I think it’s autogenerated when someone criticizes libertarians.
. . . not what Keynesian policy does. If a consumer has money in his hand, whether it came from his employer or from a government handout or from an inheritance or from a printing press in his basement, he buys what he wants with it and nothing else. This applies even with food stamps – you can’t buy anything but food with them, but you don’t have to buy food with them if you don’t want food. Really, where are you getting this?
Oh, sure, bring me into it. Just 'cuz money matters require digits. Hmph. I’ll have you know that there’s plenty of other stuff I can go stimulate!
Actually if there had been no tax cuts even fewer people would have had money to spend. We’d have that problem on TOP of Enron. My point was Bush’s tax cuts helped us not get plunged into a deeper financial crisis after 9/11 and Enron - not that it prevented them from happening.
There is no way to prove that. You have no way of knowing what would have happened without the tax cuts. It’s all just your opinion.
Ok. Name me one nation that has ever taxed itself into prosperity.
I would say that the old chestnut of “can you name me one nation that has ever taxed itself into prosperity?” is the poster child of straw man questions.
Fear Itself is not saying that we would be prosperous, only that taxes would not send us into a deeper financial crisis.
I would say that if the government had proper taxation income it would have been better prepared to deal with the lean years, what is madness is to not tax when the cows are fat.
It is a very old lesson that was even told by the ancients…
Well, if you cut taxes you spur hiring. If you place bigger financial burdens on those who produce jobs and wealth guess what they’re going to be doing… spending more money on taxes which means less on investing and hiring.
Plus employers also flee the country when taxes are too high.
**United Kingdom, all of Western Europe. **
When good tax systems were set up, the ability to invest in infrastructure went up dramatically. In my business in Africa, it is the states that are unable to tax the population in a broad and fair manner that are the most utterly screwed up. Or lacking infrastructure.
America.
Bill Clinton raised the top marginal tax rates, and we had the best growth in the GDP since WWII. If you are arguing that we should set tax rates so as to increase GDP growth , history says the economy grows the fastest when the top marginal tax rates are 88%:
This is historically false. Name one period of tax reduction that was followed by a significant growth in employment.
Ummm have you seen their unemployment rates? They’ve always been higher than the US.
Africa has other problems besides taxes.
No. One may spur hiring. It rather depends on where the binding constraints are. If there is no demand, then hiring will not occur. Tax in the Anglo Saxon systems is not generally a large cost driver on hiring and firing, relative to other drivers.
Your erecting Tax as your anti grail has about all of the analytical clarity and perspicaciousness of Marxists and their classes.
You’ve assumed a right huge amount of things in this statement.
In real economic analysis by proper economists, one recognizes that there are always trade offs - taxing for investment in productive infrastructure or the creation of future opportunity (such as in education or perhaps to support basic income to enable labour flexibility and health of the working population) can very well produce rather larger returns to the economy than the tax costs. Can of course does not mean it always does so.
Yes, and actual data driven empirical research suggest that is at levels rather higher than seen in any of the Anglo Saxon countries.
Yes, I have. I work in the region.
And no, they have not "always"been higher than the US. For the past two decades they have. The preceding two decades rates were in the same range and even lower.
Of course your statement was with respect to achieving prosperity. Current unemployment rates have fuck all to do with your question, which was countries that ‘taxed themselves to prosperity’ - which was so clumsily phrased really to allow for any kind of proper tax system.
Insofar as Western Europe overall dominates rankings for wealth, quality of life, longevity, per capita income (and taken all together easily competes with the US), pointing to current unemployment is an absurd and impoverished response.
Actually no, taxation is in fact a very core problem. I do extensive business in Africa (and with quite good margins in many places), I have actual real live experience mate, so spare me anything second hand stereotypes dating from the 1970s.
Right along with taxation - working systems - is investment in infrastructure and removing of horrible anti-business regulation that serves no purpose other than to make idiot Leftist Labour and anti-Market activists all starry eyed.
Really? So if I’m making enough money to buy a yacht and you raise luxury taxes on the yacht, this might be enough to deter the purchase of said object. What happens to the workers who might have built the yacht? You do realize that the primary way to reduce an activity is to tax it… right?
Supply and demand applies to taxes - when you raise taxes you raise the price of a good. That makes it less desirable. This is basic economics, is it not?
Oh boy, I’m going to be accused of trolling if I voice my opinion on this.
Why can’t we privatize education and infrastructure?
Uh, news flash… employers flee the United States for offshore hiring all the time. Part of it is wages, but part of it is also taxes. Last I heard the U.S. is a (mostly) anglo-saxon country.
No, it is fantasy economics, the economics of what you wished the economy was like, not how the economy has historically performed in response to tax cuts. There is no historical correlation between tax cuts and growth in the GDP. You would like it to be so, but it just doesn’t happen.
But if he keeps saying it, it might!
I thought the libertarian mantra was that investing and hiring create wealth, not consume it. I mean, nobody’s going to hire a salesman for $100,000 per year unless they think he can bring in more than that in new revenue. If the conditions are right, you’ll hire that person even if you have to borrow the money to do it. You’d be a fool not to.
So which is it, do hiring and investment consume revenue, or generate it?
Yeah, we’ll see about that one. Last I heard the Euro was in trouble with Ireland and Greece teetering on collapse and Spain tumbling closely after. They may be wealthy on paper but all those years of social safety nets is about to drain them dry.
In which countries? I’d say taxes are the least of Zimbabwe’s problems. In South Africa they have cars that use flame throwers to deter theft. Let’s not even talk about Somalia or the Ivory Coast. Not sure how taxes are the core problem in those 2 nations.
No, you must have read that wrong. Ireland has one of the lowest corporate tax rates in the world. Why, they must be positively swimming in prosperity.