Break This Logic

[Mordan]

Hello,

I force myself reading articles arguing different economic ideas

Here is one which I found valid

1: Lower tax rate on the rich =) Less Money To Finance =) Increase Debt if spending is not reduced =) Government Bonds issued

------------------

1 =) 2: Rich people have more money =) more money to save =) bigger demand for saving =) bigger demand for bonds =) bonds are bought


Middle class and poor screwed. In a non-progressing tax system, The rich get a fiscal present and get the interest payment, which paid by everyone.

the rich can get richer not by wisely investing and taking risks (fair enough), but by simply using the state as medium.

fiscal present to rich =) more public debt and more private interests paid to people who can afford to buy Gov Bonds.

 

[Truth Warrior]

It almost ALWAYS goes back to the initial critical and core axioms.<IMHO> Logic is NOT necessarily the same as truth and reality. Crappy premises lead to crappy conclusions, logically.

 

[danberkeley]

It almost ALWAYS goes back to the initial critical and core axioms.<IMHO> Logic is NOT necessarily the same as truth and reality. Crappy premises lead to crappy conclusions, logically.

plus uno

 

[Deborah K]

The first flaw in this approach is the assumption that the gov't has the right to tax wages. http://www.losthorizons.com/Cracking_the_Code.htm

 

[theoakman]

arguing tax systems doesn't go anywhere.

The cold hard fact remains, you cannot have a system where the ultra rich get richer and the middle class gets poorer. At some point, the middle class decides it's easier to pick up a gun rather than go to work.

 

[Zavoi]

if spending is not reduced

This is the key point. If, as it seems, this is supposed to be an argument in favor of progressive taxation, it assumes that the choice is only between "tax and spend" or "borrow and spend". (How rarely we have been given the choice of "don't tax, don't borrow, and don't spend".) This leads to the conclusion that if tax revenues decrease, bond issues must increase. But I see no reason why maintaining the current level of government expenditure should be accepted as being the highest priority.