NationStates Jolt Archive

Economists are saying Huckabee and his support of the so-called "Fair"Tax are uneconomically sound and the supporters of it are pushing something that isn't near to what would be realistic. Primarily that it can be easily dodged through underground market and cash payments (at local farms and such, but establishments can also just throw away the receipts). As well as that it would take a much larger percentage tax than the 25% that is promoted to get the same revenue. It just won't work and will hurt the middle class a lot.

I don't understand what the problem is with a tax on income is. That's how it used to be done. The king got 10% or whatever of your crops. It makes the most sense and works the best. That's not to say the IRS isn't f'ed up, it is. It needs to be simplified to a straight progressive tax with no funky rules about deductions. If you want rebates for certain purchases, that's another story...in fact it works better than deductions psychologically.

And then there's the plan of issuing rebates up to the poverty line. Is everyone automatically given a rebate? Isn't that even more complicated that the IRS: figuring out who gets what? And you still have to pay the extra 30-40% tax. No rebate can reduce the pain on that. What about people who don't use banks? I plan to use banks minimally when I'm on my own. Why not just not tax necessities like food?

This country is too big to have a tax like this and expect to get the same revenue. The rich could easily avoid it by not induldging in too many luxuries, but the poor still have to pay a huge amount of their income. Rebates or not.

FairTax is a huge joke and is not even remotely fair. I don't know how any rational person could support it.

Link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080106/pl_nm/usa_politics_huckabee_taxes_dc)

MANCHESTER, New Hampshire (Reuters) - Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee's plan to eliminate all income taxes and replace them with a flat consumption tax has the support of [a] martial arts guru...but few economic analysts.

The former Arkansas governor's victory in the Iowa caucus, which kicked off the presidential nomination process for the November 2008 White House race, will bring his policy proposals under closer scrutiny as the candidates do battle in the New Hampshire primary on Tuesday.

Much of the focus has been on the social conservatism of Huckabee, an ordained Baptist preacher who has connected solidly with his party's influential evangelical base.

But some of his supporters have been attracted by his populist tax plan, which calls for an end to all income and payroll taxes. It is the key plank of his economic platform.

"Putting the IRS out of business" has been a common refrain in his speeches in both Iowa and New Hampshire and it always draws some of the most enthusiastic applause.

Huckabee says taxing income is a tax on productivity that stifles economic growth and hits the middle class and small businesses the hardest.

"The FairTax will replace the Internal Revenue Code with a consumption tax ... All of us will get a monthly rebate that will reimburse us for taxes on purchases up to the poverty line ... That means people below the poverty line won't be taxed at all," says his Web site.

"All our headaches and heartburn from tax stress will vanish. Instead we will have the FairTax, a simple tax based on wealth. When the FairTax becomes law, it will be like waving a magic wand releasing us from pain and unfairness," it says.

Analysts see some sleight of hand here.

"To truly equal today's federal revenue take, to be revenue neutral, the flat tax has to be quite high -- usually higher than is advertised up front," said Richard DeKaser, chief economist at National City Corp in Cleveland.

UNDERGROUND TRANSACTIONS?

"And the complication that comes with that is it encourages underground economic activity. People will increasingly try to circumvent the tax system by doing transactions under the table," he said.

Analysts also see it as regressive -- as it is the same rate across the board regardless of income -- even if Huckabee's plan does make provisions to exempt the poor.

On Sunday, Huckabee was asked about Bush administration criticism that his plan would reduce taxes for those making less than $30,000 a year or more than $200,000 but raise them for everyone else.

"Of course they don't like the fair tax," he said on Fox News. "These are the guys that are going to go out of business. Thirty-five thousand lobbyists in Washington -- do you think they like the idea that a tax would be so simple that they couldn't really go in there and tinker with the congressmen?"

Given the U.S. government's massive revenue needs, Huckabee's plan is not seen as feasible, although abolishing the Internal Revenue Service appeals to many Americans.

"I think the fair tax is a great idea. It would be great to get rid of income tax ... it really stops people from growing businesses," said Bruce Weinfeld, 41, who went from New York to Londonderry, New Hampshire, to attend a Huckabee rally.

It is a policy proposal that also could resonate in New Hampshire, which has no state income tax and where evangelicals are less numerous than in Iowa.

The speeches that Huckabee has given in New Hampshire since his Thursday Iowa victory have put more emphasis on his tax plan and less on his opposition to abortion and gay rights.

Fair tax is, and has always been, nothing more than economic slight of hand, trying to pretend that it will somehow make money appear out of nothing.

Fair tax is, and has always been, nothing more than economic slight of hand, trying to pretend that it will somehow make money appear out of nothing.

Great name though and, frankly, that's all it needs to be for most people.

We had one in the UK, I forget the exact term, something like Humane Foreign Policy - same shit, different name.

if huckabee is going to get the republican nomination he is going to have to drop his support of the fair tax.

if huckabee is going to get the republican nomination he is going to have to drop his support of the fair tax.

"if huckabee is going to win the presidency he is going to have to drop his support of the fair tax." feels like a truer statement. While the public at large may find fault with the flat tax the Republican core seems to love the idea.

Fair tax is, and has always been, nothing more than economic slight of hand, trying to pretend that it will somehow make money appear out of nothing.

Didn't you get the memo? The middle class and the poor have most of the money. They aren't paying their fair share.

"if huckabee is going to win the presidency he is going to have to drop his support of the fair tax." feels like a truer statement. While the public at large may find fault with the flat tax the Republican core seems to love the idea.

If the Republicans love it, then they have something bad planned for the middle class....

"if huckabee is going to win the presidency he is going to have to drop his support of the fair tax." feels like a truer statement. While the public at large may find fault with the flat tax the Republican core seems to love the idea.

what other republicans support it?

There's also plenty of economists who like the idea.

The pro arguments are quite simple: it's a lot simpler than the current tax code, it would be more obvious to taxpayers just how much the government costs them (thus improving democratic transparency), it would be cheaper to administrate than the current system, it is considered less distortionary overall and is therefore estimated to have a positive overall effect on economic growth.

It may well be that revenue can fall as a percentage of GDP, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. There is a lot of waste in the US government as it is, so there is plenty of room to do good things with less money, if there is the political will to do so. And if there isn't, it becomes quite valid to ask why funding the waste of money isn't something to oppose regardless of the tax system.

Ultimately I haven't done much research on it. I like it for its simplicity and because I generally support any plan to drastically change the way government works to make it more modern, flexible and effective in a globalised, 21st century world.

Since when taxes are "fair"?

no tax plan run by the federal government will ever be simple.

That's not to say the IRS isn't f'ed up, it is. It needs to be simplified to a straight progressive tax with no funky rules about deductions.
Why progressive? That just punishes those working their way to the top while not really knocking off those already there. Wouldn't a flat percentage tax be fair to everyone? Or do you subscribe to the ideology of "you don't need to be rich so I'll just take your money"?

Wouldn't a flat percentage tax be fair to everyone? ?

Except for those who make so little income that to remove any of it for tax purposes would effectivly leave them with insufficient funds to survive.

Except for those who make so little income that to remove any of it for tax purposes would effectivly leave them with insufficient funds to survive.

Then have a cut off, at say $10,000 annually. Anyone who makes below that won't get taxed.

Why progressive? That just punishes those working their way to the top while not really knocking off those already there. Wouldn't a flat percentage tax be fair to everyone? Or do you subscribe to the ideology of "you don't need to be rich so I'll just take your money"?

Really now? You think its fair that there are people who can go out and basically be born into riches, never work, have more money then they can ever spend, while there are single mothers working 3 jobs trying to pay for children who are taxed the same amount as people who make more in a month, than they will ever make in their life time? Yep, that is so fair.:rolleyes:

Didn't you get the memo? The middle class and the poor have most of the money. They aren't paying their fair share. well, you know the saying.

Being 'Rich' isn't just only about monetary wealth... ;)

no tax plan run by the federal government will ever be simple.
never heard of the new tax form they're working on?

Line 1: How much did you make this fiscal year: _________
Line 2: Send it in.

Since when taxes are "fair"?


Never!!

No Tax! - SCOTUS - Gave no new power of taxation. Your income is your own and not subject to tax. They steal it from you because you don't know any better. Its called Federal Income Tax - are you a getting money from the Federal Govt? No, then you don't have to pay it. Govt employees , gains or profit derived from business, American citizens working outside the US and non US citizens working in the US - all have to pay Federal Income Tax.
American citizens working in America do not have to pay tax on their income for labor.

If the "Fair Tax" <--Double Speak is allowed then the illegal tax will have been replaced with a legal tax and game over. Fight for your Rights!! learn about the truth, they rewrote the tax code and removed the information you are looking for.

Govt bribed by Big Money Corps have allowed the courts to rule that Corporations have the same rights as individuals - Corporations have no rights. Lobbists pay people to stand in line to take up all the spots for hearings so that they public wont be able to attend and no objections to the corps agendas to control and monopolize business limiting free market competition.

Its the Death Tax all over again - sounds good buy only the top 1% of the wealthiest people in the country benefited from it.

Except for those who make so little income that to remove any of it for tax purposes would effectivly leave them with insufficient funds to survive.
Yeah. I know what it's like to live like that. I did it for 3 years. But I'm still alive.
Still alive.

Still alive...

But seriously, why punish people for being successful? If anything I'd think that we'd want to help people become successful and rich, not make it harder for them and force everyone into the same lower middle class income bracket.

If there is a tax that needs to go more than any other it's the death tax but I'd put corporate taxes in the top 10. Taxes on business don't make any kind of sense because to maintain a profit the cost will be passed on to the consumer. Same thing with minimum wages hikes, that extra cost simply gets passed to the consumer and increases the cost of living. Yes, America has the most money but we've also got among the highest living costs in the world too.

If there is a tax that needs to go more than any other it's the death tax but I'd put corporate taxes in the top 10.


They allready got rid of the "Death Tax" and corporate profits rose 450+% while the average workers salary went down yet corporations pay little or no tax with tax break packages and incentives. watch Orwell rols in his grave.

It's also a strawman.

We'll ol' magic man of Oz, give me a brain!

Yep, that is so fair.:rolleyes:
It's also a strawman.

We'll ol' magic man of Oz, give me a brain!

Sorry, we're out of fresh brains, but Paris Hilton, Britney Spears or Lindsay Lohan aren't using theres, I could get you a discount. :p

We'll ol' magic man of Oz, give me a brain!
An income tax doesn't actually change the fact that people can be born into rich families, or that single moms are likely to get into financial difficulties. If you wanted to prevent those things, you're not after taxes, you're after some sort of command economy in which there's a 100% tax rate followed by government redistribution - or you're some sort of libertarian socialist, who doesn't think taxation is legitimate anyways. Either way it's not the topic of the thread.

So if you want to make an argument for progressive taxation, making a fairly emotional point about inequality in wealth is not really the way to go.

Sorry, we're out of fresh brains, but Paris Hilton, Britney Spears or Lindsay Lohan aren't using theres, I could get you a discount. :p

Well, I might get a somewhat functioning brain, that is sure to save me from an attack of zombies, but I will inevitably be giving up my panties or something, in exchange :p

An income tax doesn't actually change the fact that people can be born into rich families, or that single moms are likely to get into financial difficulties. If you wanted to prevent those things, you're not after taxes, you're after some sort of command economy in which there's a 100% tax rate followed by government redistribution - or you're some sort of libertarian socialist, who doesn't think taxation is legitimate anyways. Either way it's not the topic of the thread.

So if you want to make an argument for progressive taxation, making a fairly emotional point about inequality in wealth is not really the way to go.

I don't think it was that emotional at all, as it can be proven that these situations exist, and quite commonly it would seem, at least here in America.

It may well be that revenue can fall as a percentage of GDP, but that's not necessarily a bad thing.
How about this as a bad thing? The state of Nevada, which has NO income tax and gets most of its funding from sales taxes (High sales taxes mind you) is looking at anywhere from a 5% to 15% across the board cut due to people just not spending thanks to the current economy. Health, safety, education, everything.

I've seen 'fair tax' at work and it scares me that people don't think about what happens when the money doesn't make it in but things still need to happen.

A flat tax is nothing but institutionalized classism.

I don't think it was that emotional at all, as it can be proven that these situations exist, and quite commonly it would seem, at least here in America.

It is emotional because you're using envy and pity as a base of your arguments. Envy when you talk about how people don't deserve to be rich, you're painting a picture that it's unfair that they're rich and you still have to work 8-5, etc, thus telling us to hate the person and be envy of them because they have what you don't have. Then you use pity when you tell us about the single mom working three jobs to support her children. It is an emotionally charge argument.

The simple fact is, no matter what we come up with, the tax system is going to be screwing someone, whether it's the low class, the middle class, or the Rich, and most of the time, the tax system screws without KY Jelly.

A flat tax is nothing but institutionalized classism.

For once we are in agreement. Flat taxes, whether income or sales based, place a disproportionate burden on the lower income end of the populace.

Placing a "no tax" threshold does not solve this problem. In fact, it is a contra-economic growth influence, since it dissuades those who are in the untaxed bracket from seeking to improve their incomes - there will invariably be a point where increasing your income will result in an overall loss of wealth. It may be possible to avoid this by placing the no tax threshold very low - but then it does not protect the merely low incomes, making the entire exercize pointless.

A graduated income tax, appropriately regulated, is the fairest form of taxation so far developed.

One method of increasing revenue (or dropping rates) would be to tax companies the same way. Rather than profits, tax by income.

The fair tax, like pretty much all sales taxes, is regressive, and it, like pretty much all sales taxes, should be abandoned.

are you a getting money from the Federal Govt?Um? Yes. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_currency)

So, let me see. 30% Federal Sales Tax (note, not the 32% they conjure up by statistical magic) plus state sales tax of, say 5%, plus county and city sales taxes of 2% or so, and any other special use sales taxes under and up to 1%. All I can say is, I hope I'm the one with the bootleg tax free bacon.

Then have a cut off, at say $10,000 annually. Anyone who makes below that won't get taxed.
Surely such a tax wouldn't then be flat?

Why progressive?
Because the rich have more disposable income.

In other words, if a poor person spends, for example, 40% of his income on food and other necessities, another 40% on paying bills and 20% on luxuries, whereas a rich person spends 10% on necessities, 10% on bills and 80% on luxuries, it makes sense that the rich person should pay a much higher proportion of his income as tax.

Wouldn't a flat percentage tax be fair to everyone?
No, because the poor spend a higher percentage of their income on necessities and the rich spend a higher percentage of their income on luxuries.

Envy when you talk about how people don't deserve to be rich, you're painting a picture that it's unfair that they're rich and you still have to work 8-5, etc
The definition of "fairness" is treating similar situations similarly.

So, for instance, fairness with regards to work and income means giving similar incomes to people who do similar amounts of work. If two people work 8-5 and one of them earns $30,000 a year while the other earns $3 million a year, that is by definition unfair, since they are putting in similar amounts of work and getting vastly different rewards.

It's not about emotion, it's about common sense.

How about this as a bad thing? The state of Nevada, which has NO income tax and gets most of its funding from sales taxes (High sales taxes mind you) is looking at anywhere from a 5% to 15% across the board cut due to people just not spending thanks to the current economy. Health, safety, education, everything.
It's certainly a much better argument than that it is somehow regressive.

To be honest with you, I would prefer a flat tax regime like in Estonia for example. The place hasn't fallen apart, it's quite simple and you know what to expect when you get your paycheck. And if you wanted, you could combine it with a simple negative income tax instead of the current welfare system. Basically it would be the same as now, except the top bracket is, say, 20% and starts a lot earlier. And to top it off, you could divide the total household income by the number of people (including kids) in it and then tax every person as though they earned that share individually, which could keep everyone in lower tax brackets and encourage having lots of kids.

It's just that FairTax has a more realistic chance of getting through at some point, and it's still better than the current system. I don't know whether there is a lot of pork barrel spending in Nevada, or indeed how their tax revenues are made up (surely they get big chunks out of gambling and prostitution?), but I know that the Federal Budget at least has a lot of wiggle room.

One method of increasing revenue (or dropping rates) would be to tax companies the same way. Rather than profits, tax by income.
And dissuade them from investing? That doesn't sound like a smart idea to me.

No, because the poor spend a higher percentage of their income on necessities and the rich spend a higher percentage of their income on luxuries.
So now whether or not money should be taxed depends on what it would be used for if the individual wasn't taxed?

What if the poor person just uses the cash to buy alcohol? There's a lot of people out there like that: alone, depressed, living in crappy trailers and using booze to get away from their problems.

Surely you must think that person might even be better off if you took all his drinking money away. And similarly, a rich person might use their extra disposable income to do something worthwhile, like start a cancer research company. That's a "luxury" of sorts, but that doesn't make it any less worthwhile.

Since when taxes are "fair"?

Fair Tax is an oxymoron.

To be honest with you, I would prefer a flat tax regime like in Estonia for example. The place hasn't fallen apart, it's quite simple and you know what to expect when you get your paycheck.
This is one argument for 'flat' taxes I just don't get. In almost every country where they've been implemented they've been incorporated with a personal allowance which just makes it a progressive tax with another name, as the actual rate increases at higher earnings and is different to the 'flat' rate. In short, I can't see how it's really any simpler unless you don't have a personal allowance.

This is one argument for 'flat' taxes I just don't get. In almost every country where they've been implemented they've been incorporated with a personal allowance which just makes it a progressive tax with another name, as the actual rate increases at higher earnings and is different to the 'flat' rate. In short, I can't see how it's really any simpler unless you don't have a personal allowance.
Well, the majority of people don't qualify for allowances since, as weird as this might sound considering the arguments you hear sometimes, the majority of people aren't actually poor.

So for the majority of people, it really is quite simple. And even for those who do get an allowance, it is quite easy to say "You only pay the flat tax to any income above $20,000 pa" for example. That covers everything, and is still a hell of a lot easier than "You pay nothing until $6000, then 15% until $18,000, then ... then 45% for everything above $130,000".

So now whether or not money should be taxed depends on what it would be used for if the individual wasn't taxed?
Of course. Or rather, it depends on what the money was statistically likely to be used by individuals in a certain income bracket if they weren't taxed.

Surely you must think that person might even be better off if you took all his drinking money away. And similarly, a rich person might use their extra disposable income to do something worthwhile, like start a cancer research company. That's a "luxury" of sorts, but that doesn't make it any less worthwhile.
Right, except that there is no way to control what people do with their money, and it would be insanely difficult to develop a tax code that allowed individual exceptions (one of the problems with the current US tax code is precisely the fact that it tries to allow too many exceptions and gets ridiculously complicated in the process).

So we should base our tax decisions on statistical probabilities: People in a certain income bracket are statistically likely to do X, Y and Z with their money, and that is what should be taken into consideration when deciding how much to tax them.

We should also consider how taxation will influence their spending. Taxing alcoholics is pointless, for instance, because taking away money from them will not reduce their spending on alcohol (they will give up food if necessary to buy alcohol). More broadly, taxation will never reduce expenses that have a highly inelastic demand, so those kinds of expenses should not be taken into consideration.

Then have a cut off, at say $10,000 annually. Anyone who makes below that won't get taxed.
Of course that is a technicality. You can also get 50% off electronics, if you send in the rebate form. Taxes will not just be calculated once a year, they will be inherent in your daily life, so how are they not going to get taxed? Sure, they might get a rebate, but it is its own bureaucratic calculation which may or may not pay all the taxes spent by people (especially since it doesn't take into account the fact stuff costs are directly related to where you buy an item).

Well, the majority of people don't qualify for allowances since, as weird as this might sound considering the arguments you hear sometimes, the majority of people aren't actually poor.
Perhaps we're misunderstanding something here. I'm talking about a universal tax free threshold, above which income is taxed at the flat rate.

So for the majority of people, it really is quite simple. And even for those who do get an allowance, it is quite easy to say "You only pay the flat tax to any income above $20,000 pa" for example. That covers everything, and is still a hell of a lot easier than "You pay nothing until $6000, then 15% until $18,000, then ... then 45% for everything above $130,000".
Is it really that much of a difference? I may be taking a UK-centric view here, but the vast majority of people here are on PAYE and so don't even need to calculate their own taxes anyway, and the remainder won't find it hard to look at a chart of taxable income against taxes due. I'm fairly sure that actually getting hold of people's personal taxable income, rather than calculating the rate, takes up the bulk of people's time and money.

An income tax doesn't actually change the fact that people can be born into rich families, or that single moms are likely to get into financial difficulties. If you wanted to prevent those things, you're not after taxes, you're after some sort of command economy in which there's a 100% tax rate followed by government redistribution - or you're some sort of libertarian socialist, who doesn't think taxation is legitimate anyways. Either way it's not the topic of the thread.

So if you want to make an argument for progressive taxation, making a fairly emotional point about inequality in wealth is not really the way to go.

I would argue that progressive income taxation is actually a form of flat tax. A flat tax on luxury income, the higher up the income scale you go the higher the percentage of income is luxury income, so although the income tax % is higher, the luxury income tax % is flat.

(although while I was thinking through this post the idea's already been mentioned, ah well)

It's certainly a much better argument than that it is somehow regressive.It is. The lower classes will be spending more of their money, the upper classes will be saving their money. Since a higher percentage of the lower classes' money will be taxed, the tax is regressive.

And then there's the plan of issuing rebates up to the poverty line. Is everyone automatically given a rebate? Isn't that even more complicated that the IRS: figuring out who gets what? And you still have to pay the extra 30-40% tax. No rebate can reduce the pain on that. What about people who don't use banks? I plan to use banks minimally when I'm on my own. Why not just not tax necessities like food?

You apparently don't even know what the FairTax does. Let me explain to you...

The FairTax abolishes all federal personal and corporate income taxes, gift, estate, capital gains, alternative minimum, Social Security, Medicare, and self-employment taxes and replaces them with one simple 23% sales tax on RETAIL items. RETAIL means NEW, like new cars, clothes, books; anything that is new. As it is now, there is a 22% imbedded tax on new items. USED items are NOT taxed.

The one of the best parts of the FairTax is the prebate. EVERYONE gets a prebate at the beginning of the month to cover the sales tax on food and clothing (it varies by family size). A single person would receive a $196 check every month. A married couple with 2 kids would get $525 per month. A married couple with no kids (i.e. retired, newly-wed, etc.) would get $391 a month.

Here's a link to compare what you pay now to what you'd pay under the FairTax: http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=calculator

Another great thing about the Fair Tax... you wouldn't have to file ANY taxes! And there'd be no tax-evasion; the black market would have to pay taxes with the rest of us (no evading a sales tax).

You apparently don't even know what the FairTax does. Let me explain to you...

The FairTax abolishes all federal personal and corporate income taxes, gift, estate, capital gains, alternative minimum, Social Security, Medicare, and self-employment taxes and replaces them with one simple 23% sales tax on RETAIL items. RETAIL means NEW, like new cars, clothes, books; anything that is new. As it is now, there is a 22% imbedded tax on new items. USED items are NOT taxed.

The one of the best parts of the FairTax is the prebate. EVERYONE gets a prebate at the beginning of the month to cover the sales tax on food and clothing (it varies by family size). A single person would receive a $196 check every month. A married couple with 2 kids would get $525 per month. A married couple with no kids (i.e. retired, newly-wed, etc.) would get $391 a month.

Here's a link to compare what you pay now to what you'd pay under the FairTax: http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=calculator

Another great thing about the Fair Tax... you wouldn't have to file ANY taxes! And there'd be no tax-evasion; the black market would have to pay taxes with the rest of us (no evading a sales tax).

Nonsense. Smugglers would clean up by moving items in from Canada and Mexico - it's very easy to avoid a sales tax.

Nonsense. Smugglers would clean up by moving items in from Canada and Mexico - it's very easy to avoid a sales tax.You wouldn't even need to smuggle - you could legally buy stuff from abroad over the internet and not have to pay taxes on it.

As I noted in another fair tax thread, I would prefer my savings account, retirement funds, government bonds, and all other investments I have not depreciate in value by about a third...

What do I mean? Just this. Let's say I am taxed at a rate roughly 1/3. Before taxes I make $150. After taxes I am left with $100.

Now I could spend this $100, but instead, let's say I put it in a savings account, for 3% interest a year, over 10 years. After 10 years I have . $134Not bad for a little investment.

Now, let's say I then withrdaw that $134 and decide to do a litlte spending. Now in Massachusetts there is a 5% sales tax. So when examining what I can buy, I have to add 5% to any sticker price. So with $134, keeping in mind sales tax, I can buy something worth about $128.

So after income tax, followed by compound interest, followed by sales tax, my $100 has become worth a "good" worth $128. Fine and dandy that.

But what's this? The day before i close my savings account, we institute "fair" tax. One problem. The money sitting in my bank for the last ten years? That was already taxed. Now everything has a sales tax of about 30%. So with a total of 30% sales tax, my $134 can only buy something with a sticker price of...well...about 100 bucks. Which was about what my investment was worth before I invested it.

By changing tax structures midstream you have just completely and totally invalidated ten years worth of investment, because you've taken money I have that was already taxed, then decreased its relative worth, substantially.

Even if we ignore all the other flaws, a fair tax will only be fair for those earnings earned after the date of the changeover.

And some of us happen to like our long term investments. Of course, to make matters worse, if I didn't invest that $100, and just kept it in a regular, no interest checking account for a period of years, and then suddenly we have "fair tax", that $100 can buy something worth about $70 now.

Fair tax would do nothing more than drastically, and substantially, harm the long term savings and investment of everyone in this country.

You apparently don't even know what the FairTax does. Let me explain to you...

The FairTax abolishes all federal personal and corporate income taxes, gift, estate, capital gains, alternative minimum, Social Security, Medicare, and self-employment taxes and replaces them with one simple 23% sales tax on RETAIL items. RETAIL means NEW, like new cars, clothes, books; anything that is new. As it is now, there is a 22% imbedded tax on new items. USED items are NOT taxed.

The one of the best parts of the FairTax is the prebate. EVERYONE gets a prebate at the beginning of the month to cover the sales tax on food and clothing (it varies by family size). A single person would receive a $196 check every month. A married couple with 2 kids would get $525 per month. A married couple with no kids (i.e. retired, newly-wed, etc.) would get $391 a month.

Here's a link to compare what you pay now to what you'd pay under the FairTax: http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=calculator

Another great thing about the Fair Tax... you wouldn't have to file ANY taxes! And there'd be no tax-evasion; the black market would have to pay taxes with the rest of us (no evading a sales tax).

yeah id just have to make sure that i was registered with the federal government at all times so that i can get my check.

the black market would be HUGE. everything that could be bought under the table or underreported as to sales price would be.

it would be far worse than it is now since now the only one who benefits from the underreporting of income is the seller. under this system both the seller and the buyer benefits.

The definition of "fairness" is treating similar situations similarly.

So, for instance, fairness with regards to work and income means giving similar incomes to people who do similar amounts of work. If two people work 8-5 and one of them earns $30,000 a year while the other earns $3 million a year, that is by definition unfair, since they are putting in similar amounts of work and getting vastly different rewards.

It's not about emotion, it's about common sense.

that's not a valid comparison, because it assumes the two jobs require the same amount of input. what's more difficult: working on an assembly line from 8-5 or doing complex scientific work from 8-5?

I do however agree that a flat tax is inherently unfair to the poor.

As I noted in another fair tax thread, I would prefer my savings account, retirement funds, government bonds, and all other investments I have not depreciate in value by about a third...
[example deleted]
And some of us happen to like our long term investments. Of course, to make matters worse, if I didn't invest that $100, and just kept it in a regular, no interest checking account for a period of years, and then suddenly we have "fair tax", that $100 can buy something worth about $70 now.

Fair tax would do nothing more than drastically, and substantially, harm the long term savings and investment of everyone in this country.
I think you may be on to the only real disadvantage that the FairTax has ... it would tax what initial investment that was saved then spent, as well as what interest and dividends were earned and taxed.

Okay so far?

What it would not tax twice, in fact what the FairTax would not tax even once would be any further earnings on that investment that existed on change-over day. Any further earnings through investment would be free and clear of any tax.

Still with me?

I'm sure there's a break even point in there, where it is better to earn untaxed income, even though you pay sales tax on any of the capital investment that exists when it is withdrawn and spent.

Of course, if you withdraw and spend it wisely -- on a used item, for instance, there would be no sales tax involved. The sales tax in the FairTax is only on retail sales.

But let's look at another type of savings. When you put money away in a 401k/403b, traditional IRA, etc, you are putting pre-tax money into savings. Interest and dividends compound tax free. If the FairTax were adopted, you would NEVER have to pay a dime of tax on that money, nor on any of its earnings. Not until you decide to make a retail purchase with it.

Let's look at your last statement, "Fair tax would do nothing more than drastically, and substantially, harm the long term savings and investment of everyone in this country". If we were a nation of scrimpers and savers, you might have a chance of being right. As it is, the FairTax might cause some double taxation on savings that have already been taxed, but as a nation, we just don't save like that.

The advantages in investing tax free money and earning tax free money from your investments far outweigh the possible devaluation of your savings -- which again, would only happen if they were withdrawn and spent.

Of course, if you withdraw and spend it wisely -- on a used item, for instance, there would be no sales tax involved.
Brilliant! Let's implement the FairTax, that way, everyone will only shop at thrift stores!

In case everyone didn't get it, that's a god damned retarded pro-FairTax argument.

Brilliant! Let's implement the FairTax, that way, everyone will only shop at thrift stores!

In case everyone didn't get it, that's a god damned retarded pro-FairTax argument.
Why is it retarded? If I were retired, in school, or just not making much money, why wouldn't I choose to stretch my dollars?

I'd expect this sort of retort from someone who's never earned a dollar in his life. Is that the case?

And besides, I thought you were ignoring me...

Used items are in a limited supply, it would be impossible for that to become the main supply, which is what would likely happen if we went to Fair Tax because of that ridiculous argument.

Well, at least we know what you would do if we adopted Fair Tax.

Used items are in a limited supply, it would be impossible for that to become the main supply, which is what would likely happen if we went to Fair Tax because of that ridiculous argument.

Well, at least we know what you would do if we adopted Fair Tax.
This is too trivial to even pursue any further. You really have mastered the art of nonsense.

No, because the poor spend a higher percentage of their income on necessities and the rich spend a higher percentage of their income on luxuries.
So? That just means that rich people can afford to buy more stuff than poor people.

Guess what? That's what being rich means.

So? That just means that rich people can afford to buy more stuff than poor people.

Guess what? That's what being rich means.

Good!

Then being rich means they can pay more taxes since they can afford to do it!

Good!

Then being rich means they can pay more taxes since they can afford to do it!
Which will happen as they buy more stuff. I guess we have a convert :).

One of the biggest problems I've had with consumption taxes relative to an income tax is this: how do you determine tax rates?

A flat consumption tax is effectively a negative income tax, penalizing the poor far more than the wealthy in terms of the relative tax burden. However, a graduated consumption tax has one glaring problem: where do you draw the lines, and what constitutes a "luxury" as opposed to a "necessity"? I imagine all of us would have different classifications for what constitutes a luxury, and it would vary based upon different income levels. If you set the bar too high, it completely eliminates any progressive aspects of the tax, and if you set it too low, you end up overtaxing many items that are in fact necessities for people in higher income brackets, exposing the middle and upper middle classes to taxes normally reserved for the wealthy. It would sort of be in the same vein as the current AMT, a tax gone wrong that penalizes people far beyond those it was originally supposed to target.

An income tax, on the other hand, is entirely quantitative and avoids the complexity of creating schedules and classifications; you have your income, you have your taxes/deductions, but there is far less of the qualitative aspect of a consumption tax muddying the waters. This makes it a fairer system, if not necessarily simpler (although the sheer complexity of creating taxes based on products seems to be more difficult and costly than an efficient progressive or even flat income tax system).

Then being rich means they can pay more taxes since they can afford to do it!
It's not a question of "can", it's a question of "should".

A good tax system minimises the distortion caused by cash being ripped out of the economy. It's not at all given that a progressive income tax does that, considering that it distorts the incentive system to do work beyond a certain point.

A sales tax system would perhaps be less of a distortion, because how much money you earn wouldn't change the taxes you face. And if you have a good government, adjusting tax rates for various types of goods and services could even be used as a demand management tool.

That being said, Neo Art makes and excellent point about the sudden jump in prices wreaking havoc on savings and investments. I still prefer the flat tax idea.

Good!

Then being rich means they can pay more taxes since they can afford to do it!

Initially i agree with your statement.
But there are a few difficulties with taxing the "rich".
1) They could move to another country easily as they could afford it.
2) They could evade the tax or stall the passing of the laws for it, by trying to influence various political organisations.
3) It's difficult to bracket people into a category as "rich", as some have most of their money in land or shares or in business, who have very little money but the sum of their wealth is vast.
4) It might be a morally unfair thing to do to tax people because they have more money, yet tax those below less in comparison.
5) Viewing the above reasons i have given (and assuming they are correct) it could become costly to enforce the new tax, due to better availabilty of more lawyers.

Of course it would be nice to give more money to people who have less, but in an increasingly fragmenting "class" system in some western societies, there would be many issues to overcome.
That's not to say it's not possible, or "bad" but this does show some new issues a government, should it propose to tax the rich more, among many other issues governments are faced with.
sorry, it's a nice ideal, but like most ideals with humans it's unlikely to happen in the near future.

I think any movement toward reform of the current system in the United States is a good thing. I personally believe in a flat income tax that defines income as any money received by a person. Under the current system capital gains and pay received from a job are taxed at different rates.

Initially i agree with your statement.
But there are a few difficulties with taxing the "rich".
1) They could move to another country easily as they could afford it.


Depending on the country; you still have to pay taxes.

2) They could evade the tax or stall the passing of the laws for it, by trying to influence various political organisations.


Which pretty much goes on now.

3) It's difficult to bracket people into a category as "rich", as some have most of their money in land or shares or in business, who have very little money but the sum of their wealth is vast.

No doubt. It's kind of like the poverty level here. Where I live the national standard for being declared at the poverty level would more or less be homeless if not renting the garage.

4) It might be a morally unfair thing to do to tax people because they have more money, yet tax those below less in comparison.

Taxes and morallty? :D

I don't know. Sweden has a punitive tax structure(as I understand it) and they don't have the wealthy class running from the country.

I doubt it would happen here and we wouldn't even come close to their tax structure.

5) Viewing the above reasons i have given (and assuming they are correct) it could become costly to enforce the new tax, due to better availabilty of more lawyers.

When it comes to taxes, the government has no problem enforcing it.

Of course it would be nice to give more money to people who have less, but in an increasingly fragmenting "class" system in some western societies, there would be many issues to overcome.

We are pretty well set in a class system already. You see the rebubs talking about not "punishing" the upper class because they create all the new jobs!

The demos do the same with the work class.

That's not to say it's not possible, or "bad" but this does show some new issues a government, should it propose to tax the rich more, among many other issues governments are faced with.
sorry, it's a nice ideal, but like most ideals with humans it's unlikely to happen in the near future.

You only need to increases taxes by restoring some of them to a certain level.

Then you go about closing the built in loop holes.

Even one of the repubs(I think it was one) mentioned about one building in the caymen Islands being the HQ for something like 12000 companies.....

I know it's unlikely to happen especially with all the people that believe in trickle down economics....

One of the biggest problems I've had with consumption taxes relative to an income tax is this: how do you determine tax rates?

A flat consumption tax is effectively a negative income tax, penalizing the poor far more than the wealthy in terms of the relative tax burden. However, a graduated consumption tax has one glaring problem: where do you draw the lines, and what constitutes a "luxury" as opposed to a "necessity"? I imagine all of us would have different classifications for what constitutes a luxury, and it would vary based upon different income levels. If you set the bar too high, it completely eliminates any progressive aspects of the tax, and if you set it too low, you end up overtaxing many items that are in fact necessities for people in higher income brackets, exposing the middle and upper middle classes to taxes normally reserved for the wealthy. It would sort of be in the same vein as the current AMT, a tax gone wrong that penalizes people far beyond those it was originally supposed to target.

An income tax, on the other hand, is entirely quantitative and avoids the complexity of creating schedules and classifications; you have your income, you have your taxes/deductions, but there is far less of the qualitative aspect of a consumption tax muddying the waters. This makes it a fairer system, if not necessarily simpler (although the sheer complexity of creating taxes based on products seems to be more difficult and costly than an efficient progressive or even flat income tax system).
You could go back to the Federalist #21 and read what Hamilton had to say about OVER taxing on consumption.

But there isn't any answer that would sound good in a sound bite. The more complicated version is a paper that was done during the initial research for the FairTax bill. Read it at http://www.fairtax.org/PDF/TaxingSalesUnderFairTax.pdf
and then give us the executive summary, if you could. We'd appreciate a simple explanation.

Now, if you think that a consumption tax is complex, I've got to ask, have you ever prepared an itemized form? Even the simple ones are not simple. You should realize that about 5.8 billion hours ( I remember that from a Walter E. Williams column some time back) a year go into complying with our current tax code. That's reason enough to throw it out and replace it with the FairTax.

Which will happen as they buy more stuff. I guess we have a convert :).


Take away spending power from the poor and middle class increases the wealthy class how?

Take away spending power from the poor and middle class increases the wealthy class how?
Not more than they do now - more than the poorer people.

Since the wealthy buy more stuff than the poor do, they pay more tax.

Not more than they do now - more than the poorer people.

Since the wealthy buy more stuff than the poor do, they pay more tax.

Eh? They are how many wealthy families as compared to poor and middle class?

You wouldn't even need to smuggle - you could legally buy stuff from abroad over the internet and not have to pay taxes on it.
Customs could collect that tax at the border.

That's how Canada does it. If Canadians buy something abroad and have it shipped to them, Customs agents seize the goods and will only release them when the buyer pays the appropriate sales tax (currently a 5% national sales tax).

Eh? They are how many wealthy families as compared to poor and middle class?
Many fewer, but they buy a lot of expensive stuff.

You should realize that about 5.8 billion hours ( I remember that from a Walter E. Williams column some time back) a year go into complying with our current tax code. That's reason enough to throw it out and replace it with the FairTax.

"To hell with the consequences, I don't want to waste any more time filing my taxes! I want to waste time paying my taxes!"

Many fewer, but they buy a lot of expensive stuff.

Ok. Then let's see a comparison of the two. Rich consumption vs the poor and middle class.....

Depending on the country; you still have to pay taxes.
Which pretty much goes on now.
No doubt. It's kind of like the poverty level here. Where I live the national standard for being declared at the poverty level would more or less be homeless if not renting the garage.
Taxes and morallty? :D
I don't know. Sweden has a punitive tax structure(as I understand it) and they don't have the wealthy class running from the country.
I doubt it would happen here and we wouldn't even come close to their tax structure.
When it comes to taxes, the government has no problem enforcing it.
We are pretty well set in a class system already. You see the rebubs talking about not "punishing" the upper class because they create all the new jobs!
The demos do the same with the work class.
You only need to increases taxes by restoring some of them to a certain level.
Then you go about closing the built in loop holes.
Even one of the repubs(I think it was one) mentioned about one building in the caymen Islands being the HQ for something like 12000 companies.....

Well, what's wrong with using morality and taxes? okay so it looks silly but i think for the Rich to take taxes seriously to tax them as equally as possible (whatever that means) is the best way to do it.:)

I think that if you reduce taxes you can encourage people to pay more, by reducing the numbers of people evading taxes (which is ever increasing from the news stories i've heard),by loosening the stranglehold maybe people might give more. (i heard this idea from my parents, so i fully expect it to be wrong).

Does the amount of tax paid relate to the amount of public to private systems, for example in the UK Margret Thatcher (in her infinate wisdom) privatised alot of public services, in the hope they would compete to give a better service.


What's a rebub? is that like a tax haven?:confused:

Oh and on a different note, do you think politicians should be jailed for passing a policy or making a decision while in power?

I think if there was less need for lawyers in politics they would become trusted to a greater extent by the public and the public might take more interest in politics, i think to do this by reducing working hours for routine workers with families.
The families would have more time to help their kids learn (which would have the benefit of socialising them in the norms and values of a given society say UK, and would be less likely to commit crime) and by reducing taxes (which are ironically spent to help the people they tax? see binge drinking) less might be needed to be spent on public service jobs, easing tension in cities a little, creating a happier people.

By the way this is my opinion, i'm sorry i don't have any sources other than Thatchers "new right" should be in wiki, just speculation.

You should realize that about 5.8 billion hours ( I remember that from a Walter E. Williams column some time back) a year go into complying with our current tax code.
That's certainly sufficient reason to reform the tax law. Those 5.8 billion hours are unproductive labour.

Economists are saying Huckabee and his support of the so-called "Fair"Tax are uneconomically sound and the supporters of it are pushing something that isn't near to what would be realistic.

Uh, I think you mean "economically unsound".

Ok. Then let's see a comparison of the two. Rich consumption vs the poor and middle class.....

Here is something pretty close, sort of a normalized expenditure curve for the income and consumption tax methods.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/7a/Effectiverate.png/400px-Effectiverate.png

That you even think to argue that the rich might not consume as much or more than lower incomes makes me wonder about how sane you are...

That's certainly sufficient reason to reform the tax law. Those 5.8 billion hours are unproductive labour.
The FairTax web site talks about some $265 billion dollars wasted on compliance. Think about how much better that would be spent (or saved).

It does truly amaze me how many people on this forum are genuinely scared of a few people escaping the taxes on their financial success.

It looks good, in theory, but has it ever been shown to work in reality?

After all, communism is also good in theory.

Here is something pretty close, sort of a normalized expenditure curve for the income and consumption tax methods.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/7a/Effectiverate.png/400px-Effectiverate.png

That you even think to argue that the rich might not consume as much or more than lower incomes makes me wonder about how sane you are...

Looking at the graph, how the hell is it going to be revenue neutral?

Here is something pretty close, sort of a normalized expenditure curve for the income and consumption tax methods.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/7a/Effectiverate.png/400px-Effectiverate.png

That you even think to argue that the rich might not consume as much or more than lower incomes makes me wonder about how sane you are...

Ah a chart is hardly damning. You might want to post links to their data methods and who did the chart. A "fair tax" group would be suspect for bias.

Looking at the graph, how the hell is it going to be revenue neutral?

It also excludes regional/state/and local COL numbers.

It looks good, in theory, but has it ever been shown to work in reality?

After all, communism is also good in theory.
Let's see, there aren't too many economic systems exactly like ours, but within the United States, Florida and Texas run off of sales tax.

As kind of an aside, the FairTax site reports that "England did repeal its detested income tax upon the defeat of Napoleon and enjoyed the fastest, longest expansion of its economy in its long history. An expansion that ended only with the -- you guessed it -- re-imposition of an income tax."

It looks good, in theory, but has it ever been shown to work in reality?

After all, communism is also good in theory.

But many theories Communists used in say Soviet Russia were nothing like the Marxist theory it stemmed from, for example Marx was against capital punishment, yet the communists executed the Tsar.
And even then Marxist theory wasn't actually accurate from many standpoints because it focuses to heavily on economy for the social divisions between the bourgoueisie and proletariat, (which in Marx's day more evident than now), also Marx predicted an increase in the size of the lower classes, but this hasn't happened instead there has been an increase in the size of the middle classes.
As Weber argues Marx was wrong about focusing on the economy, but wasn't entirely wrong, as politics and religion as Weber argues also affects your decisions. of course there were differences between upper and lower classes but that doesn't necessarily follow that it's purely the economy that dictates this.
So communism had many flaws in theory and was destined to fail.
okay i'm off to bed, so tired. i hope that helps

Let's see, there aren't too many economic systems exactly like ours, but within the United States, Florida and Texas run off of sales tax.

As kind of an aside, the FairTax site reports that "England did repeal its detested income tax upon the defeat of Napoleon and enjoyed the fastest, longest expansion of its economy in its long history. An expansion that ended only with the -- you guessed it -- re-imposition of an income tax."

I don't like to bitch about sourcing, but some numbers (hell, years) would help this claim. I don't put the onus on you, either. How can they make that claim without backing it up?

Ah a chart is hardly damning. You might want to post links to their data methods and who did the chart. A "fair tax" group would be suspect for bias.
I don't get that. I can see using the source as a proxy for bad methods if the methods weren't available (though it would be a pretty crude tool), but if the methods are available who cares who did it? Just check the numbers. If the methods are sound, then the outcome is trustworthy, regardless of who did it.

As kind of an aside, the FairTax site reports that "England did repeal its detested income tax upon the defeat of Napoleon and enjoyed the fastest, longest expansion of its economy in its long history."
I didn't know they published yearly GDP figures in the 1820s, a good hundred years or so before the notion of "GDP" was even invented.

But hey, if you believe that, let me tell you about this other great economic expansion in the 16th century and how we should revert to 16th century economics in order to achieve the same results. :rolleyes:

Some nonsense I don't want to waste Jolt resources on. (Click the arrow thing.)

Wow that prebate really can pay the rent, food, utilities, transport, toiletries, etc...Also, the tax rate we'd need to equal today's revenue is in the 30s, not 28% like FairTax states.

To be honest with you, I would prefer a flat tax regime like in Estonia for example. The place hasn't fallen apart...
Let's take a look at Estonia and the US: (GDP is PPP/Nominal)
Estonia
Area: 45,226 km²
Population: 1,342,409
GDP: $26.85 billion/$16.410 billion
GDP per Capita: $21,860/$15,310
GDP per sq km: $593,685/$362,844

United States
Area: 9,826,630 km²
Population: 303,133,000
GDP: $13,675.129 billion/$13,770.309 billion
GDP per Capita: $43,444/$44,190
GDP per sq km: $1,391,640/$1,401,326
Estonia has NATO to protect it. The US must protect itself. Also, Estonia has like no military threat against it, unlike the US. The US has much larger needs from the government than Estonia. Even internally, you can look at this. A state doesn't need much money, so can survive on a small consumption tax. The US gov't needs a shitload of money that even a large consumption tax doesn't match. With 1 million people, you don't have much of a rich-poor gap to worry about.

and it's still better than the current system.
No, it absolutely is not.

What if the poor person just uses the cash to buy alcohol? There's a lot of people out there like that: alone, depressed, living in crappy trailers and using booze to get away from their problems.

Surely you must think that person might even be better off if you took all his drinking money away. And similarly, a rich person might use their extra disposable income to do something worthwhile, like start a cancer research company. That's a "luxury" of sorts, but that doesn't make it any less worthwhile.
It's hard, if not impossible, for the gov't to differentiate between bums and single working mothers. Also, I think that is an exaggerated stereotype.

Well, the majority of people don't qualify for allowances since, as weird as this might sound considering the arguments you hear sometimes, the majority of people aren't actually poor.

So for the majority of people, it really is quite simple. And even for those who do get an allowance, it is quite easy to say "You only pay the flat tax to any income above $20,000 pa" for example. That covers everything, and is still a hell of a lot easier than "You pay nothing until $6000, then 15% until $18,000, then ... then 45% for everything above $130,000".

I think I'll trade a bit of complexity for a fairer tax system.

Nonsense. Smugglers would clean up by moving items in from Canada and Mexico - it's very easy to avoid a sales tax.

Exactly. FairTax would work like Prohibition.

Used items are in a limited supply, it would be impossible for that to become the main supply, which is what would likely happen if we went to Fair Tax because of that ridiculous argument.

Well, at least we know what you would do if we adopted Fair Tax.

That's bull. There are plenty of used items to go around. And by the time they are used up, the gov't is bankrupt.

You should realize that about 5.8 billion hours ( I remember that from a Walter E. Williams column some time back) a year go into complying with our current tax code. That's reason enough to throw it out and replace it with the FairTax.
No it isn't. See above.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/7a/Effectiverate.png/400px-Effectiverate.png
1. It assumes income is 100% spent.
2. It gets less revenue. We already don't have enough money.

Ideally, there will be no taxes at all, but I won't fool myself into believing that will happen. The second best thing would be a small poll, or head, tax, that was the same for everyone, and no other taxes. "How would we pay for such-and-such?" you ask. Answer: We wouldn't. Government would be as de-centralized and limited in scope as possible. Aside from providing courts, law enforcement, and defense (a military just big enough to defend us, but not big enough to police the world), everything else would be handled by local communities, churches, the private sector, etc. Of course, that would never happen, either, but one can always dream.

Ideally, there will be no taxes at all, but I won't fool myself into believing that will happen. The second best thing would be a small poll, or head, tax, that was the same for everyone, and no other taxes. "How would we pay for such-and-such?" you ask. Answer: We wouldn't. Government would be as de-centralized and limited in scope as possible. Aside from providing courts, law enforcement, and defense (a military just big enough to defend us, but not big enough to police the world), everything else would be handled by local communities, churches, the private sector, etc. Of course, that would never happen, either, but one can always dream.

You're an idiot if you expect that to work on a scale larger than a village. In which case, you'd be the village idiot.

You're an idiot if you expect that to work on a scale larger than a village. In which case, you'd be the village idiot.

Of course it wouldn't on a scale larger than a village. That's why I emphasized de-centralization to the fullest extent possible.

De-centralization will never work because having 'autonomous' entities creates divisions of 'interest' between each neighborhood, each community, each factory, each ethnicity etc. Workers of each 'local group' would never understand concretely how they were damaging each others' interests if at all. In fact, having a lack of centralized contact breeds suspicions and illusions of damage from other 'groups' when it was really foreign exploiters robbing the country because it had no central economic coordination. Want evidence of this, look to the former Yugoslavia.

De-centralization will never work

The Swiss seem to be able to pull it off just fine.

The Swiss seem to be able to pull it off just fine.
The Swiss do have a central government, the last time I checked. A far more powerful central government than anything libertarians would prefer.

Not more than they do now - more than the poorer people.

Since the wealthy buy more stuff than the poor do, they pay more tax.Not in proportion to their incomes, they don't.

Customs could collect that tax at the border.

That's how Canada does it. If Canadians buy something abroad and have it shipped to them, Customs agents seize the goods and will only release them when the buyer pays the appropriate sales tax (currently a 5% national sales tax).Customs opens packages?

Llewdor taxing consumption does not affect the rich proportionately to the poor because you'll find that the poor buy lots of low cost consumer items, while the rich keep alot in hard assets and capital. The only way is a strict progressive tax on capital and inherited wealth.

Since the wealthy buy more stuff than the poor do, they pay more tax.

of course, the things the wealthy actually spend their money on are specifically exempted from any tax at all...

of course, the things the wealthy actually spend their money on are specifically exempted from any tax at all...

Exactly.

of course, the things the wealthy actually spend their money on are specifically exempted from any tax at all...
What? Wealthy people don't buy food? No clothes? No new cars? No new boats? Gosh, what in the world are they spending money on?

Y'all need to get over the incredible envy you must have for anyone that's financially successful.

De-centralization will never work because having 'autonomous' entities creates divisions of 'interest' between each neighborhood, each community, each factory, each ethnicity etc.

No, those divisions of interest already exist.

Workers of each 'local group' would never understand concretely how they were damaging each others' interests if at all.

They could always ask....

In fact, having a lack of centralized contact

"Centralized contact" is not the same as "centralized control."

The Swiss do have a central government, the last time I checked. A far more powerful central government than anything libertarians would prefer.

They do have a central government, but cantons also enjoy a very high level of autonomy.

They do have a central government, but cantons also enjoy a very high level of autonomy.

What if the citizens initiated a referendum to do something anti-libertarian?

What if the citizens initiated a referendum to do something anti-libertarian?

Ideally, the people who disagreed with the referendum would have the right to ignore it.

In real life, they would be forced to live with it. Democracy = pissing and shitting all over minority rights

That's why I support the right of secession. If libertarians were fed up with a socialist society and wanted to secede, so be it. Likewise, if communists were disgruntled with the current system and wished to secede and form their own autonomous communes, it would be fully within their right to do so.

Gosh, what in the world are they spending money on?

stocks and business assets. next question.

Ideally, the people who disagreed with the referendum would have the right to ignore it.

In real life, they would be forced to live with it. Democracy = pissing and shitting all over minority rights
Exactly, for day one libertarianism has been nothing but the champion of elitism and minority aristocratic rule.

That's why I support the right of secession. If libertarians were fed up with a socialist society and wanted to secede, so be it. Likewise, if communists were disgruntled with the current system and wished to secede and form their own autonomous communes, it would be fully within their right to do so.
So, you want the 'freedom' to exploit the proletariat? Libertarianism or any bourgeois ideology, from fascism to social democracy, cannot survive without a permanent labor underclass.

Exactly, for day one libertarianism has been nothing but the champion of elitism and minority aristocratic rule.

Better than ochlocracy.

So, you want the 'freedom' to exploit the proletariat? Libertarianism or any bourgeois ideology, from fascism to social democracy, cannot survive without a permanent labor underclass.

If the proletariat decide they'd rather not be "exploited," they, too, can secede.

Also, Estonia has like no military threat against it, unlike the US.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_russia

The US has much larger needs from the government than Estonia. Even internally, you can look at this. A state doesn't need much money, so can survive on a small consumption tax. The US gov't needs a shitload of money that even a large consumption tax doesn't match.
I think it's fairly obvious even to those in government that there are plenty of things being paid for by Washington which aren't really necessary. Porkbarrelling, ridiculously oversized contracts for defence companies and the like, other corporate handouts, the extremely expensive healthcare system and so on and so forth.

It's not like the US government really needs to spend almost 3 trillion dollars every year. It's just that over the years there has been virtually no function of the federal government that hasn't turned either into a vote-buying vehicle or a patchwork of different approaches and solutions. A bit of proper reform, internal consistency in goals and methods and better cooperation with the states could probably do wonders.

With 1 million people, you don't have much of a rich-poor gap to worry about.
Why the hell not? I believe the Estonian opposition is arguing that this gap is growing at the moment and want the tax code to be made progressive to counter it (which wouldn't work, in my opinion).

No, it absolutely is not.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/ca/TaxCode.jpg

I think I'll trade a bit of complexity for a fairer tax system.
In which case I just can't see why you would be against a flat tax.

Of course it wouldn't on a scale larger than a village. That's why I emphasized de-centralization to the fullest extent possible.

And watch the economy drop 90%...

Better than ochlocracy.



If the proletariat decide they'd rather not be "exploited," they, too, can secede.

And that's why your libertarian rule will never happen, the bourgeois dictatorship will never allow it because it means the proletariat can leave the system of wage labor slavery, 'libertarianism' maybe a nice extravagance that the bourgeois can have because they are feeling secure in the class struggle, the same way they have 'civil liberties' and the 'rule of law', but in the end these are trivial things to decorate their class dictatorship. You maybe naive and idealistic enough to buy our own rhetoric, but I am not.

Better than ochlocracy.
I advocate nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat, any alternate to that is a new dressing on the bourgeois dictatorship. Libertarianism passivity and naivety to classes is quite strange.

No, those divisions of interest already exist.
Indeed, but within such a cooperative system these interests can be coordinated in an interdependent fashion.

stocks and business assets. next question.
You and I both know that one can't live on stocks and bonds alone. Yet, it is entertaining to watch this rich-bashing -- especially knowing most of you have no idea what managing money is like.

Let's see, there aren't too many economic systems exactly like ours, but within the United States, Florida and Texas run off of sales tax.

As kind of an aside, the FairTax site reports that "England did repeal its detested income tax upon the defeat of Napoleon and enjoyed the fastest, longest expansion of its economy in its long history. An expansion that ended only with the -- you guessed it -- re-imposition of an income tax."

Considering the fact that states receive federal money, and the residents of those states also pay federal income tax, I don't see how you can claim that those states run solely on sales tax. Especially when Florida also charges a property tax and an estate tax, while Texas has a property tax on all property that generates income, and a long list of other taxes (http://www.window.state.tx.us/taxinfo/taxrates.html).

As for England, one could just as easily argue that English expansion occurred because their defeat of Napoleon. The resultant peace coming from their position as sole superpower was what allowed the English to expand and colonise so much, not some arbitrary taxation method.

That's why I support the right of secession. If libertarians were fed up with a socialist society and wanted to secede, so be it. Likewise, if communists were disgruntled with the current system and wished to secede and form their own autonomous communes, it would be fully within their right to do so.
Problem: Libertarians and communists disagree on what constitutes legitimate property, so what happens when the seceding people want to take what they consider their rightful property away to their new society and the others disagree?

Problem: Libertarians and communists disagree on what constitutes legitimate property, so what happens when the seceding people want to take what they consider their rightful property away to their new society and the others disagree?

Just to confirm, socialism is not common ownership of all property - socialism is common ownership of the means of productive capacity, thus proletarianization.

You and I both know that one can't live on stocks and bonds alone. Yet, it is entertaining to watch this rich-bashing -- especially knowing most of you have no idea what managing money is like.

the issue was where the rich spent their money. you proposed it was kept largely occupied making retail purchases, and thus that "the things the rich really spend their money on" are in fact taxed. but this is not actually true. the vast bulk of the wealth held by the rich and the vast bulk of their income is not spent making retail purchases, but rather goes into things that are explicitly exempt from 'fair taxation'.

the issue was where the rich spent their money. you proposed it was kept largely occupied making retail purchases, and thus that "the things the rich really spend their money on" are in fact taxed. but this is not actually true. the vast bulk of the wealth held by the rich and the vast bulk of their income is not spent making retail purchases, but rather goes into things that are explicitly exempt from 'fair taxation'.
And my initial reply was that they buy new, retail goods like anyone else. They buy enough such that the 23% tax rate, coupled with the universal prebate, is enough to make the FairTax a revenue neutral replacement for the income tax.

There is absolutely no reason to tax beyond what's needed to run the government. So, if someone has enough to invest in the economy, we should be happy for them, not trying to figure out a way to spend that investment.

You and I both know that one can't live on stocks and bonds alone. Yet, it is entertaining to watch this rich-bashing -- especially knowing most of you have no idea what managing money is like.Oh, the poor overworked and overburdened rich. How terrible it must be for them to have too much money. :rolleyes:
Maybe if it's such a problem for them they can give it away and not have to worry about it anymore.

There is absolutely no reason to tax beyond what's needed to run the government. And vital social programs.

And my initial reply was that they buy new, retail goods like anyone else. They buy enough such that the 23% tax rate, coupled with the universal prebate, is enough to make the FairTax a revenue neutral replacement for the income tax.

There is absolutely no reason to tax beyond what's needed to run the government. So, if someone has enough to invest in the economy, we should be happy for them, not trying to figure out a way to spend that investment.

ah, see you are taking my objection as an argument in favor of the current mess and the current federal government. it is not. it is unjust to even have obscenely rich while others don't have enough. any system which proposes to increase the disparity over what we have already is fucking shit on its face. and that is precisely what the 'fair tax' wishes to do.

23% tax rate
I hate to be a pedant, and it's not quite relevant, but I genuinely don't like the way that FairTax organisations parade it around quite disingenuously as a 23% sales tax rate. It's 30%, and they know that 23% is a direct result of fiddling with the numbers.

Come to think of it, I do like to be a pedant.

And my initial reply was that they buy new, retail goods like anyone else. They buy enough such that the 23% tax rate, coupled with the universal prebate, is enough to make the FairTax a revenue neutral replacement for the income tax.
So you assert the rich are idiots? The FairTax system has straight-forward, blatant methods for not having to pay taxes. For people who have figured out how to get out of tons of taxes in the current mess of a system we have, jumping through the barn-sized holes in the FairTax system will be a piece of cake. They won't even have to pay tax lawyers to figure them out - so they are actually saving money!

The FairTax disproportionately hurts the mid-middle and lower classes.

This is of course ignoring the fact that the pro-FairTax people assert that if FairTax is implemented, the problems inherent in the current system will magically disappear - ie, lobbyists and special interest groups and the upper classes finding every hole in the tax code which means they have to pay less taxes.

Or the fact that their all holy prebates don't take into account the fact that different areas of the country have totally different costs for living.

You and I both know that one can't live on stocks and bonds alone. Yet, it is entertaining to watch this rich-bashing -- especially knowing most of you have no idea what managing money is like.

Golly gee nobody else ever has to manage money? :rolleyes:

Must be annoying when people will not buy the "you must be stupid if you won't subscribe to something I want."

I hate to be a pedant, and it's not quite relevant, but I genuinely don't like the way that FairTax organisations parade it around quite disingenuously as a 23% sales tax rate. It's 30%, and they know that 23% is a direct result of fiddling with the numbers.

Come to think of it, I do like to be a pedant.
You know, this isn't even worth the trouble, but I'll do it anyway...

The difference is between inclusive and exclusive taxes, not "fiddling with numbers". Because the FairTax sales tax is applied inclusively, it is proper to describe it as a 23% tax. That's because the $100 item that you purchase already has the national retail sales tax included. Add a state sales tax, exclusively, and you have an item that costs a little more.

If we were to buy the item, then apply the tax... Well, you figure it out.

ah, see you are taking my objection as an argument in favor of the current mess and the current federal government. it is not. it is unjust to even have obscenely rich while others don't have enough. any system which proposes to increase the disparity over what we have already is fucking shit on its face. and that is precisely what the 'fair tax' wishes to do.
And you are wrong about taxation. Taxation exists solely to run a government -- not to institute whatever hair-brained economic system you think is best. The FairTax will run a government and won't intrude into one's private life. That makes it just about perfect.

And you are wrong about taxation. Taxation exists solely to run a government -- not to institute whatever hair-brained economic system you think is best. The FairTax will run a government and won't intrude into one's private life. That makes it just about perfect.

Hair-brained economic system as opposed to hair-brained tax system?

So what you are saying is the damn poor people need to get a job and stop stealing your money?

What was that about class bashing?

And you are wrong about taxation. Taxation exists solely to run a government -- not to institute whatever hair-brained economic system you think is best. The FairTax will run a government and won't intrude into one's private life. That makes it just about perfect.

Don't you mean "that would make it perfect if it had ever been shown to work,"?

And you are wrong about taxation. Taxation exists solely to run a government -- not to institute whatever hair-brained economic system you think is best.

trivially and obviously false, and frankly, stupid. taxation funds things, sure, but it is also always used as a means of directly influencing behavior. always has been, always will be. even the fair taxers are explicit about this aspect of their hair-brained fucktard idea.

The FairTax will run a government and won't intrude into one's private life. That makes it just about perfect.

except for being a gift to the fucking rich, and allowing them to concentrate even more wealth and power into their hands. and lord knows that they would never use their wealth and power to further benefit themselves - that's unheard of!

You know, this isn't even worth the trouble, but I'll do it anyway...

The difference is between inclusive and exclusive taxes, not "fiddling with numbers". Because the FairTax sales tax is applied inclusively, it is proper to describe it as a 23% tax. That's because the $100 item that you purchase already has the national retail sales tax included. Add a state sales tax, exclusively, and you have an item that costs a little more.

If we were to buy the item, then apply the tax... Well, you figure it out.
That, in my books, counts as fiddling with the numbers. State sales taxes are applied exclusively, so most people will assume that the 23% inclusive FairTax rate is in fact the exclusive rate, something that FairTax and their supporters never quite seem to go out their way to correct people on. Of course since 23% is lower than 30%, why would they, especially when if the rate were calculated and applied in a way people are familiar with, it looks like a much higher rate?

But then, being disingenuous isn't as bad as outright lying, I suppose.

The FairTax isn't.

And my initial reply was that they buy new, retail goods like anyone else. They buy enough such that the 23% tax rate, coupled with the universal prebate, is enough to make the FairTax a revenue neutral replacement for the income tax.

There is absolutely no reason to tax beyond what's needed to run the government. So, if someone has enough to invest in the economy, we should be happy for them, not trying to figure out a way to spend that investment.
-23% is not realistic. As about 90% of us have said, it will have to be in the 30s
-Universal prebates are bull. They won't do anything to help people at all.
-Yes there is reason. There are things only a government can do that isn't covered by operations budget.

You know, this isn't even worth the trouble, but I'll do it anyway...

The difference is between inclusive and exclusive taxes, not "fiddling with numbers". Because the FairTax sales tax is applied inclusively, it is proper to describe it as a 23% tax. That's because the $100 item that you purchase already has the national retail sales tax included. Add a state sales tax, exclusively, and you have an item that costs a little more.

If we were to buy the item, then apply the tax... Well, you figure it out.

That just makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

And you are wrong about taxation. Taxation exists solely to run a government -- not to institute whatever hair-brained economic system you think is best. The FairTax will run a government and won't intrude into one's private life. That makes it just about perfect.

No, taxation exists for the government to do things individuals cannot. I don't see how it's intruding on my private life by taking some money from me and others and go to somewhere that needs it.

Not in proportion to their incomes, they don't.
That's only a problem if you're presupposing that progressiveness is necessary.
Customs opens packages?
Yep. Welcome to Canada.

Llewdor taxing consumption does not affect the rich proportionately to the poor because you'll find that the poor buy lots of low cost consumer items, while the rich keep alot in hard assets and capital. The only way is a strict progressive tax on capital and inherited wealth.
Hard assets? Really? That's your claim?

The rich don't keep money in hard assets except for real estate, because hard assets don't appreciate. The rich invest their money, and that investment creates jobs for poor people.

of course, the things the wealthy actually spend their money on are specifically exempted from any tax at all...
That's a different problem, and one that needs to be addressed.

This is called corruption - it is the buying and selling of government interference in the market. Because the wealthy fund the politicians, the politicians do things to keep the wealthy happy. This has to stop for the market to be free.

That's a different problem, and one that needs to be addressed.

This is called corruption - it is the buying and selling of government interference in the market. Because the wealthy fund the politicians, the politicians do things to keep the wealthy happy. This has to stop for the market to be free.

Problem is there is no such thing as a completely free market. It's not in the human condition.....

Hard assets? Really? That's your claim?

The rich don't keep money in hard assets except for real estate, because hard assets don't appreciate. The rich invest their money, and that investment creates jobs for poor people.

That's the same bullshit libertarian argument I hear every time. The righ don't invest in stuff that creates jobs for poor people they invest in stuff that is just for investing and for rich people. Get out of your little theoretical happyworld and into real life.

Hard assets? Really? That's your claim?

The rich don't keep money in hard assets except for real estate, because hard assets don't appreciate. The rich invest their money, and that investment creates jobs for poor people.

Actually most job creation is done by the small business owner.

Actually most job creation is done by the small business owner.
Actually most job creation is done by giants like Wal Mart and Target. Small business is.

And who do you thi9nk will be hit harder by a progressive, bracketed tax system, the small business owner or the international mega-corporation VP?

Actually most job creation is done by giants like Wal Mart and Target. Small business is.

And who do you thi9nk will be hit harder by a progressive, bracketed tax system, the small business owner or the international mega-corporation VP?

Sorry even the shrub said it's the small business owner.

Here is some data.

http://www.sba.gov/gopher/Legislation-And-Regulations/factsadv.txt

"Fair Tax" is kind of like "Fair Trade." Basically it's just propaganda by using the positive associations one has with the idea of "fairness," and by labeling a tax or trade policy "fair" it simultaneously implies that all other tax or trade policies are somehow "unfair," thus adding the "we must right an injustice!" factor. Has nothing to do with *actual* policies, just playing games with labels. Incidentally, it's not unlike a "living wage," which is a ridiculous phrase as well. You can live on like 2 dollars a day, and many people do. Clearly they mean more than "living," so it's a loaded concept too. You can interpret "fair" just like "living" - however the hell you want.

BF,
I'll concede that small businesses were responsible for the majority of the 2005 2.5mil new jobs and that they employ about half of the private workforce, but how does hurting an employer financially help the employee?

That's only a problem if you're presupposing that progressiveness is necessary.Are you suggesting that everyone will spend an identical proportion of their incomes on new items, thus making the tax a flat tax?

Are you suggesting that everyone will spend an identical proportion of their incomes on new items, thus making the tax a flat tax?
If you were asking me, I'd restate that there is no need for a progressive tax of any sort. Find enough money to run the government, make sure lower income families don't bear a disproportionate part of the burden, and let people keep their property in excess of that amount.

The FairTax does exactly that:
1. It's revenue neutral with the current income tax
2. Prebates re-imburse anyone below the poverty line for taxes paid -- remember no one is paying payroll taxes under the FairTax.
3. The tax is applied in such a way that one can keep their property.

I know you just live and breath for a heavy progressive tax system. But just because Marx said is was good, doesn't make it so. A thriving economy should be its own reward.

If you were asking me, I'd restate that there is no need for a progressive tax of any sort. Find enough money to run the government, make sure lower income families don't bear a disproportionate part of the burden, and let people keep their property in excess of that amount.If lower income families are paying a higher percentage of their income in taxes, then they are bearing a disproportionate part of the burden.

If lower income families are paying a higher percentage of their income in taxes, then they are bearing a disproportionate part of the burden.
Are you listening? Reading?

They aren't paying ANY taxes.

There are no payroll taxes -- that includes Mediwhatever, SSI, Income, or any other tax that makes up the normal deductions.

They aren't paying sales tax on a very large dollar amount of retail purchases. The typical rebate for a family is so large that it will cover about $5000 per month of purchases.

And for those that are already eligible, there are all the existing entitlements that pay the rest of the bills.

Show me the taxes that they ARE paying! Okay, state sales tax... that is unchanged, but this is a federal income tax replacement, not a tax replacement.

Show me the taxes that they ARE paying! Okay, state sales tax... that is unchanged, but this is a federal income tax replacement, not a tax replacement.Uh, the fair tax is a sales tax. In order to buy things, most people will use the money from their incomes to do so.

That's not to say the IRS isn't f'ed up, it is. It needs to be simplified to a straight progressive tax with no funky rules about deductions.

He seems to be appealing to people's dislike of the IRS in order to sell the tax ... i.e. "support this tax and we can get rid of the IRS." Which is a shoddy way of doing things.

He also refers to it as being like "Waving a magic wand", which should always be a tip-off that someone is overselling a pet policy solution.

I know you just live and breath for a heavy progressive tax system. But just because Marx said is was good, doesn't make it so. A thriving economy should be its own reward.

Actually it was Adam Smith that advocated progressive taxation, based on the principle of "equality of sacrifice". That's right ... the founding father of capitalism. The concept was also endorsed by such notorious pinkos as JS Mill.

But seriously, why punish people for being successful? If anything I'd think that we'd want to help people become successful and rich, not make it harder for them and force everyone into the same lower middle class income bracket.

Your assuming alot here, including that making more money necessarily equates with success, and that taxes are some form of punishment. Also, it is hardly true that a slightly higher tax rate for people with much higher incomes is "forcing everyone into the same middle income bracket".

A progressive tax system is based on the principle of "equality of sacrifice". People with higher incomes can afford to pay a greater proportion of their income in taxes.

Uh, the fair tax is a sales tax. In order to buy things, most people will use the money from their incomes to do so.
What part of this are you having a hard time with?

The rebate reimburses citizens for taxable purchases up to a level determined by the poverty level. For a family of four, that a consumption allowance of $27,380 That means they can buy $27,380 of retail goods and will be reimbursed for all of the sales tax that they have paid. That applies equally to any family of four -- income doesn't matter.

Again, what part of that don't you understand?

If you are trying to claim that if a family of four, with a net worth less than Warren Buffet spends $27,400 on retail goods and is not reimbursed for that last $20, then the FairTax fails, you are as ignorant as you are idealistic.

But I don't think that's what your claiming. Eventually, you'll realize that there will be a large segment of the low income, working population that pays no tax at all and you will realize the FairTax IS the best thing since sliced bread.

What part of this are you having a hard time with?

The rebate reimburses citizens for taxable purchases up to a level determined by the poverty level. For a family of four, that a consumption allowance of $27,380 That means they can buy $27,380 of retail goods and will be reimbursed for all of the sales tax that they have paid. That applies equally to any family of four -- income doesn't matter.

Again, what part of that don't you understand?

If you are trying to claim that if a family of four, with a net worth less than Warren Buffet spends $27,400 on retail goods and is not reimbursed for that last $20, then the FairTax fails, you are as ignorant as you are idealistic.

But I don't think that's what your claiming. Eventually, you'll realize that there will be a large segment of the low income, working population that pays no tax at all and you will realize the FairTax IS the best thing since sliced bread.


I don't understand how. What total percentage of income would the government gain in tax money this way? More or less than the present income tax method? If less how will the country be able to both run, and support these rebates you talk about? Won't the majority of monies raised by this method be dished right back out to poor families via these tax rebates? Doesn't that make this a major tax on the rich?

I don't understand how. What total percentage of income would the government gain in tax money this way? More or less than the present income tax method? If less how will the country be able to both run, and support these rebates you talk about? Won't the majority of monies raised by this method be dished right back out to poor families via these tax rebates? Doesn't that make this a major tax on the rich?

There's a paper at FairTax.org that describes how the 23% inclusive sales tax will generate enough revenue to replace the Federal income tax. I'm not going to pretend that I understand it, let alone have read it entirely, but I would invite all the amateur economists here to do so.
http://www.fairtax.org/PDF/TaxingSalesUnderFairTax.pdf
I apologize in advance because my version of acrobat/Firefox doesn't open this today, although it has on previous visits. Probably just WinXP screwing up...

What part of this are you having a hard time with?

The rebate reimburses citizens for taxable purchases up to a level determined by the poverty level. For a family of four, that a consumption allowance of $27,380 That means they can buy $27,380 of retail goods and will be reimbursed for all of the sales tax that they have paid. That applies equally to any family of four -- income doesn't matter.

Again, what part of that don't you understand?

If you are trying to claim that if a family of four, with a net worth less than Warren Buffet spends $27,400 on retail goods and is not reimbursed for that last $20, then the FairTax fails, you are as ignorant as you are idealistic.

But I don't think that's what your claiming. Eventually, you'll realize that there will be a large segment of the low income, working population that pays no tax at all and you will realize the FairTax IS the best thing since sliced bread.I understand perfectly. This rebate applies to everyone. It doesn't affect the regressive nature of the tax.

There's a paper at FairTax.org that describes how the 23% inclusive sales tax will generate enough revenue to replace the Federal income tax.

Oh yeah, because I would be prone to believe the people over there blowing smoke up my ass about how if we implement the FairTax everything will suddenly be sunshine and rainbows because they have a paper.

I understand perfectly. This rebate applies to everyone. It doesn't affect the regressive nature of the tax.
I guess I'm at a loss for words...

The lowest incomes pay no federal tax because they are reimbursed for the sales tax and presumably don't spend above the consumption threshold on retail goods.

The next group pays a small amount of federal tax because they are reimbursed for the sales tax, up to the consumption threshold and presumably buy some small amount above that.

The highest income group is still reimbursed for that federal tax, up to the consumption threshold, but presumably spends much more on retail goods, thus they pay a larger federal tax than any of the other groups.

I don't especially care about labeling a tax progressive or regressive, when the net effect is zero on the segment of the population that should be burdened least by that same tax.

I guess I'm at a loss for words...

The lowest incomes pay no federal tax because they are reimbursed for the sales tax and presumably don't spend above the consumption threshold on retail goods.

The next group pays a small amount of federal tax because they are reimbursed for the sales tax, up to the consumption threshold and presumably buy some small amount above that.They are reimbursed up to the "poverty level", but everybody is. They will be spending all or nearly all of their income on retail goods.

The highest income group is still reimbursed for that federal tax, up to the consumption threshold, but presumably spends much more on retail goods, thus they pay a larger federal tax than any of the other groups.Whether or not they spend "much more" on retail goods, it will not be even close to nearly all of their income.
Thus, they pay taxes on a smaller percentage of their income than the lower classes (who make above the amount reimbursed, which would likely be everybody) will.

I don't especially care about labeling a tax progressive or regressive, when the net effect is zero on the segment of the population that should be burdened least by that same tax.Why should the tax burden be shifted onto the lower classes?

Why should the tax burden be shifted onto the lower classes?

Didn't you get the memo? "Trickle down economics" give all the money to the upper class and it will trickle down to the lower class.

You should be happy to get the pennies they miss!

Hmmm I wonder if the theme song should be "Pennies from heaven"

How realistic is it to expect anyone to save their prebate to cover sales tax? Most people will go OOH! MONEY! and spend it on something frivolous, returning a good bit of the prebate back to the gov't.

Why not just NOT tax goods that are necessities like food, toiletries, etc.

It cannot make up the revenue of now at 23%. No matter how you twist it. Also, people will be able to dodge this tax so easily it's not even funny. Even at establishments, they can just pocket the tax money and say it never existed...especially when in cash.

Are you suggesting that everyone will spend an identical proportion of their incomes on new items, thus making the tax a flat tax?
Not at all. But you seem to be claiming that they won't.

How realistic is it to expect anyone to save their prebate to cover sales tax? Most people will go OOH! MONEY! and spend it on something frivolous, returning a good bit of the prebate back to the gov't.

Why not just NOT tax goods that are necessities like food, toiletries, etc.

It cannot make up the revenue of now at 23%. No matter how you twist it. Also, people will be able to dodge this tax so easily it's not even funny. Even at establishments, they can just pocket the tax money and say it never existed...especially when in cash.

This is so funny, I can't stop laughing long enough to give you a serious reply. But you don't deserve one, either.

I will say that behavior as you describe in the first paragraph is why poor people are poor and rich people aren't -- to a very large extent.

This is so funny, I can't stop laughing long enough to give you a serious reply. But you don't deserve one, either.

I will say that behavior as you describe in the first paragraph is why poor people are poor and rich people aren't -- to a very large extent.

Uh...no. Poor people react like that because they have no way out. Even if they do scrimp and save, it takes a few generations to put it all together. Get our of your little happyworld.

Not at all. But you seem to be claiming that they won't.Since people do not do so now, there's no reason to believe it will occur in the future. Now, poorer people spend larger portions of their income than richer people, and there's no reason to expect that to change.

Snip

Actually it was Adam Smith that advocated progressive taxation, based on the principle of "equality of sacrifice". That's right ... the founding father of capitalism. The concept was also endorsed by such notorious pinkos as JS Mill.

No, I didn't think you'd have a response to that.

Since I haven't seen it answered yet I'll ask it again. How does hurting an employer financially help his/her employees?

I will say that behavior as you describe in the first paragraph is why poor people are poor and rich people aren't -- to a very large extent.

And to a much larger extent the poor were born poor and the rich weren't.

No, I didn't think you'd have a response to that.
One has to separate the wheat from the chaff. This was chaff. You don't even want to get started on Adam Smith and modern taxation. It's a battle you can't win.

In fact, if you really know Adam Smith's work, you would not even have tried to use his theories in support of an income tax.

One has to separate the wheat from the chaff. This was chaff. You don't even want to get started on Adam Smith and modern taxation. It's a battle you can't win.

In fact, if you really know Adam Smith's work, you would not even have tried to use his theories in support of an income tax.

My point was merely that a progressive income tax was not a Marxist idea, as you were insinuating; it was a classical liberal one.

And I am separating the wheat from the chaff. Hence why I am endorsing a conceptually sound idea like equality of sacrifice (i.e. a recognition that equality does not consist of treating everyone as if they are in exactly the same position) while rejecting some of Smith's other views.

Didn't you get the memo? "Trickle down economics" give all the money to the upper class and it will trickle down to the lower class.

You should be happy to get the pennies they miss!

Hmmm I wonder if the theme song should be "Pennies from heaven"

Heheh wot rot. We had on TV last night a fine program detailing what different wages where available in different jobs here in the UK. More than this it detailed the gap between the high earners and the low earners and showed in fact that not only is the gap between the rich and the poor widening, but it does not look like it will be slowing down soon.

Trickle down, simply is a pile of poo.

Heheh wot rot. We had on TV last night a fine program detailing what different wages where available in different jobs here in the UK. More than this it detailed the gap between the high earners and the low earners and showed in fact that not only is the gap between the rich and the poor widening, but it does not look like it will be slowing down soon.

Trickle down, simply is a pile of poo.
I was wondering what y'all expect from supply side economics. I don't think it's ever been promoted as a panacea to poverty, only as a more effective means to control the economy.

Truth is, it's always worked. Cut tax rates and the economy grows.

I was wondering what y'all expect from supply side economics. I don't think it's ever been promoted as a panacea to poverty, only as a more effective means to control the economy.

Truth is, it's always worked. Cut tax rates and the economy grows.

You are right it has always worked. To make the rich richer.

An example for you. On last nights program we found out that the the boss of Barclays bank is currently the UK's top payed boss. His earnings totaling in excess of £25 million last year.

Now a company can only pay it's employee's as much as it's profit allows it, would you agree?

Why then did that £25 million not get shared out with the rest of the emplyee's of Barclays?

I know I know, stress of the job, reponcabilties demanding greater salery, and rewarding success etc...

But why not give the say £500k, I'd say that is a fantastic wage, and let all of the others employed by Barclays get a wage increase in line with the profits?

It makes more sense in trickle down economics to make sure that more people have more money in their pockets than just a few, doesn't it? How does one man spending say £2 million on a private jet do more for the economy on the whole than say 200,000 spending their extra wage increase in grociers?

Trickle down, simply is a pile of poo.
Trickle down has always been bullshit but the Republicans keep eating it up.
If trickle down economics worked, the rich wouldn't be so disproportionately richer than the rest of us. They don't become rich by blowing all that extra money they are getting by way of trickle down.

My point was merely that a progressive income tax was not a Marxist idea, as you were insinuating; it was a classical liberal one.

And I am separating the wheat from the chaff. Hence why I am endorsing a conceptually sound idea like equality of sacrifice (i.e. a recognition that equality does not consist of treating everyone as if they are in exactly the same position) while rejecting some of Smith's other views.
The difference between Smith and Marx is that Smith wanted equitable and efficient taxation. To suggest a progressive tax on income was what he intended is nonsense. As I recall, he preferred taxing unused land, most of all, because it would have the least effect on the economy; taxing income was his worst nightmare because of the way it diverts resources from wealth-creating activity. I think Smith would have applauded the FairTax, as it meets all of his maxims.[equity, efficiency, transparency, and convenience if you've forgotten]

The heavily progressive income tax, on the other hand, IS a Marxist concept.

The difference between Smith and Marx is that Smith wanted equitable and efficient taxation. To suggest a progressive tax on income was what he intended is nonsense. As I recall, he preferred taxing unused land, most of all, because it would have the least effect on the economy; taxing income was his worst nightmare because of the way it diverts resources from wealth-creating activity. I think Smith would have applauded the FairTax, as it meets all of his maxims.[equity, efficiency, transparency, and convenience if you've forgotten]

The heavily progressive income tax, on the other hand, IS a Marxist concept.Yeah, well Smith also believed in the homo economicus, who's currently playing strip poker with Santa Claus.

You are right it has always worked. To make the rich richer.

An example for you. On last nights program we found out that the the boss of Barclays bank is currently the UK's top payed boss. His earnings totaling in excess of £25 million last year.

Now a company can only pay it's employee's as much as it's profit allows it, would you agree?

Why then did that £25 million not get shared out with the rest of the emplyee's of Barclays?

I know I know, stress of the job, reponcabilties demanding greater salery, and rewarding success etc...

But why not give the say £500k, I'd say that is a fantastic wage, and let all of the others employed by Barclays get a wage increase in line with the profits?

It makes more sense in trickle down economics to make sure that more people have more money in their pockets than just a few, doesn't it? How does one man spending say £2 million on a private jet do more for the economy on the whole than say 200,000 spending their extra wage increase in grociers?
So I read that you expect something for nothing... Not a realistic goal. I'm going to end this by saying that an expanding economy is going to benefit everyone and that a receding economy benefits no one. Tax cuts, in conjunction with governmental spending restraint will guarantee an expanding economy. If you waste your time in envy of the successful, you aren't going to be in any position to take advantage of the gains you could make.

I'm done, as you seem to be well-entrenched in your jealously of the rich. But you have the last word.

So I read that you expect something for nothing... Not a realistic goal. I'm going to end this by saying that an expanding economy is going to benefit everyone and that a receding economy benefits no one. Tax cuts, in conjunction with governmental spending restraint will guarantee an expanding economy. If you waste your time in envy of the successful, you aren't going to be in any position to take advantage of the gains you could make.

I'm done, as you seem to be well-entrenched in your jealously of the rich. But you have the last word.

Bwahahah then your reading must be of some magickal kind to see things that I just didn't say, or your powers of assumption are astounding, whatever.

I have no jealousy of the rich, I'm not exactly poor you see. But I do have a fine sense of fairness.

So after all of that assumption, do you think you'll answer my questions?

Just to remind you what they are.

Is it better for the economy for one man(The MD) to have vast amounts of extra income, or for 200,000(the employee's of the MD)people to have extra income in line with the profits of whichever company they work for?

And what is wrong with all employee's of a successful company gaining a wage increase in line with that companies profits, rather than giving the majority of wage increase to the minority at the top, economically speaking?

The heavily progressive income tax, on the other hand, IS a Marxist concept.
How heavy is heavy? Compared to a few decades ago, income taxes are far less progressive.

These two questions are answered as one. It is no one's business what another is paid. That is a contract between the employee and the company. What one is worth is only accurately gaged by those concerned.

If the employees don't like the wage structure, no one is preventing them from asking for an adjustment and no one is preventing them from selling their skills elsewhere.

Which actually answers none of the questions I put to you. Which leaves me to believe that you can't answer them, or you don't wish to, for some odd reason.

*shrug* Fair doo's then.

Is it better for the economy for one man(The MD) to have vast amounts of extra income, or for 200,000(the employee's of the MD)people to have extra income in line with the profits of whichever company they work for?

And what is wrong with all employee's of a successful company gaining a wage increase in line with that companies profits, rather than giving the majority of wage increase to the minority at the top, economically speaking?

These two questions are answered as one. It is no one's business what another is paid. That is a contract between the employee and the company. What one is worth is only accurately gaged by those concerned.

If the employees don't like the wage structure, no one is preventing them from asking for an adjustment and no one is preventing them from selling their skills elsewhere.

It seems very unrealistic.

If someone could give us the total amount of retail sales for a given year, and show us the tax revenue for the same year, we could crunch some numbers and see if it's remotely feasible.

How heavy is heavy? Compared to a few decades ago, income taxes are far less progressive.

Beats the hell out of me. Find a communist and ask. After all, it's 2 of 10 on Marx's list (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/manifest.txt) of things to do to ruin a capitalist country.

It seems very unrealistic.

If someone could give us the total amount of retail sales for a given year, and show us the tax revenue for the same year, we could crunch some numbers and see if it's remotely feasible.
I've done that twice. Smarter economists than you and I have determined it's feasible and that the 23% inclusive rate is sufficient to replace a large number of taxes at the federal level.

I've done that twice. Smarter economists than you and I have determined it's feasible and that the 23% inclusive rate is sufficient to replace a large number of taxes at the federal level.

So, you don't have the numbers then. Instead you have an appeal to some vague authority whose work you don't even link to.

Like I said: unrealistic.

So, you don't have the numbers then. Instead you have an appeal to some vague authority whose work you don't even link to.

Like I said: unrealistic.

Hehe that is what I suspected, I'm still waiting for answers to my questions. Perhaps he knows nowt about economics?

So, you don't have the numbers then. Instead you have an appeal to some vague authority whose work you don't even link to.

Like I said: unrealistic.
But the people who earned a BA in bulshitting with numbers said it was so!

As this seems to only be an American thing at the moment, and from what I’ve read it seems infeasible and unlikely to be implemented, all I’d like to add is that any economic or political policy which has an emotionally-charged weasel-word in its name is most probably bullshit.

But the people who earned a BA in bulshitting with numbers said it was so!
Well, these are the people who want to fool people into thinking their 30% sales tax is only 23%.

Yeah, well Smith also believed in the homo economicus, who's currently playing strip poker with Santa Claus.

As long as a person has the ability to think rationally, he can credible aspire to be homo economicus.

Therefore, if homo economicus isn't a useful concept, either you don't want to encourage good decisions, or you think some (or most) people aren't rational.

As it happens, I do want to encourage good decisions, so in that sense I support the homo economicus model. Exercise your rational thought or fall behind; it's your choice.

As for whether people are rational, no they're not. Most people appear not to have the capacity for rational thought. However, rational thought is the only thing that really separates us from animals and makes us sentient, so if people aren't rational I don't see why I should care about their welfare, and thus I still support using homo economicus because it applies neatly to the people I actually care about helping.

Heheh wot rot. We had on TV last night a fine program detailing what different wages where available in different jobs here in the UK. More than this it detailed the gap between the high earners and the low earners and showed in fact that not only is the gap between the rich and the poor widening, but it does not look like it will be slowing down soon.

Trickle down, simply is a pile of poo.
That the gap is growing is not evidence that trickle-down doesn't work. Trickle-down isn't supposed to make the gap smaller - it's just supposed to make the poor richer. That the rich get richer faster isn't considered.

As for CEO's getting paid tremendous amounts, they only get paid that much because someone thinks they're worth it. Remember what happened to Ben & Jerry's when they tried not to pay their executives high wages.

As long as a person has the ability to think rationally, he can credible aspire to be homo economicus.

Therefore, if homo economicus isn't a useful concept, either you don't want to encourage good decisions, or you think some (or most) people aren't rational.

As it happens, I do want to encourage good decisions, so in that sense I support the homo economicus model. Exercise your rational thought or fall behind; it's your choice.

As for whether people are rational, no they're not. Most people appear not to have the capacity for rational thought. However, rational thought is the only thing that really separates us from animals and makes us sentient, so if people aren't rational I don't see why I should care about their welfare, and thus I still support using homo economicus because it applies neatly to the people I actually care about helping.

you know, you really aren't offering much help when it comes time to demonstrate that homo economicus isn't a sociopath.

As for CEO's getting paid tremendous amounts, they only get paid that much because someone thinks they're worth it.

Circular logic

Circular logic

ohhh cleverness, that's a philosophy term if i'm not mistaken, that's a tricky subject from what i hear, other people i know like it though, well except from one friend who was enjoying the stuff about plato, nietze(who is a nutter by the way), then he got onto Ven diagrams, and he hated them.

you know, you really aren't offering much help when it comes time to demonstrate that homo economicus isn't a sociopath.
I don't share your bias against sociopathy.

No one should be vilified for his point of view. His actions, perhaps, but not his point of view.

Circular logic
You think they're worth it because they get paid a lot?

Quick, someone give me $1 million. Apparently I'll be worth it!

That the gap is growing is not evidence that trickle-down doesn't work. Trickle-down isn't supposed to make the gap smaller - it's just supposed to make the poor richer. That the rich get richer faster isn't considered.


Ahh so what you are saying is the claim that trickle down economics benefits the lower classes is indeed false or greatly over exaggerated.


As for CEO's getting paid tremendous amounts, they only get paid that much because someone thinks they're worth it. Remember what happened to Ben & Jerry's when they tried not to pay their executives high wages.

Of course. The board decided it. The more the CEO makes means the more they can make.

Pay is not always commiserate with effort, ability or quality when it comes to an exec.

Take for example the former CEO of Home Depot. He took over and basically drove the company into the ground. He made millions during it's collapse. He was finally fired for failing to meet all objectives and was rewarded with a 220 million for leaving.

The difference between Smith and Marx is that Smith wanted equitable and efficient taxation. To suggest a progressive tax on income was what he intended is nonsense.

How about this nonsense from Smith himself:

"It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."


As I recall, he preferred taxing unused land, most of all, because it would have the least effect on the economy;

If he referred to land rents, it is because land rents would have been the primary source of income of the upper classes at that time, not because he was restricting himself to the concept that only land rents should be taxed progressively.


taxing income was his worst nightmare because of the way it diverts resources from wealth-creating activity.

And yet, the citation above directly contradicts your assertion.


I think Smith would have applauded the FairTax, as it meets all of his maxims.[equity, efficiency, transparency, and convenience if you've forgotten]

That may be. But the fact remains that he endorsed progressive income tax as efficient, equitable and transparent as well.


The heavily progressive income tax, on the other hand, IS a Marxist concept.

Yes ... heavily. And yet you insinuated that a progressive income tax was a Marxist concept, period. I disputed that allegation be showing that ithe concept of "equality of sacrifice" and progresive income taxation was first proposed by Smith and later endorsed by other prominent classical liberals such as Milne. And it remains a valid and equitable means of taxation today.

Of course. The board decided it. The more the CEO makes means the more they can make.
Ah yes, the board. The people with salaries more absurd than the CEO proportionally.

As for whether people are rational, no they’re not. Most people appear not to have the capacity for rational thought. However, rational thought is the only thing that really separates us from animals and makes us sentient, so if people aren’t rational I don’t see why I should care about their welfare, and thus I still support using homo economicus because it applies neatly to the people I actually care about helping.
No-one is 100% rational all the time, and yet all of us (barring perhaps the very young, mentally ill or severely disabled) utilise rational thought at some time. That’s why social and economic theories that rely on the perfectly rational human being (game theory et al) fall flat on their faces.

Indeed, you yourself aren’t acting rationally (and so under your schema shouldn’t be eligible for welfare). Among other things, you apparently believe false statements regarding non-human animals and sentience and you have, in contradiction of evidence, irrational attitudes to humans and their capacity for rational thought. Moreover, you seem to be advocating a system which would never give any welfare to the very young, mentally ill or severely disabled; a system which would lead to the human species dying out.

Hardly rational.

Unless, of course, you can show us a human being who is 100% rational or 100% non-rational.

You think they're worth it because they get paid a lot?


No, I don't. Obviously I don't.

I didn't bother reading every page, so don't slaughter me if I missed something.

Being an independent contractor, I am in favor of Fair Tax. It is a lot easier then me going through everything I bought, every mile I drove, every hotel I stayed in, every tire I replaced, every piece of clothing I bought... then adding it all up and deducting it at the end of the year, then boxing it all up and praying I do not get audited.

Being an independent contractor I am liable for up to 33% of my entire income, in my tax bracket, which is preposterous.

I would sleep better at night just paying a standard 20-25% tax on everything... except for houses and vehicles. :p

But then again, even if Huckabee got elected president... congress would never let it pass.

I don't share your bias against sociopathy.

well, obviously. but since sociopathy is inherently not part of the good human life, i think i'm happy with my anti-sociopath bias.

No one should be vilified for his point of view. His actions, perhaps, but not his point of view.

we've had this debate before, and i still maintain that it is right and good to vilify fascists, even if the particular fascists in question are too weak to actually go out and beat up foreigners. shit, it is actually morally obligatory to do so in that case.

Since I haven't seen it answered yet I'll ask it again. How does hurting an employer financially help his/her employees?

I don't see how a guy making $300 million a year can be hurt financially by $150 million in taxes.

I was wondering what y'all expect from supply side economics. I don't think it's ever been promoted as a panacea to poverty, only as a more effective means to control the economy.

Truth is, it's always worked. Cut tax rates and the economy grows.

I won't deny it, but it's the part of the economy that doesn't need growth.

expanding economy is going to benefit everyone
Not true at all. Statistically an economy could be expanding, but it often is all in the top tiers.
Tax cuts, in conjunction with governmental spending restraint will guarantee an expanding economy.
No...what if people don't feel like spending or a terrorist attack occurs or any other number of things? Look at now with all this credit business. Has nothing to do with the government at all.

These two questions are answered as one. It is no one's business what another is paid. That is a contract between the employee and the company. What one is worth is only accurately gaged by those concerned.

If the employees don't like the wage structure, no one is preventing them from asking for an adjustment and no one is preventing them from selling their skills elsewhere.

What contract? Since when do contracts say that the big guy receives $300 million a year and the little guys receive $300 a week? If every company has the same unfair wage structure, how can they go anywhere else?

Beats the hell out of me. Find a communist and ask. After all, it's 2 of 10 on Marx's list (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/manifest.txt) of things to do to perfect a capitalist country.

Fixed

That the gap is growing is not evidence that trickle-down doesn't work. Trickle-down isn't supposed to make the gap smaller - it's just supposed to make the poor richer.
But, it doesn't.

As for CEO's getting paid tremendous amounts, they only get paid that much because someone thinks they're worth it. Remember what happened to Ben & Jerry's when they tried not to pay their executives high wages.
No they don't. They get paid that because it's impossible to negotiate down and they're so used to it. If it drops, they'll be angry.a

I don't see how a guy making $300 million a year can be hurt financially by $150 million in taxes.
Do you see how a guy earning $30,000 a year could be hurt financially by $15,000 in taxes?

The two are equivalent (unless you accept diminishing marginal utility applies to liquid assets, which I do not).
But, it doesn't.
That's beside the point. It was said that the growing gap between rich and poor is evidence that trickle-down isn't working. If you want to present evidence that trickle-down isn't working, go right ahead, but the wealth gap isn't it.

Plus, are you sure it isn't working? The poorest people in America are among the richest people in the world.

Do you see how a guy earning $30,000 a year could be hurt financially by $15,000 in taxes?

The two are equivalent (unless you accept diminishing marginal utility applies to liquid assets, which I do not).


His $15,000 goes toward rent and food and clothing.

Plus, are you sure it isn't working? The poorest people in America are among the richest people in the world.

:rolleyes: Oh I am sure that makes it all better then.

If you are going to use that comparison, then the upperclass is WAAAAYYYYYY overpaid and thus higher taxes are warranted.....

No-one is 100% rational all the time
No? I'm certain you can't demonstrate that.
and yet all of us (barring perhaps the very young, mentally ill or severely disabled) utilise rational thought at some time.
I don't think that's true. Too often I find that people are willing to hold two mutually exclusive opinions simultaneously (or in rapid succession, without any relevant cause to switch back and forth).

I'm not asking for ideal rational agents, people who have perfect and total awareness of the full extent of their opinions at all times. Being ideally rational is likely beyond human capacity. But if a human makes a decision using conscious thought (and all decisions should be so made), that thought should be rational thought (or at least try to be, and be open to correction when shown to be irrational).

Over time, we'd learn.
That’s why social and economic theories that rely on the perfectly rational human being (game theory et al) fall flat on their faces.
They fall flat because many people are incapable of taking part fully. It's not the theories that fail, it's the measurement of those theories.
Indeed, you yourself aren’t acting rationally (and so under your schema shouldn’t be eligible for welfare). Among other things, you apparently believe false statements regarding non-human animals and sentience and you have, in contradiction of evidence, irrational attitudes to humans and their capacity for rational thought.
I'd love you to point those out. What false beliefs do I hold regarding non-human animals? And what, praytell, is an "irrational attitude"?
Moreover, you seem to be advocating a system which would never give any welfare to the very young, mentally ill or severely disabled; a system which would lead to the human species dying out.
Why would that lead to the species dying out? Some people would probably fund the very young (like their parents), and there are good utilitarian arguments why we shouldn't fund the mentally ill and severely disabled.

:rolleyes: Oh I am sure that makes it all better then.

If you are going to use that comparison, then the upperclass is WAAAAYYYYYY overpaid and thus higher taxes are warranted.....
Why? We're talking about the poor. The upperclass is only overpaid as a result of this comparison if you're presupposing the equality is valuable.

Why? We're talking about the poor. The upperclass is only overpaid as a result of this comparison if you're presupposing the equality is valuable.

Then bringing up the rest of the worlds poor doesn't fit this discussion.

What is your intent by stating yes they are poor but compared to other countries......

Do you see how a guy earning $30,000 a year could be hurt financially by $15,000 in taxes?

The two are equivalent
Sure they are, if you dismiss the implications of the fact there is a numerical difference of x10.

Do you see how a guy earning $30,000 a year could be hurt financially by $15,000 in taxes?
Yes, of course. I don't see the relevance. There is a huge difference between $30,000 and $300,000,000.

But then again, even if Huckabee got elected president... congress would never let it pass.

And there is the real rub... We depend on a group of people that like the power of taxing to give that power away. You are right. It will never happen. The bill will probably never get more than the 70 sponsors that it has now.

If we can't get the FairTax, we should at least demand a limit on Federal spending. Deficits and inflation are a form of taxation, too. Perhaps we could follow the example of the Baptists and require that that the Federal government spend no more than 10 percent of the GDP? After all, if 10 percent is good enough for the church, it should be more than sufficient for the government.

I don't see how a guy making $300 million a year can be hurt financially by $150 million in taxes.
He can't hire as many people as he'd like to for starters so it's not only hitting him hard, it's also hurting the economy by limiting growth and raising unemployment. So it not only hurts the rich it also hurts the poor that they hire to do their work and share a slice of the pie with depending on how much they contribute. Not to mention it's also treating people differently before the law and that the treatment is based on class. I guess one could argue that what you propose is populism and a form of class warfare. Kind of like the Nazis and the Soviets.

When you think about it the only real winner are the fat worthless parasites in government.

After all, if 10 percent is good enough for the church, it should be more than sufficient for the government.

haha

He can't hire as many people as he'd like to for starters so it's not only hitting him hard, it's also hurting the economy by limiting growth and raising unemployment. So it not only hurts the rich it also hurts the poor that they hire to do their work and share a slice of the pie with depending on how much they contribute. Not to mention it's also treating people differently before the law and that the treatment is based on class. I guess one could argue that what you propose is populism and a form of class warfare. Kind of like the Nazis and the Soviets.


If you can show a President/CEO using his personal income to hire employees I would be interested.

However, I don't think you can.

He was speaking about income taxes and not business taxes.

When you think about it the only real winner are the fat worthless parasites in government.

Businessmen are just as parasitic as government men. Golden parachutes for example. The fact the board of directors are the first ones cashed out when a company is being liquidated.....

If you can show a President/CEO using his personal income to hire employees I would be interested.
I can show you small businessmen who do. May not be making 300 million, just 300 grand, but charging him 150 grand will hurt him. Look, if you believe in the method of speeding tickets they've got in, what was it, Finland where they charge you not a set sum but a month's wage or something like that then at least everyone is being treated equally and the rich aren't just being singled out and punished for being rich. That's what a flat tax is, a set perentage of your pay is taken, the rich pay more because they make more but everyone is still treated equally.

He was speaking about income taxes and not business taxes.
I'm not a fan of either.

Businessmen are just as parasitic as government men. Golden parachutes for example. The fact the board of directors are the first ones cashed out when a company is being liquidated.....
Exactly why I'd want to be on a board of directors. Also, how is an investor or oganizer a parasite? They invest some money or organize a force of people and then skim a little of the reward, hopefully proportional to their investment or involvement. I know that isn't always the case but the world isn't perfect and trying to influence people's behavior, especially with money doesn't have the best of histories.

Keep in mind that I am poor. Really. I'm just out of college and seeking better employment than what I've got. I still believe that the rich shouldn't be punished for being rich, I despise populism. I want to be an individual, I want to choose my fate. I don't want or need some self-rightous ass telling me who I should get mad at, who I should vote for, what I should want, or what I should believe. I hope to someday be wealthy enough for a pretty big tomb to make me look more important to people in the future than I really was.

No? I’m certain you can’t demonstrate that.
No, because that would require observing every single human, past and present, noting their actions and determining if they were a rational choice or not; a physically impossible task.

However, could you point to a 100% rational human being? Of course not.

I don’t think that’s true. Too often I find that people are willing to hold two mutually exclusive opinions simultaneously (or in rapid succession, without any relevant cause to switch back and forth).
But this doesn't show in any way non-rational humans. Merely humans who are sometimes irrational.

I’m not asking for ideal rational agents, people who have perfect and total awareness of the full extent of their opinions at all times.
Then why say you’d wish welfare be withheld from non-rational individuals?

Being ideally rational is likely beyond human capacity. But if a human makes a decision using conscious thought (and all decisions should be so made), that thought should be rational thought (or at least try to be, and be open to correction when shown to be irrational).
You accept that ‘ideally rational’, or 100% rational behaviour is likely beyond human capacities; we are, after all, fallible creatures who are often swayed by emotion, rhetoric, etc. Then why go ahead and construct policies and theories on the assumption that we are rational?

They fall flat because many people are incapable of taking part fully. It’s not the theories that fail, it’s the measurement of those theories.
The ‘measurement of those theories’? Those theories assume that humans are 100% rational, and base their predictions on that assumption. That assumption is wrong. Therefore the predictions are also wrong, and any policy based on said predictions will be misguided.

Why establish social policies based on incorrect models of how society works?

I’d love you to point those out.
Righty-ho...

What false beliefs do I hold regarding non-human animals?
You say that “rational thought is the only thing that really separates us from animals and makes us sentient”. However, non-human animals display rational thought (toolmaking, for example) and rational though is not the only indicator of sentience (awareness of other minds than oneself is another).

And what, praytell, is an “irrational attitude”?
An attitude (belief) that is not rational.

Why would that lead to the species dying out? Some people would probably fund the very young (like their parents), and there are good utilitarian arguments why we shouldn’t fund the mentally ill and severely disabled.
If we gave no welfare of any kind to young children they would die. No young children living means no human race. An extreme example, but one that would perhaps arise from your insistence that non-rational humans be given no welfare.

On the subject of welfare for the mentally ill and severely disabled, I can only think of a very crude, monetary-based utilitarian argument for denying welfare. Could you outline a sophisticated one?

That the gap is growing is not evidence that trickle-down doesn't work. Trickle-down isn't supposed to make the gap smaller - it's just supposed to make the poor richer. That the rich get richer faster isn't considered.

As for CEO's getting paid tremendous amounts, they only get paid that much because someone thinks they're worth it. Remember what happened to Ben & Jerry's when they tried not to pay their executives high wages.

Well the poor are certainly not getting richer. And in this country where we have those on the lower income getting pay rises below the rate of inflation, while the cost of fuel, travel, food lodgeings etc.. going up, then I don't see them doing so.

Who I wonder is it that decides what an MD gets paid? Ohh yeah it's the MD. Let me make myself clear here, I'm all for company MD's getting paid more than their staff, pressures of the job, the skills they bring to the company etc.. but it is more than a little unfair for the rest of the employee's not to be rewarded for their own part in a successful company.

One of the questions that I have asked(and has still not been answered) is, what makes it economically unviable for all employee's to take a fairer cut of company profits in the way of higher pay rises in line with such profits? Also what makes more economical sense, that one man has an extra £25million to put back into the economy or that 200,000 people have extra cash in their pockets to do the same?

Do you see how a guy earning $30,000 a year could be hurt financially by $15,000 in taxes?


Are you claiming here that those on a $30,000 PA wage pay income tax at 50%?

Well the poor are certainly not getting richer. And in this country where we have those on the lower income getting pay rises below the rate of inflation, while the cost of fuel, travel, food lodgeings etc.. going up, then I don't see them doing so.

The bottom 20% have not seen any increase in real wages since the early 1960's. The good news is that those wage levels haven't decreased, but 40, going on 50, years of zero change tends not to be a good thing. Some growth is necessary to enable people in that bottom 20% to lift themselves up to higher levels of income.

The bottom 20% have not seen any increase in real wages since the early 1960's. The good news is that those wage levels haven't decreased, but 40, going on 50, years of zero change tends not to be a good thing. Some growth is necessary to enable people in that bottom 20% to lift themselves up to higher levels of income.
The other good news is that the bottom 20% don't stay the same. Income mobility is alive and well in the U.S., or so says the U.S. Treasury.

The other good news is that the bottom 20% don't stay the same. Income mobility is alive and well in the U.S., or so says the U.S. Treasury.

While here in the UK, we are told that upward mobility is now harder than it was 20 years ago.

If we can't get the FairTax, we should at least demand a limit on Federal spending.Now this I could get behind.

I That's what a flat tax is, a set perentage of your pay is taken, the rich pay more because they make more but everyone is still treated equally.Whether or not a flat tax has merits, it is different than the FairTax, which does not take an equal share of everyone's pay.

The other good news is that the bottom 20% don't stay the same. Income mobility is alive and well in the U.S., or so says the U.S. Treasury.

Which I doubt anyone else but you believes.

The other good news is that the bottom 20% don't stay the same. Income mobility is alive and well in the U.S., or so says the U.S. Treasury.

Yes, but there is still room for improvement.

Do you see how a guy earning $30,000 a year could be hurt financially by $15,000 in taxes?

The two are equivalent (unless you accept diminishing marginal utility applies to liquid assets, which I do not).

Or if you accept that when making $30,000 a year, a far larger portion of your income goes to necessities, whereas if you make $3,000,000, a larger portion goes to luxuries. Again ... it is about equality of sacrifice.


That's beside the point. It was said that the growing gap between rich and poor is evidence that trickle-down isn't working. If you want to present evidence that trickle-down isn't working, go right ahead, but the wealth gap isn't it.

Plus, are you sure it isn't working? The poorest people in America are among the richest people in the world.

In absolute terms maybe, but not necessarily in real terms.

As long as a person has the ability to think rationally, he can credible aspire to be homo economicus.


I think you are mistaking a theoretical construct with an ideal state of being.

Are you claiming here that those on a $30,000 PA wage pay income tax at 50%?

No, but I think he is suggesting that a flat tax would be fair.

No, but I think he is suggesting that a flat tax would be fair.

I guess that would depend on what products or even services you alloted this tax to.

Food? Clothing? Yachts? Sesna's?

I guess that would depend on what products or even services you alloted this tax to.

Food? Clothing? Yachts? Sesna's?

Well, it would be a heck of alot fairer if they didn't charge it on necessities.

Well, it would be a heck of alot fairer if they didn't charge it on necessities.

Yes I agree. Some things though do bother me. I have seen the figure 23% being bandied around, I can only assume this is on top of the retail price?

What effect would this have on the strength of the dollar vs other currency? Would this adversely effect import and export? Would you find that people would go to Mexico or Canada to buy their bigger purchases, and thus avoid this tax? What would be the added strain on border tax and revenue staff to avoid this?

Couldn't the extreamly rich buy overseas if they found it to be cheaper to pay for importing?

While here in the UK, we are told that upward mobility is now harder than it was 20 years ago.

Y'all need to get rid of your socialist, welfare state, nanny government... Here's the press release for the U.S. Treasury study.

http://www.treasury.gov/press/releases/hp673.htm

The most interesting part is the last bullet, "Median incomes of those initially in the lower income groups increased more than the median incomes of those initially in the high income groups."

So, while there's alway room for improvement, the wage increases do seem to be larger at the lower end.

Y'all need to get rid of your socialist, welfare state, nanny government... Here's the press release for the U.S. Treasury study.

http://www.treasury.gov/press/releases/hp673.htm

The most interesting part is the last bullet, "Median incomes of those initially in the lower income groups increased more than the median incomes of those initially in the high income groups."

So, while there's alway room for improvement, the wage increases do seem to be larger at the lower end.

Umm we haven't got a socialist, welfare, nanny state.

The most interesting part is the last bullet, "Median incomes of those initially in the lower income groups increased more than the median incomes of those initially in the high income groups."
Which of course is a lot of words meaning nothing at all.

Umm we haven't got a socialist, welfare, nanny state.

Ignore him. According to people like Myrmidonisia, any country that doesn't tell its people to go fuck themselves is a socialist, wellfare, nanny state.

Umm we haven't got a socialist, welfare, nanny state.

It was a joke.

It was a joke.

Ohhh then, hah hah!:D

Ignore him. According to people like Myrmidonisia, any country that doesn't tell its people to go fuck themselves is a socialist, wellfare, nanny state.

Heh I'd like to but I'm still waiting for him to answer some of my questions!:rolleyes:

Which of course is a lot of words meaning nothing at all.
Only to the ignorant and stupid. Which are you, again?

Heh I'd like to but I'm still waiting for him to answer some of my questions!:rolleyes:
Hey pal, I did. You just didn't like the answer.

I gave you a general answer that covered your specific cases. I can't help it if you don't agree that the wage an employee is paid is solely due to his worth to the employer. That's true if the guy makes minimum wage or several hundred times that.

There's absolutely no reason that an employee should get a raise, other than the reason that he's now more valuable to the employer and should get more money because of it.

Hey pal, I did. You just didn't like the answer.

I gave you a general answer that covered your specific cases. I can't help it if you don't agree that the wage an employee is paid is solely due to his worth to the employer. That's true if the guy makes minimum wage or several hundred times that.

There's absolutely no reason that an employee should get a raise, other than the reason that he's now more valuable to the employer and should get more money because of it.

No you didn't what you said in effect was 'ahhh quite ya whingeing' Which actually answered neither of my questions.

Even here you do not answer my questions, perhaps you answer what you think I asked.

I gave you a general answer that covered your specific cases. I can't help it if you don't agree that the wage an employee is paid is solely due to his worth to the employer. That's true if the guy makes minimum wage or several hundred times that.

There's absolutely no reason that an employee should get a raise, other than the reason that he's now more valuable to the employer and should get more money because of it.

Possibly true in the case of employees, but I doubt it is univerally true in the case of directors and officers. Directors and officers salaries and stipends are determine by ... the board of directors. Which usually consists of people that serve as directors and officers of all sorts of other companies.

Sure, technically the shareholders could revolt if they thought the officers were being groslly overpaid. But the companies shareholder voting systems are generally rigged to be pro-management and maintain the status quo.

And that is why CEO's can be outrageously overpaid, even when they often turn out to be destroying shareholder value.

Possibly true in the case of employees, but I doubt it is univerally true in the case of directors and officers. Directors and officers salaries and stipends are determine by ... the board of directors. Which usually consists of people that serve as directors and officers of all sorts of other companies.

Sure, technically the shareholders could revolt if they thought the officers were being groslly overpaid. But the companies shareholder voting systems are generally rigged to be pro-management and maintain the status quo.

And that is why CEO's can be outrageously overpaid, even when they often turn out to be destroying shareholder value.
Well, this attitude sure does beg the question of "Who gets to decide what is too much?" I know it's not the government and I sure don't think it's you and the rest of NSG. My answer is the market gets to decide.

If I run a company and I need a hero to come in and straighten it out, I'll pay what the going rate is for heros. If the guy doesn't work out, it's probably still cheaper to pay an enormous severance than to litigate. On the other hand, if he does work out, history shows that he's probably worth ten times the hero's wage that he's been paid.

For example, Jack Welch became GE's CEO in 1981. The company was worth about $14 billion. Welch turned the company around. When he retired in 2001, the company was worth $500 billion. Talk about shareholder value! If Welch was paid a measly one-half of a percent of GE's increase in value, his total compensation would have come to nearly $2.5 billion, instead of the few hundred million that he actually received.

If a Board could buy a computer that did the same things that a good CEO can do, it wouldn't pay him millions of dollars. The problem is, there ain't no such thing! Same thing with star quarterbacks and Hollywood stars. If they could be had for less, then they would be. Good CEOs do things that no one else can. And they should be paid well for it.

The last thing to consider is that there are plenty of companies that want to hire the CEO away from his present job. He needs to be paid enough to be happy where he's at.

Then bringing up the rest of the worlds poor doesn't fit this discussion.

What is your intent by stating yes they are poor but compared to other countries......
If the poor in America are among the wealthiest people in the world, then the trickle-down clearly has worked (it appears to be working no longer, something I would attribute to increased government spending). Otherwise the poor people wouldn't be so much wealthier than other poor people.

Unless everyone's perfectly equal, someone has to be the poorest person in America. That there is a poorest person doesn't mean that person is being left-behind by the system.

Are you claiming here that those on a $30,000 PA wage pay income tax at 50%?
Not at all.
Sure they are, if you dismiss the implications of the fact there is a numerical difference of x10.
Yes, of course. I don't see the relevance. There is a huge difference between $30,000 and $300,000,000.
Or if you accept that when making $30,000 a year, a far larger portion of your income goes to necessities, whereas if you make $3,000,000, a larger portion goes to luxuries. Again ... it is about equality of sacrifice.
I'm trying to dispute the implicit acceptance of diminishing marginal utility contained in the $300,000 example.

Since half of $300K is proportional to half of $30K, the effect and sacrifice is also proportional.

But this doesn't show in any way non-rational humans. Merely humans who are sometimes irrational.
People who continue to behave irrationally after having been shown to be irrational are not rational people.
Then why say you’d wish welfare be withheld from non-rational individuals?
I didn't. I said I don't care about their welfare.
You accept that ‘ideally rational’, or 100% rational behaviour is likely beyond human capacities; we are, after all, fallible creatures who are often swayed by emotion, rhetoric, etc. Then why go ahead and construct policies and theories on the assumption that we are rational?
Ideal rationality is likely beyond human capacity because we sometimes make mistakes.

Being swayed by emotion or rhetoric is something people can overcome.
The ‘measurement of those theories’? Those theories assume that humans are 100% rational, and base their predictions on that assumption. That assumption is wrong. Therefore the predictions are also wrong, and any policy based on said predictions will be misguided.
Because you're measuring all people. The irrational necessarily get let behind; that's not a failing of the system.
Why establish social policies based on incorrect models of how society works?
Because how society currently works doesn't matter. Society is not immutable.
You say that “rational thought is the only thing that really separates us from animals and makes us sentient”. However, non-human animals display rational thought (toolmaking, for example) and rational though is not the only indicator of sentience (awareness of other minds than oneself is another).
I'll happily extend recognition of sentience to non-human animals if their reasoning and cognitive skills are sufficient. But I also want to withhold that recognition from humans whose reasoning and cognitive skills are insufficient.

It's far fairer to base our standards on something that's relevant to behaviour rather than simply on which species someone happen to be. That would be akin to racism.
An attitude (belief) that is not rational.
Beliefs can't be rational.
On the subject of welfare for the mentally ill and severely disabled, I can only think of a very crude, monetary-based utilitarian argument for denying welfare. Could you outline a sophisticated one?
What's wrong with the crude argument?

Since half of $300K is proportional to half of $30K, the effect and sacrifice is also proportional.
That’s simply not true in practice, and bad economics to boot.

If Person A and Person B earn $300K p/a and $30K p/a respectively, then they’re not going to spend exactly the same proportion of their wages on luxuries. Person B will use up more of their wage on necessities, proportionally, than Person A will.

Continue your example: Person B earns $30K p/a and Person C earns $3K p/a. The vast majority of Person C’s income will be spent on necessities.

Or a more real-world example: I, as a full-time student, have very little income. Thus, luxuries take a back seat and necessities (such as rent, food, bills, etc.) use up a much larger proportion of my income.

It's far fairer to base our standards on something that's relevant to behaviour rather than simply on which species someone happen to be. That would be akin to racism.


I'm choking up at this :D :D

That’s simply not true in practice, and bad economics to boot.

If Person A and Person B earn $300K p/a and $30K p/a respectively, then they’re not going to spend exactly the same proportion of their wages on luxuries. Person B will use up more of their wage on necessities, proportionally, than Person A will.

Continue your example: Person B earns $30K p/a and Person C earns $3K p/a. The vast majority of Person C’s income will be spent on necessities.

Or a more real-world example: I, as a full-time student, have very little income. Thus, luxuries take a back seat and necessities (such as rent, food, bills, etc.) use up a much larger proportion of my income.

But OMG who are you to say that food is more important than adding a swimming pool? Communist!

People who continue to behave irrationally after having been shown to be irrational are not rational people.
They are not rational at certain times; this doesn’t mean their 100% non-rational. They are like every human, at some times non-rational. Some may be less rational than others, but there’s no benchmark; no cut-off between rational and non-rational people. Your argument’s main premise thus fails.

I didn’t. I said I don’t care about their welfare.
Which means?

You seem to imply in previous posts that irrational people shouldn’t get welfare. Are you saying that you merely get a bad feeling about people you deem non-rational getting welfare? If so, then what’s your argument?

Because you’re measuring all people. The irrational necessarily get let behind; that’s not a failing of the system.
But there are no 100% irrational or 100% rational humans. So every single human would be left out of such a theory; which makes it completely useless.

Game theory et al simply don’t accurately describe human beings. There’s no point in wishing humans acted differently, or blindly stating that humans do act 100% rationally, in the face of contradictory facts.

Utter nonsense.

Because how society currently works doesn’t matter. Society is not immutable.
True, but society is not omnipotent. Humans can’t change everything about themselves. It’d be pointless to suggest that it’d be better for everyone if we lived under the sea, as humans can’t breath underwater. Ignoring this fact and demanding that we go ahead with social policies that ignore humanity’s inability to breath in water is as obtuse and ridiculous as demanding that we go ahead with social policies that ignore humanity’s inability to act 100% rationally.

I’ll happily extend recognition of sentience to non-human animals if their reasoning and cognitive skills are sufficient. But I also want to withhold that recognition from humans whose reasoning and cognitive skills are insufficient.
That seems fair enough, and I’d say here is plenty of evidence that certain species of animals display such sentience. But this is for another thread, methinks.

It’s far fairer to base our standards on something that’s relevant to behaviour rather than simply on which species someone happen to be. That would be akin to racism.
Again, this is straying off-topic, but I’d also broadly agree.

However, I'd add that assuming humans are 100% rational isn't 'relevant to behaviour'.

Beliefs can’t be rational.
Of course they can.

‘I believe that I shouldn’t put my hand in the fire’ is a rational belief, because I have witnessed what fire will do to flesh, I know the fire is real and not a fake, I can feel the heat of the fire at a distance, etc.

Conversely, ‘I believe I am the King of France’ is an irrational belief, because I am of Scottish birth, live in Glasgow, France is a republic, etc.

What’s wrong with the crude argument?
What’s wrong is that utilitarianism, especially in its modern incarnations, is far more sophisticated than a simple quantitive equation. The idea that we simply add up people’s worth in fiscal value (the only way I could see a utilitarian withhold welfare from the mentally ill or severely disabled) has been shown to be unworkable, contain serious flaws, and has been superseded by much more sophisticated utilitarian arguments.

He can't hire as many people as he'd like to for starters so it's not only hitting him hard, it's also hurting the economy by limiting growth and raising unemployment. So it not only hurts the rich it also hurts the poor that they hire to do their work and share a slice of the pie with depending on how much they contribute. Not to mention it's also treating people differently before the law and that the treatment is based on class. I guess one could argue that what you propose is populism and a form of class warfare. Kind of like the Nazis and the Soviets.

When you think about it the only real winner are the fat worthless parasites in government.

I don't know what you're smoking, but I'd like to sell it. That $150M would just be shoved into unhelpful investments and not to hire more employees. You libertarians assume people think long-term. They don't. They'll stuff their pockets now with what they can.

I can show you small businessmen who do. May not be making 300 million, just 300 grand, but charging him 150 grand will hurt him.
We're not talking about small businesses. We're talking about a fat cat who makes $300 million a year.
Look, if you believe in the method of speeding tickets they've got in, what was it, Finland where they charge you not a set sum but a month's wage or something like that then at least everyone is being treated equally and the rich aren't just being singled out and punished for being rich.
Suddenly you support graduated payments?

Y'all need to get rid of your socialist, welfare state, nanny government... Here's the press release for the U.S. Treasury study.

http://www.treasury.gov/press/releases/hp673.htm

The most interesting part is the last bullet, "Median incomes of those initially in the lower income groups increased more than the median incomes of those initially in the high income groups."

So, while there's alway room for improvement, the wage increases do seem to be larger at the lower end.
Go ask some poor people if they are able to get out of poverty or if there is a cycle of some going up and some down.

There's absolutely no reason that an employee should get a raise, other than the reason that he's now more valuable to the employer and should get more money because of it.
If there's no reason for an employee to get a raise than there's no reason for the CEO either. If a company is doing better, it's just as much because o the CEO as the individual workers.

If the poor in America are among the wealthiest people in the world, then the trickle-down clearly has worked (it appears to be working no longer, something I would attribute to increased government spending). Otherwise the poor people wouldn't be so much wealthier than other poor people.

Unless everyone's perfectly equal, someone has to be the poorest person in America. That there is a poorest person doesn't mean that person is being left-behind by the system.
They still go hungry and have shitty homes. I fail to see how it's better. Also, you're thinking in nominal value. On parity, they are about the same.

I'm trying to dispute the implicit acceptance of diminishing marginal utility contained in the $300,000 example.

Since half of $300K is proportional to half of $30K, the effect and sacrifice is also proportional.
We've gone from my $300 million to $30,000 and now to $300,000. You seem to like bringing up new numbers that are irrelevant since you can't defeat my point.

But OMG who are you to say that food is more important than adding a swimming pool? Communist!
And don't forget the fleet of yachts!