A consumption tax I can unreservedly support

#126
#126
Still have not answered my question. Why can't you give provide a very direct 'yes' or 'no' answer, here?
 
#127
#127
NEOCON said:
but if the person starting way back does not try to advance themself are they allowed to starve in your perfect society?
Click to expand...

What do you mean by "trying to advance themselves?" Work?

Absolutely, and I believe all strata should be engaged in productive work.

HOWEVER, I will probably disagree with you strongly regarding the kind of alienated labor we call "work" in our own culture and time. In short, we would probably disagree in many regards on what is "productive work."
 
#129
#129
utgibbs said:
Have answered your question, in remarkable detail.
Click to expand...

Not at all. I specifically qualified "social-stratification" with "in and of itself" for a reason.

You added conditions; thus, you did not answer my question.

You still haven't.
 
#130
#130
utgibbs said:
Do I really have to answer that question? Really?

Even the thoroughly Capital-soaked Washington Consensus considers dividends unearned income!
Click to expand...

Yes. You really do since you didn't answer it here.

Unearned does not mean unproductive- not even close.

But it really isn't a consumption tax anyway. Nothing at all is consumed. It is just a back door way of taxing those who produce wealth rather than those who consume it.
 
#131
#131
Any attempt to equalize outcomes artificially will have a detrimental effect on the whole including those who are the objects of the "help"... regardless of what any eggheaded theorist says.

The BEST way to serve those with less talent, opportunity, whatever is to maximize the composite wealth of society so that their contributions as meager as they may be are rewarded.
 
#132
#132
therealUT said:
Not at all. I specifically qualified "social-stratification" with "in and of itself" for a reason.

You added conditions; thus, you did not answer my question.

You still haven't.
Click to expand...

I added no conditions. I gave you a full answer on what I legitimately believed you were asking.
 
#133
#133
utgibbs said:
What do you mean by "trying to advance themselves?" Work?

Absolutely, and I believe all strata should be engaged in productive work.

HOWEVER, I will probably disagree with you strongly regarding the kind of alienated labor we call "work" in our own culture and time. In short, we would probably disagree in many regards on what is "productive work."
Click to expand...

Yes. Probably. Because at the very core of every economic argument you engage in.... you start from a false premise concerning the source and creation of wealth.
 
#136
#136
sjt18 said:
Any attempt to equalize outcomes artificially will have a detrimental effect on the whole including those who are the objects of the "help"... regardless of what any eggheaded theorist says.

The BEST way to serve those with less talent, opportunity, whatever is to maximize the composite wealth of society so that their contributions as meager as they may be are rewarded.
Click to expand...

This is actually not far off the Rawlsian view, except, there are some grave qualifications attendant on maximizing wealth in the way we do now in our own historic time.
 
#138
#138
utgibbs said:
As I have said, I am very fond of Rawls view of justice, and especially the way he develops his arguments.

To the point though, Rawls view of justice permits inequity so long as the inequity serves the least of society.

In other words, we don't want to prevent the best flavist from being in Jethro Tull. Nor do we want to saddle Peyton with sandbags a la Harrison Bergenon.

But the society which recognizes and honors the flavist and Peyton Manning must also reward those not so gifted or who had a starting point much further back.

It seems, the issue arises in these boards in how we build a society addressing this fundamental point of justice. However, not to be too esoteric, our own historical circumstances require even more from us than addressing justice to humankind alone.
Click to expand...

therealUT said:
He's been doing more dodging than usual today.
Click to expand...

Hmmmmm. :question:

Methinks you might want to go check your tomes on word history, although the simplest dictionary might help in this case.

You have been answered in generous detail. YOU have added stipulations. And you have failed in qualifying how I haven't answered your question.
 
Last edited:
#139
#139
utgibbs said:
Which is?
Click to expand...

That fairies drop wealth from the sky at night and therefore you can tax those who produce and invest without changing their behavior and level of wealth creation... that you can subsidize non-producers without increasing their number.... that you can tax producers without making fewer of them.... that you can make something "free" and simultaneously reduce the cost of it to society as a whole... that you can demand that companies operating on effective 3-5% margins in mature industries simultaneously give better benefits, pay higher wages, pay more taxes,.... and stay in business.
 
#140
#140
utgibbs said:
This is actually not far off the Rawlsian view, except, there are some grave qualifications attendant on maximizing wealth in the way we do now in our own historic time.
Click to expand...

Really? The only "grave qualifications" I see as necessary to my libertarian/free market pov is that liberals like you wouldn't be able to be cosmic busybodies. IOW's, people would have freedom and responsibility without you "wise" folks dictating their life choices to them.
 
#143
#143
So you have no mechanism to offer, utgibbs. Thus, your analysis isn't even worthy of the title "conjecture."

GSM.
 
#144
#144
sjt18 said:
That fairies drop wealth from the sky at night and therefore you can tax those who produce and invest without changing their behavior and level of wealth creation... that you can subsidize non-producers without increasing their number.... that you can tax producers without making fewer of them.... that you can make something "free" and simultaneously reduce the cost of it to society as a whole... that you can demand that companies operating on effective 3-5% margins in mature industries simultaneously give better benefits, pay higher wages, pay more taxes,.... and stay in business.
Click to expand...

Except for the fairies, you can do all those things, and we have done them in the past.
 
#145
#145
utgibbs said:
Development economic policy vs neoliberalism (which was given).

Do you need a breakdown of each?

Just focusing on the former, a commitment to full employment economy, wages growing in line with productivity gains, investment in infrastructure and education, fairer allocation of national wealth.

In short, more people the fruits from the national pie.
Click to expand...

IPorange said:
So you have no mechanism to offer, utgibbs. Thus, your analysis isn't even worthy of the title "conjecture."

GSM.
Click to expand...

Ah, so the "teacher" admits he doesn't know history:

Bretton Woods system - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1. Tariffs and industry protection; capital flight barriers
2. Protection of unions and bargaining power of labor (keeping wages in line with productivity gains)
3. No fiat currency
4. Strong government intervention policy in the economy (Government as GDP 1960 - 69 22.4%, 1980s 20.6%, 1990s 18.6% - NIPA)
5. Minimum wage set above poverty line
6. Debt-fuelled consumption much smaller piece of GDP (1960s 61.4%, 1980s 64.5%, 1990s 67% - NIPA)
7. More progressive tax structure
8. Enactment of Civil Rights Legislation

I'll stop at eight, but there are many more. I'd like a line item assessment of my "grade" please. And also:

GDP real growth:

1960s 4.4%
1970s 3.3%
1980s 2.9%
1990s 3.2%

Productivity growth:

1960s 2.8%
1970s 1.9%
1980s 1.4%
1990s 2.0%

(NIPA)

That's not "conjecture" - that's what happened in the real world outside the back door.

Game, Set, and Match. :hi:
 
#146
#146
The Bretton Woods system looks pretty crappy, especially since it overly rewards organized labor.
 
#147
#147
MG1968 said:
The Bretton Woods system looks pretty crappy, especially since it overly rewards organized labor.
Click to expand...

Worked a treat for a good long while after the two most wrenching events of the 20th century:

us-home-ownership-rates.jpg


6a00d834516ae369e20147e2b33689970b-400wi


It isn't an unqualified success, but it saved Capitalism.
 
#148
#148
MG1968 said:
The Bretton Woods system looks pretty crappy, especially since it overly rewards organized labor.
Click to expand...

WealthDisparity_2007-Trends.jpg


We can look at the bottom trends a little later. However, unless you are a quibbler, should be obvious what was happening under the Bretton Woods arrangement and what is happening now (especially given the data, and the timings) of the first two graphs. And especially given the anemic growth rates of the last 30 years.

Note: I'm certainly not shilling for growth along the bourgeois models.
 
#149
#149
The Obama Rosetta Stone - WSJ.com

Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez, French economists, are rock stars of the intellectual left. Their specialty is "earnings inequality" and "wealth concentration."

Messrs. Piketty and Saez have produced the most politically potent squiggle along an axis since Arthur Laffer drew his famous curve on a napkin in the mid-1970s. Laffer's was an economic argument for lowering tax rates for everyone. Piketty-Saez is a moral argument for raising taxes on the rich.
Click to expand...

sounds like a couple of lefty douchebag academics to me
 
#150
#150
Last edited:
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top