Fair Share Poll

[Foxfyre]

But see, I never said the government should put money into the hands of the less advantaged. I am talking about the government taking more money out of the hands of the less advantaged by raising their taxes, which is exactly what would happen under a flat tax system.

We always hear the Conservatives and their over lords, the uber rich and corporate interests, telling us that raising the marginal tax rate for people enjoying lavish incomes over $250,000 as unfair and detrimental to the economy. Well, consider someone making only one tenth of that $25,000 having 15% of their income confiscated at gunpoint (that's the operative phrase, isn't it?) What happens to their meager spending power then?

And ask yourself, are there more people making a quarter of a million a year or only $25,000? Which group, by shear force of numbers alone, is more capable of spending and stimulating the economy?

Without the quarter of a million a year people, there ARE no $25,000/year people.

The goal is to create more quarter of a million a year people and a climate where people can aspire to prosper more than $25,000/year. You don't do that by punishing success and rewarding mediocrity.

And again, you are ignoring that the $25,000/year people have a great deal of incentive to vote in people who will insure that they keep getting a free ride by punishing the rich. And that is an extremely unhealthy situation.

Much better for us all to share and share alike in the consequences of government action so that there is no advantage to staying poor and no consequence for honorable prosperity.

The folks making $25,000 aren't voting anyway.

So why not screw them to the floor by raising their taxes? If raising taxes on millionaires is detrimental, what do you suppose raising the taxes on the poor would do to their buying power? If you're living pay check to pay check, should you be punished? If you're living in a mansion making $250,000 would raising your taxes really REALLY make you hurt? Hurt like someone on a $25,000 salary is hurt by watching his job go to Asia or have to decide medicine or food this month?

Dem po' ol' rich folk needs all da hep we can give 'em! I only WISH I made enough to be in the 35% bracket!

If a 10 to 15% tax above a reasonable automatic exemption 'screws them to the floor', they're already screwed anyway.

And you are naive if you think politiciians who prosper by keeping such people dependent aren't rounding them up and bussing them to the polls.

I don't understand how some seem to turn a blind eye at the destructiveness of creating dependencies among huge segments of our population while failing to understand motivation and incentive for choosing not to be dependent.

What is better. Freedom to choose one's destiny? Or giving that over to the government to do for us?

Our Founders had a very strong shared opinion about that when they drafted and adopted our Constitution.

 

[Nosmo King]

Without the quarter of a million a year people, there ARE no $25,000/year people.

The goal is to create more quarter of a million a year people and a climate where people can aspire to prosper more than $25,000/year. You don't do that by punishing success and rewarding mediocrity.

And again, you are ignoring that the $25,000/year people have a great deal of incentive to vote in people who will insure that they keep getting a free ride by punishing the rich. And that is an extremely unhealthy situation.

Much better for us all to share and share alike in the consequences of government action so that there is no advantage to staying poor and no consequence for honorable prosperity.

The folks making $25,000 aren't voting anyway.

So why not screw them to the floor by raising their taxes? If raising taxes on millionaires is detrimental, what do you suppose raising the taxes on the poor would do to their buying power? If you're living pay check to pay check, should you be punished? If you're living in a mansion making $250,000 would raising your taxes really REALLY make you hurt? Hurt like someone on a $25,000 salary is hurt by watching his job go to Asia or have to decide medicine or food this month?

Dem po' ol' rich folk needs all da hep we can give 'em! I only WISH I made enough to be in the 35% bracket!

If a 10 to 15% tax above a reasonable automatic exemption 'screws them to the floor', they're already screwed anyway.

And you are naive if you think politiciians who prosper by keeping such people dependent aren't rounding them up and bussing them to the polls.

I don't understand how some seem to turn a blind eye at the destructiveness of creating dependencies among huge segments of our population while failing to understand motivation and incentive for choosing not to be dependent.

What is better. Freedom to choose one's destiny? Or giving that over to the government to do for us?

Our Founders had a very strong shared opinion about that when they drafted and adopted our Constitution.

Who ever said anything about dependency? Why do you think that someone making a meager $25,000 is by some bizarre default dependent on the federal government? I know it makes for an easier argument, but it makes a false assumption.

And yes, those making $25,000 ARE screwed already. Why screw them further by raising their taxes? If raising the taxes on the rich is unfair, why is it suddenly fair to raise the taxes on those living in the economic margins?

Do you wonder why Conservatives are viewed as cruel, callous greedy people interested in nothing more than screwing the poor and sending their sons and daughters off to war? If you think someone would see Conservatism is a better light, perhaps showing some sense of fair play would make a good start.

 

[Foxfyre]

The folks making $25,000 aren't voting anyway.

So why not screw them to the floor by raising their taxes? If raising taxes on millionaires is detrimental, what do you suppose raising the taxes on the poor would do to their buying power? If you're living pay check to pay check, should you be punished? If you're living in a mansion making $250,000 would raising your taxes really REALLY make you hurt? Hurt like someone on a $25,000 salary is hurt by watching his job go to Asia or have to decide medicine or food this month?

Dem po' ol' rich folk needs all da hep we can give 'em! I only WISH I made enough to be in the 35% bracket!

If a 10 to 15% tax above a reasonable automatic exemption 'screws them to the floor', they're already screwed anyway.

And you are naive if you think politiciians who prosper by keeping such people dependent aren't rounding them up and bussing them to the polls.

I don't understand how some seem to turn a blind eye at the destructiveness of creating dependencies among huge segments of our population while failing to understand motivation and incentive for choosing not to be dependent.

What is better. Freedom to choose one's destiny? Or giving that over to the government to do for us?

Our Founders had a very strong shared opinion about that when they drafted and adopted our Constitution.

Who ever said anything about dependency? Why do you think that someone making a meager $25,000 is by some bizarre default dependent on the federal government? I know it makes for an easier argument, but it makes a false assumption.

And yes, those making $25,000 ARE screwed already. Why screw them further by raising their taxes? If raising the taxes on the rich is unfair, why is it suddenly fair to raise the taxes on those living in the economic margins?

Do you wonder why Conservatives are viewed as cruel, callous greedy people interested in nothing more than screwing the poor and sending their sons and daughters off to war? If you think someone would see Conservatism is a better light, perhaps showing some sense of fair play would make a good start.

You require them to pay taxes so they'll have a stake in the system, so that they will vote for the best people rather than the people who will keep giving them a free ride. You allow them to participate as full citizens paying their fair share for the blessings of liberty and not have incentive not to rise above a certain threshhold lest they lose material benefits. (And THAT is how government creates dependencies among certain segments of society--by imposing penalties on them should they choose to prosper.)

Again what is more compassionate? Leading or driving people out of poverty or making them more comfortable in it?

What is more true: In most thing, people will spend their own money to better advantage than the government will spend it for them. . .or . . .

The best economy is controlled and managed by the government with the people's money.

 

[Nosmo King]

If a 10 to 15% tax above a reasonable automatic exemption 'screws them to the floor', they're already screwed anyway.

And you are naive if you think politiciians who prosper by keeping such people dependent aren't rounding them up and bussing them to the polls.

I don't understand how some seem to turn a blind eye at the destructiveness of creating dependencies among huge segments of our population while failing to understand motivation and incentive for choosing not to be dependent.

What is better. Freedom to choose one's destiny? Or giving that over to the government to do for us?

Our Founders had a very strong shared opinion about that when they drafted and adopted our Constitution.

Who ever said anything about dependency? Why do you think that someone making a meager $25,000 is by some bizarre default dependent on the federal government? I know it makes for an easier argument, but it makes a false assumption.

And yes, those making $25,000 ARE screwed already. Why screw them further by raising their taxes? If raising the taxes on the rich is unfair, why is it suddenly fair to raise the taxes on those living in the economic margins?

Do you wonder why Conservatives are viewed as cruel, callous greedy people interested in nothing more than screwing the poor and sending their sons and daughters off to war? If you think someone would see Conservatism is a better light, perhaps showing some sense of fair play would make a good start.

You require them to pay taxes so they'll have a stake in the system, so that they will vote for the best people rather than the people who will keep giving them a free ride. You allow them to participate as full citizens paying their fair share for the blessings of liberty and not have incentive not to rise above a certain threshhold lest they lose material benefits. (And THAT is how government creates dependencies among certain segments of society--by imposing penalties on them should they choose to prosper.)

Again what is more compassionate? Leading or driving people out of poverty or making them more comfortable in it?

What is more true: In most thing, people will spend their own money to better advantage than the government will spend it for them. . .or . . .

The best economy is controlled and managed by the government with the people's money.

So you think you can get the poor to vote for Conservatives if those Conservatives raise taxes on the poor?

So far, those same Conservatives have: worked damn hard to eliminate unions, started wars in which the sons and daughters of the poor have fought and died, worked hard to convince everyone that there is no pollution or climate change, worked damn hard to make it more difficult for the poor to have abortions or any other family planning that isn't pre-approved by religious bigots, tried time and again to change public schools into profit making private schools, tried to change school curriculum so that fable and dogma are taught ignoring actual science, told poor Blacks, Mexicans and women that their labor isn't worth protecting with equal pay legislation, instituted Jim Crow laws to subjugate poor southern Blacks and keep threatening cuts in federal programs that help the poor feed their children heat their homes and pay their rent.

Raise the taxes on the poor and see what further political benefits you reap! So far, I gotta ask, how's all this working out for ya?

Some more of that Conservative compassion we could do without.

 

[Foxfyre]

Who ever said anything about dependency? Why do you think that someone making a meager $25,000 is by some bizarre default dependent on the federal government? I know it makes for an easier argument, but it makes a false assumption.

And yes, those making $25,000 ARE screwed already. Why screw them further by raising their taxes? If raising the taxes on the rich is unfair, why is it suddenly fair to raise the taxes on those living in the economic margins?

Do you wonder why Conservatives are viewed as cruel, callous greedy people interested in nothing more than screwing the poor and sending their sons and daughters off to war? If you think someone would see Conservatism is a better light, perhaps showing some sense of fair play would make a good start.

You require them to pay taxes so they'll have a stake in the system, so that they will vote for the best people rather than the people who will keep giving them a free ride. You allow them to participate as full citizens paying their fair share for the blessings of liberty and not have incentive not to rise above a certain threshhold lest they lose material benefits. (And THAT is how government creates dependencies among certain segments of society--by imposing penalties on them should they choose to prosper.)

Again what is more compassionate? Leading or driving people out of poverty or making them more comfortable in it?

What is more true: In most thing, people will spend their own money to better advantage than the government will spend it for them. . .or . . .

The best economy is controlled and managed by the government with the people's money.

So you think you can get the poor to vote for Conservatives if those Conservatives raise taxes on the poor?

So far, those same Conservatives have: worked damn hard to eliminate unions, started wars in which the sons and daughters of the poor have fought and died, worked hard to convince everyone that there is no pollution or climate change, worked damn hard to make it more difficult for the poor to have abortions or any other family planning that isn't pre-approved by religious bigots, tried time and again to change public schools into profit making private schools, tried to change school curriculum so that fable and dogma are taught ignoring actual science, told poor Blacks, Mexicans and women that their labor isn't worth protecting with equal pay legislation, instituted Jim Crow laws to subjugate poor southern Blacks and keep threatening cuts in federal programs that help the poor feed their children heat their homes and pay their rent.

Raise the taxes on the poor and see what further political benefits you reap! So far, I gotta ask, how's all this working out for ya?

Some more of that Conservative compassion we could do without.

Acknowledged that you think conservatives suck and are evil, greedy, hateful, uncaring, etc.e tc. etc. while liberals are truly compassionate and the purveyors of all that is good in the world.

Okay I'm exaggerating but YOU'RE the one who brought up conservatives in this discussion. I didn't. And you refuse to answer the questions I have put out there--liberals generally do avoid such questions--so I don't see much point in boring our readers here with more of the same circular argument.

I think I've made a case that you can't refute despite how many ugly adjectives or insinuations you target at conservatives in order to avoid the actual argument. I think I have addressed your comments. You continue to refuse to address mine. If you have a change of heart/tactic and decide to do so, then we might have a good basis to further explore the topic.

Until then, thanks for the workout. It has been a pretty good one.

 

[asterism]

No demand? Once the price of a product exceeds the ability to pay for that product, the demand shrinks.

Sometimes, or innovation reduces the price of that product to make market condiions. But I asked when there was "no demand."



You are making an invalid assumption. Air conditioning used to be considered a "luxury good." Now it's even included in government programs that provide for "basic needs." It's also a good deal cheaper than it was 30 years ago. The innovation in technology made that happen, not some tax program to inflate the purchasing power to prop up demand.

Cell phones used to be luxury goods and are now even cheaper than landlines. Again, innovation is the cause.

Too bad they would find their income slashed by higher tax rates under a Flat Tax system! But, then again, the rich would find their incomes enhanced by substantially lower tax rates and then those Cartier watches will fly off the shelves (unless that extra income gets sequestered in a trust fund, off shore banks, foreign investments or some other scheme).

Another false assumption. I advocate replacing all income taxes at all levels with a consumption tax with an efficient pre-bate so that basic consumption is not taxed at any level. Cartier watches will still fly off the shelves if the fickle high end consumers still want them but food will be cheaper while those at the lower end of the income scale will pay no net tax at all.

Those in the middle who game the system will pay more than they do now, but those are the ones who will then get to see how expensive all this government bureaucracy really is and they will have a choice the next time they vote as to whether they really want that new federal program which gives $25 Billion to a car company. But only those in the middle who game the system will end up paying more. The waste in our current system of taxing income and handing out favors to certain segments of the economy will be eliminated allowing for more resources to go towards funding valid government functions.

Gasoline hits $4.00 and the demand for family vacations shrinks. Why? Because the price exceeds the ability to pay. Pay for gasoline, hotel rooms, dinners out, tickets to attractions and on and on. Sell the notion of innovation to the tourism industry while a family of four with a $40,000 annual salary goes on a picnic in the city park instead of Disneyworld.

I don't need to sell that notion, they have already figured that out. Disney's clientele are not the demographic you are talking about since (according to the leadership seminar I attended a few years ago) the average family on a Disney vacation spends more than $10,000 for a typical week. They've decided to make staying at Disney more appealing as opposed to tourists staying near Disney but off the resort grounds. They also buy blocks of airline reservations which are then sold as package deals. That allows them to take advantage of volume discounts on their end while charging the customer a fee for the service. Sometimes the convenience is more expensive and sometimes it's vastly cheaper. Disney also heavily markets to the local population, something they did not do much in the 1980s.

Your simple anecdote really isn't that accurate anyway. It costs about $400 in gas to drive from New York to Disney at $4 per gallon. It was $275 last year. Are you really saying that this family is going to opt to go on a picnic instead based on that cost increase?

But if you want to complain about gas prices, talk to the Government. They are the ones imposing massive taxes while also limiting domestic supply.

If the ability to pay has been affected by less capital due to higher taxes, the solution is simple: cut the tax rates for those whose means are not substantial. Innovation only goes so far and lags in effect compared to tax policy.

It takes substantial means to innovate in many cases. Taking away incentives to innovate ends up being a bad deal all around.

 

[asterism]

Cell phones used to be luxury goods and are now even cheaper than landlines. Again, innovation is the cause.

Actually, I think the widespread usage of cell phones nowadays has less to do with innovation and more to do with other mechanisms. Any new technology will always cost more at first than down the road. This is seen easily with gaming consoles. When the PS3 first came out it retailed for $600, and resold for several thousands of dollars. Companies know that creating hype will allow them to charge more for a newer product, because it tilts supply and demand in their favor. There haven't been any new innovations that make the exact same PS3 cheaper to produce. Yet they now retail for less than $200 only a few years later, and have no extra resell value. The main force here is the industry making decisions about what approach they expect will make them the most overall money.

Even though I'm sure there have been innovations in cell phone technology in the past 30, cell phones as a market aren't much different, though there are some additional complexities. The industry has made more overall money by offering cell phones at low enough rates that they have now become so widely used that greater society practically demands them of people. This meant that nearly 10 years ago when I bought my first cell phone I was able to get a minimum service plan for $30 a month. In comparison to a landline, the price was pretty much the same. And even though a land line offered unlimited calling, the cell phone plan still provided for all of my communication needs, so the two options were practically equal economically (there was actually a slight advantage to the cell phone plan because of the free long distance that it provided, which was valuable to me at the time). But since that time, that price has nearly doubled, because once demand was established in the social sector the industry became able to afford to charge comparatively higher rates because of the new necessity status that the industry achieved, and by subsidizing their own costs through things like bundling hardware features to justify higher merchandise prices (it's nearly impossible to buy a cell phone nowadays, you now buy an MP3 player/pager/camera/PDA that also happens to make phone calls) and service options (when I got my first cell phone I was able to buy an unlimited text messaging option for $5 a month; now, I'd have to buy a data package that includes texting, wireless web, picture mail, etc. for $30 a month).

The market is not a single variable equation. There are alot of complex factors that are involved, and they include industry propping up their own demand in order to maintain a consumer base.

So you're saying innovation didn't allow cell phones to drop in price from thousands of dollars each to less than $100? Innovation didn't allow usage prices to drop from $1 a minute plus long distance to $.08 and free long distance?

Ok....

 

[asterism]

But see, I never said the government should put money into the hands of the less advantaged. I am talking about the government taking more money out of the hands of the less advantaged by raising their taxes, which is exactly what would happen under a flat tax system.

We always hear the Conservatives and their over lords, the uber rich and corporate interests, telling us that raising the marginal tax rate for people enjoying lavish incomes over $250,000 as unfair and detrimental to the economy. Well, consider someone making only one tenth of that $25,000 having 15% of their income confiscated at gunpoint (that's the operative phrase, isn't it?) What happens to their meager spending power then?

And ask yourself, are there more people making a quarter of a million a year or only $25,000? Which group, by shear force of numbers alone, is more capable of spending and stimulating the economy?

Without the quarter of a million a year people, there ARE no $25,000/year people.

The goal is to create more quarter of a million a year people and a climate where people can aspire to prosper more than $25,000/year. You don't do that by punishing success and rewarding mediocrity.

And again, you are ignoring that the $25,000/year people have a great deal of incentive to vote in people who will insure that they keep getting a free ride by punishing the rich. And that is an extremely unhealthy situation.

Much better for us all to share and share alike in the consequences of government action so that there is no advantage to staying poor and no consequence for honorable prosperity.

The folks making $25,000 aren't voting anyway.

What?????

So why not screw them to the floor by raising their taxes? If raising taxes on millionaires is detrimental, what do you suppose raising the taxes on the poor would do to their buying power? If you're living pay check to pay check, should you be punished? If you're living in a mansion making $250,000 would raising your taxes really REALLY make you hurt? Hurt like someone on a $25,000 salary is hurt by watching his job go to Asia or have to decide medicine or food this month?

Dem po' ol' rich folk needs all da hep we can give 'em! I only WISH I made enough to be in the 35% bracket!

Envy is not a good way to set policy. It's not help, it's taking less so they can spend and invest more.

 

[Nosmo King]

Without the quarter of a million a year people, there ARE no $25,000/year people.

The goal is to create more quarter of a million a year people and a climate where people can aspire to prosper more than $25,000/year. You don't do that by punishing success and rewarding mediocrity.

And again, you are ignoring that the $25,000/year people have a great deal of incentive to vote in people who will insure that they keep getting a free ride by punishing the rich. And that is an extremely unhealthy situation.

Much better for us all to share and share alike in the consequences of government action so that there is no advantage to staying poor and no consequence for honorable prosperity.

The folks making $25,000 aren't voting anyway.

What?????

So why not screw them to the floor by raising their taxes? If raising taxes on millionaires is detrimental, what do you suppose raising the taxes on the poor would do to their buying power? If you're living pay check to pay check, should you be punished? If you're living in a mansion making $250,000 would raising your taxes really REALLY make you hurt? Hurt like someone on a $25,000 salary is hurt by watching his job go to Asia or have to decide medicine or food this month?

Dem po' ol' rich folk needs all da hep we can give 'em! I only WISH I made enough to be in the 35% bracket!

Envy is not a good way to set policy. It's not help, it's taking less so they can spend and invest more.

Spend and invest more, eh? Okay, let's look at spending. Would you agree that, in total dollars spent, those making $60,000 and less make up the largest block of consumers? And, that among all age demographics, those making more than $350,000 represent a substantially smaller group both in total dollars spent and in physical numbers.

Here the rich have NOT been spending in spite of the mounds of capital on which they sit.

And yet those in the lower economic strata have not been saving in record amounts but spending. Just to get by, not on luxury goods or investments.

To get the economic engine humming we need jobs and consumer spending. The latter fuels the growth of the former. It seems those with means aren't holding up their end of the bargain.

And voting. National elections would very much like to have at least a 60% turnout. 50% would make headlines. And yet senators, congressmen and presidents are elected by less than 45% of the potential electorate. And of that 45% the overwhelming minority is folks at or below the poverty line. Senior citizens, the politically aware like you and I and more prosperous folks are the voters in this country. Kids under 25 and those making very little sit on their hands out of what? I can only presume.

And while there are a lot of taxes associated with gasoline, there are also forces of the market. Speculation in the price of light sweet crude can make the price at the pump leap with more volatility than tax collectors.

 

[Nosmo King]

I love ya foxy, but I did address one of your questions. You said:

You require them to pay taxes so they'll have a stake in the system, so that they will vote for the best people rather than the people who will keep giving them a free ride. You allow them to participate as full citizens paying their fair share for the blessings of liberty and not have incentive not to rise above a certain threshhold lest they lose material benefits. (And THAT is how government creates dependencies among certain segments of society--by imposing penalties on them should they choose to prosper.)

And that's a purely political rationalization for raising taxes on those folks who cannot afford to have them raised while halving the taxes on those who are the ones holding the wealth.

Trickle down just doesn't work unless your whole plan is to consolidate as much capital into as few hands as possible. And giving the rich a 50+% tax cut while giving the middle class a 50-100% tax increase is trickle down on steroids.

 

[Foxfyre]

I love ya foxy, but I did address one of your questions. You said:

You require them to pay taxes so they'll have a stake in the system, so that they will vote for the best people rather than the people who will keep giving them a free ride. You allow them to participate as full citizens paying their fair share for the blessings of liberty and not have incentive not to rise above a certain threshhold lest they lose material benefits. (And THAT is how government creates dependencies among certain segments of society--by imposing penalties on them should they choose to prosper.)

And that's a purely political rationalization for raising taxes on those folks who cannot afford to have them raised while halving the taxes on those who are the ones holding the wealth.

Trickle down just doesn't work unless your whole plan is to consolidate as much capital into as few hands as possible. And giving the rich a 50+% tax cut while giving the middle class a 50-100% tax increase is trickle down on steroids.

I have not nor do I ever use the term 'trickle down'. And there is no question in the paragraph you quoted. I was answering your question in that paragraph.

I have posed a number of questions. Hint: they end with question marks or begin with something like 'Explain how. . . . ."

 

[Nosmo King]

Explain to me how it is 'fair' to punish Citizen A who made the effort to educate himself and discipline himself to make a good living to support a family, be an exemplary and philanthropic member of his community, and operate a business that provides opportunity to make a living for many people. . . .

And reward Citizen B who didn't do any of that?

And then further allow Citizen B to vote for people who will ensure that Citizen A will be obliged to continue to support Citizen B?

Why isn't it fair for everybody to pay the same percentage so that everybody has an equally proportionate stake in the outcome of whatever government decides?

I hope this is the post you're talking about. I read back through the thread and I think I hit the head of every nail you set.

So, explain to me how it is 'fair' to punish Citizen A who made the effort to educate himself and discipline himself to make a good living to support a family, be an exemplary and philanthropic member of his community, and operate a business that provides opportunity to make a living for many people. And reward Citizen B who didn't do any of that?

I guess you would have to consider 30% as 'punishment' to rationalize this question. I'll give it a shot. How high was the record marginal tax rate for the highest tax bracket? Is 30% really then a punishment? Is 30% so high that it stifles real consumer spending and thus driving the economy? Would reducing that rate along with 'punishing' the middle class really make it fair?

And this tax system would further impede the middle class opportunity at wealth by eliminating deductions. After all, isn't it deductions and loophole that keep that 'punishment' of 30% bearable for the most comfortable class? Loosing deductions across the board would mean college would be out of reach for many in the middle class. Is it really fair to punish the middle class by keeping them in their place by raising their taxes and eliminating their deductions?

Anything other than eliminating deductions would not make a flat tax system as equitable as you would hope.

 

[gekaap]

So you're saying innovation didn't allow cell phones to drop in price from thousands of dollars each to less than $100? Innovation didn't allow usage prices to drop from $1 a minute plus long distance to $.08 and free long distance?

Ok....

Apparently you did not read my post. And you also need to verify your claims as to past cell phone prices.

I said that "innovation" is not a magical cure all. The market does not operate on innovation alone. It can operate without it, and when innovation does come into play a given industry does not use the fruits of innovative labors as a means to lower prices for the consumer. They use it as a means to maximize their own profits. If we are to accept the picture you paint of innovation in the cell phone industry, you have to explain why the same service plan that cost $30 in 2002 now costs $50 today. Inflation cannot account for that increase, and according to your innovation theory the price today should be lower when adjusted for inflation. The price of a PS3 today should be the same as when it was first released. The reality, however, does not match.

Instead, there are many complex mechanisms at work, including business schemes and plans. While you decry tax models that "prop up demand," you are neglecting the fact that part of normal business practices for a great many industries is to do exactly that--prop up demand via their marketing approaches. The cell phone industry has created itself as a necessity, and it essentially forces demand for many of its merchandise and services by selectively offering only more expensive options. So, the result is that you need a cell phone. In order to get a cell phone, you have to buy one of five devices that play MP3s, take pictures, double as a pager, and also serve the function of a PDA. You "need" these things because you need the cell phone, and you can't get the cell phone without them. Then, you need additional services as well. Once you have a cell phone, society, frequently including your boss at work, further expects you to be reachable via text message. In order to purchase that service you must then buy a full data package that powers the camera, MP3 player, PDA, and pager functions of that "phone" you've bought. All of this is the industry propping up demand that would otherwise not exist. And it's not done by technological innovation. It's done through clever marketing strategies and business practices.

And you know, this kind of approach is found pretty much everywhere you look. Ever notice how most restaurants serve big portions? I'm sure you've heard about it on the news once or twice. It's occasionally mentioned regarding America's obesity problems. Of course, customers often look at it from the point of view of "Oh my what generous portions for a decent price." But the reason they do it is to prop up demand. If they offered their meals in smaller portions, eliminating the need for most people to need a doggy bag, the industry would not make as much money. Of course, lower prices and eliminating consumer waste would make customers quite happy. But why would the industry do that? It's more profitable to prop up demand by offering only "generous" portions at higher prices. How about "value" size grocery items. Why would the industry offer their product at a lower price right along side their own very same product being offered at a higher price? Because they are propping up demand. When people buy 200% the product at 90% of the unit price, the consumer thinks they are getting a deal. But the industry makes more money overall with such offers, because with greater quantity bought, the greater the likelihood of the consumer exhausting what they've bought at a faster rate. And if they do not exhaust what they've bought at a faster rate, then the greater the chance of perishable goods comes greater likelihood of the product expiring before the consumer has the chance to use it all. These are just a couple examples of how demand in the market is propped up on a regular basis.

 

[Foxfyre]

Explain to me how it is 'fair' to punish Citizen A who made the effort to educate himself and discipline himself to make a good living to support a family, be an exemplary and philanthropic member of his community, and operate a business that provides opportunity to make a living for many people. . . .

And reward Citizen B who didn't do any of that?

And then further allow Citizen B to vote for people who will ensure that Citizen A will be obliged to continue to support Citizen B?

Why isn't it fair for everybody to pay the same percentage so that everybody has an equally proportionate stake in the outcome of whatever government decides?

I hope this is the post you're talking about. I read back through the thread and I think I hit the head of every nail you set.

So, explain to me how it is 'fair' to punish Citizen A who made the effort to educate himself and discipline himself to make a good living to support a family, be an exemplary and philanthropic member of his community, and operate a business that provides opportunity to make a living for many people. And reward Citizen B who didn't do any of that?

I guess you would have to consider 30% as 'punishment' to rationalize this question. I'll give it a shot. How high was the record marginal tax rate for the highest tax bracket? Is 30% really then a punishment? Is 30% so high that it stifles real consumer spending and thus driving the economy? Would reducing that rate along with 'punishing' the middle class really make it fair?

And this tax system would further impede the middle class opportunity at wealth by eliminating deductions. After all, isn't it deductions and loophole that keep that 'punishment' of 30% bearable for the most comfortable class? Loosing deductions across the board would mean college would be out of reach for many in the middle class. Is it really fair to punish the middle class by keeping them in their place by raising their taxes and eliminating their deductions?

Anything other than eliminating deductions would not make a flat tax system as equitable as you would hope.

No, you aren't addressing the question at all here. You're quibbling over the minutiae or details of the tax code as it currently exists. The virtues of simplification of the tax code are a different category of the same subject.

All other things being even, I want to know a rationale for why greater success and prosperity should be taxed at a higher rate than lesser success and prosperity. More especially when it is the more successful and prosperous who enable others to become successful and prosperous.

 

[Nosmo King]

Explain to me how it is 'fair' to punish Citizen A who made the effort to educate himself and discipline himself to make a good living to support a family, be an exemplary and philanthropic member of his community, and operate a business that provides opportunity to make a living for many people. . . .

And reward Citizen B who didn't do any of that?

And then further allow Citizen B to vote for people who will ensure that Citizen A will be obliged to continue to support Citizen B?

Why isn't it fair for everybody to pay the same percentage so that everybody has an equally proportionate stake in the outcome of whatever government decides?

I hope this is the post you're talking about. I read back through the thread and I think I hit the head of every nail you set.

So, explain to me how it is 'fair' to punish Citizen A who made the effort to educate himself and discipline himself to make a good living to support a family, be an exemplary and philanthropic member of his community, and operate a business that provides opportunity to make a living for many people. And reward Citizen B who didn't do any of that?

I guess you would have to consider 30% as 'punishment' to rationalize this question. I'll give it a shot. How high was the record marginal tax rate for the highest tax bracket? Is 30% really then a punishment? Is 30% so high that it stifles real consumer spending and thus driving the economy? Would reducing that rate along with 'punishing' the middle class really make it fair?

And this tax system would further impede the middle class opportunity at wealth by eliminating deductions. After all, isn't it deductions and loophole that keep that 'punishment' of 30% bearable for the most comfortable class? Loosing deductions across the board would mean college would be out of reach for many in the middle class. Is it really fair to punish the middle class by keeping them in their place by raising their taxes and eliminating their deductions?

Anything other than eliminating deductions would not make a flat tax system as equitable as you would hope.

No, you aren't addressing the question at all here. You're quibbling over the minutiae or details of the tax code as it currently exists. The virtues of simplification of the tax code are a different category of the same subject.

All other things being even, I want to know a rationale for why greater success and prosperity should be taxed at a higher rate than lesser success and prosperity. More especially when it is the more successful and prosperous who enable others to become successful and prosperous.

Because they can afford it. those without find it tough enough to compete in this lop-sided economy. The gap between the rich and poor has served to concentrate wealth. The rich are responsible for wealth? Then let that wealth be taxed and let those without wealth have some breathing room. If it's unfair to tax the rich at 30%, it's a crime to tax the poor at 15%.

And I don't accept the notion that the rich drive the economy. They only provide jobs when there is demand for their product. The rich ain't known for altruism, they're known for their shrewd business savvy. And they aren't the indispensable factor either. Consumer spending is the gasoline for this economic engine. The rich are sitting on piles of cash and not hiring. Are the rich circulating that wealth thus driving the economy? That's their responsibility as you see it. Their raisson d'tere. We find the rich turning their wealth into gold bullion or deposit slips from off shore banks.

 

[Foxfyre]

I hope this is the post you're talking about. I read back through the thread and I think I hit the head of every nail you set.

So, explain to me how it is 'fair' to punish Citizen A who made the effort to educate himself and discipline himself to make a good living to support a family, be an exemplary and philanthropic member of his community, and operate a business that provides opportunity to make a living for many people. And reward Citizen B who didn't do any of that?

I guess you would have to consider 30% as 'punishment' to rationalize this question. I'll give it a shot. How high was the record marginal tax rate for the highest tax bracket? Is 30% really then a punishment? Is 30% so high that it stifles real consumer spending and thus driving the economy? Would reducing that rate along with 'punishing' the middle class really make it fair?

And this tax system would further impede the middle class opportunity at wealth by eliminating deductions. After all, isn't it deductions and loophole that keep that 'punishment' of 30% bearable for the most comfortable class? Loosing deductions across the board would mean college would be out of reach for many in the middle class. Is it really fair to punish the middle class by keeping them in their place by raising their taxes and eliminating their deductions?

Anything other than eliminating deductions would not make a flat tax system as equitable as you would hope.

No, you aren't addressing the question at all here. You're quibbling over the minutiae or details of the tax code as it currently exists. The virtues of simplification of the tax code are a different category of the same subject.

All other things being even, I want to know a rationale for why greater success and prosperity should be taxed at a higher rate than lesser success and prosperity. More especially when it is the more successful and prosperous who enable others to become successful and prosperous.

Because they can afford it. those without find it tough enough to compete in this lop-sided economy. The gap between the rich and poor has served to concentrate wealth. The rich are responsible for wealth? Then let that wealth be taxed and let those without wealth have some breathing room. If it's unfair to tax the rich at 30%, it's a crime to tax the poor at 15%.

And I don't accept the notion that the rich drive the economy. They only provide jobs when there is demand for their product. The rich ain't known for altruism, they're known for their shrewd business savvy. And they aren't the indispensable factor either. Consumer spending is the gasoline for this economic engine. The rich are sitting on piles of cash and not hiring. Are the rich circulating that wealth thus driving the economy? That's their responsibility as you see it. Their raisson d'tere. We find the rich turning their wealth into gold bullion or deposit slips from off shore banks.

Well Nosmo, try to run an economy without the people who stuck their necks out to take risks, develop prototypes that became mass produced products, who have engineered and fabricated and put together systems and production lines and concepts resulting in products and services to sell. See how well the poor get along in societies where there are few rich to provide loans, venture capital, jobs, philanthropy, and a market for goods and servicesl.

Your way is to give power to the government to dictate who deserves to be taxed and who does not. I want to give the power to the people to use and invest and risk and spend their money as they see fit as much as that can possibly be accomplished. And I do not trust government to decide who can 'afford it' and who cannot.

The difference is being subject to a monarch or dictator or totalitarian government with the power to dictate the destiny of its subjects and a government that secures the rights of the people and then leaves them alone to govern themselves and prosper as they are able.

Class envy has no place in a free society and the principle should be to encourage all to prosper, not punish those who do and reward those who do not.

 

[asterism]

The folks making $25,000 aren't voting anyway.

What?????

So why not screw them to the floor by raising their taxes? If raising taxes on millionaires is detrimental, what do you suppose raising the taxes on the poor would do to their buying power? If you're living pay check to pay check, should you be punished? If you're living in a mansion making $250,000 would raising your taxes really REALLY make you hurt? Hurt like someone on a $25,000 salary is hurt by watching his job go to Asia or have to decide medicine or food this month?

Dem po' ol' rich folk needs all da hep we can give 'em! I only WISH I made enough to be in the 35% bracket!

Envy is not a good way to set policy. It's not help, it's taking less so they can spend and invest more.

Spend and invest more, eh? Okay, let's look at spending. Would you agree that, in total dollars spent, those making $60,000 and less make up the largest block of consumers? And, that among all age demographics, those making more than $350,000 represent a substantially smaller group both in total dollars spent and in physical numbers.

Yes.

Here the rich have NOT been spending in spite of the mounds of capital on which they sit.

That's not true.

And yet those in the lower economic strata have not been saving in record amounts but spending. Just to get by, not on luxury goods or investments.

I suppose the definition of "luxury good" is debateable. Investments? Well there just isn't much there anyway. Never has been, probably never will be. Certainly not compared to the upper income brackets.

To get the economic engine humming we need jobs and consumer spending. The latter fuels the growth of the former.

That depends on the cost of providing the jobs and the resultant consumer spending.

It seems those with means aren't holding up their end of the bargain.

What bargain?

And voting. National elections would very much like to have at least a 60% turnout. 50% would make headlines. And yet senators, congressmen and presidents are elected by less than 45% of the potential electorate. And of that 45% the overwhelming minority is folks at or below the poverty line. Senior citizens, the politically aware like you and I and more prosperous folks are the voters in this country. Kids under 25 and those making very little sit on their hands out of what? I can only presume.

I'm not going to argue with a presumption. You made a claim. If you can't provide evidence the claim is pointless.

And while there are a lot of taxes associated with gasoline, there are also forces of the market. Speculation in the price of light sweet crude can make the price at the pump leap with more volatility than tax collectors.

That's your opinion, but I disagree. Futures trading provides a market which may cause instability, but nothing is less stable than prices in commodities when there are times when there is no market at all. A ship leaves a port to go get some oil. Usually, that oil has already been bought and there is a contract for delivery. There is trading based on expectations in between the time it takes the ship to leave the home port and arrive at the final port with the tanks full of oil, but the decision and costs were worked out when it left. If there was no futures market then the folks who hire the transports would speculate not on the price, but on whether the ship leaves at all. Then there are the added inefficiencies of not having a stable operation where a ship schedules all this in advance but has to pick and choose the times it will leave, when it will pick up the product, and when it will arrive at the final port, all based on assumptions.

This used to happen in produce. When I was a kid bananas would sometimes cost 3¢ per pound and sometimes they would cost 50¢ per pound, all depending on how many ships showed up at the port full of bananas. Since there wasn't an efficient futures market for futures then, that meant sometimes we just did without bananas. Now? They are typically about 50¢ per pound. I remember when strawberries were only available "in season." Thanks to the futures market I can get them year round.

Do we really want oil to be simply not available?

 

[asterism]

Explain to me how it is 'fair' to punish Citizen A who made the effort to educate himself and discipline himself to make a good living to support a family, be an exemplary and philanthropic member of his community, and operate a business that provides opportunity to make a living for many people. . . .

And reward Citizen B who didn't do any of that?

And then further allow Citizen B to vote for people who will ensure that Citizen A will be obliged to continue to support Citizen B?

Why isn't it fair for everybody to pay the same percentage so that everybody has an equally proportionate stake in the outcome of whatever government decides?

I hope this is the post you're talking about. I read back through the thread and I think I hit the head of every nail you set.

So, explain to me how it is 'fair' to punish Citizen A who made the effort to educate himself and discipline himself to make a good living to support a family, be an exemplary and philanthropic member of his community, and operate a business that provides opportunity to make a living for many people. And reward Citizen B who didn't do any of that?

I guess you would have to consider 30% as 'punishment' to rationalize this question. I'll give it a shot. How high was the record marginal tax rate for the highest tax bracket? Is 30% really then a punishment? Is 30% so high that it stifles real consumer spending and thus driving the economy? Would reducing that rate along with 'punishing' the middle class really make it fair?

And this tax system would further impede the middle class opportunity at wealth by eliminating deductions. After all, isn't it deductions and loophole that keep that 'punishment' of 30% bearable for the most comfortable class? Loosing deductions across the board would mean college would be out of reach for many in the middle class. Is it really fair to punish the middle class by keeping them in their place by raising their taxes and eliminating their deductions?

Anything other than eliminating deductions would not make a flat tax system as equitable as you would hope.

If you want to suggest that we go back to the days of exorbitant marginal tax rates you need to re-allow all the loopholes in existence then also. But something tells me you wouldn't want that.

Neither would I, it would amount to the same "tax cuts for business" our current President enacted, only the chosen few benefit and everyone else pays through the nose.

 

[Nosmo King]

What?????



Envy is not a good way to set policy. It's not help, it's taking less so they can spend and invest more.

Spend and invest more, eh? Okay, let's look at spending. Would you agree that, in total dollars spent, those making $60,000 and less make up the largest block of consumers? And, that among all age demographics, those making more than $350,000 represent a substantially smaller group both in total dollars spent and in physical numbers.

Yes.



That's not true.



I suppose the definition of "luxury good" is debateable. Investments? Well there just isn't much there anyway. Never has been, probably never will be. Certainly not compared to the upper income brackets.



That depends on the cost of providing the jobs and the resultant consumer spending.



What bargain?

And voting. National elections would very much like to have at least a 60% turnout. 50% would make headlines. And yet senators, congressmen and presidents are elected by less than 45% of the potential electorate. And of that 45% the overwhelming minority is folks at or below the poverty line. Senior citizens, the politically aware like you and I and more prosperous folks are the voters in this country. Kids under 25 and those making very little sit on their hands out of what? I can only presume.

I'm not going to argue with a presumption. You made a claim. If you can't provide evidence the claim is pointless.

And while there are a lot of taxes associated with gasoline, there are also forces of the market. Speculation in the price of light sweet crude can make the price at the pump leap with more volatility than tax collectors.

That's your opinion, but I disagree. Futures trading provides a market which may cause instability, but nothing is less stable than prices in commodities when there are times when there is no market at all. A ship leaves a port to go get some oil. Usually, that oil has already been bought and there is a contract for delivery. There is trading based on expectations in between the time it takes the ship to leave the home port and arrive at the final port with the tanks full of oil, but the decision and costs were worked out when it left. If there was no futures market then the folks who hire the transports would speculate not on the price, but on whether the ship leaves at all. Then there are the added inefficiencies of not having a stable operation where a ship schedules all this in advance but has to pick and choose the times it will leave, when it will pick up the product, and when it will arrive at the final port, all based on assumptions.

This used to happen in produce. When I was a kid bananas would sometimes cost 3¢ per pound and sometimes they would cost 50¢ per pound, all depending on how many ships showed up at the port full of bananas. Since there wasn't an efficient futures market for futures then, that meant sometimes we just did without bananas. Now? They are typically about 50¢ per pound. I remember when strawberries were only available "in season." Thanks to the futures market I can get them year round.

Do we really want oil to be simply not available?

So basically, it's this market or no market at all? The possibility of reform and regulation isn't on the table?

And there are statistics validating my claim. And you know the truth of my claim.

And the 'bargain' struck with the rich goes something like this: if we cut their taxes, clear away consumer protection regulations and otherwise empower the rich, they in turn, will create, innovate, invest and drive this economy forward at break neck speed.

But first, let's ham string the middle class with confiscatory taxes they cannot afford to pay.

 

[Foxfyre]

Who among our elected leaders is smart enough to 'reform the market'? in a way that is superior to a free market that works within protected rights? Please name the person. We need to elect him king.