Foxfyre wrote:Well while I didn't expect a patronizing lecture on the subject, I still say the purpose of a progressive tax code is to equalize wealth. A flat tax would be far more efficient to raise revenues as it would make it much more difficult to shelter income which the wealthy can now do quite handily with the existing tax code.
Foxfyre wrote:Which is precisely why I have not been a supporter of the flat tax Timber. But it would be a more efficient way to raise revenues as would a national sales tax which would be equally regressive for the poor.
But with all the available tax shelters and legal ways to avoid reporting income, it is ridiculous to think that raising taxes on the rich would be a significant way to increase revenues either.
Two posts less than an hour apart. Credibility = zero. Do you really have a position on anything?
I did not contradict myself in the least Mesquite. Making an observation about a thing and the results thereof is not the same thing as favoring a thing. Rounding up drug pushers and users, putting them in a large compound, and machine gunning them all would go a long way toward winning the war against drugs. It would be highly effective. I don't favor that method. Would you?
HofT wrote:And yet more people - of whom Tread and NIMH seem unaware - know there's an entire electromagnetic spectrum out there and wish to keep the black, white, and penumbra shadings for emergencies <G>
i suspect that nimh, gets that, as well as i do.
so what does that do to a statement like "you're either with me or you're
against me"?
"either you're a conservative or you're a liberal." ???
Dys - this poker game is played with real money, thanks anyway!
Quote:I did not contradict myself in the least Mesquite. Making an observation about a thing and the results thereof is not the same thing as favoring a thing. Rounding up drug pushers and users, putting them in a large compound, and machine gunning them all would go a long way toward winning the war against drugs. It would be highly effective. I don't favor that method. Would you?
What a stupid thing to say. It wouldn't be highly effective at all, as you would have to find a compound large enough to hold every American out there who uses caffeine, tobacco, alcohol, and sugar, and that's about all of us.
Bad analogy.
Cycloptichorn
While I suggest that you get a refund from your charm school Cyclop, I will say it is a perfect analogy of the point I was making. There are hundreds of policies that can produce desired results but of which could have undesirable or unacceptable side affects with unintended consequences. Execution by any means of all drug pushers and users is one example. A flat tax is another. The two things are completely unrelated, but the principle remains the same.
Cycloptichorn wrote:Quote:I did not contradict myself in the least Mesquite. Making an observation about a thing and the results thereof is not the same thing as favoring a thing. Rounding up drug pushers and users, putting them in a large compound, and machine gunning them all would go a long way toward winning the war against drugs. It would be highly effective. I don't favor that method. Would you?
What a stupid thing to say. It wouldn't be highly effective at all, as you would have to find a compound large enough to hold every American out there who uses caffeine, tobacco, alcohol, and sugar, and that's about all of us.
Bad analogy.
Cycloptichorn
Did you really think she meant "legal" drugs? Why would you think a stupid thing like that?
And Foxy didn't say to put them in one huge pen all at that same time. Obviously smaller, more manageable groups would be more effective. Think outside the box!
I didn't say to put them in a pen, either. I ALSO used the word compound.
Empirically, there is no difference between legal and illegal drugs, other than idiotic human convention. The war on drugs is an absolute joke, and the fact that they (illegal drugs) are as easy to get, if not easier, than they were 30, 20, or even 10 years ago, highlights this.
My point is that you can't round up all the drug pushers and users and kill them (or have them kill each other); it's a stupid thing to say because it wouldn't work. It's not like new people don't start using drugs every day, and what exactly do you free-market economists think is going to happen to the drug market if you take out 95% of the suppliers? It is a stupid idea, and a bad analogy.
Cycloptichorn
Cycloptichorn wrote:...
It's not like new people don't start using drugs every day, and what exactly do you free-market economists think is going to happen to the drug market if you take out 95% of the suppliers? It is a stupid idea, and a bad analogy.
Cycloptichorn
Don't you think fewer people would "start using drugs every day" if they knew a possible consequence of that is they will be rounded up and put in a
[compound, pen, corral, enclosure] and shot? That might have a significant deterring impact on the war on drugs.
Edited to add: But nobody is advocating this as a good idea ... it's a bad idea. The point being made is that while it would be an effective tool in the war on drugs, in would be bad policy to implement.
Sadly, and I know this belongs on another thread, I don't think drug use or sales is deterred by the promise of violence, as that promise is fulfilled independent of the law already, and has no deterrent effect.
Freeduck is right - since when has the death penalty been shown to be a deterrent for anything?
But, he is right; this belongs in a different thread.
Cycloptichorn
Tico writes
Quote:Edited to add: But nobody is advocating this as a good idea ... it's a bad idea. The point being made is that while it would be an effective tool in the war on drugs, in would be bad policy to implement.
Hello-o-o.....the point was never to discuss the pros and cons of the drug war, the death penalty, or anything like that. The point was to illustrate that you can recognize that a policy -- pay attention here: ANY policy -- can be effective and accomplish a goal but it can also have unintended consequences. It is possible for a policy to accomplish a stated goal and it is still a bad policy.
Cycloptichorn wrote:My point is that you can't round up all the drug pushers and users and kill them (or have them kill each other); it's a stupid thing to say because it wouldn't work. It's not like new people don't start using drugs every day, and what exactly do you free-market economists think is going to happen to the drug market if you take out 95% of the suppliers? It is a stupid idea, and a bad analogy.
Cycloptichorn
But It was a perfect analogy to this statement which also is illogical. (The problem is not with flat vs progressive, it is with the exclusions).
Foxfyre wrote:A flat tax would be far more efficient to raise revenues as it would make it much more difficult to shelter income which the wealthy can now do quite handily with the existing tax code.
The whole premise was on the purpose of our progressive tax system; i.e. higher income earners pay in a higher bracker than lower income earners and very low income earners pay no tax at all. I maintained that the purpose of a progressive tax is to redistribute wealth. It does so poorly because of all the intricities of the tax code with which the wealthy are able to shelter much of their income. And it is even less efficient in generating tax revenues than a flat tax or national sales tax would be; however the unintended consequences of a true flat tax or national sales tax would be bad policy without a great deal of tinkering.
Now Mesquite has questioned my credibility, and Freeduck and Cyclop seem to be unable to relate to metaphorical analogies, but that's the facts as I see them. The Bush administration does have the matter under study as we post, however, and no doubt will be putting some suggestions out there soon.
well for the idea of a flat tax, all the schemes I have seen proposed offer a flat tax on earned income. So unearned income goes untaxed which means that low income (above the minimum) and middle income (wage earners) would pay virtually all the tax revenues. Seem fair?
Fox, I let your first jibe slide because I assumed it was meant for Cyclop, but I see that you really meant it for me too. So, hellooo, my comment was admittedly off topic and a direct response to Tico's.
Ticomaya wrote:Don't you think fewer people would "start using drugs every day" if they knew a possible consequence of that is they will be rounded up and put in a [compound, pen, corral, enclosure] and shot? That might have a significant deterring impact on the war on drugs.
What I said had nothing to do with your poor metaphor. That should have been clear by my acknowledgment that it was better suited to another thread.
For the record, and on topic, I favor a simplification of the tax code -- possibly a flat rate but only after a certain level of income. A sales tax might work, but if it's levied on food and clothing it is regressive. A luxury tax would make sure we get something from those with a lot of unearned income. Just my 2 cents.
The last time a luxury tax was tried was in George 41's term. They put in on big ticket items--major pieces of jewelry, private planes, private yachts, and things like that. It was disastrous. The wealthy simply took their business elsewhere, the private plane manufacturing industry was decimated, and it darn near put the boat manufacturers out of business. Unemployment soared and revenues went down.
Soaking the rich sounds soooooo good, but the best policy is and always has been policies that get the rich to use and spend their money, not squirrel it away in domestic and/or foreign tax shelters. The narrower the tax brackets, the less incentive there is to shelter large amounts of income.
A flat tax that exempts anyone, even the poor, is not a flat tax at all but just another form of progressive tax. I'm not saying such wouldn't be a good idea--structured correctly I could even favor such--but it would be a one bracket tax,not truly a flat tax.
Foxfyre wrote:Soaking the rich sounds soooooo good, but the best policy is and always has been policies that get the rich to use and spend their money, not squirrel it away in domestic and/or foreign tax shelters. The narrower the tax brackets, the less incentive there is to shelter large amounts of income.
A flat tax that exempts anyone, even the poor, is not a flat tax at all but just another form of progressive tax. I'm not saying such wouldn't be a good idea--structured correctly I could even favor such--but it would be a one bracket tax,not truly a flat tax.
evenin' fox.
for me, at least, it's not about soaking the rich. it's about a level playing field. most people do not have the wherewithal to take advantage of the scads of deductions and loopholes that the very rich do.
and as good as a flat tax sounds; i.e., "everybody just kick in 10%" or whatever, it would(or will) not take very long for people to find a way to circumvent that system as well.
going to a national sales tax would cause more goods to be stolen and then sold and bought on a new black market.
worth thinkin' 'bout?
