Dorkazoid_Jones
Active Member
- Thread starter
- #41
YOU: You got a 1000 people un-employed in the area and the project comes along and they're back in the workforce collecting paychecks.
ME: No. You took money from consumers thru higher taxes and then gave it to a project somewhere else. That's at best taking water from one side of the lake and moving it to another. But it's not even simply a transfer. When you Rob from Peter to pay Paul you distort the market and create problems such as lowering consumer demand and wasting business momentum and create waste. When they passed the luxury tax, it hurt yacht builders and many working people at the plant were laid off. That creates inefficiencies in the economy. If the shipbuilder knew of the tax to start with they wouldn't have wasted capital to create something that became unprofitable.
YOU: All businesses care about is a positive cash flow. If consumers are spending less, then businesses have more stock on their shelves and when their shelves are full, they don't expand
ME: EXACTLY!! You're making my argument for me. When you raise taxes on consumers, they spend less and inventory increases and people either aren't hired or they are laid off.
YOU: You're increasing the size of the lake.
ME: I see so when the govt takes $100 from consumers in state A and then spend it in state B that increases funds???? Illogical...
YOU: Rolling back tax rates to the level during the Clinton Administration, when we had 8 years of boon times, proves that argument false.
ME: Actually the economy performed in spite of increased taxes. Think about it. If you and I ran a business and corporate taxes went up to 80% from 10% we would make a LOT less profit. We, therefore, would be a lot less likely to hire new people. Similarly, if consumers come into our store with less money, they will spend less money. So by definition raising taxes slows down economic growth. How you can argue that having lower consumer demand helps businesses is beyond me...
Again, if you think doing all kinds of govt spending helps the economy then why didn't high govt spending countries do better for the most part? Also, why has Obama's stimulus not worked? Why has Japan's stimulus not worked? Why did FDR's stimulus not work? Answer, because they simply transferred funds from one part of the economy to another without regard to market forces or common sense. I'd rather have the average person decide what to spend, then have make work govt programs such as the bridge to nowhere. Or cash for clunkers. How does buying unnessary goods help the economy?? That shows a basic lack of understanding of economics. If that worked, then let's just drop a nuclear bomb on Detroit, and then STIMULATE the economy by rebuilding. GOVT SPENDING TAKES MONEY FROM CONSUMERS AND BUSINESS IT DOESN"T CREATE ANYTHING
ME: No. You took money from consumers thru higher taxes and then gave it to a project somewhere else. That's at best taking water from one side of the lake and moving it to another. But it's not even simply a transfer. When you Rob from Peter to pay Paul you distort the market and create problems such as lowering consumer demand and wasting business momentum and create waste. When they passed the luxury tax, it hurt yacht builders and many working people at the plant were laid off. That creates inefficiencies in the economy. If the shipbuilder knew of the tax to start with they wouldn't have wasted capital to create something that became unprofitable.
YOU: All businesses care about is a positive cash flow. If consumers are spending less, then businesses have more stock on their shelves and when their shelves are full, they don't expand
ME: EXACTLY!! You're making my argument for me. When you raise taxes on consumers, they spend less and inventory increases and people either aren't hired or they are laid off.
YOU: You're increasing the size of the lake.
ME: I see so when the govt takes $100 from consumers in state A and then spend it in state B that increases funds???? Illogical...
YOU: Rolling back tax rates to the level during the Clinton Administration, when we had 8 years of boon times, proves that argument false.
ME: Actually the economy performed in spite of increased taxes. Think about it. If you and I ran a business and corporate taxes went up to 80% from 10% we would make a LOT less profit. We, therefore, would be a lot less likely to hire new people. Similarly, if consumers come into our store with less money, they will spend less money. So by definition raising taxes slows down economic growth. How you can argue that having lower consumer demand helps businesses is beyond me...
Again, if you think doing all kinds of govt spending helps the economy then why didn't high govt spending countries do better for the most part? Also, why has Obama's stimulus not worked? Why has Japan's stimulus not worked? Why did FDR's stimulus not work? Answer, because they simply transferred funds from one part of the economy to another without regard to market forces or common sense. I'd rather have the average person decide what to spend, then have make work govt programs such as the bridge to nowhere. Or cash for clunkers. How does buying unnessary goods help the economy?? That shows a basic lack of understanding of economics. If that worked, then let's just drop a nuclear bomb on Detroit, and then STIMULATE the economy by rebuilding. GOVT SPENDING TAKES MONEY FROM CONSUMERS AND BUSINESS IT DOESN"T CREATE ANYTHING
