The Benefits of the Fair Tax
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-02-2014, 08:46 PM
RE: The Benefits of the Fair Tax
(15-02-2014 04:42 PM)cjlr Wrote:  (not that Cathym112 ever made such a statement either...)

You can see that even why I post something that is so obvious as to be accepted without controversy (post #208) and ask Cathy to please just acknowledge this simple point so we can put this to rest, she still refuses (post #209). So, will you, as a pragmatic scientist, at least acknowledge the validity of my post #208?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-02-2014, 09:05 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".

That isn't what that means. Having chosen how you are going to interpret someone else's words, you somehow convince yourself you know what they must have meant even in the face of being corrected.

What she is saying is that all else being equal a difference of 1% will not be significant.

What you are saying is that at some point the difference will become significant.

Do you see how those are not the same thing? Do you understand the difference between a hypothetical and abstracted to the point of uselessness individual case is not comparable to a generalised statistical statement?

(15-02-2014 06:54 PM)frankksj Wrote:  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.

No comment towards the difference between nominal and effective rates?

I can assure you it's a significant factor to consider.

(15-02-2014 06:54 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(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.

Yes. That only happened in your head. Sorry.

You've used definitions which I considered inadequate in the context given, and then refused to so much as consider such an eventuality.

(15-02-2014 06:54 PM)frankksj Wrote:  dictionary-- concede: to acknowledge as true, just, or proper; admit:

Show me ONE dictionary definition that says "concede" requires it to first be disputed.

Let us turn, then, to your tyronic obsession, dictionary.com. Which is, incidentally but predictably, whence you took the above definition.

(15-02-2014 06:54 PM)frankksj Wrote:  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.

Oh, friendo. You probably should have thought that through.

dictionary.com Wrote:1.
to acknowledge as true, just, or proper; admit: He finally conceded that she was right.

Note the example sentence's use of "finally"; necessarily implicit in this is that there was such a time when such concession was not in evidence - thus, the example refers to something which had priorly been in dispute.

Shall we keep going?

dictionary.com Wrote:2.
to acknowledge (an opponent's victory, score, etc.) before it is officially established: to concede an election before all the votes are counted.

In case that one isn't explicit enough for you - an opponent requires contention.

And that's how we use a dictionary.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-02-2014, 09:08 PM
RE: The Benefits of the Fair Tax
(15-02-2014 08:46 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(15-02-2014 04:42 PM)cjlr Wrote:  (not that Cathym112 ever made such a statement either...)

You can see that even why I post something that is so obvious as to be accepted without controversy (post #208) and ask Cathy to please just acknowledge this simple point so we can put this to rest, she still refuses (post #209). So, will you, as a pragmatic scientist, at least acknowledge the validity of my post #208?

Insofar as the numbers are a complete fabrication...

No one is disputing the specific premises. But an application to invented data is not very indicative of anything.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-02-2014, 10:19 PM
RE: The Benefits of the Fair Tax
(15-02-2014 09:08 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Insofar as the numbers are a complete fabrication...

No one is disputing the specific premises. But an application to invented data is not very indicative of anything.

You want real numbers? Attached is a study using real numbers. It concludes every 1% increase in tax rates lowers gdp by 2%-3%. A 1% increase reduces gdp by $450 BILLION. Compare that to Cathy's statement that "1% increase is a tipping point for very few people." By no stretch of the imagination is $450 billion reduction in gdp "very few people".

It concludes "taxes can account for most of the changes in hours worked both over time and across countries." However the actual facts and figures merely substantiate what should have been self-evident already to anybody with an open mind.

If you dispute this, then you go on the record as I did and state how much of an impact a 1% tax increase has on gdp.

Now, this is why I say taxing hard work and productivity is a stupid, self-inflicted damage on the economy. We should be ENCOURAGING it, not punishing it. Property and consumption taxes make a lot more sense.


Attached File(s)
.pdf  ImpactofTaxesonEconomicbehavior.pdf (Size: 84.02 KB / Downloads: 23)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes frankksj's post
15-02-2014, 11:13 PM
RE: The Benefits of the Fair Tax
(15-02-2014 10:19 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Now, this is why I say taxing hard work and productivity is a stupid, self-inflicted damage on the economy. We should be ENCOURAGING it, not punishing it. Property and consumption taxes make a lot more sense.

Keep up the good fight my friend. But sadly, you seem to be talking to the wind. I gave up as soon as a self professed economist started pretending to have no clue that people react to dissincentives. You just have to shake your head at how willfully dense people can be.

Softly, softly, catchee monkey.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes toadaly's post
16-02-2014, 06:30 AM
RE: The Benefits of the Fair Tax
(15-02-2014 11:13 PM)toadaly Wrote:  
(15-02-2014 10:19 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Now, this is why I say taxing hard work and productivity is a stupid, self-inflicted damage on the economy. We should be ENCOURAGING it, not punishing it. Property and consumption taxes make a lot more sense.

Keep up the good fight my friend. But sadly, you seem to be talking to the wind. I gave up as soon as a self professed economist started pretending to have no clue that people react to dissincentives. You just have to shake your head at how willfully dense people can be.

Yup. Dense. I agree.

Ironic that one of us has an advanced degree in economics, and two of us have Wikipedia and msnbc talking points.

You have no real concept of disincentives as it relates to taxes. As others - not me - have pointed out to you, it doesn't matter how much taxes are - you will still take that pay raise if given to you.

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
16-02-2014, 11:40 AM (This post was last modified: 16-02-2014 11:49 AM by frankksj.)
RE: The Benefits of the Fair Tax
(15-02-2014 11:13 PM)toadaly Wrote:  Keep up the good fight my friend. But sadly, you seem to be talking to the wind. I gave up as soon as a self professed economist started pretending to have no clue that people react to dissincentives. You just have to shake your head at how willfully dense people can be.

Very well said. Naturally, in politics a lot of stuff IS subjective and just a matter of opinion. But this is irrefutable, basic 3rd grade math. If you can't reach consensus on this, it's hopeless to think any progress can be made on the complex, subtle issues.

If Cathy wants her employee, Gus, to take a promotion that will require him to work longer hours, and the absolute maximum Cathy will pay is an extra $32,000/year. And the absolute minimum that Gus will accept to take home is an extra $25,000/year. Then it all comes down to tax brackets. If Gus's tax bracket is 21%, then Gus gets takes job. But if the tax rate raises 1 notch to 22% so his take home is $24,960, it dipped below his limit, and he passes on the job.

So obvious. Yet, even now, Cathy still insists: "it doesn't matter how much taxes are - you will still take that pay raise [and work the required extra hours to get it]" She, of course, deliberately omitted that last part, since that's the heart of the issue. Then, since Cathy herself said 'it doesn't matter how much taxes are', I'll say "ok, is anybody going to work extra hours if it puts them in a 99% tax bracket?" And then she says I'm being ridiculous for using such big numbers, oblivious to the fact that SHE is the one claiming the numbers can be as big you want.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-02-2014, 01:02 PM (This post was last modified: 16-02-2014 01:06 PM by Cathym112.)
RE: The Benefits of the Fair Tax
(16-02-2014 11:40 AM)frankksj Wrote:  
(15-02-2014 11:13 PM)toadaly Wrote:  Keep up the good fight my friend. But sadly, you seem to be talking to the wind. I gave up as soon as a self professed economist started pretending to have no clue that people react to dissincentives. You just have to shake your head at how willfully dense people can be.

Very well said. Naturally, in politics a lot of stuff IS subjective and just a matter of opinion. But this is irrefutable, basic 3rd grade math. If you can't reach consensus on this, it's hopeless to think any progress can be made on the complex, subtle issues.

If Cathy wants her employee, Gus, to take a promotion that will require him to work longer hours, and the absolute maximum Cathy will pay is an extra $32,000/year. And the absolute minimum that Gus will accept to take home is an extra $25,000/year. Then it all comes down to tax brackets. If Gus's tax bracket is 21%, then Gus gets takes job. But if the tax rate raises 1 notch to 22% so his take home is $24,960, it dipped below his limit, and he passes on the job.

So obvious. Yet, even now, Cathy still insists: "it doesn't matter how much taxes are - you will still take that pay raise [and work the required extra hours to get it]" She, of course, deliberately omitted that last part, since that's the heart of the issue. Then, since Cathy herself said 'it doesn't matter how much taxes are', I'll say "ok, is anybody going to work extra hours if it puts them in a 99% tax bracket?" And then she says I'm being ridiculous for using such big numbers, oblivious to the fact that SHE is the one claiming the numbers can be as big you want.

No. Actually you have no concept of the conversation outside of oyr own head. another TTA user said that you will still take a raise. I agreed and further stated that raise generally means more responsibility.

(14-02-2014 04:50 PM)wazzel Wrote:  
(14-02-2014 04:34 PM)toadaly Wrote:  How can you properly apply taxes to productive labor, without acting as a disincentive to productive labor? No matter the nuances, it's going to be a disincentive. Taxation is not exempt from market forces. If taxes cause a reduction in take home pay, there is then less incentive to work in the first place, particularly if on the other end, there are also incentives not to work - such as never ending unemployment payments. If taxes cause milk to cost more, people will buy less milk. This is basic economics. There's nothing controversial about these statements.

Did you pass up your last raise that put you in a higher tax bracket? I did not and I will not if it comes around agin. That is my point about proper taxation as opposed to the extreme examples or taxation to discourage behavior.

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
16-02-2014, 08:05 PM
RE: The Benefits of the Fair Tax
For dozens of posts over the last several days, toadaly and I have been making one simple point: If you need to offer an employee an incentive to get him to work longer hours or take more responsibility, the amount of the incentive equals:

[what you are willing to pay] - [income tax] = [net incentive to the employee]

If the employee's rock-bottom number to take the new job is $9,000, and the maximum you're willing to pay is $10,000, then you have room for $1,000 in income taxes. It the taxes are any more, then what you're offering is no longer going to net the employee the minimum incentive he'll take.

FINALLY I think a light bulb went off, but rather than conceding the point, you move the goalpost and say:

(16-02-2014 06:30 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  you will still take that pay raise if given to you.

Well no shit. If somebody is offering more money and you don't have to do anything to get it, of course you'll take it whatever it is. Anything is better than nothing. Duh. That was NOT what we've been debating the past few days and dozens of posts. _IF_ you knew all along that toadaly and I were correct that income tax reduces the incentive to work harder, then why have you been fighting us over this point!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-02-2014, 08:19 AM
RE: The Benefits of the Fair Tax
(15-02-2014 10:19 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(15-02-2014 09:08 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Insofar as the numbers are a complete fabrication...

No one is disputing the specific premises. But an application to invented data is not very indicative of anything.

You want real numbers? Attached is a study using real numbers. It concludes every 1% increase in tax rates lowers gdp by 2%-3%. A 1% increase reduces gdp by $450 BILLION. Compare that to Cathy's statement that "1% increase is a tipping point for very few people." By no stretch of the imagination is $450 billion reduction in gdp "very few people".

It concludes "taxes can account for most of the changes in hours worked both over time and across countries." However the actual facts and figures merely substantiate what should have been self-evident already to anybody with an open mind.

If you dispute this, then you go on the record as I did and state how much of an impact a 1% tax increase has on gdp.

Now, this is why I say taxing hard work and productivity is a stupid, self-inflicted damage on the economy. We should be ENCOURAGING it, not punishing it. Property and consumption taxes make a lot more sense.

Historical data does not back that up. Tax revenue regardless of rate is around 19% of GPD, fairly consistently. GPD growth has happend in time of both low and high top marginal rates. While there may be some relation it is not the only cause.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: