..is 40%+ taxation not considered heavy? I consider it pretty heavy. taxation is especially harmful to the primary source of economic growth: new small businesses. the tax burden of hiring new employees is so strong (and so risky due to litigation resulting from contract dispute) you'd think the government liked unemployment.
You're probably being voted down because you provide little evidence for your claims. It is practically impossible to "logically deduce" the result of certain elements of the economy because it is dependent on so many variables.
Consider, for example, the resistance in a wire. One might logically argue that because the power dissipated instantaneously in a resistor is equal to I^2 * R, that a decrease in resistance R leads to lower power (and heat) dissipation. Of course, that would be wrong, as that same resistor relates current to resistance by V=IR. Now, one can see that by decreasing the resistance by a factor of x (R/x), one also increases the current by a factor of x (xI, at a constant voltage). Thus, when the original problem is solved again, P=(xI)^2 * (R/x), so the power dissipation is actually increased by a factor of x.
The economy works in the same way. To argue that taxes cause a decrease in first order capital may be true and may be a logical conclusion. However, logically deducing broad statements about the economy through that is a logical fallacy. The solution to this is data, not more reasoning. Remember, the variables you forget never appear in your equations.
I thought my claim was pretty conservative. All my experience with small businesses (2 just in my immediate family, friends with lots more) is that dealing with the administrative as well as straight up monetary demands of taxes actively prevents them from hiring as many people as they'd like to. it seems like common sense that if you wanted to encourage employment you'd have like a 3 month moratorium on new payroll taxes when getting new employees up and productive.
considering that you're taking someone OFF unemployment and turning them into an active taxpayer...seems like a completely unadulterated win-win for the government...so why is there zero incentive?
I'm sorry but you've just done the exact same thing again. You've essentially said that the entire US tax structure is bad, while only providing anecdotal evidence for your claims.
You claim that common sense will produce certain economic results, however in most fields claims of "common sense" would be laughed away. Anyone who argued that we can know both the exact position and velocity of any particle would probably be regarded as having common sense less than 100 years ago. Unfortunately, common sense is not proof of any measurable claim.
In addition, you continue to ignore variables in favor of the ones you care about. Specifically, you argue that the savings would positively benefit very specific segments of funding and revenue for certain small businesses. Meanwhile, you completely ignore the effect that the taxes have on other variables, like infrastructure development. This is the same fallacy of Power that I proposed before.
I can't name a scenario in which decreased tax revenue for the government is a bad thing. the claim that government spending is better than private rests on the idea that the money in aggregate can be directed more efficiently. the support for this is...nothing. I tend to think extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. so if you make an extraordinary claim: I need to take your money for your own good, you need extraordinary proof.
the burden of proof does not rest with me, my position is that in the absence of strong evidence you should leave people alone.
Comments
same old story...people manage to keep advancing despite the yoke of heavy taxation, government takes credit for every inch plowed.
..is 40%+ taxation not considered heavy? I consider it pretty heavy. taxation is especially harmful to the primary source of economic growth: new small businesses. the tax burden of hiring new employees is so strong (and so risky due to litigation resulting from contract dispute) you'd think the government liked unemployment.
You're probably being voted down because you provide little evidence for your claims. It is practically impossible to "logically deduce" the result of certain elements of the economy because it is dependent on so many variables.
Consider, for example, the resistance in a wire. One might logically argue that because the power dissipated instantaneously in a resistor is equal to I^2 * R, that a decrease in resistance R leads to lower power (and heat) dissipation. Of course, that would be wrong, as that same resistor relates current to resistance by V=IR. Now, one can see that by decreasing the resistance by a factor of x (R/x), one also increases the current by a factor of x (xI, at a constant voltage). Thus, when the original problem is solved again, P=(xI)^2 * (R/x), so the power dissipation is actually increased by a factor of x.
The economy works in the same way. To argue that taxes cause a decrease in first order capital may be true and may be a logical conclusion. However, logically deducing broad statements about the economy through that is a logical fallacy. The solution to this is data, not more reasoning. Remember, the variables you forget never appear in your equations.
I thought my claim was pretty conservative. All my experience with small businesses (2 just in my immediate family, friends with lots more) is that dealing with the administrative as well as straight up monetary demands of taxes actively prevents them from hiring as many people as they'd like to. it seems like common sense that if you wanted to encourage employment you'd have like a 3 month moratorium on new payroll taxes when getting new employees up and productive. considering that you're taking someone OFF unemployment and turning them into an active taxpayer...seems like a completely unadulterated win-win for the government...so why is there zero incentive?
I'm sorry but you've just done the exact same thing again. You've essentially said that the entire US tax structure is bad, while only providing anecdotal evidence for your claims.
You claim that common sense will produce certain economic results, however in most fields claims of "common sense" would be laughed away. Anyone who argued that we can know both the exact position and velocity of any particle would probably be regarded as having common sense less than 100 years ago. Unfortunately, common sense is not proof of any measurable claim.
In addition, you continue to ignore variables in favor of the ones you care about. Specifically, you argue that the savings would positively benefit very specific segments of funding and revenue for certain small businesses. Meanwhile, you completely ignore the effect that the taxes have on other variables, like infrastructure development. This is the same fallacy of Power that I proposed before.
I can't name a scenario in which decreased tax revenue for the government is a bad thing. the claim that government spending is better than private rests on the idea that the money in aggregate can be directed more efficiently. the support for this is...nothing. I tend to think extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. so if you make an extraordinary claim: I need to take your money for your own good, you need extraordinary proof.
the burden of proof does not rest with me, my position is that in the absence of strong evidence you should leave people alone.