Fair Share Poll

[Two Thumbs]

Didn't Laugher (that how it's spelled?) Have the flat tax at 12-13%?

I'm certain we can fudge that some so the the poor pay a little less and the libs can get vengeance on the rich by making them pay a little more.

Cuz that's all the "The rich should pay more!" crap is about. Some feeble sense of vengence.

 

[syrenn]

Didn't Laugher (that how it's spelled?) Have the flat tax at 12-13%?

I'm certain we can fudge that some so the the poor pay a little less and the libs can get vengeance on the rich by making them pay a little more.

Cuz that's all the "The rich should pay more!" crap is about. Some feeble sense of vengence.

No, its not vengeance. Its a Robbin Hood complex. It is feeling entitled to other peoples money. It is about imposing mortality.

 

[asterism]

Didn't Laugher (that how it's spelled?) Have the flat tax at 12-13%?

I'm certain we can fudge that some so the the poor pay a little less and the libs can get vengeance on the rich by making them pay a little more.

Cuz that's all the "The rich should pay more!" crap is about. Some feeble sense of vengence.

No, its not vengeance. Its a Robbin Hood complex. It is feeling entitled to other peoples money. It is about imposing mortality.

Plus add in a good dose of social engineering. In the end, it's about controlling society as a means to "take care of people."

 

[Nosmo King]

It's not vengeance, nor a Robin Hood complex or even the dreaded 'social engineering'. It's smart economics. If you put the most money into the most hands, that money gets circulated throughout the economy. If you continue to concentrate wealth in fewer and fewer hands, that money gets sheltered and spent among the very few.

So ask yourself, what creates economic growth: sequestering money with the very rich or letting the most consumers keep more cash?

 

[asterism]

It's not vengeance, nor a Robin Hood complex or even the dreaded 'social engineering'. It's smart economics. If you put the most money into the most hands, that money gets circulated throughout the economy. If you continue to concentrate wealth in fewer and fewer hands, that money gets sheltered and spent among the very few.

So ask yourself, what creates economic growth: sequestering money with the very rich or letting the most consumers keep more cash?

Controlling income distribution through taxation is by nature social engineering. Also, your premise is flawed because demand is only part of the equation. Efficient means to meet that demand is also required and is not encouraged by taxing high earners to subsidize middle and low earners, who cannot efficiently meet the demand by themselves.

What's the incentive to take a risk and innovate if a greater share of the profit is merely taxed away? What's the incentive to not simply "demand" more if all it takes is some scheme to get more money from those who have earned it?

 

[Nosmo King]

It's not vengeance, nor a Robin Hood complex or even the dreaded 'social engineering'. It's smart economics. If you put the most money into the most hands, that money gets circulated throughout the economy. If you continue to concentrate wealth in fewer and fewer hands, that money gets sheltered and spent among the very few.

So ask yourself, what creates economic growth: sequestering money with the very rich or letting the most consumers keep more cash?

Controlling income distribution through taxation is by nature social engineering. Also, your premise is flawed because demand is only part of the equation. Efficient means to meet that demand is also required and is not encouraged by taxing high earners to subsidize middle and low earners, who cannot efficiently meet the demand by themselves.

What's the incentive to take a risk and innovate if a greater share of the profit is merely taxed away? What's the incentive to not simply "demand" more if all it takes is some scheme to get more money from those who have earned it?

There is NO incentive if there are not consumers with the disposable income to generate demand. Why is someone going to open a factory if no one can afford the product?

You can't sell Bentleys in the Bowery, but you can sell Bentleys in Palm Beach. Wanna sell more Bentleys? Make your customer base larger.

 

[Two Thumbs]

It's not vengeance, nor a Robin Hood complex or even the dreaded 'social engineering'. It's smart economics. If you put the most money into the most hands, that money gets circulated throughout the economy. If you continue to concentrate wealth in fewer and fewer hands, that money gets sheltered and spent among the very few.

So ask yourself, what creates economic growth: sequestering money with the very rich or letting the most consumers keep more cash?

This non-sense proves my point.

Get vengence by taking from the evil rich b/c they don't spend their money and give it to the good poor that will spend thier money.

both are assumptions that certain things happen.

When was the last time a poor person bought a private jet?
I can promise you that no poor person will spend the same amount in his life timeas a rich person can put on a single check.

 

[asterism]

It's not vengeance, nor a Robin Hood complex or even the dreaded 'social engineering'. It's smart economics. If you put the most money into the most hands, that money gets circulated throughout the economy. If you continue to concentrate wealth in fewer and fewer hands, that money gets sheltered and spent among the very few.

So ask yourself, what creates economic growth: sequestering money with the very rich or letting the most consumers keep more cash?

Controlling income distribution through taxation is by nature social engineering. Also, your premise is flawed because demand is only part of the equation. Efficient means to meet that demand is also required and is not encouraged by taxing high earners to subsidize middle and low earners, who cannot efficiently meet the demand by themselves.

What's the incentive to take a risk and innovate if a greater share of the profit is merely taxed away? What's the incentive to not simply "demand" more if all it takes is some scheme to get more money from those who have earned it?

There is NO incentive if there are not consumers with the disposable income to generate demand. Why is someone going to open a factory if no one can afford the product?

A valid point. When has there ever been no demand?

You can't sell Bentleys in the Bowery, but you can sell Bentleys in Palm Beach. Wanna sell more Bentleys? Make your customer base larger.

Or make them cheaper than the alternative, more attractive than similarly priced items, reach different markets currently served by other products, etc. One sure way to not sell Bentley's in the Bowery is to tax the Bentley manufacturer and give the money to those in the Bowery.

 

[Two Thumbs]

It's not vengeance, nor a Robin Hood complex or even the dreaded 'social engineering'. It's smart economics. If you put the most money into the most hands, that money gets circulated throughout the economy. If you continue to concentrate wealth in fewer and fewer hands, that money gets sheltered and spent among the very few.

So ask yourself, what creates economic growth: sequestering money with the very rich or letting the most consumers keep more cash?

Controlling income distribution through taxation is by nature social engineering. Also, your premise is flawed because demand is only part of the equation. Efficient means to meet that demand is also required and is not encouraged by taxing high earners to subsidize middle and low earners, who cannot efficiently meet the demand by themselves.

What's the incentive to take a risk and innovate if a greater share of the profit is merely taxed away? What's the incentive to not simply "demand" more if all it takes is some scheme to get more money from those who have earned it?

There is NO incentive if there are not consumers with the disposable income to generate demand. Why is someone going to open a factory if no one can afford the product?

You can't sell Bentleys in the Bowery, but you can sell Bentleys in Palm Beach. Wanna sell more Bentleys? Make your customer base larger.

The working poor can't buy a new car from any of the big 3.

Bentleys are for the rich and a Bently sells used at $250k, that's a lot of money in circulation.

 

[Nosmo King]

It's not vengeance, nor a Robin Hood complex or even the dreaded 'social engineering'. It's smart economics. If you put the most money into the most hands, that money gets circulated throughout the economy. If you continue to concentrate wealth in fewer and fewer hands, that money gets sheltered and spent among the very few.

So ask yourself, what creates economic growth: sequestering money with the very rich or letting the most consumers keep more cash?

This non-sense proves my point.

Get vengence by taking from the evil rich b/c they don't spend their money and give it to the good poor that will spend thier money.

both are assumptions that certain things happen.

When was the last time a poor person bought a private jet?
I can promise you that no poor person will spend the same amount in his life timeas a rich person can put on a single check.

I notice you added the qualifications "evil" to the rich and "good" to the poor. I made no such distinctions.

There are far more poor than rich. No, a poor person isn't going to buy a private jet. But they are going to buy furniture, clothing, housing, appliances, food, gasoline, medical services, tuitions, credit card bills, insurance premiums and on and on.

That's far more money circulating among far more suppliers than the price of a Gulfstream.

 

[Nosmo King]

Controlling income distribution through taxation is by nature social engineering. Also, your premise is flawed because demand is only part of the equation. Efficient means to meet that demand is also required and is not encouraged by taxing high earners to subsidize middle and low earners, who cannot efficiently meet the demand by themselves.

What's the incentive to take a risk and innovate if a greater share of the profit is merely taxed away? What's the incentive to not simply "demand" more if all it takes is some scheme to get more money from those who have earned it?

There is NO incentive if there are not consumers with the disposable income to generate demand. Why is someone going to open a factory if no one can afford the product?

A valid point. When has there ever been no demand?

You can't sell Bentleys in the Bowery, but you can sell Bentleys in Palm Beach. Wanna sell more Bentleys? Make your customer base larger.

Or make them cheaper than the alternative, more attractive than similarly priced items, reach different markets currently served by other products, etc. One sure way to not sell Bentley's in the Bowery is to tax the Bentley manufacturer and give the money to those in the Bowery.

No demand? Once the price of a product exceeds the ability to pay for that product, the demand shrinks. If all you want is to sell luxury goods to those with means, fine. But when the consumer finds say gasoline prices skyrocketing, their 'demand' for a summer vacation in the old Chevy mini van falls off the charts.

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).

 

[Two Thumbs]

It's not vengeance, nor a Robin Hood complex or even the dreaded 'social engineering'. It's smart economics. If you put the most money into the most hands, that money gets circulated throughout the economy. If you continue to concentrate wealth in fewer and fewer hands, that money gets sheltered and spent among the very few.

So ask yourself, what creates economic growth: sequestering money with the very rich or letting the most consumers keep more cash?

This non-sense proves my point.

Get vengence by taking from the evil rich b/c they don't spend their money and give it to the good poor that will spend thier money.

both are assumptions that certain things happen.

When was the last time a poor person bought a private jet?
I can promise you that no poor person will spend the same amount in his life timeas a rich person can put on a single check.

I notice you added the qualifications "evil" to the rich and "good" to the poor. I made no such distinctions.

There are far more poor than rich. No, a poor person isn't going to buy a private jet. But they are going to buy furniture, clothing, housing, appliances, food, gasoline, medical services, tuitions, credit card bills, insurance premiums and on and on. And so will a rich person

That's far more money circulating among far more suppliers than the price of a Gulfstream.

And they will pay far far more to get a better product or service.

as far as the evil - poor

I should have used; People that we should take from in the name of vengence.
People we should give to so we don't feel bad about the vengence part.


being working poor myself, I see, first hand the harm you do in the name of helping. You are not helping most of us, you are doing for us. we now have generations of people that have never worked. Many have no idea how to instill work ethics in their kids since they have none themselves.

You've done more harm than good, but hey, you can still get some vengence on the rich. Take thier money so they can use that as an excuse not to expand thier companies, hire more people or give out raises to the people they have. Of course the answer to that is more vengence.

Right?

 

[asterism]

There is NO incentive if there are not consumers with the disposable income to generate demand. Why is someone going to open a factory if no one can afford the product?

A valid point. When has there ever been no demand?

You can't sell Bentleys in the Bowery, but you can sell Bentleys in Palm Beach. Wanna sell more Bentleys? Make your customer base larger.

Or make them cheaper than the alternative, more attractive than similarly priced items, reach different markets currently served by other products, etc. One sure way to not sell Bentley's in the Bowery is to tax the Bentley manufacturer and give the money to those in the Bowery.

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."

If all you want is to sell luxury goods to those with means, fine. But when the consumer finds say gasoline prices skyrocketing, their 'demand' for a summer vacation in the old Chevy mini van falls off the charts.

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.

 

[Nosmo King]

A valid point. When has there ever been no demand?

Or make them cheaper than the alternative, more attractive than similarly priced items, reach different markets currently served by other products, etc. One sure way to not sell Bentley's in the Bowery is to tax the Bentley manufacturer and give the money to those in the Bowery.

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."

If all you want is to sell luxury goods to those with means, fine. But when the consumer finds say gasoline prices skyrocketing, their 'demand' for a summer vacation in the old Chevy mini van falls off the charts.

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.

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.

 

[gekaap]

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.

 

[Foxfyre]

It's not vengeance, nor a Robin Hood complex or even the dreaded 'social engineering'. It's smart economics. If you put the most money into the most hands, that money gets circulated throughout the economy. If you continue to concentrate wealth in fewer and fewer hands, that money gets sheltered and spent among the very few.

So ask yourself, what creates economic growth: sequestering money with the very rich or letting the most consumers keep more cash?

The fallacy to your thinking is that you see that as a government function rather than a private sector function. The government cannot put money into one hand without taking it out of another. So you have a zero sum gain or even a negative if you make the giver less able to give. When the private sector redistributes income all parties benefit.

So ask yourself what creates economic growth: taking more and more from the haves who earned it making them less able or less motivated to generate more economic activity that provides permanent jobs for all or promoting more private sector enterprise and activity?

 

[Nosmo King]

It's not vengeance, nor a Robin Hood complex or even the dreaded 'social engineering'. It's smart economics. If you put the most money into the most hands, that money gets circulated throughout the economy. If you continue to concentrate wealth in fewer and fewer hands, that money gets sheltered and spent among the very few.

So ask yourself, what creates economic growth: sequestering money with the very rich or letting the most consumers keep more cash?

The fallacy to your thinking is that you see that as a government function rather than a private sector function. The government cannot put money into one hand without taking it out of another. So you have a zero sum gain or even a negative if you make the giver less able to give. When the private sector redistributes income all parties benefit.

So ask yourself what creates economic growth: taking more and more from the haves who earned it making them less able or less motivated to generate more economic activity that provides permanent jobs for all or promoting more private sector enterprise and activity?

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?

 

[Shoobis1]

I'm for a flat tax. The question then becomes, what's a reasonable tax rate for everybody. I'm convinced that we could eliminate a lot of government expenditure by restructuring the way we do things and making it more efficient. Let's start by having social security only pay for people who need it and not give out money to millionaires.

 

[Foxfyre]

It's not vengeance, nor a Robin Hood complex or even the dreaded 'social engineering'. It's smart economics. If you put the most money into the most hands, that money gets circulated throughout the economy. If you continue to concentrate wealth in fewer and fewer hands, that money gets sheltered and spent among the very few.

So ask yourself, what creates economic growth: sequestering money with the very rich or letting the most consumers keep more cash?

The fallacy to your thinking is that you see that as a government function rather than a private sector function. The government cannot put money into one hand without taking it out of another. So you have a zero sum gain or even a negative if you make the giver less able to give. When the private sector redistributes income all parties benefit.

So ask yourself what creates economic growth: taking more and more from the haves who earned it making them less able or less motivated to generate more economic activity that provides permanent jobs for all or promoting more private sector enterprise and activity?

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.

 

[Nosmo King]

The fallacy to your thinking is that you see that as a government function rather than a private sector function. The government cannot put money into one hand without taking it out of another. So you have a zero sum gain or even a negative if you make the giver less able to give. When the private sector redistributes income all parties benefit.

So ask yourself what creates economic growth: taking more and more from the haves who earned it making them less able or less motivated to generate more economic activity that provides permanent jobs for all or promoting more private sector enterprise and activity?

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!