Taxes on the rich already gone...

But you can't provide an economic rationale. Even your attempt at morality backfired

- - - Updated - - -

No. I'm actually stating that your argument makes no sense. The "its pays not to work" argument, given unemployment and poverty traps, actually provides a rationale to increase tax

 

Show me.

So you can't think for yourself? You must have someone else do the analysis for you. Sad.

- - - Updated - - -

Based on who's analysis?

 

Nothing back fired because there has been no logical case to suggest that it is moral to take from the rich when there is no more requirement to care for those below the poverty line, pay for infrastructure or pay for defense.

I addressed unemployment and poverty traps when I said "satisfy the poverty line." Perhaps you didn't understand what I meant. IE, beyond helping those who cannot help themselves to live at or above the poverty line there is no rationale for wealth redistribution. I did not and do not believe there is a rationale to increase taxes beyond the basic needs of the poor, infrastructure and defense at the federal level.


I particularly object to the story line that suggests the marginal utility of wealth diminishes as an excuse to tax more to redistribute more. I also disagree with the concept that the disparity in income between the low and high wages prevents those with low wages from increasing their wealth with education, ambition, motivation, and hard work. http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2012/04/24/pay-gap-rich-poor/

 

Chosen randomly: Spiegel and Templeman (2004, A non-singular peaked laffer curve: debunking the traditional laffer curve,The American Economist, Vol. 48, pp. 61-66)

I'll take that to mean you can't actually find one article in support of the 'laffer curve and business cycle' link. I'm not surprised!

 

I find your dishonesty repugnant. You stated "morally taxes can be too high such that they allow the government to create safety nets whereas it pays not to work". That backfired as your argument actually made no sense. By referring to safety nets we are necessarily drawn to the interaction of tax and benefit systems and the impact on effective marginal rates of tax. That actually gives a 'moral' rationale to increase tax in order to reduce these effective marginal rates of tax, ensuring that 'its pays to work'

It wasn't difficult to understand. It was just wrong. You need to put more thought in it! You've assumed a false sense of righteousness in order to ignore sound economic comment

 

Perhaps I worded it poorly. Once taxation is sufficiently high to do the several things:
1. take care of those below the poverty level, but not to exceed that level.
2. maintain sufficient reserves to cover structural deficits/debt.
3. pay for necessary infrastructure
4. pay for adequate defense
Beyond those federal responsibilities the rest of the tax base should be left to the states to accomplish all of those rights and responsibilities IAW the 10th amendment.

I don't agree with taxation which ensures it pays not to work.

I agree I should have worded it better, but taxation beyond what I stipulated in 1 thru 4 is not moral at the federal level because it takes away state tax base.

Let me also be very clear, taxation and wealth transfer which makes it comfortable for able people not to work is immoral. and I absolutely disagree with any taxation which can be "justified" by the opinion that the marginal utility of wealth diminishes.

 

Worse than that. It was inconsistent with reality.

This makes no sense. Tax obviously doesn't 'take care of those below the poverty level'. What is important is that we avoid high marginal rates of tax on the poor.

This is all shallow comment. It also has nothing to do with the error you made.

 

We currently redistribute wealth to realistically take care of those below the poverty level. True poverty is quite rare in the US as compared to that of the 3rd world. So yes, tax $$$ do take care of the poor. I have never suggested we tax the poor so I don't know why you brought that up.

I don't recognize your assertion I made a error. I may have stated things simplistically, but in my opinion there was no error.

What is shallow about paying for the functions of government?

1. take care of those below the poverty level, but not to exceed that level.
2. maintain sufficient reserves to cover structural deficits/debt.
3. pay for necessary infrastructure
4. pay for adequate defense

It appears you are screaming before being bit.

 

We've known that poverty is a relative concept since the days of Adam Smith. We also know that consensus definitions of poverty, where the ad hoc decisions of the researcher are avoided, confirms the relevance of relative poverty thresholds.

You've given 'noise' to try and avoid your error. It still continues to be invalid. Its nonsensical to refer to morality over work incentives when progressive increases are actually required to avoid unemployment and poverty traps.

You're just repeating the noise. As I said, it was shallow stuff too. Necessary infrastructure? According to what criteria? Adequate defence? Using what political economic concept? And we've already seen that you don't have any substantive poverty analysis

And let's not forget that you've already been found guilty of making comment that you cannot support with evidence!

 

I don't agree with you. I also have lived with real poverty and doubt you have ever experienced it through observation or living it as I have. Going to dinner and will discuss it in more detail when I get back if you are interested.

 

Me? Its not about my opinion. Its about reality. Subjective poverty confirms the validity of the relative poverty methodology.

Brought a tear to my eye so it did! Back to reality now...

 

The "subjective" poverty says it is nothing but opinion.
Brought a tear to my eye so it did! Back to reality now...[/QUOTE]The very reason I believe we should tax progressively and give those in poverty the help they need to get to that "subjective" poverty is because I know what it is like. I'm sorry for you if you don't believe we need to help those who can't help themselves. But even I, who believes in helping those who can't help themselves believe it is wrong to habituate people to welfare beyond what they need, robbing them of their self respect and dignity.

I lived in India during my last years in high school. There was little else but subsistence poverty in the country side. I lived for several months on a Colonization Project during the spring of 1953. We survived by hunting and gathering and the small garden we planted. It was sparse but it was a good life. Hunting provided the food for the Colonization workers and the nearby villagers. Here is a picture of one such subsistence hunt:
Click on pictrue to enlarge
If you look closely, to the left of the larger antelope (Nilgai) there are two sets of spiral horns of Black Buck. Those animals were butchered, some of the meat sent to my home in Lucknow, some barbequed that night for a few days meals, and the rest striped and salt dried for future meals.

 

It provides a means to define poverty without the ad hoc decisions of the researcher. That it leads to results that confirms the validity of the relative poverty methodology is not surprising.

This is just fluff. There is nothing to support the 'excessive taxation' definition. I'll sum up what you've said so far:

(1) You've given a laffer curve comment you cannot support with evidence.
(2) You've given a reference to work incentives which actually gave a rationale for tax increases (given the interaction of tax and benefits systems)
(3) You've given a backward understanding of poverty, ignoring that we've understood poverty as relative since the days of Smith (e.g. "By necessaries I understand, not only the commodities which are indispensably necessary for the support of life, but whatever the custom of the country renders it indecent for creditable people, even of the lowest order, to be without)

 

1.You have not supported your opinion about the laffer either.
2. My comment about not giving "assistance" beyond the threshold for the choice not to work is as valid as yours.
3. Poverty is nothing more than the inability to furnish necessities for life.
4. Your suggestion that poverty is subjective based on the standard level of comfort for a culture is bullcrap.

If you want to sell your definition of poverty, have at it, but I don't buy it and apparently neither do all of the rest of the people in the US. The left wing tends to define poverty as you do. The right wing tends to define it minimally. I am a moderate and I tend to define poverty as dignity with necessities. I purposely left out more specific descriptions to give you a little room to rant.

 

That isn't true is it now? I've made two statements on the Laffer Curve. First, it cannot be used to refer to 'excessive taxation' as it is actually used to suggest taxes are too low. Second, the Laffer curve is deemed to be multi-peaked and that puts a mockery on the standard attempt to suggest something on a par with a normal distribution. I was asked to defend both statements with evidence. I provided references of scholarly research for both. In contrast, you made a statement about Laffer curves and the business cycle which you cannot support. Can you at least be honest about that?

Your original comment continues to be just an exercise into invalidity. The notion of work disincentives is focused on high marginal rates of tax (encouraging a corner solution in the standard labour supply analysis). It is the interaction of tax and benefit systems that delivers high effective rates. Without realising it of course, you actually provided an argument for higher taxes (to ensure lower effective rates on the poor and therefore to ensure work incentives)

Adam Smith had a more advanced understanding of poverty than you and he's been dead yonks. Time to catch up methinks!

The problem is that you have a political bias but no understanding of the poverty methodologies. A valid attack on relative poverty would be that it confuses income inequality issues and poverty. Absolute poverty, by ensuring fixed needs, avoids this problem. And what has subjective poverty analysis enabled? Fixing of those needs according to a consensus (i.e. what is deemed to be a necessity is decided by public perceptions, ensuring that the calculated poverty threshold is not corrupted by the researcher's personal bias). That essentially generates an advanced absolute poverty measure. It just happens that the results broadly confirm the validity of the relative methodology. Again, we just see how badly out of touch you are.

My definition? Nope! Just knowledge of accepted analysis and how the poverty methodologies interact. Its that knowledge which has ensured that I avoid shallow remark.

I've gone way beyond personal bias. The subjective methodology, which you've attempted to rubbish (without any content mind you), eliminates it as an issue.

None of your posts have had content. You really should put that right!

 

Yep, you made 2 statements, so where is the support?

 

I've given references to two academic journal articles that confirm the validity of my statements. In contrast, you've given naff all.

You've made a statement that you cannot support. I don't care for the dishonesty.

Have a look at the publication date of the Wealth of Nations. That'll give the game away somewhat!

You know nothing about my personal circumstances. Of course my personal circumstances aren't relevant. You're trying to make it personal in order to hide from your error: where modern absolute measure (based on avoiding the political bias of the researcher) simply confirms that Adam Smith and co were right all along

 

Yep, you made 2 statements, so where is the support?

I did not say it supported taxes are too low, but it can suggest that taxes can be increased without revenue suffering.

I have also not suggested it follows a "normal" distribution curve..

There is nothing dishonest about my comment and personally I don't consider you important enough for me to waste my time re-looking for support that the peak of the curve will vary according to the business cycle..

It is obvious you do not understand what I said. I did not tie the marginal rates of tax to a labor/supply analysis. I merely said (without any concern about the rate of taxation) that government assistance should never be so high as to encourage living off of the assistance instead of seeking work..

I don't know if you are intentionally being obtuse or if you have a hard time understanding English, but I also did not discuss tax rates on the poor at all. I only discussed the poor in relation to the public assistance they may receive..

You can take Adam Smith and his understanding of poverty or his invisible hand and shove them where the sun don't rise. I also did not discuss any of his understanding of economics..

You are right about that, I have a political bias. I am a moderate democrat and I categorically object to either leftwing and rightwing extremes..

The fact is, I do understand poverty, obviously much more than you, as I have experienced it and observed it..

Apples and oranges. Poverty can exist where income disparity is compressed as well as when there is severe inequality..

Absolute poverty is the absence of even basic needs, where as poverty in the real world is the achievement of only the basic needs. The definition expressed as, "Term absolute poverty Definition: The amount of income a person or family needs to purchase an absolute amount of the basic necessities of life," is of course different from the cultural definition or relative poverty, "relative poverty: People are relatively impoverished if the customary (average) standard of living in their society requires more spending than the income they have available.".

And for where did you get that "consensus?" Likely from the progressive concept of poverty rather than a reality based definition..

So I am out of touch? Why not ask a conservative who is out of touch? In fact your self-righteous arrogance suggests it is you who is out of touch..

Poverty analysis IAW some arbitrary set of rules determined by progressive biased rule setters, and you have indulged yourself with shallow remarks in every response to me..

In your mind of course, but as I said your arrogant self righteousness tells us a lot about you.
I have lived poverty, and I have observed poverty. It is apparent you have done neither.

 

I have seen nothing you posted which support (not necessarily confirm) your statements. I don't intend to waste my time on such an arrogantly self righteous individual as you.

I have no need to be dishonest with such as you, you aren't worth dishonesty.

What do you think I care about, "The Wealth of Nations?"

I do know things about you. I know you have obviously never experienced or observed real poverty, and I know that by what you have said. You made it personal by your snide remarks about my honesty, and I don't need Adam Smith to recognize bloviation such as you have written in response to my comments.

 

Then you read very badly.

Bit obvious really: the quote came from the Wealth of Nations and therefore describes just how out-of-date you really are!

Perhaps you should have avoided the dishonest tactics? We both know that you cannot, for example, show any link between the laffer curve and the business cycle.

 

Nope, I didn't read it at all. It is a presumption that any study you would have put forth to support your point of view would be from a progressively biased researcher, and thus not worth reading. Now if you had quoted a work by George Reisman I may have had a little interest.

The fact is, the only thing I need to put forth relative to the laffer curve and any given business cycle is basic logical. It is logically obvious that in a progressive boom the peak of the laffer curve moves to the right. If you can't visualize and understand that it is obvious you are not smart enough for me to waste my time discussing the issue. That is the difference between you and me. You read something and argue to the death if you agree or disagree with the assertions. I extrapolate from what I have studied, what I have experienced, combine it with good judgement and express it. It is a shame you can't think for your self.

BTW, you do know that calling me dishonest is the same thing as calling me a liar. I will tolerate only so much of that. Have a good day!

 

I'm happy for you to critique the papers and/or offer alternatives that demonstrate the results are not robust. We both know that you won't be able to achieve that

If its logical, how come you cannot refer to evidence in support? Somehow no one was able to support 'your' logic? Golly!

 

What I can achieve and what I choose to achieve are two different things. I have no desire to achieve anything for your satisfaction. Your self-righteous arrogance makes you a less than desirable person with whom to communicate.

Actually no! I need no one to support "my" logic. If you are not smart enough to follow it, then don't bother.

Actually what I note is, your attempts at a put down of me or my opinions has fallen flat as you haven't got the power or the intelligence to accomplish the same.

 

You're wasting my time. Present evidence in support or take a hike. I have no patience for these silly games

 

Your patience is irrelevant., since you are the one playing silly games that you can stop them anytime you wish. As to taking a hike, I do so when I choose, not when you choose. I suggest you go to some school that teaches real economics because your posts reflect a current void in understanding the issues. It appears you are lost in thought; but to no avail as it is unfamiliar territory for you.