Progressive taxation will lead to reduced production/output by businesses.

People do not want to give more money than they have to, they certainly don't want to increase their costs if there's no cost benefit for having done so(despite the government's pleas otherwise.) The government of course, could actually lower it's tax bill and actually care for the people but that's not whom we elected. We elected people who care more for the government, than they do the people and that means its time to return to an era of progressive taxes.

Thing is, progressive taxation does NOT 1)Equal more wealth. 2) It doesn't equal a "fair share" and 3) we don't get any benefit from it.

The only ones who benefit is Uncle Sam. That's it. State taxes for example primarily go to funding the state governments. You live by and for the State, not for the federal government wit large. So the roads, bridges, etc all of that is paid for by the State/city governments. Your road tolls are state taxes, not federal taxes.

In fact, this is so much the case that federal government spending doesn't impact the States almost at all. This is why Pelosi tried to get the bailouts from Trump, and it's why Education is State funded.

Now, on some level I have argued in the past for the federal government to actually start contributing to the States since it's going to be a massive behemoth of taxes.. But I never considered until now that if the federal government did actually fulfill more responsibilities to the individual States that it would actually give the federal government permission to keep the high tax rates.

Outside of whether the federal government should actually do something with the trillions and I mean trillions of dollars in revenue it takes from us, the citizens there's a greater implication: The business community.

Businesses do not like to operate at a loss, especially large businesses. In the past, people theorized that this means cutting workers. While this is true to some degree, it's not the larger moving factor of what businesses will be doing, especially under these "targeted" plans.

By targeting incomes, and certain percentages, it gives a business a head up that so long as they don't meet the income or percentage number, they won't be taxed to that degree. So, why earn $400,000 and get taxed up to 37.5%, when I can earn $320,000 and be taxed less?

I would make more money over the long term by earning less money. As counterintuitive as that sounds. So you could see these companies and businesses slowing down the rate at which they do business. You could see wealth transfers and shared equity, to keep themselves artificially below that number.

Now, that's all good for the top corporate dog but it's terrible for the consumer. If Businesses are producing less, demand gets starved out. if Demand is starved out, then we could likely see a huge increase in savings(as there's not much in the market to meet the demand, due to less production.)

I want to get this out there before Democrats blame coronavirus. No, 'progressive' taxation is worse than trickle down(though it's also ineffective) and just like in 2011, we will have a "jobless" recovery because businesses will not invest just to hit a higher tax bracket.

 

If by progressive taxation you mean tax the rich until they leave then yes it will lead to reduced production. Not exactly rocket science you think?

 

It's not rocket science for someone who understands business(such as myself). It is rocket science for those who adapt the progressive taxation platform. Such as when France recently rejected it.

 

Production was enormous in the fifties and businesses were taxed at 90% during that time.

 

A few things for the economically challenged Left:
1) During that time, we were the ONLY manufacturing superpower in the entire world. Germany and Japan were rebuilding their shattered economies after we kicked the everloving **** out of them in WWII
2) Deductions, deductions, deductions. Many writeoffs that enabled businesses to cut their effective rate by 2/3
3) We didn't have the bloated albatross of a welfare state we have today.

 

there was a reason the economy remained relatively strong until Reagan cut corporate taxes in the '80s and then we had a recession immediately after.

 

Pretty much this. But we could help #3 by not "helping our allies", and thus having the largest military expenditure in the world. And that is what's led to the traditional fight of conservatives and Liberals. Will we uphold a military State in exchange for social welfare? Or will we reduce our military for a greater social state?

We've chosen neither and we're up to our heels in debt because of it.

 

Lessee...

Double Digit inflation
Double digit unemployment
Double digit interest rates
Yeah, the 70s were a real booming time (not)
Gas lines ring a bell?
Rates had to be cut.

 

Actually, it was the vast increase of the debt-GDP% ratio, which started climbing from the 70's to the present day, to where we're over 100%. What debt-GDP basically means is that for every dollar we make, the government taxes it.

There's not "hidden money" to be found, Uncle Sam is sure of that. He does a great job at what he does, give him credit.

 

Thing is, taxing that guy doesn't help the other guy. It helps neither. It just allows the government to continue running its programs. Programs that have yet to make so much of a dent of a difference in the local economy.

 

So we were great when there wasn't any competition. When the competition started, mfg.......left, because we let them....... which caused the "bloated albatross of a welfare state we have today." You must have forgotten that
Deductions, deductions, deductions to the point that we now have a "bloated albatross" of a tax code.
So what's your point.

 

This is what happens when you put a movie actor and a TV reality show "actor" as President. Both were stooges.

 

So.......your solution is...........................?

 

Education is LOCALLY funded and a key factor in driving up real estate taxes in each local community, the wealthier the town usually the better the education in it.

 

Historical data differs from the assertions in the OP. Off the top of my head, production boomed in the '90s. Bush recession. Trump virus recession. Nah, Biden has the right idea. You'll see.

 

Do the exact opposite of the mainstream political community: Increase production, not taxation. We have a 90/10% ratio, where 90% of Americans are workers and 10%(if that) are entrepreneurs. That's too lopsided, and that's a huge contributing factor to the wealth disparity. If we could increase entrepreneurship, teaching people how to use credit or how to invest money and how to build wealth for themselves, their individual wealth, multiplied by millions of US Citizens would equal a greater booming of wealth in America.

If we can turn 90/10, into 60/40, America will be stronger and better than ever. There'll actually be new jobs created for the new generation, as well as for the elderly.

 

Anyone can increase production. You have to sales to get rid of that increased production.

 

To do that you need high tax rates. Then you offer breaks for the investments you want.
The best GDP occurred at around a 50% tax rate.
Edit:
Don't believe me? Ask the Chinese.

 

Sales do not "get rid" of production. Sales are the financial profit derived off of the work that was produced. It's an exchange, not an eliminator. Again, America would be more prosperous if we had more and more businesses opening and staying open beyond the 2-5 year window.

One of the reasons for the high tax rate, is ironically again: Because of fewer and fewer businesses. The more money in the hands of the few, the less production will rise. It's clear that the tax system, as a measure of regulating economic goods has failed SINCE 1950.

It's time for a change, monetary policy to increase small and even large businesses to increase production.

 

We don't have anyone buying American goods like we're sold out to China. While getting rid of the tariffs will help some in that department, they weren't buying from us wit large to begin with.

So our production is poor, and our markets abroad are poor as well. This in a nutshell is why we're struggling, and it's also why the key lies in the increased production.

Increased production=better goods, better goods=foreign demand. Foreign demand=trade balance.

 

So you want to build more stuff nobody wants to buy?
That sounds like a loser to me.

 

The problem with high taxation is businesses and people will not want to move into that area. In fact, exactly the opposite occurs. People's Exhibits A and B are the People's Republik of New Yorkistan and Communistfornia. two of the most business unfriendly states in the country. And they are both bleeding jobs and people because of their high taxation and far Left politics.

 

No, I want to build more stuff people want to buy. And we have to. Otherwise we will become the United States of China.

Americans have to take more hold of their GDP, and it has to be more balanced between the classes, for America to succeed. That's where I agree with Bernie Sanders. Where I disagree, due to my economics background is that the tax lever is no longer capable of creating the kind of transactional changes that we need.

We're not in 1920-1950 anymore.

 

So if you pay people more than most countries you need to build something they can't build or you automate it's production, which is what we have been doing. Trouble is we are not building stuff other people can't build by hand or automate.
That only leaves innovation. That takes investment. So from a government standpoint you to want to encourage risk. In the good old days they did that with tax breaks. You can also do it with subsidies, but that puts someone else money at risk.