Quote:
Originally Posted by Letum
The economy "endures" it because tax
does not especially involve money leaving the economy. It all pays for the
things the country needs or the voters want.
|
I disagree. The economy endures because the market is a very powerful force, even when the state takes a big chunk of private industry's revenue and wastes it. Taxes damage incentive and investment, and enough of them can more or less ruin both.
Perhaps in the U.K. taxes pay for things people want, but in the U.S. they often don't. Did anyone want to pay McDonald's 30 million in subsidies last year? How about a few trillion for our worthless social security system? Anyone? It's a good deal! The government takes your money and buries it in a hole until you're 65, and then gives you a few hundred dollars every month......any takers?
There
is a valid argument for high taxes, but it has to include choice. Most European political systems offer more choice in representation than we have here. Countries with better public schools usually allow parents to pick which school their children attend. Most U.S. state functions are inefficient because there is no incentive to perform, no competition. It's a monopoly, and worse, it's a monopoly backed up by force. That's why people like me promote third parties and states' rights. We want more choice in our government. Choice makes things work better.
That being said, I'd prefer a low tax rate rather than a high one. Nowhere is there more choice than in the free market and you need money to make choices in the free market. Investors, consumers, and entrepeneurs can all make more choices when less of their money goes to taxes. Of course, the state might retain power to break up harmful monopolies if they should occur and must provide basic societal structure, but it need not be the monolith it has become and it need not be expensive.
Quote:
I have no problem with high tax for people who earn money by means of
their capital or monopoly, rather than by means of their labour and/or production.
|
You might not have a problem with it but those people will, and unfortunately they are an important part of the industrial engine. They are vital because they invest, and investment is key to the founding and expansion of a business. If they are driven off, or dissuaded from investing due to lack of capital, business suffers. Jobs are not created, products are not made.
Even in investing, you cannot make something from nothing (unless the state and fiat currency get into the mix). Should these people not stand to profit from risking their capital? If not, then they won't do it.
There are two misconceptions that seem to fuel this desire to take from the rich, I think. The first is that economics is a zero-sum game. It is not.
Just because they have more does not mean you get less. You would think that would be apparent, but evidently a lot of people's education in economics doesn't extend much beyond watching "Wall Street".
The second is that these people are somehow bad for society or unfair. They can be, to be sure, but most of them create thousands of jobs and even donate healthy sums to charity.
Investors and entrepeneurs may take a bigger slice of the pie, but they made the damn thing to begin with, so who's to complain? I want them to make a gigantic pie, the biggest they can, so that my comparitively small slice will still be quite big.
Taxation, however,
is a zero-sum game, to some extent, especially in the U.S. When the state takes a third of my paycheck, I don't get anything for it. My employer doesn't recieve funds to expand, thus securing my job. I don't get quality healthcare or schools.(although my
private healthcare is quite excellent) The police don't keep my things from being stolen. Nobody gives me free money. The economy does not expand and make things better for me. No new products are made.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jimbuna
Of course...the mega rich often have the means to employ people solely with the responsibility of ensuring they don't pay the taxes they should
|
Well, of course they do. Politicians don't want to pay taxes, so they come up with all kinds of subsidies and loopholes. That's the danger of allowing them to mingle with business. They'll be looking out for their financial interests, to be sure. They're also looking out for their votes, so they will favor policy that keeps business in their state or district or what have you. They made the system that broke the system they made.
If the state didn't have the power to tax and spend and make policy willy-nilly, they couldn't do that and there would be no incentive for business to get into bed with them.
Sorry for the long post but this is a hot-button issue for me.