*Increased* taxes - punitive measure on spending?

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

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

For me? No. For others? Yes.

FINALLY - now we can get somewhere.

Agreed - as I stated above, it's obviously a sliding scale depending on the income of the person. Do you agree that the same theory holds true in principle for business, as well?

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

[billvon 2,400]

>Do you agree that the same theory holds true in principle for business, as well?

Again - for some, no. For others - yes.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>Do you agree that the same theory holds true in principle for business, as well?

Again - for some, no. For others - yes.

Again, I agree - thank you for an honest answer and speaking solely to the question asked.

So, it becomes apparent that tax increases affect the amount of money that flows through the economy to a varying degree (the sliding scale mentioned above), agreed?

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

[billvon 2,400]

>So, it becomes apparent that tax increases affect the amount of
>money that flows through the economy to a varying degree (the sliding
>scale mentioned above), agreed?

It does indeed affect it in both positive and negative ways.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>So, it becomes apparent that tax increases affect the amount of
>money that flows through the economy to a varying degree (the sliding
>scale mentioned above), agreed?

It does indeed affect it in both positive and negative ways.

Again, agreed - and I'm getting to that. Shall I continue here or make another post? After the jibe in the other thread, I certainly wouldn't want to sidetrack myself.

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

[sfc 0]

Quote

Quote

>Do you agree that the same theory holds true in principle for business, as well?

Again - for some, no. For others - yes.

Again, I agree - thank you for an honest answer and speaking solely to the question asked.

So, it becomes apparent that tax increases affect the amount of money that flows through the economy to a varying degree (the sliding scale mentioned above), agreed?

You have broken your own rules in this thread discussing outside the personal/business impact, but to answer your question...
No. The taxes raised by the government are also spent by the government in the economy, how much money do you think a soldier would get without taxes, how would he pay his rent or buy a car, how would the car manufacturer sell as may cars if the soldiers and other government employees had no money.
You are trying to describe the tax issue with childlike simplicity when in reality it is way more complex.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

You are trying to describe the tax issue with childlike simplicity when in reality it is way more complex.

Is *THAT* why they have economics degrees at colleges? Thank you, Captain Obvious. ANYONE can find examples that fall outside of the bounds I set - that's why I set the limits to begin with, to confine the answers ONLY to the question being asked, not devolve into the usual arguments about government spending, deficits, et cetera, ad nauseam.

It's coming...just hold your damn horses.

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

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

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

You should have mentioned that in your poll. Excluding them biases the poll. The government spends as a consumer in the economy.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[BikerBabe 0]

the title of your thread and your subsequent arguments are misleading. The poll choices don't really reflect what you are implying.

First:

Quote

Main Entry:
pu·ni·tive
Pronunciation:
\ˈpyü-nə-tiv\
Function:
adjective
Etymology:
French punitif, from Medieval Latin punitivus, from Latin punitus, past participle of punire
Date:
1624

: inflicting, involving, or aiming at punishment

That being stated, your thread title and continual use of the term in regards to government taxes implies that taxes are some sort of punishment the government inflicts on the people.

Perhaps taxes such as sin taxes and sales taxes could be considered "punitive" in nature. Income taxes? not really. I don't believe the government has it out for you, nor are they sitting in washington cackling evilly rubbing their hands together saying "HAHA! THIS'LL hit em where it hurts! Gotta teach those people a LESSON!" They are trying to pay their bills (well, that could be argued, too, i suppose, heh).

i hope you aren't planning to use the results of this poll to support some claim. if so, you should add other polls for spending, deficits, etc. As has been said, you cannot separate this out into a simplistic yes or no question.

Basically, your use of the term punitive and your subsequent posts in this and other threads lead me to believe you are making an underlying (erroneous?) assumption about the motivation for taxation by the government. ANy counter to said assumption seems to be met by you with disdain or the "stick to the subject" argument. The previous posts ARE sticking to the subject. Just because they are saying something you don't want to hear doesn't mean they are off-topic.

Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

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

What does "to the bone" mean? I though it means "cut them to the level of only maintaining necessary services", but it looks like you meant "cut them completely".

Quote

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

But the opposite way does not work either! Let's increase taxes to cut consumer spending to the bone. Now every government agency maintains a huge personal park, and wants Jim's service to mow the lawns. Now Jim has enough work to hire an army of helpers, who got free health insurance. Every pothole has a personal guard, and the bridge is checked every day and painted twice a year. Jim should be happy now? But in fact Jim does not even need a single helper - he already makes his bone by doing three lawns a week, and it doesn't make any sense for him to work more just to earn more money for the government. We had many success stories in Soviet Union, where everyone generally got the same salary no matter how you work (and you cannot be fired either).

It's already happening by the way; I personally know several guys who could do more than they do now. The customers beg them to do more, and ready to pay for that - but they're not doing it, since in this tax bracket it doesn't make any sense. Then you have to throw in corporate equity and offshore accounts, and the government gets no money out of it.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[martin-o 0]

Quote

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

Thats why I answered yes. I just added some more info.

[martin-o 0]

Quote

Indeed. Said the government:

I didn't make an argument on who is better at getting value for the money. I just made the argument that the money will be spent regardless of who is holding on to them.

Joe Schmoe is probably better at forcing the market to make better and better hummers, then the govt at getting better teachers. But I still go for the teachers cause I'm pretty sure it's a better long term investment.

...and to make things clear; I also value the freedom of spending my own money.

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Quote

You are trying to describe the tax issue with childlike simplicity when in reality it is way more complex.

Is *THAT* why they have economics degrees at colleges? Thank you, Captain Obvious. ANYONE can find examples that fall outside of the bounds I set - that's why I set the limits to begin with, to confine the answers ONLY to the question being asked, not devolve into the usual arguments about government spending, deficits, et cetera, ad nauseam.

It's coming...just hold your damn horses.

Your question is STUPID because there's no one answer. Raising my taxes will reduce my spending but, in general, increases someone else's. The tax money that leaves the economy is primarily wasted blowing stuff up in Iraq.

...

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

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

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

using bad economic models

ignorance

political pandering

PC thuggery

spite

....

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 2,400]

>I though it means "cut them to the level of only maintaining
>necessary services", but it looks like you meant "cut them completely".

"Necessary services" is the hard part. Is road maintenance more or less necessary than defense? ATC? Water system maintenance? Levee expansion? Research into alternative fuels?

One man's "necessary service" is another man's boondoggle. Which is why
the "just trim the excess and keep the basics" angle never works.

>But the opposite way does not work either!

That is correct! So there is an "ideal" level of taxation that maximizes government income while minimizing the negative impacts on the economy. Which is why I think the people who think "tax cut!" is the answer to most of our economic, social and governmental woes are as shortsighted as the people who think raising taxes will solve all those problems.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

That is correct! So there is an "ideal" level of taxation that maximizes government income while minimizing the negative impacts on the economy. Which is why I think the people who think "tax cut!" is the answer to most of our economic, social and governmental woes are as shortsighted as the people who think raising taxes will solve all those problems.

Agreed - that is why I started this discussion - to try and determine if one tax "school" is better than the other in regards to the needed level of revenue.

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

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Quote

That is correct! So there is an "ideal" level of taxation that maximizes government income while minimizing the negative impacts on the economy. Which is why I think the people who think "tax cut!" is the answer to most of our economic, social and governmental woes are as shortsighted as the people who think raising taxes will solve all those problems.

Agreed - that is why I started this discussion - to try and determine if one tax "school" is better than the other in regards to the needed level of revenue.

"Go where the money is" would seem a reasonable philosophy.

...

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

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

That is correct! So there is an "ideal" level of taxation that maximizes government income while minimizing the negative impacts on the economy. Which is why I think the people who think "tax cut!" is the answer to most of our economic, social and governmental woes are as shortsighted as the people who think raising taxes will solve all those problems.

Agreed - that is why I started this discussion - to try and determine if one tax "school" is better than the other in regards to the needed level of revenue.

"Go where the money is" would seem a reasonable philosophy.

That's obvious - the question is, which method is TRULY the most effective?

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

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

"Necessary services" is the hard part. Is road maintenance more or less necessary than defense? ATC? Water system maintenance? Levee expansion? Research into alternative fuels?

As a "bare bone" it's pretty easy to define as survival level. Maintaining old roads? Yes. Building new roads? No. You have a brigde? Maintain it. You have a permanent traffic congestion, and desperately need a new brigde, or you need to retrofit the old bridge to make it seismically safe? Forget about it. Defense? Yes. Iraq and Afganistan? No. ATC? No, user fees. All research? On a "remaining fungs" measure.

Quote

One man's "necessary service" is another man's boondoggle.

There are only four necessary things - sunlight, air, water and food. The history of mankind proved it.

Quote

That is correct! So there is an "ideal" level of taxation that maximizes government income while minimizing the negative impacts on the economy.

Not necessary, as the government income does not have to be maximized. Depending on the funding (healthcare - private or public? education - private or public?), the government income should just maintain some reasonable level.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *