ACA Repeal/Replace: Progressives Face Moral Dilemma

[Kinser79]

(09-10-2017, 10:43 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(09-09-2017, 09:53 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: And you fundamentally misunderstand that taxation is at its most basic level theft.  But that isn't here nor there.  The fact remains that if you want to increase economic activity you have to decrease taxes, if you really want to accelerate economic activity you decrease taxes on those who produce wealth, which largely speaking means corporations.

Your 'fact' is actually counterfactual.  If it was true, Kansas would be soaring and California would be heading for bankruptcy ... the exact opposite of reality.

Not true. California as a state is more or less bankrupt. They have a larger population and thus a larger economic output than Kansas, but given the choice I'd take Kansas any day. Twisters may not be fun and corn is pretty boring, but at least it isn't Commiefornia.

Quote:

Kinser Wrote:Short of that the only real way to accelerate economic growth by government spending is to waste huge sums on a war.  I think we've been trying to blow that bubble back up for some time now--it isn't working out to well.

The space program and the Interstate Highway system build-out had nothing to do with the military In peace or war, but they created enormous knock-on benefits.

Wrong on not having anything to do with the military. The interstate highway system was sold as a means to rapidly deploy the army throughout the country. Ike could have never got it through Congress without selling it as part of a defense bill.

The space program was directly a result from missile development and a pissing contest between Kennedy and Krushchev.

As for the benefits of both...that is somewhat dubious. The interstate has led to suburban sprawl and an unsustainable car driven economy which heads into major recession every time the price of oil per barrel goes up or a hurricane knocks out the refineries for a week. As for the space program, tang is okay I guess but communications satellites would have been sent up by private businesses eventually. Capitalism always drives those with capital to provide goods and services faster, better and cheaper.

Quote:

Kinser Wrote:The GMs and Googles and the GEs don't really pay all that much in corporate taxes because they have and can afford to have armies of lawyers and accountants to reduce their tax burdens through the byzantine mess the tax code is.  So who gets slammed with the high corporate rate?  Smaller companies which actually employs most people.

Corporations escape taxes because we have systematically gutted any control of their influence on the political process.  It started with Carter, and his first stab at deregulation, but Reagan raised it to an art form.  Add 40 years, and viola!  No one tried to reverse it, and it now considered the default position in both parties, though the left wing of the Dems is starting to make real noise about it ... finally.

So you're a Dimocrat Ideologue. Understood.

The fact remains that even if we had all these magical regulations and mystical business taxes larger corporations would escape them because of three main reasons:

1. They have the deep pockets to buy a congressman or two. Political corruption is as old as the constitution so I figure it must be a feature rather than a bug.
2. Having bought these congressmen those legislators then go about creating arcane tax codes and complex regulations that even accountants and lawyers have difficulty understanding--never mind a lay person.
3. Even if 1 and 2 didn't apply (and they do) they could buy the lawyers and accountants to tie up these magical regulators for months if not years.

Quote:

Kinser Wrote:Until you can demonstrate to me that you have a modicum of economic understanding of an average High School Student then perhaps we could have a reasonable conversation about the tax rate.  Unfortunately I highly doubt you have the intellect for such an understanding.  You can get back to me about corporate taxes when you've run a business.

Your view is frozen in the early 19th century with Says Law and some of the tax theory of that time.  So far, you have not countered any of my arguments, just blustered along.  Unless you have something real, I think we're done.

[/quote]

I think we are. You have no argument other than to say that my views are dated. Otherwise, from what I can tell you have no argument at all, so instead you choose to attack my style of delivery instead.

Typical boomer there Mr. Horn.