Are Liberals Right When they Say Higher Taxes= A Better Economy?

I suspect higher taxes will only lead to bigger government, and the average, struggling worker would not benefit. If taxes go up, then we will find out for sure.

reply to post by Alxandro


Because as The Walking Fox has already said, flat taxes are actually regressive in nature. Of course a two rate (as your Republicans proposed in the 2008 elections) or even three rate flat tax system could possibly work but then there's little to distinguish such a system from progressive taxation.

A single rate flat tax would also result in having to raise taxes for the lower and middle classes (exactly the opposite of what you want to be doing right now) in order to make up for the lower rate now being paid by the wealthy (who currently pay the majority of your taxes percentage-wise). Either that or reducing government spending even further than I've already suggested, lowering aggregate demand in the economy and preventing much-needed government investment in infrastructure projects etc.

reply to post by TheWalkingFox


You and I are never going to agree, so frankly it doesn't matter. If you think your states sales tax, plus an addition 15% from the feds won't make you buy less, well you must be very rich. Given that you wouldn't be taxing income, but consumption, more people would elect to save, pay down debts, and invest. Yes. You don't understand market realities, and you'll say the same about me. People in China are poor, and buy "poor things" yet they manage to save 30% of their income. They are building up wealth and their future is going to be far brighter than ours. And yes, a national sales tax of 15% will help the middle and upper class who create all the jobs! No point in arguing. I'm sick of it frankly. I wish that people like you would have your way, just so when everything collapses, you'll know beyond a shadow of doubt that you were wrong. Perhaps, I'm wrong. Perhaps I need my way to show me that. In reality, things are collapsing, and my fear is that if your way wins out, America enters a dark age. You'll say the same about my way. In the end, the world will keep turning on its axis and people will keep arguing and screwing things up.

reply to post by TheWalkingFox


Sorry buddy. You learn history. 1870s-1910s, greatest period of economic growth in American, perhaps World History. This timeframe setup the ability for Henry Ford to pay his workers $5 per day=that's 1.5 oz of gold per week. That's 6 ounces of gold per month. Now maybe math is non-fiction to you. 6 ounces of gold x $1700 (today's levels)=$10,200 per month= $122,400 per year! All for what? Putting a part on a car on the moving assembly line, which was a great innovation that was helped along by the policies that existed at the time. And Ford wasn't forced to pay his workers great wages, neither were the other mega-rich people you love to hate. There was no minimum wage. There was no federal income tax, which means that those workers kept their income. There was no social security or medicare, but people saved for their retirement and healthcare costs, which even when adjusted for inflation were much, much lower. His workers could buy the cars they made. The American Middle Class was built during this era. The 1950s-1960s seemed great and like a socialist paradise, but it's when all the wealth really started getting plundered and it opened the door to the lost decade stagflation of the 1970s and the steep recession of the early 1980s. And we only continued to do the same since then. That period is when this country was built, when it became the top economy globally, when the Middle Class was built, etc. You learn history buddy. I don't hate Rockefeller, Ford, Carnegie, or any of the mega rich titans from the time; they built real things and innovated, which helped create wealth for everybody across the board and set up the wonderful future America would have. Today's titans, create fraudulent derivatives and play phony paper games to generate wealth. That historical period wasn't ideal in terms of human rights and even other conditions for workers (at times horrible); however it was a lot better at that time and for the future it would build than what we have now. You learn history, and view it from more than one angle and then you decide what's right. Remember how bad China was in the 1990s, and yet it built all this great wealth. It got better in the 2000s and they continue to build all this great wealth. It will be much better for them in 20 years from now in all likelihood. They're living their 1870s-1910s in many respects. You can criticize it all you want, but their future looks far brighter than ours right now.

reply to post by KevinBally


I've arrived at a juncture where it's simply not worth the time to engage in dialogue with most liberals. More specifically I've concluded that many have adopted a philosophy of Arcadia or Xanadu where all is intended to be beautiful and perfect based on some communal pot that simply doesn't exist.

Notwithstanding the strong econ. arguments to be made with regard to the focus of this thread, I ask this: Why even bother? Many of them are immature and given to throw out labels (e.g. bigot) at the drop of a hat for no other reason than to discredit an argument or position. I mean I should be careful because not all Liberals are such fawning schmucks, but good grief already.

reply to post by Kovenov


I have largely given up as well, as it is only a frustrating endeavor to engage in an intellectual argument these days. When people who don't even know you make claims that you think Harry Potter is non-fiction, how is that anyway to have an argument? It's nothing more than a slick line backing a weak argument. I think despite my frustration, the only reason I continue to argue is to try and save the ship, or at least get as many people into the lifeboat as possible. Of course, they're probably arguing with a similar line of thinking about us as their intentions are usually pure (given that they are not corrupt politicians), as you mentioned, despite their serious lack of understanding of reality.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
....
A flat tax is regressive; that is, it's a bigger burden on those with less money, because prices stay the same.
....

How do you explain the prosperity of States that only rely on sales tax then?

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
....
If states cannot function on sales tax (and they can't) then certainly a nation could not - even with massive cuts to spending....

States without income tax: Alaska, New Hampshire, Tennessee, Florida, South Dakota, Washington, Nevada, Texas, Wyoming.

From what I've seen, they're doing rather well, compared to the likes of New York, California....