4 ms·

I'm not sure why this is being down voted as this is a matter of opinion - an opinion that many agree with. In fact, in the US there is nothing in the constitu

I'm not sure why this is being down voted as this is a matter of opinion - an opinion that many agree with. In fact, in the US there is nothing in the constitution that supports the taxation of the people for these programs. I'm all for UBI actually but this opinion is still valid.

jandrese 9y ago
Because capitalism doesn't work without taxation, not in the long term. This probably sounds weird to most people, but it is the truth. In capitalism money naturally accumulates at the top, but the whole system depends on money changing hands regularly. It's the essence of the economy. With no taxation all money ends up at the top with people who have nothing to buy, the system grinds to a halt and you have total economic collapse. In order to keep the system working the rich needs to keep feeding money back into the bottom so it can trickle back up to them. Human nature being what it is, you can't expect people to do this on their own. A few (Bill Gates for example) will, but in the majority of cases they would rather sit on the money so it can make even more money for them. Giving to the poor is not "fiscally responsible". Plus it would be very inefficient to make every multi-millionaire/billionaire/multi-billionaire manage their own welfare system. That's why it is the government's job to redistribute wealth downward to keep the economy healthy. We have endless examples of governments that failed to do this and ended up with stagnant economies and endless economic depression. Look at feudal European economies for example, where the lords hoarded the cash and left charity to the church. If you want to see this in person, crack open a game of Monopoly. The winning state in Monopoly is total economic collapse where one person has all of the money and nothing to spend it on. If you want to make it more realistic start the game with one player having $20,000, two with $200, and everybody else with $1. That's how real life economies are. If those $1 players lose tell them they didn't work hard enough and that they should pull themselves up by the bootstraps.
- ameister14 9y ago
  If you study the history of economic development, you'll find a lot of things at complete odds with the statements you make here. For example, while government expenditure can and usually does help drive income, massive taxation isn't necessary for economic development or to avoid the system grinding to a halt and total economic collapse. I'd point you to the latter half of the 19th century in the US for good examples of this. Lack of taxation wasn't the problem. Feudal economies functioned in an entirely different manner than modern economies, and even then you can't really describe them as a whole with the term 'endless economic depression.'
  - jandrese 9y ago
    You mean the Guilded Age and the leadup to the Great Depression? Where we were only finally dug out of the hole when the government started taxing the rich at rates that most people would be shocked about today? https://bradfordtaxinstitute.com/Free_Resources/Federal-Income-Tax-Rates.aspx https://bradfordtaxinstitute.com/Free_Resources/Federal-Inco...
    - ameister14 9y ago
      The Gilded Age and the Industrial Revolution, yes. Not really the leadup to the Great Depression, which has very little to do with the Gilded Age and a great deal to do with credit developments, widespread corruption in government and banking and a general productive leap. If you choose to believe that the US was somehow in a hole for 80 years despite growing massively economically and becoming the banking and investment capital of the world over that time, and if you also choose to believe that people actually paid those tax rates, then I'm not sure what we have to talk about.
      - jandrese 9y ago
        We paid off two World Wars with those taxes. Those times coincided with the creation of the middle class as we know it today. The fact that the US exploded onto the world stage at the same time should provide some hope to people who worry that high taxes will prevent growth and stifle business. Granted, the US was filling a power vacuum left after Europe tore itself apart, but it's still showing that strong growth and high tax rates aren't mutually exclusive, and in fact may be correlated.
        ameister14 9y ago
        I was mostly talking about the explosive growth in the US between 1850 and 1910, and referring to the fact that nobody in high brackets actually paid those rates as real tax rates. There were so many write-offs and loopholes then that it was more a sop to the working class to let them believe the rich were paying for things. Yes, it is possible to have strong growth with high nominal income tax rates - it's also possible to have strong growth WITHOUT high income taxes. The point you made that I objected to most strongly was the idea that income taxes were absolutely necessary to prevent recessions and were the main cause of growth. That hasn't been proven by history and I would say has been soundly disproven.
rtkwe 9y ago
I haven't really see the constitutional challenge question come up. Seems like there's nothing really different than any number of other federal assistance programs funded by taxes other than scale. As for why the down votes it's probably because it's the really tired 'taxes are theft' argument that a lot of people are really tired of hearing and arguing against.

jandrese 9y ago

Because capitalism doesn't work without taxation, not in the long term. This probably sounds weird to most people, but it is the truth. In capitalism money naturally accumulates at the top, but the whole system depends on money changing hands regularly. It's the essence of the economy. With no taxation all money ends up at the top with people who have nothing to buy, the system grinds to a halt and you have total economic collapse. In order to keep the system working the rich needs to keep feeding money back into the bottom so it can trickle back up to them. Human nature being what it is, you can't expect people to do this on their own. A few (Bill Gates for example) will, but in the majority of cases they would rather sit on the money so it can make even more money for them. Giving to the poor is not "fiscally responsible". Plus it would be very inefficient to make every multi-millionaire/billionaire/multi-billionaire manage their own welfare system. That's why it is the government's job to redistribute wealth downward to keep the economy healthy. We have endless examples of governments that failed to do this and ended up with stagnant economies and endless economic depression. Look at feudal European economies for example, where the lords hoarded the cash and left charity to the church. If you want to see this in person, crack open a game of Monopoly. The winning state in Monopoly is total economic collapse where one person has all of the money and nothing to spend it on. If you want to make it more realistic start the game with one player having $20,000, two with $200, and everybody else with $1. That's how real life economies are. If those $1 players lose tell them they didn't work hard enough and that they should pull themselves up by the bootstraps.

ameister14 9y ago
If you study the history of economic development, you'll find a lot of things at complete odds with the statements you make here. For example, while government expenditure can and usually does help drive income, massive taxation isn't necessary for economic development or to avoid the system grinding to a halt and total economic collapse. I'd point you to the latter half of the 19th century in the US for good examples of this. Lack of taxation wasn't the problem. Feudal economies functioned in an entirely different manner than modern economies, and even then you can't really describe them as a whole with the term 'endless economic depression.'
- jandrese 9y ago
  You mean the Guilded Age and the leadup to the Great Depression? Where we were only finally dug out of the hole when the government started taxing the rich at rates that most people would be shocked about today? https://bradfordtaxinstitute.com/Free_Resources/Federal-Income-Tax-Rates.aspx https://bradfordtaxinstitute.com/Free_Resources/Federal-Inco...
  - ameister14 9y ago
    The Gilded Age and the Industrial Revolution, yes. Not really the leadup to the Great Depression, which has very little to do with the Gilded Age and a great deal to do with credit developments, widespread corruption in government and banking and a general productive leap. If you choose to believe that the US was somehow in a hole for 80 years despite growing massively economically and becoming the banking and investment capital of the world over that time, and if you also choose to believe that people actually paid those tax rates, then I'm not sure what we have to talk about.
    - jandrese 9y ago
      We paid off two World Wars with those taxes. Those times coincided with the creation of the middle class as we know it today. The fact that the US exploded onto the world stage at the same time should provide some hope to people who worry that high taxes will prevent growth and stifle business. Granted, the US was filling a power vacuum left after Europe tore itself apart, but it's still showing that strong growth and high tax rates aren't mutually exclusive, and in fact may be correlated.
      - ameister14 9y ago
        I was mostly talking about the explosive growth in the US between 1850 and 1910, and referring to the fact that nobody in high brackets actually paid those rates as real tax rates. There were so many write-offs and loopholes then that it was more a sop to the working class to let them believe the rich were paying for things. Yes, it is possible to have strong growth with high nominal income tax rates - it's also possible to have strong growth WITHOUT high income taxes. The point you made that I objected to most strongly was the idea that income taxes were absolutely necessary to prevent recessions and were the main cause of growth. That hasn't been proven by history and I would say has been soundly disproven.

rtkwe 9y ago

I haven't really see the constitutional challenge question come up. Seems like there's nothing really different than any number of other federal assistance programs funded by taxes other than scale. As for why the down votes it's probably because it's the really tired 'taxes are theft' argument that a lot of people are really tired of hearing and arguing against.