Bitcoin Forum
October 19, 2017, 09:39:07 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.0.1  [Torrent]. (New!)
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 [5]  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Why do higher taxes on the rich historically correlate to higher economic growth  (Read 7506 times)
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
November 14, 2012, 06:32:48 AM
 #81

"Rob the rich because they won't fight back as much" is hardly a justification for tax inequity. I think that each person should be taxed the same amount regardless of their income or wealth.

You know what? I actually agree 100% with this... 0% across the board matches your definition.

Then who is gonna enforce your contracts? You know that thing which I said shouldn't backed by law which makes me an evil person Wink
http://bit.ly/PTgJSJ

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
1508405947
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1508405947

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1508405947
Reply with quote  #2

1508405947
Report to moderator
The grue lurks in the darkest places of the earth. Its favorite diet is adventurers, but its insatiable appetite is tempered by its fear of light. No grue has ever been seen by the light of day, and few have survived its fearsome jaws to tell the tale.
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1508405947
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1508405947

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1508405947
Reply with quote  #2

1508405947
Report to moderator
ElectricMucus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1568


Drama Junkie


View Profile
November 14, 2012, 06:53:13 AM
 #82

"Rob the rich because they won't fight back as much" is hardly a justification for tax inequity. I think that each person should be taxed the same amount regardless of their income or wealth.

You know what? I actually agree 100% with this... 0% across the board matches your definition.

Then who is gonna enforce your contracts? You know that thing which I said shouldn't backed by law which makes me an evil person Wink
http://bit.ly/PTgJSJ

hehe, ok I've earned that Grin

I'll read it, thanks.

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they keep laughing, then they start choking on their laughter, and then they go and catch their breath. Then they start laughing even more.
Raize
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1408


View Profile
November 14, 2012, 11:31:01 PM
 #83

There are two major problems with utilitarianism:
1) Utility monster
2) Mere-addition paradox

If you are arguing for a social system such as universal health care on utilitarian grounds you must account for both of these or the system will fail. Each of these is why countries that have such systems also tend to have rationed health care (sometimes referred to as "death panels") and birth regulations (like in China), respectively.

OrganofCorti's Neighbourhood Pool Watch - The most informative website on blockchain health
mrvision
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 326



View Profile
November 22, 2012, 11:56:33 PM
 #84

Because you are messing with inflation.

GDP (or AD)= C + G + I + (X - M)

higher taxes on the rich, means more G (Government spending) that will lead to more C (consumption) and less I (Investment) but more X...

In other words, inflation. Money will worth less, prices will rise, so your  gross domestic product will look higher, but real salary will be decreasing.

Your assumption of a 'higher economic growth' comes from the fact that the gross domestic product is calculated by multiplying the output of each sector by their respective market price. Because inflation leads to higher demands, market price will artificially rise.

(Sorry if i'm using the keynesian model, but so are you.)
deadserious
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 121



View Profile
November 23, 2012, 05:50:28 PM
 #85

Some excellent commentary on the topic:

http://www.tomwoods.com/blog/how-to-refute-the-91-tax-rates-are-awesome-argument/
firefop
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
November 24, 2012, 06:44:48 AM
 #86

Too bad that:
Wealth!= productive
Poor!=lazy

Actually, In the USA - poor does equate with lazy... or crazy. There literally isn't anyone who is sane and poor unless they choose to be.

This whole debate comes down to the same thing it always does - why do some people want a nanny state?

13 states revolted over a ~15% teatax. Isn't it ironic that 200 years later we've got people paying between 30% and 80% - and half of us think we aren't paying enough.






ElectricMucus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1568


Drama Junkie


View Profile
November 24, 2012, 09:47:52 PM
 #87

Ah this thread.

On that contracts without government thing: It proposes that when I enter a restaurant and am really unsatisfied with it I should pay and never return, while in hindsight under anarchism I'd just leave without paying.

In a serious scenario I'd more likely would be asked for payment when the food is served not after I have eaten, which would make a contract, again unnecessary.
I would propose that for almost all transaction instant payment is preferable to a contract. And while this would make credit impossible I think we don't need credit.

That's one of the rare things where I would agree with some of the popular religions: Profiting from interest is usury.

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they keep laughing, then they start choking on their laughter, and then they go and catch their breath. Then they start laughing even more.
DannyHamilton
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1946



View Profile
November 25, 2012, 12:20:21 AM
 #88

Actually, In the USA - poor does equate with lazy... or crazy.
Actually, that isn't true.  It is what would generally be considered a prejudiced, or bigoted, opinion. Poverty has many causes.  While laziness and mental instability can lead to poverty, they are by no means the only two reasons that poverty exist.

13 states revolted over a ~15% teatax.
Perhaps I've been mislead.  It was my understanding that the "Boston Tea Party" and the American Revolution had more to do with lack of representation than with taxation.

firefop
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
November 25, 2012, 06:12:15 AM
 #89

Actually, In the USA - poor does equate with lazy... or crazy.
Actually, that isn't true.  It is what would generally be considered a prejudiced, or bigoted, opinion. Poverty has many causes.  While laziness and mental instability can lead to poverty, they are by no means the only two reasons that poverty exist.

13 states revolted over a ~15% teatax.
Perhaps I've been mislead.  It was my understanding that the "Boston Tea Party" and the American Revolution had more to do with lack of representation than with taxation.

On Bigotry: Poverty isn't a persistent (like a genetic disorder) or a permanent (like death) condition. It's a situation, the 'cause' doesn't matter in the slightest. Everyone has been down and out at some time or another. The will to change the situation is all that is needed. The people who live in poverty in this nation do so because they choose to... the only reasonable explanation for that choice is mental disorder or laziness.

On the American Revolution: http://www.americassurvivalguide.com/declaration-of-independence.php

Just read that, then tell me it was about lack of representation. Really it was about defending the colonies from tyrannical rule that was generally abusing, killing and plundering what they were building.
 

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 [5]  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!