You can’t tax an economy into prosperity

[Obim34]

Its a known fact that whenever there is a tax increase, the poor are negatively affected, that is why we often time see cases of tax invasion and arrests but let say a country tax income tax on business and the business people receive those tax but shift the tax burden on the people this give them the relief on tax increase but at the same time the consumer's have alot to face in terms of tax.

Governments are piece of sh** who best knows how to thrive on the suffering of minorities, increasing in taxation without reinvesting back to the society.

Government takes loan, and tax the masses very high in order to generate more revenue.

At their worse, they don't repay the loans, instead they keep taking more loans and looting public funds while the citizens are kept to suffer for their misappropriation.

[Davidvictorson]

When I read the title of the post, it seemed as if you were referring to my country because this is what the government of my country is currently trying to do. A little backstory here, so they have loaned a lot of money from the IMF, World Bank and other places and have squandered it on white elephants projects that didn’t added anything to the economy and right now their plan has already been set in motion to tax the living light out of the citizens. For name this their economics, they think it will make the country to become prosperous. There has been a lot of uproar among the citizens, but the government would not listen. They are  instead bent on taxing any and everything that a citizen has. For example there’s tax on bank transfers, there’s tax on having mom sit in your account, there’s tax for owning stuff. While these taxes are not bad in themselves, the citizens are growing poorer and it just will not save the already dying economy.

[shield132]

If you tax people who are working to pay those who are not working then in no distant time you'll have more people not working. This is very true, I've seen in my country some areas who are oil producing, their people are very lazy because government pays them free money while they're not working so it breeds an environment of no productivity among them and serious over dependence on the government. Funny enough their population is growing and their young are maintaining the status quo of not working and getting free money.

Isn't this regulated? At some point, I think that it's okay for the government to pay to an unemployed person because many people live from paycheck to paycheck and there are moments when unexpected things happen, you lose your job and are left without income. I think that in such cases the government should pay some money to this person, especially when he has been paying taxes but at the same time. I think that the government should pay them until they get employed but it should be a little bit different. If the government offers you a job and you refuse, then they should immediately stop giving you unemployment money to my mind.

[DPHOR]

I think the biggest error in the socialist thought process, is that they view the economy as a lever, where you can increase tax on X by 5%, and you'll get 10% of Y as an outcome. The truth is that obviously, the economy is not a lever. People aren't just chess pieces that you move on a board, with their desires ignored. Enforcing a certain tax, does not mean that everyone will just passively accept it. Some will leave the country, others will evade their tax, or increase prices on Z, etc. The economy is so complicated that thinking you can "manage it" is a sign of complete arrogance.  

That is true and is also affects the cost of living and everything over that particular country as the economy will be too difficult to handle and scale through, those who are getting rich are being richer why those who are getting poor are even falling into abject poverty.
There should be a level of taxation where if they keep taxing their her citizens they will also bounce back to things they produces or sales as they would want to cover up their taxes, to me majorly companies and industries should be that taxed reducing some percentage to individuals.

[abhiseshakana]

If you tax people who are working to pay those who are not working then in no distant time you'll have more people not working. This is very true, I've seen in my country some areas who are oil producing, their people are very lazy because government pays them free money while they're not working so it breeds an environment of no productivity among them and serious over dependence on the government. Funny enough their population is growing and their young are maintaining the status quo of not working and getting free money.

Isn't this regulated? At some point, I think that it's okay for the government to pay to an unemployed person because many people live from paycheck to paycheck and there are moments when unexpected things happen, you lose your job and are left without income. I think that in such cases the government should pay some money to this person, especially when he has been paying taxes but at the same time. I think that the government should pay them until they get employed but it should be a little bit different. If the government offers you a job and you refuse, then they should immediately stop giving you unemployment money to my mind.

However, from a modern public policy perspective, the wisest approach is not to choose one or the other. Ideally, the state should accommodate all citizens' interests and resolve problems with policies that are accessible to all. Therefore, the state should establish a tax and subsidy system that is fair, efficient, and encourages productivity. This means that assistance is allowed, but it shouldn't incite laziness; taxes may be collected, but they must be accompanied by reciprocal benefits in the form of employment and training opportunities.

The solution isn't to eliminate assistance or allow dependency; a wiser approach is to redesign the system to be productive and conditional. For example, the state provides assistance for a specific period of time, accompanied by skills training (reskilling). The government provides temporary public jobs (public works programs), and if someone refuses a suitable job offer, the assistance is terminated. Assistance is linked to productive participation, such as internships, local MSMEs, or social projects. According to my information, several Scandinavian and Northern European countries implement this model (they insist on shared responsibility between individuals and the state).

[justdimin]

from a modern public policy perspective, the wisest approach is not to choose one or the other. Ideally, the state should accommodate all citizens' interests and resolve problems with policies that are accessible to all. Therefore, the state should establish a tax and subsidy system that is fair, efficient, and encourages productivity. This means that assistance is allowed, but it shouldn't incite laziness; taxes may be collected, but they must be accompanied by reciprocal benefits in the form of employment and training opportunities.

On top of that, we still have people working, more than people who are not working. Which proves that welfare is not something that actually liked by people, people rather work and earn something than just receive free money, because they are not getting thousands obviously, the yare not getting enough.

It means, with the amount we can compare how many people work and how many are getting state funds, we can see that people prefer working. If it was such a good thing, why would anyone work? Why go to work to make money when you can stay at home and money comes to you? The main reason is because it's peanuts and not even enough. So welfare is fine, it is making sure people are not starving, and it is not making everyone quit their jobs and just apply to welfare.