Is low Taxation the cause of the current economic Depression?

[Hum Dinger]

I'll turn that question around to you. Please qualify your statement.
I'll add to mine....this country no longer produces any significant quantity of goods. Perhaps we could start manufacturing again.

In other words...you don't have an answer. There is no relation between the federal debt and the current economic depression.

I agree that we need to increase manufacturing, but that's a different discussion.

I've noticed that our bankruptcy courts are full of individuals that 'serviced' the interest on their debt and continued deficit spending until their creditors cut them off. How is National spending any different? I disagree with your statement that we are years away from being unable to service our debt. And please don't counter with the quanitative easing argument, that's paramont to counterfeiting in my book.
Also, you didn't qualify your statement, you simply repeated it.

How exactly do you mean "qualify your statement"?

 

[JakeStarkey]

No economic depression exists.

Yes, taxes could be raised without hurting the recovery.

 

[Hum Dinger]

... Higher taxation means lower profit which forces investors into higher risk investments ...

Seriously?

I mean, you can't be saying that there's some super big tax hike that's big enough to make you want to go right out and invest all your money in some exceptionally high risk business.

People have financial goals. In order to fulfill those goals they may be forced to take higher risks. So yes, when their profits are reduced they will invest in higher risk ventures - they may not like it - but they will have to.

After all, they wouldn't want to have to work for a living.

 

[Hum Dinger]

Which explains why the stock market is so low, while T-Bills continue to deliver a high interest rate.

Wait...

Stock investments are, for the most part, low risk investments - especially now that corporate profits are high and corporations are sitting on huge sums of cash. Companies are not taking risks. The reliability of the market has been excellent except for the disaster in 2007. Most people believe that will never happen again.

If stock was a low risk investment it would deliver a lower yield. For example, even though they were protected by law, every pension fund that invested in GM was fucked because of the way Obama handled the bankruptcy. Does that sound low risk to you?

By the way, the market has crashed 5 times since 2007. Anyone that thinks crashes aren't going to happen must have been asleep all that time.

GM got screwed by Wall St. & the financial system.

Those short term crashes may have hurt short time investors - those people that see the stock market as a casino, but long term investors have more than recovered.

I made a bunch more money in my 401k since whenever the stock market goes down, I get more stock per dollar invested. The market should be for long term investors.

 

[Truthseeker1]

In other words...you don't have an answer. There is no relation between the federal debt and the current economic depression.

I agree that we need to increase manufacturing, but that's a different discussion.

I've noticed that our bankruptcy courts are full of individuals that 'serviced' the interest on their debt and continued deficit spending until their creditors cut them off. How is National spending any different? I disagree with your statement that we are years away from being unable to service our debt. And please don't counter with the quanitative easing argument, that's paramont to counterfeiting in my book.
Also, you didn't qualify your statement, you simply repeated it.

There is a huge difference between the federal government's finances and the finances of individuals. Whenever conservatives compare some example of an individual's finances and then ask why there is any difference between that and the federal government, I have to laugh.

It shows that you do not have any understanding of economics:

The federal government can print money in any quantity it wants - no individual or institution or government can do that. The federal government can also issue bonds, and those bonds are the single staple of the world's economy. They are the world's most secure investment. (As long as the Tea Party doesn't **** that up).

Financially, there is no individual government or institution that compares with the Federal government.

Really? I have run a successful business for decades based on a foundation of PRODUCTION.
So the Federal government is tantamont to a Financial God? I believe I understand economics quite well. I suspect you subscribe to progressive socialism, a system that operates quite nicely, until you run out of other people's money.
As far as my request to qualify your statement; please explain your proclamation utilizing justification backed up by facts and examples. Does that clarify it for you?

 

[Rshermr]

I've noticed that our bankruptcy courts are full of individuals that 'serviced' the interest on their debt and continued deficit spending until their creditors cut them off. How is National spending any different? I disagree with your statement that we are years away from being unable to service our debt. And please don't counter with the quanitative easing argument, that's paramont to counterfeiting in my book.
Also, you didn't qualify your statement, you simply repeated it.

There is a huge difference between the federal government's finances and the finances of individuals. Whenever conservatives compare some example of an individual's finances and then ask why there is any difference between that and the federal government, I have to laugh.

It shows that you do not have any understanding of economics:

The federal government can print money in any quantity it wants - no individual or institution or government can do that. The federal government can also issue bonds, and those bonds are the single staple of the world's economy. They are the world's most secure investment. (As long as the Tea Party doesn't **** that up).

Financially, there is no individual government or institution that compares with the Federal government.

Really? I have run a successful business for decades based on a foundation of PRODUCTION.
So the Federal government is tantamont to a Financial God? I believe I understand economics quite well. I suspect you subscribe to progressive socialism, a system that operates quite nicely, until you run out of other people's money.
As far as my request to qualify your statement; please explain your proclamation utilizing justification backed up by facts and examples. Does that clarify it for you?

So, you suspect that tax increases during high unemployment times would be a bad thing??? I think not. Because you would normally expect that the tax revenues resulting would be used to stimulate the economy.

So, lets see your response to this: Tax decreases have never resulted in a better economy when unemployment is high. But tax increases have resulted in stimulative spending which HAS made the economy better.

And, since you seem to be worried about deficits, can you show a time when a high deficit, or a high national debt, has caused an economic problem??

Lets see your facts and examples, me boy.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Stock investments are, for the most part, low risk investments - especially now that corporate profits are high and corporations are sitting on huge sums of cash. Companies are not taking risks. The reliability of the market has been excellent except for the disaster in 2007. Most people believe that will never happen again.

If stock was a low risk investment it would deliver a lower yield. For example, even though they were protected by law, every pension fund that invested in GM was fucked because of the way Obama handled the bankruptcy. Does that sound low risk to you?

By the way, the market has crashed 5 times since 2007. Anyone that thinks crashes aren't going to happen must have been asleep all that time.

GM got screwed by Wall St. & the financial system.

Those short term crashes may have hurt short time investors - those people that see the stock market as a casino, but long term investors have more than recovered.

I made a bunch more money in my 401k since whenever the stock market goes down, I get more stock per dollar invested. The market should be for long term investors.

Long term investors recovered because the fed pumped fiat money into the economy through quantitative easing, not because they are smart. Why the **** do you think they wanted Yelen in charge?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

There is a huge difference between the federal government's finances and the finances of individuals. Whenever conservatives compare some example of an individual's finances and then ask why there is any difference between that and the federal government, I have to laugh.

It shows that you do not have any understanding of economics:

The federal government can print money in any quantity it wants - no individual or institution or government can do that. The federal government can also issue bonds, and those bonds are the single staple of the world's economy. They are the world's most secure investment. (As long as the Tea Party doesn't **** that up).

Financially, there is no individual government or institution that compares with the Federal government.

Really? I have run a successful business for decades based on a foundation of PRODUCTION.
So the Federal government is tantamont to a Financial God? I believe I understand economics quite well. I suspect you subscribe to progressive socialism, a system that operates quite nicely, until you run out of other people's money.
As far as my request to qualify your statement; please explain your proclamation utilizing justification backed up by facts and examples. Does that clarify it for you?

So, you suspect that tax increases during high unemployment times would be a bad thing??? I think not. Because you would normally expect that the tax revenues resulting would be used to stimulate the economy.

So, lets see your response to this: Tax decreases have never resulted in a better economy when unemployment is high. But tax increases have resulted in stimulative spending which HAS made the economy better.

And, since you seem to be worried about deficits, can you show a time when a high deficit, or a high national debt, has caused an economic problem??

Lets see your facts and examples, me boy.

I would only expect that if one actually believed that stealing money from people is good for the economy. Since no one actually believes that, everyone, including Paul Krugman, believes that, which makes you exceptionally stupid.

 

[Rshermr]

Really? I have run a successful business for decades based on a foundation of PRODUCTION.
So the Federal government is tantamont to a Financial God? I believe I understand economics quite well. I suspect you subscribe to progressive socialism, a system that operates quite nicely, until you run out of other people's money.
As far as my request to qualify your statement; please explain your proclamation utilizing justification backed up by facts and examples. Does that clarify it for you?

So, you suspect that tax increases during high unemployment times would be a bad thing??? I think not. Because you would normally expect that the tax revenues resulting would be used to stimulate the economy.

So, lets see your response to this: Tax decreases have never resulted in a better economy when unemployment is high. But tax increases have resulted in stimulative spending which HAS made the economy better.

And, since you seem to be worried about deficits, can you show a time when a high deficit, or a high national debt, has caused an economic problem??

Lets see your facts and examples, me boy.

I would only expect that if one actually believed that stealing money from people is good for the economy. Since no one actually believes that, everyone, including Paul Krugman, believes that, which makes you exceptionally stupid.

Believes what, me boy??? That increasing taxes is good for the economy??? I did not say that. I said that presidents have used taxes to generate income for stimulus. Now, did you have a time when raising taxes have hurt a bad economy??? Or are you just talking out your posterior port, as usual. You just can not find the example, can you, me boy. Which, per normal, proves it is you that is the congenital idiot.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So, you suspect that tax increases during high unemployment times would be a bad thing??? I think not. Because you would normally expect that the tax revenues resulting would be used to stimulate the economy.

So, lets see your response to this: Tax decreases have never resulted in a better economy when unemployment is high. But tax increases have resulted in stimulative spending which HAS made the economy better.

And, since you seem to be worried about deficits, can you show a time when a high deficit, or a high national debt, has caused an economic problem??

Lets see your facts and examples, me boy.

I would only expect that if one actually believed that stealing money from people is good for the economy. Since no one actually believes that, everyone, including Paul Krugman, believes that, which makes you exceptionally stupid.

Believes what, me boy??? That increasing taxes is good for the economy??? I did not say that. I said that presidents have used taxes to generate income for stimulus. Now, did you have a time when raising taxes have hurt a bad economy??? Or are you just talking out your posterior port, as usual. You just can not find the example, can you, me boy. Which, per normal, proves it is you that is the congenital idiot.

You are the one that made a claim, all I did was mock you. The fact that you don't get that just proves that I overestimated your intelligence when I said you were exceptionally stupid.

 

[Truthseeker1]

There is a huge difference between the federal government's finances and the finances of individuals. Whenever conservatives compare some example of an individual's finances and then ask why there is any difference between that and the federal government, I have to laugh.

It shows that you do not have any understanding of economics:

The federal government can print money in any quantity it wants - no individual or institution or government can do that. The federal government can also issue bonds, and those bonds are the single staple of the world's economy. They are the world's most secure investment. (As long as the Tea Party doesn't **** that up).

Financially, there is no individual government or institution that compares with the Federal government.

Really? I have run a successful business for decades based on a foundation of PRODUCTION.
So the Federal government is tantamont to a Financial God? I believe I understand economics quite well. I suspect you subscribe to progressive socialism, a system that operates quite nicely, until you run out of other people's money.
As far as my request to qualify your statement; please explain your proclamation utilizing justification backed up by facts and examples. Does that clarify it for you?

So, you suspect that tax increases during high unemployment times would be a bad thing??? I think not. Because you would normally expect that the tax revenues resulting would be used to stimulate the economy.

So, lets see your response to this: Tax decreases have never resulted in a better economy when unemployment is high. But tax increases have resulted in stimulative spending which HAS made the economy better.

And, since you seem to be worried about deficits, can you show a time when a high deficit, or a high national debt, has caused an economic problem??

Lets see your facts and examples, me boy.

To answer your last question first; NOW.
Oh yeah, how has Obama's stimulus package worked out for us? And I guess you forgot about the Reagan era. A tax cut then actually resulted in an increase in tax dollars collected as well as higher employment rates.
Our current National debt is unprecedented and it's unrealistic to think the principle will EVER be repaid. We're in uncharted waters and lender nations are getting extremely nervous. Our National credit rating has been downgraded. When has that ever happened?

With all due respect, I'm not 'your boy'.
And, yet again you evaded qualifying your statement.

As with most progressives ,you display a typically predictable pattern. Once your argument faulters, you evade questions, change the subject and resort to condescending labels such as 'me boy' or all out name calling [thank you for refraining from that.]
Debating a person, such as yourself, is a complete waste of my time. Good day Sir.

 

[originalthought]

It seems to me that investors choose their investments according to the risk vs. profit ratio.

Everyone wants low risk and high profits. Low taxation has created an investment environment that investors can obtain reasonably good profit with low risk.

The problem with this is that low risk investments are usually not the type that cause economic growth. They are usually investments in tried and true companies that have secured a market share in a fully developed market.

Higher taxation means lower profit which forces investors into higher risk investments - the type that develops new products and exploits new and expanding markets. These are the type of investments that cause economic growth.So the result of low taxation is that while investors have the capital to invest, they do not invest in anything risky. Why would they?

OK, I would first like to know where you got this information..Where did you come up with the idea that higher taxation causes higher risk investments? Maybe i missed it, i just skimmed though the posts.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Higher taxation means lower profit which forces investors into higher risk investments - the type that develops new products and exploits new and expanding markets. These are the type of investments that cause economic growth.

How do you come to the conclusion that higher taxes force investors into riskier investments? Couldn't they simply cut from the bottom line (excess labor, supplies, ect) or raise prices to absorb the taxes?

Th

 

[Rshermr]

So, Truthseeker says:

To answer your last question first; NOW.

Now what, me boy. I asked about tax increases having hurt a bad unemployment economy. Problem with your answer is that it is incorrect. And unsupported. Because, you see, out tax rates are the lowest since the 1950's. Understand, you actually have to base your answer on facts. Not your agenda. Or your opinion.
"Under Obama Taxes Reach Lowest Level Since Truman"
Under Obama Taxes Reach Lowest Level Since Truman - Robert Schlesinger (usnews.com)
So, Truthseeker, STRIKE ONE.

Oh yeah, how has Obama's stimulus package worked out for us?

Pretty well, according to the CBO.
"CBO Says Be Thankful for the Stimulus"
CBO Says Be Thankful for the Stimulus | Crooks and Liars

"CBO’s own analysis found that the package added as many as 3.3 million jobs to the economy during the second quarter of 2010, and may have prevented the nation from lapsing back into recession."
Congressional Budget Office defends stimulus - Washington Post
Jesus, me boy. That would be STRIKE Two. You need to get your head out of those bat shit crazy con web sites you like so well.

And I guess you forgot about the Reagan era. A tax cut then actually resulted in an increase in tax dollars collected as well as higher employment rates.

Nope. I forgot nothing. Remember it well. Again, looking at a tax decrease when unemployment was high, you would be talking about the Reagan Febuary 1981 tax cut. One of the very largest tax cuts in history. Problem is, you forgot to see what happened as a result. First, the unemployment rate was at 7.3% and falling when Reagan took office. The great tax cut resulted in an increase in the unemployment rate over the next 20 months to 10.8%. The SECOND HIGHEST UNEMPLOYMENT RATE IN HISTORY, AFTER THE RATES DURING THE GREAT REPUBLICAN DEPRESSION OF 1929.
Here is a nice simple site even you may be able to use. Just enter the month and year and it gives you unemployment for a year. Month by month. Look at feb 1981 when the great reagan tax cut was signed into law, and then follow the next 18 months to a new high in rates, ohly higher in the great depression. And then tell me why you think that was a success. Remember, we were looking for GOOD results after a tax decrease in high unemployment times. You just refereed to the opposite.
That would be STRIKE THREE.
And no, me boy. Tax receipts did not increase, they DECREASED. And the DEFICIT SHOT UPWARD.
History of Deficits and Surpluses In The United States
STRIKE FOUR.
Lets hope you get something correct.

Our current National debt is unprecedented and it's unrealistic to think the principle will EVER be repaid.

The national debt is only good or bad in comparison to GDP. Or, to help you understand, in relation to the ability of the nation to repay. And no, me boy, the national debt to gnp ratio has indeed been higher. No uncharted waters here. Not sure if you are lying, or simply ignorant.

We're in uncharted waters and lender nations are getting extremely nervous.

Not hardly, me boy. Check the following:
US National Debt As Percent Of GDP United States 1940-2013 - Federal State Local Data
Wrong again. Strike FIVE.

Our National credit rating has been downgraded. When has that ever happened?

It happens when we refuse to raise the debt limit. Because, me poor ignorant tool, it makes countries nervous that we will not pay our debts. Jesus, are you really that stupid??

S&P downgrade of US credit rating sends clear message to Congress: shape up - CSMonitor.com

With all due respect, I'm not 'your boy'.
And, yet again you evaded qualifying your statement.

No, you are not. Never said you were. Hell, I do not want you.
And no, I have not evaded qualifying any statement. It is you who makes statements with no backing.

As with most progressives ,you display a typically predictable pattern. Once your argument faulters, you evade questions, change the subject and resort to condescending labels such as 'me boy' or all out name calling [thank you for refraining from that.]

First, my argument did not falter. My argument is fully supported. It is your argument which faltered. As in was completely unsupported because it was completely untrue.
As a con tool, you have no interest in truth. You posted agenda, and that is always easy to prove, or disprove. In your case, very, very simple to prove you are posting untruths. Dogma from right wing bat shit crazy con sites.

Me boy is not a condescending label. Sorry you believe it to be. But I do get a bit pissy when someone posts untruths and suggests I am incapable of the truth. I gave you truth. You should be pissed at those who convinced you of the untruths that you are posting. But then, you seem uninterested in truth.

Debating a person, such as yourself, is a complete waste of my time. Good day Sir.

Posting agenda driven drivel, as you do, is not debate. Posting unsupported statements is not debate. It is simply opinion. And you know how much I value your opinion.
Funny how when a con such as yourself posts a number of untruths and then gets caught that they then toss out an insult and run. Typical.

 

[originalthought]

Higher taxation means lower profit which forces investors into higher risk investments - the type that develops new products and exploits new and expanding markets. These are the type of investments that cause economic growth.

How do you come to the conclusion that higher taxes force investors into riskier investments? Couldn't they simply cut from the bottom line (excess labor, supplies, ect) or raise prices to absorb the taxes?

Th

I'm glad someone here would at least look at the premise before continuing the discussion.

I would agree that higher taxes cause less profit. If i make $100 but $20 goes to government b/c of taxes, then there is less profit.

But why would that move investors into higher risk investments? Think about it logically. Higher risky means greater profits (or losses). But you already said higher taxes lead to lower profits.

Higher taexes = lower profits
Riskier investments = higher profits (or losses)
Thus, higher taxes cannot result in risker investments.

I dont think the OP makes logical sense, nor has it been backed up with fact.

 

[Freemason9]

No, the Government simply needs to learn how to balance it's checkbook, like the rest of us. They could start by not giving away money [we borrow from China]] to every hell hole on Earth.

This is a stupid comment that demonstrates ignorance of monetary policy. HINT: The federal budget is nothing at all like a household budget.

 

[Sallow]

It seems to me that investors choose their investments according to the risk vs. profit ratio.

Everyone wants low risk and high profits. Low taxation has created an investment environment that investors can obtain reasonably good profit with low risk.

The problem with this is that low risk investments are usually not the type that cause economic growth. They are usually investments in tried and true companies that have secured a market share in a fully developed market.

Higher taxation means lower profit which forces investors into higher risk investments - the type that develops new products and exploits new and expanding markets. These are the type of investments that cause economic growth.

So the result of low taxation is that while investors have the capital to invest, they do not invest in anything risky. Why would they?

That's part of it.

But lower taxation has a more insidious effect on Society.

Lower taxation generally favors the rich, which use a good amount of that wealth to influence to government to create legislation favorable to them gaining more wealth.

 

[Widdekind]

... Higher taxation means lower profit which forces investors into higher risk investments

that's an astute observation

- the type that develops new products and exploits new and expanding markets...

that's only looking at the up-side, ergo is biased. Logically, if you yourself say "risk <----> reward", then as often as there is the other (reward), there is the one (risk).

Hypothetically, higher taxes might motivate riskier investments... but having higher taxes wouldn't magically make any of those riskier investments suddenly sounder... taxes cannot create "good thinking", "innovation", etc. Forcing an economy to "walk the plank" out into higher risk strategies...

is risky, yes ?

You acknowledge that your advocating taxes, as a means of motivating investment gambling, yes ?

 

[editec]

The fact that we give CAPITAL GAINS such taxbreak compared to income from labor is pretty telling about who and what we value.

TREASURE BILLS are ZERO risk, folks and they are taxed at a rate about 50% less than income from doing something productive (like working for a living.)

 

[expat_panama]

... Higher taxation means lower profit which forces investors into higher risk investments ...

...you can't be saying that there's some super big tax hike that's big enough to make you want to go right out and invest all your money in some exceptionally high risk business.

People have financial goals. In order to fulfill those goals they may be forced to take higher risks. So yes, when their profits are reduced they will invest in higher risk ventures - they may not like it - but they will have to. After all, they wouldn't want to have to work for a living.

Hold it. If this is something you'd never do then you can't be saying you're not a 'person'.