Hey, Krellin.

Bump

I've never been a strong proponent of trickle-down economics. I would favor a flat tax system. Anything else is inherently discriminatory.

I'm against a flat tax, below is a good quote on the subject.

"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." -Adam Smith in his book The Wealth of Nations

I have seen a fw versions of the flat tax. and one I do like a lot is thisone.

Some of the following had no tax

Unprepared foods
Used cars
apartment rentals
Thift store purchases

There is a bigger list, I am just tossing off the ones I remember.

A flat tax isn't actually "flat" so long as there's a tax floor from which it starts. Say the first $30,000 of your income is free, the rest being taxed at idk, 25%. If you make $30,000 you pay no tax. If you make $50,000, you pay $5,000 in taxes, or 10%. If you make $100,000 you will pay $17,500 in taxes, or 17.5%. And progressively higher until you reach an actual tax rate of near 25%. This gets rid of any incentive to work less or get deductions, because there is always that same tax rate additional income will be taxed at.

The paper is open to criticism on various grounds, though. For example, its control variables are not only incomplete (things like the fed interest rates aren't controlled for), they're also not clearly independent (S&P stock returns or disposable personal income don't seem independent of the tax rate, and could be absorbing some of the statistical significance). I don't know whether things like this contributed to the GOP criticism of the report, but I do know that I'd want to hear their side, given that the author is a Democrat who gave $5000 to Democratic causes this year.

(Perfectly fine, by the way, but it just means his bias must be taken into account in evaluating the story).

(Parenthetically -- as you can tell by my parentheses -- I don't mean of course to suggest that the control variables should be _completely_ independent, but just that they should be highly correlated. In case somebody was planning to (correctly) point out to me that what I posted sounded otherwise, I thought I would correct myself).

A great quote from the Capitalist Bible - The Wealth of Nations, that is something of beauty :-)

@ RampantLion

That's why it is absolutely vital that the flax tax, whatever it is, remains low. Small government = low taxes = prosperity

GunF, I'm buying you some brain cells for Xmas, promise you won't waste them this time

Do you have any actual criticism of my above statement?

If only we could return to the tax scheme of the 90s. Or the 1950s.

Oh wait. We all know about the taxes scheme of the 90s. And news flash: we taxed the fuck out of the rich in the 1950s.

Kind of gives lie to the whole "Hey low taxes and small government mean prosperity". I'd say the 1950s were an era of massive government expansion.

Which lead to the 70s and the financial set backs. Expanding government is unsustainable. The government doesn't make money. In the profit/loss balance books, governments are financial liabilities and, as they expand, the expend more and more taxpayer dollars with little or nothing to show. Has a big government solved hunger or homelessness? No. Instead it has wasted money on committees and and services, many of whihc provide little functional benefit (and yes, I include the way too massive military spending we have in that list along with a overly bloated social security administration that could be seriously streamlined and eliminate all those political friends jobs without actually hurting seniors or the needy).

Weren't the setbacks in the 70s Vietnam related?

Actually, the energy crisis didn't have squat to do with Vietnam. OPEC didn't stop supplying us because of Vietnam. We grew to big for our own britches and backed a previously aggressive Israeli nation during the Yom Kippur War when Egypt and Syria attempted to regain lands that were stolen from them during the Six Days War.

Oh, so by "setbacks," you meant "global events which affected us," not "internal problems." Thanks for the clarification. The paragraph read like you were talking about internal problems and not external pressures such as OPEC and the Yom Kippur War.

It was our expanding government that got us involved in Vietnam. Why were we there? Same reason as we were actually in Iraq, to play superpower and interfere where we didn't belong. And we turned around and got involved financially in supporting Israel and the Soviet Union did the same but they never fully recovered from their economic crises and ended up collapsing into individual nations again..

Big government makes a superpower decide it can rule the world and spend money wantonly and needlessly.

Wait, now you're saying the 70s setbacks /were/ Vietnam related?

', as they expand, the expend more and more
taxpayer dollars with little or nothing to show.'

Agreed, just disband the army, nobod has invaded America in AGES, the 'little or nothing to show' here basically comes down to, nobody bothered to invade so the army never defended the country (or when they did attack the world trade center twin towers, the amry/airforce didn't defend the country)

So goes for the police force - people kill each other, there is never a police man around when you need one, and all that investigating results in mostly nothing or the wrong guy convicted and ending up on death row (because the policr HAVE to find someone to charge with a crime...)

And don't get me started on he american education system!!! Just scrap tye whole thing - the free marke will not suffer just because american employers are forced to pay for training their employees in fact it will be more efficient than sending kids through an education system, paying to washington just to have the money redistributed to your local school...

@dub - It may just be possible that some events that were Vietnam related were compounded by external events? But really I don't see how the inflation problems or OPEC issues are Vietnam related. Military stagnation, decreasing relative power to the Soviet Union, etc were all Vietnam related though.

If trickle down doesn't work, then the wealthy will get more wealthy (you will see a bigger rich-poor gap) and the new class of super wealthy will not need the state.

They can afford to hire personal tutors for their children (or send them to private schools) hire security guards for their homes, private investigators for any crimes committed against them, security fences and weapons to protect their property... They pay for their own health costs.

That said they still benefit culturally, food produced, and the new tasty recipies they can find. Films/theatre produced. Games watched and teams supported... But a lot of this benefit will come without government regulation (like copyright enforcement)

of course without the state protecting property rights then the super-rich could take the property of the poor without fear. I'm prerty sure this is class warfare; and the poor/weak actually need government to protect their rights.

And the US supreme court has decided money is speech - so freedom of speech is currently subverted as only those who have the most money can be heard.

The right can only be protected by progressive taxation to redistribution speech more equally!

@dubm - No, you are confusing cause and effect. Effect of big government and wasteful spending = getting us into wars we don't belong in. Vietnam and Yom Kippur War involvement were a symptom of the problem, not the source.

Ah, I misread your second paragraph. My mistake.

@ orathaic

"Agreed, just disband the army, nobod has invaded America in AGES"

We've had a world-class asskicking military since the Spanish-American War. Nobody fucks with the biggest kid on the block for a reason.

There's a correlation between defense cuts and attacks on our soil. We cut the military budget in between the world wars and the Japanese bombed us. We cut the military budget after the Cold War and cowardly monsters started flying civilian airplanes into civilian buildings. (At least the Japanese had the common courtesy to attack military targets) Correlation does not equal causation, but why the *hell* would anyone possibly think that deep defense cuts are wise, given current fragile geopolitical and economic conditions?

"So goes for the police force - people kill each other, there is never a police man around when you need one"

And that, my friend, is why qualified private citizens should not only be allowed but encouraged to carry firearms.

"And don't get me started on he american education system!!! Just scrap tye whole thing - the free marke will not suffer just because american employers are forced to pay for training their employees in fact it will be more efficient than sending kids through an education system, paying to washington just to have the money redistributed to your local school..."

I wholeheartedly agree. Public education is a clusterfuck of epic proportions. Localize and privatize. Disband the Department of Education immediately. Anyone who disagrees needs to visit the nearest high school and sit in on some "classes"

Our Education system is a fucking disaster. I have nothing else to say on the matter.

'given current fragile geopolitical and economic conditions?'

Given the state of the world, what causes does the only super-power have for that state?

I mean sure, Imperial America HAS latched onto this idea of corporate dominance, settling for an economic empire; having learned that colonies are too expensive and difficult to manage - the japanese colony is a great example of how to turn an enemy into a friend; by NOT taking their freedom.

Success breeds success, and emulation. So the japanese were more than happy to compete with the US by taking their 'successful' economic model; How and Ever. The current economic instability is a direct result of this economic model. (not blaming either democrat or republican, a global crisis was bound to happen the moment a single global economic system was built up - increasing complexity reduce redundancy and resilience to shock/stress, as the more people you are relying upon the more things which can go wrong. I am not blaming either party as BOTH wanted to spread this economic empire)

The japanese attack on pearl habour had nothing to do with american militrary cuts, it was a plan to expand the japanese militrary influence, by targeting the US navy. The might have waited had there been a bigger US fleet in the pacific, but they would still have wanted to attack, to dominate.

The lack of japanese threat to the US is a combination of what the world community learned from the treaty of versailles - ie how the US treated Japan after the war, and peaceful competition with Japan... I'm sure if the Japanese had wanted to isolate themselves from the world and refuse to trade the US would have threatened military action, like they did last time.

The attack on the world trade center wad NOT military. They didn't care how strong the US militar forces were; they were responding to US cultural and economic influence, primarily the political and military support for Islamic dictatorships which are happy to trade with the US but not allow freedom, (while Islam may be used as an excuse for violence against these dictators - religion bein used as an excuse for violence is nothing new)

How and ever, if they wanted to win a military victory over the US they would have attacked those targets easily found in their local areas... There is little reason to think that any amount of military spending would prevent such attacks - indeed less military aide to Arab dictators might uabe created a more stable world.

And i will consider military aide to be military spending, as the money given goes into buying US weapons from US manufacturers...

Military aid is an almost useless means of influencing another power. The more you give them, the less they'll need it in the future. Israel and Egypt are two great examples of that, because we don't have much of any influence over either of them, despite the billions spent.

And while there are parts of the defense sector that could be cut, I'd be hesitant to cut too deeply. Think of how much innovation goes on in the defense sector that civilians benefit from, or will benefit from in the future. The bulletproof materials developed by the army are now being used by police forces around the US; advances in aviation are almost single-handedly spurred by the armed services; radar, sonar, microwaves, etc all were jump started by massive investments in the military; our space program wouldn't have gotten anywhere without our rocket program in the 50s; satellites and GPS; the internet; and right now HUGE advances in robotics and nanotechnology are being funded by the military, and who knows what benefits they may have for mankind in the future.

So yeah, its too big. There is waste, but cut too deeply and not only do you harm national security and one of the largest drivers of innovation in the country.

Oh, don't get me wrong, i am all in favour of r&d spending. But i see that as a part of the education budget. Huge investment in Ireland in recent years has gone into nano technology, but not via the military.

I don't doubt the economy has gained greatly from the space program and other military spending, but i do not think that is where the bulk of spending is; that said if you were to cut the production of ships, planes, missile and tanks, then the economy which is based on that spending will suffer and drag down any related industries...

That is the issue with austerity measures.

@ orathatic

I am aware that correlation does not equal causation. But maybe if the US Navy had been a little bigger in 1941, the Japanese would have though twice about attacking America.

The WTC attacks were terrorism, not war. No question about it. But don't forget that they put a plane into the Pentagon too. Like President George W. Bush said, the first two planes were terrorism. The third plane was a declaration of war. A large military would not have deterred those terrorist fuckers, but maybe our intelligence agencies could have uncovered the attack in time if they hadn't experience budget cuts under Clinton.

I am a firm believer in peace through strength. Say what you want about Reagan and his military spending but it kept us out of any real big shooting wars.

"Oh, don't get me wrong, i am all in favour of r&d spending."

You can't have your cake and eat it too. You need to continue to fully fund the old gear until the new gear comes online. The Air Force kept the B-52s up and running (and continues to keep them up and running somehow after 50 years in service) until they were damned sure that the B-1s and B-2s would work.

Things can go bad when you switch to new tech without making damned sure it works right. For example, when the M16 was introduced they immediately started taking the M14 out of service and out of production. It was too late by the time they realized that the M16 was an underpowered, unreliable piece of shit.

R&D is fun and good and awesome but it shouldn't draw money from combat proven weapons and technology.

' But maybe if the US Navy had been a little bigger in 1941, the Japanese would have thought twice about attacking America.'

Perhaps, maybe they would have taken a bit more preparation, and waited longer; maybe they would have focused on china and gaining resources there, forced chinese into labour camps to build more ships, exploited their presence in asia before starting their invasion plans for the US pacific.

On the other hand, if te US didn't have eastern pacific colonies the japanese wouldn't have felt the need to attack at all. They needed raw materials and were not willing to trade. It is post war policy of the US which encouraged trade and allowed who controlled a given island to be less important. I don't think the whatifs are particularily useful. IF imperial ambitions of europeans and americans hadn't been the norm in international relations maybe japan wouldn't have tried to become an imperial power at all...

'"Oh, don't get me wrong, i am all in favour of r&d spending." You can't have your cake and eat it too. '

You misunderstand, i'm a pacifist. The irish military is tiny and only engages in peacekeeping missions for the UN, i bet there is no funding of military reseach, they have top of the line equipment, but R&D funding does to into nanotech and other similar avenues where they think the economy will benefit from.

So i can be against military spending and encourage the R&D budget to be redirect into civilian programs. (that doesn't result in much of a saving i know, but that is not my intent)

@ orathaic

True. Imperial tensions caused the war in the Pacific. But you can't blame America's imperialism and NOT equally blame Japan's fervent militarism. The war was inevitable because the two biggest kids on the block are almost always going to fight at some point.

"You misunderstand, i'm a pacifist."

Oh okay then your above post makes more sense. My mistake. I retract my statement in response to your statement.

As a pacifist, do you REALLY think that humanity can put an end to war? It seems like more planes and guns and bombs tends to deter war, not cause it.

Yes. I believe, because if i didn't i couldn't see any reason to try and create such a utopia; and if no one tries to work for it then it is impossible to achieve.

I have to believe. Even though i also believe no utopia will ever be perfect, i still believe perfection is something worth striving for.

@ora - If your army has this top notch equipment then they are relying on military R&D from somebody and, as such, are paying for it in the purchase price ofbthat equipment.

A pacifist, to me, is someone who genuinely believes that sticks and stones may break their bones, but whips and chains excite them. Amirite, Ora?

Orathaic, some of the worst hells on earth have been caused by trying to create Utopia. I would urge that we go on more than blind faith and dogma next time we try such a project.