The Benefits of the Fair Tax
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-02-2014, 04:21 PM
RE: The Benefits of the Fair Tax
(15-02-2014 04:04 PM)frankksj Wrote:  WRONG. That's assuming the tax rate is flat--not progressive. With a progressive tax, once you hit the new tax bracket, earning 20% more gross is NOT 20% more net.

I never fucking said otherwise! I said that tax rates don't jump in 20% increments (like in your previous moronic example)...it only jumps 2-3% increments. SOOO, even if the NET effect is 18% (20% gross minus 2% tax = 18% net), thats STILL a good incentive to work an addtional 10 hours a week. Thats what I've said the entire time. You are just too dumb to bother reading.

A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day - Bill Watterson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-02-2014, 04:42 PM
RE: The Benefits of the Fair Tax
(15-02-2014 01:29 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Let's fix your comparison to blood. With taxes we're not talking about a 1 time tax like your blood example, we're talking about a percent of the total that's taken every single time, and we're debating if raising the % taken has an effect.

So, back to blood. Start by taking 1% of everybody's total blood supply each day. This may kill a few people who were near death anyway. Now up it a notch, and take 2% of everybody's total blood each day. A few more deaths. Keep raising it a notch, 1% at a time. Every single notch will result in a few more deaths until you reach a point where it's so high that nobody can live anymore.

So, YES, you can pick any analogy you want, from blood to taxes, to anything at all that triggers human reaction and you'll find everybody's thresh-hold is different. Perhaps for your most valuable employee the precise tipping point where he'll just quit his job is when the income tax rate hits 47.8%. If he's currently paying 47.7%, you'll argue that 1/10% will have no effect on his behavior. But there certainly IS a tipping point. And it's not an instant change, either. While 47.8% may be the breaking point where he quits working, at every point below that he will be incentived to work less and less.

Since "a small change will have no effect at all" is a completely fabricated straw man, we can ignore it.

A potential argument would instead be "a small change (existing among many other factors) will not have a statistically significant effect".

"A small change incremented indefinitely will have a statistically significant effect" is not actually relevant. Do you understand this?

Maximising results given multiple divergent pressures is an extremely fundamental form of statistical analysis.

(15-02-2014 01:29 PM)frankksj Wrote:  This is so obvious and so simple, it's shocking that you're labeled a "professional economist" and you just can't grasp it. Even Cjlr conceded the point.

"Conceded", eh? That would require me to have disputed the point first. So, citation needed on that, friendo.

(not that Cathym112 ever made such a statement either...)

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-02-2014, 04:46 PM
RE: The Benefits of the Fair Tax
(15-02-2014 04:04 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Look it up on the OECD site. The US has the most progressive tax rates in the world.

The United States has the highest nominal corporate tax rates (though not personal income tax rates); this is not particularly comparable to the average effective rate...

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-02-2014, 04:46 PM
RE: The Benefits of the Fair Tax
(15-02-2014 04:21 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  18% is ... STILL a good incentive to work an addtional 10 hours a week. Thats what I've said the entire time. You are just too dumb to bother reading.

I _HAVE_ read it. And what I keep saying the whole time is YOU do not speak for all mankind. For YOU maybe an 18% bump in income is enough to work 10 hours/week. A workaholic with no family may do it without ANY bump in pay. But, for others, 18% won't be enough. There will be some where 18% is not enough, but 20% is.

All I've said, for the millionth time, is that everybody is different and has different thresholds. You cannot assume everybody is just like you. Every time you raise the tax rate, even 1%, you're reducing the incentive ever so slightly. I'm done arguing this. If you cannot comprehend this, I'm sorry, but it shows why I have no respect for "professional economists".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-02-2014, 06:54 PM
RE: The Benefits of the Fair Tax
(15-02-2014 04:42 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Since "a small change will have no effect at all" is a completely fabricated straw man, we can ignore it....
(not that Cathym112 ever made such a statement either...)

You didn't read the thread then. To refresh your memory:

(14-02-2014 05:20 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Every human is not the same. It's a wide, infinite spectrum of millions of people responding to incentives. At 0% you have the maximum incentive, at 100% the least. As you change the incentives, people's behavior starts changing.

(15-02-2014 12:52 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  
(15-02-2014 11:11 AM)frankksj Wrote:  the little jumps must also be having an effect, even if it's small enough to be hard to measure. So will a 1% hike be the tipping point for one of your 65 employees? Maybe, but probably not. However, out of a country of 300m it certainly will be the tipping point for some.

Sorry. I disagree. 1% increase as a tipping point for very few people. Especially if it means to get an additional net 19% is a no brainer.

You can see Cathy clearly was disputing this point, asserting that a 1% increase is a tipping point for "very few people". But, that's the whole meaning of tipping point. 1% isn't a tipping point for "few people"--it's the tipping point for EVERYBODY that can be tipped. What varies between people is WHERE that tipping point is (ie 22% -> 23%, or 64% -> 65%). Given that we're talking about a huge population of 300 million people, and let's say 100 million can be 'tipped', on average every 1% will tip 1 million people. That's NOT "very few people".

(15-02-2014 04:46 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(15-02-2014 04:04 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Look it up on the OECD site. The US has the most progressive tax rates in the world.

The United States has the highest nominal corporate tax rates (though not personal income tax rates); this is not particularly comparable to the average effective rate...

Read my statement again. I said the most progressive. Not the highest. The OECD reported the U.S. "has the most progressive tax system". Just like I said.

(15-02-2014 04:42 PM)cjlr Wrote:  "Conceded", eh? That would require me to have disputed the point first.

Seriously, you NEED to invest in a dictionary. This is an English language forum and a dozen times I've had to post definitions because you assign your own custom meanings to words.

dictionary-- concede: to acknowledge as true, just, or proper; admit:

Show me ONE dictionary definition that says "concede" requires it to first be disputed. You can't, because that's not what the word means, and I keep saying things that are factually accurate in the English language, and you keep making up your own fantasy definitions for my words so you can claim I'm wrong.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-02-2014, 07:30 PM
RE: The Benefits of the Fair Tax
(15-02-2014 06:54 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(15-02-2014 04:42 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Since "a small change will have no effect at all" is a completely fabricated straw man, we can ignore it....
(not that Cathym112 ever made such a statement either...)

You didn't read the thread then. To refresh your memory:

(14-02-2014 05:20 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Every human is not the same. It's a wide, infinite spectrum of millions of people responding to incentives. At 0% you have the maximum incentive, at 100% the least. As you change the incentives, people's behavior starts changing.

(15-02-2014 12:52 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  Sorry. I disagree. 1% increase as a tipping point for very few people. Especially if it means to get an additional net 19% is a no brainer.

You can see Cathy clearly was disputing this point, asserting that a 1% increase is a tipping point for "very few people". But, that's the whole meaning of tipping point. 1% isn't a tipping point for "few people"--it's the tipping point for EVERYBODY that can be tipped. What varies between people is WHERE that tipping point is (ie 22% -> 23%, or 64% -> 65%). Given that we're talking about a huge population of 300 million people, and let's say 100 million can be 'tipped', on average every 1% will tip 1 million people. That's NOT "very few people".

(15-02-2014 04:46 PM)cjlr Wrote:  The United States has the highest nominal corporate tax rates (though not personal income tax rates); this is not particularly comparable to the average effective rate...

Read my statement again. I said the most progressive. Not the highest. The OECD reported the U.S. "has the most progressive tax system". Just like I said.

(15-02-2014 04:42 PM)cjlr Wrote:  "Conceded", eh? That would require me to have disputed the point first.

Seriously, you NEED to invest in a dictionary. This is an English language forum and a dozen times I've had to post definitions because you assign your own custom meanings to words.

dictionary-- concede: to acknowledge as true, just, or proper; admit:

Show me ONE dictionary definition that says "concede" requires it to first be disputed. You can't, because that's not what the word means, and I keep saying things that are factually accurate in the English language, and you keep making up your own fantasy definitions for my words so you can claim I'm wrong.

You can argue semantics all you want. That it's only by definition, to be a tipping point, irrespective of the number, then everyone must have tipped.

My point was that very few people would consider 1% a tipping point. If whether I have to pay $1 or $1,000 as a 1%, it doesn't matter. It's only 1% and very few people would consider a 1% difference to be their tipping point when considering a promotion of 20-30% increase in pay for an additional 10-15 hours of work per week.

I'm not trying to argue semantics with you. What I'm trying to get you to do is to stop with these absurd points as if they are representive of reality or the majority.

A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day - Bill Watterson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-02-2014, 07:32 PM
RE: The Benefits of the Fair Tax
(14-02-2014 09:48 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  Have I won the argument yet?

I think you have. Drinking Beverage

As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-02-2014, 08:26 PM
RE: The Benefits of the Fair Tax
(15-02-2014 07:30 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  I'm not trying to argue semantics with you. What I'm trying to get you to do is to stop with these absurd points as if they are representive of reality or the majority.

Fine, let's be clear. Assume there are 100 million people in the US who WOULD be willing to work an extra 10 hours/week for a given promotion if, with no income tax, the extra pay by itself was a sufficient incentive. Thus we're not talking about people who are willing to put in the extra work for nothing, nor those who are unwilling to do it no matter what. We're talking about a group with a tipping point between 0% and 100%. The tipping points may not be evenly distributed across the scale, BUT, on average, each time you increase the tax rate by 1%, approx 1 million people will stop pursuing the promotion. (ie there are 100 increments of 1%, so each increment, on average will effect 1/100 of the 100 million people).

Do you concede the point that assuming we're talking about 100 million people who are receptive to the opportunity for the right price, every time you increase the marginal tax rate by 1%, regardless of if we're currently at a 20% tax rate or a 60% tax rate, on average, 1 million people will stop pursuing the promotion. Right? This is self-evident and indisputable, correct?

Similarly, if your business employed 100 people receptive to this offer, every 1% increase in the income tax rate would, on average, cause 1 person on your team to change his mind about putting in the extra hours.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-02-2014, 08:38 PM
RE: The Benefits of the Fair Tax
(15-02-2014 08:26 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(15-02-2014 07:30 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  I'm not trying to argue semantics with you. What I'm trying to get you to do is to stop with these absurd points as if they are representive of reality or the majority.

Fine, let's be clear. Assume there are 100 million people in the US who WOULD be willing to work an extra 10 hours/week for a given promotion if, with no income tax, the extra pay by itself was a sufficient incentive. Thus we're not talking about people who are willing to put in the extra work for nothing, nor those who are unwilling to do it no matter what. We're talking about a group with a tipping point between 0% and 100%. The tipping points may not be evenly distributed across the scale, BUT, on average, each time you increase the tax rate by 1%, approx 1 million people will stop pursuing the promotion. (ie there are 100 increments of 1%, so each increment, on average will effect 1/100 of the 100 million people).

Do you concede the point that assuming we're talking about 100 million people who are receptive to the opportunity for the right price, every time you increase the marginal tax rate by 1%, regardless of if we're currently at a 20% tax rate or a 60% tax rate, on average, 1 million people will stop pursuing the promotion. Right? This is self-evident and indisputable, correct?

Similarly, if your business employed 100 people receptive to this offer, every 1% increase in the income tax rate would, on average, cause 1 person on your team to change his mind about putting in the extra hours.

Again, the situation is irrelevant since - as I stated - if I offered an employee a promotion and a raise, and expected more responsibility and production out of them, and they turned it down, that employee would eventually be phased out of my company. Why? Cuz it's my company and ambitious people are the only ones I employ. Why? Because there are too many jobless people out there to have one employed person feel like an entitled princess. Don't wanna work? See ya!

A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day - Bill Watterson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-02-2014, 08:43 PM
RE: The Benefits of the Fair Tax
(15-02-2014 08:38 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  Again, the situation is irrelevant...

You are so frustrating. Even when I state something that is SOOOO obvious and uncontroversial, like my last post, you cannot bring yourself to say 'yes, that's correct'. I could write "Earth orbits the Sun, right?" and you would STILL refuse to concede the point.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes frankksj's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: