A consumption tax I can unreservedly support

[g8terh8ter_eric]

Gibbs stirring the political forum, now there is something new.

 

[VolDad]

Yes. Income redistribution is a big positive, IF it is going to help the less fortunate in society.....

Who do you include in that category - people who dropped out of high school, people who have a child/children they can’t afford, people addicted to drugs, people who are in the predicament they are in because of poor choices they have made,... who?!?

 

[therealUT]

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

Smith absolutely ridicules tariffs. His only support for them is in the form of privatized tariffs levied by those people who operate and run docks; and then, he only supports them to the amount that they cover the costs and risks of operating the docks.

On a handful of occasions, Smith criticizes the imposition of tariffs, as they restrict commerce and ultimately do not lead to higher revenues for the national treasury.

 

[VolDad]

.

 

[utgibbs]

Who do you include in that category - people who dropped out of high school, people who have a child/children they can’t afford, people addicted to drugs, people who are in the predicament they are in because of poor choices they have made,... who?!?

I take the Rawlsian view on the subject.

 

[VOLFAN_MTSUALUM]

It should be progressive as Adam Smith declared.

Since your such a proponent of Mr. Smith, why is it you don't disagree with Obama's plans that tinker with the economy? (Obamacare and TARP) Laissez-faire was something Smith was very much in favor of. I guess you pick and choose what you like about the guy to push your beliefs.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[BigPapaVol]

Smith absolutely ridicules tariffs. His only support for them is in the form of privatized tariffs levied by those people who operate and run docks; and then, he only supports them to the amount that they cover the costs and risks of operating the docks.

On a handful of occasions, Smith criticizes the imposition of tariffs, as they restrict commerce and ultimately do not lead to higher revenues for the national treasury.

Why bother? He's simply going to make up something else and pretend we're the uneducated.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[IPorange]

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.

I still don't know what points you are talking about.

What sort of underlying mechanisms are you attributing to what you are saying?

 

[utgibbs]

Since your such a proponent of Mr. Smith, why is it you don't disagree with Obama's plans that tinker with the economy? (Obamacare and TARP) Laissez-faire was something Smith was very much in favor of. I guess you pick and choose what you like about the guy to push your beliefs.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

Well, I've actually stated explicitly (in the past) that is exactly what I do. I use Adam Smith for discussions on tax reform because: 1. his maxims make good sense, and are applicable in our own historic time, and 2. he is the patron saint for a lot of folk.

I devised STP on my own long ago, but then learned, as so much else, someone else had thought of it before. It happened to be the Scotsman.

He is not my patron saint. However, he is greatly misunderstood in our own historic time, as his much neglected Theory of Moral Sentiments, quoted in this thread, suggests.

 

[droski]

amazing isn't it that the way he is "misunderstood" perfectly fits your worldview.

 

[Tenacious D]

I still don't know what points you are talking about.

What sort of underlying mechanisms are you attributing to what you are saying?

Lulz at the sincerity - and necessity - of this question.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[utgibbs]

I still don't know what points you are talking about.

What sort of underlying mechanisms are you attributing to what you are saying?

I still don't know what you are talking about.

The data above suggests a "development" economy, the one we had prior to Thatcher and Reaganomics, is far more efficient than what followed (some realUT word history, economics was originally the science of economizing.)

You suggested what followed was, I believe your words were "efficient and fluid." History, simply, does not support your contention.

 

[droski]

I still don't know what you are talking about.

The data above suggests a "development" economy, the one we had prior to Thatcher and Reaganomics, is far more efficient than what followed (some realUT word history, economics was originally the science of economizing.)

You suggested what followed was, I believe your words were "efficient and fluid." History, simply, does not support your contention.

and of course the tax rate must be the reason for this? not just the normal difference between a developing and a developed economy?

 

[volinbham]

I still don't know what you are talking about.

The data above suggests a "development" economy, the one we had prior to Thatcher and Reaganomics, is far more efficient than what followed (some realUT word history, economics was originally the science of economizing.)

You suggested what followed was, I believe your words were "efficient and fluid." History, simply, does not support your contention.

None of this (whether valid or not) addresses the pass through effect of corporate taxation on pricing. Pricing reflects taxes.

You can argue whether it is or isn't still better to have taxing but denying the pass through simply doesn't fly and you've shown absolutely nothing to support your assertion on this matter.

 

[utgibbs]

and of course the tax rate must be the reason for this? not just the normal difference between a developing and a developed economy?

You are in the wrong debate now. We are talking about two different economic models, one in which IP described as "efficient and fluid" an assertion which does not stand up to scrutiny from the real world outside the back door.

 

[IPorange]

I still don't know what you are talking about.

The data above suggests a "development" economy, the one we had prior to Thatcher and Reaganomics, is far more efficient than what followed (some realUT word history, economics was originally the science of economizing.)

You suggested what followed was, I believe your words were "efficient and fluid." History, simply, does not support your contention.

You don't know what I am talking about is apparent, as you failed to directly address my question.

 

[IPorange]

You are in the wrong debate now. We are talking about two different economic models, one in which IP described as "efficient and fluid" an assertion which does not stand up to scrutiny from the real world outside the back door.

Set that aside, and answer my actual question.

 

[droski]

You are in the wrong debate now. We are talking about two different economic models, one in which IP described as "efficient and fluid" an assertion which does not stand up to scrutiny from the real world outside the back door.

yes or no. your belief is that the lower tax rate is why production and gdp growth is lower?

 

[utgibbs]

None of this (whether valid or not) addresses the pass through effect of corporate taxation on pricing. Pricing reflects taxes.

You can argue whether it is or isn't still better to have taxing but denying the pass through simply doesn't fly and you've shown absolutely nothing to support your assertion on this matter.

Why did prices go up during the 1990s when corporate profits were at an all time high, thanks to low taxes? (not enhanced profitability mind you)

Then explain how you can make your claims when 1. inflation was > 0, and 2. purchasing power went down during that time frame.

 

[utgibbs]

yes or no. your belief is that the lower tax rate is why production and gdp growth is lower?

No. I believe the lower tax rate is simply a corollary of the new economic principles in the vanguard.

 

[utgibbs]

You don't know what I am talking about is apparent, as you failed to directly address my question.

Restate your question. I didn't receive it.

In fact, I stated plainly I didn't know what you were asking, and then tried to take a guess at what you wanted.

 

[utgibbs]

Why bother? He's simply going to make up something else and pretend we're the uneducated.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

I believe I have called you the "educated American elite" many, many, many times.

Doesn't mean you can't be wrong.

 

[droski]

No. I believe the lower tax rate is simply a corollary of the new economic principles in the vanguard.

then why do you continue to point out that taxes were higher in the 60s? you just are posting pointless crap i guess. not surprising.

 

[volinbham]

Why did prices go up during the 1990s when corporate profits were at an all time high, thanks to low taxes? (not enhanced profitability mind you)

Then explain how you can make your claims when 1. inflation was > 0, and 2. purchasing power went down during that time frame.

Prices for what? Some went up, some went down.

Also, had taxes been zero the prices would have been lower than they were at whatever the tax rate was.

 

[IPorange]

Restate your question. I didn't receive it.

In fact, I stated plainly I didn't know what you were asking, and then tried to take a guess at what you wanted.

Mechanisms. What are the mechanisms behind your numbers, driving them?