Joined: 28 Dec 2005
|Posted: Wed Mar 23, 2016 9:01 am Post subject: Trade-Offs - The Rich
The problem with studies that look at taxes have is that they don’t look at the benefits that the taxpayers receive. If a middle class family pays an extra $100 per year in extra taxes but has three kids that go through college without any debt they are much better off. If they pay an extra $100 per year in property taxes but receive an excellent public school education instead of paying for a private school they are much better off. Same with utilities, roads, health care, etc. There are some things that are required by the vast majority of citizens that are better provided by the government due to economies of scale. The right refuses to accept this, to the detriment of those in right wing states.
It’s not that simple. You need to examine the trade-offs or costs and outcomes.
And, there’s a “free rider” problem.
Excessive environmental regulations have raised the cost of production, slowed economic growth, and reduced living standards.
It makes no sense when the cost of a particular regulation exceeds the benefit, and the totality of regulations are a net negative, to a large extent, particularly in an ongoing depression.
Stronger economic growth, or a larger economy, can absorb more regulations, which we saw in the ’80s and ’90s.
So, you want much more environmental regulations, regardless of the impact on the economy.
How do you know being much poorer will improve and extend your life?
Samuel says: “…tax cuts aimed at the top 1% and doing away with environmental regulations as a solution to get the state’s economy going.”
The top 1% pay about half of federal income taxes. What do you think they do with the rest? They either invest it or spend it. And, excessive environmental regulations have destroyed jobs and made us poorer.