LOL! Denial ain't just a river in Africa.... Your posts are not concerned with anything but your need to fabricate a sense of self-worth by attacking your moral and intellectual superiors to rationalize privilege, justify injustice, and excuse evil. <yawn> You've just been caught out lying again. There's also no relevance. Geocentric cosmology is also "consistent with the literature provided in modern economics." It just happens to also be nonsense that I reject. This is stupid, fallacious, and dishonest garbage. Income tax impacts the firm's pre-production decision to invest, and the individual's choice to take leisure rather than work, and to perform labor himself rather than pay another to do it. These effects reduce division of labor and specialization. There's no debate in that. You just always have to spew stupid, dishonest garbage that ignores such facts. ROTFL!! You just admitted that I am right and you are lying. Probably most readers will miss that, though -- lucky for you. I've proved I'm right and you are lying. Nope. But not in English. Thanks for proving that everything you have said in this exchange has been a lie.
A hidden talent! Your humour is much better than your economics. Again, you've just made a rather basic error and now you've gone into your one liner routine to try and squirm away. The fellow was correct. His comment is supported by economic comment. We're also not talking about something terribly specific such that its only understood by one man and his dog. We're talking about concepts widely used and easily understood. I've been able to demonstrate that via simple reference to comparative advantage. You may find the analysis disagreeable, probably because it involves modern economics, but that isn't interesting. You cannot just have a tantrum and assume the well-known and easily understood literature doesn't exist. Neither can you offer any genuine rebuke as economies of scale- in terms of learning-by-doing and an understanding of diffusion of knowledge- assuredly guarantees a relevant economic case for discriminatory treatment to enable [FONT=&]‘fair trade’ [/FONT] No, I destroyed your comment as nonsense (given you showed that you were clueless over the nature of the specialisation process and its reliance on a transformation curve based on pareto efficient isoquant analysis). I went further though, just for the crack, demonstrating that- if you were to try and ensure validity- you would amusingly have to support the fellow's equality/fairness distinction.
No content dear chap. You might want to put that right. We both know that you're just assuming an extensive literature doesn't exist. But let's see if we can get you to come out with a least an attempt at a proper rebuke. Attack this statement (not with the one liner ranting mind you): "To derive the need for discriminatory treatment in trade policy, deriving the distinction between free trade and fair trade, we only need to refer to economies of scale"
We both know you can't. And that's your problem: once we get through the bluster, we see your position is just not consistent with sound economic comment. The quote "To derive the need for discriminatory treatment in trade policy, deriving the distinction between free trade and fair trade, we only need to refer to economies of scale" can't be attacked as it is water-tight
'Fairness' is completely subjective and in this case is politically subjective. When designing a national tax system, how is 'fairness' defined and/or considered? Is it 'fair' for some people to pay nothing and other people pay more? Is it 'fair' for all people to pay something? How can we define 'fairness' unless we can define the national budget? For example, if national budgets create $1 trillion deficits, how does 'fairness' pay for this out of control spending? How do you rationalize 'fairness' with percentages while ignoring dollar amounts? How can it be 'fair' or even make any sense for a person to pay $1 million in federal taxation? Why isn't there a cap on how much any one person can pay? Zuckerberg soon might be paying $1 billion in taxes?? IMO too much of this taxation debate is about people and emotions and politics. All this does is create political class warfare with the masses! I've stated in other posts around this forum that I believe every US citizen should receive an annual invoice for THEIR FAIR SHARE of government costs. Every citizen will get an invoice for $11,000. The ENTIRE reason for this is to force awareness to everyone about the costs of the government THEY are demanding. The question is how much of the $11,000 should each person need to pay? Interesting to me that ALL OTHER TAXATION ignores incomes and profits and wealth, etc. Whether it's capital gains taxes, or sales taxes, or property taxes, or excise taxes, etc. everyone pays the identical rates. Why are federal income taxes different??
Nothing regarding taxation is obvious! I suggest YOU cannot compare taxation simply with percentages while ignoring the dollar amounts. There is a huge problem when tens of millions pay zero and a few million pay the lion's share. This IS NOT a progressive tax situation; this is a redistribution of wealth!
It is in the sense stakes. I'm not interested in the inane huff and puff I'd only compare effective rates. Bit obvious really This is a cretinous comment that I find particularly tutworthy given the US's class ridden society. Show some pride!
As long as you ONLY compare effective rates you will never solve any tax problem. This same discussion has been going on forever and nothing has changed. The reason it is not going to change is simple; There is no 'fairness' or rationale in a tax system in which some people pay zero and others pay million$. Solutions are not about 'pride'? Forever and for always people are going to earn varying incomes from zero to billion$ and you cannot change this! You also cannot turn to the wealthier to solve all fiscal problems. Progressive tax systems are fine as long as the taxation is spread through the ENTIRE tax base and not just half of them. Today wealthier people have many options available and are not forced to stick with their current nation and economy. The founder of Facebook just denounced his US citizenship in order to reduce his tax base, and will follow this with investing in other nations. YOU and others who believe you can squeeze more and more from the wealthy, most of which provide jobs directly or indirectly, will end up forcing the money to other areas. There MUST be a reduction in government spending from the current $11,290 per US citizen! US government spending is 100% out of control! Until you get spending under control, it is stupid to talk about higher taxes...
Its the only way to ensure you're making comment with validity. Starting from a bogus position isn't going to promote solution
If you and others can relate...have you had a lazy kid who just wants to sleep, eat, have fun, and never contribute money or work to the household? How many have this same situation with kids who are 18 to 30 years old? If parents do not demand some structure, and some contribution, then all they are doing is enabling the kids with their non-productive behaviors. This means they don't give a crap if they take 30 minute showers, or leave all the lights on, or make messes, or waste food, etc; they don't need to be concerned what they are demanding or consuming because someone else is paying the bills. Now how about a nation of 310 million people, in which 50-100 million don't volunteer for their nation and don't pay a dime of financial support? They don't give a rip about littering, or crime, or demands on government all of which are paid by someone else! In what possible way does this group of people make the USA a better place to live? Each one of these people are directly responsible for $11,290 per year in federal taxation! People in need can be helped in many different ways without the need to enable them to be freeloaders! I'm all for universal health care, subsidized government housing, affordable public transportation, public education and job training, and all of this can be achieved with government/private partnerships, which are funded by ALL AMERICANS...not some Americans...ALL AMERICANS. I want every so-called American to receive that government invoice every year so they are fully aware of the cost of the demands they are placing on society and government, and every one of these people need to pay something...even if it's $10...write a check, address an envelope, place a stamp, and mail the sucker...as if they actually gave a (*)(*)(*)(*) about their nation...
Why do you think this stuff is at all relevant to the point made? Again, if you're not using effective rates you have no means to make any evaluation over fairness
Why would they pay to support a nation that systematically violates their rights for the unearned profit of rich, greedy takers? Assertion without evidence. At least they aren't vampires sucking the lifeblood of the economy and society, as the rich, greedy takers are. Why would they be responsible for paying for the exorbitant welfare subsidy giveaways to rich, greedy takers? Like restoring their rights, or making just compensation for violating them. But not a universal right to liberty. But not restoration of people's equal individual rights to use what nature provided to house themselves. But not financing it by requiring the rich, greedy takers who benefit from it to pay for it. But only if it is funded by the productive, as a welfare subsidy giveaway to rich, greedy takers. Why would it be funded by anyone but the rich, greedy takers who get all the benefit from it? That would be an invoice for the publicly created rent of the land of which they deprive others, which is precisely equal to the value of what they are taking from society and not repaying. Why would they give a $#!+ about a nation that threw them overboard 30 {*<|<!^' years ago to provide bigger staterooms and more lavish banquets for rich, greedy takers?
You believe there is only ONE definition of fairness which makes you closed minded to open dialogue...your way or the highway...
Better yet... all the rich, greedy takers who whine that society isn't giving them a big enough welfare subsidy giveaway at the expense of the productive (who actually pay the taxes) should relocate to another country where the welfare subsidy giveaway to rich, greedy takers is even bigger, like Pakistan, the Philippines, Namibia, Guatemala, Bangladesh, Brazil, or Zimbabwe... have a nice trip...
No. There are numerous ways of making a fairness splurge. However, its just obvious that all of those splurges should start with reference to effective rates. Its only then that you can appreciate the nature of tax burdens (e.g. the nature of poverty traps that ensure work disincentive effects are skewed towards the low income groups)
No, it's only when you consider the tax base that you can appreciate the nature of tax burdens. Consider a tax on shoes. We could tax them by price at the time of purchase, by number of pairs owned, by size, by heel height, etc. The effective rate of each of these taxes is quite irrelevant to how fair they are -- other than in the obvious sense that the higher the effective rate of an unfair and economically destructive tax, the more unfair it is.
You've replied with dishonesty, ignorance and illogic. ROTFL!!! You are the very last person who can complain about others ignoring anything you have said, as you ignore EVERYTHING I say, while pretending to dispute it by your sneers, fallacies, lies, irrelevancies, and attempts to change the subject. I ignored your example because I realized that you were dishonestly trying to prevent understanding of taxation by preventing discussion of any form of taxation but income tax. You want to prevent understanding of taxation because income taxation is inherently unfair, economically destructive and evil, and you want the taxation system to be unfair, economically destructive and evil. To achieve this, it is necessary for you to prevent others from discussing or understanding taxation.
I'll finish it for you: because you want to go with emotive ranting and ignore the practicalities of tax. That you'd ignore something as important as a poverty trap demonstrates how your bile is incompatible with the sense stakes
...you have no intention of participating in -- or even of permitting -- an informative discussion of taxation. I know. ROTFL!! You have been demolished and you have no answers; you have to evade; and so you have to lie about what I have plainly written. No, that's just another lie from you. I'm all about the practicalities of tax. I just decline to accept your false, stupid and dishonest insistence that recovery of publicly created value for public purposes and benefit is not a practical method of obtaining public revenue. No, I haven't ignored any poverty trap. That's just another of your stupid lies. I make it unnecessary to find ways of neutralizing the poverty trap by eliminating the unfair and destructive tax that causes it. I don't have to deal with the poverty trap problem your favored tax system -- income tax -- causes, because I propose to eliminate its cause. You just refuse to consider that as being "practical."
