Why the rich will definitely pay their taxes

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_best_policy/2010/02/tax_f...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203804204577014051330924134.html

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• HP
• MediaSmart

[unassumption]

I think their idea is there will be less people producing it if there are higher taxes as it costs more to make it which means the product will cost more....but that doesn't translate to reality. Plus when companies have a lot of money to lose they can be 'vindictive' which could lead to them changing policy and wining in the long run, kind of like going on strike.

[truthofevolution]

@unassumption your latter point is the one i addressed. If they are vindictive, then their competition will take the customers.

[unassumption]

@truthofevolution

I was trying to counter that point, with how big a war-chest they've got to survive on if some other small company decided to compete. I don't trust competition to be able to change things quickly when a small number of companies have most of the power at the moment in most industries, I doubt some small company could do serious damage to them for a while and if they make things hard for that time they might win, as they seem to be doing now despite credit unions.

[truthofevolution]

@unassumption hey I see what youre saying, but even if that was true and small businesses were not as competitive and big businesses would retaliate, we would have seen an enormous recession when clinton raised taxes on the rich and when in the 50s and 60s the taxes were 90% on the rich. The fact that this did not happen is evidence that that theory is false.

[truthofevolution]

@unassumption in any case the point that I was making was that big businesses dont just have competition from small businesses, but that they have competition from OTHER big businesses. So if 9/10 competing companies decide to stop investing or raise product cost, and 1 guy decided to keep investing or keep prices low then that guy will get all the customers and force the other 9 companies to lower costs again.

[DynaCatlovesme]

I've never heard the conservative argument made the way you stated it.

[truthofevolution]

@DynaCatlovesme hey Ive found a direct source for the conservative argument

fairtax. o r g /site/PageServer?pagename=abou­t_faq_answers

passage of interest: "Corporations pass on their tax burden in the form of higher prices to consumers, lower wages to workers, and/or lower returns to investors. The idea that taxing a corporation reduces taxes on, say the working poor, is a cruel hoax. "

[H1TMANactual]

What's up fucker?

Clinton raised income tax but he lowered the capital gains tax and the revenue increased. Taxes are obviously tied to incentive to work. It's called the Laffer curve. You can research it if you're open to learning the truth as you said. Curiously, where do you think jobs come from?

Another thing you need to look up is capital flight. There is plenty of studies published so you can do the research.

I don't think you should make videos on economics broski.

[unassumption]

@truthofevolution

it depends how competative things are to start with I guess.

[truthofevolution]

@DynaCatlovesme ive heard congressmen and youtubers use it a few times. Heres an argument which is similar that the rich will stop investing with higher tax increases. To which I respond similarly that the one company that decides to absorb costs and keep investing will be more competitive. I dont really have time to keep looking for a more accurate argument right now sorry.

heritage. o r g/research/reports/2010/11/oba­mas-tax-hikes-on-high-income-e­arners-will-hurt-the-poor-and-­everyone-else

[truthofevolution]

@melowar78 thats actually a really good point and one discussed in history under teddy roosevelt.