|
|
Post by aztecwin on Feb 13, 2011 10:33:58 GMT -8
I guess I just don't agree that "in-elasticity of demand" has a place in this discussion. I see the points that Yoda and William are discussing as more to the point of discussion. Yoda is on the right track except for his opinion of unearned income and how it should be treated. Were we to go to a regressive point of sale type tax system with about a 23% rate, that to would not be a point of contention. I think tax decisions should be based on what you are attempting to achieve and that decision should be based on solid economic principles. The average person will pay a greater portion of their income in taxes, when taxes are based on consumption. The benefits the more wealthy of Americans reap go into investments rather than into the economy. While that investment might eventually make it into the economy, regressive taxation creates an extra step for the money to flow through before it reaches the economy. Yes, in-elasticity of demand plays a role in tax decisions. The talk of consumption and sales taxes is seductive, because most people see the simplicity and not the inequity. I do not think that Conservatives care about the inequity enough. Sales taxes and consumption taxes are easy to sell, when the people you try to influence don't know the difference. We do use tax policy to influence behavior and other things such as investment decisions. Based on the track record of politicians, tax code complexity and the inequity of treatment of different classes of people and different businesses, I suggest that a simple flat tax at point of sale is the fairest of all unfair tax schemes. What you see as an inequity, I may see as an opportunity. Here is a thought and an idea I either heard or read about in the last couple days. How about requiring all elected officials either Federal, State or local who have any vote or influence on tax law to file their own tax returns without any software or professional help every year. Sooner or later they would modify the tax laws to where the code would allow all of us to file our own returns without help or we would adopt a point of sale tax and collection system. Again, your use of "in-elasticity of demand" in the context of this discussion sound very much like someone who has just learned something in their first economics class. It just does not apply here. |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Feb 13, 2011 11:03:35 GMT -8
Good points, but I think you have drawn the wrong conclusion. All the mechanisms put in place by the feds as a reaction to the Depression did not prevent the crash of '08. The trouble with government solutions to free market problems is that they frequently do not really solve the problems while at the same time they introduce new problems into the system. Those on the Left really do believe that they, unlike others in the past who attempted to perfect the system, somehow have the answers that their predecessors lacked. Pride and hubris, that's what it is. As long as you give the govt. great power, there will be those who will abuse that power. Why? Simple. It's nicely encapsulated in the answer given by Willy "The Actor" Sutton when asked why he robbed banks. "Because that's where the money is." he said. The more power to control the economy is put under the control of the government, the more temptation there will be more abuse of the system. That, plus the inevitable unforeseen consequences that are contained in laws written by people whose self-evaluation far exceeds their actual competence. Let's stop believing that we can bring about Utopia. The Fabian socialists of the late 19th Century were sure that they could do just that. Very, very naive chaps, those! AzWm PS: For the record, the DOW did not rise to the pre Oct., 1929 level until 1954, a period of time in which the Democrats controlled the federal government all but five or six years. Those two statements constitute the crux of our differences. And sadly, my friend, they are probably irreconcilable [/size].[/quote] There is a big difference between government and the private sector. The government cannot go broke, private businesses can. Well, the government CAN go broke. . . eventually . . . as we see in the case of Greece. But, since the govt. can always print up more and more money, it may avoid the day of reckoning for quite some time. It's just that said day of reckoning will be ever so much worse the longer it is forestalled by through excessive spending and inflation. As for private businesses, if left alone, they will sink or swim on the merits of their efforts. Sadly, we now have a govt. (by which I mean largely, though not entirely, the Democrats) that considers some businesses too big to fail. Or, more correctly, too big to be ALLOWED to fail. If business leaders feel certain that the feds will always be there to back them up, they will be less careful in their economic decisions. That is a bit like trying to go from one tower to another walking on a high wire. Generally, I wouldn't even think of trying that. But if there is a nice soft net below to catch me if I fall, I might indeed give it a try. Especially if there is a fat prize for successfully walking to the platform at the other end of the wire. In terms of the economy, that means business leaders can try for the big financial rewards that accompany a successful venture (even if the venture is very risky) and not worry about failure since the govt. will step in and bail them out if they fail. Such a deal! Business wins either way. Oh, yes, let's not forget that in such a "too big to fail" system it's the taxpayer who has to cough up the dough if the business goes bust. AzWm |
|
|
|
Post by inocuace on Feb 13, 2011 11:14:20 GMT -8
"As long as you give the govt. great power, there will be those who will abuse that power."As long as you give business unrestrained freedom there will be those who will abuse that power.Those two statements constitute the crux of our differences. And sadly, my friend, they are probably irreconcilable [/size].[/quote] There is a big difference between government and the private sector. The government cannot go broke, private businesses can. Well, the government CAN go broke. . . eventually . . . as we see in the case of Greece. But, since the govt. can always print up more and more money, it may avoid the day of reckoning for quite some time. It's just that said day of reckoning will be ever so much worse the longer it is forestalled by through excessive spending and inflation. As for private businesses, if left alone, they will sink or swim on the merits of their efforts. Sadly, we now have a govt. (by which I mean largely, though not entirely, the Democrats) that considers some businesses too big to fail. Or, more correctly, too big to be ALLOWED to fail. If business leaders feel certain that the feds will always be there to back them up, they will be less careful in their economic decisions. That is a bit like trying to go from one tower to another walking on a high wire. Generally, I wouldn't even think of trying that. But if there is a nice soft net below to catch me if I fall, I might indeed give it a try. Especially if there is a fat prize for successfully walking to the platform at the other end of the wire. In terms of the economy, that means business leaders can try for the big financial rewards that accompany a successful venture (even if the venture is very risky) and not worry about failure since the govt. will step in and bail them out if they fail. Such a deal! Business wins either way. Oh, yes, let's not forget that in such a "too big to fail" system it's the taxpayer who has to cough up the dough if the business goes bust. AzWm[/quote] Private business contains as much or more incompetence as government and that is a fact. Business wants to make a profit. That is the beginning and the end of their existence. Caveat Emptor is a trite saying for good reason. Unrestrained business worries me. I do not trust business. I do not think business is trustworthy. |
|
|
|
Post by inocuace on Feb 13, 2011 11:22:51 GMT -8
I think tax decisions should be based on what you are attempting to achieve and that decision should be based on solid economic principles. The average person will pay a greater portion of their income in taxes, when taxes are based on consumption. The benefits the more wealthy of Americans reap go into investments rather than into the economy. While that investment might eventually make it into the economy, regressive taxation creates an extra step for the money to flow through before it reaches the economy. Yes, in-elasticity of demand plays a role in tax decisions. The talk of consumption and sales taxes is seductive, because most people see the simplicity and not the inequity. I do not think that Conservatives care about the inequity enough. Sales taxes and consumption taxes are easy to sell, when the people you try to influence don't know the difference. We do use tax policy to influence behavior and other things such as investment decisions. Based on the track record of politicians, tax code complexity and the inequity of treatment of different classes of people and different businesses, I suggest that a simple flat tax at point of sale is the fairest of all unfair tax schemes. What you see as an inequity, I may see as an opportunity. Here is a thought and an idea I either heard or read about in the last couple days. How about requiring all elected officials either Federal, State or local who have any vote or influence on tax law to file their own tax returns without any software or professional help every year. Sooner or later they would modify the tax laws to where the code would allow all of us to file our own returns without help or we would adopt a point of sale tax and collection system. Again, your use of "in-elasticity of demand" in the context of this discussion sound very much like someone who has just learned something in their first economics class. It just does not apply here. It applies here. A flat tax is regressive. So when you talk about a flat tax, in-elasticity of demand applies. Rich people save a larger percentage of tax savings than the spend it is germane to an argument of what kind of taxes we advocate. A flat tax is a simple minded idea. ". . .sound very much like someone who has just learned something in their first economics class. It just does not apply here."This is a funny comment. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Feb 13, 2011 11:54:56 GMT -8
We do use tax policy to influence behavior and other things such as investment decisions. Based on the track record of politicians, tax code complexity and the inequity of treatment of different classes of people and different businesses, I suggest that a simple flat tax at point of sale is the fairest of all unfair tax schemes. What you see as an inequity, I may see as an opportunity. Here is a thought and an idea I either heard or read about in the last couple days. How about requiring all elected officials either Federal, State or local who have any vote or influence on tax law to file their own tax returns without any software or professional help every year. Sooner or later they would modify the tax laws to where the code would allow all of us to file our own returns without help or we would adopt a point of sale tax and collection system. Again, your use of "in-elasticity of demand" in the context of this discussion sound very much like someone who has just learned something in their first economics class. It just does not apply here. It applies here. A flat tax is regressive. So when you talk about a flat tax, in-elasticity of demand applies. Rich people save a larger percentage of tax savings than the spend it is germane to an argument of what kind of taxes we advocate. A flat tax is a simple minded idea. ". . .sound very much like someone who has just learned something in their first economics class. It just does not apply here."This is a funny comment. Now your response makes no sense. |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Feb 15, 2011 16:42:42 GMT -8
See, I told you that the Left always. . . ALWAYS . . . claims that the rich are not paying their fair share of taxes. This time it's the reliably nonsensical Bob Herbert of the NYT (Which is starting to stand for Never Yet True!). Herbert does point out some real problems, such as furloughs for state workers. He apparently thinks that such measures are merely a sign of some nasty, mean-spirited right wingers. Hey, Bob! The States are BROKE, for god's sake. Wake up, man!His solution? Big ideas. As in Big and Bigger taxes, though he does not have the guts to say so. (Except that the rich are not paying their fair share.) www.nytimes.com/2011/02/08/opinion/08herbert.htmlAzWm Hey Will, why is it you will never bitch about people like Pooh, who joined the military at 18, retired at 38 and was set for life with a pension and free medical care? =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Feb 15, 2011 17:06:55 GMT -8
See, I told you that the Left always. . . ALWAYS . . . claims that the rich are not paying their fair share of taxes. This time it's the reliably nonsensical Bob Herbert of the NYT (Which is starting to stand for Never Yet True!). Herbert does point out some real problems, such as furloughs for state workers. He apparently thinks that such measures are merely a sign of some nasty, mean-spirited right wingers. Hey, Bob! The States are BROKE, for god's sake. Wake up, man!His solution? Big ideas. As in Big and Bigger taxes, though he does not have the guts to say so. (Except that the rich are not paying their fair share.) www.nytimes.com/2011/02/08/opinion/08herbert.htmlAzWm Hey Will, why is it you will never bitch about people like Pooh, who joined the military at 18, retired at 38 and was set for life with a pension and free medical care? =Bob Troll alert! Make that 17 and 39.  |
|
