Flat 10% income tax

[PeterS]

I never said it was the companies responsibility to provide jobs. Others seemd to imply that increased productivity was good for workers.

A company making profits is good for workers and if you can make more profits using the same or fewer employees that is certainly good for all.

Good for the people that were laid off?

You're running in circles. The people laid off aren't the responsibility of the company. They sold their labor and their labor is no longer needed. Why do you think a company should retain labor it does not need?

 

[The Rabbi]

Yep, productivity increased due to decreased labor costs.

Ignorant and don't learn quickly I see.

No, UNIT labor costs decreased. Big difference.

You neglected to mention that the market will only support X number of units.

Where do you glean that from??

If Porsches cost 50% less do you think they would not sell many more of them?

 

[PeterS]

Ignorant and don't learn quickly I see.

No, UNIT labor costs decreased. Big difference.

You neglected to mention that the market will only support X number of units.

Where do you glean that from??

If Porsches cost 50% less do you think they would not sell many more of them?

Only if you sold them for less. You haven't made that argument.

 

[uscitizen]

The logical consequence of that is that all companies should lay off all their workers so they can achieve maximum productivity.
Doesn't make much sense now, does it?
It helps the laid off workers by freeing them to pursue more productive jobs in growing industries.

Ahh that right wing tactic of pushing something to the absurd in an attempt to extricate themselves.

A non-answer, indicative of non-thought.
So tell me what's wrong with that analysis? If laying off some workers is good, then laying off all workers will be better, right?

Yeah right, like a diet. If reducing some food is good then to eat nothing at all is best?

 

[Darkwind]

The same old left wing nutjob talking points.

You all talk as if wealth is a zero sum game. People do not generate wealth at the expense of others.

You all talk as if someone making a million dollars does so by taking food off of your tables.


Oh, and there is only a savings in cost if productivity remains the same. Productivity falls and the company saves nothing.

 

[uscitizen]

Wealth is not a zero sum game, but it is far closer to a zero sum game than those on the right realize.


You want the recession to end?
You like paying $4/gal for gas?

Well you are not likely to have one without the other.

 

[PeterS]

The same old left wing nutjob talking points.

You all talk as if wealth is a zero sum game. People do not generate wealth at the expense of others.

You all talk as if someone making a million dollars does so by taking food off of your tables.


Oh, and there is only a savings in cost if productivity remains the same. Productivity falls and the company saves nothing.

Same ole right wing nut job talking points. You and US should form a club...

 

[logical4u]

The same old left wing nutjob talking points.

You all talk as if wealth is a zero sum game. People do not generate wealth at the expense of others.

You all talk as if someone making a million dollars does so by taking food off of your tables.


Oh, and there is only a savings in cost if productivity remains the same. Productivity falls and the company saves nothing.

I learned you could aquire wealth by:
Taking it from someone else (politicians)
Sell your labor skills for any of the following:
Producing a product that someone is willing to buy (farming, crafts, manufacturing)
Collecting a product that someone is willing to buy (minerals, wood, etc)
Selling intellect (ideas, knowledge, organization or managerial skills, etc)
If you choose to sell your labor skills, you cannot blame someone else for your choices. There are many hours each week that you are not working that you could use to improve your skills or find a different employer. If you are not happy, do something about it (productively) and don't expect others to fix your life.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You continue to prove your ignorance of basic economics.

Productivity is increased by reducing UNIT labor cost. It is not the same thing.

everytime a company lays off workers their productivity rises and so does their stock price. How does that help the laid off workers?

You are being deceptive. Reducing unit costs is often achieved by reducing labor costs.

The logical consequence of that is that all companies should lay off all their workers so they can achieve maximum productivity.
Doesn't make much sense now, does it?
It helps the laid off workers by freeing them to pursue more productive jobs in growing industries.

No that is not a logical consequence.

 

[California Girl]

This year I want a flat 10% income tax with a single deduction of 85,000 so that anyone making below that will not pay any and any amount above that pays a single flat rate without any loopholes or complications.

If any republican or democrat wants my vote then they better do that.

Why do you want to be taxed?

Right, fuck the infrastructure, as the cons have always thought.
We're pathetic, as it is, compared to most civilized countries.

I'm curious as to how you are measuring 'pathetic' compared to 'most civilized countries'? And don't give me your 'thoughts', give me evidence.

 

[uscitizen]

Health care rating?
infant deaths?
Education?
Life expectancy?

 

[The Rabbi]

Ahh that right wing tactic of pushing something to the absurd in an attempt to extricate themselves.

A non-answer, indicative of non-thought.
So tell me what's wrong with that analysis? If laying off some workers is good, then laying off all workers will be better, right?

Yeah right, like a diet. If reducing some food is good then to eat nothing at all is best?

OK. Good.
So obviously there is some level between current employees and no employees that is best. How do you determine that?

 

[The Rabbi]

Wealth is not a zero sum game, but it is far closer to a zero sum game than those on the right realize.


You want the recession to end?
You like paying $4/gal for gas?

Well you are not likely to have one without the other.

And yet all during Pres Bush's tenure we had lower levels of unemployment, higher levels of GDP growth, and lower gas prices than either today or what you are positing.

It seems to be a false dichotomy.

 

[uscitizen]

Wealth is not a zero sum game, but it is far closer to a zero sum game than those on the right realize.


You want the recession to end?
You like paying $4/gal for gas?

Well you are not likely to have one without the other.

And yet all during Pres Bush's tenure we had lower levels of unemployment, higher levels of GDP growth, and lower gas prices than either today or what you are positing.

It seems to be a false dichotomy.

Also during Bush's presidency we had a real drop in wages once inflation was figured in, but a big jump in personal income. The wall street bonuses alone skew the heck out of the avg personal income.
We also had declining employment under Bush and most jobs gained under Bush were either low wage retail or govt jobs.

 

[HUGGY]

I agree with the concept as long as ALL income and profit is taxed at 10%. No deductions, no exemptions.

Watch the wealthy balk when they have to pay taxes on every cent they make

And again, right on cue, you confuse high income earners with the wealthy.

Is there someplace near you where you can go get a clue?

you confuse high income earners with the wealthy.

 

[rightwinger]

Wealth is not a zero sum game, but it is far closer to a zero sum game than those on the right realize.


You want the recession to end?
You like paying $4/gal for gas?

Well you are not likely to have one without the other.

And yet all during Pres Bush's tenure we had lower levels of unemployment, higher levels of GDP growth, and lower gas prices than either today or what you are positing.

It seems to be a false dichotomy.

And yet all during Pres Bush's tenure we had:

lower levels of unemployment,

True, but the unemployment rate nearly doubled under Bush

higher levels of GDP growth,

False, GDP fell during the last 18 months of Bush's Presidency. That is how we knew we were in a recession

and lower gas prices than either today or what you are positing

False, we had $4 a gallon gas under Bush

 

[uscitizen]

And we will have $4 gas again once the recession is over.
To boost a consumer economy consumers must have more income to spend which means more jobs.

 

[ba1614]

The same old left wing nutjob talking points.

You all talk as if wealth is a zero sum game. People do not generate wealth at the expense of others.

You all talk as if someone making a million dollars does so by taking food off of your tables.


Oh, and there is only a savings in cost if productivity remains the same. Productivity falls and the company saves nothing.

I learned you could aquire wealth by:
Taking it from someone else (politicians)
Sell your labor skills for any of the following:
Producing a product that someone is willing to buy (farming, crafts, manufacturing)
Collecting a product that someone is willing to buy (minerals, wood, etc)
Selling intellect (ideas, knowledge, organization or managerial skills, etc)
If you choose to sell your labor skills, you cannot blame someone else for your choices. There are many hours each week that you are not working that you could use to improve your skills or find a different employer. If you are not happy, do something about it (productively) and don't expect others to fix your life.

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to logical4u again"

If some of these whiners took even half the effort they put into whining and blaming others, and used it to better themselves, they too might find that success they are so envious of.

 

[uscitizen]

Yeah wealth vs income. I expect to make under 40K next year on investments. My farm just pays for itself and the help.

However I have a nice nestegg which should last me the rest of my life.

 

[QUENTIN]

50's were pretty prosperous, incomes and wages were healthy, unemployment low, and we got a lot done as a nation. Paying 91% income tax, the rich were still able to live lavishly, employ millions of people, even produce things of value rather than just move theoretical money around for profit. Enormous tax cuts to the wealthy tend to result in a terrible economy and increased suffering for all but the wealthy, while progressive taxation tends to result in immense growth of the economy and inequalities of wealth, power, and influence reduced dramatically. This has played out over and over since we started collecting income taxes, the correlation is direct and unmistakable.

"The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion"

- Adam Smith, "The Wealth of Nations"

Thomas Paine, of course, devoted an entire chapter of his "Rights of Man" to advocating progressive taxation as a fundamental necessity to democracy to prevent the accumulation of undue influence and power in the hands of the few.

Your starting at $85,000 seems to recognize one degree of progressive taxation, but a flat tax runs counter to many key underlying principles of both capitalism and democracy. Beyond that, it doesn't really work and would result in less tax revenue in a time of recession, only exacerbating our economic woes.