Bush supporters' aftermath thread

Einherjar writes
Quote:
I think the "lump sum subsidy" solution would save paperwork, although it might not be entirely fair. Still, I am on record as supporting just such a subsidy only restricted to employed people and people seeking employment.


The problem with this is that many people rake in substantial incomes from interest, capital gains, oil royalties or whatever and don't work a lick. So, here's this little windfall offered by Washington, so I enroll for work at the local Employment office and get myself a simple little job that pays a mnimum wage though I would probably do it for nothing. Voila, I'm a low income wage earner notwithstanding a good income from other sources.

How do you envision your plan addressing this situation?

Einherjar(and anyone interested in my recent discussion with Einjander):

Let me think (out loud) through this for a second. How would an income tax distort less than a flat consumption tax? Is changing income any different than changing the prices of goods and services? No, I think not. My underlying logic here is bogus… After some thought, I'm pretty certain you're right and I'm wrong, Einherjar---the distortions I described would be just as bad under an income tax as a consumption tax---but shhhh, don't tell anyone.

Einherjar(and anyone interested in my recent discussion with Einjander):

Let me think (out loud) through this for a second. How would an income tax distort less than a flat consumption tax? Is changing income any different than changing the prices of goods and services? No, I think not. My underlying logic here is bogus… After some thought, I'm pretty certain you're right and I'm wrong, Einherjar---the distortions I described would be just as bad under an income tax as a consumption tax---but shhhh, don't tell anyone.

If the tax is applied each time the vehicle is resold, then the effect would be to keep vehicles for a much longer time.

mesquite wrote:

If the tax is applied each time the vehicle is resold, then the effect would be to keep vehicles for a much longer time.

On the other hand, people's income taxes would be gone, which by itself causes people to buy more, newer vehicles. The two effects cancel each other out.

..and classify drug dealers as small businesses.

I completely agree. We in this country have some pretty unhealthy spending habits and the chickens are going to come home to roost eventually.

But that's even worse. Wasn't it Benjamin Franklin who suggested the Republic would be at risk once the politicans found out they could use our money to buy our votes? I know he thought the Republic was doomed as soon as the people found out they could vote themselves money.

Thomas wrote:

mesquite wrote:

If the tax is applied each time the vehicle is resold, then the effect would be to keep vehicles for a much longer time.

On the other hand, people's income taxes would be gone, which by itself causes people to buy more, newer vehicles. The two effects cancel each other out.

I don't think so. Let's take an exaggerated situation to see how it would work. Say for instance a person likes to trade vehicles once a month. With the consumption tax he would be paying an additional ~30% each time. In effect he would lose that tax cost on each exchange.

I don't think so. Let's take an exaggerated situation to see how it would work. Say for instance a person likes to trade vehicles once a month. With the consumption tax he would be paying an additional ~30% each time. In effect he would lose that tax cost on each exchange.

Too funny JW. Where is the studio?

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Too funny JW. Where is the studio?

As Timber says, "Beautiful, downtown Burbank!" ...which made the booing all the sweeter sounding to this right-thinking gal.

I thought that question was being asked "tongue in cheek" LOL.

So I'll just assume the audience was made up of the 44% Californians who voted for Bush...in some cases various counties went 71% Bush (yes, I have data to back this up).