Was Pitts right?
in [Golf]
|
From: Chris Bellomy on 22 Dec 2009 13:10 BAR wrote, On 12/22/09 6:54 AM: > In article <QM2dnaA7VYcT1a3WnZ2dnUVZ_tJi4p2d(a)supernews.com>, > ten.wohsdoog(a)sirhc says... >> assimilate(a)borg.org wrote, On 12/21/09 9:57 PM: >>> On 20-Dec-2009, Chris Bellomy <ten.wohsdoog(a)sirhc> wrote: >>> >>>> Because the only way the government ever gets your >>>> money is if you spend it? Eventually nobody will buy >>>> anything they don't absolutely need, which will be >>>> too expensive for most due to the annihilation of >>>> jobs. You just can't even begin to imagine how >>>> severe the economic contraction would be. >>> What is important here, which you ignore, is that the incentive structure be >>> reversed to promote production. This creates wealth. >> Bill, I hate showing you up, but in all honesty this is >> just about the stupidest thing I've ever read. You cannot >> create incentive to invest in production if nobody is >> buying anything. The world just doesn't work that way. > > Taxation inhibits production. I truly, honestly, in all sincerity, have no desire to call you guys names. I honestly want to have a civil discussion with you about all this. I even like most of you. But that's just a stupid sentence. If you want to learn about how economics actually works, you have to let go of your rabid anti-tax dogma. Or else maybe you should move to that noted libertarian tax-free paradise: Somalia. The only thing that inhibits production in the American economic model is freezing of capital. Truly confiscatory taxation that reaches too far down in brackets can have the effect of discouraging productivity, but that's a TOTALLY different statement than "taxation inhibits production," which is really meant to stymie rational discussion of the issue. cb
From: Chris Bellomy on 22 Dec 2009 16:45 dsc-ky wrote, On 12/22/09 3:16 PM: > On Dec 22, 1:10 pm, Chris Bellomy <ten.wohsdoog(a)sirhc> wrote: >> BAR wrote, On 12/22/09 6:54 AM: >> >> >> >> >> >>> In article <QM2dnaA7VYcT1a3WnZ2dnUVZ_tJi4...(a)supernews.com>, >>> ten.wohsdoog(a)sirhc says... >>>> assimil...(a)borg.org wrote, On 12/21/09 9:57 PM: >>>>> On 20-Dec-2009, Chris Bellomy <ten.wohsdoog(a)sirhc> wrote: >>>>>> Because the only way the government ever gets your >>>>>> money is if you spend it? Eventually nobody will buy >>>>>> anything they don't absolutely need, which will be >>>>>> too expensive for most due to the annihilation of >>>>>> jobs. You just can't even begin to imagine how >>>>>> severe the economic contraction would be. >>>>> What is important here, which you ignore, is that the incentive structure be >>>>> reversed to promote production. This creates wealth. >>>> Bill, I hate showing you up, but in all honesty this is >>>> just about the stupidest thing I've ever read. You cannot >>>> create incentive to invest in production if nobody is >>>> buying anything. The world just doesn't work that way. >>> Taxation inhibits production. >> I truly, honestly, in all sincerity, have no desire to call >> you guys names. I honestly want to have a civil discussion >> with you about all this. I even like most of you. >> >> But that's just a stupid sentence. If you want to learn about >> how economics actually works, you have to let go of your rabid >> anti-tax dogma. Or else maybe you should move to that noted >> libertarian tax-free paradise: Somalia. >> >> The only thing that inhibits production in the American >> economic model is freezing of capital. Truly confiscatory >> taxation that reaches too far down in brackets can have >> the effect of discouraging productivity, but that's a >> TOTALLY different statement than "taxation inhibits >> production," which is really meant to stymie rational >> discussion of the issue. > > Then how about "over-taxation kills production"? So where does over- > taxation begin. I sure feel like I'm in it already. :) Well, you're in the least taxed industrialized country in the world, so I think it's safe to say that we're nowhere near that point. That said, I think the problem in the United States right now is that the tax burden that used to be borne by people paying at the very highest brackets is now borne by nearly everyone who earns more than the median income. That was intentional, btw -- the Republicans knew that they'd never sustain a good anti-tax revolt to protect the interests of only the hyperwealthy. The obvious solution is to add more tax brackets at the highest ends of income and to ratchet up those marginal rates. Then, and only then, can taxes be cut for people at our income level without destroying the solvency of the country even further than it has been already. Why we could do that in my parents' generation but not now will always been an enormous mystery to me. cb
From: assimilate on 22 Dec 2009 18:18 On 21-Dec-2009, Chris Bellomy <ten.wohsdoog(a)sirhc> wrote: > > Are you so daft to think that the only reason people buy things they > > don't > > need is because of a lack of taxation? > > I'm not so daft as to think that I should call on Bill King > to explain to me the reasons why people buy things they > don't "need," whatever that means. I do find it odd that > you would tell poor people what they should do with their > money, but have a big problem with telling rich people > something similar. When have I told anyone what to do with their money, that is their decision. -- bill-o
From: assimilate on 22 Dec 2009 18:21 On 21-Dec-2009, Chris Bellomy <ten.wohsdoog(a)sirhc> wrote: > > > > What is important here, which you ignore, is that the incentive > > structure be > > reversed to promote production. This creates wealth. > > Bill, I hate showing you up, but in all honesty this is > just about the stupidest thing I've ever read. You cannot > create incentive to invest in production if nobody is > buying anything. The world just doesn't work that way. and the end of the income tax stops people from buying anything? -- bill-o
From: assimilate on 22 Dec 2009 18:25
On 22-Dec-2009, Chris Bellomy <ten.wohsdoog(a)sirhc> wrote: > The only thing that inhibits production in the American > economic model is freezing of capital. Truly confiscatory > taxation that reaches too far down in brackets can have > the effect of discouraging productivity, but that's a > TOTALLY different statement than "taxation inhibits > production," which is really meant to stymie rational > discussion of the issue. please how does "reaching too far down" in brackets constitute "confiscatory taxing" instead of say taking 50% off the top of the most likely to re-invest in job creating ventures? -- bill-o |