Straight-Talk Express embraces Voodoo Economics

[Ramo]

I'd bet it's far more accurate than your deranged posts.

[Kontiki]

http://www42.statcan.ca/smr04/2006/07/smr04_19106_05-eng.htm

[Ben Kenobi]

I stand corrected.

Thanks Kontiki.

[Asher]

You should thank me. It's a full time job correcting you constantly.

[Ramo]

Nice change from million to billion dude.

Was doing something else at the time. I noticed the typos, and fixed them. It happens.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ramo


Was doing something else at the time. I noticed the typos, and fixed them. It happens.

Ben goes to the Molly Bloom school of deflection. When cornered, look for typos or other obvious mistakes that anyone with a brain could interpret correctly, and fixate on it. Distraction 101.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Mr Snuggles


Ben goes to the Molly Bloom school of deflection. When cornered, look for typos or other obvious mistakes that anyone with a brain could interpret correctly, and fixate on it. Distraction 101.

It is a compliment to Ben's flat ignoring a central fact in all his responses...he kept getting all his money back in refunds and thus, over time, had a larger disposable income than if he was paying a sales tax.

Ahh...such is life. Sorry I made you bitter in your responses Ben. Hang in there and pick up a few economics texts occasionaly.

[Ben Kenobi]

It is a compliment to Ben's flat ignoring a central fact in all his responses...he kept getting all his money back in refunds and thus, over time, had a larger disposable income than if he was paying a sales tax.

True, but I'd rather not give them a tax-free loan that is of 5x the amount then a sales tax.

Hang in there and pick up a few economics texts occasionaly.

Ohh hugs for everybody.

[Impaler[WrG]]

Either a tax is regressive, or it perpetuates class divisions. A tax system that increases the burdens the more you make, is a system that makes it more difficult to save up and climb up the ladder. A system that does the opposite promotes upward mobility.

You confuse incentive to move up and ability to do so. Regressive taxes certainly make it more desirable to increase ones income but they take away the means to do so as one has less funds available to invest in education or the starting of a business.

Your completly ignoring marginal utility when you claim that higher taxes on higher income is worse then the reverse, the same dollar is more valuable when ones total income is lower. This applies both to consumption as well as to investment and moving up the ladder.

Take for example a person at the bottom of the income ladder seeking to invest their wealth in something that will earn them a return on their investment. The first and best returns are to invest in themselves. A good set of cloths and a hair cut can make the difference in getting a job. As ones standing increases the investments needed to move higher still increase accordingly, for example you now need a degree to get that promotion to VP of marketing.

How fast one can move up is going to be determined by how quickly one can accumulate wealth and as we have already explained simple bodily maintenance will consume much of what a low wage earner can produce leaving virtually nothing for wealth accumulation. Regressive taxation thus makes the bottom bracket an inescapable trap. Of course if your only concern is allowing those above the 'knee' of the regressive tax system to vault higher then you get your wish it would indeed do that. But in top to bottom social mobility it simply dose not work.

[Straybow]

Originally posted by snoopy369
As to the communist element of redistributing wealth; there is a sound, capitalist, economic argument against overly concentrating wealth. It is simply that concentrated wealth hurts the economy; consumption per dollar drops dramatically as wealth increases (not income, but held wealth). Once you have $50m or so, are you really going to buy more things just because you have a few extra million dollars? You're going to save it, or put it in some sort of fund or investment account. Certainly the investment itself is beneficial; but it is not nearly as beneficial as consumption would be, ie buying something with that money.

Except that investment at that level is essentially indistinguishable from consumption at that level. Sure, once you've moved up to gormet steak from bologna there is only so much you can buy and eat.

Buying a $10M vacation house or put $10M into venture capital or $10M into the stock market they are looking for a rate of return. The vacation house counts as "consumption" and the others don't.

[Ben Kenobi]

You confuse incentive to move up and ability to do so. Regressive taxes certainly make it more desirable to increase ones income but they take away the means to do so as one has less funds available to invest in education or the starting of a business.

That depends entirely on the taxation levels. It's possible for a tax to be both regressive, and still not overly intrusive. Regressive only terms the slope, and not the level of taxation.

Your completly ignoring marginal utility when you claim that higher taxes on higher income is worse then the reverse, the same dollar is more valuable when ones total income is lower. This applies both to consumption as well as to investment and moving up the ladder.

Also true. Which is why a lower taxation level, even if it is regressive is more beneficial then a higher taxation level even if it is progressive.

Take for example a person at the bottom of the income ladder seeking to invest their wealth in something that will earn them a return on their investment. The first and best returns are to invest in themselves. A good set of cloths and a hair cut can make the difference in getting a job. As ones standing increases the investments needed to move higher still increase accordingly, for example you now need a degree to get that promotion to VP of marketing.

Oh, this is very true. If the tax is regressive, then each higher step of the ladder becomes more affordable.

Regressive taxation thus makes the bottom bracket an inescapable trap. Of course if your only concern is allowing those above the 'knee' of the regressive tax system to vault higher then you get your wish it would indeed do that. But in top to bottom social mobility it simply dose not work.

Progressive taxation is a treadmill. Each step is much, much harder to take because you are paying more at each step. You, like most people are arguing that taxation levels remain the same, and so a regressive tax would imply much higher taxation rates for the poor. This is not necessarily the case. If incomes rise, then the overall revenues obtained through taxation increase, even as the percentages remain the same. I would support a regressive system only if the overall tax burden on the poor did not increase.

[Impaler[WrG]]

I would support a regressive system only if the overall tax burden on the poor did not increase.

Simply Impossible, if tax burden for the poor remains the same while the upper brackets get large reductions to create a regressive system then the government collects and spends only a fraction of current spending. Thus eliminating the poverty ameliorating programs for the poor worsening their situation dramatically. Further more No industrialized country could be sustained on that kind of budget, the middle class would collapse into poverty and with it the industrial base and consumer market. Your in a Fantasy land BK.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by snoopy369


The stimulus simply takes $X million in tax revenue and splits it evenly across everyone (except the upper middle class or rich). Sounds like redistribution of wealth to me

The rich get theirs, because budget deficits are a transfer of wealth to the upper classes who can afford to lend the money. And at any rate there is no redistribution of wealth, because the stimulation helps the rich even more than the poor. It's the rich who lose their wealth in a recession. The poor come out even.