scatt
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2013
- Messages
- 4,721
- Reaction score
- 509
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
No, not even close.
The fastest was in the late 1800's.
No, not even close.
I read your post. You made an indirect suggestion that tax rates cause economic activity and then veered off in a different direction about anti-trust regulation.
Seriously? That's your angle here? There isn't a conservative around, including Churchill, who's against taxation used to build and maintain infrastructure and on research and development. That's not, however, what liberals have in mind when they talk of raising taxes. With liberals, it's all wealth redistribution and making life easier for the poor and lazy.
The formulation of the question is way too simplistic. Just raising taxes alone obviously won't make a country rich. But, yes, raising taxes is a necessary part of getting the US back on a more economically sound path.
The way it works is that if you listed off all most beneficial things the country can do and that we can afford to do, and you figured out which percentage of those things are more efficiently done by government, then your ideal tax rates are those which collect that percentage of the GDP. For example, government seems to do a better job of enforcing criminal law, so put that in the government column. Private companies seem to be better at making smartphones, so put that in the private sector column, government is better at ensuring that disabled people get care, private industry is better at designing jeans, etc.
It seems pretty clear that we're currently below that line. The economy has tended to perform better when taxes were higher than they are today and there are many important things that the government does better which are not being adequately done. For example, antitrust regulation provides some mindblowingly large return on investment. Just one really bad merger or serious collusion can cost the economy tens of billions of dollars a year due to the sapping of competition, and it only costs hundreds of thousands or maybe millions to block a merger like that or to discover collusion like that. But, the DOJ and the antitrust groups in the FCC and FTC are woefully under-staffed. Often, the companies seeking to merge will have teams of over 100 lawyers working on it literally for years while the government agencies combined might only have one person part time for 2 months. The result is very predictable- tons of terrible mergers go through that should not. Anyways, there are a lot of penny-smart, pound-stupid things like that where the amount we save in taxes is only a tiny fraction of the economic cost we incur by underfunding those things.
The fastest US growth rate was before the income tax.
false.
"Even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while."
there are many conservatives who are against the bolded.
The fastest was in the late 1800's.
blogspot.com
Cool blog link, bro.
Happy July 4, tuhaybey! :2wave:
Putting the brakes on spending is also very important, IMO. When people are taxed more by the government, they have fewer dollars available to spend on everything else. For many, crunch time has already arrived for the middle class - what's going to happen if more of their money is taken in taxes? We are already seeing businesses like restaurants and other retail establishments in this area close, and I feel it's likely to continue. Sad....
Generally speaking, the middle class does better with higher taxing and spending. The taxes tend to hit the rich a bit more heavily and the spending tends to benefits the middle class a bit more heavily. Keep in mind, the money doesn't actually disappear from the economy. The government takes it as taxes and spends it, then whoever it paid- construction workers, teachers, social security beneficiaries, etc.- buys things with the money.
In 1892 we hit 7.5% and in 1895 we hit 10%. But, those good years were interspersed with some very bad years, like 1894 when we lost 4.7% and whatnot.
1891-224027
1892-245757
7.5 percent? How?
1894-227131
1895-254552
10 percent? How?
1893-233857
1894-227131
4.7 percent? How?
Ignoring that the 70s are note "late"
The chart starts there.
"note"
Yay, a typo.
After your claim that 72 and later is "not" late, you obviously wanted to talk about irrelevant things.
Thanks for quitting.
thanks for failing.