Why not just reduce taxes for poorer people

Discussion in 'Economics' started by morganist, Jan 10, 2010.

  1. morganist

    morganist Guest

    agreed but the process of proving that problematic. the point i am making is people who receive gov help would not need to if they did not pay tax in the first place. tax is creating dependency on gov. so reduction in tax for those people would eliminate the need for gov help increasing aggregate demand too without cost of debt and qe.
     
    #11     Jan 10, 2010
  2. morganist

    morganist Guest

    like i said above it is a bit more than that. but these are the people that need help.
     
    #12     Jan 10, 2010
  3. Liger86

    Liger86

    Some people are just unlucky. After all even when someone tells you you are not trying hard enough to find a job - you have to remember many jobs are mostly by reference, even in mcdonalds. Shure you can walk in and sign the app. But even in mcds a friend can put your app on top of another.

    In the end, we can't employ everyone. We can't have 0 poverty. Some have to fail so that others can live a life.

    Jealousy and greed is good. We need these emotions.

    We need a major natural disaster, that ought to make people come together and help each other and provide good lessons.

    Brace for impact!
     
    #13     Jan 10, 2010
  4. Mav88

    Mav88

    Most all people who make less than 30K not only don't pay any net tax, they actually get a net gain from the gov't due to the EIC. The point is moot- aleady done.

    There is a much larger problem here, a person who makes less than $30k and starts a family is a really stupid person. They don't have the means but don't care. Most of these people are young single mothers. I could live off $30K all by myself, students do it all the time, but give me a kid and suddenly I am poor.

    Of course there are the cases where people fell on hard times, but they are the minority.
     
    #14     Jan 10, 2010
  5. In Canada, we have close to $9,000 in personal tax credit that everyone can claim. This will reduce the taxable income of taxpayer at every income level.

    So, if someone make less than $9,000 per year, they would not have to pay tax. They will get a tax rebate because the tax was already taken out from their pay cheque.

    If we want the government to not take the tax dollar from the poor people when they receive their pay cheque, the government may have to figure out their annual salary, in which they may need a few thousand of crystal balls. Also, if this system did get implemented, it may be difficult for the government to keep track of who is paying their share of tax and who is cheating.
     
    #15     Jan 10, 2010
  6. Mav88

    Mav88

    There is no such economic law, and not a logical necessity.


    there seems to be a law of human nature though in which bad judgement and self destructive behavior will never go away, in spite of the liberal claim that gov't can cure human suffering
     
    #16     Jan 10, 2010
  7. morganist

    morganist Guest

    ok so it is still the two same problems who is poor and are they really and the implementation.

    however weight that up with huge debt and gov dependency. which is worse.
     
    #17     Jan 10, 2010
  8. Most all people who make less than 30K not only don't pay any net tax, they actually get a net gain from the gov't due to the EIC. The point is moot- aleady done.
    -----------------------------------------------------------

    I have to agree here.

    What I think is happening is the gov't is targeting taxes toward lower income people. One example is cigarette taxes, another is lottery tickets, taxes on cell phone usage. There seems to be a creep up in taxes targeted toward people who don't pay taxes.
     
    #18     Jan 10, 2010
  9. morganist

    morganist Guest

    ok i appreciate your points but this is only america england is different.
     
    #19     Jan 10, 2010
  10. You think the government (especially liberal politicians) doesn't want this dependency to exist? Quite the opposite!
     
    #20     Jan 10, 2010