Should taxes be raised on the wealthiest people?

[Thales750]

@Pat Hartman said it best in post #49

I have been stating mine. Try to keep up. Biden did not cause this inflation. If I simply blame it on Trump, then that takes me down to the level of the MAGA folks.

Say it enough times and it becomes true. that is the MAGA way. right?

Again, if you claim the Inflation was Biden's fault, how do you reconcile that it started in Trump's time?

My opinion is that blaming Biden for the inflation is pure MAGA propaganda. I personally do not blame Trump, but it started during his term.

None of you are running around giving Biden credit, now that it is back to around 3%. I really don't want this to be about the same old die hard dogma. This is complicated, and the disinformation about Trickle Down has been refined for the last 40 years. It's easy to see why some people believe it.

The evidence is all there. I just has to be presented in a measured way. All of you are going to automatically reject any slight deviation from your "truth"

 

[The_Doc_Man]

You have no idea what I know.

Your responses are a pretty good indicator of what you do and don't know.

Economics tells us that money has to flow in order to do good. It is (not identical to but) analogous to an electric current. Our free market economy depends on that flow, and inadequate flows lead to weak economies. Taxation reduces that flow by taking money out of the free market and moving it into government circles where free-market goals are not supported quite so well. Witness that famous government inefficiency due to mismanagement.

Isolated case in point: The poor job performed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in constructing levees in New Orleans before Hurricane Katrina. Poor oversight led to fragile levees. Which eventually led to the need to re-do the levees and take money out of the hands of folks who were getting by - until they had to rebuild or leave the area. One small, narrow example of government waste. The flow of money went to people who were corrupt and got away with corruption due to inadequate oversight over shoddy workmanship. Followed by nobody's feet being held to the fire for those corrupt practices. I lived through that. I saw the results. And I remember that nobody went after the corrupt contractors. (Or at least, not adequately.)

Cash flowing into corrupt projects is a disruption of that flow, like a short circuit. Whereas corporate wealth acquisition doesn't interfere with that flow. It is the NEXT step after wealth acquisition that triggers the problem by putting money in a place where it can't flow. Idle money is worthless. But folks who have wealth and re-invest it (yes, to gain more wealth in the process) maintain that flow. Like current in electrical circuits, cash flow goes around and around many times through many paths before thinning out.

Your comment about 92% tax - acting like it was a good thing - shows that you are happy with disrupting the flow of cash in what SHOULD have been a healthy economy. Your isolate graph is trash because you need to bring in all sorts of statistics relating to aspects of the money supply in order to prove your point. But most studies show that excessively high taxes tends to stifle investments that could grow new businesses or improve existing ones. They have the effect of increasing the rate at which non-government infrastructure wears down due to lack of maintenance because the private infrastructure money isn't there. The analogy to electric circuits is resistance, which wastes the power of that circuit. And resistance to cash flow is corruption. You want to do some good? Chase down corruption in government. DON'T tell me we need more taxes. We are already at or past the point of no return on paying the national debt, according to the congressional budget office.

Just keep on taxing and spending, buddy. Oh, if you want an opinion on how that will turn out, ask the people of Greece.

 

[Isaac]

Answer the question, please

You just ignored five of my own

 

[Thales750]

Your responses are a pretty good indicator of what you do and don't know.

Economics tells us that money has to flow in order to do good. It is (not identical to but) analogous to an electric current. Our free market economy depends on that flow, and inadequate flows lead to weak economies. Taxation reduces that flow by taking money out of the free market and moving it into government circles where free-market goals are not supported quite so well. Witness that famous government inefficiency due to mismanagement.
.

Yup already know about circulation of currency. In fact, that is the basis for the measurement of the GDP.

Here is where your beliefs fail you. Currency infused into the economy has the larget multiplier when introduced at the bottom.
Do you need me to explain that to you?

 

[Thales750]

You just ignored five of my own

List them succinctly please.

 

[AccessBlaster]

I have been stating mine.

It's a simple one word answer yes your in favor of higher taxes on wealthy or no your not in favor of it.

The rest is just word salad with a pinch of verbal diarrhea.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Do you need me to explain that to you?

Introduced at the bottom... Do you mean taking that investment to build a business that lets even the low-level workers at the bottom of the economy exchange their time for money? Businesses do what they do to inject money at all levels including low-level people. They also need higher level people to do technical or supervisory jobs because the low-level workers don't have the acumen to see the big picture of where the company is going and WHY it is going that way.

Your attitude seems to suggest that you believe people aren't being paid what they are worth. And that is actually quite true. People are NEVER paid what they are worth. They are paid what their JOB is worth to the employer. The exact amount of the person's salary is limited by the boss's budget for the job. That is the way business works. Do you need me to explain THAT to YOU?

Take a GOOD look at what has happened in California fast food restaurants since the minimum wage boost. That is your economic world in a microcosm. Socialism gone wild, badly enough to drive businesses into bankruptcy due to insane salaries. People were worried that those poor minimum wage people couldn't afford to live. So they boosted the minimum wage that had the result of killing the balance between profit and personnel costs. It is right there for you to see it but the question is, WILL you see it? Or will you slough it off like everything else?

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Have you ever tried to sort out and write down how you are coming to those conclusions?

Don't have to write anything about it. I know what I think and HAVE written about it. Or have you not been reading?

 

[Pat Hartman]

@Pat Hartman said it best in post #49

But you're still playing his game.

 

[Cotswold]

Why keep increasing taxes, that will not be spent on benefitting the whole.
There are adequate and numerous ways money could be saved that would avoid tax rises. But unfortunately that is never going to happen.

Locally, if you want to take a boot full of rubbish or recycling to the town tip, you have to go online, fill in your details and book a time-slot.
None of that adds value, or improves anything. It does not even provide any factual or useful information. There is no benefit to anyone. All it does is add costs. Now shifts of guys in a none-job are pointlessly checking number plates.
Fortunately we aren't too far from the border of another county. So I take my disposals and recycling there. It is quicker than filling in the online form and driving to our tips.

 

[Thales750]

Why keep increasing taxes, that will not be spent on benefitting the whole.
There are adequate and numerous ways money could be saved that would avoid tax rises. But unfortunately that is never going to happen.

Locally, if you want to take a boot full of rubbish or recycling to the town tip, you have to go online, fill in your details and book a time-slot.
None of that adds value, or improves anything. It does not even provide any factual or useful information. There is no benefit to anyone. All it does is add costs. Now shifts of guys in a none-job are pointlessly checking number plates.
Fortunately we aren't too far from the border of another county. So I take my disposals and recycling there. It is quicker than filling in the online form and driving to our tips.

Galveston is Liberal compared to many places in Texas.
I go to the dump and they look at the address of my drivers license. Easy Breezy Lemon Peezy

 

[Thales750]

Don't have to write anything about it. I know what I think and HAVE written about it. Or have you not been reading?

What i meant was, offer up some evidence. When i do that, some of your buddies on here tell me they don't care about data. They only want beliefs and feelings.

 

[Thales750]

But you're still playing his game.

Maybe he wants to gain a different perspective.

 

[Isaac]

Despite my firmly held belief that Republicans do a better job of pushing the country in the right direction than Democrats, I personally have had some of my beliefs challenged a bit from reading Thales' responses, some bit of hardening my own, some softening.

I don't defend Trump because I think he is perfect, I defend him because he is the better alternative for voting purposes. Far from a maga cult follower actually, but Thales doesn't think so because I'm conservative. And beliefs and feelings are important - it's not just all about data and charts. Beliefs and feelings is why our country began. And why it continues to chug along.

 

[Thales750]

Introduced at the bottom... Do you mean taking that investment to build a business that lets even the low-level workers at the bottom of the economy exchange their time for money? Businesses do what they do to inject money at all levels including low-level people. They also need higher level people to do technical or supervisory jobs because the low-level workers don't have the acumen to see the big picture of where the company is going and WHY it is going that way.

Like Pat you are purposely verbose. It's a debate technique to limit rebuttals
I will try to be clear here.

The premise for this discussion is the effect, on the economy (in this case society), of changes to the tax rate for the highest income classes.

You automatically assume I have some socialist agenda. I have introduced some charts, all ignored, all made points that were contrary to MAGA popular opinions. You assumed that i agreed with raising the minimum wage. I do not by that way, but that has nothing to do with this conversation.

Premise
I say that increasing taxes on the highest income classes helps the economy, makes it more resilient, increases GDP, makes a healthier middle class, and reduces government spending deficits, eventually leading to a balanced budget as well as ultimately eliminating Federal Debt.

I'm prepared to have a technical discussion of this, free of any feeling, beliefs, or ideology.

My premise was stated in clear and concise language. Can you do the same? that goes for any of you.

I think the rules should be to try to keep a line of conversation to a minimum of topics until that has been agreed upon or decided that their can be no agreement. No page long diatribes covering 12 different topics, no more ignoring direct question. If a person elects not to answer they should still address the question.

Does that sound fair?

 

[Isaac]

Like Pat you are purposely verbose. It's a debate technique to limit rebuttals
I will try to be clear here.

The premise for this discussion is the effect, on the economy (in this case society), of changes to the tax rate for the highest income classes.

You automatically assume I have some socialist agenda. I have introduced some charts, all ignored, all made points that were contrary to MAGA popular opinions. You assumed that i agreed with raising the minimum wage. I do not by that way, but that has nothing to do with this conversation.

I say that increasing taxes on the highest income classes helps the economy, makes it more resilient, increases GDP, makes a healthier middle class, and reduces government spending deficits, eventually leading to a balanced budget as well as ultimately eliminating Federal Debt.

I'm prepared to have a technical discussion of this, free of any feeling, beliefs, or ideology.

My premise was stated in clear and concise language. Can you do the same? that goes for any of you.

I think the rules should be to try to keep a line of conversation to a minimum of topics until that has been agreed upon or decided that their can be no agreement. No page long diatribes covering 12 different topics, no more ignoring direct question. If a person elects not to answer they should still address the question.

Does that sound fair?

No.

 

[Isaac]

I'm prepared to have a technical discussion of this, free of any feeling, beliefs, or ideology

So you only want to examine half of what goes into decision making in this life. Okay.

 

[Isaac]

Despite my firmly held belief that Republicans do a better job of pushing the country in the right direction than Democrats, I personally have had some of my beliefs challenged a bit from reading Thales' responses, some bit of hardening my own, some softening.

I don't defend Trump because I think he is perfect, I defend him because he is the better alternative for voting purposes. Far from a maga cult follower actually, but Thales doesn't think so because I'm conservative. And beliefs and feelings are important - it's not just all about data and charts. Beliefs and feelings is why our country began. And why it continues to chug along.

@moke123 , is it hard to log in with 2 accounts at a time or do you just use 2 different browsers?

 

[Thales750]

So you only want to examine half of what goes into decision making in this life. Okay.

No Isaac, you're doing what you do, you're being clever, like scoring points in debate class.

I started this thread because for 30 years I have watched people preach trickle down economics, and I have watched the language that defends it change. Many people "believe" in it when there is very little substance there, and a whole lot of evidence to the contrary.

Maybe feelings and beliefs should be questioned?

 

[Isaac]

Maybe feelings and beliefs should be questioned?

Of course, but not excluded
And I definitely am not clever - moke you can like this post