Page 21 of 36 FirstFirst ... 11192021222331 ... LastLast
Results 201 to 210 of 355

Thread: Obama will not extend Bush tax cuts to wealthy

  1. #201
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Last Seen
    09-24-17 @ 04:38 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    29,261

    Re: Obama will not extend Bush tax cuts to wealthy

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    Why should we adpot Marx's views for this country, they have failed every other time.....


    j-mac
    Like in China or Vietnam?

  2. #202
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Obama will not extend Bush tax cuts to wealthy

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    Why should we adpot Marx's views for this country, they have failed every other time.....


    j-mac
    Perhaps you should read Marx so you would know the difference. Being misinformed leads to wrong conclusions.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  3. #203
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,343

    Re: Obama will not extend Bush tax cuts to wealthy

    Quote Originally Posted by winston53660 View Post
    Like in China or Vietnam?

    Are those places better than the US to live? And are you considering relocating to there? If not why?


    j-mac
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

  4. #204
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,343

    Re: Obama will not extend Bush tax cuts to wealthy

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    Perhaps you should read Marx so you would know the difference. Being misinformed leads to wrong conclusions.

    No, I don't think I am misinformed. You said that the wealthy should bear the burden of punitive taxation simply because they can afford it, right? Lessening the burden of those in lower income brackets. In other words a redistributive method of taxing wealth. If I am wrong please point out why.


    j-mac
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

  5. #205
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Last Seen
    09-24-17 @ 04:38 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    29,261

    Re: Obama will not extend Bush tax cuts to wealthy

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    Are those places better than the US to live?
    I guess for some people it is others maybe not.

    And are you considering relocating to there?
    No.

    If not why?


    j-mac
    Im not to wild about Chinese or Vietnamese food....I prefer Thai.

  6. #206
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Obama will not extend Bush tax cuts to wealthy

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    No, I don't think I am misinformed. You said that the wealthy should bear the burden of punitive taxation simply because they can afford it, right? Lessening the burden of those in lower income brackets. In other words a redistributive method of taxing wealth. If I am wrong please point out why.


    j-mac
    When you start with in other words, that's where you lose the logic. It's a bad habit when you don't read between the lines well. A progressive tax has never been and never will be equal to Marxism. And it is silly, not to mention uninformed or knowleadgeable to think the two are equal. So, I have to concluded based on your argument that you are in fact ill-informed.

    And if you have trouble reading between the lines with the response, noting that a progressive tax is different than Marxism is showing where you are wrong.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  7. #207
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Ft. Campbell, KY
    Last Seen
    12-31-14 @ 08:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    12,177

    Re: Obama will not extend Bush tax cuts to wealthy

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    No, I don't think I am misinformed. You said that the wealthy should bear the burden of punitive taxation simply because they can afford it, right? Lessening the burden of those in lower income brackets. In other words a redistributive method of taxing wealth. If I am wrong please point out why.
    The concept of forced wealth redistribtion doesn't appear in Marxism, at least not classical Marxism that Marx and Engels developement. Also, not to take a side in this debate, but its a simple fact of reason that a level of tax increases can exist somewhere between the current level, and total wealth redistribution. I mean it seems like a pretty damn wide gap, I'm sure something can fit in there.

  8. #208
    Traditionalist
    phattonez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Last Seen
    12-05-17 @ 03:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    20,072

    Re: Obama will not extend Bush tax cuts to wealthy

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    You know a rich waiter?
    This is a non-response. What I asked is if you tip waiters, because why would you pay someone for work if it didn't produce any wealth?

    Who shall ascend the hill of the Lord? And who shall stand in his holy place? He who has clean hands and a pure heart, who does not lift up his soul to what is false, and does not swear deceitfully. Psalm 24
    "True law is right reason in agreement with nature . . . Whoever is disobedient is fleeing from himself and denying his human nature [and] will suffer the worst penalties . . ." - Cicero

  9. #209
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,343

    Re: Obama will not extend Bush tax cuts to wealthy

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    When you start with in other words, that's where you lose the logic. It's a bad habit when you don't read between the lines well. A progressive tax has never been and never will be equal to Marxism. And it is silly, not to mention uninformed or knowleadgeable to think the two are equal. So, I have to concluded based on your argument that you are in fact ill-informed.

    And if you have trouble reading between the lines with the response, noting that a progressive tax is different than Marxism is showing where you are wrong.

    Here ya go Joe....Chew on this til I return....

    Arguments against implementation
    It has been argued that progressive taxation violates the principle of equality under the law.[24]
    Progressive taxes lower savings rates. High-earners have a lower average propensity to consume, so shifting the tax-burden away from them will increase the aggregate savings rate, which should increase steady state growth (if the savings rate is initially below the Golden Rule savings rate).
    The classical argument against progressive taxation runs as follows:
    The diminishing returns argument applies to the fraction of income used for present consumption. As income rises, diminishing returns implies that a smaller and smaller fraction of income will be spent on consumption goods. The remaining income will (of necessity) be used to purchase capital goods. This acts as a form of positive feedback that in turn yields more income for capital spending. Meanwhile (and because) these capital goods induce a decline in the costs of production which has the effect of raising real wages generally and implicitly raising the general standard of living. The income paid back on the capital helps create the disincentive to consume that creates capital spending. Thus, those capitalists who effectively manage their property are rewarded and given control of more (newly created) property, of which they are increasingly less inclined to consume and increasingly more inclined to purchase capital goods and thus further elevate the general standard of living by driving down the costs of production. As they acquire more capital goods, eventually their ownership outstrips their ability to manage and oversee what they own; however, they only control as many capital goods as can be attributed to the income of their prior capital---which previously did not exist. Therefore, their ownership does not negatively contribute to the general standard-of-living relative to counterfactual state of them not purchasing those goods. It would thus be misleading to argue that redistributing their capital may yield further increases in the standard-of-living. Doing so may well cause that effect, but doing so neglects that it was the assumption that redistribution would not happen that induced the accumulation of capital. — Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk, Karl Marx and the Close of his System, 1896
    A belief that progressive taxation shifts the total economic production of society away from capital investments (tools, infrastructure, training, research) and toward present consumption goods. This could happen because high-income earners tend to pay for capital goods (through investment activities) and low-income earners tend to purchase consumables. Smithian and neo-classical growth theory says that spending more on consumption goods and less on capital goods will slow the rise of the standard of living, and possibly even reduce it since capital goods increase future production possibilities.
    Brain drain and tax avoidance. High progressive taxes may encourage emigration because taxes are not internationally harmonized, so very high earners are sometimes able to relocate in order to pay less tax, or find tax havens for their income. Unlike the opposing income effect and substitution effect of leisure which may make tax progressivity neutral in terms of working hours, the emigration rate can only increase with the top rates of tax.[citation needed]
    The differential in the higher rates of tax between the United States and Europe are cited as a factor in the "brain drain" of high-earners to America in the 1960s, and is considered an important influence on modern "economic migration."[citation needed]
    Increase in tax loopholes such as income splitting techniques. This creates an incentive for business owners to split their business into smaller, less efficient ones for a lower tax bracket. It also encourages production from less efficient smaller businesses than larger ones.
    The increasing energy expended on tax avoidances which occur with greater progressivity produces an increase in the work of accountants and lawyers. Because tax avoidance creates no net wealth this work is unproductive, and can make taxes on the rich less efficient than on the middle class, who have less motivation to exploit tax loopholes.[citation needed]
    Progressive taxes are argued to create work disincentive. Consider again someone who makes twice the minimum required to live on, but pays all income above the minimum living threshold in taxes. Such a person had no monetary incentive at all to try to increase his or her income above the base level.[25]
    Justice in representation. Economic equity is sometimes used to argue against progressive taxation, on the grounds of representation being out-of-proportion to taxation: While the top 5% in income in most countries pay over half the taxes[26] they only have 5% of the voting weight. This argument can be reversed into the plutocratic case that if tax is to be progressive it should be accompanied by greater say in elections for those who contribute most.
    Policymakers are argued to be under a pressure from lower and middle income voters to limit higher incomes by the means of progressive taxation. A few economists argue against inequity aversion: "If policy makers' primary goal is … economic prosperity for all, they should avoid focusing on the politics of envy." (Gregory Mankiw)[27]
    A study from the libertarian Institute for Policy Innovation, which aims to reduce government intervention in the economy, has concluded that progressive taxes fail to decrease real income inequality.[28]
    Some[who?] libertarians, especially anarcho-capitalists, argue that only poll taxes can be economically efficient[29] in the fullest sense (the utilitarian view), and/or that equity requires each citizen to pay the full exchange value in trade for governance services such as the guarantee of property rights

    Progressive tax - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    j-mac
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

  10. #210
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Obama will not extend Bush tax cuts to wealthy

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    Here ya go Joe....Chew on this til I return....




    j-mac
    What was your point?

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

Page 21 of 36 FirstFirst ... 11192021222331 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •