• 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

pbrauer

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 6, 2010
Messages
25,394
Reaction score
7,208
Location
Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
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
 
Wise man, that Winston Churchill - too bad they don't make Churchillian politicians these days.
 
No, of course not. But the idea that an incompetent buffoon like Winston Churchill is a valid argument against Keynesian economics is hilarious.
 
Isn't that what Greece tried to do?
 
No, but that's not to say that the product of said taxation cannot help a society develop and thrive.
 
Wise man, that Winston Churchill - too bad they don't make Churchillian politicians these days.
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?
 
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?

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.
 
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 government can do things to help the nation prosper, but you also have to keep in mind that what the government spent on those things had to first be collected in taxes. So in a way, prosperity comes first. After all, I don't think anyone believes that you can take a Third World nation and make it prosperous through taxation.
 
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.
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.
 
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 is worse. If the nation trying that will go down, while the man will stay standing.
 
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.
 
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
 
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/opinion/sunday/stupid-pentagon-budget-tricks.html?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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.

too bad that's not what the question asked.
 
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.


The space program spun off lots of technology that is now in the public domain, teflon and microwaves come to mind. There is much more and modern life would be much different without space program technologies.
 
The space program spun off lots of technology that is now in the public domain, teflon and microwaves come to mind. There is much more and modern life would be much different without space program technologies.

Fair point. Our benefit has been from the advances in technology, not so much from much of anything in space itself... though some of the knowledge we have gained is certainly cool.
 
Fair point. Our benefit has been from the advances in technology, not so much from much of anything in space itself... though some of the knowledge we have gained is certainly cool.

That's kind of the point. The space program is much more than floating around in a void. As a result of it we have gps, weather information and a whole range of valuable information in the earth sciences. It's too bad that the program has largely been shelved and now we rely on the Russians and private sector to do what we used to own.
 
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?
He would if he could cut the bloated military budget, but he would borrow the money if he was unable to cut elsewhere.

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.
JFK proposal was more a shifting the burdon rather than a tax cut. It wasn't a supply side cut, it was a demand side cut. JFK supported Social Security and proposed Medicare which LBJ implemented. JFK also wanted Civil Rights legislation to include public accomodations.

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.

Obama is not all that liberal.
 
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?

No I don't, and I've never said any such thing. The fact remains, however, that there is plenty of tax room now in the system to fund capital programs with some meat on the bone either directly, or more appropriately through long term debentures or other government issued vehicles attractive to the investment community. Large scale tax increases to fund these things aren't necessary.

Is there waste in the military - hell yeah - when you've got entire communities living off the government teat by way of a military installation that is no longer needed or serves no real purpose, you've got waste - but try prying that installation out of the community and hear the bleating from both sides of the aisle.

There was a time when governments budgeted for infrastructure construction and maintenance, but some dim bulb came up with the idea of deferring such expenditures for a year or two or maybe three...... so we could fund some other nonsense that the government has no business being involved in and that nonsense then becomes a permanent budget item. What's left, is crumbling infrastructure, traffic chaos, $billion to $trillions in lost productivity as a result, and claims we need to create new revenue tools to fund what government should have been funding as a first priority from day one.

Your question is better placed to those in office and those who voted them in. Why do you continue to vote in representatives and leaders who don't have as their first priorities the priorities of the nation as a whole and not special interests that support and fund them?
 
Back
Top Bottom