why is raising taxes on the rich and corporations bad?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by puppetmaster

This is correct. There are also many other problems with corporations as a whole but this sums up an area in easy to understand terms

---

Really, it's not jsut corporations, and is even more of an issue with smaller companies who are worknig with much smaller profit margins.

If I'm a business owner I have to make X dollars for it to be worth keeping my business open. Businesses are not charities, and no one goes into one to jsut break even or take a loss.

So if you raise my costs, then I have just a few solutions. Cut other costs like labor and production, or be forced to charge more, both of which could put a small business owner in a bind, as corporations are able to cut costs through economies of scale, outsourcing, etc.

So really, it's small business you're hurting.

OP is gone folks,

/thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CaptUSA

OP is gone folks,

/thread.

---

Why? Should he/she come back, then there will be a multitude of answers regarding the OP's question.

Otherwise it can't hurt to clarify the message (and even debate under the current system where we're unlikely to see 0% taxes anytime soon)

One reason its wrong is that raising taxes on anyone at all gives the government more revenue. And that's a bad thing.

The tie between government revenue and expenditures was tossed out long ago. They will simply borrow more money. Reducing taxes won't lead to lower spending- just more debt.

Because it isn't your money.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oyarde

If , I own a corporation , I will pay no tax , the consumers who buy my product are going to pay it , it will be priced in.

---

People are going to consume less if you price it in (income effect and depending on the tax also substitution effect), which means your profits are going to decrease too. In reallity both economic actors, the buyers and the sellers, pay all taxes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Danan

People are going to consume less if you price it in (income effect and depending on the tax also substitution effect), which means your profits are going to decrease too. In reallity both economic actors, the buyers and the sellers, pay all taxes.

---

Not necessarily, price elasticity plays a factor as well. If you have inelastic demand, and particularly a monopoly, you can pass on every bit of the cost to the consumer.

However it is a valid point that there is a balance between all of the microeconomic factors: supply, demand, price elasticity, competition, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zippyjuan

The tie between government revenue and expenditures was tossed out long ago. They will simply borrow more money. Reducing taxes won't lead to lower spending- just more debt.

---

I suggest you contribute more. I have other plans for mine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Acala

As long as I can opt out if I want. If government is such a great thing, then people, when given a real choice, should generally decide that the benefits outweigh the burdens and opt in. The problems start when governments can force people to participate in their little game. That's when it stops being about everyone enjoying the benefits of delegating certain joint function to an agent and starts being about one group plundering the property and freedom of others.

As long as my "share" of government is actually being rammed down my throat, then, no, I don't feel any obligation whatsoever to help pay for it.

---

Totally agree. However, to be able to opt of of government is to change the definition of government. The fact that it is rammed down your throat without your consent is what makes it a government and not a business. If you could opt out then essentially what was government is now an insurance company or business selling whatever kind of product it claims to provide. Anarcho-capitalism is the logical conclusion after admitting that we own ourselves. Any amount of government means that you are in one way or another enslaved, and unable to personally opt out. That characteristic is what defines the State.

If the original poster is lurking or still interested, I suggest reading Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shane Harris

Totally agree. However, to be able to opt of of government is to change the definition of government. The fact that it is rammed down your throat without your consent is what makes it a government and not a business. If you could opt out then essentially what was government is now an insurance company or business selling whatever kind of product it claims to provide. Anarcho-capitalism is the logical conclusion after admitting that we own ourselves. Any amount of government means that you are in one way or another enslaved, and unable to personally opt out. That characteristic is what defines the State.

---

If you choose to define it that way, you can. I think you can have government by consensus. Home Owner's Associations, for example, I would classify as a form of government by consensus.

A community could pool its resources, hire a security force, appoint a rule-making body, and have a complete right to secession. It would be government by consensus.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Acala

If you choose to define it that way, you can. I think you can have government by consensus. Home Owner's Associations, for example, I would classify as a form of government by consensus.

A community could pool its resources, hire a security force, appoint a rule-making body, and have a complete right to secession. It would be government by consensus.

---

Yep. Every church I've ever seen had a government. But the members were always members by their own consent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CT4Liberty

I do view all taxes as theft... someone made the analogy earlier. If someone came in and robbed your house, that is theft. If they hire a couple of goons to rob your house, that is still theft. If those two goons had the 3 of you vote on if its ok for them to take your TV and you lost 2-1, that is still left. If the government does it...its still theft.

I would be interested to know what taxes arent theft? It sounds more like you are referring to the amount taken, rather than the way its taken. If I am starving and I steal a loaf of bread, just enough to survive but leave the rest, is that not still theft? Sure, I didnt go overboard and steal all the food, but I still stole.

As I mentioned, certain taxes are more or less overtly immoral than others, but that doesnt change the fact that the government uses force to take something that isnt theirs in the first place...that is the definition of theft.

---

Well I think that is an oversimplification. First of all, not all people acquire property in a just way, especially those who have been assisted by government in their business. In a free market everyone would have acquired property justly, but that isn't what we have. Freedom, and capitalism, would hurt a lot of wealthy people, and help a lot of poor people, opening the market up for genuine competition and getting rid of special favors. Society's resources have been skewed toward the wealthy through crony capitalism, eventually the free market will balance it out but many people have certainly not made their wealth legitimately.

We also have people who have been gifted "ownership" of natural resources by the government. Specifically I'm thinking of that T Boone Pickens guy who was trying to get the government to sell him vast amounts of underground water. Natural resources belong to the people. In my world the government would reduce regulations on the production of resources, but if you are an individual or corporation making money off the people's resources, then yes you do owe a percentage of that profit to the people especially if the government has protected it for you and kept competitors off the land you have been using to extract resources. Although I will say that is different than developing your own property, for instance, as farmers do.

This is a complex issue and we can go deep into political philosophy if you want to, but free men and women consent to the protection of their liberty, as long as that protection is sensible and efficient. I believe that involves a military that can defend us, a police force that works, a judicial system that practices real justice, and emergency services, and that is about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Acala

If you choose to define it that way, you can. I think you can have government by consensus. Home Owner's Associations, for example, I would classify as a form of government by consensus.

A community could pool its resources, hire a security force, appoint a rule-making body, and have a complete right to secession. It would be government by consensus.

---

What if your 'community' votes to take away your house though. That is the beginning of "force of numbers" as the basis of government. In other words, democracy.

The only legitimate basis of government comes from a set of principles that attract universal consent of the governed, not by majority, but by reason.

Lots of good arguments in this thread.

While I agree with many of them, I came up with what I think is a new way of thinking about this:

First, in general, taxes come from two types of income: active and passive.

For active income, as Pres. Reagan used to say, when income taxes were at 90% after WWII, he and his friends would make a movie or two, and as soon as they hit the 90% bracket, they would take the rest of the year off. Net result: lost production for the country. We're all poorer when people stop producing.

For passive income, consider the earnings of the owners of a successful company. When the government raises tax rates on the "rich" (not really the rich, BTW; high-earners aren't the truly rich), what they do is to take earnings from those owners, and give them to some other group of people. It's wealth redistribution. The recipient might be GM or GE, or possibly a recipient in some welfare-type program. In aggregate, it doesn't really matter. Money gets taken from successful producers, and given to others who aren't as successful.

The interesting part is this: what do those recipients, on the whole, do with the money they receive? They spend it, right? They buy stuff. What do they buy? Things that are sold (directly or indirectly) by--who? Successful producers. The very same producers who were taxed.

How many welfare dollars do you think have been spent on iPhones, iPads and the like? I'd wager the number is huge.

What's the net result? In effect, successful companies are being coerced by government into giving away their products. Demand is artificially increased. How does such a company respond? By raising prices, if it can. Everyone, even those who didn't receive government pay-outs, ends up paying more. It's possible the company may actually end up earning more than with lower tax rates, depending on where it lives in the production chain with respect to those who are receiving government payouts.

In summary: high taxes on high earners reduces the output of some of the most productive members of society. It penalizes the successful because they are successful, and the country is poorer as a result. In addition, it forces some companies to effectively give away their products to some, while raising prices for others. Taken together, the result is huge market distortions. And what happens with market distortions? Eventual corrections, because they're not sustainable. Accentuated business cycles, deeper recessions, etc. Entire industries could be quickly destroyed this way.

People who are already super-wealthy care a lot less about tax increases now, as they've already paid taxes. Their assets are fairly insulated. For you who may be trying to build up a business, you're going to have a lot harder slog to reaching their levels, as the tax rates will cut you back as you grow your income whereas they had the advantageous rates.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Odin

Well I think that is an oversimplification. First of all, not all people acquire property in a just way, especially those who have been assisted by government in their business. In a free market everyone would have acquired property justly, but that isn't what we have. Freedom, and capitalism, would hurt a lot of wealthy people, and help a lot of poor people, opening the market up for genuine competition and getting rid of special favors. Society's resources have been skewed toward the wealthy through crony capitalism, eventually the free market will balance it out but many people have certainly not made their wealth legitimately.

We also have people who have been gifted "ownership" of natural resources by the government. Specifically I'm thinking of that T Boone Pickens guy who was trying to get the government to sell him vast amounts of underground water. Natural resources belong to the people. In my world the government would reduce regulations on the production of resources, but if you are an individual or corporation making money off the people's resources, then yes you do owe a percentage of that profit to the people especially if the government has protected it for you and kept competitors off the land you have been using to extract resources. Although I will say that is different than developing your own property, for instance, as farmers do.

This is a complex issue and we can go deep into political philosophy if you want to, but free men and women consent to the protection of their liberty, as long as that protection is sensible and efficient. I believe that involves a military that can defend us, a police force that works, a judicial system that practices real justice, and emergency services, and that is about it.

---

I think we are talking about 2 different things here a bit. The first is the actual act of taxation, which regardless if people obtained their wealth legitimately or illegitimately doesnt change the actual act of taxation being theft. Theft is taking, usually by force, something that does not belong to you. Certainly the government does not own other peoples property, even if you were to believe those who have it now do not own it themselves. Not everyone being taxed is a T Boone Pickens or a person who illegitimately obtained their wealth. The vast majority of people are just everyday folks making a living and they suffer the most by assuming all wealth is created in evil ways.

The irony is, that you seem most upset by the government giving people special rights of ownership, which usually happen through tax subsidies. And the way you think you can correct this is by giving the government more power and money - as if they wouldnt just continue to accumulate their own wealth at the expense of the less fortunate and less politically connected.

I am not an anarchist in the purist sense, but you claim that free men and women consent to the protection of their liberty, as long as that protection is sensible and efficient. Well I personally have not consented to any of what we have today... it is again forced consent. Most on these boards would not argue with many of the things you have there either...but that is such a small small fraction of what we actually are taxed for. To add more irony to it, you want to tax the "evil" business man and give his money to the government so that they can fund unjust wars, which regardless of your opinion on natural resources being public property or not (I dont really believe that to be the case) carpet bombing innocent civilians overseas has to be much more "evil" than selling other peoples property.

Because it is a global economy.

If we raise taxes on corporations and the rich here... profit seeking interests will move their operations to a country where there are less taxes.

End of story.