Is lowering taxes the answer?

[Dobson73]

Interesting article in today's "The Age" newspaper in Melbourne. Interested to hear what US residents think.

It's always amused me that Governments keep wanting to lower taxes. It's as if for short term electoral reasons they conveniently forget that taxes actually pay for the infrastructure and allows the country to stay open for business, whether it's the US, Australia, the UK or many other western, first world countries.

Lower the taxes means lower the income, surely?

http://www.theage.com.au/world/how-low-can-taxes-go-20110617-1g7wv.html

 

[gaypiper]

That's the part of lower taxes that the dumbass American electorate never seems to get, that and "lower taxes means no social services." The answer is tax the rich.

 

[T-Rexx]

Good article.

The success of Reaganomics over the past 30 years has done what England, a civil war, two world wars, the Soviet Union, Al-Qaeda, and so many despots could not - destroy America as a land of opportunity and prosperity.

We are now stuck with the economy of a third world nation: a tiny percentage of fabulously wealthy people and lots and lots of poor. The driving engine of the American economy - the middle class - has been decimated by the transfer of its wealth to the very rich. We are now stuck with permanently high unemployment and permanent stagnation. Our political system will not fix this because it cannot. Half of our political system is fighting tenaciously to maintain this dysfunctional status quo, and will continue to do so forever.

But, as if permanently destroying the economy were not enough, the Republican Party is also insistent on turning this nation into a fundamentalist theocracy characterized by intolerance, anti-intellecualism, and hatred. Republicans have proudly guided us to the surrender of all three of the Jeffersonian triumvirate: our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.

 

[Kulindahr]

Lower the taxes means lower the income, surely?

http://www.theage.com.au/world/how-low-can-taxes-go-20110617-1g7wv.html

For everyone but the super-wealthy, apparently.

I've been accused of not being very libertarian for saying we should balance our budget by going back to the patriotic tax levels of Eisenhower. I fail to see, though, how fiscal irresponsibility is conducive to liberty; giant deficits and an astronomical debt surely aren't.

Government isn't the only institution against which liberty must be protected, coercion by men in uniforms not the only form of initiation of force, the power of law not the only instrument of tyranny. Giant corporations -- non-persons with the protections of real ones -- are as much the enemy as government.

The political philosophy that glorifies unbridled corporate power is not libertarianism, it is propertarianism, the worship of property and exaltation of wealth, where the corporate jungle is the vision of paradise -- individuals standing alone without recourse in the face of corporate coercion and manipulation. The root of propertarianism is not self-ownership, but mere selfishness, getting and keeping what one can, and to hell with the rest.

But propertarianism also is based on theft, the theft of what rightfully belongs (if it belongs anywhere at all) to all people: the world. In propertarianism, there is no right to property; one must buy in, after playing by the rules of those who already hold some. This is not liberty, because it is not equality: a rght one has to buy is no right at all.

Propertarianism is the creed of the Tea Party, from the Koch brothers to Rand Paul... to Paul Ryan. They hide behind the libertarian name, but they don't believe in liberty; they use it because it draws the enthusiasm of those easily fooled by thinly veiled lies.

Our society needs some serious restructuring, starting with our definition of "property", not confined to ditching a number of government departments and seriously ramping back the alleged power of the commerce clause and adding the presumption of liberty to the Constitution. But let's not dump the country into a third-world condition in hopes of improvement -- "starving the beast" just changes its form into something less accountable.

 

[chrisrobin]

For everyone but the super-wealthy, apparently.

I've been accused of not being very libertarian for saying we should balance our budget by going back to the patriotic tax levels of Eisenhower. I fail to see, though, how fiscal irresponsibility is conducive to liberty; giant deficits and an astronomical debt surely aren't.

Government isn't the only institution against which liberty must be protected, coercion by men in uniforms not the only form of initiation of force, the power of law not the only instrument of tyranny. Giant corporations -- non-persons with the protections of real ones -- are as much the enemy as government.

The political philosophy that glorifies unbridled corporate power is not libertarianism, it is propertarianism, the worship of property and exaltation of wealth, where the corporate jungle is the vision of paradise -- individuals standing alone without recourse in the face of corporate coercion and manipulation. The root of propertarianism is not self-ownership, but mere selfishness, getting and keeping what one can, and to hell with the rest.

But propertarianism also is based on theft, the theft of what rightfully belongs (if it belongs anywhere at all) to all people: the world. In propertarianism, there is no right to property; one must buy in, after playing by the rules of those who already hold some. This is not liberty, because it is not equality: a rght one has to buy is no right at all.

Propertarianism is the creed of the Tea Party, from the Koch brothers to Rand Paul... to Paul Ryan. They hide behind the libertarian name, but they don't believe in liberty; they use it because it draws the enthusiasm of those easily fooled by thinly veiled lies.

Our society needs some serious restructuring, starting with our definition of "property", not confined to ditching a number of government departments and seriously ramping back the alleged power of the commerce clause and adding the presumption of liberty to the Constitution. But let's not dump the country into a third-world condition in hopes of improvement -- "starving the beast" just changes its form into something less accountable.

^^^Excellent post!
History (whatever that means) tells us that strong economies are bolstered by higher taxes.

 

[Kulindahr]

^^^Excellent post!
History (whatever that means) tells us that strong economies are bolstered by higher taxes.

Well... depending on what the taxes are spent on. If some of them were spent dismantling some of our unconstitutional departments (education, energy, for example), that would be great. But basically higher taxes spent on infrastructure bolsters an economy.

 

[Dobson73]

^^^Kulindahr, great post.

Sadly I think that the person who entered politics to implement those steps that you speak of, restructuring, elimination of what you call Propertarianism, attempting to restore the balance and planning for the long term will simply be swallowed up by the party machine and spat out very quickly.

Politics worldwide seems to have simply spiralled into the world of sound grabs, consensus and the next election. Doing good for their respective nations eludes our Leaders.

 

[GhostMost]

I say lower the taxes just going out on a limb here . The economy is supported just by money, the people, corporations, and the workforce. I think the government has proven that they can't make enough public programs to help with the economy, and giving to the poor will make this even worse, so why not stick it to the business class. Let them explore, create new jobs, hire new people and boom you have a better economy. Don't blame it on the rich because they're the ones already supplying you with money if you even work.

 

[Kulindahr]

Don't blame it on the rich because they're the ones already supplying you with money if you even work.

No, they're not. The super-rich do nothing to create jobs with all that wealth, they just shuffle it from one investment to another in an attempt to turn it into more money. They buy stock, and resell it, and that doesn't create jobs.

In fact that money would create more jobs if it were in the hands of the people who actually generated the real wealth, because they'd spend it, generating demand, which results in jobs.

Historically, the rich should be taxed at about a third plus whatever the bottom is taxed at, for a vibrant economy. Now if you spun off infrastructure to the private sector where that's possible, that could be reduced, I presume proportionately. But merely reducing taxes on the rich, as has been demonstrated by Republicans over the last half century, slows the economy.

 

[maxpowr9]

If the government spent more money on actually improving our infrastructure, we would be better off now. One only needs to drive Interstate 95 to see how bad our roads are.

Lowering taxes is not a viable option for the US no matter how warped of a viewpoint you have. I am fuming over the arrogance of congress, especially the GOP members and how stupid they are.

 

[rareboy]

Lowering taxes for the international rich is the fastest way to destroy an economy.

Lowering income tax on the low and middle wage earners is good policy.

Taxing it all back on the consumer side is the best approach as long as necessities are left untaxed.

 

[chrisrobin]

Let them explore, create new jobs, hire new people and boom you have a better economy. Don't blame it on the rich because they're the ones already supplying you with money if you even work.

After the second Bush tax cut, we were losing 750,000 jobs per month. The beneficiaries of various tax cuts did not create any jobs. Please list one person who got a job from 2001-2008 as a result of these cuts.

Let them explore, create new jobs.

The rich are "supplying" us with money? What is that? Did you know that you can capture a bird by sprinkling salt on its tail? How 'bout Sisyphus? Icarus and Daedalus? The Minotaur?

1. Lowering taxes on the rich creates jobs.
2. There's a jolly old man in a red suit that brings us gifts every December.
3. There's a rodent who comes to your house and brings jelly beans and chocolate bunnies every Spring.

Oh, by the way, I hate to bring this up... but the tax level during the Eisenhower Administration hovered around 90%. JFK lowered it to 75%. There were jobs. Republicans in 2011 want it reduced to 25% Reagan's chief economic advisor David Stockman, quit because he did not believe in "trickle down economics" the same thing you are espousing.

 

[GhostMost]

After the second Bush tax cut, we were losing 750,000 jobs per month. The beneficiaries of various tax cuts did not create any jobs. Please list one person who got a job from 2001-2008 as a result of these cuts.


The rich are "supplying" us with money? What is that? Did you know that you can capture a bird by sprinkling salt on its tail? How 'bout Sisyphus? Icarus and Daedalus? The Minotaur?

1. Lowering taxes on the rich creates jobs.
2. There's a jolly old man in a red suit that brings us gifts every December.
3. There's a rodent who comes to your house and brings jelly beans and chocolate bunnies every Spring.

Oh, by the way, I hate to bring this up... but the tax level during the Eisenhower Administration hovered around 90%. JFK lowered it to 75%. There were jobs. Republicans in 2011 want it reduced to 25% Reagan's chief economic advisor David Stockman, quit because he did not believe in "trickle down economics" the same thing you are espousing.

All I'm saying is go up to your employer and tell them to fuck themselves and to give you a raise because you're part of the lower class, and see what happens. So you're telling me the government tells the upper class to create jobs? I feel like you people are just trying to escape that idea!

 

[Kulindahr]

All I'm saying is go up to your employer and tell them to fuck themselves and to give you a raise because you're part of the lower class, and see what happens. So you're telling me the government tells the upper class to create jobs? I feel like you people are just trying to escape that idea!

No, you get ten thousand of you together and go tell your employer that if he doesn't give you a raise, he's not going to have any workers. That's called exercising self-ownership.

Telling you " the government tells the upper class to create jobs"? What hat did you pull that out of?

 

[GhostMost]

No, you get ten thousand of you together and go tell your employer that if he doesn't give you a raise, he's not going to have any workers. That's called exercising self-ownership.

Telling you " the government tells the upper class to create jobs"? What hat did you pull that out of?

"The super-rich do nothing to create jobs with all that wealth." Then what do they do? I mean Starbucks recently created a new brand of coffee called Seattle's Best, so they must not have created more jobs to get a different branch. NBC created Bravo, but oh no that just made the economy worse.

How can giving money to the poor create new companies? I agree demand does go up, but with demand you need supply or people pay even more for their demands, but taxing the rich must give more supply right?

What about the Independent Italian restaurant struggling to pay it's taxes because the owner's taxes are increased because of his salary per year?

 

[storiwriter]

"The super-rich do nothing to create jobs with all that wealth." Then what do they do? I mean Starbucks recently created a new brand of coffee called Seattle's Best, so they must not have created more jobs to get a different branch. NBC created Bravo, but oh no that just made the economy worse.

How can giving money to the poor create new companies? I agree demand does go up, but with demand you need supply or people pay even more for their demands, but taxing the rich must give more supply right?

Yes, the super-rich do create jobs. The problem is that they aren't creating enough jobs in America or paying their fair share in taxes.

Instead of investing the wealth they own back into the economy, they bank their gains, invest the money overseas, or add dancefloors to their homes per the OP's article.

It is the quality and quantity that worries people when it comes to job creation.

Taxing the rich would allow more money to flow in the pockets of the consumer, creating demand. The super-rich should be able to meet the demand (they are the super-rich) as long as taxes are not too burdensome.

I also think small-business owners should catch a break. But, when talking about the top 1% of America taxpayers, who own 40% of America's wealth and have seen their incomes rise by almost 20%, I'm not talking about taxing the small business owners.

 

[chrisrobin]

"The super-rich do nothing to create jobs with all that wealth." Then what do they do? I mean Starbucks recently created a new brand of coffee called Seattle's Best, so they must not have created more jobs to get a different branch. NBC created Bravo, but oh no that just made the economy worse.

How can giving money to the poor create new companies? I agree demand does go up, but with demand you need supply or people pay even more for their demands, but taxing the rich must give more supply right?

What about the Independent Italian restaurant struggling to pay it's taxes because the owner's taxes are increased because of his salary per year?

With all due respect, national economics has very little to do with restaurants. In a nutshell, if the lower 98% of the population is relieved of its tax burden and the upper 2% picks up some of the slack, that 98% is going to have more disposable income... they're going to buy stuff, which is going to create more demand for goods, which means that corporations are going to have to hire more personnel to keep up with increasing demand. I really don't have time to offer you a Cliff's Notes version of Econ. 101, but if you are already in school (college) you may wish to consider borrowing a copy of Paul Samuelson's book on economics. It is considered to be one of the best for over a half-century. While you're at it, think about turning off your conservative radio programs before they damage your brain.

By the way, Seattle's Best has been around for a good decade. Unfortunately, Starbuck's has had to close stores because the general public has less disposable income than it used to substantiating my original idea. Also, taxes on small businesses have not gone up appreciably in the last 2-1/2 years unless you consider the Bechtel Corporation a small business.

 

[GhostMost]

I've never listened to any conservative talk radios/shows.

But the super-rich are humans. You can't just hold them to a high enough standard by saying MAKE MORE JOBS WE NEED THEM, it's just not that simple. If they get taxed we have less jobs (not every business can afford to pay high taxes and run a money-demanding business). If the government gets it they'll distribute the money a very little to us (in the form of improving buildings, blah, and blah), then most will go to them to spend it on worthless and stupid shit no citizen will ever know about nor care about. This will not change even if they're taxed more.

 

[chrisrobin]

I've never listened to any conservative talk radios/shows.

This is to your credit. Do you read "The National Review", by any chance?" If not, where are you getting these ideas? Herbert Hoover's plan for economic recovery? If we use your "logic" the upper 2% shouldn't have to pay any taxes. Be honest, you just don't like Obama.

Also, you have not read a thing that I have posted. Have a nice day.

 

[palemale]

Yes, "lowering taxes" is the answer. The question it answers is what is one policy that does not result in job creation or the successful end to a recession?