Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sam who wrote (33378)	3/8/2004 12:37:46 PM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793623

Indeed, higher taxes could well spur great productivity increases, as do slowdowns, as people try to get more out of less. Hmm. I wonder if Kerry could sell that POV? I know Bush wouldn't try. :>)

To: Sam who wrote (33378)	3/8/2004 2:42:45 PM
From: DMaA	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793623

What do you think is the optimum tax rate to get people to work harder? 40%? 75%? 100%? Give us a number.

To: Sam who wrote (33378)	3/9/2004 5:37:58 PM
From: frankw1900	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793623

First, it isn't so much a question of whether the US economy will grow, but how it will grow. So, you know how it's supposed to grow? Really know? And second, the world is currently awash in capacity. Then you should be hoping the rest of the world becomes prosperous enough to soak up that "capacity." The US admin obviously thinks the economy can grow fast enough that the deficit and perhaps even the debt will become a smaller proportion of GDP. Yes, well, but if we are creating imbalances, we aren't doing ourselves any favors for the future. And we know that a gargantuan imbalance is impending (the SS imbalance). These are too big to tax a way out of them. You have to have growth and you don't get it without investment and effort. Higher taxes mitigate against both. The problem for money in the rest of the world is, where can large sums go? We are still the Big Mama. That won't last forever. The rising economies of the world still need us more than we need them. Just as the SS crisis really hits (assuming we do nothing), that may very well be different. Since you can't tax your way out of the "problem", you had best grow your way out, so when China and India reach the still hypothetical growth you forsee, the US is in a position to provide them with the needed capital without beggaring its own capaital market. Unless taxes are low you don't get productivity increases. Small productivity increases, less prosperity, less employment growth. I don't agree with this at all. Productivity increases can occur at any time. Indeed, higher taxes could well spur great productivity increases, as do slowdowns, as people try to get more out of less. During periods of high taxes or recession the most common way of "getting more out of less" is by making a crappier product, reducing maintenance, going from "overmanned" to undermanned", etc. They aren't improving productivity, they're treading water An example of increased productivity is that of N American and European farmers who applied higher quality tools, scientific crop rotation procedures, improved varietals, etc, and this was possible because the surrounding economy was investing in new technology, education, and enjoying a general rising price level, which made new markets for new improved prodcuts possible. They produce a makedly improved product compared to 100 years ago. The vast majority of farmers moved to other industries. That's how it works. It would have worked even better had their governments not gone into agricultural subsidies, (using taxpayers' money). As 90% of Indians and Chinese are still farmers, it's going to be quite a while before their economies will require the kind of capital inputs the US one does. You underestimate your country's advantages.