Taxes: Who do you trust to produce prosperity?

You're ignoring something important here.

If you look at the figures over the last few hundred years it's pretty clear that rising education levels are behind the current prosperity. A better educated workforce is more productive, healthier and has better earning potential, making it easier to exploit it (in a good way) with innovative entrepreneurship.

Only government has proven itself prepared to invest sufficiently heavily in education to produce any widespread results. Nearly all first world companies piggyback on government education expenditure to some extent, and in non-US countries they piggyback on government health expenditure as well.

That's what you give the government money to do - infrastructure, education (and health).

Once you've achieved those things to your satisfaction it makes more sense to let entrepreneurs do their business. But until then you'll get better long-term returns from improving educational standards and essential infrastructure.

Whether you're at that sweet spot yet or whether you need to give more to either government or entrepreneurs is the only question.

(deleted by moderator) Don't repost off topic material in comments please.

The states provide education, not the federal government (until very recently).  So your argument about education is not valid with regards to the federal government spending.

yep all of that money we are putting into education right now. with the liberals trying to destroy the education system so that they can control the uneducated.

Even worse for the education lovers, I'd point out that education levels in many other countries kick the crap outta the levels in the U.S.A., and within the U.S.A. you typically find that the people working the hardest at getting the best educations aren't U.S. citizens, but are children of recent immigrants.

U.S. children are typically lazy, especially inner city and urban children that are dragging down the scores of the education systems in their areas.

So, pointing at education and saluting that as an area where the Federal dollars are really needed and are returning well on the investment is just not a great example at all.

 

On to the question raised by Draginol in the original article, I most certainly don't trust the Democrats and liberals to come up with any sort of 'fair' tax plan.  The plan that Charlie Rangel has suggested is yet more of the rob from the rich and give to the goverment so they can enslave the tax paying public to the government.  Once they hook you on sucking from the government tit, they'll have your votes and your attention for all of their plans.

Thanks, but no thanks on that.

Let me have as much of my money to do with what I will and do the same thing for everyone, rich and poor.  Let us invest the money, or give it to charities, or use to pay for our needs or whatever we wish.  Give some minor incentives to invest intelligently and put the money where it can do the most good, but otherwise back away from the wallets.

Sadly I don't think the Democrats will ever be able to understand how prosperity works and what it comes from, or at least if they do understand it, they certainly don't want to let it happen without their being able to take far more credit for it than they deserve.

Again, that Washington Post link is to an excerpt of "The Millionaire Next Door." That is not a scientific or representative study of America's wealthy. Here's how they gathered their data:

On page 250, the methodology is (sort of) explained by the authors: they sent out 3000 questionnaires to households in neighborhoods that were identified as having high net worth. Of those, 1115 were completed and analyzed. Of those, only 385 even had a net worth higher than $1 million. That is a pretty small sample, if about 3.5 million households in the US have over $1 million net worth. The authors also say they supplemented this with data from alternate surveys. They don't explain the methodology for how they found those people, only that they were people htey spoke to over a period of 20 years, and that only another 500 or so of those people had over $1 million net worth. On page 11, they also say that the people they interviewed were paid $100-250, so they might be skewed towards people for whom that amount of money is a bigger incentive.

"The Millionaire Next Door" is an interesting portrait of a segment of the wealthy that doesn't get much media coverage. It's a sympathetic segment, too -- the segment that got rich by adhering to middle-class values like frugality. It just can't be said to represent the attitudes and behaviors of the wealthy in general.

I have a page bookmarked that makes the argument that education doesn't improve economic growth at all. I'm pretty sympathetic. Primary-school education and literacy, of course, are essential.

(While looking for that bookmark, I also ran across the Onion article Education Is The Key To Cleaning Up This Apartment -- good for a chuckle.)

I didn't realise we were only talking federal taxes, but okay. I still believe there's a trade-off where it's more widely profitable to trust government with some services than to let private enterprise manage them for prosperity (security and infrastructure for two fairly broad areas).



It's an interesting article, but by education I wasn't meaning skills training so much as the general education he talks about (although I didn't know it 'til I read that article so thanks!) - I don't think it does anyone any harm even if it doesn't immediately cause any obvious economic benefit.

One of the key benefits of it in my view can be seen from the various liberation movements. We now get more productivity out of women, ethnic minorities and sexual minorities than ever before. And so far as I can tell that's largely due to the encouragement of a more liberal viewpoint (liberal in the actual sense, not the US political sense). What will be liberated to the point where it can be better exploited economically next?

Only more education will find out, but that relies on government believing in education over training, so maybe Draginol's right and it's time for the swing to head towards private, innovative enterprise.

We just don't waste talent quite so readily any more. I reckon that's a good thing for overall prosperity.

Whether those developments have been intended results is another matter entirely, so maybe the 'does education count' argument is not immediately relevant to this discussion. It is fascinating though.

One of the key ingredients of a millinaire is risk.  They risked a lot and made it (many fail).  There is no risk in government.  Revenues fall short?  Increase taxes.  Revenues do not materialize?  Borrow more.  They do not understand the concept of risk, and therefore do not know how to spend money (just look at the Lottery millionaires to understand what lack of risk does to wealth).

Who do I trust?  Not a politician that is for sure.

It is clear you do not have the most basic understanding of what drives our economy. Demand is the main driver and when we increase spending that increases demand. The most recent proposal to reduce taxes for over 90 million middle income wage earners will provide the cash for increased spending and thus increased economic activity which will increase profits. To pay for these tax cuts to the middle income Americans the democrats are talking about a small increase in the income taxes for people with incomes above $500,000. That makes sense because we can not afford to add to the deficit with another tax cut and people who make over $500,000 will not cut their spending from the added 4.5% surtax. That will come from their surplus.

The Bush tax cuts have shifted the distribution of wealth toward the upper income Americans. This proposal will help shift the income distribution more like it was during the 1990's. The rich claim taxing them will cost jobs and thus harm the middle class. Nothing could be further from the truth. The increased spending by the middle income from their tax cut will CREATE both jobs and profits. The issue for the wealthy is very basic-- Pure GREED. They will not he harmed by this small tax increase and the masses will benefit as will the overall economy from the added spending the tax cut on 90 million will create. There is a basic economic reality-- The more a person makes the less of each added dollar they spend. It is also true that most middle income workers will spend almost ALL of the added cash they would receive from a tax cut like the democrats are talking about.

We have a simple choice-- 1.5 million wealthy pay a little more tax that will not cause them ANY financial harm so that 90 million can have more to spend to help the overall economy!

Who do you trust to produce prosperity? Bush and the GOP have produced prosperity for the wealthy in America. The middle income and the poor are worse off then in 2001. That is a fact. The Bush economic policies have shifted the wealth from the middle income and the poor to the top 10%. If you are wealthy you trust Bush and the GOP. If you are not wealthy you got NOTHING from Bush and the GOP Policies!

What is the poor doing to get themselves out of their situation?  Waiting for you and the government to help probably.

You say increased spending increases demand, but you don't apply it to the labor market? It applies there too. More demand for labor will then increase spending in every other market. So a tax cut to the wealthy will increase demand for everything. Right? Isn't that what you just said, except you refuse to follow your logic to the labor market?

Say we decrease spending on labor, by taxing the wealthy more. Then, there's less demand for workers. Then, less people are getting paid less. Then, there's less demand in every other sector of the economy.

lets see gene. you increase spending by 1 to 2% and raise taxes on the rich by 4.5%. that is not supposed to be felt by anyone making over 500,000 a year. we have already established in another post that that would be 22,500 a year in more taxes. that means that 1. the income of the rich will go up by 1 to 2% that would be at most 10,000. 2 the taxes on these same people will go up by 22,500 plus 450 per year for the income increase that is 22,950. so the net lose to these people would be 22,950 - 10,000 = 12,950. meaning that i think that they will feel this and either fire someone or raise prices.

It is clear you do not have the most basic understanding of what drives our economy. Demand is the main driver and when we increase spending that increases demand.

What do you think of the saying, "Supply creates its own demand?" As in, I might "demand" a diamond-encrusted keyboard and daily pizza, but that doesn't make them spring into existence unless I actually produce something that's worth trading for them. I really think it's supply that drives the economy, and demand is only important if it gets ahead of or behind what the economy is producing.

What is the poor doing to get themselves out of their situation? Waiting for you and the government to help probably.


The sad fact is many service jobs that NEED to be done do not pay enough for the people with these jobs to get out of being poor. Many of the service jobs Bush talks about pay between $9-12 dollars per hour. A job paying $10 per hour, 40 hours per week does not equal the Federal poverty level. Jobs at $12 per hour are just above the poverty line.

The low income Americans has not experienced much of an increase in their hourly rate during the past 7 years. However the cost of things that are essential such as food, gas, clothing have gone up which means they are WORSE off because they have not had any real wage increase but must pay more for essentials.

Middle income workers have had some increase in their wages. However because essentials they need have increased in price, their after inflation income has not increased and for many has actually dropper a bit.

Now look at the upper income groups. First the got a BIG boost from the Tax Cuts. Then their compensation has gone up significantly. Those in the upper income group are also the people who own the vast majority of the stocks that have been increasing in value. Thus the wealthy got a triple whammy-- Big tax cuts, higher wages and increased wealth from the investments! YES the wealthy are pleased with Bush and the GOP Congress!

What do you think of the saying, "Supply creates its own demand?" As in, I might "demand" a diamond-encrusted keyboard and daily pizza, but that doesn't make them spring into existence unless I actually produce something that's worth trading for them. I really think its supply that drives the economy, and demand is only important if it gets ahead of or behind what the economy is producing.


No almost ALL economists agree it is DEMAND that is the real driver. The supply side economics which Reagan tried in the 1980's resulted in a $3 trillion increase in the National debt. Bush tried the very same thing and he will have added $4 Trillion to the debt. Supply side does create some growth. However the rate of growth from supply side policies no not increases the economy enough to balance the budget.

You didn't answer the question, you just blamed the rich again.  What are people who are supposedly "poor" doing to get out of their situation?  Obviously not much.

Should the government regulate wages, should they redistrubte income to people you think should have it? 

Successful Americans working hard to be successful and better their lives is somehow wrong to you.  Increasing your wealth is not a crime gene, even though people like you wish it would be.  You think all rich people just sit on the beach all day and don't work for their money.

The fact is poor people rarely try to get out of their situations, and rely on the government for assistance instead of bettering themselves. 

You didn't answer the question, you just blamed the rich again. What are people who are supposedly "poor" doing to get out of their situation? Obviously not much.

You ignore the fact that there are many jobs that pay wages that do not allow those that have them to get out of being poor. Even if Mr. Smith does move up to a job paying more, another worker will take the job paying less. I believe everyone should strive to do better. that does not alter the fact that many of these new jobs are in the service area and pay wages that place the workers in the bottom of the financial ladder. The people who have these jobs have no control of the fact that wages are not going uo not the increase in prices for essentials such as food and gas.

The point I made about what has taken place during the past 7 year to the three basic economic groups is correct and only the wealthy have done well.

I don't ignore that fact, it's just not my responsibility to manage someone elses life.  Said person can find another job, get a second or third job, or do a number of things to better their life.  Raising taxes on the rich will not help anyone get out of poverty, only they can do that for themselves.  It's not the governments responsibility to take care of people who can do it themselves.

You keep ignoring the questions.  Do you seriously want a nanny state where we have to pay for people who are too lazy to work?  Do you want the government regulating everyones wages and distributing them?

The wealthy do well because they work for their success.  If you don't better yourself, spend beyond your means, and leech off the government, then of course you won't do better.  Once again, the federal government is not responsible for your personal wealth. 

 

I have noticed that lately of some of the more liberal members around here. They apparently try baffling with BS, but when called on it, they ignore the questioner.

If they want income redistribution then fine, just be honest about it.  All I have been hearing since this S-CHIP nonsense is how we must "help" everyone.  Why?  Why do we need to help people that are capable of helping themselves?  Why must we keep increasing social programs that do nothing but keep people dependent on government?

 

If they want income redistribution then fine, just be honest about it. All I have been hearing since this S-CHIP nonsense is how we must "help" everyone. Why? Why do we need to help people that are capable of helping themselves? Why must we keep increasing social programs that do nothing but keep people dependent on government?

Great questions, and gets back to a question/issue I raised before about being careful about what incentives we provide to people in this country, or who might come to this country.

If we let the government do too much, then people will sit back on their lazy butts and do nothing and just accept what the government gives them.  True some people will continue to work harder and be more creative and innovative in an effort to make more, but they may also decide 'to hell with this' and just take a break in favor of not handing too much of their own wealth over to the government.  In the end, the government will see less revenue come in, and more demands placed on it to take care of the demands and needs of those that are now relying on it for everything and you just start a cycle of seemingly never-ending dependency on the government such as Welfare had been before the great Welfare reform that was done thanks to the GOP during {Bubba} Clinton's term in office.

The wealthy do well because they work for their success. If you don't better yourself, spend beyond your means, and leech off the government, then of course you won't do better. Once again, the federal government is not responsible for your personal wealth.

The top 10% are in a financial position where they can pay slightly more in taxes to help meet the obligations of this country. The shift in wealth since Bush took over is not healthy for the country. Too much of the wealth is concentrated in the top 10% and too many do not have enough for a basic existence. There was an article in this Sunday's paper that said more and more families simply run out of money each month BEFORE the end of the month while others sit on ever growing wealth because of the policies we are following. As the title of my book clearly says, George W. Bush Robin Hood For the Rich.

Slightly more in taxes? Try 100X more.

What do you think are the obligations of this contry? And why is it the job of the federal government to meet those obligations?

 

How many times are you going to avoid the questions?  Who are you to decide who can pay what? 

 

And?

If you think someone is "running out of money", it's not because of Bush or the policies, it's because they are spending beyond their means and not supplementing their income.  This is typical liberal BS of blaming the government for their own financial irresponsibility.

So someone has wealth, and someone doesn't.  Do you want redistributed income?

 

And?  Because you falsely title your book, what are we supposed to do. 

And as the title of my book says......Let liberals pay for their own nanny state.