Thread: Can A Nation Tax Itself Into Prosperity?

Originally Posted by pbrauer

That's not true at all. It might suprise you that one of our most liberal Senators Bernie Sanders wants to spend money to update our infrastructure, the problem though is that it would create jobs and the GOP is dead set against it. It took JFK to get the space program going, which if you think about it, the result have been millions of jobs.

Good for Bernie Sanders - now, what part of the bloated federal budget does the good Senator want to reduce or displace in order to up the capital improvements he wants to promote?

As for JFK, I would agree - he was instrumental, as was the military. JFK was hardly your typical liberal - in fact, he supported tax cuts along the way. And you fail to note that it was Obama, another liberal, who has basically shuttered the space program - he'd rather spend billions of windmills and solar panels. So much for that argument.

Originally Posted by pbrauer

So the tax money President used to build the Federal interstate highway system didn't make the U.S. much more properous? The tax money spent on the space programs didn't make the U.S. more prosperous?

Taxation is necessary for a civil society but that doesn't mean that excess taxation makes a nation prosperous. You have made the error in logic described below.

False Dilemma

Definition:

A limited number of options (usually two) is given, while in reality there are more options. A false dilemma is an illegitimate use of the "or" operator.
Putting issues or opinions into "black or white" terms is a common instance of this fallacy.

The Logical Fallacies: False Dilemma

Originally Posted by CanadaJohn

Good for Bernie Sanders - now, what part of the bloated federal budget does the good Senator want to reduce or displace in order to up the capital improvements he wants to promote?

As for JFK, I would agree - he was instrumental, as was the military. JFK was hardly your typical liberal - in fact, he supported tax cuts along the way. And you fail to note that it was Obama, another liberal, who has basically shuttered the space program - he'd rather spend billions of windmills and solar panels. So much for that argument.

Look back at how they all bounced their duties and responsibilities forwards
Cut have been made to support programs, but the Hawks on both sides are playing BS.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/24/op...l?ref=politics

This shell game dates to the compromise in 2011 that was supposed to force lawmakers to negotiate deficit reduction measures by threatening them with draconian across-the-board cuts in military and nonmilitary programs. The cuts were never supposed to take effect, especially in military programs; it was assumed that members of Congress would be forced to negotiate smarter deficit reductions. They never did, so in 2013 a sequester went into effect, with cuts that have taken a toll on programs that assist the most vulnerable Americans, including the elderly, the disabled and impoverished families with children.
The Pentagon says it has been hurt by the sequester, too. But military hawks from both parties did not want to actually cut military spending. And Republicans did not want to invest in domestic programs or consider new taxes to cover costs, so the taxpayers were left with a charade.

Originally Posted by CanadaJohn

Wise man, that Winston Churchill - too bad they don't make Churchillian politicians these days.

They do. They just can't get elected because they don't tell the masses what they want to hear.

Originally Posted by pbrauer

Consider the following quote from Winston Churchill:

"We contend that for a nation to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle."

Yes

No

Other

You cannot tax a nation into prosperity, but neither can you 'not tax' a nation into prosperity. Wealth distribution does not work, and the human species is too selfish to do things voluntarily on a large enough scale. Unfortunately, we seem incapable of finding a happy medium.

Originally Posted by pbrauer

So the tax money President used to build the Federal interstate highway system didn't make the U.S. much more properous? The tax money spent on the space programs didn't make the U.S. more prosperous?

I think the space program, while way cool, is questionable.

The Interstate Highway System, however, is probably the biggest "bang for the buck" public improvement in the history of mankind.

Originally Posted by CanadaJohn

Good for Bernie Sanders - now, what part of the bloated federal budget does the good Senator want to reduce or displace in order to up the capital improvements he wants to promote?...

Military spending. The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity : Sen. Bernie Sanders Exposes Bloated Military and Intelligence Spending

Regardless, a monetarily sovereign nation doesn't have to cut spending in one area to increase spending in another. The new dollars created for infrastructure are backed by the value of the infrastructure over time. And for every worker we put to work improving our infrastructure, there is one less person on unemployment/welfare or prison, so the cost is fairly negligible.

Do you really believe that the US or Canada would be a richer country if our governments didn't create infrastructure or educate our workforce population?

Originally Posted by pbrauer

Consider the following quote from Winston Churchill:

"We contend that for a nation to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle."

Yes

No

Other

It's not a matter so much of how high the taxes are (as long as they're not too high or too low), but how the taxes are spent. As long as the taxes are spent on improving the nation - on things like roads, education, protection, and keeping the people healthy so they can work longer - then those taxes DO make the nation stronger and more prosperous. That's why ALL the first-world democracies (including America) have relatively high effective tax rates...

...because those relatively high effective tax rates are the price of admission to life in a first-world democracy. If you don't want to pay those taxes, go somewhere else.