Taxes, tea-parties and the economy

by Spook 17 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Spook

  I've jumped in on several threads about the issues contained in the title and not gotten real responses. I'm not attributing any meaning to this or saying it means the proponents can't defend this. I still want to know from those whose view entails the following set of propositions just what your arguments are

  1. Increasing government debt in a recession will always or at least probably lead to further tax rate increases.

  (If you mean quasi-taxes, be specific and deal with quasi-tax cuts as well. Please discuss the impact of tax basis as part of GDP. Also please discuss your notion of the real value of money, the ideal exchange rate and the ideal level of inflation.)

  2. Increasing a certain tax bracket is either immoral or else pragmattically worse than making no change or decreasing that tax, all things considered.

  I don't understand the positions here, not for lack of trying or unfamiliarity with the subject matter. I've tried, but I have not found a coherent argument for these. I previously posted a request to justify some version of the folowing, similar to the above. (with some adjustments here to the original)

  1. Certain tax policies such as a change in an upper income percentile, are either morally wrong or else probably will produce worse consequences than either no change in these tax brackets or a decrease in these tax brackets. 2. Despite an analysis of the pragmatic elements involved, such a policy should be rejected as either un-constitutional or un-American in way that is different and worse than other reinterpretations of the constitution or changes in the American zeitgeist which have happened either by necessity or change in the majority judgement. I know there are far-flung issues here - some of which I contest against the current administration and liberals. (I can be a bit of a war-hawk, I'm not a cultural relativist, and on and on...). I simply feel that conservatives in general no longer have a rational approach to taxation. I've also pointed out elsewhere why specifically I disagree with the concern over government spending and I believe from numerous sources that this is the majority judgement of economists. Namely, the practical and necessary choice for government is high levels of government spending during a recession in combination with other policies. I am a smoker. In Chicago I pay nearly $10 for a pack of cigarettes. Most of this is punitive taxation. Smokers, though a minority, are a significant minority of about %20 ish when last I checked. American legal theory does not adequately define which minority opinions deserve special consideration. This is a problem for democracy in general at any theoretical level. If the majority want the minority to be taxed more, they will be taxed more unless such a minority controls some other feature of the government to a greater degree. Yet my protesting against this tax requires assuming things I would not apply in other areas - so I don't protest because I'm only asking for my self interest to be more important to other people than it is. All I really hear is "Certain policies are worse for a minority of Americans, and therefore the majority of Americans should oppose them." I don't think this is coherent. Every policy is worse for a minority of Americans.

  Again, if there is a good conservative argument for these tax theories or economic worries out there then lay it on me. I'm not biased against conservatives - I'd like to think.

  If there is a pragmatic argument here then by all means deliver it. If it is not a pragmatic argument but a normative argument of what we should do as right regardless of the impact then by all means give that. I wouldn't reject that out of hand even though it is not the way I happen to think. I'd really just like to know.

  My political views are shaped by the knowledge that the world which would be the best for me would be very bad for everyone else. The world that would be best for people very much like me would also be bad for most other people. It seems like in any possible government or world where there is a compromise of my self interest I must embrace the notioin that some others will derive a benefit from me in which I do not share and also I will experience a loss of possible benefits in which I had no choice.
• 

  Amazing

  Spook:

  The two opposing sides have these fundamental difference:

  Conservatives distrust big government, and therefore want smaller government. To achieve this, low taxes keeps the government from growing and controlling our lives. Also, by keeping taxes lower, individual people and businesses have more to spend, and can find more efficient ways to achieve better results. Conservatives understand that when you raise taxes, business will only have to offset this raise by increasing prices ... and thus the individual consumer/taxpayer ends up paying the tax anyway. They see it as slight of hand and dishonesty by the government. The keynote is individualism and personal liberty ... and not a guarantee of total equality when it comes to personal wealth and achievement.

  Liberals distrust big business, and therefore want greater government involvement. To achieve this, they want higher taxes on the wealthy and big business, which keeps big business under control through either tax benefits-incentives, or punishment. By raising taxes, Liberals can finance programs and benefits that they believe the people need, and could not have without big government. An example is universal health care programs, designed to equalize the health care needs of all citizens. The key note is fairness and an equal playing field, a sense of community ... and not individual advantage ... personal wealth is considered as unfair.

  I personally favor the conservative approach, as it more closely resembles the theme on which the nation was founded, and specifically many of the founding fathers condemned what they saw as the welfare state that Liberals want today. I distrust any central authority and power arrangement ... whether big human government or big theocratic-religious government. We see how big Soviet government, big Nazi government, and big Muslim governments have become abusive ... and our own American government has become abusive at times. My theme: Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

  However, Liberals do have a point in the sense of community, and in caring for one another when times get too tough to individually handle. BUT, I prefer a local approach and local community to develop and deliver needed assistance, such as what many Churches do.

  THE PROBLEM is that both sides talk past one another and fail to listen, often engage in applying labels and slogans, and do not engage in educated exchanges. It may be a reflection of not growing past some JW traits ... but I think the problem is generally systemic in society at large, and not a JW social issue. Notwithstanding these thoughts, I tend to avoid political discussions on this and other ex-JW forums, as I am not skilled at moving the discussion in a better direction.

  I edited some of my statements for clarity and spelling.
• 

  Spook

  Thanks for the answer. It wasn't exactly what I was looking for but I appreciate the thought. I've had to conlcude that most people who say these things are not quite sure of what they mean in the same way I feel many people don't really know what they are saying when they describe a god concept. I won't be too cruel here, but I want to add some depth to hopefully clarify my problem for any other readers...

  Conservatives distrust big government, and therefore want smaller government

  I would have to assume conservatives in general distrust big government for some reason. I'm not quite sure what they mean by "big," all things considered. Absolute Divine Right Monarchy could be considered "Big" or "Small" in several obvious ways.

  Also, by keeping taxes lower, individual people and businesses have more to spend, and can find more efficient ways to achieve better results.

  This is not remotely objectively true. How much one has to spend depends on income minus expenses, of which taxes is one expense category. Not to mention the buying power of currency and real wages. It seems obvious that high taxes with low expenses could at least in theory result in more discretionary income for most people. Optionally, very low taxes with very low incomes would seem worse to me than moderately high taxes with medium incomes, all things considered. I would agree on the efficiency term, however. That seems well established.

  Conservatives understand that when you raise taxes, business will only have to offset this raise by increasing prices ... and thus the individual consumer/taxpayer ends up paying the tax anyway. They see it as slight of hand and dishonesty by the government.

  This is clearly a false belief. The consumer bears some of the cost increase and the provider bears some of the reduction in profit caused by the tax impact on profitability and demand. Who is favored by this balance makes a difference and is specific to the individual case. To say otherwise is to assume that supply and demand is a fiction. No cost can be fully passed on to the consumers. No free lunch.

  To bash the liberals for a bit:

  I think they usually make the mistake religious people do about evolution. Many think the appearance of order means someone is controlling the whole thing! This is not true of biology or the economy. The economy is the result of the net actions of one's peers.

  I think it's also objectively false that "all men are created equal." I think holding an objectively false "self-evident truth" could possibly be akin to the definition of insanity - and that probably applies to both the political parties.
• 

  beksbks

  Spook, I'm just a girl, but I must respond to Amazings comments here.

  Conservatives distrust big government, and therefore want smaller government. To achieve this, low taxes keeps the government from growing and controlling our lives. First of all, recent Conservative administrations have actually grown government, the theory is just rhetoric. Also, by keeping taxes lower, individual people and businesses have more to spend, and can find more efficient ways to achieve better results. There is no example over the last 100 years of this being true. In fact just the opposite. Indeed we are in the worst economic condition we've been in since the 1930's, and this comes after having 30 years of Conservative lower taxes. With a small break during which the economy grew, and government shrank (under a "Liberal"). Conservatives understand that when you raise taxes, business will only have to offset this raise by increasing prices ... and thus the individual consumer/taxpayer ends up paying the tax anyway. They see it as slight of hand and dishonesty by the government. Again, facts do not bear this out. The keynote is individualism and personal liberty ... and not a guarantee of total equality when it comes to personal wealth and achievement. Yet they are more than ready to take away this individualism and personal liberty for women or gays.

  Liberals distrust big business, and therefore want greater government involvement. Liberals want the government to do their job. The things the individual can not. To put in place checks and balances that prevent the Aristocracy (big money) from getting a stranglehold on the people. Usurping the needs of the people in order to indulge their own desires. To achieve this, they want higher taxes on the wealthy and big business, which keeps big business under control through either tax benefits-incentives, or punishment. We want the wealthy and big business to pay thier share. By raising taxes, Liberals can finance programs and benefits that they believe the people need, and could not have without big government. Again, we want government to do it's job. Clean water, defense, air quality, education, infrastructure, etc. etc. An example is universal health care programs, designed to equalize the health care needs of all citizens. Actually, this is an advantage for businesses trying to compete in a global market as much as anything else. This is also an example of big business out of control, taking advantage of a populace who needs the product they sell. Gouging. The key note is fairness and an equal playing field, a sense of community ... and not individual advantage ... personal wealth is considered as unfair. This is patently untrue. There are plenty of wealthy liberals out there. Personal wealth is something most people aspire to. But not everyone is interested in accumulating it at all costs.
• 

  Amazing

  Spook,

  I will look over and respond to your comments ... but you can see by the added commentary by "beksbks" that she is clearly bias as an example of what I mean when both sides talk past one another.

  I do not for a moment believe that either party or philosophy sticks to its "principles." Both fall far short of accomplishing anything really well. I was simply stating theory and platforms. But, before I continue further commentary ... I want to assess whether it is worth the risk of getting into a heated debate over this topic.
• 

  beksbks

  but you can see by the added commentary by "beksbks" that she is clearly bias as an example of what I mean when both sides talk past one another.

  Why is that Amazing? I thoroughly read your generalizations. And responded with fact.
• 

  Spook

  Beks, all women are created equal, too. Whatever that means!

  If the conservative defenders can't tell me how "economic liberalism" as invisioned by Adam Smith eventually became economic conservativism then they may be missing the whole question!
• 

  Spook

  Amazing,

  I understand your point.

  clearly bias as an example of what I mean when both sides talk past one another.

  I know what you mean - but bias as apparent doesn't mean bias indeed. I think a lot of the talking past each other happens here becuase...

  1. Economics and politics are actually astoundingly complex yet...

  2. They deeply impact everyone, so...

  3. Most people feel justified having very strong opinions about broad ranging issues.

  So thanks to both you, Amazing, and beks, for responding. If anything I'd like this thread to illustrate how deep some of these questions really are. So no "victory" will be declared, since I'm not really arguing anything here. I just would like to fully understand some of these positions without me making assumptions. Like I've said, it's not for lack of trying.

  Cheers!
• 

  beksbks

  Spook

  Are there facts and figures available that either confirm or deny which ideology has proven more successful?
• 

  sammielee24

  I think Beks has said most of what I would...I would take the attitude shown from Republicans who tout themselves as Convervative over the past years and insert that Republicans (which represent conservatism) are for big business at any cost including human and prefer to operate on the view of individualism masking for selfishness and greed which includes using all they can to save that business and the $$ they see. This is found in the socializing the losses for all the businesses on Wall Street and the players there...they will play if they don't have to pay. Republicans lean toward a class mentality.

  Liberals for the most part tend to work toward equity and fairness in community while at the same time supporting business that treats their community (workers) with the same fairness and tend want their government to do the job they are hired to do as representatives for them - as a buffer between the corporations and the people, to ensure that the people are treated fairly by business.

  Republicans for business; Dems for people. Conservative vs Liberal, however, it all crosses over. sammieswife.

  The Oxford Dictionary of English defines conservative: adjective, averse to change or innovation and holding to traditional attitudes and values, typically in relation to politics or religion.

  That same dictionary defines liberal:adjective, willing to respect or accept behavior or opinions different from one’s own; open to new ideas; favorable to or respectful of individual rights and freedoms.