Raising taxes on the rich is good for the economy.

[amy31416]

Wouldn't it have made more sense to edit the 2nd post than make a 3rd post?

Anyway, taxes are actually higher now. Were income taxes 14% in NYC in 1960? Did people on Long Island pay $10,000 a year in property taxes? What were the cigarette taxes in NYC? How much did it cost to drive from NYC to NJ? What were the gas taxes in NYC? There were also 100,000s less rules and regulations back them. The market was much freer.

Editing posts takes even longer than quoting someone, believe it or not. It'll often time-out, which I find rather aggravating.

 

[matt0611]

I'll use your logic to demolish your whole argument:

There was higher economic growth before the federal income tax was created, so abolish the income tax entirely.

 

[FindLiberty]

...gotta have some taxes to cover up the sound of the printing press (mouse clicks) creating the huge mountains of fiat money...

If too many start to question the budget numbers or balance, it indicates the tax distraction scam is not making enough noise (pain) so the fiat magic funding trick can continue un-noticed.

At the very least, the masses must think taxes have gone up to match the empire's ever increasing levels of spending.

A great liar could even claim a surplus!

Of course inflation cannot be hidden forever and the scam will get to a point where TSHTF.

 

[Zippyjuan]

Taxes on the rich are better for the economy (or more accurately less bad- more taxes aren't really better for the economy overall)...compared to the same amount of taxation on lower incomes. Not as an absolute. Why? The economy is good when companies are producing things, people are working, and they are buying things. Lower income people spend most of their income buying things. If people are buying things, companies are selling things and need workers. If you raise taxes on the lower incomes, purchases go down and businesses have lower sales so they need more workers. The rich has "surplus income"- they get more money than they can spend on goods and services so they have more in savings and investment. Raise their taxes and they don't really reduce their spending on goods and services at all.

Yes there is less savings which means less money to borrow for say a company to invest in expanding their operations, but if people aren't buying their goods as much, they aren't going to be willing to borrow and invest in more production. Less capital is a problem if there is a shortage of capital compared to demand for it, but if the economy is shrinking due to lower sales, the demand for investment capital will fall as well so there should not be a shortage of capital for lending.

 

[acptulsa]

So what causes the boom bust. Bad money. Why go into it you know what site you are on. If you have not at least looked into this idea i suggest you do because its clearly the problem.

Plus rep. The economy was good in the forties. In the thirties, not so much--though the administration and the tax rates were not dissimilar. What made the difference? Can you say, we borrowed the world to produce arms? Well, then, let's borrow the world to produce arms. Wait, we are--and it's no longer working.

This is what you get for seizing on one bit of datum from two discrete periods of history, and taking them completely out of context. You get educated. The Brits had high top tax rates in the 1970s, too. Did it do them one bit of good? No. It didn't.

You know what makes strong economies? Opportunity. You know what makes opportunity? People who are short on parasites and long on liberty. Which is why the Soviet Union never had an economic boom.

You want to make it simple, Ft. Worth? There. It really is that simple.

 

[bolil]

Perhaps "deregulation" is pointless without sound monetary policy. By sound I mean organic, by organic I mean gold.

 

[cubical]

Lower income people spend most of their income buying things. If people are buying things, companies are selling things and need workers.

The Keynesian circular logic.

People only want to sell things to people who produce things. Zimbabwe had plenty of money to buy or products, but the act of having cash means and the desire to buy means nothing. People only produce in surplus when they want something else. They don't produce in surplus in order to get little green pieces of paper unless that paper can buy something. Fortunately for those who produce very little, but receive handouts in the form of USD, the USD is accepted by those who are super producers. The "spenders" are not driving the economy, they are taking from it.

 

[Lord Xar]

The Keynesian circular logic.

People only want to sell things to people who produce things. Zimbabwe had plenty of money to buy or products, but the act of having cash means and the desire to buy means nothing. People only produce in surplus when they want something else. They don't produce in surplus in order to get little green pieces of paper unless that paper can buy something. Fortunately for those who produce very little, but receive handouts in the form of USD, the USD is accepted by those who are super producers. The "spenders" are not driving the economy, they are taking from it.

Cubical - explain this:

"People only want to sell things to people who produce things." - I don't get this. What would a business care if a bum bought a car or a professor? The car is sold, generating money for the business.

Are you saying because the value of the dollar is going down the drain, the producers see little in gathering more of the useless stuff? If that is the case, wouldn't sitting on their capital - be a bad investment? They have workers to pay, rent to pay etc.. I am just trying to understand your logic.

 

[TheFreeEconomy]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324705104578151601554982808.html

 

[cubical]

Cubical - explain this:

"People only want to sell things to people who produce things." - I don't get this. What would a business care if a bum bought a car or a professor? The car is sold, generating money for the business.

No, the sellers wouldn't care. That is why I said "Fortunately for those who produce very little, but receive handouts in the form of USD, the USD is accepted by those who are super producers." Think about what makes the USD so valuable. It is valuable because people who produce a surplus are willing to accept it for that surplus.

Now imagine the USDs originated from a country of all "bums", who barely squeak by and produced no surplus of goods. Would someone who produced a surplus of goods(imagine oil) give any value to USDs and be willing to trade them for their hard earned goods? No. Not until there is something to trade the currency for. The more goods or services the currency can be traded for, the more value would be given to the currency.

Or what if I stumbled across gold and then used it to take real, hard to produce goods out of the economy without any work on my part. Assuming I buy consumable items, the economy is worse off because I found that gold, not better.

 

[itshappening]

dear liberal,

No one paid those high marginal tax rates, maybe a few thousand or less actually paid the top rates.

Most people found ways round it, they were also able to write off a lot more than you can do today under the old tax code.

Also, ever wondered how a guy with an average job went to work while the woman stayed at home and raised the kids? Does this ever happen any more, save for the very wealthy?

The Federal Reserve through inflation has stolen the purchasing power of the dollar and the average job pays a lot less today than it did 50 years ago, meaning it's not easy to support a family with one average wage, own a house and have kids etc.