A tax analogy, who's really paying their fair share?

[kelly4]

So you like taxes then?

Why should Buck not try keep as much money as he can to "redistribute" as he feels fit? He's paying roughly the same as the rest of you and not claiming anything.

You may not agree with his viewpoint, and he may have made a mistake about the effective tax rate, but not everyone has been self employed and we're not all born tax geniuses

I mean for a lefty at least he only wants parity in taxes across the scale, not to rape the rich at 90%.

He should try to keep as much as possible. But when other people do this, he calls them moochers.

Buck likes to talk out both sides of his neck.

 

[UncleBuck]

He should try to keep as much as possible. But when other people do this, he calls them moochers.

Buck likes to talk out both sides of his neck.

let's get this straight: i call the people who feel that taxation is theft moochers.

sorry i proved all of you wrong after laying a days in the making trap, just gonna have to expect those from me. i lay traps all the time.

 

[kelly4]

let's get this straight: i call the people who feel that taxation is theft moochers.

sorry i proved all of you wrong after laying a days in the making trap, just gonna have to expect those from me. i lay traps all the time.

Was that a threat?

You're on a list. LOL!

 

[UncleBuck]

Was that a threat?

You're on a list. LOL!

the cross thread butt hurt, it is so nice.

 

[kelly4]

the cross thread butt hurt, it is so nice.

You're confusing humor for butthurt.

I'm actually cross thread ripping on you, but spin it how you want to, your good at that. LOL!

 

[Rob Roy]

let's get this straight: i call the people who feel that taxation is theft moochers.

sorry i proved all of you wrong after laying a days in the making trap, just gonna have to expect those from me. i lay traps all the time.

Here's a potential situation ....

If a person is taxed for something they don't use, but others that do use it but also do not pay for it wouldn't that make the person using the so-called "service" a moocher and the person paying for it being aggresed against ?

 

[Fungus Gnat]

double post

 

[Fungus Gnat]

Here's a potential situation ....

If a person is taxed for something they don't use, but others that do use it but also do not pay for it wouldn't that make the person using the so-called "service" a moocher and the person paying for it being aggresed against ?

One doesn't have to use a government service to benefit from it. In general social programs benefit society more than cost and are a lot cheaper than prisons. Food stamps for example provide a multiplier of economic stimulus for every dollar spent. Even Milton Friedman while disliking that the government runs these programs couldn't deny that they benefited everyone. His idea was to replace these government programs with a guaranteed minimum income system, funded with a negative income tax. Yes, wealth redistribution... the father of conservative economics is a socialist!!!!

 

[lifegoesonbrah]

One doesn't have to use a government service to benefit from it. In general social programs benefit society more than cost and are a lot cheaper than prisons. Food stamps for example provide a multiplier of economic stimulus for every dollar spent. Even Milton Friedman while disliking that the government runs these programs couldn't deny that they benefited everyone. His idea was to replace these government programs with a guaranteed minimum income system, funded with a negative income tax. Yes, wealth redistribution... the father of conservative economics is a socialist!!!!

Diminishing utility occurs with monetary expansion, the first recipients of the 'new money' (wallstreet banks) benefit greater than those further away from the Federal Reserve. As the money is distributed, the increase in inflation offsets any benefits attributed from the monetary expansion, therefore the banks benefit and the people do not. Inflation is bad for the middle class as we are far down the line as recipients of the newly created money... by the time it reaches us, inflation has occurred and price levels have risen.

 

[Fungus Gnat]

Diminishing utility occurs with monetary expansion, the first recipients of the 'new money' (wallstreet banks) benefit greater than those further away from the Federal Reserve. As the money is distributed, the increase in inflation offsets any benefits attributed from the monetary expansion, therefore the banks benefit and the people do not. Inflation is bad for the middle class as we are far down the line as recipients of the newly created money... by the time it reaches us, inflation has occurred and price levels have risen.

There is no benefit to the middle class or society by having people incapable of consuming goods or services. How can the middle class not benefit from more consumers?

 

[lifegoesonbrah]

There is no benefit to the middle class or society by having people incapable of consuming goods or services. How can the middle class not benefit from more consumers?

Because inflation offsets any increase in money supply and price levels increase, the lag between the rise in prices and the injection into the money supply is only beneficial to the banks that directly receive the Federal funds rate.

 

[lifegoesonbrah]

"By a continuing process of inflation, government can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens." -Keynes

 

[Fungus Gnat]

Because inflation offsets any increase in money supply and price levels increase, the lag between the rise in prices and the injection into the money supply is only beneficial to the banks that directly receive the Federal funds rate.

That would only be the case with goods in short supply, how much corn can you eat and tv's can you individually own? Do farmers and television producers not benefit from more consumers?

"By a continuing process of inflation, government can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens." -Keynes

Which causes a stimulative effect and reduces the frequency of panics and collapses that signified the per-federal reserve era. People tend not to horde assets that depreciate in value...imagine that.

 

[lifegoesonbrah]

That would only be the case with goods in short supply, how much corn can you eat and tv's can you individually own? Do farmers and television producers not benefit from more consumers?

They do not get more consumers because they must raise their prices in order to compensate for the devaluing of the dollar. Inflation decreases purchasing power.

Which causes a stimulative effect and reduces the frequency of panics and collapses that signified the per-federal reserve era. People tend not to horde assets that depreciate in value...imagine that.

Yup. that is the intention to promote investment and demote savings. The reason people don't save is because they receive such a small return, instead they invest the money. Austrians believe this causes the business cycle because the Federal Reserve holds the Federal funds rate too low which disturbs the balance between saving and investment. Because borrowing is so 'cheap', it causes over investment or malinvestment.

 

[Fungus Gnat]

They do not get more consumers because they must raise their prices in order to compensate for the devaluing of the dollar. Inflation decreases purchasing power.

The decrease in purchasing power is made up with more people buying the product, especially when the cost between making more products/goods is low. Demand causes people to hire more people, less people on unemployment increases wages.

I think everyone that isn't a sociopath would trade less purchasing power for a better society and the ability to sell goods to more people. Capitalism is a pyramid scheme but how steep the grade is largely determined by empathy for the "losers".

 

[lifegoesonbrah]

The decrease in purchasing power is made up with more people buying the product, especially when the cost between making more products/goods is low. Demand causes people to hire more people, less people on unemployment increases wages.

I think everyone that isn't a sociopath would trade less purchasing power for a better society and the ability to sell goods to more people. Capitalism is a pyramid scheme but how steep the grade is largely determined by empathy for the "losers".

I understand what you are saying, Its just that the increase in demand occurs only in the short run under false pretenses, with the consequence being the business cycle. I understand that unemployment and inflation are negatively correlated, but only in the short run. Workers do not see the decrease in wages, which is seen in the long run, where unemployment increases.


There are consequences to inflation, otherwise we could just print everyone a million dollars.

 

[Fungus Gnat]

There are consequences to inflation, otherwise we could just print everyone a million dollars.

Which is why they Federal reserve rises interest rates when the economy improves.

In the long run, we are all dead.

 

[lifegoesonbrah]

Which is why they Federal reserve rises interest rates when the economy improves.

In the long run, we are all dead.

I like that quote, it pretty much sums up stimulus spending and inflation, which is damaging in the long run.

I just think the market should balance the interest rates on its own instead of the government attempting to, Hayeks telecommunications Theory describes this pretty well. It is a great assumption that the Federal Reserve can gather information perfectly and use this information perfectly to determine interest rates unbiased and free from self interest better than that of the free market.

 

[beenthere]

The decrease in purchasing power is made up with more people buying the product, especially when the cost between making more products/goods is low. Demand causes people to hire more people, less people on unemployment increases wages.

I think everyone that isn't a sociopath would trade less purchasing power for a better society and the ability to sell goods to more people. Capitalism is a pyramid scheme but how steep the grade is largely determined by empathy for the "losers".

Not sure I follow you on this. How can the decrease in purchasing power be made up with more people buying the product, if they have less purchasing power?

And no where in your utopian Marxist-like society is individual incentive and motivation mentioned. You want equality by outcome instead of equality by opportunity and that will never work in the long term.
There has to be winners and losers and all those in between in a free society. A robust economy cannot be sustained if we reward the losers by penalizing the winners, this is where incentive and motivation become stagnant.

The purchasing power parity per GDP in the US is much higher than any country in the EU.

 

[Mr Neutron]

let's get this straight: i call the people who feel that taxation is theft moochers.

... and people that feel taking money from anybody's wages, are immoral thieves.