Why raise taxes on the wealthy?

[Kelinfort]

So instead, you believe in punishing those who made it possible for the others to be successful?

Hey, when you're climbing over people, it never hurts to grind your heel in their faces, right?

That is completely false, If I just don't want to take more money from the rich, how am I punishing the poor?

The poor engage in far more non discretionary spending than the wealthy; for instance, let us imagine three people: one makes $10,000 a year, the other $100,000, and the final one, $1,000,000, at a flat tax of 15%. $850,000, while proportionally the same to $8,500, is not spent so much on non discretionary spending as $8,500 is on food, rent, electricity, healthcare, insurance...

[Vicious Debaters]

Raise taxes on the wealthy because the wealthy are disproportionately rewarded in our society.

[Sociobiology]

If demand drives the economy, why tax the rich? The balanced budget multiplier is only 1, at best, in a highly simplified system. Why not just deficit spend?

Can't spend your way out of debt.

well an economy can, but only if the money is given to the people that actually spend it.

[Sociobiology]

I'm not 'refusing to consider' them - I'm pointing out that you're pretending that a fastfood chain (for example) franchises out its operations because of 'diseconomy of scale'. They don't. They franchise out their operations because it makes better financial sense for 'corporate', even though it actually reduces the economic efficiency of the each of the franchise operations.

And it makes better sense for "corporate" because of diseconomies of scale.

actually it is better because it creates vast amounts of investment for very little liability while exploiting economies of scale.

[Helicoidan]

Raise taxes on the wealthy because the wealthy are disproportionately rewarded in our society.

(Image)

Hey do you have the same map for the whole world ?

[Vicious Debaters]

Hey do you have the same map for the whole world ?

I'll just leave a link.

It's a little different from our perspective- this is a map of which countries in the world have an inordinate amount of wealth.

http://www.wrsc.org/sites/default/files ... m_1551.png

[Hyfling]

We must because the poor need the extra money more than selfish fat cats on wall street do.

Actually, the stock market investors are the people you don't want to tax too heavily, their (investors) money is always being moved around or getting reinvested in companies, which is great for the economy. The people you want to tax are the multi-billionaires with heaps of money just sitting there, doing nothing for anyone.

[Panmerica]

That is completely false, If I just don't want to take more money from the rich, how am I punishing the poor?

The poor engage in far more non discretionary spending than the wealthy; for instance, let us imagine three people: one makes $10,000 a year, the other $100,000, and the final one, $1,000,000, at a flat tax of 15%. $850,000, while proportionally the same to $8,500, is not spent so much on non discretionary spending as $8,500 is on food, rent, electricity, healthcare, insurance...

But I am not saying 15 percent, I want a flat tax at lower then the current rate, so everyone works out with more money then they started with.

[Caninope]

If demand drives the economy, why tax the rich? The balanced budget multiplier is only 1, at best, in a highly simplified system. Why not just deficit spend?

Can't spend your way out of debt.

In a very roundabout way, it's possible, in the sense that government spending can increase aggregate demand, which can then increase revenues later on, for a cyclically balanced budget.

[Calimera II]

Can't spend your way out of debt.

In a very roundabout way, it's possible, in the sense that government spending can increase aggregate demand, which can then increase revenues later on, for a cyclically balanced budget.

That's a theory which is doomed to fail because markets don't respond that perfectly but fluctuate.

[Caninope]

In a very roundabout way, it's possible, in the sense that government spending can increase aggregate demand, which can then increase revenues later on, for a cyclically balanced budget.

That's a theory which is doomed to fail because markets don't respond that perfectly but fluctuate.

More advanced models take this into account.

[Calimera II]

That's a theory which is doomed to fail because markets don't respond that perfectly but fluctuate.

More advanced models take this into account.

Outspending can go wrong, when financial markets distrust the government.

[Caninope]

More advanced models take this into account.

Outspending can go wrong, when financial markets distrust the government.

However, this is not a problem in the US.

[Mavorpen]

More advanced models take this into account.

Outspending can go wrong, when financial markets distrust the government.

So first it "was doomed to fail" and now it "can go wrong."

Dat backpedaling tho.

[Shaggai]

The poor engage in far more non discretionary spending than the wealthy; for instance, let us imagine three people: one makes $10,000 a year, the other $100,000, and the final one, $1,000,000, at a flat tax of 15%. $850,000, while proportionally the same to $8,500, is not spent so much on non discretionary spending as $8,500 is on food, rent, electricity, healthcare, insurance...

But I am not saying 15 percent, I want a flat tax at lower then the current rate, so everyone works out with more money then they started with.

But flat tax still disproportionately hurts the poor. Kelinfort's point works no matter what the tax rate is, as long as the tax rate is positive.

[ShadowDragons]

US income taxes: I would decrease them across the board by 10% and lower property taxes. I would also decrease capital gains tax by about one half to encourage investment and slash corporate taxes from 35% to around 17.5%. Also cut regulation and complicated rules. Decrease wasteful programs and cut lots of programs and we should get high economic growth and decrease the debt.

[Panmerica]

But I am not saying 15 percent, I want a flat tax at lower then the current rate, so everyone works out with more money then they started with.

But flat tax still disproportionately hurts the poor. Kelinfort's point works no matter what the tax rate is, as long as the tax rate is positive.

And how is that?

[Kelinfort]

But flat tax still disproportionately hurts the poor. Kelinfort's point works no matter what the tax rate is, as long as the tax rate is positive.

And how is that?

Again, the poor have less discretionary spending than do the wealthy.

[Sociobiology]

US income taxes: I would decrease them across the board by 10% and lower property taxes. I would also decrease capital gains tax by about one half to encourage investment and slash corporate taxes from 35% to around 17.5%. Also cut regulation and complicated rules. Decrease wasteful programs and cut lots of programs and we should get high economic growth and decrease the debt.

actually that would cause stagnation and an economic slump.
Also which two branch of the military to you plan on closing to fund this?

[Panmerica]

And how is that?

Again, the poor have less discretionary spending than do the wealthy.

Well in any situation, the poor would have less discretionary spending then the wealthy. So is the goal really to make the wealthy the same wealth level as the poor?

[Osterlais]

=
actually that would cause stagnation and an economic slump.
Also which two branch of the military to you plan on closing to fund this?

The Peace Corps and the Space Marines. Closing the Space Marines will be politically easiest, as they actually haven't been formed yet, and will save the most money as they are projected to be quite costly.

[Olivaero]

But flat tax still disproportionately hurts the poor. Kelinfort's point works no matter what the tax rate is, as long as the tax rate is positive.

And how is that?

The money you take away from the poor might be used to buy food or pay for their car to be fixed the money you take away from the rich might put a second car out of the question for them. Who is hurt more in this example?

[Shaggai]

Again, the poor have less discretionary spending than do the wealthy.

Well in any situation, the poor would have less discretionary spending then the wealthy. So is the goal really to make the wealthy the same wealth level as the poor?

But any given amount of tax on the poor will affect their discretionary spending more than the same amount of tax would affect the discretionary spending of the wealthy.

[Osterlais]

Raise taxes on the wealthy because the wealthy are disproportionately rewarded in our society.

(Image)

But it isn't. Land ownership isn't as important as it used to be anyway. The means of production in many cases are people. That is for example, for Microsoft some of its greatest assets are its people, that and its brand. This isn't universally true. One can still make money off mineral rights or collecting rent, but not as much as doing other things.

[Galloism]

US income taxes: I would decrease them across the board by 10% and lower property taxes. I would also decrease capital gains tax by about one half to encourage investment and slash corporate taxes from 35% to around 17.5%. Also cut regulation and complicated rules. Decrease wasteful programs and cut lots of programs and we should get high economic growth and decrease the debt.

Point of order: Property Taxes are a state issue and will do nothing for the federal budget.