Fight Poverty! Raise taxes?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Crocus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Crocus

Guest
Many people bristle at the suggestion, however 2019 Nobel Prize for Economics winners say it’s the way to go.

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.blo...se-taxes-to-fight-poverty-nobel-laureate-says

"A lot of Americans are now poorer than their parents, and that’s one of the reasons so many people are upset, Banerjee said.

“The American dream, which was a continuous upward progress, has faltered and stopped,” he said. “That can’t be a a way to create a reasonable social system.’’
 
No. More of the citizens money in the hands of government to distribute at will, and inefficiently as well, is not good for people. People need good jobs that are kept in the US and not shipped overseas. Poverty is better dealt with at the local level where it can be handled according to the specific needs in a given area. The article states that the Trump tax cuts haven’t helped the middle class. My family is middle class and the tax cuts have helped some but they were never meant to be a panacea to fight the problem of poverty. What has really helped is that my husband and the company he works for has more work than they can find workers to fill the spaces. We are paying off debt that was accumulated through the years since the recession of 2008. Before Trump we were paycheck to paycheck. Now we have a decent savings and a cushion in the checking acct. I keep hearing the media claiming the middle class is still hurting and haven’t been helped and I’m sure there are people who are still struggling, but for me and many family and friends, things have improved greatly in the last three years. We also have extra money to donate cash, food, clothes etc to those in need locally that we were never able to do much before.

It would be interesting to see the books for the various charities that help the poor and see if donations are up over previous years and more people are being helped. When people have more, they have more to give. Taking away their money in taxes leaves them less to do good by their neighbors and the government is the last place we should be leaving our money to help the poor.
 
Last edited:
We need to cut the exaggerated military spending and stop the loopholes where the rich pay no taxes. Then we need to stop electing politicians that are corporate bought, especially from big pharma, bank cartels, the military industrial complex, etc, etc… We need a system that works for us working class, not being rigged by the 1%.

A system for the people and by the people. A land where we are truly free, not enslaved and trapped by the current system we have now. Most Americans are no different than slaves because our paychecks barely pay the rent, bills and food with nothing left over.

Is this the American dream?
 
Last edited:
The Tax Cut bill gave a generous increase in the standard deduction. There is less incentive to charitable contributions as a result. Whether you give or not the deduction remains the same, for most.
 
Crocus said:
"A lot of Americans are now poorer than their parents, and that’s one of the reasons so many people are upset, Banerjee said.

“The American dream, which was a continuous upward progress, has faltered and stopped,” he said. “That can’t be a a way to create a reasonable social system.’’
Click to expand...
That faltering corresponds quite well with the headlong push to free markets with persistent and large trade deficits, plus high levels of immigration. I guarantee those immigrant families are doing better than their parents 😉
 
I wouldn’t mind any raise in tax if charity donation is a tax credit instead of tax deduction.

So that my tax money would go to charity instead to the government. If you look at government spending, only a very small fraction goes to welfare.
 
Last edited:
repentant2 said:
People shouldn’t be donating as a way to decrease tax liability anyway.
Click to expand...
that’s why tax deduction do - it deduct tax liability. If charity donation is tax credit, then I can decide how I want tax dollar to be spent
 
Elizabeth3 said:
My family is middle class and the tax cuts have helped some but they were never meant to be a panacea to fight the problem of poverty.
Click to expand...
The thesis to address poverty proposes that more of the tax revenue come from the higher income earners, and be distributed proportionally amongst the lower income earners.

The higher and highest income earners already have a hard time putting their earnings back into the economy. There’s only so much one can eat or wear or drive, after all.

The lower and lowest income earners, in a better position to spend, would spend, increasing economic activity, promoting growth in the economy.

Seems simple to me. When everyone has money to spend, everyone is better off. No one benefits from organized hoarding.

50 years of trickle down ain’t workin’. Time to try some trickle up! That’s what won the Nobel Prize this year.
 
Last edited:
This economist doesn’t seem to know what is meant by “the American dream”. He also seems unfamiliar with our post war economy, globalization etc. How am I supposed to take this economist seriously if he is so uneducated in basic history? Ditto for the Nobel prize people in Switzerland.

What is the point in having an economist talk about taxes if all we have to do is raise taxes to fight poverty.
 
Crocus said:
The higher and highest income earners already have a hard time putting their earnings back into the economy. There’s only so much one can eat or wear or drive, after all.
Click to expand...
So you think they are shoving their money under the mattress then?

There are always more expensive food, car, clothes, etc… Even if they put their money in the bank, the bank does not keep their money sitting there - the bank use that money to invest to make a profit.
 
There should be more tax for super wealthy people, they must pay their fair share. They would still have more than enough to live in luxury.

This will help to pay for the services which vulnerable poor people are denied, simply because they are lacking financial resources (such as seniors, children, widows, people with disabilities, etc).

Republicans are wrong in refusing any taxes, and wanting an almost non-existent government, government intervention and taxes are needed.
 
Last edited:
Unless I missed it, the economist didn’t specify: Are we talking about raising taxes through a tax rate hike or by lowering the tax rate?
 
1Lord1Faith said:
What is the point in having an economist talk about taxes if all we have to do is raise taxes to fight poverty.
Click to expand...
What is the point of doing things the same, when you keep getting the same result? The poor get poorer, the rich get richer. Arguably, some people are very pleased with that program.

For something different, let’s try trickle up.
 
Last edited:
John10 said:
There should be more tax for super wealthy people, they must pay their fair share. They would still have more than enough to live in luxury.
Click to expand...
How much? What is “fair”? Do you distinquish fairness from justice, and which one takes precedence?
John10 said:
Republicans are wrong in refusing any taxes,
Click to expand...
I’m not sure what you’re referring to. There are Republicans who want to repudiate all taxes?
 
Absolutely! Level the playing field and make everyone have “skin” in the game and they will stop voting for class warfare and freebies.
 
John10 said:
There should be more tax for super wealthy people, they must pay their fair share. They would still have more than enough to live in luxury.

This will help to pay for the services which vulnerable poor people are denied, simply because they are lacking financial resources (such as seniors, children, widows, people with disabilities, etc).
Click to expand...
I agree the rich will not experience a significant change in their lifestyle.

I think the economic thesis was more focused on generating economic activity as a first priority through putting more money into the hands of lower income workers especially, as they will buy more products and services. Those additional services you mentioned of course add activity as well, through more wage earners and more tax payers.
 
Crocus said:
The thesis to address poverty proposes that more of the tax revenue come from the higher income earners, and be distributed proportionally amongst the lower income earners.
Click to expand...
I know what they say it is in theory, but it’s inevitable that the middle class will see their taxes rise as well. The middle is always squeezed. How exactly would this distribution happen? A monthly gov’t check? Lower taxes for the poorest earners who already pay very little? Do we really think the gov’t would do anything that is proportionate in a way that would really help in more than a minuscule way once it works it’s way down to the bottom? What incentive is there to get more education or work harder if you are given a hand out? If the lower class has more money to spend, what kind of jobs is that going to translate into? More service jobs in grocery stores, gas stations and retail? I just don’t buy the theory that gov’t knows how to spend our money better than we do and I don’t want a hand-out from the gov’t of other people’s money.
 
Socrates92 said:
How much? What is “fair”? Do you distinquish fairness from justice, and which one takes precedence?
Click to expand...
I’m not an economist, so exactly how much is up to them, however the current system is not working. There continues to be an ever expanding gap of ultra-rich and more poor people. We must start to close the gap.
Socrates92 said:
I’m not sure what you’re referring to. There are Republicans who want to repudiate all taxes?
Click to expand...
Overall they reject adding or increasing taxes.
 
John10 said:
I’m not an economist, so exactly how much is up to them, however the current system is not working.
Click to expand...
Please justify it’s not working, I have read the EITC is quite effective in redistributing taxes to the poor that qualify.

And don’t use the gap as your sole justification, it doesn’t prove the poor are less well off than before.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top