Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 30

Thread: "Progressive" Tax? More like Regressive Tax!!

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    West end of the Erie Canal
    Posts
    3,565

    "Progressive" Tax? More like Regressive Tax!!

    Ahh, yes. It's that time of the year again. Time to focus on our favorite (retch, spew, hurl, puke) subject. Taxes. The focus here is this. Does "taxing the people into prosperity" really work? I say NO! Here is a shining example. New York State is quite possibly the most screwed-up state when it comes to tax-and-spend politics. Politicians on both sides of the aisle have failed to understand that lower taxes and lower spending create an environment conducive for private sector growth. Unfortunately, and no thanks to the Downstate Dummies (State assemblymen and Senators, for those of you in Rio Linda), the rest of Albany doesn't get it. Now, what does this have to do with our country? Simple. The right way to spur economic growth is to not only cut taxes, but cut spending as well.
    Democrats campaigned on transparency. Yessireebob! They're transparent alright! People are seeing RIGHT THROUGH THEM!!



    The Official Flag of the American Left
    http://www.worldclassflags.com/productimages/cf_ussr.gif

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Sydney, Oz
    Posts
    3,253
    I thought you were a fan of Bush, now you condemn him?
    He or she who supports a State organized in a military way – whether directly or indirectly – participates in sin. Each man takes part in the sin by contributing to the maintenance of the State by paying taxes.

    ~ Gandhi

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    West end of the Erie Canal
    Posts
    3,565
    I'm not fond of his domestic policies. We have a similar problem here with a Democrat-turned-Republican (aka RINO) County Executive and a Governor who just don't get it!
    Democrats campaigned on transparency. Yessireebob! They're transparent alright! People are seeing RIGHT THROUGH THEM!!



    The Official Flag of the American Left
    http://www.worldclassflags.com/productimages/cf_ussr.gif

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    11,660
    Government spending is a way to increase economic development.

    Anyway, Progressive taxes are good...flat tax, not so much.

    Another thing, Bush actually did cut taxes...granted he spent a butt load more. As an accountant it really bugs me that you can do that. Government is always backwards like that it seems. Another example is how universities tend to raise tuition and cut classes/teachers. So you are paying more for less. Only in government will people pay more for less or take in less and spend more. A wonder what a economics class for politicians would be like...an accounting class?

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    West end of the Erie Canal
    Posts
    3,565
    Yeah, I think it should be mandatory for all elected officials to take a course in basic economics. BTW, Government spending may spur economic growth, but;

    a) For how long?

    b) At what expense to the private sector?

    In my example of Erie County, the largest employer is the various governmental agencies. Private sector job growth is in the negative and the Downtown Clowns just don't get the idea.
    Democrats campaigned on transparency. Yessireebob! They're transparent alright! People are seeing RIGHT THROUGH THEM!!



    The Official Flag of the American Left
    http://www.worldclassflags.com/productimages/cf_ussr.gif

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    11,660
    well, government economic growth is a little more predicitable (as I understand it) but often crappy and sub-par. It also does hurt the private sector and doesn't help innovation.

    With a private sector you have better growth but you also might have huge set backs because of Enrons or a GM. The free market isn't all about success stories as your typical Management class will teach you

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    West end of the Erie Canal
    Posts
    3,565
    Quote Originally Posted by Steeeeve
    well, government economic growth is a little more predicitable (as I understand it) but often crappy and sub-par. It also does hurt the private sector and doesn't help innovation.
    Reason being that you have government employees and elected (more like coronated) officials so entrenched in their government gravy trains that it's almost impossible to effect real changes.

    With a private sector you have better growth but you also might have huge set backs because of Enrons or a GM. The free market isn't all about success stories as your typical Management class will teach you
    Look at Bethlehem Steel. Once the second largest steel mill in the country (also the largest employer in Western New York), Bethlehem Steel employed 30,000 people at the Lackawanna plant. With a combination of high union wages/fringe benefits, along with management refusal to innovate to remain competative, Bethlehem Steel is nothing more than a history lesson now.
    Democrats campaigned on transparency. Yessireebob! They're transparent alright! People are seeing RIGHT THROUGH THEM!!



    The Official Flag of the American Left
    http://www.worldclassflags.com/productimages/cf_ussr.gif

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Lancaster, UK
    Posts
    4,892
    Quote Originally Posted by Bassman
    Reason being that you have government employees and elected (more like coronated) officials so entrenched in their government gravy trains that it's almost impossible to effect real changes.

    Look at Bethlehem Steel. Once the second largest steel mill in the country (also the largest employer in Western New York), Bethlehem Steel employed 30,000 people at the Lackawanna plant. With a combination of high union wages/fringe benefits, along with management refusal to innovate to remain competative, Bethlehem Steel is nothing more than a history lesson now.
    Funny how that's the only example you can pull out (not the first time you've used it) when, if you're right, there should be dozens of examples, and even more from other developed countries that have higher taxes (ie pretty much all of them).

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,178
    Quote Originally Posted by Steeeeve
    Another thing, Bush actually did cut taxes...granted he spent a butt load more. As an accountant it really bugs me that you can do that. Government is always backwards like that it seems. Another example is how universities tend to raise tuition and cut classes/teachers. So you are paying more for less. Only in government will people pay more for less or take in less and spend more. A wonder what a economics class for politicians would be like...an accounting class?
    IMO an accounting class may be overkill to start. Just a basic financial management course would do them wonders to start. We could move to more advanced subject matter later.
    If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen. —Samuel Adams

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    7,012
    Quote Originally Posted by Bassman
    I'm not fond of his domestic policies. We have a similar problem here with a Democrat-turned-Republican (aka RINO) County Executive and a Governor who just don't get it!
    How can you support administration foreign policies and condemn their domestic policies? Do you understand all local taxes are increasing due to federal withdrawal from state revenue sharing to pay for that foreign policy? Leaving states with federally legislated programs but no funding?
    These are my principles. If you don't like them I have others. ~Groucho Marx~

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    7,012
    Quote Originally Posted by Bassman
    Simple. The right way to spur economic growth is to not only cut taxes, but cut spending as well.
    You're missing one vital ingredient; you need an industry that can respond to lower taxes with increased exports to inject new wealth and tax revenue into the system. Cutting taxes on domestic, internal transactions is merely reducing tax revenue while increasing debt to cover tax revenue shortfall.
    These are my principles. If you don't like them I have others. ~Groucho Marx~

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    West end of the Erie Canal
    Posts
    3,565
    The major problem here is spending. If revenues have been decreased, wouldn't common sense dictate that you cut spending in proportion?
    Democrats campaigned on transparency. Yessireebob! They're transparent alright! People are seeing RIGHT THROUGH THEM!!



    The Official Flag of the American Left
    http://www.worldclassflags.com/productimages/cf_ussr.gif

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    7,012
    Quote Originally Posted by Bassman
    The major problem here is spending. If revenues have been decreased, wouldn't common sense dictate that you cut spending in proportion?

    @JoBennett: I use New York as an example because:

    1) I live here

    2) It's a glaring example of the tax-and-spend policies that's out of control.
    You do understand that the spending you curse is due to the foreign policy you support?
    These are my principles. If you don't like them I have others. ~Groucho Marx~

  14. #14
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    1,199
    One issue that Bassman is forgetting is social stability. The main reason for social programs and progressive taxes.

    A country with a high level of income disparity has a society that is going to have a stability problem. The people at the lower end of the economic scale are not going to particularly happy about their lot in life if they are living in slums, with poor education and poor health care. This can lead to higher crime, riots and even radical political parties that appeal to the baser(sp) instincts of those near the bottom ( ie Communistic or right wing racist nationalistic parties ) None of these are good for the long term economic interests of a country, higher taxes for the better off are a means of keeping the masses from rising up and burning their houses down in a rampage class inequality, or racism derived from poor economic performance by the poorer.

    One will notice that in countries that have high income inequality, the long term economic performance is generally rather poor if the country has not recognized the problem. Brazil for instance.

    China is another possible future example. While it has a very very high level of income inequality, the poorer farmers are improving their lot providing them hope for their future. If China's economy should stop growing and the farmers economic lot stop growing, the chances of severe social disruption are high. The Chinese government recognizes this, so should the anti progressive tax people.
    Admittedly, the concept of the Straussian text is one susceptible to intellectual mischief in the form of wild claims about the esoteric meaning of texts, not to mention rather off-putting for anyone who doesn’t like know-it-all elites.
    Orthodox Judaism, not to mention other religions: there is a small number of men who know the detailed truth; the masses are told what they need to know and no more

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    11,660
    Quote Originally Posted by georged
    You do understand that the spending you curse is due to the foreign policy you support?
    Partly due to. I could come up with a few things that you could cut that would lower spending and keep current foreign policy.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •