Alices in a Trickle-Down Wonderland

All I've been hearing from the left lately is taxes this, tax-rates that, taxes taxes taxes..

Tax rates are completely irrelevant to what we pay in taxes. What is relevant is government spending. If taxes don't cover government spending, then we have to pay for that government spending in other ways. We pay for it in inflation, and that hurts the poor and the elderly on fixed wages and incomes the most because they are constantly on the margins.

So as we grow our foreign empire and our domestic programs the way we have have been, we will be in debt and have very large interest payments when interest rates go up. We always have to take on more debt and eventually do what we have been doing since the crash which is defaulting so we don't have to declare bankruptcy. We default by printing money and then the government calls it things like bailouts, stimulus, quantitative easing, etc..

This causes inflation and causes prices to rise, and that is a tax. Real inflationary figures, how they used to be calculated, show inflation at about 9%. This is a tax everyone has to pay, including poor people. Poor people shouldn't have to pay any taxes, yet this is a 9% annual hit they are taking against their wages, fixed incomes, welfare or social security checks.

Obama is Commander and Chief of the troops. He could call them all home tomorrow and this would be a significant step towards helping to fix the budget mess. This would also make us safer because terrorists' main reasons for not liking the U.S. is our presence and occupation of Muslim Countries.

Also, I'm not sure what the author meant about businesses not hiring and firing based on tax rates. We can see businesses move their entire operations across state lines when various taxes and regulations take effect. I'm pretty sure some businesses find that laying off a few people becomes necessary as opposed to such drastic measures as moving the business.

What is amazing in the above two responses is the complete failure to communicate. Not once did Mr. Baruch mention "tax rates" He said "tax breaks" Those are two different things.

Every businessman I have talked to has said he does not hire based on a tax break, he hires on the demand for his product.

@jfklbj

When you take an analogy and run it to the extreme, as you have doe, you certainly do illustrate a "total idiocy". A tax rate of 100% is imaginary. The sad part is, that you have the makings of a point, but flood that idea with "conservative" rhetoric, which may lose your audience.

Something that I think you *did* get right, however, is, "If the company making hammers pays higher taxes, the cost for producing hammers (and the price of hammers) will rise and people will buy fewer hammers. (or they will buy hammers made overseas)". But, if you re-read the letter AND your post, you will see that the points are intertwined: Mr. Baruch is stressing the maxim of Supply and Demand, and you are providing an example. The major difference seems to point toward your view as being (typical) "Supply-Side", while Mr. Baruch is crowing for "Demand-Side".

@loonpt

The Left stresses taxes, because at some point they see that some (not all) "government spending" needs to be upheld. And, regardless of whether anything is cut or not, the cost of *everything* increases over time. So, the total of spending will continually rise, requiring that taxation follows.

Also, there is certainly room for argument in what amounts to a "fair share", when it comes to taxing the "wealthy" (and I double-quote that, as the term is also open to argument). However, as "Trickle-Down" economics has proven over the DECADES to not work, so maybe trying it from the other side will help. . . .

Lastly, there is a disconnection in the idea of what a tax "break" means. The Republicans frame the lost of a break as being an increase in taxes, while the Democrats see it as the removal of a discount. I side with the Dems here, as I look at it as if I received a coupon for $1-off, say, a sub sandwich. I wouldn't use the coupon, and then go back for another sandwich and expect another dollar discount.

Overall, there needs to be a balanced approach, which is apparently what the President wants--and maybe even some of Congress. The problem is, that the members of the Legislative branch refuse to compromise to any real gain, because they probably view any compromise as a loss. Well, that, and the fact that the Democrats usually attempt to compromise by giving in some, while the Republicans constantly act like Lucy from the Peanuts comic strip--yanking the football away, just as Charlie Brown goes in for the kick. . . .