Home › Forums › Financial Markets/Economics › Economic Collapse 2011?
- This topic has 385 replies, 37 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 10 months ago by
CA renter.
-
AuthorPosts
-
July 24, 2010 at 10:00 PM #583248July 24, 2010 at 11:17 PM #582235
CA renter
Participant[quote=GH]I’m not so sure. If taxes were raised to 100% no one would “bother” to go to work and tax revenue would be $0.00
If taxes were reduced to 0% everyone would be pretty happy in the private sector for a while and taxes would be reduced to $0.00
Thus there MUST by definition be a place in between where taxes are maximized. There is some math one is supposed to have learned around age 13 or so called “linear programming” which describes the relationship between cost and profit.
At my last job I was paid hourly and did not bother working OT, since it was taxed at 56%, so at least in my case taxing me at say 33% on my OT might have encouraged me to work more and thus PAY more taxes. I suppose this would not make sense to a government worker, who is concerned only that they get their retirement check when they are done with the drudgery of their work life!
See a movie called “The Island” – substitute the word “Island” with the word “Retirement” and see what a bunch of suckers we all are!!![/quote]
It’s not necessarily true that if taxes went to 100% people would stop working. If the benefits they received from the taxing entity were worth it, they would work.
Likewise, if taxes went to 0%, it’s entirely possible that people would stop working because there would be no social order, no legal infrastructure, and a great wealth disparity where the elite live in well-protected enclaves while the poor riot in the streets.
How much would we have to pay for-profit companies to build roads so we could get to the grocery store or the for-profit hospital? Who would fund the initial research necessary to create the medicines we need to stay healthy? What would keep for-profit, unregulated food manufacturers from loading up our food with all kinds of toxins because it’s more profitable for them (greater yields, less waste, longer shelflife, etc.)? Who would protect us from the roving gangs of theives who would run our streets since there would be no law enforcement or laws of any kind? Perhaps we ought to pay “protection money” to our local gangs, and that would take care of it? How much would we have to pay for medical care, or food, or shelter, or safe and convenient transportation, or communication technology?
I think people are seriously misinformed about what happens to their tax money. We all benefit greatly from paying taxes. Even if it goes to “overpaid” government workers, that money is quickly recycled through the economy — it goes to all the private sector companies who sell goods and services to the government employees. The vast majority of Americans benefit either directly (employed as a public employee, or private-sector contractor, or private-sector company that provides goods/services to a govt entity, or derives tax credits, low-cost govt loans, or grants or other subsidies from the govt), or indirectly because we can live in a safe society, protected by a govt fire dept and police force and govt military…then there’s our physical infrastructure, medical R&D (most is/was funded directly or indirectly by the govt), or communications technology, food technology, etc. People grossly underestimate the benefits derived from government spending. They tend to only focus on the taxes paid, but fail to understand what happens to the money once it leaves their paychecks.
Still, there is absolutely some perfect place where taxes are minimized while benefits derived are maximized, and private sector jobs are maximized as well. I think we can look at countries with high taxes vs. low/non-existent taxes to get some clues as to how things work at the extremes, and then go from there. If someone can show us a country with low taxes and high quality of life, I’d like to see it. So far, nobody’s ever been able to come up with a single example.
July 24, 2010 at 11:17 PM #582326Participant[quote=GH]I’m not so sure. If taxes were raised to 100% no one would “bother” to go to work and tax revenue would be $0.00
If taxes were reduced to 0% everyone would be pretty happy in the private sector for a while and taxes would be reduced to $0.00
Thus there MUST by definition be a place in between where taxes are maximized. There is some math one is supposed to have learned around age 13 or so called “linear programming” which describes the relationship between cost and profit.
At my last job I was paid hourly and did not bother working OT, since it was taxed at 56%, so at least in my case taxing me at say 33% on my OT might have encouraged me to work more and thus PAY more taxes. I suppose this would not make sense to a government worker, who is concerned only that they get their retirement check when they are done with the drudgery of their work life!
See a movie called “The Island” – substitute the word “Island” with the word “Retirement” and see what a bunch of suckers we all are!!![/quote]
It’s not necessarily true that if taxes went to 100% people would stop working. If the benefits they received from the taxing entity were worth it, they would work.
Likewise, if taxes went to 0%, it’s entirely possible that people would stop working because there would be no social order, no legal infrastructure, and a great wealth disparity where the elite live in well-protected enclaves while the poor riot in the streets.
How much would we have to pay for-profit companies to build roads so we could get to the grocery store or the for-profit hospital? Who would fund the initial research necessary to create the medicines we need to stay healthy? What would keep for-profit, unregulated food manufacturers from loading up our food with all kinds of toxins because it’s more profitable for them (greater yields, less waste, longer shelflife, etc.)? Who would protect us from the roving gangs of theives who would run our streets since there would be no law enforcement or laws of any kind? Perhaps we ought to pay “protection money” to our local gangs, and that would take care of it? How much would we have to pay for medical care, or food, or shelter, or safe and convenient transportation, or communication technology?
I think people are seriously misinformed about what happens to their tax money. We all benefit greatly from paying taxes. Even if it goes to “overpaid” government workers, that money is quickly recycled through the economy — it goes to all the private sector companies who sell goods and services to the government employees. The vast majority of Americans benefit either directly (employed as a public employee, or private-sector contractor, or private-sector company that provides goods/services to a govt entity, or derives tax credits, low-cost govt loans, or grants or other subsidies from the govt), or indirectly because we can live in a safe society, protected by a govt fire dept and police force and govt military…then there’s our physical infrastructure, medical R&D (most is/was funded directly or indirectly by the govt), or communications technology, food technology, etc. People grossly underestimate the benefits derived from government spending. They tend to only focus on the taxes paid, but fail to understand what happens to the money once it leaves their paychecks.
Still, there is absolutely some perfect place where taxes are minimized while benefits derived are maximized, and private sector jobs are maximized as well. I think we can look at countries with high taxes vs. low/non-existent taxes to get some clues as to how things work at the extremes, and then go from there. If someone can show us a country with low taxes and high quality of life, I’d like to see it. So far, nobody’s ever been able to come up with a single example.
July 24, 2010 at 11:17 PM #582859Participant[quote=GH]I’m not so sure. If taxes were raised to 100% no one would “bother” to go to work and tax revenue would be $0.00
If taxes were reduced to 0% everyone would be pretty happy in the private sector for a while and taxes would be reduced to $0.00
Thus there MUST by definition be a place in between where taxes are maximized. There is some math one is supposed to have learned around age 13 or so called “linear programming” which describes the relationship between cost and profit.
At my last job I was paid hourly and did not bother working OT, since it was taxed at 56%, so at least in my case taxing me at say 33% on my OT might have encouraged me to work more and thus PAY more taxes. I suppose this would not make sense to a government worker, who is concerned only that they get their retirement check when they are done with the drudgery of their work life!
See a movie called “The Island” – substitute the word “Island” with the word “Retirement” and see what a bunch of suckers we all are!!![/quote]
It’s not necessarily true that if taxes went to 100% people would stop working. If the benefits they received from the taxing entity were worth it, they would work.
Likewise, if taxes went to 0%, it’s entirely possible that people would stop working because there would be no social order, no legal infrastructure, and a great wealth disparity where the elite live in well-protected enclaves while the poor riot in the streets.
How much would we have to pay for-profit companies to build roads so we could get to the grocery store or the for-profit hospital? Who would fund the initial research necessary to create the medicines we need to stay healthy? What would keep for-profit, unregulated food manufacturers from loading up our food with all kinds of toxins because it’s more profitable for them (greater yields, less waste, longer shelflife, etc.)? Who would protect us from the roving gangs of theives who would run our streets since there would be no law enforcement or laws of any kind? Perhaps we ought to pay “protection money” to our local gangs, and that would take care of it? How much would we have to pay for medical care, or food, or shelter, or safe and convenient transportation, or communication technology?
I think people are seriously misinformed about what happens to their tax money. We all benefit greatly from paying taxes. Even if it goes to “overpaid” government workers, that money is quickly recycled through the economy — it goes to all the private sector companies who sell goods and services to the government employees. The vast majority of Americans benefit either directly (employed as a public employee, or private-sector contractor, or private-sector company that provides goods/services to a govt entity, or derives tax credits, low-cost govt loans, or grants or other subsidies from the govt), or indirectly because we can live in a safe society, protected by a govt fire dept and police force and govt military…then there’s our physical infrastructure, medical R&D (most is/was funded directly or indirectly by the govt), or communications technology, food technology, etc. People grossly underestimate the benefits derived from government spending. They tend to only focus on the taxes paid, but fail to understand what happens to the money once it leaves their paychecks.
Still, there is absolutely some perfect place where taxes are minimized while benefits derived are maximized, and private sector jobs are maximized as well. I think we can look at countries with high taxes vs. low/non-existent taxes to get some clues as to how things work at the extremes, and then go from there. If someone can show us a country with low taxes and high quality of life, I’d like to see it. So far, nobody’s ever been able to come up with a single example.
July 24, 2010 at 11:17 PM #582966Participant[quote=GH]I’m not so sure. If taxes were raised to 100% no one would “bother” to go to work and tax revenue would be $0.00
If taxes were reduced to 0% everyone would be pretty happy in the private sector for a while and taxes would be reduced to $0.00
Thus there MUST by definition be a place in between where taxes are maximized. There is some math one is supposed to have learned around age 13 or so called “linear programming” which describes the relationship between cost and profit.
At my last job I was paid hourly and did not bother working OT, since it was taxed at 56%, so at least in my case taxing me at say 33% on my OT might have encouraged me to work more and thus PAY more taxes. I suppose this would not make sense to a government worker, who is concerned only that they get their retirement check when they are done with the drudgery of their work life!
See a movie called “The Island” – substitute the word “Island” with the word “Retirement” and see what a bunch of suckers we all are!!![/quote]
It’s not necessarily true that if taxes went to 100% people would stop working. If the benefits they received from the taxing entity were worth it, they would work.
Likewise, if taxes went to 0%, it’s entirely possible that people would stop working because there would be no social order, no legal infrastructure, and a great wealth disparity where the elite live in well-protected enclaves while the poor riot in the streets.
How much would we have to pay for-profit companies to build roads so we could get to the grocery store or the for-profit hospital? Who would fund the initial research necessary to create the medicines we need to stay healthy? What would keep for-profit, unregulated food manufacturers from loading up our food with all kinds of toxins because it’s more profitable for them (greater yields, less waste, longer shelflife, etc.)? Who would protect us from the roving gangs of theives who would run our streets since there would be no law enforcement or laws of any kind? Perhaps we ought to pay “protection money” to our local gangs, and that would take care of it? How much would we have to pay for medical care, or food, or shelter, or safe and convenient transportation, or communication technology?
I think people are seriously misinformed about what happens to their tax money. We all benefit greatly from paying taxes. Even if it goes to “overpaid” government workers, that money is quickly recycled through the economy — it goes to all the private sector companies who sell goods and services to the government employees. The vast majority of Americans benefit either directly (employed as a public employee, or private-sector contractor, or private-sector company that provides goods/services to a govt entity, or derives tax credits, low-cost govt loans, or grants or other subsidies from the govt), or indirectly because we can live in a safe society, protected by a govt fire dept and police force and govt military…then there’s our physical infrastructure, medical R&D (most is/was funded directly or indirectly by the govt), or communications technology, food technology, etc. People grossly underestimate the benefits derived from government spending. They tend to only focus on the taxes paid, but fail to understand what happens to the money once it leaves their paychecks.
Still, there is absolutely some perfect place where taxes are minimized while benefits derived are maximized, and private sector jobs are maximized as well. I think we can look at countries with high taxes vs. low/non-existent taxes to get some clues as to how things work at the extremes, and then go from there. If someone can show us a country with low taxes and high quality of life, I’d like to see it. So far, nobody’s ever been able to come up with a single example.
July 24, 2010 at 11:17 PM #583268Participant[quote=GH]I’m not so sure. If taxes were raised to 100% no one would “bother” to go to work and tax revenue would be $0.00
If taxes were reduced to 0% everyone would be pretty happy in the private sector for a while and taxes would be reduced to $0.00
Thus there MUST by definition be a place in between where taxes are maximized. There is some math one is supposed to have learned around age 13 or so called “linear programming” which describes the relationship between cost and profit.
At my last job I was paid hourly and did not bother working OT, since it was taxed at 56%, so at least in my case taxing me at say 33% on my OT might have encouraged me to work more and thus PAY more taxes. I suppose this would not make sense to a government worker, who is concerned only that they get their retirement check when they are done with the drudgery of their work life!
See a movie called “The Island” – substitute the word “Island” with the word “Retirement” and see what a bunch of suckers we all are!!![/quote]
It’s not necessarily true that if taxes went to 100% people would stop working. If the benefits they received from the taxing entity were worth it, they would work.
Likewise, if taxes went to 0%, it’s entirely possible that people would stop working because there would be no social order, no legal infrastructure, and a great wealth disparity where the elite live in well-protected enclaves while the poor riot in the streets.
How much would we have to pay for-profit companies to build roads so we could get to the grocery store or the for-profit hospital? Who would fund the initial research necessary to create the medicines we need to stay healthy? What would keep for-profit, unregulated food manufacturers from loading up our food with all kinds of toxins because it’s more profitable for them (greater yields, less waste, longer shelflife, etc.)? Who would protect us from the roving gangs of theives who would run our streets since there would be no law enforcement or laws of any kind? Perhaps we ought to pay “protection money” to our local gangs, and that would take care of it? How much would we have to pay for medical care, or food, or shelter, or safe and convenient transportation, or communication technology?
I think people are seriously misinformed about what happens to their tax money. We all benefit greatly from paying taxes. Even if it goes to “overpaid” government workers, that money is quickly recycled through the economy — it goes to all the private sector companies who sell goods and services to the government employees. The vast majority of Americans benefit either directly (employed as a public employee, or private-sector contractor, or private-sector company that provides goods/services to a govt entity, or derives tax credits, low-cost govt loans, or grants or other subsidies from the govt), or indirectly because we can live in a safe society, protected by a govt fire dept and police force and govt military…then there’s our physical infrastructure, medical R&D (most is/was funded directly or indirectly by the govt), or communications technology, food technology, etc. People grossly underestimate the benefits derived from government spending. They tend to only focus on the taxes paid, but fail to understand what happens to the money once it leaves their paychecks.
Still, there is absolutely some perfect place where taxes are minimized while benefits derived are maximized, and private sector jobs are maximized as well. I think we can look at countries with high taxes vs. low/non-existent taxes to get some clues as to how things work at the extremes, and then go from there. If someone can show us a country with low taxes and high quality of life, I’d like to see it. So far, nobody’s ever been able to come up with a single example.
July 24, 2010 at 11:50 PM #582245paramount
Participant[quote=CA Renter] I think people are seriously misinformed about what happens to their tax money. We all benefit greatly from paying taxes. Even if it goes to “overpaid” government workers, that money is quickly recycled through the economy…[/quote]
I don’t think people are misinformed at all, in fact I think we are going through an awakening thanks to the City of Bell.
The problem with your theory about overpaid government workers is entropy.
Funneling money directly into those who innovate and produce is generally the best use of money. Filtering that money through a parasitic government means it loses some of it’s energy. Something is always lost.
July 24, 2010 at 11:50 PM #582336Participant[quote=CA Renter] I think people are seriously misinformed about what happens to their tax money. We all benefit greatly from paying taxes. Even if it goes to “overpaid” government workers, that money is quickly recycled through the economy…[/quote]
I don’t think people are misinformed at all, in fact I think we are going through an awakening thanks to the City of Bell.
The problem with your theory about overpaid government workers is entropy.
Funneling money directly into those who innovate and produce is generally the best use of money. Filtering that money through a parasitic government means it loses some of it’s energy. Something is always lost.
July 24, 2010 at 11:50 PM #582869Participant[quote=CA Renter] I think people are seriously misinformed about what happens to their tax money. We all benefit greatly from paying taxes. Even if it goes to “overpaid” government workers, that money is quickly recycled through the economy…[/quote]
I don’t think people are misinformed at all, in fact I think we are going through an awakening thanks to the City of Bell.
The problem with your theory about overpaid government workers is entropy.
Funneling money directly into those who innovate and produce is generally the best use of money. Filtering that money through a parasitic government means it loses some of it’s energy. Something is always lost.
July 24, 2010 at 11:50 PM #582976Participant[quote=CA Renter] I think people are seriously misinformed about what happens to their tax money. We all benefit greatly from paying taxes. Even if it goes to “overpaid” government workers, that money is quickly recycled through the economy…[/quote]
I don’t think people are misinformed at all, in fact I think we are going through an awakening thanks to the City of Bell.
The problem with your theory about overpaid government workers is entropy.
Funneling money directly into those who innovate and produce is generally the best use of money. Filtering that money through a parasitic government means it loses some of it’s energy. Something is always lost.
July 24, 2010 at 11:50 PM #583278Participant[quote=CA Renter] I think people are seriously misinformed about what happens to their tax money. We all benefit greatly from paying taxes. Even if it goes to “overpaid” government workers, that money is quickly recycled through the economy…[/quote]
I don’t think people are misinformed at all, in fact I think we are going through an awakening thanks to the City of Bell.
The problem with your theory about overpaid government workers is entropy.
Funneling money directly into those who innovate and produce is generally the best use of money. Filtering that money through a parasitic government means it loses some of it’s energy. Something is always lost.
July 25, 2010 at 12:06 AM #582250gandalf
ParticipantArt Laffer? Good grief. The dude’s a carnival barker.
Tax cuts get thrown in with all kinds of other more important historical economic variables and conditions (business cycles, wars, oil shocks, currency markets, bubbles and panics, etc.). It’s impossible to isolate any causation, or even correlation. Nobody has proven anything.
Supply-side is a political slogan, not economics.
However, there’s a strong correlation between tax cuts and public sector borrowing. Easy to connect those dots. Often the people chirping about tax cuts are the same ones hawking about deficits. No hypocrisy there.
I think we should cut taxes, on income, and especially at middle class levels. Hell, I’d even go for a flat tax — provided public receipts can be recouped through offseting reductions in TAX AVOIDANCE, especially for corporations and wealthy individuals. Avoidance is the real problem.
Again, supply-side is mostly politics, not economics.
July 25, 2010 at 12:06 AM #582341ParticipantArt Laffer? Good grief. The dude’s a carnival barker.
Tax cuts get thrown in with all kinds of other more important historical economic variables and conditions (business cycles, wars, oil shocks, currency markets, bubbles and panics, etc.). It’s impossible to isolate any causation, or even correlation. Nobody has proven anything.
Supply-side is a political slogan, not economics.
However, there’s a strong correlation between tax cuts and public sector borrowing. Easy to connect those dots. Often the people chirping about tax cuts are the same ones hawking about deficits. No hypocrisy there.
I think we should cut taxes, on income, and especially at middle class levels. Hell, I’d even go for a flat tax — provided public receipts can be recouped through offseting reductions in TAX AVOIDANCE, especially for corporations and wealthy individuals. Avoidance is the real problem.
Again, supply-side is mostly politics, not economics.
July 25, 2010 at 12:06 AM #582874ParticipantArt Laffer? Good grief. The dude’s a carnival barker.
Tax cuts get thrown in with all kinds of other more important historical economic variables and conditions (business cycles, wars, oil shocks, currency markets, bubbles and panics, etc.). It’s impossible to isolate any causation, or even correlation. Nobody has proven anything.
Supply-side is a political slogan, not economics.
However, there’s a strong correlation between tax cuts and public sector borrowing. Easy to connect those dots. Often the people chirping about tax cuts are the same ones hawking about deficits. No hypocrisy there.
I think we should cut taxes, on income, and especially at middle class levels. Hell, I’d even go for a flat tax — provided public receipts can be recouped through offseting reductions in TAX AVOIDANCE, especially for corporations and wealthy individuals. Avoidance is the real problem.
Again, supply-side is mostly politics, not economics.
July 25, 2010 at 12:06 AM #582981ParticipantArt Laffer? Good grief. The dude’s a carnival barker.
Tax cuts get thrown in with all kinds of other more important historical economic variables and conditions (business cycles, wars, oil shocks, currency markets, bubbles and panics, etc.). It’s impossible to isolate any causation, or even correlation. Nobody has proven anything.
Supply-side is a political slogan, not economics.
However, there’s a strong correlation between tax cuts and public sector borrowing. Easy to connect those dots. Often the people chirping about tax cuts are the same ones hawking about deficits. No hypocrisy there.
I think we should cut taxes, on income, and especially at middle class levels. Hell, I’d even go for a flat tax — provided public receipts can be recouped through offseting reductions in TAX AVOIDANCE, especially for corporations and wealthy individuals. Avoidance is the real problem.
Again, supply-side is mostly politics, not economics.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.