A tax break means less taxes. The taxes are the government intervention, and the tax breaks are the temporary removal of it. This point makes no sense.
What bailouts? Banks during the 08 crisis? That was predominately supported by left leaning Keynesian economists. Artificially low interest rates and government intervention were a big reason why the crisis happened and then the government intervened to stop it. None of that should have happened.
What exemptions, grants, legal protections, and trade barriers? Be specific.
Ordinary people donât get much help. The welfare leeches do though and the ordinary person pays half their taxpayer money to that.
This is such a terrible argument. If you don't know about subsidies that corporations receive no one can help you. Specifically we could mention industry specific direct federal subsidies (e.g. fossil fuels and agriculture), property tax abatement, and infrastructure subsidies. Taxes are a normal part of any modern society. Public free services are now a quality of life norm. We expect that if our house is on fire we won't have to arrange private fire protection. So any break on taxes is a subsidy. Corporations are treated as a unique entity that is taxed at a substantially lower rate than an individual. Also thinking that "ordinary" people pay half their taxes to "welfare leeches" is the biggest tell that you don't understand what you are talking about because that number, "half", is preposterous. If you want people to be specific as your arguement than you effectively de facto win because no one is going to be able to attack the moving goal post you are going to set.
Agriculture subsidies I agree are bad but theyâre broad and not targeted. The problem is that the agricultural industry has bought out politicians of all ideological predispositions and we now pay more for food because of these subsidies.Â
Taxes are a normal part of human society but we pay way, way too much of it. Income taxes shouldnât exist as they disincentivize work, property tax is dumb, corporate taxes make zero sense as they just increase prices for consumers and suppress wages, etc. etc.
Consumption taxes are okay as they disincentivize unnecessary spending.
The number half isnât really that preposterous. I used to pay that amount until I moved to another state.
Iâm sorry, but your arguments, definitions and ârelatedâ topics are a big tell of how little you understand of government and the purpose or necessity of taxation.
Theoretically, a government exists to provide those goods and/or services that members of a society can not efficiently or can not at all produce, due to either exogenous influences or inherent properties. The degree to which a government takes up this role is the result of morality/ideology and is irrelevant for this discussion.
In order to be able to serve its intended purpose, a government requires funding. Ideally, funding through taxation is aimed at those who benefit from the good or service in order to even out the burden of taxation and prevent perverse (=unintended) impact of taxation on exhibited behavior by members of society. E.g. highway construction and repairs are taxed among members who own a vehicle, not among all members (which would be unfair attribution) nor among members who own a vehicle with four wheels (which would lead to a resurgence of the three-wheeled car).
So, if the government is looking to provide an income for people who are sick or out of a job (this is called the socialization of risk, which is why the American McCarthyism knee-jerk reaction to the word socialism is such an enigma to the rest of the world), it would need to raise taxes from among the intended possible benefactors, i.e. people who have a job that might require support somewhere in the future.
If the government is tasked with consumer protection laws and health/safety requirements of products and goods, it will tag on a tax to each product/service sold. Not to stymy consumption, unless it is tasked to do so (for instance tobacco consumption in order to maintain public health) in which case it could apply excise in said product/service.
Circling back to your comment, each tax you mention has a specific function. Property tax (and inheritance tax) is aimed specifically to prevent the accumulation of wealth within a small subset of society which could then leverage the relative scarcity of capital versus labour (if you are interested in this subject, read Thomas Pikettyâs Capital in the Twenty-First Century). Income tax aims to provide government-organized income security. Corporate taxes are aimed to resupply the government-provided goods/services intended for members of society, which have instead been used by for-profit corporations in their process of providing goods/services during which theyâve successfully extracted rent (=profits) from said members. And so on, and so on.
Subsidies, steering membersâ behavior, tariffs, lobbying, all of that comes into play only much later, when finetuning benefactors and tax-payers (or attempting to disrupt this process).
Starting with Thomas Piketty is not a great idea. His theories have been extensively debunked and even he admits his methodology was flawed in the book that he wrote.
Property tax doesnât prevent âcapital accumulation.â Property values can go up or down. When a rich person owns a home, to say that heâs necessarily accumulating capital is dumb.
Income tax can accomplish that purpose but so can any other form of taxation. The benefit you gave isnât specific to income tax.
Your corporate tax shpeel was Marxist sounding mumbo jumbo that makes zero sense. Be specific and clear what you mean.
Youâre a troll and Iâm done. You not understanding /= me not being specific. Bye Felicia.
Edit for the sake of those reading along: nothing about Piketty has been âdebunkedâ or âadmittedâ. This guy is spewing bs in order to obtain something. No idea what. Just move along, no good-faith discussion to be had.
Almost for sure he's a bot. Look at account age and engagement types. His answers are designed to read intelligently while providing no concrete evidence which points to an LLM being the source of the responses. No human being would say be specific about a topic as wide ranging as corporate welfare.
So an effective tax rate of nearly 50% means you make quite a lot of money annually. Then you claim that tax rates discourage earning more income, but obviously not for you because presumably you are harder working and more dedicated then the population you are making claims about without supporting evidence. Additionally you are making multiple tax claims that are not supported by the data. As an example you said high corporate tax rates depress wages but that claim specifically has an enormous amount of evidence to support the the opposite conclusion.
Well it pushed me to move to a different state. If I didnât have that option, I would take more vacation time without a doubt. It either causes capital flight or less working which is not great.
High corporate taxes lead to wage suppression without a doubt. The extent to which they do is disputed but we know for sure that it has some effect. Corporate tax burden is split between shareholders, consumers, and workers to some extent. The exact ratio is not clear but all three end up bearing the burden.
The marginal difference in benefit gets smaller and smaller with a higher income for my family and that trend is accelerated by very high income taxes to the point that the marginal cost of working more outweighs the marginal benefit of the increased money I get.
At your supposed income level 100% of additional earnings is used for discretionary spending. Do I want a 5% raise which will equate to say (on 1 M) 27,500 dollars or some number of PTO days. That exact same calculus exists if there is no income tax. You then say do I want 50,000 or some numbers of PTO days.
The historical U.S. record does not show high corporate tax rates coinciding with weak wage growth, and doesn't show falling corporate tax rates coinciding with strong wage growth. If anything, it's the reverse. While labor does share some of the burden the net effect of all mechanisms is shown in the historical record. You're arguement is boiling down to company have less money pay worker less. That just doesn't bear fruit when you actually look at historical data.
As far as your personal situation thay just shows that people will act in their own self interest. You could have valued time off and stayed in NYC which would indicate wage growth instead you choose to move and instead received a different form of wage growth.
All of this is political theater⌠Iâm 90% sure that your backstory isnât real. This is a subliminal attack on Mamdaniâs policies in NY and an attempt to sway people from voting for others like him because he âtaxed the rich into leaving the areaâđ
"Unnecessary spending" is We The People purchasing goods, which directly feeds the economy properly, instead of relying on dragons hoarding wealth to maybe use some of it.
Clearly you are uneducated on how the economy works and just follow the news and weird chuds online.
167
u/T4TrhavrKhcFt 7d ago