world gives you the idea that the government has the ability to do so.

Also bigger government the better it can care for its citizens, which is the government's first duty of all.

I can't speak for every government so those of you across the pond may be able to quite correctly disagree as far as your nation is concerned, but as far as the government of the United States of America is concerned, that statement is absolutely false. Nowhere is the government required to care for its citizens. Not in the Constitution, not in the Bill of Rights, not in the intentions of any of the Framers--in fact, quite the opposite: Benjamin Franklin's "If I knew a man was coming to my house for the express purpose of doing good, I would run as fast as I could" quote is a favorite among conservatives. The government's duty is to protect its citizens, both from criminals within and enemies without, and otherwise get the hell out of the way.

However there are those who'd rather let these people sit out in the rain/starve.

Actually, Americans are the most generous people in the world, as anyone in nearly any nation struck by disaster can attest. The problem isn't with spending money to stop people from starving--the problem is with people taking money from me at gunpoint, blowing more than half of it themselve, and then throwing a few cents to the starving people.

I will gladly pay all the taxes my government will come up with, because i know they will not pass any tax to expensive or riddiculous,

Already, more than 50% of what you earn goes to the government one way or the other. Every time you buy something, you pay more for it than you should have to because every step of the way someone had to hike up the price of his good or service to cover the taxes. That's why about a third of the world's wealth is held in 70 tiny 'tax-haven' countries.

and my money will go towards protecting the United States and helping those citizens would need the 5 cents out of my check more than i do.

And when the 50 (not 5) cents out of your check goes to funding "Piss Christ" or "The Holy Virgin Mary" (A jar of urine with a crucifix in it and a bad painting of the virgin Mary with elephant dung smeared on one breast and pictures of vaginas cut out of a porn magazine pasted around her, respectively--funded by the National Endowment for the Arts)? When it goes to the "War on Poverty", which has been waged for 40 years and saw poverty increase? When it's dumped by the truckload into public schools that produce graduates who know how to put on a condom but not how to read a newspaper (while charter and private schools do exponentially better with a fraction of the money)? When billions of dollars of our money go to the apparent goal of making sure that every square foot of concrete in West Virginia has Robert Byrd's (D-KKK-WV) name on it?

Whatever tax they pass will not cripple, or debilitate me financially

Again, I note the luxury tax, specifically designed to "punish the rich" (because we all know that success deserves punishment), which ended up putting thousands out of work when the yacht industry went down the tubes.

Anyone else get mad when u hear someone complain about tattered roads, flying being unsafe, or poor education stands and then getting angry that they have to pay extra in taxes to man these organizations. Or someone demanding lower taxes and complaining about we are falling behind in the test scores. Because it really makes me mad.

First, let me note again that we are throwing money at our schools and seeing them get worse, not better. Second, we can indeed be pissed that our government is taking massive amounts of money from us at gunpoint to provide services they shouldn't be providing, and then get pissed again that despite the massive amounts of stolen money, they're still doing a crappy job with those services. The problem with our roads, unsafe flying, and poor education is not that the government is not yet stealing enough money from us, or that the government isn't doing enough--in fact, in the latter two cases, the problem is specifically that the government is doing too much.

The fact that some of the rich have the audacity to whine about how overtaxed they are pisses me off to no end.

Likewise, the fact that some of our people happily watch someone steal from the rich on their behal and then whine when they have the audacity to want to keep what they earn pisses me off to no end. How come it's 'greed' if you want to keep what you've earned, but not greed if you want to take what someone else earned at gunpoint?

Remember, the top 1% of American citizens own about 90-95% of the property.

That is an incredibly large number--I'd like to see what you have for a source on that.

[Azure Chrysanthemum]

Likewise, the fact that some of our people happily watch someone steal from the rich on their behal and then whine when they have the audacity to want to keep what they earn pisses me off to no end. How come it's 'greed' if you want to keep what you've earned, but not greed if you want to take what someone else earned at gunpoint?

We pay our taxes too. The government requires money to function, and thus they will demand a tax. From this tax you get the services provided by the government, such as education, roads, etc.. That "steal from the rich" line always irritates me as well, as I said we pay our taxes. Taxation of the rich is not by any means overbearing and does not prevent them from doing what they want to do, which is how taxes are supposed to be. You take a chunk of someone's money and put it to the government who provides you with services. The amount of money is proportional to how much you make, but is really (in theory) just a small fraction of the income that won't really be missed.

That is an incredibly large number--I'd like to see what you have for a source on that.

All right, apparently my long succession of teachers were vastly misinformed, so I apologize for that. However, the number is still quite large.

http://www.faculty.fairfield.edu/fac...ome&wealth.htm

That puts it at about 83% of the property to the top 20%. Not quite as bad, but still a fairly gross disparity.

[The Captain]

What I find so strange about the Bush Administration is that they still consider themselves to be "conservatives" when most of what they engage in is not the usual conservative ideals such as: Under the Bush Administration, the government has gained more power than under any other time aside from FDR, Lincoln and Andrew Jackson, thanks to Home Land Security, The Ethics committies and my personal favorite, the "Town Meeting" Committee. The Bush Administration has also engaged in more spending than any Presidency in the history of the country (Which is misleading a bit since there is more money than ever before in use), is running the largest deficit ever, has cut benefits to more programs than any Presidency since Hoover and the gap between rich and poor has gotten larger. Many within the Bush Administration are called "Neo-Cons" because they represent no conservative party in known history, but a new movement altogether.

For reasons such as these, there is a great gap in the Republican party, as many more moderate Republicans cannot believe what has been going on within their own party. I've had more than a few local reprsentatives from my area, NY; which though it is vastly Democrat, many of the smaller areas of government, mayors, Deputies and the like, are Republicans; tell me that they are thinking of becoming Independents come next semester elections because what they stand for and what their party is now standing for is divided severely.

The economy is one of those subjects that no one is ever completely sure and accurate about as you can always find graphs, facts, charts and the like to back up your claim or stake on what works and what doesn't.

In fact, I believe the most accurate description of the economy came from none other than Reagan himself who stated:

"Measure the economy by whether you and your neighbors have jobs, can cloth and feed themselves and can pay their bills without loans, then multiply it by the experiences of a million others and you have an idea of whether it's strong or not."

Take care all.

[lordblazer]

Basically, I support a free market within the framework of appropriate governmental welfare and safeguard systems. A fully free market will always drift to monopoly. It's just human nature. It is the role of the government to provide a counterbalance to this destabilisation.

thats exactly what happened in america after the american civil war.

I agree completely with what you said. Without further complicating the subject.