Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Good_Egg]

Thanks for sharing the video, Sy Borg it raises a couple of questions where I would like to understand better, if you or any others here are into economics.

One is about raising tax revenue. The presentation implies that it is impossible to do so. That implausible suggestion rests on the common fallacy of inferring causation from correlation (or in this case the impossibility of causation from a lack of correlation).

It would be good to understand what's really going on. Is it an issue of avoidance/evasion ? Or is it that over this period whenever the US government raised revenue from one type of tax it somehow reduced another ?

The other point is about the circumstances in which government spending creates inflation. Inflation is what you get when more money chases the same amount of goods. Other things being equal, we might expect that
1) increasing the amount of money that people have to spend is inflationary wherever there are constraints (other than lack of demand) on increasing production.
2) robbing Peter to pay Paul is non-inflationary, printing money is always inflationary, and borrowing-to-spend is inflationary except to the extent that it increases savings rates.

Any thoughts ?

[Fried Egg]

Thanks for sharing the video, Sy Borg it raises a couple of questions where I would like to understand better, if you or any others here are into economics.

One is about raising tax revenue. The presentation implies that it is impossible to do so. That implausible suggestion rests on the common fallacy of inferring causation from correlation (or in this case the impossibility of causation from a lack of correlation).

It would be good to understand what's really going on. Is it an issue of avoidance/evasion ? Or is it that over this period whenever the US government raised revenue from one type of tax it somehow reduced another ?

I don't think it's true to say that increasing taxes does not increase tax revenue. It can do but it depends...

I think it's fair to say that increasing a particular tax never leads to as much revenue as one thinks as it will. This is because it always has a deterring effect on whatever it applies to. People do less of it, or find alternatives or (if they're rich enough) simply move away. That should hardly be surprising; governments use taxation to deter all kinds of behaviour (i.e. taxes on carbon, alcohol, tobacco, sugar, etc.)

Not only that but precisely what kind of economic activity you deter depends on where the incidence (burden) of the tax falls. It is not always where you think it is. For instance, what is the incidence of corporation tax? Does it come strictly out of the corporation's coffers or does it actually mean that the share holders get less dividends, the workers get paid less, or the customers pay higher prices? (Or some combination thereof?)

And it's conceivable that if you increase a tax that you deter so much of the activity you're taxing that you actually raise less money than you would have got at a lower tax rate.

[Sculptor1]

Do you know where money comes from?

You may find this video helpful in trying to understand current economic challenges facing the US. "Kicking the can down the road" by not addressing debt is an imposition on the next generations. There are no pain-free solutions to this, only least worst options.

I asked you , because you do not seem to know. I was not asking for a lesson. I know where money comes from.

You received a lesson because you obviously needed it, and I figured that others would find the video interesting.
If you understood money, you would not speak as if higher tax rates always bring higher revenues.

I did not say that, neither did I imply that.
Fact is that tax is not revenue in the sense you think it is. Government spending is not directly related to taxation.
Except that if the government does not spend money, no taxation is possible. You think it is the other way round. You are wrong.
When you understand why you are wrong, only then will you be on the pathway to understand what money is.
Currently you do not.

[Sy Borg]

You may find this video helpful in trying to understand current economic challenges facing the US. "Kicking the can down the road" by not addressing debt is an imposition on the next generations. There are no pain-free solutions to this, only least worst options.

I asked you , because you do not seem to know. I was not asking for a lesson. I know where money comes from.

You received a lesson because you obviously needed it, and I figured that others would find the video interesting.
If you understood money, you would not speak as if higher tax rates always bring higher revenues.

I did not say that, neither did I imply that.
Fact is that tax is not revenue in the sense you think it is. Government spending is not directly related to taxation.
Except that if the government does not spend money, no taxation is possible. You think it is the other way round. You are wrong.
When you understand why you are wrong, only then will you be on the pathway to understand what money is.
Currently you do not.

If you say manage to say something that actually makes logical sense and is pertinent to the topic, I will respond in more detail. At this stage it would seem to be as good a use of my time as trying to teach a dog to play drums.

You seem to not understand that endless growing debt is a serious problem for any society, and no amount of game playing can distract from that fact.

[Sculptor1]

I asked you , because you do not seem to know. I was not asking for a lesson. I know where money comes from.

You received a lesson because you obviously needed it, and I figured that others would find the video interesting.
If you understood money, you would not speak as if higher tax rates always bring higher revenues.

I did not say that, neither did I imply that.
Fact is that tax is not revenue in the sense you think it is. Government spending is not directly related to taxation.
Except that if the government does not spend money, no taxation is possible. You think it is the other way round. You are wrong.
When you understand why you are wrong, only then will you be on the pathway to understand what money is.
Currently you do not.

If you say manage to say something that actually makes logical sense and is pertinent to the topic, I will respond in more detail. At this stage it would seem to be as good a use of my time as trying to teach a dog to play drums.

You seem to not understand that endless growing debt is a serious problem for any society, and no amount of game playing can distract from that fact.

You might want to lower your polemic.
Can I recommend a book? Here's a simple one on economics. The topic can be complicated but this one wi give you that basic facts.
"The Deficit Myth" Stephanie Kelton.
Until then it is pointless talking to you more unless you get a grip.

[Sy Borg]

You received a lesson because you obviously needed it, and I figured that others would find the video interesting.
If you understood money, you would not speak as if higher tax rates always bring higher revenues.

I did not say that, neither did I imply that.
Fact is that tax is not revenue in the sense you think it is. Government spending is not directly related to taxation.
Except that if the government does not spend money, no taxation is possible. You think it is the other way round. You are wrong.
When you understand why you are wrong, only then will you be on the pathway to understand what money is.
Currently you do not.

If you say manage to say something that actually makes logical sense and is pertinent to the topic, I will respond in more detail. At this stage it would seem to be as good a use of my time as trying to teach a dog to play drums.

You seem to not understand that endless growing debt is a serious problem for any society, and no amount of game playing can distract from that fact.

You might want to lower your polemic.
Can I recommend a book? Here's a simple one on economics. The topic can be complicated but this one wi give you that basic facts.
"The Deficit Myth" Stephanie Kelton.
Until then it is pointless talking to you more unless you get a grip.

Putting aside your obvious projection, given that you are the intense polemicist on the forum by some margin, you are also wrong. Kelton's approach is widely discredited outside of the progressive bubble because it is a recipe for runaway inflation and defaulting on debt, not unlike pre-Milei Argentina.

[Sculptor1]

I did not say that, neither did I imply that.
Fact is that tax is not revenue in the sense you think it is. Government spending is not directly related to taxation.
Except that if the government does not spend money, no taxation is possible. You think it is the other way round. You are wrong.
When you understand why you are wrong, only then will you be on the pathway to understand what money is.
Currently you do not.

If you say manage to say something that actually makes logical sense and is pertinent to the topic, I will respond in more detail. At this stage it would seem to be as good a use of my time as trying to teach a dog to play drums.

You seem to not understand that endless growing debt is a serious problem for any society, and no amount of game playing can distract from that fact.

You might want to lower your polemic.
Can I recommend a book? Here's a simple one on economics. The topic can be complicated but this one wi give you that basic facts.
"The Deficit Myth" Stephanie Kelton.
Until then it is pointless talking to you more unless you get a grip.

Putting aside your obvious projection, given that you are the intense polemicist on the forum by some margin, you are also wrong. Kelton's approach is widely discredited outside of the progressive bubble because it is a recipe for runaway inflation and defaulting on debt, not unlike pre-Milei Argentina.

Sorry, but as I implied, above, I cannot respond to ad hominems and polemics as that would put me in breach of rules of the Forum.

[Sy Borg]

If you say manage to say something that actually makes logical sense and is pertinent to the topic, I will respond in more detail. At this stage it would seem to be as good a use of my time as trying to teach a dog to play drums.

You seem to not understand that endless growing debt is a serious problem for any society, and no amount of game playing can distract from that fact.

You might want to lower your polemic.
Can I recommend a book? Here's a simple one on economics. The topic can be complicated but this one wi give you that basic facts.
"The Deficit Myth" Stephanie Kelton.
Until then it is pointless talking to you more unless you get a grip.

Putting aside your obvious projection, given that you are the intense polemicist on the forum by some margin, you are also wrong. Kelton's approach is widely discredited outside of the progressive bubble because it is a recipe for runaway inflation and defaulting on debt, not unlike pre-Milei Argentina.

Sorry, but as I implied, above, I cannot respond to ad hominems and polemics as that would put me in breach of rules of the Forum.

Ditto. Goodbye.

And, of course, the US is obviously not heading towards fascism - that claim is just one more lie, like the false Charlottesville racist claims that were opposite to what Trump was saying, the false Russian collusion claims, the so-called "Nazi" rally at Madison Square Garden that was not even a bit like the 1939 rally in any way whatsoever, and absurd claims that Trump is like Hitler. Just plain old lying and ad hominems, which is anti-philosophical.

[Sculptor1]

Cherrio

[Mo_reese]

You might want to lower your polemic.
Can I recommend a book? Here's a simple one on economics. The topic can be complicated but this one wi give you that basic facts.
"The Deficit Myth" Stephanie Kelton.
Until then it is pointless talking to you more unless you get a grip.

Putting aside your obvious projection, given that you are the intense polemicist on the forum by some margin, you are also wrong. Kelton's approach is widely discredited outside of the progressive bubble because it is a recipe for runaway inflation and defaulting on debt, not unlike pre-Milei Argentina.

Sorry, but as I implied, above, I cannot respond to ad hominems and polemics as that would put me in breach of rules of the Forum.

Ditto. Goodbye.

And, of course, the US is obviously not heading towards fascism - that claim is just one more lie, like the false Charlottesville racist claims that were opposite to what Trump was saying, the false Russian collusion claims, the so-called "Nazi" rally at Madison Square Garden that was not even a bit like the 1939 rally in any way whatsoever, and absurd claims that Trump is like Hitler. Just plain old lying and ad hominems, which is anti-philosophical.

I think having differing opinions is what this forum is all about. "The Philosophy Forums at OnlinePhilosophyClub.com aim to be an oasis of intelligent in-depth civil debate and discussion. Topics discussed extend far beyond philosophy and philosophers. " Some of the discussions extend beyond philosophy.

[Mo_reese]

Can I recommend a book? Here's a simple one on economics. The topic can be complicated but this one wi give you that basic facts.
"The Deficit Myth" Stephanie Kelton.

I've read the book but won't pretend to understand much about economics. My question is, how would we ever get those with most of the money to agree to a system that doesn't give them the greatest opportunity to reap more money?

[Sculptor1]

Can I recommend a book? Here's a simple one on economics. The topic can be complicated but this one wi give you that basic facts.
"The Deficit Myth" Stephanie Kelton.

I've read the book but won't pretend to understand much about economics. My question is, how would we ever get those with most of the money to agree to a system that doesn't give them the greatest opportunity to reap more money?

In the 1960s there was such a thing as a 90% tax rate.
Rich people could chose to invest money in their staff, plant, building and other assets to avoid the tax. This worked well for the economy.
Whatever pertains today is not inevitable.

[Lagayascienza]

I've read The Deficit Myth, too. It has been criticized by conservative economists but it made sense to me. We don't know whether it would work because it has never been tried. And wealthy interests will probably make sure that it won't be tried.

[Sculptor1]

I've read The Deficit Myth, too. It has been criticized by conservative economists but it made sense to me. We don't know whether it would work because it has never been tried. And wealthy interests will probably make sure that it won't be tried.

Cui bono. I wonder why they are criticising it?