impacts poorer people more

all taxes will impact the poor more, or at least the people just entering that tax bracket.

and all it does against the "rich" is force them to spend resources trying to protect themselfs form those taxes, resources better spend on other things if you want people to do well.

i mean i don't think that's true

why not?

if you tax a supper store all they are gonna do is rase their prices to keep their profits, and these aren't large profits in the long run, one of the ways Wal-Mart saves money is by haveing the boxes shipped to them be just enough to hold what they need to hold, a few cents here and there and when you save a half cent on the dollar over a million dollars that is alot of money.

yes wal-mart is what you would think of as "supper rich" but that is because they have so much money passing through them the few cents they hold on to for each dollar becomes a huge number.

...
besides that, in my view, when you tax the rich you are taxing the most productive.
to me if you make profit that means you made a surplus of value between buying the stuff you used and selling your product.
farther more, if you have a surplus of money you are giveing more finished value then you are useing.

even if we accept the rich will tax evade and so on in general you can make richer people pay more taxes than poorer people

and they already do pay way more of the tax income then the poorer people, like it isn't even close to fair.

so you don't think that all taxes will impact the poor more

I do think all taxes impact the poor more, the "rich" we are talking about are the ones who drive the economy, they are the ones who employ nearly everyone.
now if you are talking about the people who are rich because they are politicans that's it's own topic.

well what do you mean by impact in this case

you don't mean, have a larger portion of their income taxed, i assume

if you take money form the rich (or more likely the buisness they have setup) that money can't be used in growing their buisness.
they can't pay their employees as much.
they can't open that new branch the next town over.
can't spend money researching the next big money maker.

you taxing the rich and their assets is just makeing it so they can't spend that money on things that would help the poor, from employment to better/cheaper services.

assuming all of the money you have deleted would have been used for those things

which often it wouldn't have

you think the government uses that money better?

it can yeah

you will never convince me of that.

why not

what part about one of the worlds largest economies being several times it's yearly income in debt makes you think the government has the slightest clue how to handle money?

also is there any large scale government project that didn't way over run it's budget and make everyone say "wow this came out better then anyone could have hoped!"

well i would agree that the government should be made more efficient, but i don't see the debt as a big issue

the BEST case with federal level government is "it's bloated" the more likely case is "money is going to people's friends and being wasted"

The government uses money about as efficiently as a crack addict

at least the addict gets his hit with his money.

private sector debt is and has been a much bigger problem than government debt

for my entire life i have heard
"the roads are crumbleings! we need more money!"
or
"the schools are failing! we need more money!"
and those things just seem to be getting worse.

and the government would not have to accrue debt to deficit spend if they weren't required to "finance" it through the sell of bonds

and of course i would say

that insofar as it is inefficient

well of course, liberals have demanded as much

the government tried to run steamships, those ships lost money.
they tried to build rails, those reails were way outclassed by the rails made by busness who had to earn the money for rails.

they tried to build a plane, they guy they hired said "it can't be done"
not a year later to bike builders got airborn.

they have demanded we have a president who rules only for 8 years at most, they have demanded much power be placed in the hand of a horribly inefficient parliament, they have demanded that the government rule through regulation rather than direction

the ONLY time the government did a good job that i can think of is the moon landings.

it's an inefficient high time preference entity

so how about we don't give them the money and let the locals deal with it?

well i would say make it more efficient