The Taxation Flip Trick - Making Taxation More Efficient.

[morganist]

Growth in an constrained economy - I am trying to find a way of generating economic growth and maintain national debt payments. High national debt and economic growth do not go hand in hand due to the debt having to be repaid, reducing consumption.

By switching who pays taxation differenting spending habits will alter the rate of consumption, which will likely lead to economic growth. It could be possible to hit debt repayment targets and attain economic growth simultaneously through this technique.

The article below puts this case forward and also points out other benefits of the technique such as easing pay disputes, economic stability and security of investments. All of which will compensate the higher earners who may make up for higher taxation.

http://morganisteconomics.blogspot.co.uk/2017/09/the-taxation-flip-trick-making-taxation.html

 

[cdcaveman]

Fraud... taxation is theft.. we are taxed so much already that it makes the Government completely illegitimate. It's not just income, sales, luxury,and ad infinitum ,it's as well the fraud that goes on at the fed with the printing of money to buy Government debt. It's the true fox in the house hen senario. The Government is running up debt and buying it's own debt at the expense of the later receivers of the new money. It's the great lie. Taxing the rich is such a distraction from the real issue. The real issue is that the government can not be run efficent and as such continues to create larger costs for itself in a compounding burden on the market..

 

[cdcaveman]

Morganist do you believe anything about that article???

 

[Sig]

The real issue is that the government can not be run efficent

Turns out it's pretty hard to "run the government efficient", you've obviously never worked in government? It's not a business, it's nothing like a business, and in fact the federal government is mainly tasked with running only those functions that can't be efficiently outsourced to the private sector (you are familiar with OMB circular A-76, aren't you?). The remaining parts of government are things like the military, which you are aware is responsible for nearly 60% of discretionary spending, more if you include the VA. Thirty year old stories about $1000 toilet seats (that were a misunderstanding of contract accounting in the first place) aside, it's just damn expensive to build aircraft carriers and jets and traipse around the world with them, again something you'd know nothing about. Everything about it is inefficient, it's simply inherently costly. And every agency is tasked with being fair, which means running a full open procurement procedure, along with the inevitable protests and rebids. Guess what, that's costly and looooong. Again, something you'd know nothing about. Those or just two of hundreds of examples I can give you as to why your simpleton "run the government efficient" logic comes from a place of deep ignorance, perhaps even a cave! Why don't you spend 20 years working in government, or how about just 20 days, then feel free to share your barely literate ravings with the world?

 

[morganist]

Morganist do you believe anything about that article???

Yes. If people with a higher propensity to consume have more money they will spend more. This will generate economic growth and provide a greater return for savers. The amount of income tax the higher earners will lose, from the taxation flip, will be less than the overall benefit in terms of economic growth and the portfolio value maintenance it will enable.

 

[cdcaveman]

I'll pass on the Government job.. we will fundementally disagree on everything I can tell...there is no need to have such a large military period.. the way you have called me an idiot and naive means your not willing to have a civil discourse so therefore I will have to bow out of this one...

 

[cdcaveman]

Yes. If people with a higher propensity to consume have more money they will spend more. This will generate economic growth and provide a greater return for savers. The amount of income tax the higher earners will lose, from the taxation flip, will be less than the overall benefit in terms of economic growth and the portfolio value maintenance it will enable.

All your saying is the people that make more's money is better for the whole if they didn't have as much if it... You are just calling it a tax flip? Correct me if I'm wrong

 

[cdcaveman]

Meaning it's better in the hands of the Government to distribute

 

[cdcaveman]

Yes. If people with a higher propensity to consume have more money they will spend more. This will generate economic growth and provide a greater return for savers. The amount of income tax the higher earners will lose, from the taxation flip, will be less than the overall benefit in terms of economic growth and the portfolio value maintenance it will enable.

Are you saying leaving the money in people's pockets is better for the economy. Put it in terms of what an idiot could understand. Just referencing what sig called me

 

[Sig]

I'll pass on the Government job.. we will fundementally disagree on everything I can tell...there is no need to have such a large military period.. the way you have called me an idiot and naive means your not willing to have a civil discourse so therefore I will have to bow out of this one...

No, you actually demonstrated that you didn't know anything about what you were pontificating on, and now you've demonstrated that you are not only ignorant but willfully so and unwilling to actually learn about that which you criticize. I'd be happy to be enlightened about why anything I said was incorrect, but sadly it appears you don't have anything constructive to add, just criticism without understanding. Sad.