Members banned from this thread: midcan5


Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 65

Thread: Isn't the solution higher taxes on the rich?

  1. #1 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    11,390
    Thanks
    476
    Thanked 4,028 Times in 3,012 Posts
    Groans
    398
    Groaned 234 Times in 225 Posts

    Default Isn't the solution higher taxes on the rich?

    http://www.dailynews.com/social-affa...ouncilman-says

    Supposedly California is the sixth biggest economy in the world. Surely they can afford to give all of their homeless housing. They are home to some of the richest people in the world. Surely we can tax them more in order to make sure children aren't living in the streets.

    I thought these people were compassionate

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to canceled.2021.3 For This Post:

    Truth Detector (09-01-2017)

  3. #2 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    In my house
    Posts
    21,174
    Thanks
    3,418
    Thanked 7,931 Times in 5,908 Posts
    Groans
    9
    Groaned 444 Times in 424 Posts
    Blog Entries
    4

    Default

    What is the problem that taxing the rich is to solve ?
    "Those who vote decide nothing. Those who count the vote decide everything." Joseph Stalin
    The USA has lost WWIV to China with no other weapons but China Virus and some cash to buy democrats.

  4. #3 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    120
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 52 Times in 36 Posts
    Groans
    1
    Groaned 3 Times in 3 Posts

    Default

    CA is 6th in size but it is not a free-standing economy. The CA economy is integrated within the larger US economy and this constrains its economic options just as federal law constrains its political options.

  5. #4 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    608
    Thanks
    114
    Thanked 138 Times in 123 Posts
    Groans
    12
    Groaned 12 Times in 12 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alice in Liberaland View Post
    http://www.dailynews.com/social-affa...ouncilman-says

    Supposedly California is the sixth biggest economy in the world. Surely they can afford to give all of their homeless housing. They are home to some of the richest people in the world. Surely we can tax them more in order to make sure children aren't living in the streets.

    I thought these people were compassionate
    California sucks ,it is time to split that mess up.

  6. #5 | Top
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    The Blue Ridge
    Posts
    37,741
    Thanks
    21,918
    Thanked 12,581 Times in 9,703 Posts
    Groans
    4,312
    Groaned 1,312 Times in 1,210 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Fishlore View Post
    CA is 6th in size but it is not a free-standing economy. The CA economy is integrated within the larger US economy and this constrains its economic options just as federal law constrains its political options.
    Specifically with regards to the OP, how does any federal law, statute or policy prevent the state of California, or any California municipality, from taxing its wealthy and spreading it out to the poor?

  7. The Following User Says Thank You to MAGA MAN For This Post:

    Truth Detector (09-01-2017)

  8. #6 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    120
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 52 Times in 36 Posts
    Groans
    1
    Groaned 3 Times in 3 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Right View Post
    Specifically with regards to the OP, how does any federal law, statute or policy prevent the state of California, or any California municipality, from taxing its wealthy and spreading it out to the poor?
    The OP claims, "Surely they can afford to give all of their homeless housing." The constraint is not from federal law but the necessity of operating the California economy within the context of the US economy. If CA were a sovereign country, it might try a universal housing program of some sort. Tied to the other 49 states by the federal government, such a program would not be feasible.

  9. #7 | Top
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    The Blue Ridge
    Posts
    37,741
    Thanks
    21,918
    Thanked 12,581 Times in 9,703 Posts
    Groans
    4,312
    Groaned 1,312 Times in 1,210 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Fishlore View Post
    The OP claims, "Surely they can afford to give all of their homeless housing." The constraint is not from federal law but the necessity of operating the California economy within the context of the US economy. If CA were a sovereign country, it might try a universal housing program of some sort. Tied to the other 49 states by the federal government, such a program would not be feasible.
    I think what you're trying to say is that if CA had free housing for the homeless then homeless from other states could move to CA and take advantage of that, inundating the program. This ignores the fact that CA could restrict the program to residents of CA, the precedent being its University system, which does exactly that.

  10. The Following User Says Thank You to MAGA MAN For This Post:

    Truth Detector (09-01-2017)

  11. #8 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    120
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 52 Times in 36 Posts
    Groans
    1
    Groaned 3 Times in 3 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Right View Post
    I think what you're trying to say is that if CA had free housing for the homeless then homeless from other states could move to CA and take advantage of that, inundating the program. This ignores the fact that CA could restrict the program to residents of CA, the precedent being its University system, which does exactly that.
    I appreciate your effort to understand what you think I am trying to say but please remember that what you think I am trying to say isn't what I said. Your are correct that CA could restrict a free housing program to California residents; the issue of how the state defines its citizenship isn't quite as simple as it might appear. In any event, the very high cost of a free housing program would require taxation which could adversely effect the CA economy if other states had no such burden. State economies aren't closed systems.

  12. #9 | Top
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    The Blue Ridge
    Posts
    37,741
    Thanks
    21,918
    Thanked 12,581 Times in 9,703 Posts
    Groans
    4,312
    Groaned 1,312 Times in 1,210 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Fishlore View Post
    I appreciate your effort to understand what you think I am trying to say but please remember that what you think I am trying to say isn't what I said. Your are correct that CA could restrict a free housing program to California residents; the issue of how the state defines its citizenship isn't quite as simple as it might appear. In any event, the very high cost of a free housing program would require taxation which could adversely effect the CA economy if other states had no such burden. State economies aren't closed systems.
    Please explain why what other states do or not do matters in this situation.

  13. #10 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    120
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 52 Times in 36 Posts
    Groans
    1
    Groaned 3 Times in 3 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Right View Post
    Please explain why what other states do or not do matters in this situation.
    Each state must budget its social programs within the confines of the tax revenue it can raise from its economy. Unlike the federal government, the states can't print money or run endless deficits. The Constitution imposes restrictions on the power of states to interfere with inter-state trade, so no state can seal its borders and set up its social programs without regard other states.

    Some states have relatively strong economies -- California is a big one, my New Hampshire is a tiny one. Some states have lots of poor people in need, some have fewer. Some states have economies that are self-contained, others depend of a highly competitive inter-state economy.

    Put these parameters together and let the system run and you get the kind of concentration of capital we saw in the 19th century. Simply put, the rich states get richer and the poor states get poorer. The Civil War taught America a bitter lesson about how concentration of capital weakens the union and ever since, the federal government has undertaken responsibility to balance and distribute some degree of the national wealth to maintain social stability and economic development across the diverse states. All Americans benefit from the wealth and power generated by our huge nation.

  14. #11 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    134,855
    Thanks
    13,247
    Thanked 40,787 Times in 32,153 Posts
    Groans
    3,661
    Groaned 2,865 Times in 2,752 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Celticguy View Post
    What is the problem that taxing the rich is to solve ?
    ????....everything?......

  15. #12 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    134,855
    Thanks
    13,247
    Thanked 40,787 Times in 32,153 Posts
    Groans
    3,661
    Groaned 2,865 Times in 2,752 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Fishlore View Post
    CA is 6th in size but it is not a free-standing economy. The CA economy is integrated within the larger US economy and this constrains its economic options just as federal law constrains its political options.
    ???....what federal law constrains its economic options or its political options?....

  16. #13 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    134,855
    Thanks
    13,247
    Thanked 40,787 Times in 32,153 Posts
    Groans
    3,661
    Groaned 2,865 Times in 2,752 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Fishlore View Post
    The OP claims, "Surely they can afford to give all of their homeless housing." The constraint is not from federal law but the necessity of operating the California economy within the context of the US economy. If CA were a sovereign country, it might try a universal housing program of some sort. Tied to the other 49 states by the federal government, such a program would not be feasible.
    sure they could.....they would just have to impose immigration controls and build a fence...

  17. #14 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    134,855
    Thanks
    13,247
    Thanked 40,787 Times in 32,153 Posts
    Groans
    3,661
    Groaned 2,865 Times in 2,752 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Fishlore View Post
    I appreciate your effort to understand what you think I am trying to say but please remember that what you think I am trying to say isn't what I said. Your are correct that CA could restrict a free housing program to California residents; the issue of how the state defines its citizenship isn't quite as simple as it might appear. In any event, the very high cost of a free housing program would require taxation which could adversely effect the CA economy if other states had no such burden. State economies aren't closed systems.
    wait.......taxation adversely effects the economy?......

  18. The Following User Says Thank You to PostmodernProphet For This Post:

    Truth Detector (09-01-2017)

  19. #15 | Top
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    The Blue Ridge
    Posts
    37,741
    Thanks
    21,918
    Thanked 12,581 Times in 9,703 Posts
    Groans
    4,312
    Groaned 1,312 Times in 1,210 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Fishlore View Post
    Each state must budget its social programs within the confines of the tax revenue it can raise from its economy. Unlike the federal government, the states can't print money or run endless deficits. The Constitution imposes restrictions on the power of states to interfere with inter-state trade, so no state can seal its borders and set up its social programs without regard other states.

    Some states have relatively strong economies -- California is a big one, my New Hampshire is a tiny one. Some states have lots of poor people in need, some have fewer. Some states have economies that are self-contained, others depend of a highly competitive inter-state economy.

    Put these parameters together and let the system run and you get the kind of concentration of capital we saw in the 19th century. Simply put, the rich states get richer and the poor states get poorer. The Civil War taught America a bitter lesson about how concentration of capital weakens the union and ever since, the federal government has undertaken responsibility to balance and distribute some degree of the national wealth to maintain social stability and economic development across the diverse states. All Americans benefit from the wealth and power generated by our huge nation.
    That's an interesting theory but really doesn't make much sense, especially with respect to the OP.

    For instance, the last paragraph, you claim that without FedCo the system would concentrate capital in a few states. There is no mechanism for that. Then you double down and claim that was the reason for the Civil War. Non sequitur on top of non sequitur.

Similar Threads

  1. how I know higher taxes would be good for the economy
    By evince in forum General Politics Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 12-12-2012, 10:00 PM
  2. Higher taxes = less revenue
    By canceled.2021.1 in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 11-28-2012, 11:45 AM
  3. Raise taxes on the rich....says a rich man
    By Guns Guns Guns in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 12-27-2011, 04:35 PM
  4. Americans favor HIGHER TAXES for the richest.
    By ZappasGuitar in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: 09-22-2011, 01:23 PM
  5. Will It Take a Second Revolution to Get The Wealthy to Pay Higher Taxes?
    By signalmankenneth in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 48
    Last Post: 08-08-2011, 12:26 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •