So...In the Macroeconomic View, What Federal Taxes Are Really Wasted? [W:226]

[mpg]

Let's just call it an unintentional consequence And, just so you stick to facts, it is not at the expense of the economy. It is one of those multiplier effects.

Please explain how food stamps have a multiplier effect.

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

Paris in inherited. If you want to fight the individual freedom to give your own wealth to whoever you want, including your own children, then be my guest. Do not confuse it with taxes though, unless you are very specifically talking about inheritance tax. Money in our economy is not and should forever be NOT related to your personal ideal of who is or is not worthy. That would be terrifying, it's what we founded the U.S. to get away from, a monarchy declaring who is worthy and who is not. The market decides this primarily, that is, anyone who believes whatever deal you offer is worthy, may voluntarily trade with you. It says nothing about this idea of "worthy" you seem to be pissing on Paris about.

Yep, and I would be talking about inheritance tax. Oh and the irony in this statement, "Money in our economy is not and should forever be NOT related to your personal ideal of who is or is not worthy." Or, are we only holding that standard to "me" because it counteracts the myopic viewpoint of the working poor and their "worthiness" from a few pious opinions on this thread.

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

Think of the government as a middleman, and middlemen don't work for free....

The more ways they find to tax the working citizens, the more people they need to keep track of those taxes.

Don't know about you, but with every tax dollar that goes to the government, I hear a sucking sound.....

Yep, that would be me since I am a public school teacher. I suck up those tax dollars:roll:

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Depending on the origin of the purchased item. Though it may have been an American based company, a disproportionate amount paid for goods or services still COMES from one source.

Example:

One goes to the store and buys an X, for 1.5 times the true market value. Though the money exchanged remains in the US, and supports the company that manufactured it, one has still paid 1.5x the value, and no longer has that money to spend to purchase other goods/services necessary to support all the OTHER companies.

So...what happened to the dollars spent in that store?

And while your at it, what happens to dollars spent on having teachers, police, and firefighters?

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

Please explain how food stamps have a multiplier effect.

Plenty of economist say such things as foodstamps and (gulp) unemployment benefits offer stimulus. Google Mark Zandi-

 

[AlabamaPaul]

Plenty of economist say such things as foodstamps and (gulp) unemployment benefits offer stimulus. Google Mark Zandi-

These only provide life support for an economy. They do nothing to grow an economy...

 

[mpg]

Plenty of economist say such things as foodstamps and (gulp) unemployment benefits offer stimulus. Google Mark Zandi-

a.)That's only one guy.
b.)enough stimulus to offset the negative impact of taxes?
c.)That isn't what I asked you.

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

These only provide life support for an economy. They do nothing to grow an economy...

Neither do toxic derivatives. At least foodstamps go back into the economy.

 

[AlabamaPaul]

Neither do toxic derivatives. At least foodstamps go back into the economy.

What do toxic derivatives have to do with government spending in non-productive ways?

 

[Gonzo Rodeo]

Exactly, these are parasites! The infirm, the old, the young, excess laborers that can't get work....they should be kicked out into the desert, lined up and shot.

Ayn Rand is in hell, smiling.

Give them money other people earned... or shoot them. Those are really the only two options you see?

I love the false dilemma.

Yes...and no. If people are 'just buying stuff' using money that's been essentially redistributed trough taxation, there is neither an increase nor a decrease to the economy at the level of those people who are not doing work. There is still a slight increase to the economy as the money goes to the stores or whatever where they people 'just buy stuff'...but it can certainly be better.

But here's the key - when those tax dollars are used to get work - particularly when it comes to services that are essential to the community such as teachers, police, firefighters, and all those bureaucratic positions we hate so much (but are crucial to the function of a city), we get not only that slight increase to the economy by the circulation of those dollars, but we also get work that is absolutely essential to the growth of the community.

That in a nutshell is why all the non-OPEC first-world nations are socialized democracies. You get what you pay for. If you want to live in a first-world nation, then you have to be willing to pay the taxes necessary to make it a first-world nation.

Teachers, police, and firefighters provide a service. They trade their labor for money, paid for through taxes. They are contributing by offering a good/service, and lowering demand/prices by keeping people and things safe and secure. Without their services, we would be worse off.

A dollar spent by one of these people is more effective than a dollar spent by an abuser of cash assistance, simply because keeping teachers, police, and firemen fed is going to directly contribute to society.

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

a.)That's only one guy.
b.)enough stimulus to offset the negative impact of taxes?
c.)That isn't what I asked you.

Yep, one guy. Give me a number and I will list some more. Also, "enough stimulus to offset the negative impact of taxes" be more specific. I'm assuming you mean if more taxes were kept in the pockets of business they would invest during a recession...right? Wouldn't really make any kind of logical sense but maybe you mean something else. I'll wait.

Also, do you want me to copy and paste the article for you?

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

What do toxic derivatives have to do with government spending in non-productive ways?

Oh, right. Only government spends in non-productive ways:roll:

 

[Mach]

Yep, and I would be talking about inheritance tax. Oh and the irony in this statement, "Money in our economy is not and should forever be NOT related to your personal ideal of who is or is not worthy." Or, are we only holding that standard to "me" because it counteracts the myopic viewpoint of the working poor and their "worthiness" from a few pious opinions on this thread.

I submit that you are using semantics here. If someone has no net worth, technically they could be termed "worthless". However, worthless is also a derogatory to mean a person themselves is of no value. Now, notice how its used. You may decide you want to participate in name calling of the rich, or the poor, or anyone in between. This is fine. If you instead want to take their income against their will and hand it to someone else, while claiming you are doing so based on your individual belief that one person is worthy, and the other was not....you see the issue right? Anyone may call anyone else a name, this is not a big deal, stick and stones. But once you take their life's work against their well why claiming you are righteous....that's the issue. See the difference? If the only thing taxes were spent on were primarily helping the really needed, and fulfilling clear constitutional powers, I doubt you'd hear much protest. But since you're up in the what, 45%+ taking of peoples earnings...it's gone way, way, way past "helping the poor. Furthermore, the idea that handouts "helps" anyone is reasonably and by common sense, absurd. Further, that politicians are best to providing such service, just adds crazy on top of insanity.

 

[AlabamaPaul]

Oh, right. Only government spends in non-productive ways:roll:

The discussion relates to the waste of tax dollars. I wasn't aware the the government was purchasing toxic derivatives outside of TARP, and yes, that was non-productive...

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Why feed them, if they aren't filling a niche in the economy? Why support them? Why make it so they can increase demand for things like food and utilities, but not help reduce demand (and prices) on something else through their labor?

Give them money other people earned... or shoot them. Those are really the only two options you see?

I love the false dilemma.

You solution was to starve them, which just prolongs their suffering, I suggested a quicker more humane method of eliminating them.....which was your point.

 

[Mach]

Oh, right. Only government spends in non-productive ways:roll:

You're still missing the point. What good or bad YOU might think government does with that money, in no way shape or form makes it necessarily OK for government to take that money from someone else who does NOT believe they should, who does NOT believe government is productive with it, etc. Think about it in less partisan terms. If the neighbor you near-hated (because they really are a terrible person in your opinion) stole half your money, and then turned around and gave it to their favorite charity, would you think that's OK? Would it matter what they did with the money nearly as much as the fact that you know....against your will they TOOK it from you?

 

[mpg]

Yep, one guy. Give me a number and I will list some more. Also, "enough stimulus to offset the negative impact of taxes" be more specific. I'm assuming you mean if more taxes were kept in the pockets of business they would invest during a recession...right? Wouldn't really make any kind of logical sense but maybe you mean something else. I'll wait.

Also, do you want me to copy and paste the article for you?

It's common knowledge that deficit spending, either through lower taxes or higher spending, stimulates a sluggish economy. Is it your contention that food stamps are good for the economy even after taxes are collected to pay for them?

 

[Mach]

You solution was to starve them, which just prolongs their suffering, I suggested a quicker more humane method of eliminating them.....which was your point.

Absurd. There are people you allow by your inaction to die all over the world right now. People you personally have enough wealth to save, right this very second, you do not save and they die. Of course you understand that shooting them is a world of difference than this behavior that you already, willfully engage in every day. How can you ever propose such absurdity?

 

[FederalRepublic]

You made the general claim that taxes "depresses the drive to make the next" dollar.

If you cannot quantitatively, objectively support your claim, you are simply relying upon imagination.

If you don't see the connection, I'm not sure I can help you. Further, just because something can't be quantified doesn't mean it's in my imagination. That's an utterly ridiculous statement. If I punched you in the face, I can pretty safely assume you would have a negative reaction. Please quantify how negative your reaction would be, otherwise it's all in your imagination...

 

[Gimmesometruth]

If you don't see the connection, I'm not sure I can help you. Further, just because something can't be quantified doesn't mean it's in my imagination. That's an utterly ridiculous statement. If I punched you in the face, I can pretty safely assume you would have a negative reaction. Please quantify how negative your reaction would be, otherwise it's all in your imagination...

Uh, I can quantify it by the physical damage....f'n DUH.

If you cannot show a measurable change in "drive" from marginal taxes increases....then it is a case of imagination.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Absurd. There are people you allow by your inaction to die all over the world right now. People you personally have enough wealth to save, right this very second, you do not save and they die. Of course you understand that shooting them is a world of difference than this behavior that you already, willfully engage in every day. How can you ever propose such absurdity?

My absurdity? I did not come up with the original post of killing the unproductive via starvation.

FFS, read...just a little.

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

I submit that you are using semantics here. If someone has no net worth, technically they could be termed "worthless". However, worthless is also a derogatory to mean a person themselves is of no value. Now, notice how its used. You may decide you want to participate in name calling of the rich, or the poor, or anyone in between. This is fine. If you instead want to take their income against their will and hand it to someone else, while claiming you are doing so based on your individual belief that one person is worthy, and the other was not....you see the issue right? Anyone may call anyone else a name, this is not a big deal, stick and stones. But once you take their life's work against their well why claiming you are righteous....that's the issue. See the difference? If the only thing taxes were spent on were primarily helping the really needed, and fulfilling clear constitutional powers, I doubt you'd hear much protest. But since you're up in the what, 45%+ taking of peoples earnings...it's gone way, way, way past "helping the poor. Furthermore, the idea that handouts "helps" anyone is reasonably and by common sense, absurd. Further, that politicians are best to providing such service, just adds crazy on top of insanity.

"Take their income against their own will and hand it to someone else...." Predictable but that is what taxes do. They are taken away from hard working people to feed the sloths of society. Right, because we all know taxes only go to welfare recipient yada yada yada but I do love the new mantra that public sector workers are also stealing from people through taxation.....The public enemy no. 2 behind the "welfare queens" only libertarians and the GOP can dream up.

Worthy is just a term that can be used on both sides of the argument. I could turn it around and say who gives "value" to pay people the wages they get? Market value is BS saying wages have been stagnate for a few decades. Life simply isn't fair. I don't lose sleep if a home health aide needs foodstamps to eat but I do realize others do. I don't think that makes me righteous. Personally, I would rather have her paid a decent wage so she could feed herself but life's not fair. At least she can eat and she is contributing to society in some way so she deserves to eat not be treated like a filthy money sucking low life. I will turn the table on the "righteous" point to say there are quite a few of "righteous" people on this thread that have no problem labeling people they perceive lower than themselves. Adam Smith called this human nature. He really pegged it. Also, the biggest expenditure of our government is defense spending. Of course, that isn't wasteful, that is let's say "righteous" in some people'e eyes.

One last point, regressive taxes are the worst and we have plenty of those. It's time to make the tax system more progressive so the working class and the middle class aren't picking up the bulk of them in all kinds of other forms of taxes.

Sorry, I lied. I have another point. I don't like handouts but I don't like an unfair playing field even more. If we imitate Pinochet's neoliberal policies as prescribed by the Chicago Boys, half the population would go into massive poverty. At least that dictator even had the good sense to put back into place some safety nets to pull many back out right before he left his post. What a helava nice guy Wow even a dictator is nicer than Rand:lol:

"It is not unreasonable for the rich to contribute to the pubic expense, not only in proportion to their revenue but something more than that proportion."

Trivia- Anyone know the "righteous" person who stated as such?

 

[GottaGo]

Yep, that would be me since I am a public school teacher. I suck up those tax dollars:roll:

and i pay local taxes for my school system.
Any money that goes into the tax system, shrinks in the wash, moreso with federal dollars than local.
You want to take personal offense on fact, be my guest. No one said certain expenses werent worth it, did they?

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

The discussion relates to the waste of tax dollars. I wasn't aware the the government was purchasing toxic derivatives outside of TARP, and yes, that was non-productive...

Yes, we agree. What do you know. That was a waste of money but why oh why don't the GOP or libertarian party trust that these type of derivatives will just somehow even out the market. It's ridiculous!

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

You're still missing the point. What good or bad YOU might think government does with that money, in no way shape or form makes it necessarily OK for government to take that money from someone else who does NOT believe they should, who does NOT believe government is productive with it, etc. Think about it in less partisan terms. If the neighbor you near-hated (because they really are a terrible person in your opinion) stole half your money, and then turned around and gave it to their favorite charity, would you think that's OK? Would it matter what they did with the money nearly as much as the fact that you know....against your will they TOOK it from you?

Nah, I'm just against the mentality all for ourselves and nothing for other people. Otherwise known as "vile maxim of the masters of mankind"