IMF: Taxing the richs is good for the economy
Tollorin
Veteran
Joined: 14 Jun 2009
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,178
Location: Sherbrooke, Québec, Canada
There is no one left to tax.
All governments spend more than their income, and the decline of the middle class has reduced income.
The IMF is supported by governments, but like the Fed, it is an arm of international banking.
Only taxing the rich can bring in the money to support governments and the IMF.
This is imcome equality by taking from the rich, and will do nothing to raise the income of the poor.
Governments support themselves first, then international banking, and the IMF is the Collection Agency.
As for the rest, there will be more uses for a larger pool of slave labor.
Governments support themselves first, then international banking, and the IMF is the Collection Agency.
Who said anything about 'raising' the income of the poor? It's about placing more of the burden to pay national debt on wealthier people. Tax them more I say, why should they have all the money concentrated in their few, select hands?
GoonSquad
Veteran
Joined: 11 May 2007
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,748
Location: International House of Paincakes...
Governments support themselves first, then international banking, and the IMF is the Collection Agency.
Who said anything about 'raising' the income of the poor? It's about placing more of the burden to pay national debt on wealthier people. Tax them more I say, why should they have all the money concentrated in their few, select hands?
But you see, it will raise the incomes of EVERYONE. Austerity hurts economic growth--just look at what it has done to southern Europe.
Trickle-down economics doesn't work because the rich invest their money in things that are increasingly disconnected from the real economy....
Take a bigger portion of that money from the rich and let the government spend it in the real economy and everyone, including the rich, will benefit.
_________________
No man is free who is not master of himself.~Epictetus
Could you share with the class how you end the federal deficit by restricting revenue as much as humanly possible? Austerity measures aren't enough to compensate for the amount of money that should legally be coming in, but isn't. And your infrastructure crumbles in the meantime.
The title of this thread is misleading. That is not what the paper says.
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/sdn ... dn1402.pdf
And second, there is surprisingly little evidence for the growth-destroying effects of fiscal redistribution at a macroeconomic level. We do find some mixed evidence that very large redistributions may have direct negative effects on growth duration, such that the overall effect—including the positive effect on growth through lower inequality—may be roughly growth-neutral. But for non-extreme redistributions
, there is no evidence of any adverse direct effect. The average redistribution, and the associated reduction in inequality, is thus associated with higher and more durable growth. We need to be mindful about over-interpreting these results, especially for policy purposes. It is hard to go from these sorts of correlations to firm statements about causality. We have not accounted for the possible effects that redistribu
tion may have on market inequality. We have emphasized the uncertainty caused by the scarcity of reliable data, particularly about redistribution. Our measure of redistribution captures only direct taxes and subsidies, for example, so we shed no direct light on the redistributive effects of in-kind government provision of health and education which a priori would seem, if anything, to be more growth-friendly than the measures we account for. Finally, we know from history and first principles that after some point redistribution will be destructive to growth, and that beyond some point extreme equality also cannot be conducive to growth. We nonetheless see an important positive conclusion from our look at the big picture. Extreme caution about redistribution—and thus inaction—is unlikely to be appropriate in many cases.
On average, across countries and over time, the things that governments have typically done to redistribute do not seem to have led to bad growth outcomes, unless they were extreme. And the resulting narrowing of inequality helped support faster and more durable growth, apart from ethical, political, or broader social considerations. This leaves a large research and policy agenda. Even given these results about average effects, it remains important to try to make redistribution as efficient as possible. And further insight into the mechanisms at play would help sharpen our understanding and policy recommendations. Our results here high light the urgency of this agenda.
This is yet another study in a long line of studies on the correlation between inequality and growth. The IMF is *not* considered an expert authority on the subject in the scientific community, and the above study is *not* peer-reviewed.
thomas81
Veteran
Joined: 2 May 2012
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,147
Location: County Down, Northern Ireland
Here in the UK, Amazon, Google and starbucks were recorded as only paying 1% of thier profits in taxes. We're talking only a few million out of multi billion pound profits.
I don't know about you but I and many others wish we could get away with paying 1 % tax...
thomas81
Veteran
Joined: 2 May 2012
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,147
Location: County Down, Northern Ireland
.
Except everyone with a net worth for 50 mill or so who can afford an accountant that isn't completely useless. Laundering money is laughably easy, and completely legal if you do it right.
not to mention its a complete lie. There are plenty of people to tax. The problem is the ones who should be paying the most are paying NOTHING at all because they are laundering their taxes to holding accounts in countries like Switzerland and Luxembourg.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0giEHaXcOKQ[/youtube]
You're skirting the issue about WHOM should have their taxes raised. As if we should all be up in arms that a poor billionaire has to pay even more taxes. As if that's somehow detrimental to the rest of us.
I can't see how it is. Even if raising taxes on the super rich doesn't have any major baring on my life, why should I be opposed to it either? It's like a group of people (presumably upper-middle class) feel this need to protect the uber-wealthy.
The off shore accounts and things. You have to wonder if they are partially to blame for the faulty economy? The money is taken out of the economy and put in a vacuum of some kind, a black hole. It isn't a part of the economy any more after that. So, what is the overall effect of this?
Could you share with the class how you end the federal deficit by restricting revenue as much as humanly possible? Austerity measures aren't enough to compensate for the amount of money that should legally be coming in, but isn't. And your infrastructure crumbles in the meantime.
All higher taxes will do is give the govt more money to piss away. Apparently we need to re-think our spending.
_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson
Similar Topics | |
---|---|
Good fay
in Bipolar, Tourettes, Schizophrenia, and other Psychological Conditions |
16 Apr 2024, 8:03 pm |
Good news
in Bipolar, Tourettes, Schizophrenia, and other Psychological Conditions |
09 Mar 2024, 6:34 pm |
DND Question: What do I need to know to be a good DM |
12 Mar 2024, 6:38 pm |
Good news
in Bipolar, Tourettes, Schizophrenia, and other Psychological Conditions |
18 Apr 2024, 10:23 pm |