Taxing the rich is good for the economy, IMF says - Polidicks

[url]http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/taxing-the-rich-is-good-for-the-economy-imf-says-1.2552141[/url] [IMG]http://i.cbc.ca/1.1562648.1379048933!/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/16x9_620/hi-tax-rich-1.jpg[/IMG] [QUOTE]The paper by IMF researchers Jonathan Ostry, Andrew Berg and Charalambos Tsangarides will be applauded by politicians and economists who regard high levels of income inequality as not only a moral stain on society but also economically unsound. Labelled as the first study to incorporate recently compiled figures comparing pre- and post-tax data from a large number of countries, the authors say there is convincing evidence that lower net inequality is good economics, boosting growth and leading to longer-lasting periods of expansion. In the most controversial finding, the study concludes that redistributing wealth, largely through taxation, does not significantly impact growth unless the intervention is extreme. In fact, because redistributing wealth through taxation has the positive impact of reducing inequality, the overall affect on the economy is to boost growth, the researchers conclude. "We find that higher inequality seems to lower growth. Redistribution, in contrast, has a tiny and statistically insignificant (slightly negative) effect," the paper states. ... The authors concede that their conclusions tend to contradict some well-accepted orthodoxy, which holds that taxation is a job killer. But they say that many previous studies failed to make a distinction between pre-tax inequality and post-tax inequality, hence often compared apples to oranges, among other shortcomings.[/QUOTE] i'm sooooo shocked by this result, really. :v:

I thought that sign said "Tax the Bich" for a moment.

[QUOTE=Amaurus;44072552]I thought that sign said "Tax the Bich" for a moment.[/QUOTE]taxing a BC Rich guitar would be difficult

Who'd have fucking thunk? 75% tax rate on earnings over $1m go. It's totally feasible for the rich to still be rich with absurd tax rates.

[QUOTE=hexpunK;44072623]Who'd have fucking thunk? 75% tax rate on earnings over $1m go. It's totally feasible for the rich to still be rich with absurd tax rates.[/QUOTE] they're going to have to buy one less yacht, how horrible. [IMG]http://img.pandawhale.com/post-8744-Woody-Harrelson-Crying-Money-g-tvLk.gif[/IMG] is there no justice in this world won't someone think of the rich

Before anyone jumps to conclusions, they aren't saying that simply increasing taxes on the rich is going to improve the economy. They are saying that redistributing wealth via taxation can boost growth, but I'm assuming what they mean by that is reducing taxes on low-earners and recovering that lost income through increased taxes on high-earners. Which makes sense really. Poorer people have a higher marginal propensity to consume, and if taxes are reduced so that a low-income working man gets an extra $20 every week, he's going to spend most of that $20 rather than save it. Meanwhile if you have a multi-millionaire and you increase his tax burden a little bit, he's still going to be consuming the exact same amount as before. He just won't be able to save up as much money, but that difference will be marginal to him at the most if the tax increase is not extreme, hence why his consumption won't go down. It's about the circulation of money that creates growth.

[QUOTE=hexpunK;44072623]Who'd have fucking thunk? 75% tax rate on earnings over $1m go. It's totally feasible for the rich to still be rich with absurd tax rates.[/QUOTE] Hahahahahah this is what peasants actually believe. You do realize the richer people are the more people like you they can hire right? Oh wait let's just tax them more that makes sense.

[QUOTE=Antdawg;44072734]Before anyone jumps to conclusions, they aren't saying that simply increasing taxes on the rich is going to improve the economy. They are saying that redistributing wealth via taxation can boost growth, but I'm assuming what they mean by that is reducing taxes on low-earners and recovering that lost income through increased taxes on high-earners. Which makes sense really. Poorer people have a higher marginal propensity to consume, and if taxes are reduced so that a low-income working man gets an extra $20 every week, he's going to spend mos of that $29 rather than save it. Meanwhile if you have a multi-millionaire and you increase his tax burden a little bit, he's still going to be consuming the exact same amount as before. He just won't be able to save up as much money, but that difference will be marginal to him at the most if the tax increase is not extreme, hence why his consumption won't go down. It's about the circulation of money that creates growth.[/QUOTE] but, but, we should have a flat tax, only that way can taxes be fair, otherwise the rich won't be able to have 3 Ferraris. [sp]certain folks in this very forum believe this is a good idea(unsurprisingly)[/sp]

Honestly it makes sense. The thing about rich people is that they just save their money since they know how to grow it like that or to have a number in their account. People with less money don't already have everything and thus, spend their money.

[QUOTE=hexpunK;44072623]Who'd have fucking thunk? 75% tax rate on earnings over $1m go. It's totally feasible for the rich to still be rich with absurd tax rates.[/QUOTE] I think 75% is a bit much, maybe 66%

[QUOTE=avincent;44072781]Hahahahahah this is what peasants actually believe. You do realize the richer people are the more people like you they can hire right? Oh wait let's just tax them more that makes sense.[/QUOTE] Rich people don't spend all their money. They don't even spend a majority of it since it's impossible once you pass the 50 million mark.

If you earn enough money to buy a house every year then you have too much money.

[QUOTE=Paul McCartney;44072798]Rich people don't spend all their money. They don't even spend a majority of it since it's impossible once you pass the 50 million mark.[/QUOTE] Yea, it's their fucking money. What gives the government the right to have more than half your fucking money? You also realize a lot of their extra money goes to creating new jobs, building businesses, donating to charities etc. People don't just get rich and say oh fuck it I'm done, I wouldn't expect anyone in this thread to actually understand the bigger picture though.

[QUOTE=avincent;44072825]Yea, it's their fucking money. What gives the government the right to have more than half your fucking money?[/QUOTE] you mean the money they got, thanks to society, which without it, there would be nothing, its only fair they should pay taxes according to their ability, everyone should pay according to their ability. but maybe you're right, having to buy only two mansions instead of three every year, is truly horrid, a threat to human rights everywhere [IMG]http://img.pandawhale.com/post-8744-Woody-Harrelson-Crying-Money-g-tvLk.gif[/IMG]

[QUOTE=Wizards Court;44072782]but, but, we should have a flat tax, only that way can taxes be fair, otherwise the rich won't be able to have 3 Ferraris. [sp]certain folks in this very forum believe this is a good idea(unsurprisingly)[/sp][/QUOTE] I haven't seen people here advocating for such an economically unsound policy.

[QUOTE=avincent;44072825]Yea, it's their fucking money. What gives the government the right to have more than half your fucking money? You also realize a lot of their extra money goes to creating new jobs, building businesses, donating to charities etc. People don't just get rich and say oh fuck it I'm done, I wouldn't expect anyone in this thread to actually understand the bigger picture though.[/QUOTE] Ah but you see, having a million $$$ in your bank account which you got from your golden parachute when your policies made your bank go down and under, that shit doesn't help the economy at all. Also the government has the right to tax you because it's the ethically correct thing to do. Unless you're talking about legal rights instead of moral ones, in which case I really can't answer anything except "The government gives the government the right to tax you".

[QUOTE=Sword and Paint;44072813]If you earn enough money to buy a house every year then you have too much money.[/QUOTE] how much does a house cost?

Checkmate, Republicans. Who am I kidding, none of them are going to listen to some socialist European study from the IMF.

[QUOTE=Wizards Court;44072860]you mean the money they got, thanks to society, which without it, there would be nothing, its only fair they should pay taxes according to their ability, everyone should pay according to their ability. but maybe you're right, having to buy only two mansions instead of three every year, is truly horrid, a threat to human rights everywhere [IMG]http://img.pandawhale.com/post-8744-Woody-Harrelson-Crying-Money-g-tvLk.gif[/IMG][/QUOTE] Read my edited post... Rich people don't just buy luxurious items 24/7. But go ahead keep thinking that. I'm sure a business will totally hire new employees if it's getting taxed more. I mean it's only logical! Make less money! Hire more people!

[QUOTE=avincent;44072887]Read my edited post... Rich people don't just buy luxurious items 24/7. But go ahead keep thinking that. I'm sure a business will totally hire new employees if it's getting taxed more. I mean it's only logical! Make less money! Hire more people![/QUOTE] Not talking about taxing businesses. Talking about taxing Rich people. Two different things!

[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;44072885]Checkmate, Republicans. Who am I kidding, none of them are going to listen to some socialist European study from the IMF.[/QUOTE] Yea I guess one study we should just say fuck-it to everything that's ever happened in the past. [editline]28th February 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=deltasquid;44072899]Not talking about taxing businesses. Talking about taxing Rich people. Two different things![/QUOTE] Hahahahhaha sure

[QUOTE=avincent;44072906]Yea I guess one study we should just say fuck-it to everything that's ever happened in the past. [editline]28th February 2014[/editline] Hahahahhaha okay.[/QUOTE] "Everything that's happened in the past", like how trickle down economics wrecks your economy but makes rich people richer. How is this possible? Cognitive dissonance, boy. Also, "hahahaha" doesn't even add anything to your argument. What are you trying to say? Taxing a rich person's income is the same as taxing his company? You do know a company and its shareholders are all different persons, right? It's possible to tax one without taxing the other?

RIP IMF

[QUOTE=hexpunK;44072623]Who'd have fucking thunk? 75% tax rate on earnings over $1m go. It's totally feasible for the rich to still be rich with absurd tax rates.[/QUOTE] 75% really doesn't make sense. If I am that rich anyway I would just move to another country to escape that or have off shore accounts. It is just asking to get avoided.

In Democracy 3, when I raise taxes on the rich, they tend to leave the country and take their wealth and business with them.

[QUOTE=avincent;44072781]Hahahahahah this is what peasants actually believe. You do realize the richer people are the more people like you they can hire right? Oh wait let's just tax them more that makes sense.[/QUOTE] In a company, wages and salaries are paid for by the company, not from the wallets of the company's owners. Your argument would be correct if referring to a firm that is a sole proprietorship or a partnership, but trust me you won't find too many millionaires who run those kinds of businesses.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;44072862]I haven't seen people here advocating for such an economically unsound policy.[/QUOTE] [url]http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1340078[/url] you must be blind then [QUOTE=SPESSMEHREN;43346166]What the fuck, talk about unfair and discriminatory.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=SPESSMEHREN;43346241]Taxing high earners more is still unfair because it punishes people for being successful though.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Erebus.;43346286]Why not just have a flat rate?[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=avincent;43346571]tax the big guy more = less jobs available to the small guy. Good job.. France?[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=SPESSMEHREN;43346921]Why not give everyone a flat tax rate?[/QUOTE] hell just see the whole thread for some laughs.

[QUOTE=avincent;44072887]Read my edited post... Rich people don't just buy luxurious items 24/7. But go ahead keep thinking that. I'm sure a business will totally hire new employees if it's getting taxed more. I mean it's only logical! Make less money! Hire more people![/QUOTE] You're right, they don't buy luxury items, they put most of their money in offshore tax havens. By the way, are we talking about taxing businesses or the wealthy? It makes a difference.

Originally "trickle down economics" was some French economic policy in the 18th century. Their big problem was that they had loads of aristocrats with massive landed estates largely living off the interest of their stored fortunes and any rents they may have got off their tenants. The idea was to encourage the aristocrats to spend their money, with it trickling downwards into the lower classes (thus improving their lot). Nowadays of course, we face largely the same problem. Either the rich ought to spend and invest their money, or the state should do it for them. Alternatively, we can cut taxes on the poor, which would have the same effect.

Who woulda guessed it?! The rich can afford to pay taxes and still live comfortably while tax breaks for the poor help them out, both of which helping the economy out...why...you could almost call it common fucking sense. Which is why we don't do it.