3 ms·

Is there proof high taxes grow the economy?

AngryData 9mo ago
There is proof that infastructure improvements grow economies, which is usually paid for through taxes. Of course there is no guarentee tax increases will go towards infastructure.
- aeternum 9mo ago
  The only problem with modern infrastructure projects is that the infrastructure doesn't actually get built. They have become welfare programs in disguise. In the past the government would choose a competent industrialist to lead the construction such as Kaiser to build the Hoover Dam. Imagine the impossibility of appointing a billionaire industrialist to build CA high-speed rail in this age.
- websiteapi 9mo ago
  indeed there is no guarantee taxes go to infrastructure.
nemomarx 9mo ago
If you spend the taxes on productive things, infrastructure, subsidies, it seems like that grows the economy directly. Cutting taxes and spending (ie austerity) has a more mixed track record of getting out of economic recessions, in my view.
- websiteapi 9mo ago
  empirically which countries have done what you are describing?
  - estearum 9mo ago
    The United States? Look at: the Internet, pharmaceuticals, automobile industry, energy industry, manufacturing All downstream of massive government spending funded by taxes.
    - websiteapi 9mo ago
      the United States has middle of the road taxes (if not overtly low)
estearum 9mo ago
There is ample evidence that public R&D and infrastructure investments can drive massive economic growth over extremely long periods.
- websiteapi 9mo ago
  that's not what is being discussed. there's no guarantee taxes go to those things indefinitely. so again, which high tax countries have high growth in reality? (the counter claim is high taxes -> high consumer spending). france for example has high taxes compared to USA. is it growing more or less than USA?
  - estearum 9mo ago
    Yes everyone can see you set up the strawman that “high taxes cause economic growth.” No one claimed this, and so no one will respond directly to your “rebuttal.” The US has significantly higher taxes than Vanuatu, and higher growth.
    - websiteapi 9mo ago
      if you think Vanuatu is a good comparison then that's on you lol - also we never claimed that high taxes resulted in high tax rates. it was just a question to begin with lol. outstanding. in any case if you like your government feel free to give them more money voluntarily. leave ours alone please.
      - estearum 9mo ago
        What?
bruce511 9mo ago
"Economy" is a catchall word here. The answer to your question is dependent on your definition of economy. A traditional economist might define it as "the velocity of money". In a "hot" economy there's a lot of (domestic) spending (and hence selling) going on. But this definition says nothing about the lot of the average, or below average, individual. If a trillion $ moves from individuals to govt as tax, and the govt spends that tax, then by this definition this is a good economy. Conversely if you use the word "economy" as a place holder for personal success / improvement, being able to buy a house, afford medical care, buy groceries, eat out, have a solid job with a decent wage, well, high taxes probably aren't great. If taxes are high, then how the govt chooses to spend the money starts to matter. If it is pumped into domestic production (aka salaries) that can be good. If that production has meaningful long term benefits (like infrastructure) so much the better. Useless spending (like on border walls, ballrooms or silly boats) can have short term gains, but dissolve in the longer term.

There is proof that infastructure improvements grow economies, which is usually paid for through taxes. Of course there is no guarentee tax increases will go towards infastructure.

aeternum 9mo ago
The only problem with modern infrastructure projects is that the infrastructure doesn't actually get built. They have become welfare programs in disguise. In the past the government would choose a competent industrialist to lead the construction such as Kaiser to build the Hoover Dam. Imagine the impossibility of appointing a billionaire industrialist to build CA high-speed rail in this age.
websiteapi 9mo ago
indeed there is no guarantee taxes go to infrastructure.

nemomarx 9mo ago

If you spend the taxes on productive things, infrastructure, subsidies, it seems like that grows the economy directly. Cutting taxes and spending (ie austerity) has a more mixed track record of getting out of economic recessions, in my view.

websiteapi 9mo ago
empirically which countries have done what you are describing?
- estearum 9mo ago
  The United States? Look at: the Internet, pharmaceuticals, automobile industry, energy industry, manufacturing All downstream of massive government spending funded by taxes.
  - websiteapi 9mo ago
    the United States has middle of the road taxes (if not overtly low)

estearum 9mo ago

There is ample evidence that public R&D and infrastructure investments can drive massive economic growth over extremely long periods.

websiteapi 9mo ago
that's not what is being discussed. there's no guarantee taxes go to those things indefinitely. so again, which high tax countries have high growth in reality? (the counter claim is high taxes -> high consumer spending). france for example has high taxes compared to USA. is it growing more or less than USA?
- estearum 9mo ago
  Yes everyone can see you set up the strawman that “high taxes cause economic growth.” No one claimed this, and so no one will respond directly to your “rebuttal.” The US has significantly higher taxes than Vanuatu, and higher growth.
  - websiteapi 9mo ago
    if you think Vanuatu is a good comparison then that's on you lol - also we never claimed that high taxes resulted in high tax rates. it was just a question to begin with lol. outstanding. in any case if you like your government feel free to give them more money voluntarily. leave ours alone please.
    - estearum 9mo ago
      What?

bruce511 9mo ago

"Economy" is a catchall word here. The answer to your question is dependent on your definition of economy. A traditional economist might define it as "the velocity of money". In a "hot" economy there's a lot of (domestic) spending (and hence selling) going on. But this definition says nothing about the lot of the average, or below average, individual. If a trillion $ moves from individuals to govt as tax, and the govt spends that tax, then by this definition this is a good economy. Conversely if you use the word "economy" as a place holder for personal success / improvement, being able to buy a house, afford medical care, buy groceries, eat out, have a solid job with a decent wage, well, high taxes probably aren't great. If taxes are high, then how the govt chooses to spend the money starts to matter. If it is pumped into domestic production (aka salaries) that can be good. If that production has meaningful long term benefits (like infrastructure) so much the better. Useless spending (like on border walls, ballrooms or silly boats) can have short term gains, but dissolve in the longer term.