# Taxes and growth **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 10, 2017, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxes-and-growth/781822 "2017-03-10T01:00:38Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 7\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2017, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxes-and-growth/781822/61 "2017-03-14T17:53:37Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > You’ve assumed Damuri was talking about all taxes being a net drag, but that’s not what was said. Taxes are a drag - that’s a true, though imprecise statement. Taxes can be a net drag, or a net positive. And that was what was clarified multiple times. TAXES ARE A DRAG ON THE ECONOMY. I think the problem is that people are equating taxing with spending. As I said before, lets assume that the government spent the entire tax revenue on a handjob from the queen of england. There would be no offsetting beneficial government spending to offset the drag effect of the taxes. Lets assume a different scenario where government is spending more without increasing taxes (by borrowing), we get economic growth without any drag from taxation (the drag will come later when we have to pay back that borrowing). TAXES ARE ALWAYS A DRAG ON THE ECONOMY. (some sin taxes might not be) Taxes are one thing spending is another. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2017, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxes-and-growth/781822/62 "2017-03-14T18:01:12Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > The ones from 40% to 30% have probably done more harm than good. Well, that’s debatable, but unless you think that the ones going from 90% downward were also failures it’s kind of moot to the point I was making. Even if you think the later ones have done more harm than good you are conceding that they have done some good, just not balanced against what you consider to be ‘bad’. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2017, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxes-and-growth/781822/63 "2017-03-14T18:02:29Z")
> [@sear](#): > > The ones I posted in #47 suffice. Only ONE is needed to demonstrate a revenue potential beyond “tax”. > > Marrou’s point precisely, and thus my point in quoting him in #47. > > Excellent. > However you haven’t cited a single error yet. > > No. > Not according to the rules of English grammar taught to me in K through college, and to me by my two professional writing parents. > > This is an unqualified assertion. > > - It does not say “some taxes” > - It doesn’t say “a drag, but a potential net benefit” > > It’s simple, unqualified, and unambiguous: “So you didn’t see the immediately following sentences where I say " Government spending is an accelerant. Who you tax and how you do it will affect how much of a drag taxes are on the economy. How you spend those tax dollars affects how much it accelerates the economy.” I go on to say “A lot of liberals ignore the first sentence and a lot of conservatives ignore the second.” Its hard to tell what you are because you seem to be ignoring everything BUT the first sentence. > [@](#): > > If you wish to leverage your argument on the Marrou exceptions, for sake of brevity I’ll concede the point for now. > > If you wish to pursue it in depth, I’m more than capable of explaining the linguistic rules I followed to arrive at my conclusion. > > You can disagree with me. > But disagreement is not refutory proof. > > Prove me wrong and I will eagerly concede. > > So far nobody has laid a finger on me about it here. > > If the premise I refuted was true, if: > > then why do so many billions of our neighbors, friends, trading partners, and allies use them. Because you can use that tax money to counteract and overcome that drag and because there are other things that you want to do that you need to fund. > [@](#): > > It would be a nation of fools if there was a presence in their economy that could be permanently eliminated with a stroke of the pen, but it refused to do so. > You’re welcome to call U.S. that if you wish. > > But I know better. If half the people you know are below average, that means the other half is above average. > It is that latter half that would have ended taxation before it began, before 1776. > > But it’s Pi Day (3/14) 2017, and U.S. governments are still taxing like bandits, and spending like drunken sailors. Just FYI, we didn’t have an income tax until the 1900s it was unconstitutional and we needed a constitutional amendment to impose the income tax. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2017, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxes-and-growth/781822/64 "2017-03-14T19:55:02Z")
> [@XT](#): > > Well, that’s debatable, but unless you think that the ones going from 90% downward were also failures it’s kind of moot to the point I was making. Even if you think the later ones have done more harm than good you are conceding that they have done some good, just not balanced against what you consider to be ‘bad’. Yes I agree that there is some subjectivity to my conclusion that the tax cuts from 40 to 30 were probably bad. But there’s not a lot of ways you get to a 30% tax rate without gutting entitlements, gutting the the military, or racking up huge deficits. ---
**Author:** ![igor\_frankensteen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/839c29/32.png) [@igor\_frankensteen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/igor_frankensteen)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2017, 1:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxes-and-growth/781822/65 "2017-03-16T01:53:49Z")
I don’t understand the point of insisting over and over that, if you go by a certain set of measurements and ignore or avoid other aspects of economics, that “taxes are a drag on an economy.” So what? So is the need for materials to be mined. So is the need for education of the workers. So is pretty much everything to do with producing profits, other than grabbing the cash out of peoples’ hands. Why select ONLY taxes to get self-righteous about? ---
**Author:** ![Ruken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f475e1/32.png) [@Ruken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruken)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2017, 3:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxes-and-growth/781822/66 "2017-03-16T03:11:25Z")
Who is getting self-righteous? ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2017, 1:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxes-and-growth/781822/67 "2017-03-17T01:13:49Z")
> [@igor\_frankensteen](#): > > I don’t understand the point of insisting over and over that, if you go by a certain set of measurements and ignore or avoid other aspects of economics, that “taxes are a drag on an economy.” > > So what? So is the need for materials to be mined. So is the need for education of the workers. So is pretty much everything to do with producing profits, other than grabbing the cash out of peoples’ hands. > > Why select ONLY taxes to get self-righteous about? You’ve come late to the argument. Here is the post that caused the kerfufle: [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=20056874&postcount=7](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=20056874&postcount=7) As you can see I didn’t single out taxes to get self righteous about and ignore every other aspect of the economy. This thread is only two pages long. Just saying. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxes-and-growth/781822.md?page=3)