http://www.alternet.org/workplace/105453/mccain_is_robin_hood_in_reverse/
McCain Is Robin Hood in Reverse
created by charlatan on Oct 31, 2008 at 11:21:29 pm Comments: 25
Comments ... #
So the astute among us will say, "well, sure, but now the government has collected all that money and they are going to give it all to the poor".
Ok. Well first of all the poor paid for most, if not all of it already - so I would certainly hope that the government will give it back to them.
The only problem is, the government can't give it all back to them - because there has to be a transaction fee. That is, the people running this Ponzi scheme have to be paid too.
The poor cannot, under any rational method, get their money back.
It's not possible.
Again, There is not a scrap of valid economics in that post. Where did you copy and paste it from?
posted by thetoledowire_com on Nov 01, 2008 at 07:11:45 am #
I did my Robin Hood duty last night. I distributed about $100 of wealth to kids who were bussed, carpooled, or walked into my neighborhood, for their share of my earnings. Many - at least 50%, were over the age of 14 or so.....and few - less than 10%, lived within the boundaries of the villiage.
Yes the TAHL is an evil Ottawa Hills resident.
TAHL
posted by TheAssHoleLawyer on Nov 01, 2008 at 07:56:17 am #
toledowire, can you be more specific about what is invalid?
Let's take one step at a time. The cost of government is embedded in the things we buy. Do you agree or disgree with that?
Step two: the lower your income, the higher your consumption as a percentage of your income. Do you agree with that?
If you agree to those two statements, then it follows that the cost of government will always have a higher impact on expendable income as gross income decreases.
Therefore, if you want to help the poor, changing their tax rate is irrelavant.
The only way to use the government to help the poor is to reduce the size of government.
consumption=income
basic macroeconomics
If you want to have more fun you can take a look at Walrasian General Equilibrium . It's actually not fun.
posted by thetoledowire_com on Nov 01, 2008 at 09:05:47 am #
toledowire, you response is pretty vague.
Above, I pointed out two functions and then drew two conclusions. Can you speak to them specifically and tell me what part of them is wrong?
Easy--
No matter how much you tax that $250k guy, he is still worth 5 times more than the guy that makes $50k today - so he will still be paid 5 times more.
So, if we implement a 100% tax on the person making 250K, then he is still paid 5x more? Logic doesn't hold.
Secondly, you're consumption arguments rests on the presumption that there is an equilibrium between the balance of wealth. There's not.
"Again, There is not a scrap of valid economics in that post. Where did you copy and paste it from?"
I chuckled.
-----
I love all the Halloween complaints.
UM, 100% taxation is an edge case that is not valid and I expect you understand that. It is like dividing by zero.
Regarding your comment on equilibrium, please present a fleshed out case instead of one line vagaries or present a specific criticism to the two functions I describe:
1)The cost of government is embedded in the cost of goods.
2)The poor consume more goods as a percentage of their income.
Or, perhaps more importantly, the conclusion:
Reducing the size of government increases the expendable income of the poor.
UM, 100% taxation is an edge case that is not valid and I expect you understand that. It is like dividing by zero.
Great Britain at one time had tax rates that were over 100%, so it is valid. And, a number can be divided by zero based upon which area of mathematics you are working with.
Ok, so while you doggedly pursue theroetical and impractical extremes - it doesn't appear that you have anything to say about the effect of the government's size on the cost of goods or the fact that poor shoulder a disproportionately large share of it.
And if it helps any, it should be pointed out that what I'm saying is equally critical of Obama and those on the right that complain that a large percentage of the population pays no taxes.
They're both wrong because expressing tax burden as a function of income does not produce a meaningful result. Not, at least, meaningful to determine who is paying what. It certainly is meaningful when it comes to inciting arguments to get votes. But that's a different story.
The fact is, government is a cost that only business can bear and pass on to consumers. So if it is important to you to see the world through class colored glasses - the funding of government will be regressive no matter what you do to income taxes.
And that's why size is the only thing that matters.
Your argument can't be taken seriously. I believe that you may have read a journal article, and you're trying to take some pretty hefty steps to create your own argument. All of your points are invalid, your logic is flawed, your understanding of consumption and income tax is weak, and your post is worthless.
Please, please, please post this on an economics forum so that you will see that you will be laughed off the message board.
UM, I operate a forum on taxation and economics that often includes posters of national prominence. And I have written many thousands of words on this topic there. Despite the impression you are trying to give, there is a very lively debate and many intricacies involved in the ideas of taxing income vs. consumption.
You just don't know any of them.
You can't write a millions words on a subject, but still know nothing. You operate a tax and economics forum, and that means? My brother drives a car, but can't change the brakes. Operating something doesn't mean knowing how something operates.
-------------------------------------
The classic class baiting story goes like this.
If you make over $250k, your taxes will go up, if you make less your taxes will go down.
End of story - easy for everyone to swallow. More people make less than $250k than make more, so its a great story to tell to get votes.
The problem is, people aren't paid with money. People are paid with lifestyles.But their lifestyles are affected by how they are taxed.
And taxes are not paid by income. They are paid by consumption.
Wrong.
You think the withholding on your paystub is the tax you pay? Its not. The tax you pay is the witholding on my paystub if you buy the product or service that I make.
Wrong.
And the taxes that I pay are the witholding on your paycheck if I buy the product or service you make.
Wrong again. Most obviously with those who dont produce any products or services.
Your income is not an endpoint. It is a cost in the value chain.
Meaningless waffle.
The endpoint is consumption - when someone buys.
Not necessarily, particularly with those with the highest incomes
who dont spend anything like all their income on consumption.Here are two constants:
Nope.
1. The cost of government is paid by all individuals by their consumption - not their income.
Wrong again. Income taxes raise a hell of a lot more money than consumption taxes do.
2. A given job will always be rewarded with the same relative lifestyle regardless of tax distribution.
Wrong in spades. Most obviously when particular levels of income
are heavily taxed by a change in the way income tax is done.Trust me,
No thanks, you dont have a clue about the basics.
the person that makes $250k today will be living the exact same lifestyle after his taxes are raised by an Obama plan.
Wrong again when they lose more of their income in tax.
That's because his relative value in the economy is unchanged.
Meaningless waffle.
No matter how much you tax that $250k guy, he is still worth 5 times more than the guy that makes $50k today - so he will still be paid 5 times more.
Wrong again.
The prices of the products that the $250k guy makes will go up,
None of those on that level of income make any 'products'
Even with services, those invididuals cant necessarily charge anything they like for their services.
and the prices of the products that the $50k guy makes will go down.
Like hell they will.
Its a wash.
Wrong, as always.
Focus on constant #1:
It isnt anything like a constant.
The cost of government is paid by all individuals by their consumption - not their income.
Wrong again. Income taxes raise a hell of a lot more money than consumption taxes do.
That is the constant
No it isnt.
that socialists don't want you to think about.
You wouldnt know what a real socialist was if one bit you on your lard arse.
That's why they try to divert your attention by dividing the population and trying to make you think that you will somehow pay less if you make less than $250k.
Corse you will pay less tax under Obummer's scheme if he actually
manages to get Congress to do what he want done with the tax scales.So - now that we have a little sanity in place
Nope, yours is a complete pack of lies/mindless pig ignorant bullshit.
- let's deconstruct an Obama government.
Not even possible when you have no idea what Congress will buy.
Remember all costs for government are paid by individuals' consumption.
Wrong, as always.
So take the cost of government and add it to the price of all the things we all buy.
You cant.
Now ask yourself these two questions: 1. Will the cost of government go up given Obama's plans for spending?
Corse that cant possibly happen with McSame, eh ?
2. Who consumes more as a percentage of their income - the rich or the poor?
Irrelevant to whether those with an income of <250K$ will pay less tax than they currently do and those whose income is >$250K will pay more tax than they currently do, if Obummer does manage to convince Congress to tax the way he wants income tax to be done.
So "Wrong" and "Wrong again" and "No it isn't" and "Meaningless waffle" is your response?
Nice.
You seemed so sure of yourself in the first couple of posts. I thought I was going to have some good feedback and dialogue to learn from.
There are several ways that you could have approached this - but you are clueless.
Good luck to you buddy.
Nope, that was a response after I posted you argument to an economics board. Here is another:
> The classic class baiting story goes like this.
> If you make over $250k, your taxes will go up, if you make less your
> taxes will go down.> End of story - easy for everyone to swallow. More people make less than
> $250k than make more, so its a great story to tell to get votes.> The problem is, people aren't paid with money. People are paid with
> lifestyles.> And taxes are not paid by income. They are paid by consumption.
And denial is a river in Africa.
Government services are assumed to be equally beneficial to all (that is
a horseshit assumption but let us accept it for this discussion). The
individual that pays the tax will provide benefits to those who do not
pay the tax. Where the tax is applied is less relevant then the amount
of the tax and how it is spent. But do not confuse tax incidence with
tax amount.But your premise is based on tax incidence and it assumes that the tax
can be passed from a producer to a consumer. The following article
discusses that:
So, your position is that income taxation has no affect on the cost of goods? Ok, that's fine - let's set that aside for a moment.
How about corporate/business taxation? That accounts for 30%-40% of the federal tax revenue.
Does corporate/business tax affect the cost of goods?
The classic class baiting story goes like this.
If you make over $250k, your taxes will go up, if you make less your taxes will go down.
End of story - easy for everyone to swallow. More people make less than $250k than make more, so its a great story to tell to get votes.
The problem is, people aren't paid with money. People are paid with lifestyles.
And taxes are not paid by income. They are paid by consumption.
You think the withholding on your paystub is the tax you pay? Its not. The tax you pay is the witholding on my paystub if you buy the product or service that I make. And the taxes that I pay are the witholding on your paycheck if I buy the product or service you make.
Your income is not an endpoint. It is a cost in the value chain. The endpoint is consumption - when someone buys.
Here are two constants:
1. The cost of government is paid by all individuals by their consumption - not their income.
2. A given job will always be rewarded with the same relative lifestyle regardless of tax distribution.
Trust me, the person that makes $250k today will be living the exact same lifestyle after his taxes are raised by an Obama plan. That's because his relative value in the economy is unchanged.
No matter how much you tax that $250k guy, he is still worth 5 times more than the guy that makes $50k today - so he will still be paid 5 times more.
The prices of the products that the $250k guy makes will go up, and the prices of the products that the $50k guy makes will go down.
Its a wash.
Focus on constant #1:
The cost of government is paid by all individuals by their consumption - not their income.
That is the constant that socialists don't want you to think about. That's why they try to divert your attention by dividing the population and trying to make you think that you will somehow pay less if you make less than $250k.
So - now that we have a little sanity in place - let's deconstruct an Obama government.
Remember all costs for government are paid by individuals' consumption. So take the cost of government and add it to the price of all the things we all buy.
Now ask yourself these two questions:
1. Will the cost of government go up given Obama's plans for spending?
2. Who consumes more as a percentage of their income - the rich or the poor?
Oh snap.
posted by babbleman on Oct 31, 2008 at 11:51:48 pm #