That's one of the most cohesive descriptions of the most specious theories ever posited. Jeff Bezos and my (minivan driving stay-at-home mom) neighbor down the street benefit equally from the roads we drive on, the police protection we receive and the infrastructure available to the public. In fact she may use more of the public infrastructure. You need to burn your Saul Alinsky books.
Interesting Explanation of Taxes and Wealth Distribution
- Thread starter DallasCowboysFan
- Start date
That's one of the most cohesive descriptions of the most specious theories ever posited. Jeff Bezos and my (minivan driving stay-at-home mom) neighbor down the street benefit equally from the roads we drive on, the police protection we receive and the infrastructure available to the public. In fact she may use more of the public infrastructure. You need to burn your Saul Alinsky books.
Really? Amazon would be equally successful in Somalia as in the U.S.? Jeff Bezos would be equally wealthy if he'd started his business in Somalia, without the taxpayer funded benefits of the U.S.? It's just patently idiotic to claim that Amazon uses less public infrastructure, benefits less from our legal system... than a stay at home mom.
I'm an entrepreneur. I've started two successful businesses. And I absolutely wouldn't have been able to do so without all the benefits the United States provides that are paid for by socialized taxes. Let's talk about your business, what do you do that you could be equally successful at doing in Somalia?
But the more you pay in taxes, the less you benefit.
If you pay more money in income taxes, then you have a declining return on your investment. Your air is not cleaner, the streets are not better maintained, the country is not safer against foreign aggression, but you pay more for the same services that everyone else receives.
There is a lot to be said for a rich man to pay more in taxes to benefit those with greater social needs, but there should be a dollar limit that any person should pay in taxes. Any money not paid in taxes would be privately reinvested or spent in the economy. That will benefit the economy and the average person much more than government programs.
The motivation should be to create the economic conditions so the average man does not need a government program and can work independently. Not tax him so much that the motivation to create jobs is squashed. People should be independent and self sufficient, not dependent on government programs.
Somalia might not be the best example because they don't have a central government. They have a lot of independent contractors robbing ships and kidnapping people in international waters but that's not a growth industry.
Most of the nations in the third world have the same potential for growth as the U.S. and the EU. But there is too much corruption.
Somalia's exactly the best example because they have no taxes...and hence no central government. The tax supported central government is precisely what makes the U.S. the U.S. and lack thereof is what makes Somalia Somalia. And the taxpayer funded central government is what makes the U.S. rule of law the U.S. rule of law and lack thereof is what makes third world countries corruption what it is. And taxpayer funded infrastructure is precisely why Amazon can deliver a package to you the day after you order it pretty much anywhere in the U.S. and can't do so in Somalia or Belize for that matter. There's a reason that there's no Amazon in places with no infrastructure, so to allege that Amazon doesn't benefit from that infrastructure as @ktm does is patently absurd. Again, if you run almost any business in the U.S., the bigger your business the more you benefit from taxpayer generated socialized cost stuff.
Obviously we're all against waste and unnecessary spending. But I have to push back on the idea that private investment can automatically do things "better" than government. Private sector investment is interstates? Not gonna be best for the country. Private sector running courts? Running the military? Law enforcement? Environmental protection? The bottom line is that at least at the Federal level with A-76 anything that can be done more effectively and cheaply by the private sector is. Private contractors do build interstates. Even military housing is now run by public private partnerships. That still leaves a whole lot of what A-76 calls inherently governmental functions, those things that can only be done by government. And that takes taxes. If you want to take a pure "fairness" approach, and I don't but I know some people can't grasp nuances of what it's like to grow up in desperate poverty, the more you benefit from socialized costs the more you should pay into those costs.
Let's make this short.
Marginal Utility of the last dollar earned.
Marginal Propensity to Consume.
Marginal Utility of the last dollar earned.
Marginal Propensity to Consume.
well that would be using the tax system to stimulate the economy...well we can't have that.