"If we do not make an effort, we cannot put an end to this scourge"
-
I am convinced that the less tax you pay then the more you spend on good and services that, in turn, generates wealth and helps everyone else. High taxation stifles growth and creates generation after generation of people who think it's their birthright to sit around doint sweet FA ("the government won't let us starve"). When I was younger I flirted with the ideals of Socialism ("tax the rich! redistribute the wealth") but with age comes wisdom (or pragmatism at least) I guess. Tellingly, when the UK had its mosr left-wing government (the Labour goverment of the late 70s) it was also the worst time for this country since WWII. Taxation at 99% (yep - that's why all our rock stars left us!), the unions in charge, lowest productivity in the West, etc. etc. I can't believe that people are being forced the same pill by the current government - and they are falling for it! What's worse is that now, in the noughties, taxation is by the back door - at least previous Labour governments were honest about wanting all your wages! Give it a few years and we'll have to give ALL out money to the chancellor who in turn will give us fucking pocket money.
Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: I am convinced that the less tax you pay then the more you spend on good and services that, in turn, generates wealth and helps everyone else. There are valid arguments about the benefits of low taxes, but this isn't one of them. Tax revenue is either directly spent by government or else redistributed to people (as welfare payments etc.) who spend it. The general presumption is that higher taxes that are used in this way will raise the level of demand for goods and services, not lower it. This is because, had the money been left in the hands of the taxpayer, part of it would have been saved, not spent. If the government spends all the money or if a welfare recipient spends it (welfare recipients have lower saving rates than the rest of the population) then demand is stimulated. John Carson "I wish to propose for the reader's favourable consideration a doctrine which may, I fear, appear wildly paradoxical and subversive. The doctrine in question is this: that it is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true." - Bertrand Russell
-
Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: I am convinced that the less tax you pay then the more you spend on good and services that, in turn, generates wealth and helps everyone else. There are valid arguments about the benefits of low taxes, but this isn't one of them. Tax revenue is either directly spent by government or else redistributed to people (as welfare payments etc.) who spend it. The general presumption is that higher taxes that are used in this way will raise the level of demand for goods and services, not lower it. This is because, had the money been left in the hands of the taxpayer, part of it would have been saved, not spent. If the government spends all the money or if a welfare recipient spends it (welfare recipients have lower saving rates than the rest of the population) then demand is stimulated. John Carson "I wish to propose for the reader's favourable consideration a doctrine which may, I fear, appear wildly paradoxical and subversive. The doctrine in question is this: that it is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true." - Bertrand Russell
John Carson wrote: Tax revenue is either directly spent by government or else redistributed to people (as welfare payments etc.) who spend it. The general presumption is that higher taxes that are used in this way will raise the level of demand for goods and services, not lower it. And that is an entirely ludicrous assumption. You are giving money to people who did not earn it. That means they did not produce any thing, they did not generate any thing for the economy, thus they did nothing to increase the overall worth of the economy. The people who earned the money in the first place did that. When you take money from those who are productive and give it to those who are non-productive you are harming the economy, causing it to function less efficiently, and ultimately making those at the bottom more dependent, less able to care for themselves while at the same time deminishing the incentives of the producers and increasing the probability that them themselves will ultimately need to be cared for by the government. (But than, that is really the plan, isn't it? Not to help the poor, but to increase dependency, hence the power of those supplying the dependency.) John Carson wrote: This is because, had the money been left in the hands of the taxpayer, part of it would have been saved, not spent And what do you think happens to money that gets saved? You think it sets in some basket down in the bank's basement? No, it gets invested. It goes into projects which build the economy - giving the poor the opportunity to obtain work to care for their own needs, freeing them from dependency upon government, thus decreasing the power of government (can't have that now can we?) The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism, but under then name of Liberalism, they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program until one day America will be a Socialist nation without knowing how it happened. - Norman Thomas, Socialist Party Presidential candidate
-
John Carson wrote: Tax revenue is either directly spent by government or else redistributed to people (as welfare payments etc.) who spend it. The general presumption is that higher taxes that are used in this way will raise the level of demand for goods and services, not lower it. And that is an entirely ludicrous assumption. You are giving money to people who did not earn it. That means they did not produce any thing, they did not generate any thing for the economy, thus they did nothing to increase the overall worth of the economy. The people who earned the money in the first place did that. When you take money from those who are productive and give it to those who are non-productive you are harming the economy, causing it to function less efficiently, and ultimately making those at the bottom more dependent, less able to care for themselves while at the same time deminishing the incentives of the producers and increasing the probability that them themselves will ultimately need to be cared for by the government. (But than, that is really the plan, isn't it? Not to help the poor, but to increase dependency, hence the power of those supplying the dependency.) John Carson wrote: This is because, had the money been left in the hands of the taxpayer, part of it would have been saved, not spent And what do you think happens to money that gets saved? You think it sets in some basket down in the bank's basement? No, it gets invested. It goes into projects which build the economy - giving the poor the opportunity to obtain work to care for their own needs, freeing them from dependency upon government, thus decreasing the power of government (can't have that now can we?) The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism, but under then name of Liberalism, they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program until one day America will be a Socialist nation without knowing how it happened. - Norman Thomas, Socialist Party Presidential candidate
Most of your argument is irrrelevant to the point I was making. I was responding to an argument which said that low taxes confer a benefit because of the spending that is thereby made possible. My point, which was and remains completely valid, was that the increased government spending associated with the increased taxes was likely to lead to an even higher demand for consumption goods. There is a logically valid argument that high taxes have bad incentive effects (though the practical importance of this effect can be debated). But that is a quite separate argument from the "stimulus from consumer demand" argument to which I was responding. Not for the first time, you tend to embrace any argument that points in your preferred direction, independently of whether that particular argument has merit. As for your "savings are actually good" argument, that is an argument against Robert's premise that increased consumer demand is a good thing; I was simply accepting that premise for the sake of argument. John Carson "I wish to propose for the reader's favourable consideration a doctrine which may, I fear, appear wildly paradoxical and subversive. The doctrine in question is this: that it is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true." - Bertrand Russell
-
"The fight against poverty is a moral obligation for those who govern all the countries in the world," the Brazilian president and former trade unionist told journalists. "I would like us to have the strength to guarantee a percentage of all money circulating in the world," he added.[^]
In amongst the statues Stare at nothing in The garden moves...
I used to like Lula, now I'm beginning to think he's a dangerous fool. Regardz Colin J Davies
*** WARNING *
This could be addictive
**The minion's version of "Catch :bob: "It's a real shame that people as stupid as you can work out how to use a computer. said by Christian Graus in the Soapbox
-
How about the "share" concept (from "A Short History of the Future" ). You take the worlds wealth (or a region of the world, say Europe for example) as a whole and divide it by the number of adults - this gives you the "share" per-head. People unwilling to work only get a half-share, and people with exceptional skills get a share and a half. Communism basically - but we'd all feel good inside right? Anyone know the total wealth of the planet? It is right to say that the only way to fight poverty right now is to redistribute wealth - and this is always going to upset those who will have their wealth taken away. You would never get the world to agree on an international tax, no matter how noble the aims.
Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: How about the "share" concept (from "A Short History of the Future" ). You take the worlds wealth (or a region of the world, say Europe for example) as a whole and divide it by the number of adults - this gives you the "share" per-head. People unwilling to work only get a half-share, and people with exceptional skills get a share and a half. Who defines "exceptional skills"? Let's see. I can bust my hump 12 hours a day and get a share. Or, I can drag my sorry ass into work, clock exactly 8 hours and collect my full share while doing my best to stay awake at work. Or, I could hang out with all of the other people who decide "fuck it! I can work zero percent of what I was working and still get 50% of what I was making!" I wonder how many CEOs, scientists, programmers, etc. etc. etc. would work as hard if no matter what they did they would only get a "share". You are talking about the biggest depression the world has ever seen.
Have you answered an MTQ? Check out the stats!
What's the latest butt-scratch count? Check it out!