Does anyone here not understand....

Can you answer the question? I’m uninterested in appeal to the stone fallacy.

 

I did. I answered the question with a question. You do realize personal income taxes have no effect on prices overall unless you are talking about direct taxes. Again, taxation, along with economics is not your forte here. Never has and never will.

 

Did you notice in your graph 4 of the top 5 countries on your list pay lower income tax than the US?

 

But I said high tax, not high income tax. Read what I post and respond to that. I’m no more interested in strawman arguments than appeal to stone fallacy.

Remember you are the guy who thought the CPI was not “inflation”. LOL

You are discussing things of which you know nothing. And I’ve provided evidence of that. It’s not a hollow accusation.

 

And the OP was specifically using high-income taxes, and personal income taxes. He literally said that "taxing the rich will cause prices to increase."

Second, we do not have high taxes compared to the rest of the world. We are number 32. And yet, in those first world democracies, where freedom is also there, voting is allowed, etc, are they complaining? NOt really.

 

Yes I did, but you did notice the overall tax from income to social security to VAT is what comprises personal taxes. And we are still not on the high end are we no matter how you look at it.

 

No, your lack of knowledge on economics led you falsely assume he is referring only to personal income taxes. The OP speaks of “producers” so that would include corporate taxes as well that Democrats do want to increase. The OP speaks of Democrat proposals raising taxes on the wealthy. Both VAT and national sales taxes have been proposed by Democrats. While both are regressive, the VAT more directly impacts cost of doing business.

Personal income tax is not the only tax proposal from Democrats aimed at securing more revenue from “the rich”. Shared responsibility payments under ACA would have directly impacted my cost of doing business. They were tailored to generate revenue from “the rich”, not the general public.

Nobody has claimed the US has high taxes compared to other first world countries. That’s your strawman.

 

LOL. You said this:

And then posted a graph including personal taxes and VAT taxes. VAT taxes are not personal taxes. They are collected at multiple points during goods production processes and paid primarily by the producer, not the consumer. Therefore it is not a personal or personal income tax. Period.

You have NO idea what you are talking about.

 

Raising taxes on the wealthy IMPLIES personal income taxes. YOu are reading something but not comprehending and failing from there on your argument. That is why I said he literally led that with his OP. Democrats are wanting to raise the top marginal personal income tax rate and you and the OP think that means raisning prices on consumer goods. Consumer goods are raised in one of three factors, production costs go up, sales taxes go up, or demand outweighs the supply of said goods. That's it. Personal income taxes or even corporate income taxes is an indirect tax and there is no economic study that makes that argument. Whether using static or dynamic approaches to the econometric models still does not significantly raise or lower prices. It may raise or loser overall GDP, but GDP has a lot of factors besides taxes in it. So again, you have no rudimentary understanding of economics or what it affects and does not affect. Furthermore, in the US, we are only a few countries that do not have VAT. A sales tax is not a VAT btw.

Republicans have made that argument time and time again. It is not a direct argument but implied that anything that raises taxes is bad, no matter what.

 

that is the only graph I have with total taxes. Yes, it has all taxes and even that does not make our tax system high compared to other countries. Of the personal income tax alone, there is a different graph.

This site has a graph of personal income taxes alone. And in that graph, we are far lower, like in the bottom ten on that list, compared to other countries.

Either way, you look at it, you are completely wrong and numbers don't lie, do they?

 

No. The OP “implies” all proposed taxes on the “wealthy” by Democrats.You have cherry picked one to base your argument on. That is why you have no real argument and must resort to fallacy.

Nobody has claimed a sales tax is a VAT tax. PLEASE refrain from strawman fallacy. It’s tedious.

And you are incorrect. VAT taxes directly affect production costs. Throughout the whole supply chain. Hence my initial question to you that you were unable to answer.

As I am a socialist registered as an independent your references to Republicans is irrelevant. Sorry to burst your bubble.

 

I HAVE NOT ONCE CLAIMED THE US IS HIGH TAX OR HIGH INCOME TAX.

You claimed twice now the graphic was personal taxes. It is not. VAT taxes are not personal and directly affect businesses costs.

There is no way you can be right because you don’t know what your graph even represents without me pointing it out.

 

Ok. You don't want to be honest or have a conversation where you might actually learn something.

Grasp on to your zero sum theories that validate your political agendas while sticking your fingers in your ears screaming nah-nah nah-nah

 

Sorry but wealth is not infinite, the potential is but that's entirely different.

 

Kind of conflicting statements.

So we should base policy on something that is perceived to be finite, but really isn't?

 

After reading your posts ... You!

 

There are many smart economic theories on impact of taxes on economy and the well being of people, but I found some questions about your thoughts.
Taxes are used to finance education, army, R&D, medicine and more, and it the wealthy will not pay more, we have two options:
to give up on financing the above or to increase taxes on everyone.

For the long term investment in education makes countries more prosperous, investment in military will make a country more safe, so the question is: to tax wealthy more, to tax an average citizen more, or the US solution – to borrow, hoping that our children will find the solution.

Outsourcing? It was possible because our representative agreed to give tax benefits to companies which outsourced our jobs and imported products to the US.

I am not economist, but even economists who suppose tol know how economics works have problem how to solve this problem.
In the US the problem is that the wealthy bought our Senate/Congress and using all king of legal tricks pay less that they suppose to.

If you are worry about the wealthy, read the book “Take this job and ship it” by Senator B. Dorgan and it will calm you down completely.

BTW - I think the extremist solution - to eliminate taxes on the wealthy or tax the wealthy 99.99% are wrong. Here is information how US citizens were taxed:
https://taxfoundation.org/historical-income-tax-rates-brackets/

Up to 1963 the highest tax bracket was 91%. Do we want To Make America Great Again like in the 60ties?

 

Umm wealth is still finite.

 

If wealth is not finite, I am wondering why nobody in the history of mankind yet has achieved infinite wealth?

It's like saying that death is avoidable. Yet, no man or animal in the history of the earth has avoided death.

Basing policy on the mere assumption that something is infinite, when all current knowledge says otherwise, would be the pinnacle of futility. Yet, basing policy on infinite exponential economic growth does exactly that.

 

I bet you think you're actually very clever and witty with that... But you're not.

 

Yes, yes I am. It's obvious you don't know a thing about money, taxes or finance ... or business ... well, I'll bet you can run a cash register and make the correct change; most of the time.

 

That's not what zero sum means.

 

Literally it's not.

I could write a book right now and sell it for millions... on audio. Limitless.

Zero sum theory is a failure.

 

Nope you can't make an infinite amount of wealth.

 

When does Elon Musk hit the ceiling? Of course it is infinite.

Nothing like that.

It's like saying "There is a finite amount of wood available" while completely ignoring that more trees can be planted INFINITELY.

The problem is, you desire to base policy on a false notion that wealth is finite. And that's better? One is based on facts, and the other is... not.

The true issue here is that when the issue of infinite wealth comes up, almost every economic theory of the liberal left falls apart.