Total Posts:97|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Do you like income tax ?

royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2012 11:47:29 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/31/2012 11:45:24 AM, inferno wrote:
And do you believe that it is more helpful to the working middle class.
Or is it a waste of money and resources.

It depends on the tax system. A progressive system is ultimately beneficial to all.

http://nontrivialpursuits.org...
inferno
Posts: 10,556
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2012 11:52:25 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/31/2012 11:47:29 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/31/2012 11:45:24 AM, inferno wrote:
And do you believe that it is more helpful to the working middle class.
Or is it a waste of money and resources.

It depends on the tax system. A progressive system is ultimately beneficial to all.

http://nontrivialpursuits.org...

Income tax usually generates about 2 to $ 5,000 to the average working middle class. I think people should try to invest their money is stocks and bonds.
Consuming does not build wealth.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2012 11:55:03 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/31/2012 11:52:25 AM, inferno wrote:
At 1/31/2012 11:47:29 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/31/2012 11:45:24 AM, inferno wrote:
And do you believe that it is more helpful to the working middle class.
Or is it a waste of money and resources.

It depends on the tax system. A progressive system is ultimately beneficial to all.

http://nontrivialpursuits.org...

Income tax usually generates about 2 to $ 5,000 to the average working middle class. I think people should try to invest their money is stocks and bonds.
Consuming does not build wealth.

How does saving "build wealth"? Consumption drives the economy and creates jobs, which drives the economy even higher. I would suggest that you take the time to read the article that I posted.
inferno
Posts: 10,556
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2012 12:01:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/31/2012 11:55:03 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/31/2012 11:52:25 AM, inferno wrote:
At 1/31/2012 11:47:29 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/31/2012 11:45:24 AM, inferno wrote:
And do you believe that it is more helpful to the working middle class.
Or is it a waste of money and resources.

It depends on the tax system. A progressive system is ultimately beneficial to all.

http://nontrivialpursuits.org...

Income tax usually generates about 2 to $ 5,000 to the average working middle class. I think people should try to invest their money is stocks and bonds.
Consuming does not build wealth.

How does saving "build wealth"? Consumption drives the economy and creates jobs, which drives the economy even higher. I would suggest that you take the time to read the article that I posted.

I said invest. No save.
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2012 3:13:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/31/2012 11:47:29 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/31/2012 11:45:24 AM, inferno wrote:
And do you believe that it is more helpful to the working middle class.
Or is it a waste of money and resources.

It depends on the tax system. A progressive system is ultimately beneficial to all.

http://nontrivialpursuits.org...

What kind of stupidity is that article?

The guy who wrote all that retardation went to Cornell. Shows how much an Ivy League education really helps.

Seriously, that is just some retarded BS.
President of DDO
inferno
Posts: 10,556
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2012 3:15:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/31/2012 3:13:39 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 1/31/2012 11:47:29 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/31/2012 11:45:24 AM, inferno wrote:
And do you believe that it is more helpful to the working middle class.
Or is it a waste of money and resources.

It depends on the tax system. A progressive system is ultimately beneficial to all.

http://nontrivialpursuits.org...


What kind of stupidity is that article?

The guy who wrote all that retardation went to Cornell. Shows how much an Ivy League education really helps.

Seriously, that is just some retarded BS.

Its not that. He just has a difference of opinion about economics than you.
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2012 3:27:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/31/2012 3:15:12 PM, inferno wrote:
At 1/31/2012 3:13:39 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 1/31/2012 11:47:29 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/31/2012 11:45:24 AM, inferno wrote:
And do you believe that it is more helpful to the working middle class.
Or is it a waste of money and resources.

It depends on the tax system. A progressive system is ultimately beneficial to all.

http://nontrivialpursuits.org...


What kind of stupidity is that article?

The guy who wrote all that retardation went to Cornell. Shows how much an Ivy League education really helps.

Seriously, that is just some retarded BS.

Its not that. He just has a difference of opinion about economics than you.

Lol, there are differences of opinion. But, some things are just retarded.

That article about progressive taxation was just retarded.
President of DDO
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2012 3:28:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Yes, he is retarded because he disagrees with you.

Do you ever get tired of ad hominems?

Also, he is a professor at Cornell, not a student.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2012 3:30:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
A lot of it makes sense, but there are a couple bits that need more explanation. Still, like the article.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2012 5:58:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
How does saving "build wealth"? Consumption drives the economy and creates jobs, which drives the economy even higher. I would suggest that you take the time to read the article that I posted.

Saving enables capital investment which in turn increases production + manufacturing; thus, it creates genuine economic growth and legitimate wealth. Higher savings, underconsumption, and economic freedom help everyone in a particular economy.

Spending borrowed money is never the solution, especially at the national level.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2012 6:45:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/31/2012 5:58:10 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
How does saving "build wealth"? Consumption drives the economy and creates jobs, which drives the economy even higher. I would suggest that you take the time to read the article that I posted.

Saving enables capital investment which in turn increases production + manufacturing; thus, it creates genuine economic growth and legitimate wealth. Higher savings, underconsumption, and economic freedom help everyone in a particular economy.

Spending borrowed money is never the solution, especially at the national level.

Did you read the article? Progressive systems actually favor the wealthy more than they favor anybody else.
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2012 6:51:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/31/2012 6:45:23 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/31/2012 5:58:10 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
How does saving "build wealth"? Consumption drives the economy and creates jobs, which drives the economy even higher. I would suggest that you take the time to read the article that I posted.

Saving enables capital investment which in turn increases production + manufacturing; thus, it creates genuine economic growth and legitimate wealth. Higher savings, underconsumption, and economic freedom help everyone in a particular economy.

Spending borrowed money is never the solution, especially at the national level.

Did you read the article? Progressive systems actually favor the wealthy more than they favor anybody else.

Flat tax... It would solve all of the tax whining...

Everyone should pay exactly the same rate.
inferno
Posts: 10,556
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2012 6:53:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/31/2012 6:51:19 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 1/31/2012 6:45:23 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/31/2012 5:58:10 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
How does saving "build wealth"? Consumption drives the economy and creates jobs, which drives the economy even higher. I would suggest that you take the time to read the article that I posted.

Saving enables capital investment which in turn increases production + manufacturing; thus, it creates genuine economic growth and legitimate wealth. Higher savings, underconsumption, and economic freedom help everyone in a particular economy.

Spending borrowed money is never the solution, especially at the national level.

Did you read the article? Progressive systems actually favor the wealthy more than they favor anybody else.

Flat tax... It would solve all of the tax whining...

Everyone should pay exactly the same rate.

Maybe a flat tax rate would do. I just think that it is good to get back a portion of the money you have earned. This has been a very effective thing since its inception.

But it is all good.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2012 6:57:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/31/2012 6:51:19 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 1/31/2012 6:45:23 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/31/2012 5:58:10 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
How does saving "build wealth"? Consumption drives the economy and creates jobs, which drives the economy even higher. I would suggest that you take the time to read the article that I posted.

Saving enables capital investment which in turn increases production + manufacturing; thus, it creates genuine economic growth and legitimate wealth. Higher savings, underconsumption, and economic freedom help everyone in a particular economy.

Spending borrowed money is never the solution, especially at the national level.

Did you read the article? Progressive systems actually favor the wealthy more than they favor anybody else.

Flat tax... It would solve all of the tax whining...

Everyone should pay exactly the same rate.

You did not read the article . . .

The most progressive systems actually favor the wealthy. I would recommend that you read the article if you do not believe me.
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2012 7:03:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/31/2012 6:57:09 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/31/2012 6:51:19 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 1/31/2012 6:45:23 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/31/2012 5:58:10 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
How does saving "build wealth"? Consumption drives the economy and creates jobs, which drives the economy even higher. I would suggest that you take the time to read the article that I posted.

Saving enables capital investment which in turn increases production + manufacturing; thus, it creates genuine economic growth and legitimate wealth. Higher savings, underconsumption, and economic freedom help everyone in a particular economy.

Spending borrowed money is never the solution, especially at the national level.

Did you read the article? Progressive systems actually favor the wealthy more than they favor anybody else.

Flat tax... It would solve all of the tax whining...

Everyone should pay exactly the same rate.

You did not read the article . . .

The most progressive systems actually favor the wealthy. I would recommend that you read the article if you do not believe me.

I don't care what your stupid article says to be quite honest. I could probably pull a Harvard article that says farting on your food makes it better for you. Article or no article there should still be a flat rate tax.
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2012 9:20:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Is that article satire? I feel inadequate being unable to determine whether it's satire, misinformed, or just typical quixotic. Regardless of the article's seriousness, it is useful for a good laugh. I've seen many economically illiterate posts throughout my years on the internet, but this has to be the greatest collection of economic fallacies and ridiculous statements assembled. They do not even require rebuttals as they are self refuting. These are the conclusions listed in the beginning:

"Our analysis leads to some conclusions that many will perhaps find stunning:

1. Even a steeply progressive income tax---right up to 99% on the highest incomes---would impose no loss of purchasing power on wealthy income earners

2. Reducing the income tax rates of rich citizens will weaken the economy if Congress cuts spending to pay for the tax cuts

3. Increasing the amount of taxes collected from wealthy citizens will actually provide a stimulus to the economy

4. The rich cannot get richer---in real terms---by getting their taxes cut, but they can become richer if they pay more in taxes

5. The government is a major producer of Real Wealth

6. An increase in the size of government is almost always quite desirable

7. Wealthy citizens who are wise should be lobbying for an increase in government spending and an increase in their tax rates"
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2012 10:11:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/31/2012 9:20:07 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Is that article satire? I feel inadequate being unable to determine whether it's satire, misinformed, or just typical quixotic. Regardless of the article's seriousness, it is useful for a good laugh. I've seen many economically illiterate posts throughout my years on the internet, but this has to be the greatest collection of economic fallacies and ridiculous statements assembled. They do not even require rebuttals as they are self refuting. These are the conclusions listed in the beginning:

"Our analysis leads to some conclusions that many will perhaps find stunning:

1. Even a steeply progressive income tax---right up to 99% on the highest incomes---would impose no loss of purchasing power on wealthy income earners

2. Reducing the income tax rates of rich citizens will weaken the economy if Congress cuts spending to pay for the tax cuts

3. Increasing the amount of taxes collected from wealthy citizens will actually provide a stimulus to the economy

4. The rich cannot get richer---in real terms---by getting their taxes cut, but they can become richer if they pay more in taxes

5. The government is a major producer of Real Wealth

6. An increase in the size of government is almost always quite desirable

7. Wealthy citizens who are wise should be lobbying for an increase in government spending and an increase in their tax rates"

+1
President of DDO
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2012 10:20:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/31/2012 9:20:07 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Is that article satire? I feel inadequate being unable to determine whether it's satire, misinformed, or just typical quixotic. Regardless of the article's seriousness, it is useful for a good laugh. I've seen many economically illiterate posts throughout my years on the internet, but this has to be the greatest collection of economic fallacies and ridiculous statements assembled. They do not even require rebuttals as they are self refuting. These are the conclusions listed in the beginning:

"Our analysis leads to some conclusions that many will perhaps find stunning:

1. Even a steeply progressive income tax---right up to 99% on the highest incomes---would impose no loss of purchasing power on wealthy income earners

2. Reducing the income tax rates of rich citizens will weaken the economy if Congress cuts spending to pay for the tax cuts

3. Increasing the amount of taxes collected from wealthy citizens will actually provide a stimulus to the economy

4. The rich cannot get richer---in real terms---by getting their taxes cut, but they can become richer if they pay more in taxes

5. The government is a major producer of Real Wealth

6. An increase in the size of government is almost always quite desirable

7. Wealthy citizens who are wise should be lobbying for an increase in government spending and an increase in their tax rates"

You did not read the entire article, did you? It discussed the fact that prices are relative to an individual's ability to pay for them because money is subjectively valuable. Thanks for ignoring the underlying argument and attacking everything else just because you do not agree with the position.

Calling it a fallacy is not an argument, by the way. Explain why they are fallacies.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2012 10:21:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
lol, that stupid Cornell economics professor who has published mutliple books on economics is clearly less qualified than you are. His arguments are all fallacies because you did not understand the underlying principle behind his ideas.
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2012 10:44:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I read some of it. Does the writer not recognize that lower taxes mean more incentives to produce and thus more production?
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2012 10:45:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/31/2012 10:20:18 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/31/2012 9:20:07 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Is that article satire? I feel inadequate being unable to determine whether it's satire, misinformed, or just typical quixotic. Regardless of the article's seriousness, it is useful for a good laugh. I've seen many economically illiterate posts throughout my years on the internet, but this has to be the greatest collection of economic fallacies and ridiculous statements assembled. They do not even require rebuttals as they are self refuting. These are the conclusions listed in the beginning:

"Our analysis leads to some conclusions that many will perhaps find stunning:

1. Even a steeply progressive income tax---right up to 99% on the highest incomes---would impose no loss of purchasing power on wealthy income earners

2. Reducing the income tax rates of rich citizens will weaken the economy if Congress cuts spending to pay for the tax cuts

3. Increasing the amount of taxes collected from wealthy citizens will actually provide a stimulus to the economy

4. The rich cannot get richer---in real terms---by getting their taxes cut, but they can become richer if they pay more in taxes

5. The government is a major producer of Real Wealth

6. An increase in the size of government is almost always quite desirable

7. Wealthy citizens who are wise should be lobbying for an increase in government spending and an increase in their tax rates"

You did not read the entire article, did you? It discussed the fact that prices are relative to an individual's ability to pay for them because money is subjectively valuable. Thanks for ignoring the underlying argument and attacking everything else just because you do not agree with the position.

Calling it a fallacy is not an argument, by the way. Explain why they are fallacies.

It is the most economically illiterate article I have ever read.

It doesn't understand at all how supply and demand, prices, capital investment, and resource scarcity works.

If the rich have less money, they will have less to spend. Yes, at first this means that prices for luxury goods might fall. But, producers would stop producing these goods at such a high rate because there is less demand for them.

This is basic economics. The lower supply means that prices would not really change.

Again, this can all be learned in elementary economics.
President of DDO
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2012 10:59:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/31/2012 10:44:00 PM, mongoose wrote:
I read some of it. Does the writer not recognize that lower taxes mean more incentives to produce and thus more production?

Lol totally true.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2012 7:48:30 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/31/2012 10:45:34 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 1/31/2012 10:20:18 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/31/2012 9:20:07 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Is that article satire? I feel inadequate being unable to determine whether it's satire, misinformed, or just typical quixotic. Regardless of the article's seriousness, it is useful for a good laugh. I've seen many economically illiterate posts throughout my years on the internet, but this has to be the greatest collection of economic fallacies and ridiculous statements assembled. They do not even require rebuttals as they are self refuting. These are the conclusions listed in the beginning:

"Our analysis leads to some conclusions that many will perhaps find stunning:

1. Even a steeply progressive income tax---right up to 99% on the highest incomes---would impose no loss of purchasing power on wealthy income earners

2. Reducing the income tax rates of rich citizens will weaken the economy if Congress cuts spending to pay for the tax cuts

3. Increasing the amount of taxes collected from wealthy citizens will actually provide a stimulus to the economy

4. The rich cannot get richer---in real terms---by getting their taxes cut, but they can become richer if they pay more in taxes

5. The government is a major producer of Real Wealth

6. An increase in the size of government is almost always quite desirable

7. Wealthy citizens who are wise should be lobbying for an increase in government spending and an increase in their tax rates"

You did not read the entire article, did you? It discussed the fact that prices are relative to an individual's ability to pay for them because money is subjectively valuable. Thanks for ignoring the underlying argument and attacking everything else just because you do not agree with the position.

Calling it a fallacy is not an argument, by the way. Explain why they are fallacies.


It is the most economically illiterate article I have ever read.

It doesn't understand at all how supply and demand, prices, capital investment, and resource scarcity works.

If the rich have less money, they will have less to spend. Yes, at first this means that prices for luxury goods might fall. But, producers would stop producing these goods at such a high rate because there is less demand for them.

This is basic economics. The lower supply means that prices would not really change.

Again, this can all be learned in elementary economics.

No, you are just attempting to use conventional capitalist economics to refute his theory. Money has no absolute value; it only has relative value. Rich people would have less paper, but would have the same value that they had previously because everyone else would also have less paper. This is the crux of his position, and you have not really addressed. it.
THEBOMB
Posts: 2,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2012 8:04:04 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
There is no "right" answer for how the economy should work......there is no best way for how the government should tax individuals. So much of economic theory is rooted in psychology and sociology. For all anyone knows, changing tax policies in the United States could cause a worse economic downturn. Much of human psychology is nothing more than geuss work and just citing something happened in the past and will thus, happen again in the future is nothing more than complicated geussing. There is no way to know with 100% accuracy how tax policies will affect a person's psyche thus, affecting how much they spend, buy, invest, and save.

Economic theory is nothing more than complicated geuss work.
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2012 2:56:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/1/2012 7:48:30 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/31/2012 10:45:34 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 1/31/2012 10:20:18 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/31/2012 9:20:07 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Is that article satire? I feel inadequate being unable to determine whether it's satire, misinformed, or just typical quixotic. Regardless of the article's seriousness, it is useful for a good laugh. I've seen many economically illiterate posts throughout my years on the internet, but this has to be the greatest collection of economic fallacies and ridiculous statements assembled. They do not even require rebuttals as they are self refuting. These are the conclusions listed in the beginning:

"Our analysis leads to some conclusions that many will perhaps find stunning:

1. Even a steeply progressive income tax---right up to 99% on the highest incomes---would impose no loss of purchasing power on wealthy income earners

2. Reducing the income tax rates of rich citizens will weaken the economy if Congress cuts spending to pay for the tax cuts

3. Increasing the amount of taxes collected from wealthy citizens will actually provide a stimulus to the economy

4. The rich cannot get richer---in real terms---by getting their taxes cut, but they can become richer if they pay more in taxes

5. The government is a major producer of Real Wealth

6. An increase in the size of government is almost always quite desirable

7. Wealthy citizens who are wise should be lobbying for an increase in government spending and an increase in their tax rates"

You did not read the entire article, did you? It discussed the fact that prices are relative to an individual's ability to pay for them because money is subjectively valuable. Thanks for ignoring the underlying argument and attacking everything else just because you do not agree with the position.

Calling it a fallacy is not an argument, by the way. Explain why they are fallacies.


It is the most economically illiterate article I have ever read.

It doesn't understand at all how supply and demand, prices, capital investment, and resource scarcity works.

If the rich have less money, they will have less to spend. Yes, at first this means that prices for luxury goods might fall. But, producers would stop producing these goods at such a high rate because there is less demand for them.

This is basic economics. The lower supply means that prices would not really change.

Again, this can all be learned in elementary economics.

No, you are just attempting to use conventional capitalist economics to refute his theory. Money has no absolute value; it only has relative value. Rich people would have less paper, but would have the same value that they had previously because everyone else would also have less paper. This is the crux of his position, and you have not really addressed. it.

Wow, would you listen to yourself.

If the government taxed money away from the rich and spent it on public services there would not be less money in circulation. It would be the same amount of money, it would just be spent in different places.

Money is stuff. It is a unit of exchange that represents real goods and services. Yes, if we print more money, we get inflation. So, of course money's value is relative and subjective.

However if we tax money away from the rich and spend it on public services, they will have less purchasing power.
President of DDO
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2012 3:05:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Rich people would have less paper, but would have the same value that they had previously because everyone else would also have less paper.
That's how a flat tax works (in an explicitly IMAGINARY world where the government doesn't consume any goods, the article straight out says this despite the contradiction in the paper being distributed in the first place), a progressive tax reduces the amount of paper the rich have relative to the poor.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2012 6:42:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/1/2012 3:05:44 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Rich people would have less paper, but would have the same value that they had previously because everyone else would also have less paper.
That's how a flat tax works (in an explicitly IMAGINARY world where the government doesn't consume any goods, the article straight out says this despite the contradiction in the paper being distributed in the first place), a progressive tax reduces the amount of paper the rich have relative to the poor.

The thing is, it really does not. The most progressive systems would preserve the wealth of the rich and allow them to purchase luxury goods while obtaining free services from the government.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2012 6:43:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/1/2012 3:05:44 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Rich people would have less paper, but would have the same value that they had previously because everyone else would also have less paper.
That's how a flat tax works (in an explicitly IMAGINARY world where the government doesn't consume any goods, the article straight out says this despite the contradiction in the paper being distributed in the first place), a progressive tax reduces the amount of paper the rich have relative to the poor.

The Progressive Income Tax does not impose any real in terms of lost purchasing power. If there are no loopholes or special allowances written into the tax code, those who earn more pre-tax income than you end up with more disposable income than you after everyone pays their taxes. Those who earn less pre-tax income than you end up with less disposable income than you. The same reality holds true for every other taxpayer. Let's look at a more detailed example of how this would work out if our top tax bracket was set at 99%.

Imagine that one year Bill Gates is the top income earner with a gross income of one billion dollars. If all of that income were taxed at a 99% rate, he would be forced to somehow get by on 1% of a billion dollars, or $10,000,000. Let's say that Paul Allen earns $800,000,000 in gross income that year and all of that income is taxed at a 98% rate. This would leave him with $16,000,000 of disposable income. Such a result would be extremely unfair because Bill would end up with less disposable income ($10,000,000) than Paul ($16, 000,000) after taxes even though he earned more than Paul in gross income.

This kind of result does not occur, however, when you employ marginal tax rates, like we do now with our current tax code. Let's say that in our imaginary scenario the first 800 million dollars of income is subject to a 98% marginal tax rate. That means that both Paul and Bill would pay the same amount of taxes on the first $800,000,000 of their income. But Bill would pay more in taxes than Paul because he made an extra $200,000,000 in income. In a marginal income tax system, Bill would pay the 99% tax rate only on that extra $200,000,000. This would leave him with $2,000,000 more in disposable income than Paul would end up with.

What about within a tax bracket? Well, if Warren Buffett grosses $900,000,000 the same year, he would also pay the same amount of taxes as the others did on the first 800 million dollars of their income. He would also pay 99% on the extra $100,000,000 that he earned. This would leave him with $1,000,000 more in disposable income than Paul ends up with, but with still $1,000,000 less than Bill ends up with. The comparative bidding positions of all three men within the hierarchy of national income distribution would be preserved.

With the Progressive Income Tax, taxpayers do not need to be concerned about the shrinking of their disposable incomes. They can know with certainty that prices will drop to levels they can afford if all consumers have their disposable incomes reduced in a way that preserves everyone's relative 'bidding positions.' The ultimate reason why prices must drop is because 1) there will not be enough dollars in the hands of buyers to sell everything at the higher pre-tax prices, and 2) markets work. Smaller disposable incomes end up buying just as much as higher disposable incomes did previously.