If you dont want to tax the rich, what other options do you have?

Author: Best.Korea

Posts

Total: 48
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 251
Posts: 6,984
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
About 15 years ago, when talking about the debt, Americans were bragging how the debt is actually fine and how their GDP is still higher than their debt.

What they didnt know is that their debt grows faster than their GDP.

Today, GDP of USA is 24 trillion dollars while debt is 30 trillions.

U.S. government budget deficit is 1 trillion.

This means that every year, at least 1 trillion dollars have to be printed or borrowed just to cover the budget deficit.

Printing that amount of dollars every year causes inflation.

The uncontrolled debt and deficit will cause more and more inflation, which will mostly hurt the poor.

The only way to solve this problem is to raise taxes and lower the budget spending.

Current US budget with 6 trillion dollars of spending and 1 trillion dollars of deficit is unsustainable.

If you dont solve this, you will be struggling with inflation for the rest of your life.

At the same time, the wealth of the top 1% of people in USA has increased to over 40 trillions.

Will you finally tax the rich and solve the problem?

You have only 2 options:
1) Let the debt rise even more
2) Tax the rich and decrease budget spending

The option "1)" is a sure path to inflation.

By 2040, the debt will probably be over 50 trillions.

So what are you waiting for?
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,699
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
lol, inflation is taxing the rich.. and everyone else too; and taxing the rich taxes everyone else too. It's all related you see by this thing called the market.

There is no accounting trick to get around the problem of taking a bunch of production and dumping it down a deep dark hole. That's what the government is doing, that's what any organization that is rewarded for waste would inevitably do. The solution is to stop doing that. The way to motivate that change is to reward failure with rejection and reward success with more resources. The way to do that is to remove the power to steal from the government. When the public decides what is worth it and what is not their vigilance will prevent waste, is the only thing that will prevent waste because the public, individually, are the only ones who are genuinely motivated to not waste their own resources.
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 3,205
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@Best.Korea
Gated community residents pay for the repair of their roads themselves,
Rather than pay the government to do it,
Besides, what is the government often but an interfering middleman,
Paying private contractors to pave the road.

Though I suppose one could argue the government is an 'attempt at fairness to all, and that all people are equally spent tax money on,
I make a point of the word 'attempt,
Though some situations might be a bit good for big government, like natural disasters, though it'd be better if communities were prepared on their own (I think),
But people live in different circumstances, jobs, opportunities, laws,
Maybe the government 'attempts too much at times.
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 251
Posts: 6,984
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
"lol, inflation is taxing the rich.. and everyone else too"
Inflation taxes poor the most. This is basic knowledge. If price of bread goes from 2$ to 6$ I really dont care if I have 100000000000$. I will still have everything I need. Will the poor?


"and taxing the rich taxes everyone else too"
The money taken from the rich and given to the poor doesnt tax the poor in any way.
Same with taxing the rich to pay off the debt.

You assume that the rich, if left untaxed, will use all that money to help the poor. However, history shows that instead they use their money to buy themselves cars, private jets...ect. Hence, investing in production of expensive things that dont distribute to the poor.
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,699
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Best.Korea
Inflation taxes poor the most. This is basic knowledge. If price of bread goes from 2$ to 6$ I really dont care if I have 100000000000$. I will still have everything I need. Will the poor?
It's proportional to every dollar held, so the rich lose more in absolute terms and exactly the same in proportional terms. Equal proportional theft may have a disproportionate effect on quality of life. However you have to look at where the stolen wealth is going, and in many cases the printed money is loaned to the government, to poverty alleviation credit programs, and sometimes to state proxy corporations.

Printing money and loaning that money to some poor person to buy a house is no different from a proportional tax on every dollar holder and giving the money to the poor person.

The reason it harms the poor (and everyone else) is because somebody actually had to build and maintain that house, and now they did it for someone who didn't provide an equal or greater value in trade.

Less production = less production / person = more absolute poverty

The money taken from the rich and given to the poor doesnt tax the poor in any way.
Of course it does, the economy is trading. A society that taxes the rich until the poor aren't poor any more is sending the artificial signal to the market "Don't produce more than others", then production slows down, then when the poor run out of the redistributed pieces of paper they're still poor but now there are no jobs and even if they find a job it doesn't pay enough to live.

This is true in theory (sound economic theory unpolluted by Keynes) and true in practice (dozens of major examples over the past 120 years and beyond).

You assume that the rich, if left untaxed, will use all that money to help the poor.
Outside of government corruption and unhindered fraud the rich are rich because they helped someone already; and statistically speaking they probably helped a lot of poor people already.

You got the order of events backwards, the rich are rich because they are owed much for what they have already done. They don't need to give back, they need to be given back; that's what the accumulation of currency means.

Some (most) use what they're owed to help even more people; and that's better than buying some giant useless gas guzzling toy, but it's not a duty.

Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 251
Posts: 6,984
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
"Equal proportional theft may have a disproportionate effect on quality of life."
Here, you basically admitted that inflation harms the poor more.

"However you have to look at where the stolen wealth is going, and in many cases the printed money is loaned to the government, to poverty alleviation credit programs, and sometimes to state proxy corporations."
"In many cases"
Since printed money causes inflation that harms the poor, printed money would have to be fully given to the poor if it is to actually help them.

But here is the flaw of printed money.
Giving printed money to people means people will spend it, hence not have it anymore. Its a short term help, however, every such "short term help" causes permanent inflation.

"Printing money and loaning that money to some poor person to buy a house"

"is no different from a proportional tax on every dollar holder and giving the money to the poor person."
Proportional tax increases prices just once. Printing money increases prices permanently. Printing it again increases prices even more. Continued printing increases prices constantly, hence causing constant inflation. Same is not true with tax.


"The reason it harms the poor (and everyone else) is because somebody actually had to build and maintain that house"
The poor would be better off if an ordinary house was built for them.
Economy is about production and distribution. If more products are distributed to the rich, less will be distributed to the workers.


"and now they did it for someone who didn't provide an equal or greater value in trade."
The rich provide no value to society. So building houses for the rich just means that houses for the ordinary people will be more expensive.

"Less production = less production / person"

The production of society is limited. The more it is focused to produce for the rich, the less there will be for the ordinary people.

"Of course it does, the economy is trading. "
 The economy is production and distribution.

" A society that taxes the rich until the poor aren't poor any more"
Will secure existence, jobs and better life for the poor?

"is sending the artificial signal to the market "Don't produce more than others","
Actually, not even remotely true. When your wealth is taxed, you literally have to produce more of it. Or else you wont have it anymore.
I am not saying that we should take 90% of the wealth of the rich.
However, unless you want constant inflation, you need 1 trillion more in your budget every year.

"then production slows down, then when the poor run out of the redistributed pieces of paper they're still poor but now there are no jobs and even if they find a job it doesn't pay enough to live."
That has nothing to do with paying off the debt.
And its not true. For example, giving 200$ to the poor person per month is not gonna slow down production in any way. Otherwise, every time the rich donate to charity, the production would drop. If the poor dont have a job, giving them 200$ cant possibly change that to negative. If they do have a job, it will help them and wont cause them to quit their jobs.

"This is true in theory (sound economic theory unpolluted by Keynes) and true in practice (dozens of major examples over the past 120 years and beyond)."
If by major examples, you mean some isolated cases you found and taken out of context and misunderstood, then yes.
However, so far I havent seen any example of wealth being redistributed to help the poor actually having the opposite effect of helping.

"the rich are rich because they helped someone already; and statistically speaking they probably helped a lot of poor people already."
No, the rich are rich because they use ownership of a capital to produce more capital.
Workers make everything in society. So the workers help everyone. But the workers are not rich.
Statistically speaking, the rich are more likely to use their money to buy expensive things. This focuses the production in society to produce expensive things, hence decreasing the production of things distributed to ordinary people.

"They don't need to give back, they need to be given back; that's what the accumulation of currency means."
So the rich have produced everything and workers did nothing? In that case, why are workers necessary for production more than the rich people are?
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,736
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Best.Korea
What is China doing right?

According to the Hurun Global Rich List 2022,China housed the most billionaires worldwide in 2022. In detail, China topped the list with a billionaire population of 1,133 people. By comparison, 716 billionaires resided in the United States.Aug 5, 2022
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 251
Posts: 6,984
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Shila
The ones in the USA are richer. Plus, the China has like 3 times the population of USA.

China seems to have every type of economy applied. They have worker coops, they have Maos ideology, they have capitalist buisnesses, they have state run buisnesses, they have tax law with sometimes high sometimes low taxes...
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,736
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Best.Korea
-->
@Shila
The ones in the USA are richer. Plus, the China has like 3 times the population of USA.

China seems to have every type of economy applied. They have worker coops, they have Maos ideology, they have capitalist buisnesses, they have state run buisnesses, they have tax law with sometimes high sometimes low taxes...
But the wealth is also better distributed.

By 2027, we estimate that 1.2 billion Chinese will be in the middle class, making up one quarter of the world total. China already makes up the largest middle-class consumption market segment in the world and is a priority market for major multinational firms.Oct 1
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Best.Korea
How would taxing the rich more make sense if they consume the fewest public goods and services, not to mention their already being financially obligated in financing social programs? Furthermore, a huge chunk of that debt was amassed by promises to finance social programs. The debt is actually substantially larger (it's much larger than $50 trillion) if you consider social security and the payments that are going to have to be made. Taxing the rich more only works to leave the tax-burden with the middle-class, working-class, and poor. This was true in California and New York. The rich are more mobile than the poor, so tax hikes would primarily affect the latter.
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Lemming
Gated community residents pay for the repair of their roads themselves,
Rather than pay the government to do it,
Besides, what is the government often but an interfering middleman,
Paying private contractors to pave the road.

Though I suppose one could argue the government is an 'attempt at fairness to all, and that all people are equally spent tax money on,
I make a point of the word 'attempt,
Well stated.
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,736
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Athias
--> @Best.Korea
How would taxing the rich more make sense if they consume the fewest public goods and services, not to mention their already being financially obligated in financing social programs? Furthermore, a huge chunk of that debt was amassed by promises to finance social programs. The debt is actually substantially larger (it's much larger than $50 trillion) if you consider social security and the payments that are going to have to be made. Taxing the rich more only works to leave the tax-burden with the middle-class, working-class, and poor. This was true in California and New York. The rich are more mobile than the poor, so tax hikes would primarily affect the latter.
The wealthiest 10% of American households now own 89% of all U.S. stocks, a record high that highlights the stock market's role in increasing wealth inequality. The top 1% gained over $6.5 trillion in corporate equities and mutual fund wealth during the pandemic, according to the latest data from the Federal Reserve.
Owning stocks is a way to defer paying taxes.
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,568
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@zedvictor4
@Athias
@Best.Korea
“I contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.”

― Winston S. Churchill

Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,736
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Greyparrot
--> @Athias @Best.Korea @zedvictor4
“I contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.”

― Winston S. Churchill
Too bad he never visited China.

By 2027, we estimate that 1.2 billion Chinese will be in the middle class, making up one quarter of the world total. China already makes up the largest middle-class consumption market segment in the world and is a priority market for major multinational firms.Oct 1
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,568
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Shila
Beep boop. You cannot spell China without AI.
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,736
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Greyparrot
--> @Greyparrot
--> @Athias @Best.Korea @zedvictor4
“I contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.”

― Winston S. Churchill
Too bad he never visited China.

By 2027, we estimate that 1.2 billion Chinese will be in the middle class, making up one quarter of the world total. China already makes up the largest middle-class consumption market segment in the world and is a priority market for major multinational firms.Oct 1

Beep boop. You cannot spell China without AI.
Or Ch either.

Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,568
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Shila
Beep boop. You cannot spell China without AI.
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,073
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Shila
That's 1133 out of 1.4 billion just to put it in perspective.

How the other 1399998867 are doing one couldn't say.

And is class relative to wealth, heredity, intellect or what.


Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,736
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@zedvictor4
By 2027, we estimate that 1.2 billion Chinese will be in the middle class, making up one quarter of the world total. China already makes up the largest middle-class consumption market segment in the world and is a priority market for major multinational firms.Oct 1

-->
@Shila
That's 1133 out of 1.4 billion just to put it in perspective.

How the other 1399998867 are doing one couldn't say.

And is class relative to wealth, heredity, intellect or what.
That is 1.2 billion out of 1.4 billion will be in the middle class. Get your math fixed!

zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,073
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Shila
Firstly, the math was correct with regard to billionaire to general public ratio.

Secondly, I was questioning the criteria by which one might measure class.


Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,736
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@zedvictor4
By 2027, we estimate that 1.2 billion Chinese will be in the middle class, making up one quarter of the world total. China already makes up the largest middle-class consumption market segment in the world and is a priority market for major multinational firms.Oct 1
-->@Shila
That's 1133 out of 1.4 billion just to put it in perspective.
How the other 1399998867 are doing one couldn't say.
And is class relative to wealth, heredity, intellect or what.
That is 1.2 billion out of 1.4 billion will be in the middle class. Get your math fixed!
Firstly, the math was correct with regard to billionaire to general public ratio.

Secondly, I was questioning the criteria by which one might measure class.
The percentage of middle class in China compared to the rest of its population is?
85.7 %.

There are 3 classes. Rich, middle class and poor.
85.7% of Chinese will be in the middle class by 2027.

By 2027, we estimate that 1.2 billion Chinese will be in the middle class, making up one quarter of the world total. China already makes up the largest middle-class consumption market segment in the world and is a priority market for major multinational firms.Oct 1
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
Sales tax on it all goods but food and used item 
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,736
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
Polytheist _Witch: Sales tax on it all goods but food and used item 
Food and discarded items are not taxed anyway.
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,073
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Shila
Ah.

So, your measure of class is based upon solely upon wealth.



Whereas my measure of class is based upon a broader application of intellect.


So, for example.


An extremely rich anti-social dickhead would lack class.

Whereas an extremely rich altruist would be classy.

One could also apply the same criteria to not so well-off people.

Class is also apparent in style, deportment and a raft of other characteristics.


You are just categorising people relative to poverty indicators.

Thanks to the "Wests" reliance upon cheap Chinese exports and cheap labour.

So, whilst there are still people doing the donkey work for peanuts all will be fine and dandy.

Therein lies contradictory logic.

Or illogic.

Or a misconception.


I'm not certain that the Chinese authorities will allow the bubble to completely burst.

What say you?
 
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,736
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@zedvictor4
--> @Shila
Ah.

So, your measure of class is based upon solely upon wealth.



Whereas my measure of class is based upon a broader application of intellect.


So, for example.


An extremely rich anti-social dickhead would lack class.

Whereas an extremely rich altruist would be classy.

One could also apply the same criteria to not so well-off people.

Class is also apparent in style, deportment and a raft of other characteristics.


You are just categorising people relative to poverty indicators.

Thanks to the "Wests" reliance upon cheap Chinese exports and cheap labour.

So, whilst there are still people doing the donkey work for peanuts all will be fine and dandy.

Therein lies contradictory logic.

Or illogic.

Or a misconception.


I'm not certain that the Chinese authorities will allow the bubble to completely burst.

What say you?
By 2027, we estimate that 1.2 billion Chinese will be in the middle class, making up one quarter of the world total. China already makes up the largest middle-class consumption market segment in the world and is a priority market for major multinational firms.Oct 1
The percentage of middle class in China compared to the rest of its population is?
85.7 %.

Now compare that to other countries.

What is the percentage of middle class in America?
Sociologists Dennis Gilbert, Willam Thompson and Joseph Hickey estimate the  middle class to constitute roughly 15% of the population.

Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
-->
@Shila
Don't tell me food's not taxed I pay tax at restaurants and I pay a 1% sales tax for my food which used to be 6% sales tax until the state reduced it.
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,736
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
Polytheist _Witch: --> @Shila
Don't tell me food's not taxed I pay tax at restaurants and I pay a 1% sales tax for my food which used to be 6% sales tax until the state reduced it.
You are paying for service.

Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
-->
@Shila
Sales tax has nothing to do with service it has to do with sales. You don't pay sales tax on a massage because there's a service involved you pay sales tax because a product was sold. Fucking idiot.
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,736
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
--> @Shila
Polytheist ¥Witch: Sales tax has nothing to do with service it has to do with sales. You don't pay sales tax on a massage because there's a service involved you pay sales tax because a product was sold. Fucking idiot.
The purchase of goods for further manufacture or for resale is uniformly exempt from sales tax. Most jurisdictions exempt food sold in grocery stores, prescription medications, and many agricultural supplies. Sales taxes, including those imposed by local governments, are generally administered at the state level.


 "Thirteen of the 45 states with a sales tax still impose it on groceries."
State policymakers looking to make their tax codes more equitable should consider eliminating the sales taxes families pay on groceries if they haven’t already done so, or at least reducing these taxes or partially offsetting them through a tax credit.[1] Thirteen of the 45 states with a sales tax still impose it on groceries. (See Figure 1.) Of those, ten offer a lower tax rate for groceries than the general sales tax rate or provide a tax credit to offset some or all of the sales tax on groceries. Only Alabama, Mississippi, and South Dakota still tax groceries at the full state sales tax rate.

zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,073
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Shila
As I stated, we base our measure of class upon differing criteria.


Though I was questioning how China would remain competitive, with an overpaid and over expectant population.

What do you think?