The Benefits of the Fair Tax
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
11-02-2014, 12:30 PM
RE: The Benefits of the Fair Tax
(11-02-2014 11:38 AM)Minimalist Wrote:  Study the taxation rates on corporations prior to fucking Reagan. Examine corporate behavior back when they actually had to pay taxes. It bears little resemblance to the way the bastards act today.

BTW, the part about corporate behavior IS correct. Back in the 1970's when corporate taxes were high, nobody was willing to start any new businesses. Go to the NY Stock Exchange's historical list of IPO's. During the Carter years, there were an average of 4 new IPO's/year. The moment Reagan slashed the corporate tax rates, there was a flurry of innovation and economic activity. The rate of IPO's increased 10x. And remember, there are tens of thousands of small business startups for every one that is successful enough to go public, so 10x more IPO's means millions of new small businesses in the US create wealth for the middle class. Sure, it's true that with all the flurry of new economic activity there were more unscrupulous characters trying to get a piece of the pie. But I don't think the solution is to go back to the system where there was virtually no entrepreneurial spirit.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-02-2014, 12:47 PM (This post was last modified: 11-02-2014 12:55 PM by Cathym112.)
RE: The Benefits of the Fair Tax
Let me translate for you, Minimalist.

(11-02-2014 12:30 PM)frankksj Wrote:  blah blah blah ....Back in the 1970s was an era where no wrong was committed by corporations, the environment was well taken care of, and people frolicked around in a drug induced acid trip.....and we were all happy......blah blah blah....the government is conspiring against you.....blah blah blah...laws are tantamount of being held at gunpoint.......blah blah blah...my theories will lead to a utopia...blah blah blah....self insurance....blah blah blah...

Don't bother arguing with him. He'll only move the goal post, throw ridiculous and non-analagous hypotheticals at you, meanwhile refuse to answer your question (while accusing you of the same when you ignore the ridiculous hypotheticals), and take you on the longest troller coaster ride you have ever been on.

He also doesn't understand the Gini-coefficient at all.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Cathym112's post
11-02-2014, 01:21 PM
RE: The Benefits of the Fair Tax
(11-02-2014 12:47 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  Don't bother arguing with him. He'll only move the goal post...

Nope. My very first challenge to you, as a self-proclaimed expert in economics, was to explain the sudden reversal to the gini-coefficient in 1971. That goalpost hasn't moved. I've challenged you over and over. You run from the challenge every time and come up with lame, pathetic excuses why you won't answer. If you "understand the Gini-coefficient at all", then explain why it reversed course in 1971. What happened?

The reason you don't bother arguing with me is you lack the humility to admit that you don't know the answer, and they didn't teach you that in your economics class.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-02-2014, 01:28 PM
RE: The Benefits of the Fair Tax
(11-02-2014 01:21 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(11-02-2014 12:47 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  Don't bother arguing with him. He'll only move the goal post...

Nope. My very first challenge to you, as a self-proclaimed expert in economics, was to explain the sudden reversal to the gini-coefficient in 1971. That goalpost hasn't moved. I've challenged you over and over. You run from the challenge every time and come up with lame, pathetic excuses why you won't answer. If you "understand the Gini-coefficient at all", then explain why it reversed course in 1971. What happened?

The reason you don't bother arguing with me is you lack the humility to admit that you don't know the answer, and they didn't teach you that in your economics class.


There is no sense in talking to you about the gini-coefficient when you don't UNDERSTAND it. Since everything you ever learned about economics is from wikipedia.

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
11-02-2014, 01:32 PM (This post was last modified: 11-02-2014 01:35 PM by Cathym112.)
RE: The Benefits of the Fair Tax
Here Frank, Since you love wikipedia so much, right there, in your own classroom, is a blurb on why the Gini-Coefficient is useless in the CONTEXT you are using.


The Gini coefficient is a relative measure. Its proper use and interpretation is controversial.[49] Mellor explains[50] it is possible for the Gini coefficient of a developing country to rise (due to increasing inequality of income) while the number of people in absolute poverty decreases. This is because the Gini coefficient measures relative, not absolute, wealth. Kwok concludes[51] that changing income inequality, measured by Gini coefficients, can be due to structural changes in a society such as growing population (baby booms, aging populations, increased divorce rates, extended family households splitting into nuclear families, emigration, immigration) and income mobility. Gini coefficients are simple, and this simplicity can lead to oversights and can confuse the comparison of different populations; for example, while both Bangladesh (per capita income of $1,693) and the Netherlands (per capita income of $42,183) had an income Gini index of 0.31 in 2010,[52] the quality of life, economic opportunity and absolute income in these countries are very different, i.e. countries may have identical Gini coefficients, but differ greatly in wealth. Basic necessities may be available to all in a developed economy, while in an undeveloped economy with the same Gini coefficient, basic necessities may be unavailable to most or unequally available, due to lower absolute wealth.


What you are going, Frank, and why I am ignoring your moronic questions bout the gini-ratio, is because you are misusing the coefficient as a tool of evaluation.

Its like watching your gas gauge to determine how fast your car is currently going.

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
11-02-2014, 01:38 PM
RE: The Benefits of the Fair Tax
(11-02-2014 01:28 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  There is no sense in talking to you about the gini-coefficient when you don't UNDERSTAND it. Since everything you ever learned about economics is from wikipedia.

Like I said. Any lame, pathetic excuse to avoid admitting you don't know the answer. Even if I didn't understand it, surely you wouldn't want to keep looking like such a fool in front of other forum members. If you knew the answer, you'd state it, since that's the only way to prove that you actually understand the gini-coefficient.

Also, speaking of mis-characterizations. Your quote of me "my theories will lead to a utopia" was, of course, completely made up. What I've actually said is, these aren't "my theories", this is just the way things work here in Switzerland, and it has resulted in: a) eliminating poverty, b) a strong safety net without inter-generational dependence on welfare, c) excellent government services for a low tax rate, d) a non-intrusive government that places little restrictions on personal liberty, e) a 2% unemployment rate, f) approx $40k/year+benefits for the lowest paid members in society, g) the average family has $700k in savings, etc., etc.

So I state a real-life example of what one country did, and what resulted, and you characterize that as saying "my theories will lead to a utopia". Pretty pathetic.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-02-2014, 01:40 PM
RE: The Benefits of the Fair Tax
(11-02-2014 01:38 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(11-02-2014 01:28 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  There is no sense in talking to you about the gini-coefficient when you don't UNDERSTAND it. Since everything you ever learned about economics is from wikipedia.

Like I said. Any lame, pathetic excuse to avoid admitting you don't know the answer. Even if I didn't understand it, surely you wouldn't want to keep looking like such a fool in front of other forum members. If you knew the answer, you'd state it, since that's the only way to prove that you actually understand the gini-coefficient.

Also, speaking of mis-characterizations. Your quote of me "my theories will lead to a utopia" was, of course, completely made up. What I've actually said is, these aren't "my theories", this is just the way things work here in Switzerland, and it has resulted in: a) eliminating poverty, b) a strong safety net without inter-generational dependence on welfare, c) excellent government services for a low tax rate, d) a non-intrusive government that places little restrictions on personal liberty, e) a 2% unemployment rate, f) approx $40k/year+benefits for the lowest paid members in society, g) the average family has $700k in savings, etc., etc.

So I state a real-life example of what one country did, and what resulted, and you characterize that as saying "my theories will lead to a utopia". Pretty pathetic.

If you are trying to see how fast your car is going, Stop looking at the gas gauge instead of the speedometer, Frank.

I'm getting off this troller coaster now.

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
11-02-2014, 01:41 PM
RE: The Benefits of the Fair Tax
(11-02-2014 01:32 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  Its like watching your gas gauge to determine how fast your car is currently going.

Wow, you're dense. Everything you posted in Wikipedia is uncontroversial common knowledge. But it doesn't explain why the gini coefficient changed course in 1971. Regardless of what you think it does or does not measure, WHY DID IT CHANGE COURSE IN 1971? And a bonus question: who predicted the change before it happened?

It doesn't matter if it's measuring gas or speed, in your silly analogy. If you cannot explain what is causing the needle to move, then obviously you don't understand what it's measuring.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-02-2014, 01:44 PM
RE: The Benefits of the Fair Tax
(11-02-2014 01:40 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  If you are trying to see how fast your car is going, Stop looking at the gas gauge instead of the speedometer, Frank.

Don't worry your little brain about what it's measuring, or what I think of it. If you understand how it works, and what causes it to change, then just explain to the enlightened readers why it changed course in 1971. Simple. I've been asking for months, and, if you really knew the answer, there would be no trollercoaster--you'd just post the answer in a couple sentences, and that'd be the end of it. YOU have created the trollercoaster, for months insisting you know the answer, but writing dozens of lame posts explaining why you won't answer the question. So I keep trying to stay focused, keep the goalpost in place, and remind you that you STILL haven't answered the question, and anybody with an open mind can see you don't know the answer.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-02-2014, 02:16 PM
RE: The Benefits of the Fair Tax
(11-02-2014 01:44 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(11-02-2014 01:40 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  If you are trying to see how fast your car is going, Stop looking at the gas gauge instead of the speedometer, Frank.

Don't worry your little brain about what it's measuring, or what I think of it. If you understand how it works, and what causes it to change, then just explain to the enlightened readers why it changed course in 1971. Simple. I've been asking for months, and, if you really knew the answer, there would be no trollercoaster--you'd just post the answer in a couple sentences, and that'd be the end of it. YOU have created the trollercoaster, for months insisting you know the answer, but writing dozens of lame posts explaining why you won't answer the question. So I keep trying to stay focused, keep the goalpost in place, and remind you that you STILL haven't answered the question, and anybody with an open mind can see you don't know the answer.


I've already answered you...a couple of times. I have no desire to go back and find it. BUT, as I said before, there was a change in the co-efficient because prior to 1971, WOMEN weren't in the work force!

Prior to 1971 women were more likely than men to be unemployed, but from 1971 onwards this pattern was reversed. Unfortunately this change coincides with a change in the definition of unemployment.

Further, divorce was on the rise as the US neared the end of the Vietnam war, so the measurement of households is off.

And since the salaries of a woman vs a man are much LOWER, it throws off the measurement.

Like I said, Frank. You are using the WRONG tool. Doesn't matter why it changed, how it changed, etc. It is still the wrong tool to be using to determine income inequality. The fact that you straight up ignore this does not go unnoticed.

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: