Cains 9-9-9 plan,or Perry’s flat tax will devastate the economy

[The Rabbi]

So you think we should be more like China? Really?
You are a thoughtless moron.

 

[deepthunk]

So you think we should be more like China? Really?
You are a thoughtless moron.

That funny because fox news made the argument that we should when the Bush administration was being criticized for its corruption, they ran a news story entitled “is corruption good for a country” and used China as an example of why corruption supposedly IS good for a country. They were wrong however, China didn’t rise because of their corruption, they rose in spite of it thanks to our manufacturing jobs and their investment in lending us money.

Anyway I refer only to the economic data with regards to the rise in their consumer spending, just as you cited Estonia to support your pro flat tax stance. I didn’t try to suggest we should adopt their entire society and more than you suggested that we should adopt all the social views and laws of Estonia.

The difference however is that china is more than large enough for their economic data to be relevant to discussion of the complex economic systems of a trade hub like the United States.

P.S. all the insults in the world will not dissuade me from being heard. You must use logic and reason to defeat my arguments, using petty insults merely proves that you have no such reasonable arguments to make.

 

[Ame®icano]

Put simply, my issue with Cains 9-9-9 plan and Perry’s flat tax is that they would have a devastating impact on the economy, and here’s why.

Because the entire lower 50% of earners make only 12.7% of the income in America, their budgets are constrained, meaning that there are goods and services they would buy, but don’t because they simply don’t have the money. As a result any reduction in the income of the lower 50% of earners will result in an immediate point by point reduction in consumer spending. Because consumer spending is 70% of economic activity directly and indirectly impacts all other economic activity, reductions in the income of these earners result in a net loss of economic activity.

The upper 50% of earners make 87.3% of the overall income with the top 5% making fully 35% of the income. This means that the budgets of the upper 50% of earners, and the top 5% in particular are bloated, meaning they buy all the goods and services they are going to buy regardless of increases or decreases in their income of less than 90% of their total earnings. The excess of earnings in these categories go into the earners stock portfolios where it artificially inflates the value of the stocks they invest in. Increases in stock prices not related to actual increases in profits from economic activity are what’s known as stock bubbles, which have a destabilizing effect on the economy.

In short, increasing earnings by decreasing the tax rates of the upper 50% of earners by a few points will not have an impact on consumer spending, but will destabilize the economy by creating more and larger stock bubbles. Whereas the opposite is also true, increasing taxes on the upper 50% of earners will have a stabilizing effect on the economy by reducing the size of stock bubbles and increasing economic activity through increased government spending.

However the opposite is also true with regards to the lower 50% of earners, reducing their income hurts the economy by reducing consumer spending and enlarging already existing stock bubbles on Wall Street through the decrease in economic activity. Likewise, increasing their earnings will cause an immediate increase in consumer spending resulting in increased economic activity. This will result in a stabilizing effect on the economy by creating real, sustainable economic growth that will shrink stock bubbles without reducing stock prices by providing real, sustainable increases in corporate profits.

Perry and Cain talk about how “fair” their plans are, and their right, when we all live together in an economically devastated third world country it will be survival of the fittest, and what could be more fair than that?

So you're saying that Cains 9-9-9 plan and Perry’s flat tax is that they would have a devastating impact on the economy.

Lowering/forgiving student loans, health care law, borrowing 40c on a dollar, paying off political supporters with stimulus money somehow helps the economy?

Is this you?

 

[The Rabbi]

So you think we should be more like China? Really?
You are a thoughtless moron.

That funny because fox news made the argument that we should when the Bush administration was being criticized for its corruption, they ran a news story entitled “is corruption good for a country” and used China as an example of why corruption supposedly IS good for a country. They were wrong however, China didn’t rise because of their corruption, they rose in spite of it thanks to our manufacturing jobs and their investment in lending us money.

Anyway I refer only to the economic data with regards to the rise in their consumer spending, just as you cited Estonia to support your pro flat tax stance. I didn’t try to suggest we should adopt their entire society and more than you suggested that we should adopt all the social views and laws of Estonia.

The difference however is that china is more than large enough for their economic data to be relevant to discussion of the complex economic systems of a trade hub like the United States.

P.S. all the insults in the world will not dissuade me from being heard. You must use logic and reason to defeat my arguments, using petty insults merely proves that you have no such reasonable arguments to make.

I didnt realize you considered Fox an authoritative source. I never watch it.

China is a third world country starting from a low economic level. The US is the largest manufacturer in the world with a mature economy. Chinese workers are relatively unskilled and low wage. US workers are skilled and high wage. China is something of a command economy while the US is nominally still a capitalist economy.
So aside from not having anything in common your analogy is perfect.

You haven't used a single piece of logic, reason, or facts that you have supported in any post. Petty insults are all you are deserving of.

 

[deepthunk]

Wow, you say allot without making an argument that proves it. but allow me to address this statement on a point by point basis.

So you're saying that Cains 9-9-9 plan and Perry’s flat tax is that they would have a devastating impact on the economy.

Yes that is what I'm saying and if you check the previous thread you will find that i have made a number of rational arguments to prove my points. If something can be logically proven to be true, then it is true. regardless of how one might wish it to be.

Lowering/forgiving student loans,

See how you lumped a number of points into one sentence? Those are actually a number of different issues. This is what I mean by addressing it on a point by point basis.

On the issue of "Lowering/forgiving student loans", yes I think that will be good for the economy because it will provide working professionals with disposable income that will boost consumer spending.

health care law,

In the case of the Health care law that was passed I would say no, that would not be good for the economy at all.

For one thing, as has been pointed out, it would cost a great deal, in this case the money would go to health care providers who's employees and owners fall in the top 50% and therefore it will not effect consumer spending, but would represent significant government spending.

Second the mandatory insurance requirement would force a certain segment of the population (including a number of small business owners) to buy insurance they don't now feel they can afford. Money taken out of their pockets effects spending slightly above the economic base around the 20% annual income range, not to mention taking money from budgets of people who sometimes have small payrolls to fund.

On the other hand free public health care could benefit the economy a great deal. business now pay around four hundred a month at the vary least to provide health coverage to their employee's. That includes the majority of occupations, excluding the vary lowest earners who suffer as a result.

If the government were to impose a sort-of semi-socialized medicine (if you will) and buy out the shareholders of health insurance companies (or pay for conversion to another type of coverage) and tax companies for say, $250 a month per employee. Setting the minimum requirements so they roughly cover those employees companies are paying for anyway, then negotiate with providers for some reasonable cost cuts (like I don't see why anyone should pay the price they charge for Tylonal in the emergency room), then the program would pay for itself AND you would give companies a whole lot of extra cash to spend in on hiring personnel.

In addition, you give people the option to pay for supplemental policies, on top of their government coverage so that its not truly socialized and everyone can have the coverage they want.

borrowing 40c on a dollar,

Of course not, the federal budget needs to be balanced. but the only way to balance it is to make the 66% of corporations that pay no taxes, pay some. They don't have to pay the full amount to balance the budget, but they do need to start paying a bit.

It's not right for them to get away with paying nothing anyway when their just hiding their profits in overseas tax havens like the Cayman islands, then in some cases they take a "tax benefit" for claiming no profits (even though as i said they made some). Just cutting those benefits could save the U.S. billions per year without raising anyone's taxes.

paying off political supporters with stimulus money, somehow helps the economy?

Well I think we both know that's corruption and that's never to anyone's benefit. But lets face it, there's not an official in Washington who's cleaner than a preachers sheets (and from what I hear those are not that clean anymore)

Is this you?

No actually I have no mortgage, not that it would be relevant if I did.