*Increased* taxes - punitive measure on spending?

[mnealtx 0]

You can all read the poll - your thoughts, please.

*NO discussion of deficits or budgets - this poll is solely concerned with the effect that excessive increasing taxes has on spending by businesses and consumers.*

My opinion: Excessive Increasing taxes past a certain point results in decreased business and consumer spending.

Acknowledged: Some certain level of taxes ARE necessary and a level that would be considered excessive will be dependent upon the situation of the business or consumer.

Edited for clarity - Mods, please adjust poll options to reflect.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[livendive 8]

Quote

You can all read the poll - your thoughts, please.

*NO discussion of deficits or budgets - this poll is solely concerned with the effect excessive taxes has on spending by businesses and consumers.*

My opinion: Excessive taxes result in decreased business and consumer spending.

Can you define "excessive"?

(Edit to add: I mean some definition other than "enough to negatively affect business and consumer spending" of course. )

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

You can all read the poll - your thoughts, please.

*NO discussion of deficits or budgets - this poll is solely concerned with the effect excessive taxes has on spending by businesses and consumers.*

My opinion: Excessive taxes result in decreased business and consumer spending.

It's pretty simple. If you're not a government which can print money, the amount you can spend is what you earn less all taxes and expenses.

Consumers have to stop spending once their credit cards and home equity are tapped out. Business also have to stop spending once they can't borrow any more money.

Prudent consumers and businesses cut back before they get to usustainable negative cash flow.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

You can all read the poll - your thoughts, please.

*NO discussion of deficits or budgets - this poll is solely concerned with the effect excessive taxes has on spending by businesses and consumers.*

My opinion: Excessive taxes result in decreased business and consumer spending.

Can you define "excessive"?

(Edit to add: I mean some definition other than "enough to negatively affect business and consumer spending" of course. )

Blues,
Dave

As you point out, "excessive" is a LARGE gray area in regards to definition.

From a consumer standpoint, I would define it as the point where people reduce their spending on non-essential items due to the reduction of take-home pay due to taxes or the increased costs of goods due to business taxes.

That is obviously a sliding scale depending on the situation of the business or consumer. Small businesses or consumers near the poverty level will see a greater affect from a given increase.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[billvon 2,400]

>Consumers have to stop spending once their credit cards and home equity
>are tapped out.

As we have seen lately, that is no longer true. It is nearly always possible to borrow a little more money.

[mnealtx 0]

Nice - we couldn't even go TWO FUCKING POSTS.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[warpedskydiver 0]

Did you really think they would discuss the topic?

I didn't

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Did you really think they would discuss the topic?

I didn't

I was hoping for an honest discussion for once without the usual strawmen arguments - guess it was too much to ask.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[martin-o 0]

Yes taxes reduces spending by the private sector. It also increases spending by the public sector. Just a matter of who is spending. More hummers on the streets or more teachers in public schools...

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Yes taxes reduces spending by the private sector. It also increases spending by the public sector. Just a matter of who is spending. More hummers on the streets or more teachers in public schools...

Gov't spending is not being considered in this instance - only consumer/business taxes.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[lawrocket 3]

Anything that creates a gap between "gross" income and "net" income decreases spending. Thus, a person has less money to spend on things like home improvement. Now Joe can't afford the gardener anymore and cancels his lawn service.

Now the gardener has less money, but much the same expenses. He has to get rid of some overhead, and gets rid of a helper.

The helper now must find a new job. Unfortunately, there are lots more helpers out there competing with each other for fewer jobs. This means less tax revenue for the government.

Now - what other reason BESIDES punishment would the government do this?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[n23x 0]

You can't talk about spending without also examining sources of income, either earned or credited.

What is it, exactly, that you are looking for the other parties in this discussion to say (or not say).

Absolutely terrible.

.jim

"Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Anything that creates a gap between "gross" income and "net" income decreases spending.

THAT is exactly my view of it.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Yes taxes reduces spending by the private sector. It also increases spending by the public sector. Just a matter of who is spending. More hummers on the streets or more teachers in public schools...

Indeed. Said the government:

"Why let citizens spend money? They may not spend it on something we think they should be spending it on - like tax exempt items.

"Or maybe they would save that money - taking it out of the economy. That's bad.

"They may even spend it on stuff they think they need. Who are they to decide that?

They shouldn't be putting money into their kids' private schools (unless they are governmental employees). We'll tax the money and spend it the way we want it spent. "

Milton Friedman said there are four ways to spend money:

1) Spend your money on yourself - you buy what you want at the best price
2) Spend someone else's money on yourself - you buy what you want, fuck the price!
3) Spend your money on someone else - you'll look for the best price, regardless of whether they want it
4) Spend other people's money on others - who cares if they want it and screw the price!

Which would you prefer?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 2,400]

>Now the gardener has less money, but much the same expenses.

So let's cut taxes (and therefore spending) to the bone.

Now the gardener is happy! More people want him. He can hire more people. His business prospers.

Then one day as he's driving to a client, a pothole takes out his truck's axle, cracks the transmission and bends the frame. It's basically totalled He has to buy a new truck. Sorry, Jim, gotta fire you; we can't afford you _and_ a new truck.

A few months goes by. Then the bridge to the other side of the river falls down. Now his customer base has been cut in half; he can't effectively drive the 45 minutes to the next bridge. Sorry, fellas, gotta fire you.

Now Jim is down to one employee, but he's doing OK. Then the town water system goes out. People start driving to the store to buy water. There's no water for their lawns, flowers or gardens, and no longer much need for a gardener.

How happy is Jim that his "punitive taxes" have been cut?

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

Yes taxes reduces spending by the private sector. It also increases spending by the public sector. Just a matter of who is spending. More hummers on the streets or more teachers in public schools...

Or more defense contracts to international corporations.

[livendive 8]

Quote

Quote

Yes taxes reduces spending by the private sector. It also increases spending by the public sector. Just a matter of who is spending. More hummers on the streets or more teachers in public schools...

Gov't spending is not being considered in this instance - only consumer/business taxes.

You are reducing the question to one of "If a=b, does b=a?" There's no meaningful discussion to be had on something as fundamental as "If the population has less money, will the population spend less money?" We get entirely out of the realm of "excessive" taxes (where we started) and into the realm of any taxes.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

You can't talk about spending without also examining sources of income, either earned or credited.

What is it, exactly, that you are looking for the other parties in this discussion to say (or not say).

Absolutely terrible.

.jim

Bullshit.

You work a job. You get a paycheck which has taxes taken out. That's it. The source of the pay is immaterial to the conversation.

As to what I am looking for, the answer is apparent in the OP - does increasing taxes past a certain point have a punitive effect on spending by a corporation or individual?

So far, everyone wants to do a Clinton on it (depends on what "is", is - depends on where the paycheck comes from - depends on what the deficit is this week) - bullshit - just answer the question and support your argument within the bounds of the question.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

So let's cut taxes (and therefore spending) to the bone.

Well, how about cuttign spending to the bone, and cuttign taxes by a large sum. (we've got national debt, you know).

Quote

Now the gardener is happy! More people want him. He can hire more people. His business prospers

That's a good thing, right?

Quote

Now the gardener is happy! More people want him. He can hire more people. His business prospers

Yep. Business has things like that. You'd hope that he had prepared himself with some sock money. But at least he knows that he didn't fire Jim because the greedy government thought he should pay more taxes because he makes more than it thinks he needs. (although you'd think that the taxes he did pay would have prevented that pothole from growing so large.)

Quote

few months goes by. Then the bridge to the other side of the river falls down.

Hmmm. Where are his gas taxes going? Seems that there is a good example of government competence at work. Clearly, more taxes would have prevented the bridge from falling. But, he's gotta can employees. So be it. Thank the competent government!

Quote

Then the town water system goes out. People start driving to the store to buy water. There's no water for their lawns, flowers or gardens, and no longer much need for a gardener.

Dang. And to think he'd paid his water and utility bills on time. What happened with those payments? Why on earth did the municipal system fail like that? Had it been private industry, there'd be hell to pay.

Oh. They'll say that lowered taxes caused it? Yeah? Raise the fucking utility bills then, folks.

Quote

How happy is Jim that his "punitive taxes" have been cut?

How happy? He's probably not too worried about the punitive taxes at that point. He's more concerned about why the money he did pay was wasted. Why were the fuel taxes he paid not used for the road? Why was his utility bill not used for maintenance of the water system?

And why the hell was he so stupid as not to see the damned pothole?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Quote

Yes taxes reduces spending by the private sector. It also increases spending by the public sector. Just a matter of who is spending. More hummers on the streets or more teachers in public schools...

Gov't spending is not being considered in this instance - only consumer/business taxes.

It's pretty naive to consider taxes without considering what they are spent on.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 2,400]

>Where are his gas taxes going?

His taxes have, of course, been cut to allow him to hire more workers!

>Dang. And to think he'd paid his water and utility bills on time.

Oh, the townsfolk have paid their water bills on time. But the feedpipe from the dam has failed, and the state owns that. They'll get to fixing it in due time, don't worry. But they certainly won't be raising anyone's taxes to hurry things along.

>He's more concerned about why the money he did pay was wasted.

What money? All those "punitive" taxes were cut. Surely you don't support re-penalizing him after those cuts, do you?

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Quote

Anything that creates a gap between "gross" income and "net" income decreases spending.

THAT is exactly my view of it.

As a very important source of strength and security, cherish public credit. One method of preserving it is to use it as sparingly as possible, avoiding occasions of expense by cultivating peace, but remembering also that timely disbursements to prepare for danger frequently prevent much greater disbursements to repel it, avoiding likewise the accumulation of debt, not only by shunning occasions of expense, but by vigorous exertion in time of peace to discharge the debts which unavoidable wars may have occasioned, not ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burden which we ourselves ought to bear. George Washington.

It is essential that you should practically bear in mind that towards the payment of debts there must be revenue; that to have revenue there must be taxes; that no taxes can be devised which are not more or less inconvenient and unpleasant; George Washington

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mnealtx 0]

Y'all just can't do it, can you? Talk about strawman arguments!!!

It's really quite simple and yes, I already know what the answer is - I want the proponents of higher taxes to admit this first, so that I can move on to the next point.

You earn sum "a". Government takes tax "b" leaving you with sum "c".

If government increases taxes, does the reduction in "C" have a punitive effect on your spending?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Gene03 0]

Four words.
Money Creators, by Gertrude M. Coogan.
Okay, that's five words.
Or is it six?

“The only fool bigger than the person who knows it all is the person who argues with him.

Stanislaw Jerzy Lec quotes (Polish writer, poet and satirist 1906-1966)

[billvon 2,400]

>If government increases taxes, does the reduction in "C" have a punitive
>effect on your spending?

For me? No. For others? Yes.