Need help with a few Anti-Tax rethug talking points

[Arcana]

I get into debate a lot, often with right-wing libertarians, recently I've gotten into some areas where I need a bit of help countering, I know they are wrong, but I need some articles and stuff to back it up.

Talking point 1: "Talking the rich will cause the price of goods to go up."

#2 "People shouldn't be taxed to cover the asses of those who couldn't manage their finances to pay for their mortgage"

#3 "Bush tried the regulate the housing market"

Oh and please tell me if this is the right board, I'm new here but have been lurking.

Edit: Heh, you're right the Kool-Aid is strong and so is my addiction to debating

[DURHAM D]

1. You can't argue with "talking points" -

by definition they are propaganda.

[emulatorloo]

2. Right wing libertarians live in a fantasy world. It is difficult to break through the bubble

I've tried, but I am giving up.

Remember this is a fringe group.

[YOY]

3. Um Ok.

1. "Talking the rich will cause the price of goods to go up." (Do you mean Taxing?) Food prices will only go up of there is a change in supply/demand. I see little reason why the ambigiously named "rich" would command such a lion's share in the market of food purchasing consumption or why and if their spending habits on food would increase. That's crazy.

2. They're not really. Not with the status quo...but keep on bitching about it as if they were. Besides, people who wouldn't be able to pay their mortgage shouldn't have been marketed to intensely by people who own mortgage compaies and lobbied inccessantly to allow them the abilitiy to create such financial vehicles that would create such a situation. If you understand how the mortgage industry works in the first place you'd understand that of course paying off those bad loans would fix the problem on several levels...but it would be incredibly unjust. It might actually give right wingers something real to bitch about...but who are we kidding. They'd bitch if Obama did exactly the same thing as Bush...they're told to.

3. Um...what?

[Political Heretic]

4. Why are you bothering to argue? Pick your audience.

Radical fringe persons aren't worth casting your pearls before...

Save it for those who are honestly questioning and in the middle.

Movable middle is where its at.

[Arcana]

6. Good point

The kool-aid is too strong.

[MindPilot]

5. Welcome to DU!

Point1: How much did a gallon of gas cost in 1965? Twenty cents? The tax rate then topped out at 95%; today it's 35%. The two are completely unrelated. Next?

Point2: Nor should people pay taxes to cover the asses of corporations that couldn't manage their finances. Fact is we are going to pay for this one way another; would you rather bankroll a golden parachute for a CEO who sent American jobs overseas, or keep your property value up by helping your neighbor down the street who is guilty of nothing more than bad judgment?

Point3: Yeah and even though the Rs held the House, Senate and Presidency ,they were supposedly stymied at every turn by the MINORITY party. How come Bush and the Republicans couldn't get the job done?

[rainy]

7. #2. OK first, it's not people buying houses they couldn't afford that have

ruined our market. Houses still have value. So, those foreclosed houses are assets nothing more or less. It is all the betting and insuring of the same mortgages by investors and crooks that have plunged our market to the ground. People were allowed to buy insurance on homes they had no interest in. If the buyer couldn't pat then that person collected the sum of the value of the house. All of it a racket as usual just like the saving and loans etc... We are such suckers.

[soryang]

8. Not taxing the rich causes prices of goods to go up

When capital accumulations go untaxed they are not reinvested in capital goods. Failure to invest in capital goods the means of production causes productivity to decline. When productivity declines prices go up.

[Arcana]

9. the rethug redifed her arguement

And now says that taxing BUSINESSES increases the price of goods. Any counters for that?

[soryang]

10. Historically the lower business taxes the worse the economy

if a business is not taxed at a reasonable rate, they are free to simply accumulate cash and stash it say by investing in financial instruments where it is permanently alienated (the so called dead hand of the past) from the marketplace and performs no productive function. Rather than produce more goods and services the corporation or other elite entity can just collect rent, dividends or interest. This is an extractive function rather than a productive function. This is the "rentier" version of economics that prevailed in premodern (feudal) economies and is regarded as retrograde and antimodern in classical economics. It leads to parasitc financial relations, debt peonage, the loss of social mobility and the emergence of a permanent class of hereditary rentier aristocrats, that to which American and French revolutionaries were opposed.

Where a reasonable rate of taxation is present, investment tax credits and deductions for expenditures for business purposes cause the business to reinvest revenues in its own productive capacity, which increases both efficiency and productivity (supply) and reduces net tax burden on the business. The macro effect is distributive deploying benefit to the economy at large and keeping industries competitive. Therefore, there is a saying in modern progressive tax law, "use it or lose it." There is a reason for this tax structure and it is based upon classical economic theory of the 18th and 19th Century. Current "free trade" philosophy is libertarian (rather than liberal it is neo-liberal) nonsense and has no sound basis in economic history or the legal structure of a democratic republican state with free industrial and labor markets. The corporate and super rich anti tax line has resulted in maldistribution of capital, a swollen nonproductive finance, insurance and real estate sector, crony capitalism, shrinking production, higher prices for goods and services, hollowed out production (closed factories), and an impoverished workforce.

Michael Hudson, economist from the Univ of Missouri is the expert on this subject. He can't get a hearing on corporate controlled maninstream media. His interviews are archived at KPFA.org the program heading is guns and butter on wednesdays. I've studied European economic history as well as tax law and he is spot on. A couple of interviews with him appear on youtube. One of his colleagues at Missou is Prof William Black a brilliant economist, policy expert and financial analyst has brilliant interviews on youtube concerning how laissez faire economics has ruined our country's economy.