patrick.net

tatupu70 says

Reality says

tatupu70 says

Reality says

The return from the investment would be a lot lower when taxes are raised.

Perhaps, but that return is discounted back so to present value. So, higher taxes promote investment.

No it does not. Go ahead and through the math yourself, instead of the silly hand-waiving nonsense like the suggestion that people can get fat by eating one's own arm or a business can grow just by giving employee more money to pay for the firm's own product.

I have.

Show it

Reality says

The even more important number is actually overall government spending. Deficit spending under the fiat money system is just another way of taxing.

Average governement spending by decade as a percentage of GDP:
1940s: 23.5%
1950s: 17.5%
1960s: 18%
1970s: 19.5%
1980s: 21.6%
1990s: 20%
2000s: 19.4%
2010s: 21.7% (est, 2015-2019)

Are you really claiming that government spending being basically rangebound between 19-22% from 1970-2019 (50 years) is crowding out private investment?

The economy grows slowly becasue there is little to no investment - because corporations have incentive to take profits in a low tax environment.

It is the classic vulture capialist model - buy a firm - increase sales and profits through increased spending on sales force or lowering margins on products, decrease costs through letting the products and infrastructure age - do little to nothing to enhance intangible firm value but juice EBITDA. Invest nothing in the future or enhancements. Sell for profit.

@ Control Point,

You are citing the wrong numbers. The numbers you cited are overall federal tax revenue as percentage of GDP. Current US government spending as percentage of GDP is around 35%, as shown by here:

The percentage of real economy is actually even higher because GDP number itself is over-stated due to all government waste is counted as GDP.

Reality says

debyne says

Reality says

I'd rather have 1500+ billionaires to choose from in terms for whom I work for, instead of one single Emperor to whom I have to pay my homage.

You lost me.

When you go looking for a job, do you prefer to have a dozen places where you can fit, or would you prefer one single employee called "the government"?

Raising tax on the rich is just a way of impoverishing most potential employers to make the top dog and the cronies even more monopolistic.

I disagree. Raising personal income taxes doesn't affect corporations...corporate taxes are different. Small business owners don't make enough to be affected by ultra-rich wealth taxes anyway, so you can't claim they're affected. If you keep corporate taxes competitive, employers should thrive.

Plus, increasing tax revenue doesn't necessarily increase govt. If they outsource infrastructural projects to private companies, they don't have to hire gov't employees and can keep themselves small...they're just the funding source. It all depends on how you define "the size" of govt.

At the end of the day, individuals with ridiculous amounts of money is usually not a good thing.

Reality says

Current US government spending as percentage of GDP is around 35%, as shown by here:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/historicals

Table 1.2, Outlays. What is the source of the graph you show?

If I graphed OMB data the slope is basically flat, since 1950.

tovarichpeter says

We are doomed without a wealth tax
https://mail.google.com/mail/#inbox/148f69d9c551468b

Best constructed argument on PatNet ever!

My only retort is
RSS Feed http://www.porndig.com/rss/channel/802/big-dick.xml