Post Reply  Post Thread 
Pages (2): « First < Previous 1 [2] Last »

Decreasing taxes = higher debt

Author Message

Post: #11
RE: Decreasing taxes = higher debt

Helsworth Wrote:
Savings is important yes, but you have to have a decent income in order to be able (to afford) to save. The poor are not in that position, hence why their spending has the largest multiplier of all other income brackets. If you want the people to be able to save more, you ought to be in favor of higher fiscal deficits; which represent net financial savings for the nongovernment sector.
The US was more socialist after WW2.
A higher % of the population is going into the top % income brackets? Yeah, I guess the 0.001% are really representative of the average joe's great leap forward. Hehe
Trini is a representation of a triune entity, object, or notion. For instance: flesh, intellect, and soul. Triniteras or Triniterias (whichever you prefer) is my favorite troll. He's the one who really popped my cherry & I'll always remember.

Hahaha! What's next, the top 0.00001%? In the socialist era, income inequality was smaller because a huge percentage of the population was poor(the largest bracket was the poorest bracket, with each bracket afterwards getting smaller and smaller. Very few were rich), and that created a bias. Nowadays, it is more equally distributed, except that a high percentage is in the top bracket(300K income +), much higher than any other bracket. During the social era, that was the opposite. The poor(lowest bracket) was the largest bracket, and that created 'equality.' Automation and innovation has allowed this to change, and we shouldn't fight it. I want to see more and more people get into that top bracket, that way we will have HUGE inequality, in which 20-30% of the population are rich while the rest are middle income. And we should grow it higher and higher. We should be working on making this country wealthier, not equally poor.

The US is way more socialist now, hence why it is performing so poorly. Hence why social democrat Barack Osama Obama has been a detriment to thei country, morally and statistically.

About 8% of the US population is in the higher brackets, apposed to less than 1% in your 'utopian era.' However, due to social democracy policies many, many, people are becoming poorer, and many more are poverty. Median income is rapidly decreasing. This was not the case under the 'failed tickle down economy.' You people are afraid of disproportionate success; you are greedy and arrogant. I would much rather have disproportionate success than everyone becoming poorer to feed a false state of equality and happiness.

14.04.2016 20:51
Quote this message in a reply
Ajay Alcos

Post: #12
RE: Decreasing taxes = higher debt

I must say that they're are many ways to make a societies prosperous, but not all of which in a sustainable fashion. Economic prosperity is not so much to do with correlations with the public & private sector but rather upon these factors. Stability, Innovation & Circulation. It is common knowledge that "people with less" are most likely to "use more" and contrast to those who are "rich" of whom tend to use "less". Now if a wealth gap of a society grows to large; it will lead to "social strife" (which will affect stability) and less circulation (which when analysed in regard to the "velocity of capital" will lead to stagnation in the use of "purchasing power"). This has been proven & documented historically over thousands of years from Classical Rome to the GFC.

C is circulation.
S is stability.
I is innovation.

The middle factor, innovation, is affected correlatively by the other factors and also by many other external conditions - name culture & law. Freer societies obviously encourage a greater capacity for innovation compared to more arbitrarily focused societies, as the dissemination of ideas are faced with less obstacles to overcome. People whose ideas are constrained by cultural norms (as seen now in the contemporary Islamic world) or governmental interference (as one can see in Modern China (where a greater volume of innovation has and still is being imported compared to the past) are hence in a more comfortable position to nurture and apply their ingenuity. If put into retrospect, governments are better suited to maintaining stability whilst the private sector is better suited to cultivating innovation/growth.

The only thing that would ensure great volumes of "circulation" between the two is an equitable & agreeable social contract between both public & private sector which ensures better redistribution of wealth (via expenditure and taxes) in return for alleviation of obstacles (whether social, cultural, judicial or even geographical) which would affect the private sectors potential path to prosperity, namely through maintaining order & stability as well as developing the necessary infrastructure to ensure the maintenance of the private sector (e.g. educations, roads and so-on so-forth). Placing too much responsibility in the hands of the private sector, as with the public sector; upsets the social balance and the factors that come with it that ensure growth.

Hence if you tip the balance in a system more towards one side or another, it will adversely affect socio-economic growth. Therefore greatly tipping society to one particular side, whether it be totalitarianism or anarchy - will lead to utter stagnation - as the former would affect innovation whilst the latter would affect stability. The assumption that economic, political, environmental or even philosophical laws & formulas are written in stone is completely incorrect simply due to the fact the human beings are flawed and that all human knowledge is simply the summary of our own perceptions. So really the only "invisible hand" when it comes to economics is really humanity itself, as it is by our own inherent ingenuity and innovation that alone drives socio-economic growth.

15.04.2016 07:12
Quote this message in a reply
Lord Protector

Posts: 107
Words count: 14,196
Group: Basic
Joined: May2014
Status: Away
Reputation: 3
Experience: 132
Glory Points: 0
Medals: 0

Post: #13
RE: Decreasing taxes = higher debt

I guess it depends where you are on the laffer curve. And whether you're using really distortionary taxes or not.

I'm not sure that it matters if sector productivity has become divorced from household income for a given proportion of labour income. What matters is if labour productivity has become divorced from household income for a given proportion of labour income.

I'm leaving and probably never coming back, so thanks for the interesting discussions I guess, dunno why im writing this nobody even irl gives a toss about me anyway
19.08.2016 09:23
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Pages (2): « First < Previous 1 [2] Last »
Post Reply  Post Thread 

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread: Author Replies: Views: Last Post
  The problem with national debt and a deficit CommieScum 1 1,059 28.05.2018 01:32
Last Post: Shenat
  [The Economist] American taxes are unusually progressive. Government spending is not. Ajay Alcos 0 899 27.11.2017 15:56
Last Post: Ajay Alcos
  Consumption taxes are fine? No, they're not Helsworth 2 1,483 06.04.2017 13:50
Last Post: Helsworth
  Unemployment in the US is higher Helsworth 0 897 22.01.2017 19:32
Last Post: Helsworth
  Comments on the National Debt yangusbeef 0 1,027 15.09.2016 19:50
Last Post: yangusbeef
  Japan's high Debt-to-GDP Ratio RinNatsume 1 1,543 07.09.2016 08:30
Last Post: Ajay Alcos
  Economy relies on excess debt in order to bootstrap Helsworth 0 1,359 16.12.2015 22:38
Last Post: Helsworth
  If the US paid off all its debt Ajay Alcos 7 1,739 10.06.2015 08:37
Last Post: Helsworth
  Chinese buying on margin skyrockets, the Greek debt crisis and US earnings woes Helsworth 0 1,387 30.01.2015 16:20
Last Post: Helsworth
  How to turn litter into money, all about debt, deficits, and economic policy Helsworth 0 2,669 13.12.2014 21:18
Last Post: Helsworth

View a Printable Version
Send this Thread to a Friend
Subscribe to this Thread | Add Thread to Favorites

Forum Jump: