Wonder Gem rdmcandie wrote:
If the government has additional Tax Revenue from another source it means it can
A. Fund More programs
B. Fund Additional Programs
Please tell me you meant for A to be "Fund programs
more". But in any case, this is not an argument for raising taxes without an accompanying argument for why said programs are a sufficiently better use of the money than leaving it in the hands of those who earned it to justify taking it from them in the first place. And you have not made that argument.
Quote:
C. Lower Taxes in a different Area.
Lets look at C.
By getting increased taxes from say The income earners in the USA (the highest bracket earners) this allows the Government to provide tax relief benefits, or straight up tax cuts on businesses.
Now you're just repeating rhetoric. I love how everyone talks about helping "small businesses". It's like a mantra. It's the latest talking point. It's also complete BS. Those small businesses are overwhelmingly owned by the very people who would have had their taxes raised if Obama had had his way. So let's stop pretending that this is about shifting money from "the rich" to "businesses".
Quote:
This means a company would keep more of its money every year. Money that can be directly put back into the company to increase.
Um... the best way to ensure that a privately owned company (or an S-corp) can keep more of its money is to *not* raise taxes on everyone making more than $250k/year. If you think this is important, you should be completely opposed to the tax plan Obama wanted to do.
Quote:
A. Production
B. Employment
C. Employmee Services (IE. Health Care, Bonuses etc)
All three of those things result in a boost to the economy. Overall Production means a stronger bottom line next yar which means even more savings thanks to taxes being lowered. Employment means more employees maybe another shift that supports production. Employment Services takes the monetary burden from eployees with health care coverage, and provides them with incentive to keep working. Putting more money in their hands to purchase things.
Now you're arguing my point. The overwhelming majority of people are employed by other people who earn more than $250k/year. If you agree that lowering taxes on those business owners will result in all of those benefits, then why are you arguing that they should have their taxes raised?
You're making exactly the "trickle down" argument you started out saying didn't work. Am I in a Bugs Bunny cartoon now? Did you expect me to start arguing that tax cuts on business owners *doesn't* result in good things for those who work for them?
Quote:
In the end the tax cuts being removed from the Wealthy are put into a quasi investment in business.
How can you write this with a straight face? That's like saying that being mauled by a bear is an investment in your health. It's like I'm having an argument with someone who can't follow their own position from one sentence to the next. Someone help me! :)
Quote:
The difference is, this investment is ongoing, it is guaranteed to occur. Unlike Investment from private persons. This is not Government investment this is the government leaving money where it should be, in the employers hands. It means that employers across the nation are able to take the saved money and invest it into their companies.
Huh? How can it not be investment from private persons *and* not be government investment? If it's left in the hands of the people, it's not taxed. Now you're back to making my argument for me.
Do you even know what your position is? Cause I'm thinking you've got a split personality or something. Either that, or you simply don't know or understand what words like "private", "public", "government", and "investment" actually mean and so you just use them randomly where it seems like they fit in a sentence.
Quote:
The safeguard is in the removal of tax cuts that allows the government to get the money if it is not used as a business investment.
Huh? Wait! Are you arguing that the government should tax the wealthy, but then subsidize businesses that they want to succeed? Because that's a whole different argument, and for a whole different set of reasons, none of which you've remotely touched on yet.
Quote:
You can not rely on private investments, which means you can not rely on tax cuts to the wealthy.
Except that private investment is by far the largest cause of improvements to general standard of living. Everything you own was created by private investment. The clothes you are wearing, the house you are sitting in, the computer you are typing on, the clock on the wall, the phone you use, everything. Without private investment in commercialization of new technology, you'd be living in a hand made home out of wood and mud, with hand sews clothes, and we'd be corresponding by paper mail, and writing by candle light.
That's what you lose when you tax the rich. All of those improvements occur more slowly or not at all if private individuals do not have sufficient wealth to invest in those new things. Yes, it is an unsure process. But that's the point. We can't predict what the next big thing will be, or how it will work, or how it will change our lives. And that's exactly the reason why the undirected and unplanned flailing about that the private market does will result in those things happening, while the planned economic solutions will not.
No one, not even science fiction writers predicted the home computer until after it happened. Imagine what would have happened if we'd taxed all the wealth from Wozniak and Job's parents so that those two rich kids could not have cobbled together the Apple computer in their garage? Or Bill Gates? Or any of the people who invested their money in the products they came up with?
Your argument rests on the assumption that the government can figure out what needs to be made and can best make it. But history shows us that no one, and especially not the government is able to consistently make such a prediction. We need to allow that random process of the free market to roam free, knowing it'll make mistakes, but also knowing that it'll hit on successes that all the planning in the world will never come up with. The world is constantly improved by free market actions, even while on paper appearing wasteful.
And you wont ever see that on an accounting balance sheet, which is why the demand side argument is flawed. It attempts to apply a policy which assumes we can do that. But we can't. We never have. And if we eliminate that free market, we hurt us in ways we cannot predict. Because we can't know what might have been invented if we'd let some rich kid tinker around, and let some other rich people invest in his idea. That's something no amount of planning can replace. And that's why I'm right and you're wrong.
Quote:
Where Bus really shot himself is when he also cut business taxes as well. You can not cut taxes and spend. It is fiscally impossible. Let alone when you are running 2 wars.
And yet, the debt to gdp ratio during that entire time period stayed stable at around 35-37%. We were not "in debt" during Bush's term, nor did we sink more into debt. That's a statistical lie used to influence people who are ignorant of the facts (or who just look at the wrong indicators). Deficit isn't that important. It's the debt ratio that is. Bush's economic policies were completely sustainable, despite massive insistence to the contrary.