Is the Purpose of Taxes to Raise Revenue or Punish the Rich?

There'd be more people able to do skilled jobs if there were adequate training programs for them...der.

 

The problem is there is no need because there is very little building going on

 

That would also be a huge factor..if it's true. Can you prove your claim here to be true?

Also, if jobs simply aren't NEEDED in a society, why should we expect everyone to either have one or starve?

 

Someone has to make the machines, and someone has to maintain them. If the goal is to just put people to work, say digging ditches, then take away the excavation machinery and give everybody spoons to dig with.

The fact is there are many positions available, yet many, especially college grads, won't take the jobs because they feel it's beneath them. It's the entitlement mentality, a kid goes to college for a worthless piece of paper and gets themselves in eternal debt. Upon graduation they feel entitled to a corner office and a six figure salary, they won't take what is available, and more likely what they're qualified for.

http://chronicle.augusta.com/news/b...yment-benefits-are-keeping-many-jobs-unfilled

http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2011/06/20/why_are_so_many_jobs_going_unfilled_99083.html

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/08/30/on-job-hunt-unfilled-jobs-across-america-are-qualified/

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/500-care-home-nursing-jobs-unfilled-165825412.html

http://www.daytondailynews.com/factory-jobs-going-unfilled-1235137.html

http://www.informationweek.com/news/windows/microsoft_news/231002904

http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/economicsunbound/archives/2009/07/there_are_26_mi.html

 

Then you are not paying attention.

If we wanted to punish rich people, we'd put them in prison for making too much or literally confiscate their property (as opposed to what conservatives decry as "confiscation."
Or we'd force them to let poor people squat on their property.
Or... hell, I can think of some great ways to punish the rich (or just about anyone) if I put my mind to it.

Progressive taxation and regulation are not punishments for being rich.

Or rather we don't buy your theory.
Sometimes taxes can reduce revenues. The right has taken this to mean all the time. To the extent that temporary tax cuts can never be discontinued or the economy will fall!

Liberals view the economy as rather complex. Marginal tax rates for the wealthy are but one issue and a rather weak one. Since taxes must exist, it makes sense to get them in the least distortionary methods that also have the least ill effects on individuals.
Sorry... that means more taxes from the wealthy.

Even flat taxes usually have an exemption line, under which no taxes are paid on income. Why? Because the trade-off for a truly flat tax is between taxes that themselves create a need for social spending by screwing the poor (and are actually bad enough to make working pointless) or a tax so small that it cannot collect sufficient revenue.

Now I could deal with a flatter tax in exchange for removal of most deductions and perhaps a removal of the preference for capital gains (similar to the 1986 tax agreement) if we also agreed to more direct social spending.
Direct redistribution is more efficient that indirect through loopholes in the tax code... but somehow I don't see conservatives biting on that (after all, the "socialist" European countries have much flatter taxes, while still doing more for the poor).

Also if we can find better means of taxation, I'm all for it. I'm a big fan of taxes on externalities, particularly environmental damage and unsustainable consumption of natural resources (which obviously ends up resulting in higher prices... but also in business incentive to do less environmental damage).

This is false.
Even communists are more interested in helping poor people than hurting rich people.

 

It make zero economic or practical sense for someone to rack up $30,000 in debt in order to get a $12 an hour job.

 

You have absolutely no clue what you're talking about. I'm a college student and I'm a freaking vaccuumer at a freaking car wash. Yes, I DO think I should have a job in engineering eventually, which is because I'm CAPABLE of it, but you're idiotically making it out like us college students AVOID ANY JOB AT ALL simply because only "low paying" ones are available.

That's totally moronic. You're purposely being ignorant to prove some weird point.

 

Well the onus should be on the companies who hire people for skilled labor. Otherwise, no one has any incentive to be quick and efficient and cost effective as possible to train them; if you just rely on colleges to give doctors the knowledge/skills they have, THEY have an incentive to drag the process out and make it unnecessarily long, that way they can charge people for 12 years of training and education rather than 6 or whatever.

Colleges are a (*)(*)(*)(*)ing rip off.

 

You work for a living, good for you. Many of your "schoolmates" don't have your motivation...


http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/business/july-dec09/graduates_10-06.html

 

Job's aren't needed, but they're useful to the folks who cannot find a way to contribute to society without the level of supervision, instruction, and regulation afforded by employment.

Any expectation of starvation is probably based on the observation that not starving requires work and the observation that most people aren't willing to work for very long at preventing you from starving if you don't give them something in return.

 

I know a lot of college students who don't have jobs; most of them have it paid for by their parents.

Also if you're a college student, you probably aren't qualified for many jobs other than low skill requiring ones, because you're in the process of gaining the merit for higher skill requiring ones.

And really, low skill requiring jobs..are in such low demand, it's really hard to get one these days if you're in college.

 

I'm saying that if machines can do everything for us, why should we expect people to do anything?

 

Exactly, with everything done by machines we will not need to work for wealth creation to continue. There will soon be enough wealth in the world to make it happen and then everyone can be idly rich.

I sometimes wonder how the capitalists will react when informed that there is no more need for them.

 

Mindless neo-con drivel. First of all are we talking about federal income taxes or not? If we are, then the answer is neither. The income tax is unnecessary in a fiat system because the government can create money out of thin air for any amount of revenue necessary. It's only purpose is to keep the public mind off debt and inflation. It's a scam.

The idea that the income tax be used to "punish the rich" is also a foolish idea. Do you really think the elites who promote the idea of punishing the rich really would ever seriously try to get a REAL progressive tax implemented? Even when the far left Democrats controlled the White House and Congress 2 years ago, they never made any serious move to do such a thing.

Only idealist progressives truely support a progressive income tax, but those progressives don't hold office. Elite liberals do, and they will NEVER raise taxes because it's politically unpopular.

This thread is garbage

 

You claimed a shortage so prove it

 

The way taxes are designed are so that you really don't get rich. The way people work is they donate the majority of thier time for a small amount of money. So small an amount they should not even be taxed yet they are, HEAVILY.

First thing you need to understand is if you dont have 1 billion in assets you are not rich. And if you have 1 billion in assets you should lose up to 10% of it every 5 years. People with billions are doing thier part they are getting richer but we are not taxing the populous correctly.

You can also tell your country they can't spend taxes on war. Youd be surprise how much taxes could fall.

 

First of all have you ever heard of the term "aggregate demand"? It's a basic concept

 

Millions unemployed and none are trained. That makes no sense.If there is a shortage why are companies not training people?

Many college people are now truck drivers

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/19/business/economy/19grads.html

 

Idk, why aren't they training people? It's their responsibility to train people if they want employees.

And even if you don't exactly agree, I can tell you who's responsibility it's NOT, to train people. It's not the potential employee's responsibility to train themselves. That's just an idiotic expectation.

 

Thats funny because many trucking companies have schools to get drivers trained the way they want them.

You have failed to prove the need and your arrogant attitude tells me you have nothing and that you actually know very little about the subject

 

,
So doesn't the Government have to make sure that doesn't happen because in the end the Government fits the bill, thus having to raise taxes.

 

I'm confused, I thought starting a business was what one strived for? It was a way to get into the "Middle Class" One took that risk because they wanted self-employment.

Having a peasant class is not what America is about

 

Taxes are superficially to fund the government but the Founding Fathers also wanted taxes to level the playing field and to avoid estates passed on for generations creating a defacto system of the ruling wealthy class.
The rich should pray that we never reach back to our roots.

"Some founders wanted to eliminate inheritance entirely. In a letter to James Madison, Thomas Jefferson suggested that all property be redistributed every fifty years, because "the earth belongs in usufruct to the living." Madison gently pointed out the plan's impracticality. Benjamin Franklin unsuccessfully pushed for the first Pennsylvania constitution to declare concentrated wealth "a danger to the happiness of mankind."

 

What a dumb premise.

 

Maybe we should have a flat tax of say 25% for everyone with no loopholes or deductions for anyone.