Taxing the rich is good for the economy
- Thread starter B00Mer
- Start date
Yeah, but when you are right he's one of the first to give you credit.
And you do, I suppose!
I never did get to know all the 'ins and outs' about old Ollie!
Taxing the rich is good for the economy
One of the most pernicious economic falsehoods you'll hear during the next seven months of political campaigning is there's a necessary tradeoff between fairness and growth. By this view, if we raise taxes on the wealthy the economy can't grow as fast.
Wrong. Taxes were far higher on top incomes in the three decades after World War II than they've been since. And the distribution of income was far more equal. Yet the American economy grew faster in those years than it's grown since tax rates were slashed in 1981.
This wasn't a post-war aberration. Bill Clinton raised taxes on the wealthy in the 1990s, and the economy produced faster job growth and higher wages than it did after George W. Bush slashed taxes on the rich in his first term.
If you need more evidence, consider modern Germany, where taxes on the wealthy are much higher than they are here and the distribution of income is far more equal. But Germany's average annual growth has been faster than that in the United States.
You see, higher taxes on the wealthy can finance more investments in infrastructure and education, which are vital for growth and the economic prospects of the middle class.
Higher taxes on the wealthy also allow for lower taxes on the middle -- potentially restoring enough middle class purchasing power to keep the economy going.
As we've seen in recent years, when disposable income is concentrated at the top, the middle class doesn't have enough money to boost the economy.
What we should have learned over the last half century is that growth doesn't trickle down from the top. It percolates upward from working people who are adequately educated, sufficiently rewarded, and who feel they have a fair chance to make it in America.
Fairness isn't incompatible with growth. It's necessary for it.
source: Taxing the rich is good for the economy | Marketplace.org
............................................
The only reason I see taxing the rich is a good idea, is they will reinvest their income back into the business and grow their company to use as a write off.. creating growth and jobs.
There is some truth to this, but everything in moderation. There certainly is an optimal tax rates that brings in the maximum amount of tax revenue. Below that, taxes are too low. Higher than that, the economy stagnates. The trick is to find that optimal tax rate.
That said, taxes are only part of the equation. Raise taxes for education and you have a good onvestment. Raise taxes for a pet project and your better off just lowering taxes. Taxes can slow the economy, but education can accelerate the ecobomy. A tax increase going hand in hand with an increase in funding for universal public education will likely grow the economy.
Increasing subsidies to higher education without making it universally accessible risks creating or widening two separate intellectual and economic classes in society.
Increasing taxes to pay for trades and professional education for the unemployed and underpaid could help to close that gap.
Consider too that tax policy can be geared towards encouraging healthy business practices. For instance, a high corporate tax combined with corporate tax breaks for making the business more accessible to the disabled, or for investing in solar panels, etc. could also be an effective way to get business to spend more socially responsibly without needing bif government in the picture.
In the end, whether raising business taxes is a good idea depends on many factors and is not so black and white.
You start playing the international beggar my neighbour game, and poor people get hurt. Some poor Canadians work abroad, just as some small Canadian businesses are involved in international trade.
Inversely, some Canadians make plenty of money in Canada and some major Canadian companies do business exclusively in Canada. There is not necessarily a correlation between wealth and where one works or does business.
Last edited:
What I am most concerned about is that the wealthy are paying their share for
the national upkeep. That means they should pay but not because society has
decided they need a scapegoat.
Who are we classifying as wealthy? There are those in society that are better
off but not wealthy. There are multinationals who don't pay their share and we
need to see they do.
There are those on Wall Street and Bay Street that haven't produced anything in
their lives. They manipulate the system for their own financial gratification.
These are the bu**ers that should pay. Another group is the ones atop the scale.
They are the ones with millions in bonuses that we pay for in consumer prices.
They should pay. If we were to really be smart we would outlaw endorsements
by sports people costing us millions in inflated prices for products.
There is different classes of wealthy by different means.
If you built a business and are now doing well pay your share.
If you are a sponge on the system contributing little and collecting more than
your share pay up big time.
Corporation CEO with inflated earning Pay
Sports folks with endorsements Pay
Stock Market manipulators Pay
This is not stifling initiative this is people paying what they should pay
Some think they should pay by what they want contribute
If you are a little guy go tell that to Canada Revenue Service.
there are different levels of wealthy some should pay some should pay
more in a modest fashion.
Everyone should pay something.
The government boasting it removed millions of poorer people from tax
rolls s nothing short of pandering. EVeryone should contribute somehting
even if its ten bucks.
the national upkeep. That means they should pay but not because society has
decided they need a scapegoat.
Who are we classifying as wealthy? There are those in society that are better
off but not wealthy. There are multinationals who don't pay their share and we
need to see they do.
There are those on Wall Street and Bay Street that haven't produced anything in
their lives. They manipulate the system for their own financial gratification.
These are the bu**ers that should pay. Another group is the ones atop the scale.
They are the ones with millions in bonuses that we pay for in consumer prices.
They should pay. If we were to really be smart we would outlaw endorsements
by sports people costing us millions in inflated prices for products.
There is different classes of wealthy by different means.
If you built a business and are now doing well pay your share.
If you are a sponge on the system contributing little and collecting more than
your share pay up big time.
Corporation CEO with inflated earning Pay
Sports folks with endorsements Pay
Stock Market manipulators Pay
This is not stifling initiative this is people paying what they should pay
Some think they should pay by what they want contribute
If you are a little guy go tell that to Canada Revenue Service.
there are different levels of wealthy some should pay some should pay
more in a modest fashion.
Everyone should pay something.
The government boasting it removed millions of poorer people from tax
rolls s nothing short of pandering. EVeryone should contribute somehting
even if its ten bucks.
Then there's the Hong Kong model. The poor pay no taxes and pretty well all government services are geared to the poor. Overall Hong Kong is more capitalist than Canada, but its economic system is structured to ironically provide the poor with better social services than Canada. I think part of the reason is less bureaucracy and a more bread and butter no frills no gimmicks attitude to government spending, mainly on education, skills training, services for the disabled, housing, as opposed to pet projects. I'm presently in Shenzhen but will be visiting Hong Kong later today.
Hong Kong's is also a far more open market.
Hong Kong's is also a far more open market.
There is one very simple solution that is easy to get started- pass a law on Monday that makes it illegal for Canadians to put any money in tax shelters. That would close one loophole!
Yeah, I suppose it might preclude things like R.S.P.s and T.F.S.A.s, so maybe you might have to add beyond a limit of $10,000 or some similar figure. You're on the ball this morning Corduroy.
Good plan, Walter, b-b-b-b-but a lot of businesses might close.
Poor people have to spend every nickle that they earn just to feed, clothe and house their families. They would be in the most highly taxed category (proportionately) and they would carry the bulk of the costs of our civilization, in a consumption only taxed world. The rich, on the other hand, will pay about the same to feed and maybe to clothe as the not-so-rich and will pay more (voluntarily) for better shelter. Beyond that, the very, very rich got that way either by being as cheap as Old MacDonald and therefore won't spend/contribute or because they are criminals who will find a way of circumventing taxation. (A lot of them must be as it is nor easy to become that way through honest dealings).
Or just as likely got that way from working hard or learning special skills that pay well or making risky investments, or playing professional sports (like basketball) - not every rich person is a crook or likely not even the majority.
To reduce their tax load.