Why do higher taxes on the rich historically correlate to higher economic growth

[myrkul]

"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

http://bit.ly/PTgJSJ

[1715534344]

1715534344

[1715534344]

1715534344

[ElectricMucus]

"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

http://bit.ly/PTgJSJ

hehe, ok I've earned that

I'll read it, thanks.

[Raize]

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.

[mrvision]

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]

Some excellent commentary on the topic:

http://www.tomwoods.com/blog/how-to-refute-the-91-tax-rates-are-awesome-argument/

[firefop]

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]

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.

[DannyHamilton]

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]

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.