OT: Rating the President - Page 17

Fyron · #**161** February 9th, 2003, 10:10 AM

Only "normal" progressive income taxes discourage getting pay raises. Flat taxes and reasonable progressive income taxes (as in, the richest pay maybe 2x as much as the poorest that do not qualify for tax exemption for being below a poverty line) do not discourage that.

Quote:

Let's see... less spending, more work & more saving... Isn't that a system that would make the economy strong?

That is a recipe for disaster. Spending is what makes the economy run. If people horde money, workers lose jobs. Store employees lose jobs. Everyone suffers.

[ February 09, 2003, 08:12: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Slick · #**162** February 9th, 2003, 10:17 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Only "normal" progressive income taxes discourage getting pay raises. Flat taxes and reasonable progressive income taxes (as in, the richest pay maybe 2x as much as the poorest that do not qualify for tax exemption for being below a poverty line) do not discourage that.

quote:
Let's see... less spending, more work & more saving... Isn't that a system that would make the economy strong?

That is a recipe for disaster. Spending is what makes the economy run. If people horde money, workers lose jobs. Store employees lose jobs. Everyone suffers.

You should read some basic economics sometime.

Fyron · #**163** February 9th, 2003, 10:39 AM

Why, because I know what a progressive tax system is and that hording money causes economic problems?

Askan Nightbringer · #**164** February 10th, 2003, 04:22 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Only "normal" progressive income taxes discourage getting pay raises. Flat taxes and reasonable progressive income taxes (as in, the richest pay maybe 2x as much as the poorest that do not qualify for tax exemption for being below a poverty line) do not discourage that.

A payrise is still a payrise. I'm in the top Australian tax bracket which means I pay a hefty 47% tax on my income over $60k AUD and I've never felt "discouraged" about getting pay rises. I've only ever seen people get upset about pay rises when theirs was less than a co-worker who they believe does inferior work. Satisfication with income is always based on comparitive measures, never absolute.

Askan

Askan Nightbringer · #**165** February 10th, 2003, 04:25 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Why, because I know what a progressive tax system is and that hording money causes economic problems?

Fyron is correct, saving is bad for the economy. Interest rates are low to discourage saving and encourage spending (financed through debt).

Askan

Fian · #**166** February 10th, 2003, 07:02 PM

While storing your money in a hole in the ground may be bad for the economy, saving it in a bank is not. Savings allow the financing of big projects plus the creation of new companies (who usually take several years to become profitable) which creates new jobs. While not an economist, I can't see how anyone would think that saving money is a bad thing. Encouraging people to go into debt to continue to keep spending levels up (which incidentally requires that someone must have saved that money in order for them to borrow it) is the true recipe for disaster.

On another note, while the idea of a federal sales tax in lieu of an income tax sounds like a good idea, it would be devastating to the economies of areas near Canada or Mexico. Currently, goods in Mexico are more expensive than the goods in the US, so you find that many Mexicans drive accross the border to purchase American goods, devastating the local economy on the Mexican side. If the situation were reversed, you would see the American side devastated and everyone going accross the borders to buy their goods. You would also need to deal with the export of goods as well. If we were to charge other countries our sales tax, that would raise the prices of our goods, making them less competitive, hence fewer American goods would be purchased. This second issue, probably has ways around it, though, like no tax on exported goods, however I suspect it wouldn't be that simple.

Fyron · #**167** February 11th, 2003, 12:14 AM

Fian, economics works pretty much opposite of how you just said in your first paragraph.

Fian · #**168** February 11th, 2003, 02:17 AM

I am pretty sure that I am not wrong on this (heck, even the Investor's Business Daily agrees that saving is a good thing). Encouraging spending via debt is only a temporary benefit to an economy. Saving ensures the long term stability of an economy. Where do you think all of this money is coming from that people borrow? It is only possible because some people choose to save their money in banks, which then in turn loan the money to borrowers. If there are no savers, there can also be no borrowers as well. I didn't realize I was talking about rocket science here.

Fyron · #**169** February 11th, 2003, 02:38 AM

Spending money causes stores to make money. Their employees make money, and can then spend it to fuel the economy. The stores can buy more product from manufacturers, who can then pay their employees, who can then spend money. If you save your money, none of those people make any money, and less action goes on in the economy.

If you save money in a bank and do not borrow, the banks hardly make any money. If the banks make less money, they have less to lend to other people, who can then not buy anything, and the whole spending cycle dies off.

If people Save all their money and not spend it, it is bad; very, very bad.

orev_saara · #**170** February 11th, 2003, 08:21 AM

Wow, this thread is poppin again! I had some things to say to older Posts, but the moment has passed on most of them. A couple of quick resopnses before my statements:

I'm afraid that there ARE sweat shops in the US. I will grant that they are less common here than in many places. I forgot my other response.

One thing I would like to throw on this debate is my take on the fundamental purpose of government. I think that many people don't think enough about what "govern" really implies. Government is a form of oppression.

Hear me out: The whole nature of government is that it prevents people from doing what they would do without it and compels people to do what they would not without it. The only real differences in policy involve who does the oppressing and who is on the business end of it. And, of course, the severity of the oppression.

Taxes are oppressive. They are also a necessary evil if we are to have government, which everyone who doesn't want to live in Somalia accepts as a necessary evil. Some of these people don't realize that they want to live in Somalia

So who gets taxed and how much? Obviously that depends on what services people want. Clearly, current tax revenues are insufficient to pay for current services. So, we run a deficit. I'd like to point out that running a deficit is not necessarily bad. See, I have studied economics

To the point, low taxes and deficit spending are thought of by many economists as beneficial in times of economic downturn like today. Going to war without huge public support and spending gobs of that money on defense and diplomacy are not such good ideas.

On the question of which services to provide, people will disagree (duh). But there are a few things that I feel like I should point out. Several of the folks posting here have pointed out that there is no moral obligation for anyone to take care of anyone else and do not lie when they say it. There are, however, practical concerns. Those who have the highest proportion of wealth may control most of our nation's policy-making institutions, governmental and economical, but we middle-class types are the ones who drive the economy. Or at least, we should be. There are more of us, aren't there? It doesn't make good sense to expect someone who makes $40k/yr to pay the same fraction of his income as someone who makes $300k/yr. Unless, of course, we want to remove most of our social services, which some would like to see. This is a viable model, but not for very long. History has shown that nations with extreme disparity of wealth often get in trouble from it. I'm not saying that we would have a revolution, not anytime soon, but those who are concerned with posterity might want to think about it.

If I were inclined to lie to you, I could provide some very good statistics from all sorts of reliable sources, backing up my claims. I actually am a statistician, and I know how all of that goes

But I don't want to trick anyone. I confess that I am a bleeding-heart liberal, and an egg-headed intellectual to boot, so I tend to feel that the poorer end of the scale is getting screwed. I also tend to want to help those people, because I don't like to see people get screwed. But I'm not worried. I'll just do my thing, and that's enough for me.
I was going to say more, but this is a long post already, and the rest gets almost mystical, so never mind. Have a nice day, everybody.

By the way, it seems like the conservatives in this thread tend to outrank the liberals. Does this have some hidden meaning, or is it mere coincidence? Maybe I should do some sort of study...

[ February 11, 2003, 06:23: Message edited by: orev_saara ]