Pelosi: Tax Increases For Those Making UNDER $250,000 On The Table

[bozack]

change you can believe in

 

[CPA]

We should rename our country "Europe West".

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Do you think if the government passed incentives companies would:

A) Pass those savings on to the consumer
B) Take the savings as extra profits on their seven figure salaries

It's time we acknowledged Reaganomics as an utter lie and crutch for exploitation. Trickle down is BS. We have costs in running the country, we must have revenue as well. With nations, revenue is taxes...period. If you don't want to pay taxes, move somewhere else.

I want an end to the coddling personally. I want the government to say "this is your tax, pay it or leave"...then I want any who leave barred from returning or doing any business here ever again. Because the demand for goods/services will remain, someone else will come up to provide them at a lower profit margin. That's what's needed...greatly reduced profits with the savings passed to the consumer.

So instead of addressing the current topic, you prefer to reach back 25 years ago.

And for your argument about leaving the country, didn't Repubs say the same thing 8 years ago and you libs were whining and complaining that was a weak argument?

 

[rchiu]

Quote from the OP article:

"I would say, Put everything on the table and subject it to the scrutiny that it deserves," Pelosi told Rose when asked if the VAT has any appeal to her.

-----

Why is our payment to the government (Tax) being scrutinized? Why isn't the government spending scrutinized? Why isn't all the pork barrel, earmark and all the other crap going on in gov. spending put on the table and looked at. Why are we looking at additional government spending programs like healthcare when we are already trillions in debt.

All this VAT bullshit is just democrats trying to find ways to pay for the grand healthcare scheme they are putting on the table. Yeap, Obama can claim that he is a great president for helping the little people with no health insurance, but we all have to foot the bill for his personal glory.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: boomerang

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: boomerang

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Do you think if the government passed incentives companies would:

A) Pass those savings on to the consumer
B) Take the savings as extra profits on their seven figure salaries

It's time we acknowledged Reaganomics as an utter lie and crutch for exploitation. Trickle down is BS. We have costs in running the country, we must have revenue as well. With nations, revenue is taxes...period. If you don't want to pay taxes, move somewhere else.

I want an end to the coddling personally. I want the government to say "this is your tax, pay it or leave"...then I want any who leave barred from returning or doing any business here ever again. Because the demand for goods/services will remain, someone else will come up to provide them at a lower profit margin. That's what's needed...greatly reduced profits with the savings passed to the consumer.

A lot of ambiguities in your post. Businesses won't pass on savings, but then someone will provide them at a lower profit margin?

You may get your wish on those who don't want to pay can leave. Be careful what you wish for.

If taxation is set at a level that causes some businesses to leave because they won't accept the lower profits (and, btw, I don't think many would actually take $0 over the reduced amount), then there will be a vacuum that would be filled by someone else who is willing to accept the new profit levels. That was my point.

You have NO idea how much I want them to go. I do my best not to associate with people/entities that exist only for how much profit they can extort.

Seems like a real uphill battle to overthrow the system and mold it into your version of utopia. Have you considered leaving? Sounds easier.

There are still a number of countries that embrace your ideals. Cuba is closest. Like I said, why take on the uphill battle? A quick boat trip and nirvana!

Because:

A) I'm right, and I'm a better person for it than those who act out of self-interest and greed
B) I have an inherited responsibility to act to keep the ideal of America alive, no matter the cost. It's why I vote, why I served in the military, why I spend so many hours each day studying so many different disciplines, etc.

You are self-interested simply by saying you're right. You are self-interested for studying to better yourself.

"What is greed? After all, none of us are greedy. It's always the other fella who's greedy."

 

[Argo]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: boomerang

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: boomerang

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Do you think if the government passed incentives companies would:

A) Pass those savings on to the consumer
B) Take the savings as extra profits on their seven figure salaries

It's time we acknowledged Reaganomics as an utter lie and crutch for exploitation. Trickle down is BS. We have costs in running the country, we must have revenue as well. With nations, revenue is taxes...period. If you don't want to pay taxes, move somewhere else.

I want an end to the coddling personally. I want the government to say "this is your tax, pay it or leave"...then I want any who leave barred from returning or doing any business here ever again. Because the demand for goods/services will remain, someone else will come up to provide them at a lower profit margin. That's what's needed...greatly reduced profits with the savings passed to the consumer.

A lot of ambiguities in your post. Businesses won't pass on savings, but then someone will provide them at a lower profit margin?

You may get your wish on those who don't want to pay can leave. Be careful what you wish for.

If taxation is set at a level that causes some businesses to leave because they won't accept the lower profits (and, btw, I don't think many would actually take $0 over the reduced amount), then there will be a vacuum that would be filled by someone else who is willing to accept the new profit levels. That was my point.

You have NO idea how much I want them to go. I do my best not to associate with people/entities that exist only for how much profit they can extort.

Seems like a real uphill battle to overthrow the system and mold it into your version of utopia. Have you considered leaving? Sounds easier.

There are still a number of countries that embrace your ideals. Cuba is closest. Like I said, why take on the uphill battle? A quick boat trip and nirvana!

Because:

A) I'm right, and I'm a better person for it than those who act out of self-interest and greed
B) I have an inherited responsibility to act to keep the ideal of America alive, no matter the cost. It's why I vote, why I served in the military, why I spend so many hours each day studying so many different disciplines, etc.

Wow, I'm speechless...

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Praxis1452
Also shira, you show your true colors. Low IQ comments, hah. Just another partisan hack that is no different than any "conservative" pundit.

The way you post you think that conservatives should applaud this new tax. LOL. If nancy pelosi had begun with let's abolish the income tax perhaps they would have responded more kindly. Any new tax will be viewed with much skepticism, the fact that you assumed thatbconservatives would love any new taxes is ludicrous.

Hey, I'm trying to empathize with you righties. Me - a lefty - is showing you guys how to get what you say you want: a highly regressive tax that will sock it to the middle class and help the rich keep even more of their wealth.

Can I help it if the path to the "Fair Tax" is convoluted?

Look, I take back my low IQ comment: you righties are downright brainy. I can just feel the collective strength of you intellects surging through this thread.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: BoberFett

What did the government do with that $100? Chance are it was redistributed to employees or used to purchase goods made through private enterprise which puts it... wait for it... back into the economy.

If taxes removed money from the economy, our money supply would be $0 after a couple years.

What's wrong with you?

The government didn't do anything with the money it taxes, for all meaningful purposes it piles it up on the White House lawn and lights it on fire. Do you even know how our currency system works? You seriously don't know that taxation lowers the money supply?

Government puts new money into the market by giving people dollars in exchange for their services. This choice is dependent in literally zero way on how much money they have taken in taxes that year. Government spending is not constrained by taxation in any way, shape, or form outside of inflationary pressure. (and technically extreme inflation is not a direct constraint either, just a bad idea.) The government is not like your household, because while you as a person are spending currency someone else creates, they are spending currency THEY create. They can circulate new money if they wish, but it's not like they are actually taking your money and circulating it like someone does out of a Starbucks cash register.

I think everyone here is getting confused because they are trying to relate spending by the government to spending by your household. They are nothing alike. Taxation serves to free up the government to spend more money without causing inflation if it wishes to do so, the government is not actually taking your money and recirculating it.

You just perfectly summed up the fucked up thinking that currently permeates our entire Government, as well as the very reason we're in a deeper hole than we've ever been in before. The bold section is particularly telling.

Well done ace.

It's not telling at all, I really think you just don't understand how our currency system works. The government creates money by spending, the government destroys money by taxing. That's how it works.

You've destroyed any shred of credibility you were clinging to with this post.

Good job.

 

[Praxis1452]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: Praxis1452
Also shira, you show your true colors. Low IQ comments, hah. Just another partisan hack that is no different than any "conservative" pundit.

The way you post you think that conservatives should applaud this new tax. LOL. If nancy pelosi had begun with let's abolish the income tax perhaps they would have responded more kindly. Any new tax will be viewed with much skepticism, the fact that you assumed thatbconservatives would love any new taxes is ludicrous.

Hey, I'm trying to empathize with you righties. Me - a lefty - is showing you guys how to get what you say you want: a highly regressive tax that will sock it to the middle class and help the rich keep even more of their wealth.

Can I help it if the path to the "Fair Tax" is convoluted?

Look, I take back my low IQ comment: you righties are downright brainy. I can just feel the collective strength of you intellects surging through this thread.

haha, I'm hardly a righty. Most of the comments I make are simply pointing out how wrong people are or how they're failing at lying. . Ex. eskimospy. You.

I refuse to vote because I support neither party, and won't make the choice for "the lesser evil" as the lesser evil has created this system, and the fact that people continue to vote, means they support this system.

Hint: I don't believe in democracy, thereby I can't even be counted as supporting either party... but back to refuting your points.

By the way, I wonder which tax you are referring to? The flat tax? Because that by definition is not regressive. It does not tax the poor more heavily in terms of actual money. And i'm not talking about some convoluted scheme that conservatives or democrats have cooked up, but the definition of a flat tax where noone is excluded from the flat percentage tax. I've already had a discussion or marginal utility in that thread so you can refer to that for my opinion.

This VAT tax was proposed by pelosi so far as I know, so I don't think you're calling this tax regressive.

Oh btw condescension works best if it isn't so blatant. More fun to make fun of them without them recognizing it. Kinda like Colbert.

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: Praxis1452
I refuse to vote because I support neither party, and won't make the choice for "the lesser evil" as the lesser evil has created this system, and the fact that people continue to vote, means they support this system.

Hint: I don't believe in democracy, thereby I can't even be counted as supporting either party... but back to refuting your points.

A) Good thing we don't live in a democracy
B) Your reason for not voting is Grade A Retarded. It's not a choice of one party vs. another. Try reading the ballot sometime and look at the other non-R and non-D candidates. Try being more active by writing to your representatives. They just might listen if you express your concerns, since you are their constituent.

 

[NeoV]

here we go - another 'hypothetical' evil action the dems are planning - remember when they were going to - ............insert horrific sounding Democratic plan here..........

Have any of these things actually made it past this fear mongering stage? Get some new tactics, this is getting boring

 

[NeoV]

here we go - another 'hypothetical' evil action the dems are planning - remember when they were going to - ............insert horrific sounding Democratic plan here..........

Have any of these things actually made it past this fear mongering stage? Get some new tactics, this is getting boring

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: daishi5

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: daishi5

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: BoberFett

What did the government do with that $100? Chance are it was redistributed to employees or used to purchase goods made through private enterprise which puts it... wait for it... back into the economy.

If taxes removed money from the economy, our money supply would be $0 after a couple years.

What's wrong with you?

The government didn't do anything with the money it taxes, for all meaningful purposes it piles it up on the White House lawn and lights it on fire. Do you even know how our currency system works? You seriously don't know that taxation lowers the money supply?

Government puts new money into the market by giving people dollars in exchange for their services. This choice is dependent in literally zero way on how much money they have taken in taxes that year. Government spending is not constrained by taxation in any way, shape, or form outside of inflationary pressure. (and technically extreme inflation is not a direct constraint either, just a bad idea.) The government is not like your household, because while you as a person are spending currency someone else creates, they are spending currency THEY create. They can circulate new money if they wish, but it's not like they are actually taking your money and circulating it like someone does out of a Starbucks cash register.

I think everyone here is getting confused because they are trying to relate spending by the government to spending by your household. They are nothing alike. Taxation serves to free up the government to spend more money without causing inflation if it wishes to do so, the government is not actually taking your money and recirculating it.

I am going to double check, but I am fairly certain that every econ and finance teacher I have had since high school disagrees with you. Just an FYI, the Federal Reserve seems to believe it is in charge of the money supply NY federal reserve. Also, what do you think the federal debt is, if they just make the money, wouldn't they never be in debt? Oh, and treasury bills, why does the government have to sell them if they can just make money?

I am sorry for the sarcasm, but I needed to hammer the point home, you are just plain wrong. The government deficit is the difference between spending and taxes, which builds up into debt. The government gets its extra money through selling securities, to cover the deficit. The government does not create new money.

The Money supply is determined by the Central Bank, in the United States, the Federal Reserve System.

Source, Macroeconomics, pg 251, Abel, Bernanke Croushore.

Edit: I fail at typing.

Congress DELEGATES its authority to coin money to the Federal Reserve, the Federal Reserve does not do so with powers inherent outside the government. In case anyone is interested in this theory on money creation it's called Chartalism

Regardless of if you buy into that or not, it's widely accepted that taxation removes money from circulation, thus causing deflation. I'm not really sure who argues otherwise?

EDIT: Also, the government could be out of debt tomorrow if it wanted to be. It would be an awful idea, but they could do it.

I don't think that is what you said.

The government didn't do anything with the money it taxes, for all meaningful purposes it piles it up on the White House lawn and lights it on fire.

Government puts new money into the market by giving people dollars in exchange for their services. This choice is dependent in literally zero way on how much money they have taken in taxes that year. Government spending is not constrained by taxation in any way, shape, or form outside of inflationary pressure. (and technically extreme inflation is not a direct constraint either, just a bad idea.) The government is not like your household, because while you as a person are spending currency someone else creates, they are spending currency THEY create. They can circulate new money if they wish, but it's not like they are actually taking your money and circulating it like someone does out of a Starbucks cash register.

One part of the government does take your money, and then distribute that very same money back out again, it may be a different physical bill, but it is the money you paid in taxes. Taxes are Government revenue, spending are the outlays, and the difference is a surplus or deficit. They do not pile the money up and light it on fire, figuratively speaking. They spend the money they receive through taxes, they make up the difference in securities.

They DO NOT create money just by spending more, that spending must be matched to fund raising through the sales of securities. The government does not create money when it spends, it borrows money to spend that extra cash. That is why we pay interest on our debt.

The federal reserve system changes the money supply through open market activities, reserve requirements and interest rates. You seem to be confused with the idea of inflation through spending, as well. But, the federal reserve system is not in any way involved with government spending.

But, back to the original point I was making, Boberfett is right, the government takes your $100 dollars and spends it for you. If they want to spend more, they ask for more money and promise to pay it back with interest. Then they take that other nice person's money and spend it. Later they take someone else money from taxes, and give that taxpayers money to the nice person who loaned the government money.

So where does this money come from? The government accepts tax payments in dollars, so where do you get a dollar to spend? The US government is the sole entity with the authority to create dollars, so how does one get a dollar? (the federal reserve acts with the government's authority, but it is still acting as an agent of the government) The government can't take your $100 without having created $100 worth of currency first.

The government most certainly does create money when it borrows, because that borrowing is not backed by any existing asset, nor need it be. In fact the issuance of securities is one of the primary ways to inject more money into our system. The government creates demand for its currency through taxation, thus ensuring that the money injected is actually useful. Now in this case we're just arguing different theories of money creation, and I'm not really interested in doing that. (it's most certainly not my area of expertise.) Regardless, your flat statement that one theory is right and the other wrong is an overstatement at a minimum.

So while I'm not really trying to get into economics arguments that I'm not particularly well equipped for, my only point originally was that taxation removes money from the system. If someone disagrees with that, I would like to know why.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Praxis1452

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Praxis1452
You still haven't admitted you were completely wrong about your whole consumer prices won't increase. Taxation removes money from private industry, which is to put it simply bad. Your analysis of government spending is correct, and that is why it's so disagreeable. The government has unlimited government spending and removes money from private industry while still taxing to reduce inflation. If the government really chooses to use these powers/ then you get socialism, it's absolutely a fact.

Well you can certainly reasonably argue that it's a bad idea, but that has nothing to do with what I was talking about.

You were talking about consumers and taxes. You were wrong, and I proved it.

I simply stated my opinion to help you understand why people are against it. It's very simple and it has something to do with what you were talking about.

No I wasn't wrong, and you proved nothing. Do you understand what 'proof' is?

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan
Just for the record, Obama already levied one of the highest tax increases in history on those making less than $250k when he raised the cigarette tax by more than a dollar-per-pack last Spring.

This would just be more icing on the cake of broken promises.

Fuck Pelosi. She has no business remaining in power, and I can't for the life of me figure out the reason why she's still there... wait, nevermind, it's fucking California. Duh. :|

Only affects people who smoke, and affects those over 250k who smoke as well...so your statement = fail.

Bullshit. The poor by large are the biggest smokers.

Obama lied, taxes rised.

Every politician lies, nearly every politician raises taxes somehow, and only about 20% of people smoke.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Do you think if the government passed incentives companies would:

A) Pass those savings on to the consumer
B) Take the savings as extra profits on their seven figure salaries

It's time we acknowledged Reaganomics as an utter lie and crutch for exploitation. Trickle down is BS. We have costs in running the country, we must have revenue as well. With nations, revenue is taxes...period. If you don't want to pay taxes, move somewhere else.

I want an end to the coddling personally. I want the government to say "this is your tax, pay it or leave"...then I want any who leave barred from returning or doing any business here ever again. Because the demand for goods/services will remain, someone else will come up to provide them at a lower profit margin. That's what's needed...greatly reduced profits with the savings passed to the consumer.

So instead of addressing the current topic, you prefer to reach back 25 years ago.

And for your argument about leaving the country, didn't Repubs say the same thing 8 years ago and you libs were whining and complaining that was a weak argument?

All modern economic BS is the evolution of Reaganomics. Tax breaks on business and wealthy, market praise, etc...all just the same old tired crap that has never and could never function in reality.

Not at all. I'm not telling them to leave or calling them unamerican. I'm simply saying that if they're going to threaten to leave if we don't let them rape people at the same levels they have been then they're horrible human beings and we'd be better off without them. They can stay...they just have to accept being taxed and losing some profits.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: boomerang

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: boomerang

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Do you think if the government passed incentives companies would:

A) Pass those savings on to the consumer
B) Take the savings as extra profits on their seven figure salaries

It's time we acknowledged Reaganomics as an utter lie and crutch for exploitation. Trickle down is BS. We have costs in running the country, we must have revenue as well. With nations, revenue is taxes...period. If you don't want to pay taxes, move somewhere else.

I want an end to the coddling personally. I want the government to say "this is your tax, pay it or leave"...then I want any who leave barred from returning or doing any business here ever again. Because the demand for goods/services will remain, someone else will come up to provide them at a lower profit margin. That's what's needed...greatly reduced profits with the savings passed to the consumer.

A lot of ambiguities in your post. Businesses won't pass on savings, but then someone will provide them at a lower profit margin?

You may get your wish on those who don't want to pay can leave. Be careful what you wish for.

If taxation is set at a level that causes some businesses to leave because they won't accept the lower profits (and, btw, I don't think many would actually take $0 over the reduced amount), then there will be a vacuum that would be filled by someone else who is willing to accept the new profit levels. That was my point.

You have NO idea how much I want them to go. I do my best not to associate with people/entities that exist only for how much profit they can extort.

Seems like a real uphill battle to overthrow the system and mold it into your version of utopia. Have you considered leaving? Sounds easier.

There are still a number of countries that embrace your ideals. Cuba is closest. Like I said, why take on the uphill battle? A quick boat trip and nirvana!

Because:

A) I'm right, and I'm a better person for it than those who act out of self-interest and greed
B) I have an inherited responsibility to act to keep the ideal of America alive, no matter the cost. It's why I vote, why I served in the military, why I spend so many hours each day studying so many different disciplines, etc.

You are self-interested simply by saying you're right. You are self-interested for studying to better yourself.

"What is greed? After all, none of us are greedy. It's always the other fella who's greedy."

If you can, using examples from my life, label me as greedy (economically) I'll buy you lunch. I care less about money than any person you've probably ever met.

 

[TheSkinsFan]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan
Just for the record, Obama already levied one of the highest tax increases in history on those making less than $250k when he raised the cigarette tax by more than a dollar-per-pack last Spring.

This would just be more icing on the cake of broken promises.

Fuck Pelosi. She has no business remaining in power, and I can't for the life of me figure out the reason why she's still there... wait, nevermind, it's fucking California. Duh. :|

Only affects people who smoke, and affects those over 250k who smoke as well...so your statement = fail.

I believe his pledge was made for "anyone" making less than 250k per year, and stats indicate that the vast majority of smokers fall into that category.

So the failure is all yours.

 

[TheSkinsFan]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
It's not telling at all, I really think you just don't understand how our currency system works. The government creates money by spending, the government destroys money by taxing. That's how it works.

Please use your Eskimospynomics to explain the concept of a balanced budget.

 

[daishi5]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: daishi5

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: daishi5

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: BoberFett

What did the government do with that $100? Chance are it was redistributed to employees or used to purchase goods made through private enterprise which puts it... wait for it... back into the economy.

If taxes removed money from the economy, our money supply would be $0 after a couple years.

What's wrong with you?

The government didn't do anything with the money it taxes, for all meaningful purposes it piles it up on the White House lawn and lights it on fire. Do you even know how our currency system works? You seriously don't know that taxation lowers the money supply?

Government puts new money into the market by giving people dollars in exchange for their services. This choice is dependent in literally zero way on how much money they have taken in taxes that year. Government spending is not constrained by taxation in any way, shape, or form outside of inflationary pressure. (and technically extreme inflation is not a direct constraint either, just a bad idea.) The government is not like your household, because while you as a person are spending currency someone else creates, they are spending currency THEY create. They can circulate new money if they wish, but it's not like they are actually taking your money and circulating it like someone does out of a Starbucks cash register.

I think everyone here is getting confused because they are trying to relate spending by the government to spending by your household. They are nothing alike. Taxation serves to free up the government to spend more money without causing inflation if it wishes to do so, the government is not actually taking your money and recirculating it.

I am going to double check, but I am fairly certain that every econ and finance teacher I have had since high school disagrees with you. Just an FYI, the Federal Reserve seems to believe it is in charge of the money supply NY federal reserve. Also, what do you think the federal debt is, if they just make the money, wouldn't they never be in debt? Oh, and treasury bills, why does the government have to sell them if they can just make money?

I am sorry for the sarcasm, but I needed to hammer the point home, you are just plain wrong. The government deficit is the difference between spending and taxes, which builds up into debt. The government gets its extra money through selling securities, to cover the deficit. The government does not create new money.

The Money supply is determined by the Central Bank, in the United States, the Federal Reserve System.

Source, Macroeconomics, pg 251, Abel, Bernanke Croushore.

Edit: I fail at typing.

Congress DELEGATES its authority to coin money to the Federal Reserve, the Federal Reserve does not do so with powers inherent outside the government. In case anyone is interested in this theory on money creation it's called Chartalism

Regardless of if you buy into that or not, it's widely accepted that taxation removes money from circulation, thus causing deflation. I'm not really sure who argues otherwise?

EDIT: Also, the government could be out of debt tomorrow if it wanted to be. It would be an awful idea, but they could do it.

I don't think that is what you said.

The government didn't do anything with the money it taxes, for all meaningful purposes it piles it up on the White House lawn and lights it on fire.

Government puts new money into the market by giving people dollars in exchange for their services. This choice is dependent in literally zero way on how much money they have taken in taxes that year. Government spending is not constrained by taxation in any way, shape, or form outside of inflationary pressure. (and technically extreme inflation is not a direct constraint either, just a bad idea.) The government is not like your household, because while you as a person are spending currency someone else creates, they are spending currency THEY create. They can circulate new money if they wish, but it's not like they are actually taking your money and circulating it like someone does out of a Starbucks cash register.

One part of the government does take your money, and then distribute that very same money back out again, it may be a different physical bill, but it is the money you paid in taxes. Taxes are Government revenue, spending are the outlays, and the difference is a surplus or deficit. They do not pile the money up and light it on fire, figuratively speaking. They spend the money they receive through taxes, they make up the difference in securities.

They DO NOT create money just by spending more, that spending must be matched to fund raising through the sales of securities. The government does not create money when it spends, it borrows money to spend that extra cash. That is why we pay interest on our debt.

The federal reserve system changes the money supply through open market activities, reserve requirements and interest rates. You seem to be confused with the idea of inflation through spending, as well. But, the federal reserve system is not in any way involved with government spending.

But, back to the original point I was making, Boberfett is right, the government takes your $100 dollars and spends it for you. If they want to spend more, they ask for more money and promise to pay it back with interest. Then they take that other nice person's money and spend it. Later they take someone else money from taxes, and give that taxpayers money to the nice person who loaned the government money.

So where does this money come from? The government accepts tax payments in dollars, so where do you get a dollar to spend? The US government is the sole entity with the authority to create dollars, so how does one get a dollar? (the federal reserve acts with the government's authority, but it is still acting as an agent of the government) The government can't take your $100 without having created $100 worth of currency first.

The government most certainly does create money when it borrows, because that borrowing is not backed by any existing asset, nor need it be. In fact the issuance of securities is one of the primary ways to inject more money into our system. The government creates demand for its currency through taxation, thus ensuring that the money injected is actually useful. Now in this case we're just arguing different theories of money creation, and I'm not really interested in doing that. (it's most certainly not my area of expertise.) Regardless, your flat statement that one theory is right and the other wrong is an overstatement at a minimum.

So while I'm not really trying to get into economics arguments that I'm not particularly well equipped for, my only point originally was that taxation removes money from the system. If someone disagrees with that, I would like to know why.

The reason I disagree with that is that this part of your statement is wrong. I understand the theory of your statement. But, our government does not act in this manner. To put it plainly, every dollar spent by our government is matched by a dollar in government revenue, and every dollar collected is spent either through normal government spending, or to buy back those securities. Even if our government had no debt, it would still put the money back in the economy through investments.

I am not arguing about theory, I am arguing about actual implementation. What you are saying is possible, and I think some other governments do this, but ours does not. Our government could do it in theory, but it does not remove money from circulation through taxation.

 

[Darwin333]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
I can't wait for tax induced inflation! VAT is cool because it's a great tax that's obscured along the way. Well we knew we were going to get screwed and that the Dems weren't any better. They just screw us differently. It's come to the point where it's not worth the gas money to vote for any of these leeches.

'Tax induced inflation'? Taxes remove money from the economy, not add to it.

Not really. The Government IS a very large part of our economy. The money they take from you is then spent back into the economy in some form or fashion. On top of the money it raises from taxation we borrow even more money and pour it into the economy as well so we do actually see a net gain in the money added to the economy versus taken via taxes. (The above is an assumption, some money is lost in the process, inefficiencies, interests payments on the external debt, etc..)


I am not sure how you make the argument that the above will lead to inflation in todays world though. If you are worried about inflation, I would be more concerned about the blatant monetization of the debt than some tax.

Edit:

2008 GDP was 14.26T
Fed. revenue was approx 2.5T
So the Federal Gov took about 17.5% of GDP via taxation

That is kinda depressing. Even if they put 17.5% back in (the higher end of the numbers I have seen), we still borrowed a shit pot of money that didn't make it into our economy.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: NeoV
here we go - another 'hypothetical' evil action the dems are planning - remember when they were going to - ............insert horrific sounding Democratic plan here..........

Have any of these things actually made it past this fear mongering stage? Get some new tactics, this is getting boring

This.

I've had so many absolute FUD Emails passed to me where I just /facepalm when I read them.

 

[StageLeft]

Nobody actually thought these silly healthcare overhauls would be deficit neutral without tax increases anyway.

 

[Praxis1452]

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: Praxis1452
I refuse to vote because I support neither party, and won't make the choice for "the lesser evil" as the lesser evil has created this system, and the fact that people continue to vote, means they support this system.

Hint: I don't believe in democracy, thereby I can't even be counted as supporting either party... but back to refuting your points.

A) Good thing we don't live in a democracy
B) Your reason for not voting is Grade A Retarded. It's not a choice of one party vs. another. Try reading the ballot sometime and look at the other non-R and non-D candidates. Try being more active by writing to your representatives. They just might listen if you express your concerns, since you are their constituent.

I don't believe in democracy because I don't believe in the sanctity of majority. At democracy's heart is the idea that majority will should be followed. I disagree, and so I don't vote, because if I did, and my candidate won, I would be fundamentally at odds with my beliefs.

Other non-R and non-D candidates might as well not exist on the national level for all the effect they have. I don't believe in democracy, thereby I don't write to my representative. Simple.

Here's why voting only continues this system. The system itself, has told you, the people, everyone that voting and participating in this system is the way to produce the right type of change, or is the correct process toward change, and I disagree. But beyond my disagreement what we have is the political process of voting. What you suggested was that if only more people would vote, or if I could lobby, I could have my way. And at that proposition I have nothing but laughter. By voting you reinforce this political process. The same political process that has created these two parties and I don't believe that these two parties arose randomly, but out of a process that suggests that only two parties can exist. That the market is only large enough for two firms so to speak. Thereby, by voting, I cannot produce the change I wish to see disregarding the previous logical comments as to why I refuse to vote. Also, the sentiment seems to be that most people are not happy with the system, are not happy with democrats and republicans alike, and yet they continue to vote as if it'll really get better. Derisive laughter is all I have for that.

 

[Praxis1452]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Praxis1452

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Praxis1452
You still haven't admitted you were completely wrong about your whole consumer prices won't increase. Taxation removes money from private industry, which is to put it simply bad. Your analysis of government spending is correct, and that is why it's so disagreeable. The government has unlimited government spending and removes money from private industry while still taxing to reduce inflation. If the government really chooses to use these powers/ then you get socialism, it's absolutely a fact.

Well you can certainly reasonably argue that it's a bad idea, but that has nothing to do with what I was talking about.

You were talking about consumers and taxes. You were wrong, and I proved it.

I simply stated my opinion to help you understand why people are against it. It's very simple and it has something to do with what you were talking about.

No I wasn't wrong, and you proved nothing. Do you understand what 'proof' is?

You stated that the consumers would not bear the tax burden at all or atleast very little. That's a lie, it depends on the elasticity of the supply and demand curves. This is a fact. You are thereby wrong.

Nice try to deflect with the definition of proof.