Psychology of money and taxation

[Palin Rider]

It has nothing to do with socialism. Socialism is the collective/workers' ownership and management of the means of production. The positive relationship between the state and capitalism is the antithesis of socialism.

It can be, but in common practice it's equally valid to refer to "socialism" as the government's ownership and management of the means of production. (A mixture of worker and government ownership, of course, is not mutually exclusive.)

In this sense, a positive relationship between the state and capital markets requires that the state adopt a limited number of socialist controls on the market.

[fj1200]

And taxation itself always puts money back into the economy as governments handle their own expenses, so your point goes nowhere.

No. Government takes money away from the producers and doles it out inefficiently.

Talk about meaningless. You don't demonstrate anything with this besides your ability to make platitudes.

Well, the last part of my statement was just fun but you need to own up to the first part.

[Palin Rider]

No. Government takes money away from the producers and doles it out inefficiently.

Government is expected to spend money on certain things that individuals simply can't. So again, it makes no sense to call it "inefficient," because there's no yardstick to compare it against.

Well, the last part of my statement was just fun but you need to own up to the first part.

Are you talking about investment here? The wealthy, and those aspiring to be wealthy, will always invest in assets that generate income, no matter what the tax rates are.

True, we don't want the tax rates to be 99%, so that the investment slows down to a trickle and bottles up the economy. However, the bottom line is that reasonable changes in tax rates are not going to stop the rich from getting richer. Nothing short of a legal cap on how much a household is allowed to own can do that.

[DragonStryk72]

First, how did Wal-Mart get into this? This entire thread has been about personal income taxes, not business taxes.

Second, this theory is totally wrong anyway. Product and service providers can't just arbitrarily raise their prices without losing business.

Ahem, are there no persons that own Wal-Mart stock? Are there no persons getting paid who are personally taxed? You forget that the rich generally own controlling interests in businesses. That's why they have those incomes.

It isn't arbitrary, they raise a small amount across the board, and they can get around it. Since this gets done by all businesses pretty much, since the ones that don't soon see all their money going away to ever increasing taxes, we the poor consumers get stuck with the tab, with little we can legitimately do, unless you're about to join agna on the communist side of life.

[Palin Rider]

Ahem, are there no persons that own Wal-Mart stock? Are there no persons getting paid who are personally taxed? You forget that the rich generally own controlling interests in businesses. That's why they have those incomes.

"Ahem," not anymore. At least not since Enron. There are laws against controlling ownership for public companies, now.

The rich today own only tiny interests in large numbers of businesses. (And they use the income from those interests to buy more income-generating assets. Tax hikes won't stop that.)

It isn't arbitrary, they raise a small amount across the board, and they can get around it. Since this gets done by all businesses pretty much, since the ones that don't soon see all their money going away to ever increasing taxes, we the poor consumers get stuck with the tab, with little we can legitimately do, unless you're about to join agna on the communist side of life.

There's a great deal the poor consumers can legitimately do. Starting with not buying the products.

[Missileman]

Um, they can, in the short run. Capitalist firms are frequently characterized by short-run attributes that they lack in the long run. Hence the market structure of monopolistic competition, for example.

We're talking about long term.

[fj1200]

Government is expected to spend money on certain things that individuals simply can't. So again, it makes no sense to call it "inefficient," because there's no yardstick to compare it against.

You want to raise taxes which gives them extra spending power which means we're beyond basic government spending. There certainly is a yardstick; government spending is inefficient in comparison to the private sector. Not only is it more efficient but it does a far superior job of allocating resources.

You started this thread with a treatise of your unsubstantiated opinions and now you want a yardstick?

Are you talking about investment here? The wealthy, and those aspiring to be wealthy, will always invest in assets that generate income, no matter what the tax rates are.

And? You're proposing to take away some of their investable capital.

True, we don't want the tax rates to be 99%, so that the investment slows down to a trickle and bottles up the economy. However, the bottom line is that reasonable changes in tax rates are not going to stop the rich from getting richer. Nothing short of a legal cap on how much a household is allowed to own can do that.

I would submit that the expectation of your "reasonable changes" that are already built it re: Bush tax cut expiration and HC reform, are causing the current malaise.

[red states rule]

Government is expected to spend money on certain things that individuals simply can't. So again, it makes no sense to call it "inefficient," because there's no yardstick to compare it against.


Are you talking about investment here? The wealthy, and those aspiring to be wealthy, will always invest in assets that generate income, no matter what the tax rates are.

True, we don't want the tax rates to be 99%, so that the investment slows down to a trickle and bottles up the economy. However, the bottom line is that reasonable changes in tax rates are not going to stop the rich from getting richer. Nothing short of a legal cap on how much a household is allowed to own can do that.

What investor would continue to risk when he/she knows the government will take a bigger portion of the profits?

The answer is they won't

That is why employers are not hiring, and why insurance compnaies are raising their rates and reducing coverage

All becuase of the additional cost of doing business thanks to the Dems

[Palin Rider]

You want to raise taxes which gives them extra spending power which means we're beyond basic government spending.

The supply siders took us beyond basic government spending in the 1980s, and again in later years. This has to be paid for at some point to prevent fiscal collapse.

There certainly is a yardstick; government spending is inefficient in comparison to the private sector.

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Government and the private sector are not in any way comparable. The sooner you get that through your head, the happier you'll be.

I'll make this real simple-like for ya: private companies have to make money; government doesn't.

You started this thread with a treatise of your unsubstantiated opinions and now you want a yardstick?

Lots of people with more expertise than I have share these opinions, kid. And there's all kinds of substantiation. Anything specific you want a source for?

I would submit that the expectation of your "reasonable changes" that are already built it re: Bush tax cut expiration and HC reform, are causing the current malaise.

And of course you can substantiate this, right?

[Palin Rider]

What investor would continue to risk when he/she knows the government will take a bigger portion of the profits?

The answer is they won't

That is why employers are not hiring, and why insurance compnaies are raising their rates and reducing coverage

All becuase of the additional cost of doing business thanks to the Dems

That must be why you're not making any big moves in your multibillion dollar financial empire.

[Pagan]

That's incorrect. The diminishing marginal utility of higher income means that progressive taxation is the mechanism that ensures an equitable tax burden. When you take a microeconomics course and learn this, you might also learn that this doctrine of a forward shift in tax incidence exactly proportional to increased taxes on producers requires complete elasticity of supply, which is certainly not present.

Of course, the entire doctrine of an inverse relationship between government and capitalism promoted in this thread is completely wrong. From the welfare state's utility in maintaining the physical efficiency of the working class to the role of Keynesian demand management to the development of internationally competitive industries under protective tariffs and quotas, capitalism and the state are mutually supportive.

The problem is that the rightist membership here is not actually interested in sound economics so much as preservation of their moral views, though those are themselves based on inaccurate premises.

What? You still spewing your ignorate bullshit that you Parrot for the "Party"?

So tell us again how, how did you put it? "anarchism is purely a socialist idealogy"?

Damn I'm gonna piss myself laughing so hard ...........

[fj1200]

The supply siders took us beyond basic government spending in the 1980s, and again in later years. This has to be paid for at some point to prevent fiscal collapse.

You do realize that supply-siders weren't in control of Congress in the '80s don't you?

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Government and the private sector are not in any way comparable. The sooner you get that through your head, the happier you'll be.

Of course they're not; the private sector is accountable, government is not.

I'll make this real simple-like for ya: private companies have to make money; government doesn't.

Did you learn that in 6th grade civics?

Lots of people with more expertise than I have share these opinions, kid. And there's all kinds of substantiation. Anything specific you want a source for?

Substantiation for opinions? Sure, let's have 'em.

And of course you can substantiate this, right?

Sure, lots of people with expertise in real world economics and business.

[Missileman]

That must be why you're not making any big moves in your multibillion dollar financial empire.

Ahh...the board's self-proclaimed economic Einstein is still maintaining that production costs are in no way related to consumer prices.

[Palin Rider]

You do realize that supply-siders weren't in control of Congress in the '80s don't you?



Of course they're not; the private sector is accountable, government is not.



Did you learn that in 6th grade civics?



Substantiation for opinions? Sure, let's have 'em.



Sure, lots of people with expertise in real world economics and business.

So you've got nothing. No refutations, and not even anything to back up your own opinions.

When you're out of ammo, don't run around with a plastic gun: you just look silly.

[fj1200]

So you've got nothing. No refutations, and not even anything to back up your own opinions.

When you're out of ammo, don't run around with a plastic gun: you just look silly.

Apparently I've got the same nothing you've got and you're the one with a posit to prove.

Geeze.