5 ms·

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

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.

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.