• rottingleaf@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    11 months ago

    The 2/3 of the country can generally be fooled to believe anything.

    However, just raising taxes in this case may have some similarity to extinguishing fire with a burnable substance.

    You have to raise some taxes (say, on realty ownership, and some other possessions, and in general discourage possession of wealth without circulation) and lower some other taxes (say, anything taxing a transaction, I’m really not familiar with the way taxes work in USA, but in Russia plenty of taxes in hard numbers simply discourage economic activity). The goal should be increasing the actual inflation (not a good or bad thing per se). That’s if you are right about the cause, which I’m in doubt about TBF.

    • Maggoty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      In the US income taxes are different at different income levels and corporate taxes are separate entirely. We can absolutely raise taxes without raising them on lower income people.

      And yes several studies over the last couple decades have shown that US money is going up and not coming back down.

      • rottingleaf@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        11 months ago

        Differentiating income levels is another thing.

        I’m talking about encouraging people to put in use as much as possible of what they own, which means that making interaction cheaper via lowering some taxes is important to do not only for the “lower income level” people, actually it’s most important for the “rich”. That’s the candy part of encouraging economic activity, and the boot part would be taxing properties (should be done carefully, or, say, large realty companies are going to be less affected than individual owners with only their apartment\house, which would be a complete failure).

        • Maggoty@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          11 months ago

          That’s trickle down. You just described what we’ve been trying for the last 60 years. And in that time the only thing that’s happened is the wealthy take their tax breaks and hold on to it. They don’t create more jobs. They don’t pay their workers more. They store it in things like super yachts.

          Lowering taxes does not create more economic activity unless they were burdensome to start with. Which is not a problem American rich people and Corporations have.

          • rottingleaf@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            Either you are answering something else and clicked my post by error, or you haven’t paid attention to a single word except for the “lowering taxes” parts.

            • Maggoty@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              11 months ago

              I’m talking about encouraging people to put in use as much as possible of what they own, which means that making interaction cheaper via lowering some taxes is important to do not only for the “lower income level” people, actually it’s most important for the “rich”. That’s the candy part of encouraging economic activity, and the boot part would be taxing properties (should be done carefully, or, say, large realty companies are going to be less affected than individual owners with only their apartment\house, which would be a complete failure).

              This? This is the entirety of the comment, and it is the theory behind the massive tax breaks American politicians keep giving the wealthy. If you mean something else please let me know.

              • rottingleaf@lemmy.zip
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                11 months ago

                If you mean something else please let me know.

                Yes, I meant what I wrote.

                That you have to encourage circulation and discourage “hoarding”, which means that the former should be much more beneficial than the latter. For “the rich” as well.

                “Tax breaks” are selective bullshit which shouldn’t ever happen.

                • Maggoty@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  Well then you’re just plain wrong. Because we’ve been lowering taxes on the wealthy for 60 years and they still aren’t circulating the money. We even tried giving them money. Just more yachts and stocks.

                  • rottingleaf@lemmy.zip
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    11 months ago

                    See, it won’t make a difference if I repeat what I said for the third time. You are just not getting it just as you are not getting economics.