Essay talk:Tax cuts

This was supposed to be an essay -- how can i convert it to one?

-- Rem  Beau  10:46, 23 August 2008 (EDT)


 * Every dollar sent to govt is a dollar you can't spend, invest, save, or employ someone with.
 * Are you suggesting that the individual and the economy don't benefit by those dollars, simply because they're part of a tax? I'm hardly an expert, but something seems off about that. --Kels 10:58, 23 August 2008 (EDT)
 * Sorry, Rem, but I think you're a nutter. 11:01, 23 August 2008 (EDT)
 * Seconded. I don't think libertarianism is a concept that will ever be a popular concept amongst the British (or any other European nation, for that matter), in any case. Maybe it's an American thing. Bondurant 11:21, 23 August 2008 (EDT)


 * Susan -- Yeah, probably. But wait -- can an American be a nutter? Isn't nutcase the proper scientific term?


 * Anyhow, thanks for converting my essay to an Essay. What should i have done, precede my title with Essay colon -- is it that simple?


 * -- Rem  Beau  11:31, 23 August 2008 (EDT)


 * Yes, it's that simple - even a Libertarian could manage it. :-) 11:33, 23 August 2008 (EDT)


 * Kels -- Not exactly. What i am saying is a dollar is better spent if it goes to the productive sector of the market as opposed to a tax consumer that doesn't produce anything that people would buy in the free-marketplace. It is productivity that creates wealth, not redistribution.


 * -- Rem  Beau  11:37, 23 August 2008 (EDT)
 * "What i am saying is a dollar is better spent if it goes to the productive sector of the market as opposed to a tax consumer that doesn't produce anything that people would buy in the free-marketplace." Somewhere around "tax consumer" that ceased to be a sentence.  Can you fix, please, so it "says" something?  ħ uman  02:29, 24 August 2008 (EDT)


 * Let's try this.


 * Some people produce goods and provide services that people value enough to pay for. They constitute the productive sector of the market, and their income allows them to continue their productivity and maybe expand their business. A good way to spend your dollar.


 * Some people (bureaucrats, let's say) provide nothing that consumers would voluntarilly buy -- in other words, not part of the free marketplace. And if they are paid by govt (not a charitable organization) they are tax consumers, which is a drain on the economy. A not-so-good way to spend your dollar.


 * Those in the productive center create wealth -- the rest just consume wealth. It stands to reason that if EVERYBODY were paid by taxpayers, very little wealth would be created. Totalitarian regimes have tried that -- it never works, mainly because artificial incentives to make people productive aren't as persuasive as natural incentives.


 * -- Rem  Beau  05:10, 28 August 2008 (EDT)

Reply
''If an economy improves, if people are more productive, if there are more tax producers and fewer tax consumers, aren't the poorest among us better off? ... Money back to the people that earned it will be spent or invested -- either way it motivates productive people, which helps the economy. ... So in the overall scheme of things, it matters not whether tax rebates are directed at the rich or the poor.''

This philosophy of economics in government has been most recently espoused by Ronald Reagan. It's generally called "supply-side economics," or pejoratively "trickle-down economics." The main problem with it is that has been proven to the satisfaction of most economists not to work. That's pretty much the short version of why "cutting taxes for the rich" is not generally beneficial for the country, and most experts in the matter agree (excepting hard-core conservatives, who claim the wealth of the Clinton years was a result of Reagan's policies, in absence of any evidence or even correlation to that effect).

The long version, of course, has to do with what the rich do with their money. They do not, generally, use it to benefit the country. If a bread consortium gets a $10 million tax rebate, they do not correspondingly lower the price of bread by a net $10 million to compensate. They lower it by maybe $9 million or so, if the public is lucky. And so the public and the country in general has now lost out on the potential benefit of that missing million, that is now in the hedge funds offshore. And that's a generous example. In the real world, the intricacies of taxes and the market means that it usually works out enormously worse.

I know you think people are naive to think the government can spend that $10 million better than the company can, and you think it is obvious that market forces and competition will force the company to eke out $10 million in benefits to the public. But I just happen to think it is somewhat more naive to think that the rich people and corporations aren't going to dedicate enormous manhours and resources to making sure they get to keep as much of it as possible.

Plus, there's, y'know, reality. Since supply-side just doesn't work.

''The newsies (and pundits like Keith Olbermann, Bill O'Reilly, Chris Matthews, and Joe Scarborough) imply that gasoline is somehow significantly different than other goods, because when gas prices rise, then the price of EVERYTHING goes up. Yep, but other goods are no different in this respect. When prices rise on ANY goods or services, that affects the whole economy. Nothing is exempt. No one is unaffected.''

Of course. The price of corn has risen and driven up prices somewhat on many other things, too. But oil is different in the degree. That is all the pundits are pointing out - correctly, I might add. Oil is the source of plastic and all other petroleum products, and it is burned to produce and move everything else. Just like the price of iron, it is one of the most important baseline products.

Is it fair to give tax rebates to those that don't pay taxes?

What does this mean, please? How can you give a rebate to someone who hasn't paid anything? That makes no sense - a rebate is money returned to the spender.

So, isn't the fairest way to distribute tax rebates to give back proportionately to those that paid the tax?

Do you know what the rich and poor have in common? They both have to eat and sleep. A certain amount of money must be spent on those things. The rich spend $35,000, and the poor spend $3,500, but those necessities must be met. The thing is, the poor spend an enormous percentage of their paychecks on those two things. In fact, virtually all of the lower class and middle class spend most of each paycheck on a place to sleep and food to eat, as well as little things like transportation and medicine. In contrast, the rich spend a much smaller fraction of their paycheck on those things. Even with extravagance, the reason there are real estate funds is because there are people with a lot of extra money to put into them. So 30% means a hell of a lot more to a poor person than a rich person, in terms of everything that matters.

If I make $3,000 in a check, then 30% of my check is $900. I have $2,100 left. I spend $2,000 on eating and sleeping, and have $100 left, instead of $1,000. My quality of life has decreased enormously, and I have to pray my daughter doesn't get sick.

If I make $300,000 in a check, then 30% of my check is $90,000. I have $210,000. I spend $100,000 on eating and sleeping since I like to live very well, and have $110,000 left instead of $210,000. I can't buy my second yacht.

So I suppose it depends on your definition of "fair."--Tom Moore fiat justitia ruat coelum 13:57, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

Reply 2
Good stuff from Tom.

A couple of additional quibbles:

You write: ...If an economy improves, if people are more productive, if there are more tax producers and fewer tax consumers, aren't the poorest among us better off? ...

I take it that the assumption here is that "the rich" will work harder and become more productive if they pay less taxes - but this doesn't necessarily follow at all. Many of the super rich don't "work" in any real sense. (Paris Hilton?) And even of those who do work it's not at all clear that cutting their taxes will make them more productive. Will Bill Gates or Warren Buffet really make changes to their daily schedules because of tax cuts? (OK - this may, to an extent, depend on your definition of "wealthy".)

You say: Businesses don't pay taxes, they collect them, from consumers of course, including the poor.

I disagree. I'm a one-man business and I pay taxes on the cash I earn. As it happens, at the moment all my customers are other businesses.--Bobbing up 16:39, 23 August 2008 (EDT)
 * I have run into Rem's cluelessness about business and taxes before. He questioned my use of the word "profit" (which I put in quote marks).  He has no idea of the real world outside his life than what some radio talk show host tells him, I suspect.  A also base this accusation on his rather fragile grasp of facts and statistics, as he quotes them.  ħ uman  02:38, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

Reply to Tom
You can call it "trickle-down economics" or any other perjorative you prefer, but JFK initiated, with his tax cuts, one of the longest runs of economic growth in the last few decades, and HE described it as "a rising tide that lifts all ships", and that i think is the ACCURATE portrayal. Perhaps "supply-side economics" doesn't work -- i wouldn't know as i have no idea what it is.

And you won't impress me by demonizing Conservative views; that impresses only Liberals, and i don't care one way or the other who on the Left-Right spectrum believes which economic theories -- that's just partisan stuff. A theory has to stand on its own, guilt or honor by association has nothing to do with the validity of economic theories. But i do admit to being curious to know which of Clinton's policies you think buoyed up the economy; i keep hearing that one.

You say the rich do not generally use their money "to benefit the country", but my point was, HOW can they avoid it? THAT you haven't tried to answer, instead impugning the motivation of rich folk, but that's just an admission that they are made of the same clay as the rest of us -- it's called human nature, and no sense to devise grand economic schemes without taking that into account.

Which, of course, makes my case for the free-marketplace. Banking on beneficence is a poor way to defend economic systems, whether considering rich, poor, or in-between.

You seem to rely too heavily on the lack of good will of businesses (in your third paragraph) to refute my arguments. Businessmen do not WILLINGLY lower their prices when they get tax rebates, competition and the profit motive do that. If that weren't the case, explain why gas prices fall, ever. Don't forget Occam when you think about that.

Paragraph four suffers from the same defect. I never implied, or even considered, that anyone dedicating "enormous manhours and resources" would have any effect on the situation. Far from it; it would never be a big factor even if true.

There's that implication again that i'm arguing in favor of "supply side". Who can you be thinking of?

Sure, "Oil is the source of plastic and all other petrol ...", and those distinguishing features make it different from other things, but other things are different too, each in their own way, and they are all only partially significant. Oil is just the latest whipping boy, and i forgot to give Lou Dobbs his due -- his rants also pick on the oil industry. Those guys indulge in populism to boost their ratings -- they are not seekers of truth.

// What does this mean, please? How can you give a rebate to someone who hasn't paid anything? That makes no sense - a rebate is money returned to the spender. // Yes, yes, YES -- now if you can only persuade those pathetic purveyors of platitudes in Congress of that, we can toast each other with Wallbangers, gratified that we have brought some clarity to the discussion of economic issues. Those pols are the distorters of language, no less culpable than ad writers for worthless products.

True, some rich in NYC (i saw them in Macy's on TV) spend $250,000 on ... (i believe it was a Gucci trunk) just for "conspicuous consumption" (i can think of no other reason). Make your blood boil? I should say SO, but that just ... does ... not ... alter ... what is fair when it comes to taxes. Fairness dictates everybody should pay, and get rebates, at the SAME rate. You may think you can fix fairer rates according to your own sense of justice, but i trust nobody, not even you, to devise such a scheme. And my point is, soaking the rich accomplishes NOTHING good -- is, in fact, counter-productive.

Wow -- you really make me work.

-- Rem  Beau  00:10, 24 August 2008 (EDT)


 * You can call it "trickle-down economics" or any other perjorative you prefer, but JFK initiated, with his tax cuts, one of the longest runs of economic growth in the last few decades, and HE described it as "a rising tide that lifts all ships", and that i think is the ACCURATE portrayal. Perhaps "supply-side economics" doesn't work -- i wouldn't know as i have no idea what it is. 


 * The top income tax rate when Kennedy entered office was 91% (instead of the current 40%), and the top corporate rate was 52% (instead of the current 35%). The deficit was just 0.6% of the GNP (instead of 4%), and the budget overall looked easy to continue to balance (instead of being down by 26% of balance).  Further, Kennedy's tax reform did not cut spending at all.  It eliminated a perceived surplus to the budget without removing funding for anything.


 * So we see that Kennedy's income tax cuts brought taxes down from what most people would agree was an absurdly exorbitant level, without eliminating programs or funding at a time of a balanced budget. They illustrate that not all tax cuts are bad.  But they do not illustrate that all tax cuts are good, no matter what pretty analogy is used.  The current situation is nothing like the beginning of the 60s, and there is little reason to think that the same hammer is the solution to every problem.


 * But i do admit to being curious to know which of Clinton's policies you think buoyed up the economy; i keep hearing that one.


 * I think he had relatively little effect on the economy compared to other factors. But he did put forward legislation or signed it that raised income taxes and cut taxes for the poor and middle class, which certainly helped a lot.


 * You say the rich do not generally use their money "to benefit the country", but my point was, HOW can they avoid it? THAT you haven't tried to answer, instead impugning the motivation of rich folk, but that's just an admission that they are made of the same clay as the rest of us -- it's called human nature, and no sense to devise grand economic schemes without taking that into account.


 * By investing in offshore hedge funds. Or accumulating the wealth in some other fashion.  This might marginally benefit the banking and investing sectors, but overall takes the wealth out of use by the economy.  They don't spend all of it.


 * You seem to rely too heavily on the lack of good will of businesses (in your third paragraph) to refute my arguments. Businessmen do not WILLINGLY lower their prices when they get tax rebates, competition and the profit motive do that. If that weren't the case, explain why gas prices fall, ever. Don't forget Occam when you think about that.


 * Competition and the profit motive are very efficient, it is true.  But their efficiency is directed at price regulation, not benefit to the society.  If a bread company gets a $10m tax rebate and so do their competitors, they don't lower their prices to match the rebate: they only lower their prices to match their competitors.  In the end, the tendency is for a margin to remain between the degree to which they compete and their rebate.  That margin of $1m or whatnot is money whose utility has now gone solely to the companies, rather than the people.


 * There's that implication again that i'm arguing in favor of "supply side". Who can you be thinking of?


 * Someone who took an economics course and knows the names of things, I suppose.


 * Sure, "Oil is the source of plastic and all other petrol ...", and those distinguishing features make it different from other things, but other things are different too, each in their own way, and they are all only partially significant. Oil is just the latest whipping boy, and i forgot to give Lou Dobbs his due -- his rants also pick on the oil industry. Those guys indulge in populism to boost their ratings -- they are not seekers of truth.


 * This is very curious... other than a few other baseline items, such as iron, what do you possibly think bears a similar importance to oil? I'm not sure anyone is making it the "whipping boy," since it's really more of a testament to its incredible utility that it is so important to our economy.


 * True, some rich in NYC (i saw them in Macy's on TV) spend $250,000 on ... (i believe it was a Gucci trunk) just for "conspicuous consumption" (i can think of no other reason). Make your blood boil? I should say SO, but that just ... does ... not ... alter ... what is fair when it comes to taxes. Fairness dictates everybody should pay, and get rebates, at the SAME rate. You may think you can fix fairer rates according to your own sense of justice, but i trust nobody, not even you, to devise such a scheme. And my point is, soaking the rich accomplishes NOTHING good -- is, in fact, counter-productive.


 * "Fairness" is a subjective term, not the objective one you seem to think it is. You seem to consider it fair to tax the rich and the poor at the same rate.  I think it is fair that poor people should pay less due to the insanely disproportionate manner in which their quality of life is raised, whereas those who benefit the most should also contribute the most.


 * Are you really comfortable with my listed example above, comparing the two classes? My issue is not with conspicuous consumption, but rather with the disproportionate manner in which different incomes are affected by the same tax.  A 10% tax cut for the poor raises their quality of life enormously, while a 10% tax cut for the rich raises their quality of life an incremental amount - they accumulate slightly less, or go on only one trip to Brazil.  These numbers with regard to taxes have actual meanings, and indicate real consequences.  Those consequences are what I judge "fairness" by.--Tom Moore fiat justitia ruat coelum 00:51, 24 August 2008 (EDT)


 * > ... JFK initiated, with his tax cuts, one of the longest runs of economic growth in the last few decades, and HE described it as "a rising tide that lifts all ships", ...


 * // The top income tax rate when Kennedy entered office was 91% (instead of the current 40%), and the top corporate rate was 52% (instead of the current 35%).


 * // So we see that Kennedy's income tax cuts brought taxes down from what most people would agree was an absurdly exorbitant level, without eliminating programs or funding at a time of a balanced budget.


 * You seem to offer that as a point of pride -- are you suggesting that there aren't some federal programs that should be eliminated or their funding cut that just happen to be inspired by Liberalism?


 * Yes indeed, 91% is absurdly high; how could anyone have thought 91% was a good idea? It would be instructive to know the thinking that led them astray, and also which political philosopy they held (Liberals i suspect; don't you agree?). What rate did JFK bring it down to?


 * // They illustrate that not all tax cuts are bad. But they do not illustrate that all tax cuts are good [agreed], no matter what pretty analogy is used. The current situation is nothing like the beginning of the 60s, ...


 * No, except for the tax RATES, it is worse (much heavier spending -- the GOP should disband, some of those that are fiscally responsible should ditch them and join Libertarians), even more bloated than the 60s ($9 trillion now, is that right?). Which to me means we are not in much danger of cutting taxes too much.


 * // I think he [Clinton] had relatively little effect on the economy compared to other factors. But he did put forward legislation or signed it that raised income taxes and cut taxes for the poor and middle class, which certainly helped a lot.


 * I don't suppose you have some examples of legislation that he signed? (I'm just hoping -- you've been good with providing details.)


 * > You say the rich do not generally use their money "to benefit the country", ...


 * // By investing in offshore hedge funds. Or accumulating the wealth in some other fashion. This might marginally benefit the banking and investing sectors, but overall takes the wealth out of use by the economy. They don't spend all of it.


 * Are you suggesting that, when they invest rather than spend, that is taking the wealth OUT of the economy?


 * // Competition and the profit motive are very efficient, it is true. But their efficiency is directed at price regulation, not benefit to the society.


 * What does it matter where it is DIRECTED, how can it help but benefit society?


 * // If a bread company gets a $10m tax rebate and so do their competitors, they don't lower their prices to match the rebate: they only lower their prices to match their competitors.


 * True, but that beats the heck out of NOT getting rebates and lowering prices, or worse yet, of raising taxes. Consumers benefit.


 * // In the end, the tendency is for a margin to remain between the degree to which they compete and their rebate. That margin of $1m or whatnot is money whose utility has now gone solely to the companies, rather than the people.


 * Gone solely to the companies, and that DOESN'T help people? Of course it does.


 * // Someone who took an economics course and knows the names of things, I suppose.


 * Cute, and i enjoy the humor, but altho you have impressed me with your facts and figures, your judgment lags. So just parry my arguments, lest you confuse all of their (supply siders) with mine.


 * > Fairness dictates everybody should pay, and get rebates, at the SAME rate.


 * // "Fairness" is a subjective term, not the objective one you seem to think it is.


 * Au contraire, not when it comes to something like taxes. It is true with many things that it would be very difficult to determine fairness, often due to being unable to quantify factors. With taxes (and prices) that is definitely not the case. When a rich man goes grocery shopping, for example, would you think it fairer that he would have to pay more for the same items?


 * // You seem to consider it fair to tax the rich and the poor at the same rate. [Yes, absolutely] I think it is fair that poor people should pay less due to the insanely disproportionate manner in which their quality of life is raised [YOU say it's insane, but that is just your bias], whereas those who benefit the most should also contribute the most.


 * Conceptually i agree, "To whom much is given, much is expected", but to codify that is to set up a Theocracy -- bad idea. And those that make themselves high priests (in this case, Liberals) of this theocractic bureaucracy are substituting their OPINION for a scheme that is measureably fair. If you can see that, you will absolutely be the FIRST Liberal that can, and i have discussed this with several.


 * > You may think you can fix fairer rates according to your own sense of justice, ...


 * // Are you really comfortable with my listed example above, comparing the two classes?


 * I am definitely comfortable with everybody paying exactly the same RATE, and am uncomfortable with those that would enforce their personal concept of fairness, and you should be too. It may be somebody that disagrees with you as to what is fair. Dangerous, very dangerous.


 * // These numbers with regard to taxes have actual meanings, and indicate real consequences. Those consequences are what I judge "fairness" by.


 * I know. Outcomes. I still disagree.


 * And in the interest of progress, i'm trying not to care what the rich do with their money -- even trips to Brazil. That is because those trips to Brazil put money in the pockets of those that aren't rich, even some who are poor.




 * You are a worthy opponent and i like it that you are so certain of your positions (and i don't mind occasional pontification), but please realize i can't keep up with your pace, tho i shall keep trying to respond to some of your easier points. (Easier for me, that is.) If i get too addicted, i may have to do a stint at the Betty Ford Rehab Center. (My wife probably wouldn't let me go if there are celebrity babes in attendance.)


 * -- Rem  Beau  04:54, 28 August 2008 (EDT)


 * You seem to offer that as a point of pride -- are you suggesting that there aren't some federal programs that should be eliminated or their funding cut that just happen to be inspired by Liberalism?


 * I'm sure there are some federal programs should be eliminated or cut that were inspired by "liberalism." None come to mind, is all.  No ideology is perfect.


 * Yes indeed, 91% is absurdly high; how could anyone have thought 91% was a good idea? It would be instructive to know the thinking that led them astray, and also which political philosopy they held (Liberals i suspect; don't you agree?). What rate did JFK bring it down to?

I don't know what philosophy led to those rates; it might well have been liberalism. I also don't know offhand to what he lowered them.


 * No, except for the tax RATES, it is worse (much heavier spending -- the GOP should disband, some of those that are fiscally responsible should ditch them and join Libertarians), even more bloated than the 60s ($9 trillion now, is that right?). Which to me means we are not in much danger of cutting taxes too much.


 * Virtually every objective fact testifies to the opposite of what you are saying. In fact, the national debt had been dropping like a rock for decades before JFK, going from 117% of the GDP under Roosevelt to 55% by the time JFK took office.  Similarly, unemployment had also been steadily dropping during that time.  Federal spending had also shrunk significantly.  Those trends, occurring during the years before JFK when taxes had been incrementally raised, all reversed dramatically under President G.W. Bush, who cut taxes.


 * I don't suppose you have some examples of legislation that he signed? (I'm just hoping -- you've been good with providing details.) 


 * Specifically? Offhand, I know he signed the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, which I'm sure you can google for details.


 * Are you suggesting that, when they invest rather than spend, that is taking the wealth OUT of the economy?


 * Are you familiar with what "offshore" means? Then there's the popular metal investments and hedge funds, which all specialize in keeping the money for the use of the person and avoiding taxes.


 * What does it matter where it is DIRECTED, how can it help but benefit society?


 * Because they succeed in their objective far more than the secondary effect of benefiting society, which itself can be achieved with greater efficiency through public use of those funds to a certain degree (i.e. taxation).


 * True, but that beats the heck out of NOT getting rebates and lowering prices, or worse yet, of raising taxes. Consumers benefit.


 * The point is, however, that the margin of that money is now entirely lost to the people. That which would be spent on the people is now in the pockets of the company.  That was the entire point of that example: there is a margin, usually much higher than administrative government costs, which stays in the pockets of the company.  Thus, not giving the rebate helps the people more than giving it.


 * Gone solely to the companies, and that DOESN'T help people? Of course it does.


 * Generally speaking, the upper middle and upper classes benefit from the wealth accrued by major corporations incredibly disproportionately. There aren't a lot of janitors with 5% of GE.


 * Cute, and i enjoy the humor, but altho you have impressed me with your facts and figures, your judgment lags. So just parry my arguments, lest you confuse all of their (supply siders) with mine.


 * My judgment lags? Inasmuch as I can see, I have addressed every single argument you have given.


 * Au contraire, not when it comes to something like taxes. It is true with many things that it would be very difficult to determine fairness, often due to being unable to quantify factors. With taxes (and prices) that is definitely not the case. When a rich man goes grocery shopping, for example, would you think it fairer that he would have to pay more for the same items? 


 * No, in fact the principle dictates the opposite. If we determine fairness by consequences - "burden" or "benefit" - then we can see that since both poor and rich man benefit the same from the items, so they should pay the same.  Although really the principle isn't meant to function on other things, I think you have very ably supported my point, so thanks.


 * Conceptually i agree, "To whom much is given, much is expected", but to codify that is to set up a Theocracy -- bad idea. And those that make themselves high priests (in this case, Liberals) of this theocractic bureaucracy are substituting their OPINION for a scheme that is measureably fair. If you can see that, you will absolutely be the FIRST Liberal that can, and i have discussed this with several.


 * A theocracy? I'm an atheist and I explained the matter in entirely rational terms... in what sense at all is it religious?


 * As it is, your scheme is also an "OPINION," despite your apparent unawareness of this. You want to base the system on your opinion that the burden of taxes should be assessed based on the numerical percentage.  I am of the opinion that the burden should be assessed based on the proportional relevance to quality of life of the individuals.  We choose different yardsticks - in our opinions - upon which to arrive at tax rates: yours is a number, mine is human life.


 * I am definitely comfortable with everybody paying exactly the same RATE, and am uncomfortable with those that would enforce their personal concept of fairness, and you should be too. It may be somebody that disagrees with you as to what is fair. Dangerous, very dangerous.


 * You disagree with me about what is fair with your own opinion, and want to enforce it. You just, for some bizarre reason, think that your opinion about what is fair is objective fact.


 * I know. Outcomes. I still disagree.


 * You are welcome to disagree. To me, a tax that is so monstrously much harder on the poor than the rich is not "fair."  We live on Earth, and the effects of policies matter to human lives.


 * You are a worthy opponent and i like it that you are so certain of your positions (and i don't mind occasional pontification), but please realize i can't keep up with your pace, tho i shall keep trying to respond to some of your easier points. (Easier for me, that is.) If i get too addicted, i may have to do a stint at the Betty Ford Rehab Center. (My wife probably wouldn't let me go if there are celebrity babes in attendance.)


 * Of course, that's fine. I only reminded you about this because it had been some days and you had responded elsewhere on this page a couple times.  Take your time.--Tom Moore fiat justitia ruat coelum 06:45, 28 August 2008 (EDT)

Reply to Bob
No, it is NOT my assumption that the rich will work harder, etc. My assumption (assertion, actually) is that they will spend, save, invest, start businesses and hire employees to get richer -- things like that. And all those actions benefit us. Do you not agree with that at all?

If those showboats Gates and Buffet want to help the world as opposed to get adulation, they would open as many businesses as they could afford in the poorest countries in the world. Yes, they would rouse ire from the beautiful people rather than praise, but they'd be teaching populations the skills they need to become self-sufficient, and break down class barriers in the process. As things stand now, they're passing out bandaids, merely temporary reprieves from poverty -- nothing lasting. (Gill Bates is crooked, and a major extortionist.)

You are a one-man business (you greedy Capitalist, you) and you pay taxes (gladly, i'm sure) from money you make from your customers. If your taxes tripled, would you not raise your rates? Do you believe higher taxes don't cause prices to rise? If prices came down overall and the taxman said keep your money, do you believe you wouldn't have to lower your rates?

Four good questions for you Bob -- not rhetorical.

-- Rem  Beau  00:33, 24 August 2008 (EDT)
 * 1 No. I disagree with your assertion.
 * 2 If my taxes tripled, would I raise my prices? I don't think we're talking about "raising taxes" on people making a few thou$and a year, so no.
 * 3 No, I don't think higher taxes on high individual incomes cause prices to rise. They cause millionaires to buy cheaper yachts, and as someone said, go to Brazil less often.
 * 4 If taxes dropped, I'd keep the difference. I charge what the market will bear.
 * Lastly, I will again observe that Rem thinks he understands economics at a level that we are all churlish to argue with (for the first time I will use the word "arrogant" - expect to see it again), while not being able to explain himself beyond sound bites and talking points.  ħ uman  02:51, 24 August 2008 (EDT)
 * Rem: You are a one-man business (you greedy Capitalist, you) and you pay taxes (gladly, i'm sure) from money you make from your customers. If your taxes tripled, would you not raise your rates? Do you believe higher taxes don't cause prices to rise? If prices came down overall and the taxman said keep your money, do you believe you wouldn't have to lower your rates?
 * I charge what the market will bear. Like Human - if my costs go down and I can still charge the same I most certainly will do so. If my costs go up and I can't raise my prices then I take the hit or go out of business. My prices are set by the market and not by my various costs  - which include taxes.--Bobbing up 04:20, 24 August 2008 (EDT)


 * Bob: // if my costs go down and I can still charge the same I most certainly will do so. //


 * Of course, and everybody else thinks the same way. But that's a big IF in the free-marketplace. If your competiton charges less, that might cause you to drop your prices, or provide more to the client for the same money, or some other action on your part that benefits clients, and this is repeated throughout the FM, benefitting all consumers. Without competition, it would be a totally different story.


 * // I charge what the market will bear. ... My prices are set by the market and not by my various costs - which include taxes //


 * Exactly right, but surely you can't deny that taxes affect what the market will bear, as do all other costs, for the customer as well as for the provider.


 * Okay, no answer to my four questions -- so i'll ask only one. Do you agree with Human's answers to them (just above) ?


 * -- Rem  Beau  00:39, 25 August 2008 (EDT)


 * "If your competiton [sic] charges less, that might cause you to drop your prices, or provide more to the client for the same money, or some other action on your part that benefits clients, and this is repeated throughout the FM," Rimbrand, you obviously have no experience in this other than listening to your talking point radio.  Maybe you should just shut up and listen to people who know what they are talking about?  Over the last two years, my heating costs went from about 10% of my gross to 20%.  Can I pass that along?  Or do I figure out a way not to?  In my case, I dropped the t-stats by ten cold degrees, and bought long underwear.  Longer term, I have to figure out a way to increase sales, and thus "profit", or maximize efficiency.  Oh where, oh where, is that person from the government who is here to help me?  (with experimental solar panels, hyper-insulation "sorry, you can't say no", a windmill in my field...)   ħ uman  01:04, 25 August 2008 (EDT)
 * Another point: Rim, since you aren't "in business", what this: "If your competiton [sic] charges less" means to you is that someone else will do the work you do for less money. Will you be then willing to work for even less to keep your job?  Does the phrase "race to the bottom" mean anything to you?  ħ uman  01:07, 25 August 2008 (EDT)
 * I had assumed that my response would work for all your questions - but if you want four specific answers:
 * 1. I disagree with this assertion for the reasons I made earlier.
 * 2. Your question: "If your taxes tripled, would you not raise your rates?" Answer: If any of my costs increased I would attempt to pass them on if the market let me.
 * 3. Your question: "Do you believe higher taxes don't cause prices to rise?" Answer: It depends on the tax. Purchase taxes obviously do - though in some cases business may try to offset them as well. Income tax increases on your average Joe Public is just something he has to bear - though it could be a factor in wage negotiations. Corporate taxes might or might not.  If the company is able to pass them on then, yes; if the company decides to just grin and bear it then, no.  It depends on the market.
 * 4. Your question: " If prices came down overall and the taxman said keep your money, do you believe you wouldn't have to lower your rates?" Answer: Not if I could get away with it. In fact I'm already both better (in my opinion) and cheaper than my competition - so it's pretty unlikely.
 * As a final point, I'm quite surprised that you - of all people - seem to be arguing that the government is capable of manipulating the market through the tax system.--Bobbing up 05:20, 25 August 2008 (EDT)


 * Your final point -- i just don't know what you mean by it. I get it that you think some belief i have about taxes to be un-Libertarian, but exactly what, i don't know. Did you think a Libt would disagree with T. Jefferson's dictum, "The power to tax is the power to destroy"? I certainly DO believe taxes affect prices on the open market, and in fact distort the market. They also affect the number of jobs available.


 * My first question was based on a faulty assumption; it being that anyone that disagrees with it would be glad to tell me WHY they disagree, or at the very least, which part of my first paragraph is wrong. You guys keep your cards very close to the vest.


 * Your answers to my last three questions indicate that you believe market forces matter. (Take my word for it, not everybody does.) That leads naturally to the question: Which market forces? I would say you'd have to include taxes -- taxes of every kind. You seem to be suggesting, that no, it is possible to exclude them in such a way that taxes don't push prices up.


 * Do i have that right?


 * -- Rem  Beau  21:48, 27 August 2008 (EDT)
 * It's been some days since you responded to our own exchange on this same page. If you don't want to continue it, that's fine, but let me know.--Tom Moore fiat justitia ruat coelum 22:24, 27 August 2008 (EDT)