• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Can A Nation Tax Itself Into Prosperity?

Can a nation tax its way to prosperity?


  • Total voters
    61
Even you should be able to figure out that there's plenty of tax dollars already collected to fund all the infrastructure and research and development needed today and for years to come. Unfortunately, politicians like to give handouts and like to waste money on pet projects rather than spend taxpayer dollars wisely on the core functions of government.
You are assuming the US is not operating under sequestration, but we are. You ought to be smart enough to understand that there are not additional funds above core spending for works programs.

How much is collected from taxpayers from gas taxes, tolls, driver and car licensing, traffic fines/penalties, etc.? Then tell us how much of that is actually spent on maintaining roads and bridges and not just flushed down the general revenues toilet.
Well, 2 points, we have not been collecting enough for needed work.......and....those dollars are often diverted because there are NOT enough revenues for the rest of the budgets.


But all of this is a diversion from the point, which is that you have once again contradicted your argument, first arguing for taxation for public works, then an about face and calling for cuts.
 
Last edited:
You cannot. You need prosperity first, and from there you can tax to and create various government program.
The way you create prosperity is by creating jobs. Those jobs hopfully will create more demand where by more jobs are created. Simialar to using kindling to start a fire.

There is no prosperity if there are no jobs to be had.
 
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

Absolutely yes. A tax system is an essential instrument in economic policy, and without it no prosperity would be likely, given historical experience.

Tax expenditure by a nation is fundamentally different from individual expenditure. The former is basically redistribution of resources- what is taken from one area is given to another. The question of wise expenditure is a managerial issue, just as it is in the private sector. We've seen some very bad decisions in both, but that does not negate the need for public participation in the economy.

Taxation was essential in escape from the great depression of the '30s, and then in helping the post war boom after WW2. Social programs born out of the desperation of the depression helped to build the middle class society we see today (although it is fading, as the lessons of the past are forgotten by an apathetic populace today).

Without the planning functions allowed by a tax system, we would end up with a few Walton families and similar, a few (God help us) Donald Trumps, and a lot of peons running about hoping to earn a few pennies, and take them back to their rusty trailers. Or worse than that, we would have Somali style warlords.
 
Absolutely yes. A tax system is an essential instrument in economic policy, and without it no prosperity would be likely, given historical experience.

Tax expenditure by a nation is fundamentally different from individual expenditure. The former is basically redistribution of resources- what is taken from one area is given to another. The question of wise expenditure is a managerial issue, just as it is in the private sector. We've seen some very bad decisions in both, but that does not negate the need for public participation in the economy.

Taxation was essential in escape from the great depression of the '30s, and then in helping the post war boom after WW2. Social programs born out of the desperation of the depression helped to build the middle class society we see today (although it is fading, as the lessons of the past are forgotten by an apathetic populace today).

Without the planning functions allowed by a tax system, we would end up with a few Walton families and similar, a few (God help us) Donald Trumps, and a lot of peons running about hoping to earn a few pennies, and take them back to their rusty trailers. Or worse than that, we would have Somali style warlords.

Great post. One the worst uses of our tax dollars is the trillions of dollars spent with our recent advenure in Iraq.
 
You are assuming the US is not operating under sequestration, but we are. You ought to be smart enough to understand that there are not additional funds above core spending for works programs.

Well, 2 points, we have not been collecting enough for needed work.......and....those dollars are often diverted because there are NOT enough revenues for the rest of the budgets.


But all of this is a diversion from the point, which is that you have once again contradicted your argument, first arguing for taxation for public works, then an about face and calling for cuts.

Point out once in this thread where I called for cuts in infrastructure and research and development.

It may be a contradiction in your mind, because you perhaps don't understand the concept of core government functions. If governments operated in a manner that provided full funding for all core responsibilities and then any left over amount could be directed towards non-core programs there would only be a need to increase taxation if the core responsibilities weren't covered. I doubt your country is in that position. So, therefore, suggesting that cuts to non-core programs in order to redirect those funds back to where they should be used is not a contradiction at all.
 
How canadian. Can't win an argument so you just roll over in defeat.

Man canada sucks.

Gee - I'd say it sucks to be an American, on your country's holiday birthday weekend, and all you've got to do is troll and insult a Canadian. Bitter much?
 
Point out once in this thread where I called for cuts in infrastructure and research and development.
Gawd damn, you sure love your straw arguments, don't you? You called for cuts IN OTHER PROGRAMS to fund public works.

It may be a contradiction in your mind, because you perhaps don't understand the concept of core government functions. If governments operated in a manner that provided full funding for all core responsibilities and then any left over amount could be directed towards non-core programs there would only be a need to increase taxation if the core responsibilities weren't covered. I doubt your country is in that position. So, therefore, suggesting that cuts to non-core programs in order to redirect those funds back to where they should be used is not a contradiction at all.
This is silly, you are getting into a semantic argument about "core" spending which has nothing to do with your contradictions of arguing for taxation to fund public works and then arguing instead for cuts to other programs.
 
The way you create prosperity is by creating jobs. Those jobs hopfully will create more demand where by more jobs are created. Simialar to using kindling to start a fire.

There is no prosperity if there are no jobs to be had.

Prosperity requires ingenuity and creativity. Jobs come from that. Jobs in and of themselves do not fill that need. Employment is necessary, yes, but in a prosperous economy you will have them. Even in bad economies, you will have them; though to lesser extent.
 
Gawd damn, you sure love your straw arguments, don't you? You called for cuts IN OTHER PROGRAMS to fund public works.

This is silly, you are getting into a semantic argument about "core" spending which has nothing to do with your contradictions of arguing for taxation to fund public works and then arguing instead for cuts to other programs.

I don't waste a lot of time arguing for argument's sake. I've been very clear in what I've posted and if you refuse to comprehend it or accept it, that's on you. As I said earlier - have a good day.
 
I don't waste a lot of time arguing for argument's sake. I've been very clear in what I've posted and if you refuse to comprehend it or accept it, that's on you. As I said earlier - have a good day.

That's Canadianism for you
 
Point out once in this thread where I called for cuts in infrastructure and research and development.

It may be a contradiction in your mind, because you perhaps don't understand the concept of core government functions. If governments operated in a manner that provided full funding for all core responsibilities and then any left over amount could be directed towards non-core programs there would only be a need to increase taxation if the core responsibilities weren't covered. I doubt your country is in that position. So, therefore, suggesting that cuts to non-core programs in order to redirect those funds back to where they should be used is not a contradiction at all.

I am interested in your concept of "core funding", as I'd say such ideas are highly subjective. What is core, secondary, or peripheral varies quite a bit according to political persuasion, and prevailing fashion. Basic medical care for citizens is, for example, core in Canada, and most other developed economies. In the US, it is not. In countries like Kenya, almost nothing is "core", in places like Sweden, almost everything is.

Where I live there is a controversy right now over urban transit. Some are attempting to say this is peripheral, only to be had with surplus wealth. A great many urban planners, and economic thinkers, see this as highly flawed policy.

In short, public policy and finance are only, and exactly, what we say they are. There is no money "left over", as taxation and revenue are in flux, and always in relationship with social priorities. We can always spend more in certain areas, and always less. It is a question of social goals, something that is often lost on libertarian advocates (I'm not saying you are one of those).

The original question here asked about tax and prosperity. The answer is clear. Prosperity- for all, not a small percent of the population- began when communities took charge of their futures, in the form of social programs, and the oversight of elected representatives over the economy. The low tax regimes of the past were the wild west, were a Donald Trump would have been president, and the average worker would have been (and was) dirt poor by today's standards.

The ultimate function of government is the welfare of the people. Otherwise, we might as well not have it. Send the tax man around. I'll pay.
 
I don't waste a lot of time arguing for argument's sake. I've been very clear in what I've posted and if you refuse to comprehend it or accept it, that's on you. As I said earlier - have a good day.
If you don't want to correct your contradictory statements, I'm fine with that. If you do not feel the meed to defend your argument, I fine with that too. If you do not wish to engage in debate at a debate forum, you are free to do that as well.
 
I haven't had any trouble comprehending what CanadaJohn has said. Infrastructure spending is a legitimate expenditure of federal funds. Many other expenditures, including social expenditures, are considered not legitimate. It's pretty easy to understand. Nothing contradictory about that opinion. Not sure what sort of hair Gimmesometruth is trying to split or why. Trying to find something disagreeable apparently.
 
I haven't had any trouble comprehending what CanadaJohn has said. Infrastructure spending is a legitimate expenditure of federal funds. Many other expenditures, including social expenditures, are considered not legitimate. It's pretty easy to understand. Nothing contradictory about that opinion. Not sure what sort of hair Gimmesometruth is trying to split or why. Trying to find something disagreeable apparently.

many of the big tax hikers don't even pretend its about revenue or infrastructure but about "making things fair" by punishing the productive to slake the butt hurt envy of failures. ITs what I call "wealth vandalism" meaning there are many who figure if they cannot be rich, the government should confiscate the wealth of those who are
 
Keep watching China to find out.
 
I am interested in your concept of "core funding", as I'd say such ideas are highly subjective. What is core, secondary, or peripheral varies quite a bit according to political persuasion, and prevailing fashion. Basic medical care for citizens is, for example, core in Canada, and most other developed economies. In the US, it is not. In countries like Kenya, almost nothing is "core", in places like Sweden, almost everything is.

Where I live there is a controversy right now over urban transit. Some are attempting to say this is peripheral, only to be had with surplus wealth. A great many urban planners, and economic thinkers, see this as highly flawed policy.

In short, public policy and finance are only, and exactly, what we say they are. There is no money "left over", as taxation and revenue are in flux, and always in relationship with social priorities. We can always spend more in certain areas, and always less. It is a question of social goals, something that is often lost on libertarian advocates (I'm not saying you are one of those).

The original question here asked about tax and prosperity. The answer is clear. Prosperity- for all, not a small percent of the population- began when communities took charge of their futures, in the form of social programs, and the oversight of elected representatives over the economy. The low tax regimes of the past were the wild west, were a Donald Trump would have been president, and the average worker would have been (and was) dirt poor by today's standards.

The ultimate function of government is the welfare of the people. Otherwise, we might as well not have it. Send the tax man around. I'll pay.

In my view, core functions are that which can only be provided by government and are for the benefit of all its citizens, regardless of their station in life, their wealth, and/or their personal status. Obvious examples are military and national security, education, healthcare, transportation/energy/municipal infrastructure, internal security/policing, etc. All are services and activities that benefit all citizens, not just a limited or targeted sector. Any government expenditure that seeks to pick winners and losers based on ideology or special interests is not a core function of government.
 
If you don't want to correct your contradictory statements, I'm fine with that. If you do not feel the meed to defend your argument, I fine with that too. If you do not wish to engage in debate at a debate forum, you are free to do that as well.

FFS, get over yourself.
 
In my view, core functions are that which can only be provided by government and are for the benefit of all its citizens, regardless of their station in life, their wealth, and/or their personal status. Obvious examples are military and national security, education, healthcare, transportation/energy/municipal infrastructure, internal security/policing, etc. All are services and activities that benefit all citizens, not just a limited or targeted sector. Any government expenditure that seeks to pick winners and losers based on ideology or special interests is not a core function of government.

Yet all those things you mention could be provided by private interest, and some are. But there is often a reason government steps up to the plate, and that is usually when community interest trumps individual interest, or at least perceived individual interest. The young and healthy might likely calls for cut backs in health expenditure, causing calamity to those who need it, which probably means the young themselves when they life makes its fragility known to them by a later date. The pacifist would starve the military, the hawk divert important funds from other areas to pump it up. The greens wouldn't want that new power station, but would want public transit. The good 'ol boys in fringe city would refuse to pay for public transit, as they love their SUVs......and on and on. Which way to pick? The answers are subjective, and so require some sort of public consensus, ie: elected representatives.

Governments have been picking winners for some time now. Countries like the US and Britain decided to shift from agriculture to industry, and enacted the policies to allow that to happen. So to in later years, as places like Japan or S Korea insisted on high tariffs, and other measures that directed state resources to heavy industry, and hence made the societies we see there today. It wouldn't have happened otherwise, as it would have been much easier for those with funds to just buy what they wanted elsewhere. No need for a local factory. And the future is someone else's business.

We have also seen examples of the private sector choosing "losers", and thereby squandering resources better spent elsewhere. Deifying the corporate world, while insisting government is all bungling bureaucracy, are ideas not born out by history. Management can be good or bad in either, but there is no assurance what so ever that private companies will naturally make the best pro-social choices. Just look at the work of the financial wise guys in the 2008 debacle, for one example.

We need an involved referee, or we will get chaos.
 
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?

What's been the return on "investment" of Welfare?
 
Back
Top Bottom