Wow.

Clunk. (That was my jaw hitting the floor)

Stupid hand of the free market?

Myth of trickle down economics?

from this ^ to this:

So you're saying we need a government strong enough to rule the people even if it's against the wish of the people? A government that can rule the world?

I know what you really want to say. Why don't you just go ahead and say it. It'll take fewer words.

You really are the king of the non-sequitur aren't you?

Haven't we tried to discuss your logic flow before and the use of straw man arguments?

No Guy, just No. This is not an either/or situation. The world is a little more complicated than you think it is.

---

Reality Internet Personality

By the way, since the U.S. government opened back up and borrowed more money the day after opening back up than any other single day in our nation's history, does that mean this thread is now without a topic?

For the OP to decide ...

---

Its not just a US problem either. Its global, and a lot of it is connected to this stupid "Hand of the Free Market" ideology and the myth of "Trickle Down Economics"

Tax loopholes need be closed.
Markets need to be regulated.
There needs to be a minimum wage.
There needs to a strong social safety net.
There needs to be a single payer healthcare system.
There needs to a limit to the power of lobbyists and how much politicians can spend on campaigns.
Corporations need to be reigned in. They are not people.

All these things would be a good start and have shown to be good for a stable economy.

This is a long list of things. I for one would like to see empirical data demonstrating that they are correct and are not assumptions.

I'm going to repost 3 graphs from earlier in the thread. Please consider the time frames of major events and major legislation in light of your statements. I wish we had these extended to before the income tax took effect in America so we could have some true historic reference material. I also wish we had a measure over time of the concentration of wealth.





As was previously pointed out, 1968 was the peak purchasing power of the bottom 20%. It is also where that line goes flat compared to the rest. It is also the time frame of the implementation of the Great Society social safety net programs. It is also when tax rates on the top Americans started going up again. These events may or may not be related. But it is also the beginning of nasty inflation which lasted for over a decade, and I'm sure this is related.

Now to Es specifics:

Tax loopholes need be closed.

In general very good. But, what is a loophole? The deduction for the gain on the sale of you house? The deduction for child care? The deduction for timber depletion?

Markets need to be regulated.

Of course and they are. Obviously you feel some specific market or markets need some kind of additional regulations. Which and what?

There needs to be a minimum wage.

There is. May need to have the rate changed.

There needs to a strong social safety net.

See the Great Society. What additional and how is it to be paid for?

There needs to be a single payer healthcare system.

We are stuck with Obamacare, which is not single payer for a least the next couple of decades.

There needs to a limit to the power of lobbyists and how much politicians can spend on campaigns.

Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Obviously you feel this has to change. Got some replacement language?

Corporations need to be reigned in. They are not people.

Just need to write a good amicus curiae to convince SCOTUS of that. Or change 50 state laws/constitutions to reflect it. And I happen to agree that a corporation should be treated as a license not a person.

It is very easy to say this or that should be changed, it is much harder to design a change and even harder to design one that works as you intend.

Now the last one:

the myth of "Trickle Down Economics"

The video does a nice job of showing a single year. If you go back in History and look at JP Morgan and his contemporaries, you see that only half a dozen men controlled about 7% of the US GDP. That is not the case today. Clearly it is trickling down. That does not make trickle down a solution to the issue as it is happening far to slowly, but it does not make it a myth or false. I would very much like to see a graph of the concentration of wealth over time.

---

For any trickledownsupplyside economics to work the tax reduction given to the wealthy(and it is given to them exclusively) must also be accompanied by job grown by those receiving the benefits. DOn't create jobs you don't get tax relief. pretty simple honestly. This prevents what we currently have with the offshore accounts and hiding money.

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

For any trickledownsupplyside economics to work the tax reduction given to the wealthy(and it is given to them exclusively) must also be accompanied by job grown by those receiving the benefits. DOn't create jobs you don't get tax relief. pretty simple honestly. This prevents what we currently have with the offshore accounts and hiding money.

It's not really they have a "reduction" in tax, it's that there are plenty of deductions they can take advantage of that the average person cannot.

You can raise the tax rate on the wealthy to 90% but without removing those deductions (read = loopholes) their effective tax rate is still less than the common tax payer.

I fully support a flat tax rate, no deductions...THAT would make it fair.

---

I fully support a flat tax rate, no deductions...THAT would make it fair.

An economic argument against a flat tax rate is that it is regressive.

---

I fully support a flat tax rate, no deductions...THAT would make it fair.

An economic argument against a flat tax rate is that it is regressive.

How so?

---

I fully support a flat tax rate, no deductions...THAT would make it fair.

An economic argument against a flat tax rate is that it is regressive.

How so?

Better define regressive first.

---

I fully support a flat tax rate, no deductions...THAT would make it fair.

Yes, that's the way forward Michael and some economists are now beginning to
realise this too.

---

The Kite Fliers

--------------------
Kite fliers: An imaginary club of solo members, those who don't yet
belong to a formal team so "fly their own kites" - as the saying goes.

Since a person in a low income bracket spends all they make those on the margin are then pushed over the edge and are now below the margin.

---

saying those asking her to resign are “people I don’t work for..."

Oooba. She works for Only Those Who Agree With Them and Support Them.

This is The New Amerika.

Heil Hussein.

fO shO fOevA

Da Chickens Are Clucking.

BACH BA BACH BA BACH BA.

Corn 'it'

---

May we All have a METAMORPHOSIS. REASON. GOoD JUDGEMENT and LOVE and ORDER!!!!!

Since a person in a low income bracket spends all they make those on the margin are then pushed over the edge and are now below the margin.

Adjective: progressive
3. (of taxes) adjusted so that the rate increases as the amount of income increases

Adjective: regressive
1. (of taxes) adjusted so that the rate decreases as the amount of income increases.

By this, flat can not be regressive, nor can it be progressive.

I do know that the above definition from the dictionary is not what is generally meant when talking about a change in tax policy, which is why I asked for the meaning to be ascribed before we start with the invectives.

---

For those who were saying the income inequality has never been worse that it is today:

Which covers the entire long term business cycle. It was worse just before the Great Depression. If we repeat the cycle it appears as if the top is in for a considerable period of bust.

Compare with:

---

Since a person in a low income bracket spends all they make those on the margin are then pushed over the edge and are now below the margin.

How about a compromise? Set a tax free allowance (i'll use round numbers as examples) of $10,000, then apply a flat rate tax (20%) to earnings above this. Then way, those on the very bottom rung don't get squeezed off, but the proportion stay roughly the same when one earns greater amounts.

If someone earns $50,000, they pay $8,000 tax (16% overall)
If someone earns $300,000, they pay $58,000 tax. (19.3% overall)
If someone earns $1m, thay pay $198,000 (19.8% overall)

This would also make filling out tax returns a good deal easier.

---

Life on earth is the global equivalent of not storing things in the fridge.

Since a person in a low income bracket spends all they make those on the margin are then pushed over the edge and are now below the margin.

Adjective: progressive
3. (of taxes) adjusted so that the rate increases as the amount of income increases

Adjective: regressive
1. (of taxes) adjusted so that the rate decreases as the amount of income increases.

By this, flat can not be regressive, nor can it be progressive.

I do know that the above definition from the dictionary is not what is generally meant when talking about a change in tax policy, which is why I asked for the meaning to be ascribed before we start with the invectives.

incorrect. A regressive tax is one that affects a persons wealth less as they earn more. The easy example is the carpenter that makes $1000 and pays $90.90 for a hammer that has a 10% sales tax. he pays $100 of his money. he pays 1% of his wages in taxes a guy making $10,000 will pay about 0.1% of his wages. You can see that the guy making less money pays a higher percentage of his wages in tax.

The state of Texas has this form of taxation(no Income Tax) 8.25% in most areas and it is quite backward and if the economy tanks so does the tax revenue.
The state of Deleware has no sales tax but has a mild income tax (usually less than 4% on average)that quite easily pays for everything the state needs.

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

@skildude, just posted what is says in the dictionary. "WordNet 3.0 Copyright 2006 by Princeton University. All rights reseved."

---

WHile a dictionary defition might suffice for some I prefer a bit more formal of an explanation

Please note my adhoc definiton also fits nicely into the Wikipedia version

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regressive_tax
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Regressive+Tax

Please note that when one talks "rate decreasing as ones income rises" it is a definition of what I explained. A wealthy person pays less of their money(percentage of income) versus an lower income person.
thus the heavier burden of a regressive tax is felt mostly by the poor.

The only way a flat tax could work is if you have a minimum income rate for the tax. Say $65,000 a year then tax every dollar over that. BTW a flat tax would have to be about 25% or higher for it to even work. Most wealthy people would say no to this.

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

Skil, your ad hoc example was of a consumption tax, not an income tax.

Consumption taxes generally are regressive, but consider a luxury tax as a counter example.

A flat income tax is flat, neither regressive or progressive. Any modification such as a floor or ceiling no longer makes it flat and it is either progressive or regressive.

---