toldailytopic: Revamping the tax system.
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
eameece
New member
It has been practiced in every western democracy. What doesn't work is Reaganoid trickle-down economics.
| more trickle-down economics | |
drbrumley
Well-known member
I have a pretty good idea on what property is, unlike you. It is the government and government worshipers like you who insist on taking my property which again, is theft.
Why isnt detroit making it then since their jobs went away? It jujst keeps getting worse there, so bad in fact that the whole city is in decline and collapsing and they just had to close 50 schools.
In case you missed it:
Detroit Ground Zero for Economic Collapse Part 1/4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3tH2...eature=related
Detroit ordered to close half of its schools: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/...20034397.shtml
Detroit plans to save city by demolishing vacant neighborhoods (yes entire neighborhoods are empty) - http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/...20034397.shtml
Disappeared Detroit - in lost magazine (excellent read) - http://www.lostmag.com/issue2/detroit.php
And all these dont even begin to show it or tell it.
Good riddance? Would you like to see this all over america?
eameece
New member
In this report
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/business/jan-june12/makingsense_01-11.html
Paul Solmon discussed the Laffer curve, and several economists suggest that the optimum tax revenue is higher on the curve than Laffer and the trickle-downers say. Rich people will work harder to make more money, if they have to pay more in taxes. On the other hand, charging more taxes to the less wealthy trying to start businesses, will hurt them and the economy.
Excerpt:
PETER DIAMOND, Massachusetts Institute of Technology: If you want to shoot tax dollars in the direction of business creation, you have got to ask, who is it that's having trouble getting financing? It's not the high-earners. It's further down the income distribution.
PAUL SOLMAN: So, if I understand you correctly, you're turning this argument on its head in a way. And you'd say, if your objective is to create more jobs, you might want to lower the taxes on people who are further down the income ladder.
PETER DIAMOND: Those are the people having trouble starting businesses. The top 1 percent have wealth. They have high earnings. They have an ability to borrow. If they want to do a startup, they're not going to be limited by the fact that they're paying a slightly higher or somewhat higher tax on their earnings.
PAUL SOLMAN: Now, Diamond buys the basic concept of the Laffer Curve and agrees that tax rates should be kept below the point at which they start to discourage work.
PETER DIAMOND: You never want to go into that part of the curve.
PAUL SOLMAN: But since he disputes the premise that it's the wealthy who need low taxes to create jobs, he sees little harm in raising their taxes when government really needs the revenue.
PETER DIAMOND: We have a lot of studies, based on the available data, on the relationship between tax rates and the amount of revenue you get. It's very close to certain that the current 35 percent is almost surely below, and comfortably below, what would maximize the revenue. So, I'm very comfortable that the top marginal income tax rate, high 40s, 50s, on up, maybe even into the low 60s.
PAUL SOLMAN: So, according to the data, says Peter Diamond, the Laffer Curve might really look some thing like this. And where would Diamond himself put the top tax rate?
At about 49 percent, still comfortably below the point of maximum tax revenue -- 49 percent or so would have positive economic effects, short-term and long, by financing government investment in infrastructure, in education, in research and development, says Diamond, all key components of economic growth.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/business/jan-june12/makingsense_01-11.html
Paul Solmon discussed the Laffer curve, and several economists suggest that the optimum tax revenue is higher on the curve than Laffer and the trickle-downers say. Rich people will work harder to make more money, if they have to pay more in taxes. On the other hand, charging more taxes to the less wealthy trying to start businesses, will hurt them and the economy.
Excerpt:
PETER DIAMOND, Massachusetts Institute of Technology: If you want to shoot tax dollars in the direction of business creation, you have got to ask, who is it that's having trouble getting financing? It's not the high-earners. It's further down the income distribution.
PAUL SOLMAN: So, if I understand you correctly, you're turning this argument on its head in a way. And you'd say, if your objective is to create more jobs, you might want to lower the taxes on people who are further down the income ladder.
PETER DIAMOND: Those are the people having trouble starting businesses. The top 1 percent have wealth. They have high earnings. They have an ability to borrow. If they want to do a startup, they're not going to be limited by the fact that they're paying a slightly higher or somewhat higher tax on their earnings.
PAUL SOLMAN: Now, Diamond buys the basic concept of the Laffer Curve and agrees that tax rates should be kept below the point at which they start to discourage work.
PETER DIAMOND: You never want to go into that part of the curve.
PAUL SOLMAN: But since he disputes the premise that it's the wealthy who need low taxes to create jobs, he sees little harm in raising their taxes when government really needs the revenue.
PETER DIAMOND: We have a lot of studies, based on the available data, on the relationship between tax rates and the amount of revenue you get. It's very close to certain that the current 35 percent is almost surely below, and comfortably below, what would maximize the revenue. So, I'm very comfortable that the top marginal income tax rate, high 40s, 50s, on up, maybe even into the low 60s.
PAUL SOLMAN: So, according to the data, says Peter Diamond, the Laffer Curve might really look some thing like this. And where would Diamond himself put the top tax rate?
At about 49 percent, still comfortably below the point of maximum tax revenue -- 49 percent or so would have positive economic effects, short-term and long, by financing government investment in infrastructure, in education, in research and development, says Diamond, all key components of economic growth.
eameece
New member
Sure. Get these dinosaurs, these vultures out of the way. Let them go if they don't want to contribute to America. There's plenty of people here who can do the real work and take over the executive positions. There's a big unemployment rate, remember? Or do you read the news?
We don't need the exploiters, the job despoilers, the job exporters, the vulture capitalists, the gamblers, the extortionists. They are the ones wrecking our cities. Meanwhile, there's plenty of rich entrepreneurs who believe in America and understand that investing in the things that put money in peoples pockets is good for their business. Contrary to what you believe, not all rich people are STUPID, like Republican politicians and Tea Party nuts.
eameece
New member
I hope they do. I hope they tax you at 100%. I hope they take all your property away. Property is theft. If you can say taxes are theft, then I can say property is theft. One silly slogan is as bad as the other.
So why isnt that happening in detroit? Maybe you could get up there and show them how its done?
eameece
New member
Somebody should go there and start making electric cars.
PureX
Well-known member
The factory buildings in Detroit have been empty for years, and were old even then. The big reason the automakers moved out was that it was time for them to modernize their plants. Same thing happened in the steel industry. When it came time to modernize, the industrialists decided it was cheaper to just build new plants in other countries where they could exploit the workers at will (since they had to build a new plant, anyway). That's when our government should have stepped in and said 'no'. And instead offered them incentives like low interest loans and tax breaks to help them modernize, here. But instead, the industrialists bribed the politicians to give them our tax money to help cover their costs as they moved out of the country. And so we paid them to leave.
No one took over in places like Detroit because the industrial infrastructure they left behind was all used up. Where I live, the same thing happened with the steel mills.
But the thing to understand was that we could have stopped them from leaving the country, and we didn't. That was a big mistake that has cost us dearly. Not just in the loss of good paying jobs, but if we were to become involved in a major war, we no longer have the production capacity that we once had. That was what saved us in WW2. Also, we have become a nation of 'moneychangers' and their servants. We don't produce things like we used to. We just play with numbers and call it making money. But the finance and service industries don't actually make anything. And sooner or later someone has to actually make something to increase the nation's wealth in a real way. It's partly our lack of actual production that causes these 'bubbles' on Wall Street. Too much money being invested in companies with too little actual production value causes their perceived value to falsely inflate. Which then invites even more investors who want to get in on the falsely inflating stock. Everyone is making money out of nothing until the bubble of false value bursts, and the stock falls back to it's actual value. Then, whoever is caught holding the stock get's screwed. But it's not good for the economy or the nation when investors are playing these kinds of money games. We all get screwed by it in the end.
There are all kinds of reasons why we should not have allowed our industrial enterprises to leave our shores. But the greed of their CEOs won out, and we were not paying proper attention, and so now we are paying a dear price for it. The Obama administration has just recently noticed a trend in some of these companies of their wanting to return to the U.S., because they found out that doing business in countries with 'flexible' rules of law was not the profit utopia they had imagined it would be. And the administration is trying to put together a package of incentives to get these businesses to move back here. Sadly, we will end up paying them even more of our tax dollars to get them to return, now. But I'm sure the republicans will want to fight this because they can't allow the Obama administration to do anything that might be construed as good for the American economy. And they certainly don't want to see an increase in jobs right now, because they'll have no hope of winning the White House if that happens.
No one took over in places like Detroit because the industrial infrastructure they left behind was all used up. Where I live, the same thing happened with the steel mills.
But the thing to understand was that we could have stopped them from leaving the country, and we didn't. That was a big mistake that has cost us dearly. Not just in the loss of good paying jobs, but if we were to become involved in a major war, we no longer have the production capacity that we once had. That was what saved us in WW2. Also, we have become a nation of 'moneychangers' and their servants. We don't produce things like we used to. We just play with numbers and call it making money. But the finance and service industries don't actually make anything. And sooner or later someone has to actually make something to increase the nation's wealth in a real way. It's partly our lack of actual production that causes these 'bubbles' on Wall Street. Too much money being invested in companies with too little actual production value causes their perceived value to falsely inflate. Which then invites even more investors who want to get in on the falsely inflating stock. Everyone is making money out of nothing until the bubble of false value bursts, and the stock falls back to it's actual value. Then, whoever is caught holding the stock get's screwed. But it's not good for the economy or the nation when investors are playing these kinds of money games. We all get screwed by it in the end.
There are all kinds of reasons why we should not have allowed our industrial enterprises to leave our shores. But the greed of their CEOs won out, and we were not paying proper attention, and so now we are paying a dear price for it. The Obama administration has just recently noticed a trend in some of these companies of their wanting to return to the U.S., because they found out that doing business in countries with 'flexible' rules of law was not the profit utopia they had imagined it would be. And the administration is trying to put together a package of incentives to get these businesses to move back here. Sadly, we will end up paying them even more of our tax dollars to get them to return, now. But I'm sure the republicans will want to fight this because they can't allow the Obama administration to do anything that might be construed as good for the American economy. And they certainly don't want to see an increase in jobs right now, because they'll have no hope of winning the White House if that happens.