The case for higher taxes

[mnealtx 0]

Ok - everyone knew this was coming.

This is a comparison of the relative merits between lower taxes and higher taxes in a CLOSED SYSTEM. The reason for the closed system is to PREVENT the endless arguments over minutae that occur every damn time we try to have any sort of discussion over it. I would GREATLY appreciate it if responders would work within the limitations I have set and quit trying to find niche examples that break the parameters.

Parameters: There is no deficit, the budget is balanced. The government has enough money to pay their employees, so the SOURCE of income for workers is immaterial. THIS IS A CLOSED SYSTEM - the ONLY way we can ISOLATE the effect of taxes.

Given: Some businesses will have more/less growth than others due to the nature of the business. As we are speaking of taxes in the United States, it is assumed that the overwhelming majority of the jobs created will be located within the United States.

I feel that lower overall business/income taxes (within a certain range) act to increase business growth and consumer spending. This results in more people working and a greater income revenue to the gov't as a generality, all else being equal.

I welcome submissions for WHY a higher business/income tax system is preferable, and why you feel it would be advantageous to a lower-tax system.

For any math whiz people - working within the parameters set - is there ANY way to quantify the effect of lower or higher taxes? What other parameters would need to be set for this "laboratory experiment"?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[billvon 3,132]

>This is a comparison of the relative merits between lower taxes and higher
>taxes in a CLOSED SYSTEM.

I think you mean an open system. In a closed system, you cannot escape the effects of any action. Decreasing taxes in a closed system has the direct effects you want to discuss, but also has the indirect effects you want to ignore.

In an open system, you can ignore the effects on the deficit/government spending etc. Basically say that you will decrease taxes, government spending stays the same and the shortfall will come from somewhere else.

In such an open system, then, there is no penalty for reducing taxes. Zero taxation is ideal from a making-money perspective, since it allows people to retain the maximum amount of their money. (I assume you want to discount the effects on the economy to keep with your isolated model.)

>I welcome submissions for WHY a higher business/income tax system is
>preferable, and why you feel it would be advantageous to a lower-tax
>system.

If you ignore the effects on the deficit, government contracts that affect employment, the economy and the market in general, then there is no downside to decreasing taxes, and indeed there is a benefit in doing so.

[n23x 0]

I propose that we linearize sin theta -> theta.

Not just for near zero values. For all values.

Only gay, liberal, toufou-eating couples with their adopted 3rd-world babies in the back of their prius would think that extraneous data could be useful.

.jim

"Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Parameters: There is no deficit, the budget is balanced. The government has enough money to pay their employees, so the SOURCE of income for workers is immaterial. THIS IS A CLOSED SYSTEM - the ONLY way we can ISOLATE the effect of taxes.

If the budget is balanced, there won't be much debate. If people feel taxes are high and they don't need some services, they'll push for a reduction. The reduction in the vehicle registration tax in CA is an example - the state was running a surplus in the boom, so they cut it 75%. Now we have $10-20B deficits annually that have to be met somehow.

If the taxes are perceived as low, but services limited, people may opt to tax themselves. Frequently seen with sales tax increases to build roads.

but again, you can't divorce taxation from spending. It just doesn't work.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>This is a comparison of the relative merits between lower taxes and higher
>taxes in a CLOSED SYSTEM.

I think you mean an open system. In a closed system, you cannot escape the effects of any action. Decreasing taxes in a closed system has the direct effects you want to discuss, but also has the indirect effects you want to ignore.

In an open system, you can ignore the effects on the deficit/government spending etc. Basically say that you will decrease taxes, government spending stays the same and the shortfall will come from somewhere else.

In such an open system, then, there is no penalty for reducing taxes. Zero taxation is ideal from a making-money perspective, since it allows people to retain the maximum amount of their money. (I assume you want to discount the effects on the economy to keep with your isolated model.)

"Closed" in the sense that there are no outside influences is what I was meaning.

Quote

>I welcome submissions for WHY a higher business/income tax system is
>preferable, and why you feel it would be advantageous to a lower-tax
>system.

If you ignore the effects on the deficit, government contracts that affect employment, the economy and the market in general, then there is no downside to decreasing taxes, and indeed there is a benefit in doing so.

So, assuming that there is sufficient revenue to pay fed.gov's bills, a decreased tax rate benefits the economy in the sense that there is more money available for businesses to grow and consumers to spend.

That is my thought, as well.

And thank you, Bill, for working within the parameters that I set and NOT trying to force the discussion elsewhere.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Parameters: There is no deficit, the budget is balanced. The government has enough money to pay their employees, so the SOURCE of income for workers is immaterial. THIS IS A CLOSED SYSTEM - the ONLY way we can ISOLATE the effect of taxes.

If the budget is balanced, there won't be much debate. If people feel taxes are high and they don't need some services, they'll push for a reduction. The reduction in the vehicle registration tax in CA is an example - the state was running a surplus in the boom, so they cut it 75%. Now we have $10-20B deficits annually that have to be met somehow.

If the taxes are perceived as low, but services limited, people may opt to tax themselves. Frequently seen with sales tax increases to build roads.

but again, you can't divorce taxation from spending. It just doesn't work.

I'm getting there - give me a chance. I'm trying to isolate (as best as can be done) the various elements.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

I propose that we linearize sin theta -> theta.

Not just for near zero values. For all values.

Only gay, liberal, toufou-eating couples with their adopted 3rd-world babies in the back of their prius would think that extraneous data could be useful.

.jim

Do you actually have something to CONTRIBUTE, within the parameters of the discussion? Besides your normal thread-crap attempts, that is.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kallend 2,184]

Quote

I'm getting there - give me a chance. I'm trying to isolate (as best as can be done) the various elements.

Than doesn't work any more than reckoning that salt's properties can be inferred from the elemental properties of sodium (metal, explodes in water) and chlorine (poisonous green gas).

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 3,132]

>"Closed" in the sense that there are no outside influences is what I was meaning.

But that's the problem with your definition.

If I propose to run an engine in a closed system, I must account for the heat the engine generates. I can't assume there is some external heat sink that will take away all that heat - because then it would be an open system (at least thermally.) "Closed system" does not mean "I can ignore the waste heat that the engine creates." Indeed, it means the opposite; that's how calorimeters work.

Likewise, in a closed system, you cannot avoid the influences that your own proposed changes create. If you wish to postulate an external source of money to replace what a given tax cut creates, you must treat it as an open system.

Another way to look at this is to ask the question:

Is it better for an individual to spend $100 a week via credit card or $1000 a week via credit card?

The answer, neglecting any other consideration in an open system, is of course $1000 a week. You can get more stuff - food, clothing, beer - and all that helps the local economy. However, that is not that useful of an observation - because personal credit cards are _not_ open systems, and external money does not automatically come flowing in to replace what is spent.

[n23x 0]

Quote

Do you actually have something to CONTRIBUTE, within the parameters of the discussion? Besides your normal thread-crap attempts, that is.

Do YOU have something useful to contribute, Mike?

You've now generated 3? different threads in which you try to convince everyone that your ridiculously over-simplified model is a valid model. It's not.

Further, you sit and bitch about nobody operating with your "defined parameters". Nobody wants to discuss within the parameters you set because they are too narrow to begin with.

Quit trying to cherrypick or coax the answer you want out of everybody else. Recognize that you are trying to use a low fidelity model to convince us of something that is FAR more complex than you're trying to make it, and move on.

.jim

"Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Do you actually have something to CONTRIBUTE, within the parameters of the discussion? Besides your normal thread-crap attempts, that is.

Do YOU have something useful to contribute, Mike?

I'm getting people to think about the effects of taxes WITHOUT the usual bullshit of "it's all the Republican's fault" "it's all the Democrat's fault" - what have YOU contributed?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[n23x 0]

It doesn't have to have anything to do with a liberal or conservative agenda, or democrats and republicans.

Things you are labelling "political" and refusing to consider the effects of (and for fucks sake I have no idea why), like credited income or government spending, have a BIG effect on the response of the model.

Once again, recognize that your model is poor, AND AS A RESULT, your data will be poor.

.jim

"Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

[joedirt 0]

Quote

I welcome submissions for WHY a higher business/income tax system is preferable, and why you feel it would be advantageous to a lower-tax system.

I'm pretty sure any response you get justifying this will be from people who derive their income, or some type of net benefit, though taxation.

"The government doesn't create anything it just redistributes"

is a cliche for a reason. People who actually create wealth are the ones who are forced to recognize this. Magna Carta came about because of people with money saying enough is enough. The American revolution and any number of other things as well. The world is a lot easier to traverse these days, people can move, and take their wealth with them. At one time kings and queens actually had to go to banker types to finance wars and such, not the other way around. The idea of making people beleive we can tax our way into equality is a joke. I have little respect for people who live their whole lives as institution men.

[billvon 3,132]

>I'm pretty sure any response you get justifying this will be from people
>who derive their income, or some type of net benefit, though taxation.

I think there is an ideal level of taxation. I make zero percent of my income through other's taxes.

>The idea of making people beleive we can tax our way into equality is a joke.

No one is talking about "taxing our way to equality." We are talking about paying our bills.

[kallend 2,184]

Quote

>I'm pretty sure any response you get justifying this will be from people
>who derive their income, or some type of net benefit, though taxation.

I think there is an ideal level of taxation. I make zero percent of my income through other's taxes.

>The idea of making people beleive we can tax our way into equality is a joke.

No one is talking about "taxing our way to equality." We are talking about paying our bills.

Apparently the "conservative" way is to get our children and grandchildren to pay our bills and clean up our messes.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

I make zero percent of my income through other's taxes.

Now that's a considered reply. I like it.

Quote

No one is talking about "taxing our way to equality"

Uhm, that's one of Obama's favorite implied themes. He and his far left folks would like nothing better than that, IMO.

We are all engines of karma

[quade 4]

Quote

Quote

No one is talking about "taxing our way to equality"

Uhm, that's one of Obama's favorite implied themes. He and his far left folks would like nothing better than that, IMO.

Perhaps you've inferred it, but I doubt he's implied it.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

Perhaps you've inferred it, but I doubt he's implied it.

While I do have an active imagination, I have concluded several times from his comments that's exactly what he wants to do.

We are all engines of karma

[billvon 3,132]

>Uhm, that's one of Obama's favorite implied themes.

1) I have not heard anything like that from him.
2) We're not talking about Obama (or McCain, or Bush.)

[quade 4]

Quote

Quote

Perhaps you've inferred it, but I doubt he's implied it.

While I do have an active imagination, I have concluded several times from his comments that's exactly what he wants to do.

Well, there ya go . . . YOU have concluded.

Say what you want to about him, but he's a pretty smart guy and a pretty good speaker. From what I've seen, if he wants to say something, he does. He doesn't do a whole lot of coded messages and he doesn't imply a lot. He comes out and says what he wants you to understand. He doesn't leave it up to you to try to "guess" at the meaning.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

Well, there ya go . . . YOU have concluded.

Well, yes I have.

Quote

Say what you want to about him, but he's a pretty smart guy and a pretty good speaker.

While am important part of the equation, that doesn't mean he can lead our country to a better place.

Quote

He comes out and says what he wants you to understand. He doesn't leave it up to you to try to "guess" at the meaning.

That's right. He changes what he meant to say on a regular basis, depending upon the audience.

I'll get back on topic now...

We are all engines of karma

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

That's right. He changes what he meant to say on a regular basis, depending upon the audience.

I'll get back on topic now...

Dude - that's EVERY politician, c'mon now....

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I'm pretty sure any response you get justifying this will be from people who derive their income, or some type of net benefit, though taxation.

Some of us would like to make more than 2% (and negative in real terms) on liquid assets, which would be accomplished in great part if our government didn't run a massive deficit. If today's public want to go to war with everyone in the ME, they should be paying for it.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Do YOU have something useful to contribute, Mike?

You've now generated 3? different threads in which you try to convince everyone that your ridiculously over-simplified model is a valid model. It's not.

Further, you sit and bitch about nobody operating with your "defined parameters". Nobody wants to discuss within the parameters you set because they are too narrow to begin with.

Quit trying to cherrypick or coax the answer you want out of everybody else. Recognize that you are trying to use a low fidelity model to convince us of something that is FAR more complex than you're trying to make it, and move on.

QFT

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Do YOU have something useful to contribute, Mike?

You've now generated 3? different threads in which you try to convince everyone that your ridiculously over-simplified model is a valid model. It's not.

Further, you sit and bitch about nobody operating with your "defined parameters". Nobody wants to discuss within the parameters you set because they are too narrow to begin with.

Quit trying to cherrypick or coax the answer you want out of everybody else. Recognize that you are trying to use a low fidelity model to convince us of something that is FAR more complex than you're trying to make it, and move on.

QFT

I guess both y'all need waaahmbulances...

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706