[oceanplexian]

It’s ridiculous we are trying to find more ways the government can rent-seek. Corporations are taxed on profits, they are taxed when they pay employees, the employee is taxed on their income, and the employee’s post tax dollars go to pay sales tax, the remaining money goes to businesses that pay tax, and then the whole thing repeats again. The government is a literal parasite on the economy.

I am repeatedly surprised when people argue that lower taxes don’t improve the economy, it’s as obvious as water being wet or the sky being blue.

[EasyMark]

I think it’s because most people who declare “less taxes are good for the economy” don’t want to pay taxes at all and would be willing to let infrastructure and society rot in order to make a few more dollars. There has to be an optimal level, and surely it isn’t always “less”.

[Jach]

Meanwhile the infrastructure is not exactly doing great in many places, and it seems doubtful that it would be doing particularly better with more taxes collected. Anyway, there's been a pretty clear trend towards not-less, even in just the last few decades (really, compare quality of services and infrastructure at revenues and debts in the 90s to now), without a clear sign that it's actually worth it or that more would make anything better. A fruitless 20 year war didn't help either.

[Teever]

How does infrastructure look in places like Norway and Finland?

Why can those countries have what they have but America some how can't?

What are they doing that America isn't?

[asdasdsddd]

They have a high trust society where people follow rigid norms thereby lowering the cost for infrastructure. For example, they probably don't need to clean the streets as much because people don't shit on the sidewalk.

[yencabulator]

You're attempting to blame all of US problems on some homeless people. Try blaming the corporations and politicians instead.

High trust societies are ones were those in power are not (very) corrupt.

[asdasdsddd]

What part of example does not make sense to you?

[Teever]

What does high trust society mean?

[oceanplexian]

I’ll give you an example, I live in rural Utah and more than once walked into a store and bought something and left money on the counter when there were no employees in the store. Or, as a pilot I’ll fly into an airport and the keys to a courtesy car will be on a table in the lounge with a note to fill up the gas tank.

High trust society is one where people do the morally right thing even if they wouldn’t get caught. To do have that you need a set of common societal values.

[shiroiushi]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-trust_and_low-trust_socie...

"Mechanisms and institutions that are corrupted, dysfunctional, or absent in low-trust societies include respect for private property rights, a trusted civil court system, democratic voting and acceptance of electoral outcomes, and voluntary tax payment."

[asdasdsddd]

Everyone has a very similar value system.

[Clubber]

The citizens don't tolerate deadbeats who trash everything.

[callalex]

It’s a racist dog-whistle.

[gamblor956]

For starters, they have much smaller populations, and more natural resources per person.

They also rely on America to provide the bulk of their national defense...

[Teever]

Do these places have more natural resources per person than the US, or do they just do more with the resources that they have?

Can you tell me more about the military aid that Finland has received from the US?

[gamblor956]

The US is the reason it's still Finland and not the newest Russian state...

[rovolo]

There isn't a clear trend to more taxes in the US (scaled to GDP). Federal tax receipts were higher in the 90s (17-20%) than the 00s/10s (14-18%). Local and state receipts have been basically flat at ~8.8%.

Federal: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYFRGDA188S

State & Local: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1pltN

[Jach]

Has GDP gone up or down over time? It's gone way up, so even if the percentage was constant, the amount of money collected has increased significantly. This is what I mean by a clear trend towards "not-less". Despite this increase, I don't think we're seeing proportional returns, and I'm very doubtful that increasing it even further will help anything. If the root problem is mismanagement/corruption/inefficiencies/pointless wars, throwing more money at it isn't going to fix anything, while taking money away could.

[Clubber]

>and would be willing to let infrastructure and society rot in order to make a few more dollars.

In fiscal year (FY) 2023, the government spent $6.13 trillion.

The federal government spent $44.8 billion on infrastructure in 2023 and transferred an additional $81.5 billion to states.

That's a hair over 2%. Certainly you can imagine people wanting to cut the budget in other places.

[azinman2]

Until you start looking at what those other places are.

Tax money is spent in all kinds of ways that touch so many lives that it's literally too much for any one person to comprehend. You can make arguments, but it will affect people in material ways that they'll have counterarguments for.

[Clubber]

>it will affect people in material ways

I agree, but this is false.

>>it’s because most people who declare “less taxes are good for the economy” don’t want to pay taxes at all and would be willing to let infrastructure and society rot in order to make a few more dollars.

Just because someone wants the government to spend less, doesn't mean they don't want to pay their taxes or want to see the infrastructure go to hell. That's a disingenuous argument. Also, “less taxes are good for the economy,” is unarguably true, so he's making two incorrect assumptions in once sentence.

[mistrial9]

> “less taxes are good for the economy,” is unarguably true

no, but there have to be a lot of variables involved to find new balance points.. it is certainly a political situation

[azinman2]

> Also, “less taxes are good for the economy,” is unarguably true

This isn’t unarguably true. Right now we’re running a very large public debt because we spend more than we collect, so if you collected it in taxes you’d slow down inflation. That would be good for the economy. You also see a lot of strategic reallocation of funds through taxes, moving things from possibly inefficient places to places that generate far more growth. China has been doing this very well over the last decade (and sometimes not so well, but net positive) - lots of state back efforts which have tipped industries in China’s favor. This has been great for their economy and soft power. The US did that with Covid vaccines by assuming the risk— something the private market literally could not and would not do.

Taxes and government spending are complex subjects and do not follow universal rules.

[Clubber]

>This isn’t unarguably true. Right now we’re running a very large public debt because we spend more than we collect, so if you collected it in taxes you’d slow down inflation.

We would also slow down the economy. Higher taxes = less spending = less GDP. The inverse is also true.

https://www.investopedia.com/articles/07/tax_cuts.asp#:~:tex....

Can you give me an example of where raising taxes increased economic growth and lowering taxes didn't increase economic growth?