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
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.