A consumption tax I can unreservedly support

[volinbham]

Do you know that is pure hogwash?

Even if you are right, the proceeds could be redirected to offset this problems easily.

and there it is folks - take money from people and use that money to fix the problem caused by taking it from them.

Now that's efficiency!

 

[utgibbs]

He did not declare it. It is implicit, at best. He did state that the rich should pay in a greater proportion to their revenue, however, he did so in advocating property taxes and consumption taxes (since they buy more expensive "trifles", they would be taxed more on the same tax rate).

He declared it. We've done this debate to death, and it is unambiguous.

Certainly, he favored consumption taxes to be sure, but he certainly declared progressiveness as a taxation maxim (along with simplicity and transparency).

And AS would definitely be all over a consumption tax on financial transactions.

 

[therealUT]

and there it is folks - take money from people and use that money to fix the problem caused by taking it from them.

Now that's efficiency!

We should set up a new government agency to handle it as well; maybe appoint a new Czar.

 

[therealUT]

He declared it. We've done this debate to death, and it is unambiguous.

Certainly, he favored consumption taxes to be sure, but he certainly declared progressiveness as a taxation maxim (along with simplicity and transparency).

And AS would definitely be all over a consumption tax on financial transactions.

This fits your definition of a declaration?

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.

 

[utgibbs]

and there it is folks - take money from people and use that money to fix the problem caused by taking it from them.

Now that's efficiency!

There is no problem. I was just rolling with the hogwash for the sake of simplicity.

We demonstrated last week how taxes of this sort are the most efficient ways of keeping the economy humming and addressing iniquity.

 

[VolsNSkinsFan]

Do you know that is pure hogwash?

Even if you are right, the proceeds could be redirected to offset this problems easily.

pure hogwash? People are scared out of their minds inregards to the market. Now you want to Tax people who want to risk their money?

Yea we could use all those proceeds to fund QE3, QE4, QE5, QE6, etc

 

[droski]

There is no problem. I was just rolling with the hogwash for the sake of simplicity.

We demonstrated last week how taxes of this sort are the most efficient ways of keeping the economy humming and addressing iniquity.

i'd love you to point out the part of adam smith's doctrine that suggests that transaction taxes make the economy function more efficiently. he said absolutely the opposite.

 

[droski]

and save me the transparent and progressive garbage. the rich have a far lower turnover in their portfolio than the poor. this absoluteley woudl hurt the poor more than the rich.

 

[therealUT]

i'd love you to point out the part of adam smith's doctrine that suggests that transaction taxes make the economy function more efficiently. he said absolutely the opposite.

He has never read The Wealth of Nations. This was made obvious when he stated that he had read it, along with Freedom and Capitalism, and The General Theory of Money, but he had not yet had the chance to read the Communist Manifesto.

So, he made sure to read over 1400 pages of economics which oppose socialism (plus 300 pages of Keynesian's mathematical rouse), yet had failed to read the thirty or so pages which define Marxism (his pet theory)???

Nothing Gibbs has ever posted shows even the slightest trace of any ability to critically think about and/or interpret information; he simply regurgitates what has been pandered to him.

 

[utgibbs]

This fits your definition of a declaration?

How many times do we have to go over this? AS recommends luxury consumables (although he would certainly classify financial transactions as "luxury consumables") and ground-rents.

But he gave four maxims which any tax code should conform to. These are simple, transparent, progressive, and as little as needed.

However, to be sure, Smith would whole-heartedly support taxes on financial transactions.

PS - I tend to think the fourth follows from the first three in a truly democratic society. Also, the irony is not lost on me that Milton Friedman is responsible for part of the "simplicity" of our system. Namely, the withholding tax, a tax collected at the point of payment.

 

[droski]

how in the world are financial transactions luxury consumables? smith was unquestionably not refering to things that make the economy run. he was refering to non essentials.

 

[utgibbs]

He has never read The Wealth of Nations. This was made obvious when he stated that he had read it, along with Freedom and Capitalism, and The General Theory of Money, but he had not yet had the chance to read the Communist Manifesto.

So, he made sure to read over 1400 pages of economics which oppose socialism (plus 300 pages of Keynesian's mathematical rouse), yet had failed to read the thirty or so pages which define Marxism (his pet theory)???

Nothing Gibbs has ever posted shows even the slightest trace of any ability to critically think about and/or interpret information; he simply regurgitates what has been pandered to him.

I said I read the Manifesto, I have not read Kapital.

But keep trying. Maybe one day you will score that elusive point you've been trying ever so hard to score.

 

[IPorange]

What does "and then some" mean? It's going to create even more money through the magic of less capital being efficiently and fluidly invested?
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[utgibbs]

how in the world are financial transactions luxury consumables? smith was unquestionably not refering to things that make the economy run. he was refering to non essentials.

Once again, droski, I can always count on you for unwavering support. It's strange that I can, but there you go.

I find it HILARIOUS that someone would argue Adam Smith - a man of the Enlightment at the start of the Industrial Revolution - would believe trading currencies as part of a "productive economy."

Let's just see how well read realUT really is. If he has a grain of intellectual honesty, (and, supposing he has rea the works of Adam Smith), he should be reading you the riot act right about now.....

I'll be waiting.

 

[utgibbs]

What does "and then some" mean? It's going to create even more money through the magic of less capital being efficiently and fluidly invested?
Posted via VolNation Mobile

Were y'all asleep in the 1990s?

The point is building a more solid productive base, not inflating a market bubble.

:facepalm:

Let's just look at GDP real growth and productivity (non-farm) from the "developmental era" to the New World Order.

GDP

1960 - 69 4.4%
1970 - 79 3.3%

1980-90 2.9%
1991 - 00 3.2%

Productivity

1960 - 69 2.8%
1970 - 79 1.9%

1980-90 1.4%
1991 - 00 2.0%

NIPA and Bureau of Labor Statistics

Shoring up high wages and full employment is far, far, far, far more productive and efficient than speculating on currencies and CDOs.

:epic facepalm: You should know better, IP. More points you DIDN'T score.

 

[droski]

"trading currencies"

EOT

if this is what you think financial transactions are than your stupidity is beyond help.

 

[utgibbs]

He has never read The Wealth of Nations. This was made obvious when he stated that he had read it, along with Freedom and Capitalism, and The General Theory of Money, but he had not yet had the chance to read the Communist Manifesto.

So, he made sure to read over 1400 pages of economics which oppose socialism (plus 300 pages of Keynesian's mathematical rouse), yet had failed to read the thirty or so pages which define Marxism (his pet theory)???

Nothing Gibbs has ever posted shows even the slightest trace of any ability to critically think about and/or interpret information; he simply regurgitates what has been pandered to him.

how in the world are financial transactions luxury consumables? smith was unquestionably not refering to things that make the economy run. he was refering to non essentials.

I thought you were well read, realUT. And I thought you made claims to intellectual integrity.

I'm still waiting.

 

[therealUT]

How many times do we have to go over this? AS recommends luxury consumables (although he would certainly classify financial transactions as "luxury consumables") and ground-rents.

But he gave four maxims which any tax code should conform to. These are simple, transparent, progressive, and as little as needed.

Smith's Four Maxims:

(1) The subjects of every state ought to contribute toward the support of the government, as nearly as possible in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state. The expense of government to the individuals of a great nation is like the expense of management to the joint tenants of a great estate, who are all obliged to contribute in proportion to their respective interests in the estate. In the observation or neglect of this maxim consists what is the equality or inequality of taxation.

(2) The tax which each individual is bound to pay ought to be certain and not arbitrary. The time of payment, the manner of payment, the quantity to be paid, ought all to be clear and plain to the contributor, and to every other person. Where it is otherwise every person subject to the tax is put more or less in the power of the tax gatherer, who can either aggravate the tax upon any obnoxious contributor, or extort, by the terror of such aggravation, some present or perquisite to himself. The uncertainty of taxation encourages the insolence and favors the corruption of an order of men who are naturally unpopular, even where they are neither insolent nor corrupt. The certainty of what each individual ought to pay is, in taxation, a matter of so great importance, that a very considerable degree of inequality, it appears, I believe, from the experience of all nations, is not nearly so great an evil as a very small degree of uncertainty.

(3) Every tax ought to be levied at the time, or in the manner in which it is most likely to be convenient for the contributor to pay it. A tax upon the rent of land or of houses, payable at the same time at which such rents are usually paid, is levied at the time when it is most likely to be convenient for the contributor to pay, or when he is most likely to have wherewithal to pay. Taxes upon such consumable goods as are articles of luxury are all finally paid by the consumer, and generally in a manner that is very convenient for him. He pays them by little and little as he has occasion to buy the goods. As he is at liberty, too, either to buy or not to buy, as he pleases, it must be his own fault if he ever suffers any considerable inconvenience from such taxes.

(4) Every tax ought to be so contrived as both to take out and to keep out of the pockets of the people as little as possible over and above what it brings into the public treasury of the state. A tax may either take out or keep out of the pockets of the people a great deal more than it brings into the public treasury, in the four following ways: First, the levying of it may require a great number of officers, whose salaries may eat up the greater part of the produce of the tax, and whose prerequisites may impose another additional tax upon the people. Secondly, it may obstruct the industry of the people, and discourage them from applying to certain branches of business which might give maintenance and employment to great multitudes. While it obliges the people to pay, it may thus diminish, or perhaps destroy, some of the funds which might enable them more easily to do so. Thirdly, by the forfeitures and other penalties which those unfortunate individuals incur who attempt unsuccessfully to evade the tax, it may frequently ruin them and thereby put an end to the benefit which the community might have received from the employment of their capitals. . . . Fourthly, by subjecting the people to the frequent visits and the odious examination of the tax gatherers, it may expose them to much unnecessary trouble, vexation, and oppression; and though vexation is not, strictly speaking, expense, it is certainly equivalent to the expense at which every man would be willing to redeem himself from it. It is in some one or other of these four different ways that taxes are frequently so much more burdensome to the people than they are beneficial to the sovereign.

Can you tell me which part of this supports different rates for different revenue levels?

A progressive tax is a tax by which the tax rate increases as the taxable base amount increases.

What Does Progressive Tax Mean?
A tax that takes a larger percentage from the income of high-income people than it does from low-income people.

progressive tax, tax that imposes a larger burden (relative to resources) on those who are richer

As I declared earlier, Smith's never explicitly declared nor advocated for a progressive tax; this "declaration" you are searching for is implicit, at best. That stated, throughout The Wealth of Nations he explicitly advocates for the free and unrestricted movement of goods, services, and money.

To say that Smith would support a tax on financial transactions is a dumbfounded reach.

 

[utgibbs]

"trading currencies"

EOT

if this is what you think financial transactions are than your stupidity is beyond help.

A specific example in a myriad of financial products.

And now the quibbling begins. I thought it would take at least until tomorrow.

 

[VolsNSkinsFan]

Once again, droski, I can always count on you for unwavering support. It's strange that I can, but there you go.

I find it HILARIOUS that someone would argue Adam Smith - a man of the Enlightment at the start of the Industrial Revolution - would believe trading currencies as part of a "productive economy."

Let's just see how well read realUT really is. If he has a grain of intellectual honesty, (and, supposing he has rea the works of Adam Smith), he should be reading you the riot act right about now.....

I'll be waiting.

When Adam Smith wrote this, the New York Stock Exchange was a group of guys standing under a Buttonwood Tree

 

[droski]

That stated, throughout The Wealth of Nations he explicitly advocates for the free and unrestricted movement of goods, services, and money.

exactly. even gibbs must realize this is a stupid ass argument.

 

[utvolpj]

A specific example in a myriad of financial products.

And now the quibbling begins. I thought it would take at least until tomorrow.

or it's just one you took from Tobin's wiki article and tried to apply it like you had a clue.

 

[utgibbs]

Smith's Four Maxims:


Can you tell me which part of this supports different rates for different revenue levels?



As I declared earlier, Smith's never explicitly declared nor advocated for a progressive tax; this "declaration" you are searching for is implicit, at best. That stated, throughout The Wealth of Nations he explicitly advocates for the free and unrestricted movement of goods, services, and money.

To say that Smith would support a tax on financial transactions is a dumbfounded reach.

And now you come full circle. You call a concrete modern example, what can be most definitely, even at a distance of a few hundred years, be unambiguously supported by Smith's text, a "dumbfounded reach."

Yet, you try to pass off what is clear and unambiguous (and supported in other passages throughout the text) of Smith's commitment to progressivity (even volinbham has had to concede the point) as implicit only.

Well, I won't be looking then for your intellectual honesty regarding droski's reading of the text then. We have all the answers we need. Thankee. :hi:

 

[utgibbs]

or it's just one you took from Tobin's wiki article and tried to apply it like you had a clue.

Nah.

 

[utgibbs]

Smith's Four Maxims:


Can you tell me which part of this supports different rates for different revenue levels?



As I declared earlier, Smith's never explicitly declared nor advocated for a progressive tax; this "declaration" you are searching for is implicit, at best. That stated, throughout The Wealth of Nations he explicitly advocates for the free and unrestricted movement of goods, services, and money.
To say that Smith would support a tax on financial transactions is a dumbfounded reach.

WHAT????????

Are you seriously suggesting Adam Smith did not advocate trade tariffs?

Oh boy! Tell me again how you have poured over The Wealth of Nations?