10-06-2003 11:52									#151
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Kidicious Yes there is such policy. It's a choice that we make. The current policy benefits the wealthy more. If you want to benefit everyone equally then you just change your policy.

Bullshit. Under the current policy, owning a majority of shares in a C-corporation, I can have a maximum combined marginal Federal and state tax exposure in excess of 65% on my dividended income. Going sub-S interferes with my ability to amass retained earnings for future investment without going into debt. The current policy does not "benefit the wealthy more" unless you have some perverse notion that tax equity only occurs if every taxpayer ends up with the same after-tax income. You also fail to define who in your view is "wealthy," except for your notion that (whoever they are) they just sit around with silver spoon in hand living off the backs of the noble, exploited working man.

quote: You've already made the assumption that people with money are superior. Probably it's not because you really believe it, but because you think that a fair system would be bad for you personally. That's not necessarily true unless you are very rich right now.

Since all the Marx meets Robin Hood crowd have their silly stereotypes of "the rich" to self-justify forced wealth transfers via taxation, I just troll you guys by acting out the attitudes you stereotype. I really don't mind peasants if they keep quietly out of the way.

Based on what your idea of a "fair" system is, I'd move, or just say "**** it" and let all the Marxist bozos figure out how to make things work and how to employ people. Luckily, there's a bit more common sense in US economic policy.

The idea that increasing my marginal exposure from 65+% on dividended income to 75% or more, or increasing my taxes X percent, on the rationale that taking my money to give to shoprats and Walmart greeters all over the US is somehow going to help me is a bunch of nonsense.

Those people already pay less taxes in gross terms, and they pay less taxes in terms of percentage of their income. If they find it tough to live on what they make, they need to make themselves more competitive in the job market, not look for wealth transfers from the government.

People largely choose what they do for a living, how they spend their money, and how much time they allocate to improving their education and job skills. So if they don't like what they've got, then they can do something about it. I decided I didn't want to spend the rest of my life getting crap wages for crap employers in an unstable job market, so I did something about it.

	10-06-2003 22:49									#152
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Adam Smith I gave a reason. Competition keeps organizations focussed. Are you talking about New Zealand or Ontario? And have you accounted for other factors? E.g., if the public authority owned all the hydro, which is dirt cheap and has few moving parts, then of course the public authority would be cheaper and more relaible. But then all else is not equal.

That's roughly the point. I'm talking about NZ.

quote: First, if public firms are not earning a competitive return on the capital they use, then that is a signal that the capital can be used more productively elsewhere, providing society with a net benefit.

But a public power utility doesn't have to produce a profit. The return in this case is keeping power prices as cheap as possible.

quote: I am talking about functions which don't need to be monopolies, so I guess the department store example applies.

Then there isn't a dispute here.

quote: Nope. Defense is a classic example of a public good (I am still defended, even if I don't pay for it.) Leave this as a government function, but please fix the procurement system.

Health care is also in some respects a public good.

	10-06-2003 22:54									#153
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat There is not one "objective fact" in economics theory. Let alone calling "trickle down is bad" an "objective fact. Hasta la victoria siempre, Comrade.

Where did you get the idea that I said that was an objective fact. Better reread.

	10-06-2003 22:56									#154
	Support Apolyton

MtG's got it straight...

	10-06-2003 23:00									#155
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat Bullshit. Under the current policy, owning a majority of shares in a C-corporation, I can have a maximum combined marginal Federal and state tax exposure in excess of 65% on my dividended income. Going sub-S interferes with my ability to amass retained earnings for future investment without going into debt. The current policy does not "benefit the wealthy more" unless you have some perverse notion that tax equity only occurs if every taxpayer ends up with the same after-tax income. You also fail to define who in your view is "wealthy," except for your notion that (whoever they are) they just sit around with silver spoon in hand living off the backs of the noble, exploited working man.

MtG, the wealthy simply get more benefits or they wouldn't be wealthy. I don't know why you are complicating this with an argument about taxes. Some things are obvious.

quote: Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat People largely choose what they do for a living, how they spend their money, and how much time they allocate to improving their education and job skills. So if they don't like what they've got, then they can do something about it. I decided I didn't want to spend the rest of my life getting crap wages for crap employers in an unstable job market, so I did something about it.

I've got no argument to counter that because your assumption that poor people have the same choices as rich people is just too absurd.

	10-06-2003 23:37									#156
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Value only comes from labor

There's more to it than that. Unskilled labor doesn't produce much value (unless you put a LOT of it together, which is kinda what assembly lines & sweatshops do) on its own. The unskilled laborer usually needs something to make (not always, MtG's guy holding a SLOW/STOP sign doesn't). Somebody has to think of a product that other people want and will pay for. Having had discussions with you before, I know you don't think the guy who thinks of the product has done any "labor" but without him, there is no product and hence no value. Ingenuity + Labor = value.

This thread once again illustrates (as prior threads have done) that you believe that all rich people got their money from their mummies 'n daddies and never work a day in their lives, living in luxury while the working class slaves away.

That's a fetid, steaming pile of crapola. That doesn't mean I'm a supporter of "trickle down" theory or the most recent tax cut. It just means I think your worldview is seriously warped.

-Arrian

[EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY, NOT OF OUTCOMES!]

	11-06-2003 00:36									#157
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Arrian There's more to it than that. Unskilled labor doesn't produce much value (unless you put a LOT of it together, which is kinda what assembly lines & sweatshops do) on its own. The unskilled laborer usually needs something to make (not always, MtG's guy holding a SLOW/STOP sign doesn't). Somebody has to think of a product that other people want and will pay for. Having had discussions with you before, I know you don't think the guy who thinks of the product has done any "labor" but without him, there is no product and hence no value. Ingenuity + Labor = value.

I'm not necessarily arguing that ingenuity doesn't create value, but I am arguing that funding both does not create value. Paying people to work doesn't create value, but working does.

quote: Originally posted by Arrian This thread once again illustrates (as prior threads have done) that you believe that all rich people got their money from their mummies 'n daddies and never work a day in their lives, living in luxury while the working class slaves away.

I haven't made that assumption. I'm just saying that people who do recieve their money that way should pay more taxes. Do you disagree?

	11-06-2003 00:42									#158
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: I'm just saying that people who do recieve their money that way should pay more taxes. Do you disagree?

You mean a person that inherits $100,000 should pay more taxes than a person that makes $100,000? If that is what you mean, then, at the very least, I don't agree.

	11-06-2003 00:51									#159
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Trickle down doesn't work. It assumes a consumption function which is finite, which doesnt make sense. The more money people have, the more they will spend.

	11-06-2003 00:57									#160
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: I haven't made that assumption. I'm just saying that people who do recieve their money that way should pay more taxes. Do you disagree?

I'm actually in favor of the rather high inheritance tax we have in the U.S. There are probably too many loopholes, though, and I would support closing them, or making them more limited.

-Arrian

	11-06-2003 01:24									#161
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Arrian I'm actually in favor of the rather high inheritance tax we have in the U.S. There are probably too many loopholes, though, and I would support closing them, or making them more limited. -Arrian

I'm in favor of a single flat wealth tax.

	11-06-2003 01:29									#162
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Trickle down does work. At least it did before. The problem was not due to the assumption of a finite consumption, it was due to following it up with the idea that economies are stagnant (only true in Argentina), which it is not. There will never be a long term tax cut, everything has to be fluctuated in order to keep the economy active...

I think government needs to cut spending, drastically. Only then will taxes actually help than hinder.

Until that time I am for any reduction in taxes; income, sales, even inheritence. Don't weaken the weaken. You must strengthen the strong.

	11-06-2003 01:42									#163
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Those people already pay less taxes in gross terms, and they pay less taxes in terms of percentage of their income. If they find it tough to live on what they make, they need to make themselves more competitive in the job market, not look for wealth transfers from the government

The straight up TRUTH. 5 % of the population already pay >70% of the taxes. The bottom 50% of population pay less than 5% of taxes. If you want to say the system is unfair, you get no argument here.

quote: Paying people to work doesn't create value, but working does.

But how much value? Putting part "A" into part "B" does indeed add value. Designing part "A" or "B" adds more. Risking capital to produce and market it adds more. Naturally creative and risk based activities have a larger return than labor activities. The problem is that the reward is minimalized by a tax system that can take up to 65% of your earnings. With a greater reward people would be inclined to take a greater risk and more value would be created and more opportunity for those who did not wish to assume the risk.

quote: I'm just saying that people who do recieve their money that way should pay more taxes. Do you disagree?

I absolutely disagree. I am working a job right now that I would not be working if I wasn't trying to put myself in a position to leave something for my kids. I earned it...If I want to give it away, then why is that the governments business?????? It isn't like these people stuff the money in their mattresses. It is eithier spent or invested. Both of which add value to the economy.

	11-06-2003 01:49									#164
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Japher I think government needs to cut spending, drastically. Only then will taxes actually help than hinder. Until that time I am for any reduction in taxes; income, sales, even inheritence. Don't weaken the weaken. You must strengthen the strong.

Government spending should grow at the inflation rate, not be cut. Government spending provides two dollars worth of value to the economy for every one dollar spent.

Taxes should be drastically cut when recission occurs and the government should spend in deficit. Dollars returned to private individuals provide three dollars worth of value to the economy for every one dollar spent.

Inflation will devalue the governments debt over time making it more cost effective to carry a debt long term.

Taxes should be raised when inflationary pressure builds and the government should run a $0 deficit.

This is the law acording to PLATO

	11-06-2003 01:54									#165
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Government spending should grow at the inflation rate, not be cut.

The only problem is government spending grows at a rate MUCH larger than inflation. Inflation is low, 2-3%, government spending has been rising at an average of 8% since 1990 (IIRC).

	11-06-2003 01:55									#166
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: MtG, the wealthy simply get more benefits or they wouldn't be wealthy.

Woah, I missed this little gem before.

Oh, my. You can see the twisted logic here, can't you, folks? The rich are only rich because they have unfair benifits given to them, and this should be taken away. Hard work, ingenuity, risk-taking... these things have nothing to do with wealth. People don't get rich that way. Massive piles of money simply fall into their laps (I guess given to them by their parents, who also had heaps of money dropped on them, and so on and so forth).

And of course if this is true, it's easy to justify taking the rich folks money, isn't it? Yeah, real easy, 'cause they didn't earn it in the first place, so they don't deserve it.

What a load of shite.

-Arrian

	11-06-2003 02:01									#167
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

PLATO: at least your looking at the economy as a dynamic model, if more law makers did that the problem wouldn't be as big Maybe base even taxes off of inflation values, that would be kewl.

Note: Government actually produces 10 dollars for every 1 dollar based on FDIC financing... That is why sticking your money into a savings account is a bad idea...

quote: . Hard work, ingenuity, risk-taking... these things have nothing to do with wealth. People don't get rich that way. Massive piles of money simply fall into their laps

Ouch, my side is hurting from laughing too hard, stop it

quote: The straight up TRUTH. 5 % of the population already pay >70% of the taxes. The bottom 50% of population pay less than 5% of taxes. If you want to say the system is unfair, you get no argument here.

Damn skippy... I know that when I'm rich I want all the same "breaks" so that the gov. doesn't take everything that "feel into my lap"

	11-06-2003 02:03									#168
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui quote: Government spending should grow at the inflation rate, not be cut. The only problem is government spending grows at a rate MUCH larger than inflation. Inflation is low, 2-3%, government spending has been rising at an average of 8% since 1990 (IIRC).

Exactly. Taking into account the multiplier effects of government spending versus private spending, the present recession could have been avoided if government spending had remained at the inflation level.

	11-06-2003 02:08									#169
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Taking into account the multiplier effects of government spending versus private spending, the present recession could have been avoided if government spending had remained at the inflation level.

That would have meant a relative cut in spending since it was 8% the year before and would have to drop to 3%. So relatively the spending increase is less .

	11-06-2003 02:07									#170
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Woah, I missed this little gem before.

Arrian: I saw this one also. Just didn't know where to start.

	11-06-2003 02:11									#171
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui quote: Taking into account the multiplier effects of government spending versus private spending, the present recession could have been avoided if government spending had remained at the inflation level. That would have meant a relative cut in spending since it was 8% the year before and would have to drop to 3%. So relatively the spending increase is less .

Don't tell me that there is a closet democrat in your family history...

	11-06-2003 02:12									#172
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Kidicious MtG, the wealthy simply get more benefits or they wouldn't be wealthy. I don't know why you are complicating this with an argument about taxes. Some things are obvious.

Uh, because trickle down theory and most of the thread discussion relates to progressive vs. regressive tax policy, etc. So, Captain Obvious, what "benefits" do rich people get that make them that way and who hands them out, since "obviously" rich people only get that way if someone issues them a rich people benefits kit.

quote: I've got no argument to counter that because your assumption that poor people have the same choices as rich people is just too absurd.

I used to make $3.00-$4.00 an hour with no benefits, working multiple part-time jobs because I couldn't get full time jobs. My first full time job had a whopping starting pay of $3.50 an hour, so sorry, your "rich people get all the benefits and poor people are just helpless victims" nonsense doesn't wash.

	11-06-2003 02:15									#173
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Don't tell me that there is a closet democrat in your family history

I 'ed, didn't I?

	11-06-2003 02:19									#174
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Kidicious I'm in favor of a single flat wealth tax.

What, 100% of everything you consider proper working man's wages, party members exempt, of course?

	11-06-2003 02:25									#175
	Put an end to popups!

Mtg: My first job was at $2.90 per hour. I worked my way through college paying 100% of everything. Today, I am 6 figures. The argument that "poor" people don't have opportunity doesn't wash with me eithier.

	11-06-2003 02:31									#176
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: "obviously" rich people only get that way if someone issues them a rich people benefits kit

There's a kit on this!!! Man, where have I been!

Actually, the poor get a lot of benefits too, but it is the form of aid not taxes. You can get your power, water, phone, and gas all comp'ed, you can buy utilities for less, you can get free food from the grocery stores, etc... Just who do ppl think is paying for all this?

	11-06-2003 06:02									#177
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat Uh, because trickle down theory and most of the thread discussion relates to progressive vs. regressive tax policy, etc. So, Captain Obvious, what "benefits" do rich people get that make them that way and who hands them out, since "obviously" rich people only get that way if someone issues them a rich people benefits kit.

So, Captain cost-benefit analysis, what is wealth? Is that a benefit? Duh!

	11-06-2003 06:04									#178
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat What, 100% of everything you consider proper working man's wages, party members exempt, of course?

It's got nothing to do with wages. That's the best part. You just tax all wealth at the same rate. People who inherit wealth will pay the most tax. The poor will pay none.

	11-06-2003 06:06									#179
	Support Apolyton

So rich people, which create wealth for themselves, are getting a benefit, which is wealth, which makes them rich? And this proves the system is unfair?

Or, rather, since you believe that wealth is a benefit, take a (altered) quote of yours:

the wealthy simply get more wealth (benefits) or they wouldn't be wealthy.

I've heard of circular logic, but this may be even beyond that .

	11-06-2003 06:08									#180
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by PLATO1003 But how much value? Putting part "A" into part "B" does indeed add value. Designing part "A" or "B" adds more. Risking capital to produce and market it adds more.

If I show you how to produce something and sell it at market without risking anyones capital will you agree that it can't add value to the product? In fact, without it you can sell it for less.