Let me make that clear...

TRUTH: If you tax ANYTHING you **necessarily** get less of it.

MYTH: "It is a myth that high taxation rates discourage investment"

Funny...the same group that says taxation does not reduce commerce when they want to tax the rich are the **SAME CROWD** that says in order to fight obesity, we need to tax sugar and such. They are the **SAME CROWD** that says to reduce smoking we need to tax cigarettes. They are the **SAME CROWD** that say to save the planet, we need higher carbon taxes.

Liars....the whole rotten lot of liberals are just LIARS through and through!!!

"TRUTH: If you tax ANYTHING you **necessarily** get less of it."

So, a land value tax makes land disappear?

If you tax anything, the first thing the tax payer does is figure out how to avoid paying the tax. Well maybe the second thing with the first cursing about getting taxed.

You tax the rich because they have more excess cash that can be taken away from them. Go after the poor and middle class and the taxed amount doesn't get spent on consumption that improves the economy. Those groups have the lowest savings rates because they spend almost as fast as they make their money.

Sure the rich spend money, but rarely at the rate that they generate it. That's how they stay rich. If the rich spent the same percentage of their income as the poor we would easily pull the economy up with demand.

If he's not paying the tax, then he isn't taxed, and the discussion becomes moot.

If you succeed in taxing a thing, you get less of it. Period.

"Sure the rich spend money, but rarely at the rate that they generate it." Can you back this up? first of all, most of the "rich" in this country - let's say the new Facebook millionaires...do not have millions in CASH in their pockets. it is PAPER wealth.

First and foremost, this is a concept that most of the financial illiterates in this country fail to recognize as they light their toches and gatehr their pitch-forks and storm the castle as the urging of their Puppet Masters in the white house and congress.

When the "rich" start business and give you a job, it is normally done via paper transactions, leveraging their "wealth" that is documented on paper, taking loans against their assetts (that they still have loans on) in the hope that *maybe* if they are lucky they can squeeze a 5 to 10% return on their "investment"....which is leveraged paper...

uLY, i THINK WHAT he means, is that if you pay 100 dlalrs in taxes, the government wont get $100 worth of value out of spending it.

It is hard to follow him when he gets all worked up, but I believe thatis where he was going with it.

I think too many of your buffoons that hate the rich unfortunately have bought in to Disney's amusing charicature of Scrooge McDuck swimming in his private pool of gold coins. The reality of the wealthy in the country is a vastly different thing.

krellin, you are right in a lot of ways, but not all rich people get their money investing either or creating companies.

Sure, rich people do that, and yes, their investments are the ones that are important (and of course people who invest into companies via stocks, and thosecompanies use that money to create new jobs and expand), however, there is PLENTY who do not make money by creating a single job.

Krellin, not sure you are talking about me, but I really have no issue with people being rich. that tends to be a communist trait.

During the period 1951-63, when marginal rates were at their peak—91 percent or 92 percent—the American economy boomed, growing at an average annual rate of 3.71 percent. The fact that the marginal rates were what would today be viewed as essentially confiscatory did not cause economic cataclysm—just the opposite. And during the past seven years, during which we reduced the top marginal rate to 35 percent, average growth was a more meager 1.71 percent.

http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/archive/2010/02/86_marginalgrowth.jpg

TAXES =/= GROWTH has been repeated over and over and over by conservatives for the last hundred years, yet there is no, I repeat, NO evidence that this is in fact the case. Typical conservative logic - if you repeat it enough times, it has to be true. If it's proven false, change the wording to make it less false.

ulytau -- if you increase the taxes on land, you sure as hell get less DEVELOPMENT of the land, yes. Nice try...but you fail.

Oh, look, krellin fails economics once again. Let's start with some entry-level stuff, shall we?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax#Efficiency

"but not all rich people get their money investing either or creating companies. .......

however, there is PLENTY who do not make money by creating a single job...."

FAR and FEW between. Again, MOST Americans live under this *misconception* that there is this group of do-nothing Scrooge McDucks sitting out their hording their wealth. They think these people never had jobs, don't work 20 hours days, never risk *all* their capital for the next venture, etc. They are just the mysterious elite that eat bon-bons and gather in smokey rooms trying to figure out how to squeeze the last dime out of poor people....because in this mythical liberal vision, the wealthy somehow have gotten rich by taking money from people that have none...

And today, and yesterday, and every day for the past week our idiot President and his willing accomplices in the media have villified this nefarious, mystical group of wealthy villians.

IN the mean time, I'm not getting a raise next year, because my boss is trying to figure out how to pay the mortgage on his half-empty building, he is trying to figure out how to raise his rates in the coming year because the cost of all his employees is about to explode and kill him on the margains, etc. My evil wealthy boss, who is hear before me and leaves after me...isn't chuckling to himself and counting his stacks of gold. He trying to figure out how to rearrange his finances and restructure his *debt* to keep the business profitable.

2ndWL, I dont have a real problem with taxing the rich more, buttaxing them is not going to slve the problem. There must be spending cuts somewhere, and a lot of them.

Also 2ndWL, people in 1955 were much more fiscally reponsible than people today. You drop a 91% on some of these peopel that are at the 'bottom of the top' and it will be all over for them, although if I recall, it only taxes you the 35% (the top rate now I think) after a certain $$ figure, which I think is like 375K. I am on my phone, so I cant research this exactly, so I am shooting from the hip on this.

Also, the government was not spending that money internally a lot either in that era, they were paying off debt (wow, see how that happens sometimes) from WW2 and Marshall plan.

Also, this economy today is not at all like the one of that time either. We are a more service based economy, rather than a production based. our manuf base is not the 'cats meow' any longer.

I dont think growth is so linked to taxes as the left and right think, and even more so now, but drastic moves in any direction could cause issues.

ulytau -- thanks....I forgot, wikkipedia trumps reality...

You will note, on the most basic level, that there is a CURVE in that discussion. I will agree that you can increase tax rates and the GOVERNMENT will increase it's revenue...up to a point...after which you get less revenue as business fail. Same goes with property.

Sorry, chump, it's just basic common sense...if you tax more of something, you get less of it. There is absoutely *NO* logic to the argument that "IF I increase the taxes on property, I will get more development". That is a blatantly false statement. there is absolutely *zero* logic to to the idea that a property owner will do additional investment on his property so that he can pay more taxes to someone else.

Now, he may increase his development to increase the overall value so that he has a more valuable investment down the road, can charge more rent, etc the overall market value of all property in the region may rise and fall together...but the value of the proerty is NOT tied to a tax rate.

YOU fail economic 101 , my friend. E- for you.

Krellin, define 'rich' for me how you view it.

From your very own link, genius...

"Most taxes distort economic decisions.[3] If labor, buildings or machinery and plants (factories) are taxed, people are dissuaded from constructive and beneficial activities, and enterprise and efficiency are penalized due to the excess burden of taxation."

Stresedlines...I thought our benevolent government had already done this for us, my friend.

"people in 1955 were much more fiscally reponsible than people today" Most brilliant statement made today. And yet, even though you acknowledge this -- i.e. that our country is blatantly irresponsible on fiscal matters, -- you still believe we should increase taxes instead of FIRST being more fiscally responsible?

If this is your belief...then we are truly lost as a people, and there is no point in further discussion, as you fail Logic 101 as bad as most fail economics.

krellin, I do not like paying taxes, but you must tax and cut spending BOTH. If you can find a way to do it without doing both, let me know.

I am being realistic here. The debt and spending problem are a big problem, but we are going to have to pay the piper now. It is a simple fact.

tax increases in moderation with heavy spending cuts.

our problem is, we increase taxes X amount, and then increase spending by more than the increase. It does not matter who is in charge, they take turns bending us over the table, and dropping our pants.

Ok, if you paying 500 dollars a month in interest andyou get a raise of 100$ a month, do you spend the $100 a month on more interest, then you are an idiot. If you use that 100 to pay down whatever debt is causing that 500 a month, then great, you are making progress.

if you find also a way to reduce your food bill by $50 a month, and use THAT to also pay down the same debt, now you are rocking.

I am willing to raise taxes ONLY if we agree to large spending cuts, and get thatin writing. Hope that helps clear things up for you.

Or you think we just keep rolling down the same path we are going?

Discussions with krellin are such a perversely enjoyable endeavours...

"Most taxes distort economic decisions.[3] If labor, buildings or machinery and plants (factories) are taxed, people are dissuaded from constructive and beneficial activities, and enterprise and efficiency are penalized due to the excess burden of taxation."

Jeez, not a single word about land tax, the topic at hand, I wonder when it will show up? Let's continue with the sentence that immediately follows, shall we?

"This does not apply to LVT, which is payable regardless of whether or how well the land is actually used."

Oh jeez, krellin is a moron. I'm thoroughly surprised.

Next on, a reiteration - "TRUTH: If you tax ANYTHING you **necessarily** get less of it."

I just provided you with an example of taxation that doesn't mean you ***********necessarily************ get less of it because the supply of it is completely inelastic and therefore cannot be influenced by taxation. That's a) high school-level economics, b) high school-level logic, since if you say that A is always, a single example of the contrary means you're a moron. gg, thanks for playing. Next time, spare me your incessant gibberish and feelings and MAN UP.

uly, please, leave the 'Man up' shit on the thread it needs to be on. As soon as someone says that, the thread goes south in a hurry.

"I do not like paying taxes, but you must tax and cut spending BOTH..." Blatantly false statement. Taxes are a necessary evil. And you really meant to say "increases taxes" in your statement, I assume This is a false statement. We could balance the budget solely on budget cuts. It *is* possible.

@uly -- I talked about land taxes, you provided a wiki link. I 100% reject the notion that you can increase land development by increasing taxes - it's simply not true.

"Ok, if you paying 500 dollars a month in interest andyou get a raise of 100$ a month, do you spend the $100 a month on more interest, then you are an idiot. .."

Hmmm....you just defined out Federal Government....they are all idiots. We are in agreement.

I recently saw a Walmart commercial where a woman said she wanted to buy something but it wasn't in the budget. An employee tells her she can get what she wants and only has to pay the amount in full within 12 months, no interest payments needed. She fills her shopping cart and everyone is happy.

That commercial is enough proof to me that our fiscal problems are ultimately unsolvable.

kRELLIN, i NEVER SAID THE fEDS WERE NOT IDIOTS.

Tell me what budget cuts will saveus 700 billion a year please (which is about our interest I think on the debt) And tell me where the extra to start paying OFF the debt will come.

If all new taxes raised were 1) sent directly to paying down the debt and 2) insured budget cuts across the board, I would be okay with it for some time.

SOMETHING has to change.

Eat the rich

If you believe that the Feds are idiots, and yet you but their line hook line and sinker -- their whining that they can *only* solve the debt crisis by raising taxes -- then you are a lost cause.

Funny, we have had balanced budgets in the past without excessive tax hikes. If you listen to Obama, he will say the wars --- which he is ending -- were the undfunded liability that Bush budgened us with, and that Obamacare is a cost saving...and yet, despite all these financial gains, we are still going in the hole?

How about we start here: KILL baseline budgeting. NO automatic increases on every budget item year after year. After all, you and I don't get automatic raises every year, thus out income taxes don't go up automatically evey year. So we will START there.

Then, let's take a *hard* look at *EVERY* sacred cow in the government. Let's *means* test social security. Let's increase the age of social security. Let's reduce allowances for irresponsible behavior....you get 2...and 2 only...children out of wedlock when you have no job. Let's limit food stamps to vegetable and meat, not booze (as I watched a guy with a grocery cart *half* full of alcohol swipe his food stamp card two days ago...). Let's cut *all* foreign subsidies. Let's cut all government research grants and make *everyone* reapply. Let's cut ALL subsidies to any university that raises tuition, room and board more than the rate of inflation. Let...shall I go on?

We'll make it easy....let's start with a 10% cut to *every* single budget item in the Federal government. When MY household faxes a financial crisis, or a private business does, that's how they start.

The problem is all the *idiots* in Congress won't touch their sacred cows, and they make all sorts of horrible claims that the world will end if *their* program dies...and the sheeple at home believe it.

Bullshit.

When Clinton ws forced to sign welfrare reform, we were told people would be dying int he streets. Literally. Whoops....didnt' happen. Instead, without a government check, a lot of people instead managed to find jobs...

The second half of the equation is DYNAMIC budget scoring. Moron and Idiots are the only ones that think that if you increase taxes by X%, you will automaticallly increase tax intake by X percent. False. Demonstrably False. When you INCREASE taxes, or DECREASE taxes, it has an impact on economies. There is more or less investment, more or less income, etc.....thus, the *result* of tax polciy is DYNAMIC, not STATIC as the idiots in Congress score it, and then the idiot sheeple in the media (and our players at home...) pretend it to be.

Until you can grasp these simple truth, then the discussion must end here.

We have ALL the revenue we need. We have a **spending** problem. Period.

Fallacy of hypocrisy. Holding a hypocritical vew doesnt make you wrong. Just makes you an ass.

@2WL - I think we're talking about two slightly different things here. You're focusing more on investment from a private perspective and I'm thinking about it from a national perspective.

So basic economics - investment = savings, by definition. Savings can be broken into public savings and private savings. Currently, public savings is negative, private savings is positive. Tax is essentially transferring money from private savings to public savings. The higher the tax, the less private savings there is given a steady consumption rate. It is not an equal transfer either, since higher tax revenue leads to higher government spending, so the decrease in private savings does not correspond to an equal increase in public savings. Therefore taxes have a net negative effect on savings and thus investment, given a steady rate of consumption.