Argument Against Taxing the Rich

[Hardkill]

Btw @Bobby_2021 @actuallyenlightened the post WWII economic boom, otherwise called the Golden Age of Capitalism, which occurred approximately from 1945 to 1975, was arguably the greatest period of economic prosperity in American history, and the taxes on the rich and big corporations were the highest they ever were in US history. 

How about the 1990s? While the taxes on the rich and big corporations during that decade weren't as high as they were during the mid 1900s, they were actually significantly higher back then than during either the 80s, the aughts, 2010s, and 2020s. Yet, the 90s decade was another incredible period of economic expansion that also could arguably be considered the greatest period of economic prosperity in US history. Plus, it was also the only decade since the mid 1900s that saw a federal budget surplus and very significant decrease in the national debt. 

As for Biden and the Democrats since 2021, he and the Democrats in Congress raised taxes on the rich and corporations, and at the same time the economy has grown much more and much faster under Biden's presidency than it did during Trump's presidency. Even when you look at Biden's first 3 years and 2 months as president now and compare that with Trump's first 3 years and 2 months as president before the pandemic hit the country, the economy still has grown much more and much faster under Biden than under Trump. Plus, Biden and his party have been significantly reversing the economic inequality in our country ever since he first took office.

[Bobby_2021]

5 hours ago, Chadders said:

@Bobby_2021 I’m not sure what you’re trying to get at?

The gov has only a few ways to raise capital and taxes is the most fiscally responsible way and also helps to level the playing field. Inequality at the levels we have has created obvious and chronic dysfunctions in society

It is not good for either the personal or collective health of society that people can’t even afford to feed themselves or have decent living conditions

This matter is more complicated than most people give credit to. I agree that I didn't do justice to explain it well.

Taxes are necessary. But they serve a different purpose in the economy than most people think. It's just that the purpose is to not fund things.

You might think that you need to raise taxes to do stuff. 

But taxes are here to hold the economy in shape. It is a tool used by the government on the economy. 

The government do not need taxes to fund its own stuff.

At the end of the day, you need a functional economy. That's the first priority in economics. Taxes help in a functional economy. Taxes will not be helpful in idealistic causes like reducing inequality by taxing the rich.

That is not what taxes are meant for and that is coming from a fundamental misunderstandings of how the economy and taxes work.

[Hardkill]

1 hour ago, Bobby_2021 said:

This matter is more complicated than most people give credit to. I agree that I didn't do justice to explain it well.

Taxes are necessary. But they serve a different purpose in the economy than most people think. It's just that the purpose is to not fund things.

You might think that you need to raise taxes to do stuff. 

But taxes are here to hold the economy in shape. It is a tool used by the government on the economy. 

The government do not need taxes to fund its own stuff.

At the end of the day, you need a functional economy. That's the first priority in economics. Taxes help in a functional economy. Taxes will not be helpful in idealistic causes like reducing inequality by taxing the rich.

That is not what taxes are meant for and that is coming from a fundamental misunderstandings of how the economy and taxes work.

Ok, who told you this?

[Bobby_2021]

@Hardkill  I don't say that taxes dot help in strengthening the economy.

In fact that's the only purpose of taxes. But I disagree that it could be used for reducing inequality.

The economic growth under Biden and increases taxes on the rich was a way to counter the massive economic stimulus. Of course all these money would eventually end up in the hands of corporations and the 1% so increasing taxes was the bare minimum you could do. 

If you give cash to people without assets, they would give away that cash to people with assets. 

Simple logic. So it will eventually exacerbate inequality for the short term benefits of boosting the economy. The economic boost is that stimulus money moving to the top, around 800 billion. And even more went to develop vaccines which is more money to the big pharma. These are not reducing inequality, in fact the exact opposite of it.

Not actual value was added to the economy during the pandemic. But there was increased spending, which is enough to qualify for economic growth, but it's not meaningful growth.

[Bobby_2021]

https://wordsrated.com/cost-of-free-higher-education-statistics/#:~:text=A debt-free tuition-free,billion in the initial year.

70B for free college for a year.

130B for Ukraine was already given. This could have been put to use at home.

When you talk about free college and forgiving students debt, the discussion begins on how to fund it.

Then he discussion turns to, how to increase taxes to fund the free college.

This is where the bullshit happens. 

None of these discussions happen when sending billions in aid to fund genocide and wrecking Ukraine from the inside out.

When it comes to discussion social programs, everyone talks about taxes.

I am pointing out this bogus.

[Chadders]

@Bobby_2021 I do not understand what other way you can actively have a impactful effect on growing wealth inequality without taxation

A wealth tax is priority. There is also inheritance taxes and taxes on dividends

Economic growth indicators don’t care where that growth goes to. In the last 10 years and more the vast bulk of any economic growth has gone to the wealthiest. This is chronically dysfunctional 

I’m not sure what economic theory/model you are eluding to? Trickle down? To be honest I do think your analysis is deeply flawed. Taxes are essential for redressing the balance. 

The only other metric come to think about it is greater rights for unions to proactively campaign for better wages for ordinary workers. Also legislation such as a universal basic income but then you need taxes to pay for that. That is where the gov get their money from aside from issuing bonds which drives up the debt

Edited April 24 by Chadders

[Bobby_2021]

3 hours ago, Chadders said:

Taxes are essential for redressing the balance. 

I didn't say taxes are unnecessary.

I said taxes do not stand in the way of social programs. 

[Chadders]

@Bobby_2021 okay

this makes sense: If you give cash to people without assets, they would give away that cash to people with assets. 

There has to be a mechanism for de-incentivising the accumulation of assets. In the UK we have a problem with second homes and just homes in general that are completely empty. The rich just hold onto them. There needs to be regulation and taxation into this

But I believe that we can’t make this effective unless society becomes more connected with the spirit. This becomes a more profound and meaningful calling rather than wealth accumulation. Problem is that politicians are mostly deeply  unspiritual people

[Bobby_2021]

@Chadders The answer is not necessarily, but not restricted to, raising taxes. 

You can raise taxes. But even more creative thing would be to create a shit ton of housing complexes that the prices of those second homes start to plummet. 

That would be enough of a disincentive to not hold onto housing as some speculative investment.

-----------

Whya reality drives up the inequality is government contracts.

Just in a day nearly 100B was given in aid to Ukraine, Taiwan and Israel.

It's not money send to these countries.

That 100B goes to the bank accounts of executives of Lockheed Martin and other manufacturers within the US itself. 

They richest people got richer by 100B by adding no real value to the economy or no hope of any future returns.

Americans are scammed from the inside out. 

[BlueOak]

@Bobby_2021

https://www.cfr.org/article/how-much-aid-has-us-sent-ukraine-here-are-six-charts

Roughly half of which is not going to the military.
By February 2024. 46 billion dollars went in military aid

Do you want to know how much of the US military budget 46 billion is over two years?

https://www.barrons.com/news/us-congress-passes-huge-886-bn-defense-budget-for-2024-823a5dcb
The US military budget in 2024 was $886 x 2 years = 1772 Billion
That is roughly 2 and half percent of US defense spending, give or take.

2% defense spending is worth it to reduce the Russian threat over time. I know you don't believe this is happening, but others obviously can see it happening directly. I can track it happening.
The US spends a hell of a lot more than this currently maintaining security in the east of Europe, for them it's a financial no-brainer. Accelerate Russia's population crisis, and take away its USSR stockpiles, then it is half the threat it was conventionally to the region

I understand you don't accept the pattern of wars, or Putin's words about wanting to restore a Greater Russia. So you don't see this as real. Others do. Others have experienced this cyclic Russian growth many times in their countries.

What you should minimally accept is the US makes decisions based on profits, almost exclusively. Neutering Russia is a way to cut spending in that region long term. While yes giving loans and selling weapons for $$$ at the same time.*By the way EVERYONE is buying weapons not just Ukraine, America's arms industry is filling backorders for the whole continent and beyond.

Edited April 26 by BlueOak

[Danioover9000]

   So which is better for the economy: fiat money or coins?

[Bobby_2021]

@BlueOak The US spend $2.3 Trillion in Afghanistan over 20 years. Even the Taliban smoked their ass, and they are stronger than ever before.

What did they even accomplish other than human rights violations and war crimes?

And you think they are going to neuter Russia. Lmao. This will end up making the Russians stronger than ever, which they already are becoming, and their allience with China.

You are doing PR work for the military industrial complex. They are going to get more contracts in billions, thanks to people like you who believe their lies. 

53 minutes ago, BlueOak said:

Roughly half of which is not going to the military.
By February 2024. 46 billion dollars went in military aid

None of this is adding any value into the economy or to the world. Average Americans will keep working to keep the economy going. America is a scam country. 

Simply stop giving hundreds of billions to defence contractors who make weapons to bomb kids.

Instead give it to students, teachers, patients, old folks etc.

Or else don't give it to anyone at all. That will result in less inflation.

[bebotalk]

The rich earn the most. they take the most out of society.

Rich people are such due to hard work, luck, or structural/inherited wealth. They had the opportunities, good fortune, or inheritance that others didn't have. 

So in theory and practice, they should pay more tax. 

[BlueOak]

@Bobby_2021
You do not calculate what America spends in the east of Europe already. If we are making a purely financial argument, this cannot be overlooked
Then you have to factor in what happens when Russia and Europe go to war with or without US assistance, and they lose their main trading partner either to a decade of war or fully lose them. This would all cost Americans more than funding 2.5% of their military budget. If instead this security assistance is given here, it should reduce the need for security assistance in the east, so in the long-term, it should save America and Europe money. The worst-case scenario is that their trading power flips and trades east after being conquered.

I know it's not your point of view, and you think Russia isn't a threat because they are your country's allies, so seeing this is harder, but this is the calculation being made from experience and the pattern happening. Even if I took your perspective, a larger border with Russia means more of Europe's GDP on the east of Europe defending it, meaning less of its economic power trading with America, meaning less money in Americans' pockets. Which would still be more than 2.5% of its military budget.

Edited May 19 by BlueOak

[bebotalk]

On 26/04/2024 at 10:57 AM, Danioover9000 said:

   So which is better for the economy: fiat money or coins?

Coins can be fiat money. 

[bebotalk]

If the rich weren't taxed as much, it wouldn't necessarily lead to better economic growth. They could easily by more luxury goods or save it, which wouldn't as productive. It's as if they'd be buying mostly household goods or FMCGs (fast moving consumer goods). 

the net worth of billionaires are generally in assets such as savings, investment, real estate, etc. and not in hard cash. 

 

[BlueOak]

In America: Average people pay 35%–40% plus taxes, and billionaires pay 17% taxes.

This is one reason why you are struggling with your cost of living. You pay their share.