A new economic era?

[bone]

I don't see that as correct. Let me think about it.

Well, let’s just observe what the market says about European Bank valuations - at the time of the Barron’s article the Dow Jones EuroStoxx Bank Index was down 50% since the ECB went negative.

 

[piezoe]

Well, let’s just observe what the market says about European Bank valuations - at the time of the Barron’s article the Dow Jones EuroStoxx Bank Index was down 50% since the ECB went negative.

Thanks. You are a super fast typist! I regret never taking typing in high school, because when I was in high school in the 1950s, boys were all supposed to have secretaries when they grew up. My how times have changed -- and for the better! See my slowly edited response above. It is probably consistent with current European bank stock evaluation. I think the public, an some folks on ET even, may think that retail rates are negative. But of course retail rates can't go negative, not without rationing money that is.

 

[zdreg]

I disagree of course. The devil is in the details, and by the time you put in all those cut-outs you no longer have a simple tax, which is supposedly the main appeal. A progressive tax, taxes, progressively, each dollar earned in the order earned, at exactly the same rate for everyone so it is inherently fair. Where unfairness enters are all the special interest provisions that have been inserted. If we wanted to simplify the tax code this would be the place to start. What the proposers of a "flat tax" are proposing is a taxation method that would accelerate the redistribution of wealth upward. A VERY bad thing. I do understand, however, why it is so popular among the ultra wealthy.

I prove by example that the flat tax with personal exemptions is progressive. My example has no exceptions except for a zero tax on the first 10k that a person earns. , You just simply ignore my example to suit your political agenda.

 

[morganist]

Thanks. You are a super fast typist! I regret never taking typing in high school, because when I was in high school in the 1950s, boys were all supposed to have secretaries when they grew up. My how times have changed -- and for the better! See my slowly edited response above. It is probably consistent with current European bank stock evaluation. I think the public, an some folks on ET even, may think that retail rates are negative. But of course retail rates can't go negative, not without rationing money that is.

I have to agree with you. When I was at college I learnt how to touch type in a class I took just to bump up my tuition hours. It has ended up being one of the most valuable skills I have developed. I makes everything so much quicker.

 

[morganist]

Well, let’s just observe what the market says about European Bank valuations - at the time of the Barron’s article the Dow Jones EuroStoxx Bank Index was down 50% since the ECB went negative.

Usually negative interest rates end up causing problems one way or the other. There are many other ways to stimulate economic growth, which are usually better.

 

[zdreg]

Usually negative interest rates end up causing problems one way or the other. There are many other ways to stimulate economic growth, which are usually better.

There is no better way other than the government getting out of the way and stop trying to repeal the business cycle. Government actions create instability and excesses in the economy. Eventually you have inflation. People instead of being productive, spend their time trying to game the system to beat the distortions resulting from inflation. e.g. price controls, currency controls etc.

 

[piezoe]

I prove by example that the flat tax with personal exemptions is progressive. My example has no exceptions except for a zero tax on the first 10k that a person earns. , You just simply ignore my example to suit your political agenda.

How are you defining "progressive". There is nothing progressive about a flat tax . It is flat, not progressive. A flat tax taxes all dollars , no matter their order earned, at the same rate. That's flat, not progressive because the millionth dollar is taxed at the same rate as the
10,001-th dollar!!!. A flat tax becomes regressive when you take into account that the rate of return on capital > economic growth rate. That flat tax is on balance regressive, but it is also a clever way to redistribute wealth from the middle class to the wealthy by the back door. I am firmly against upward redistribution schemes because they are socially destabilizing and bad for the long range health of the economy.

But golly gee, they sure sound great when promoted by the likes of Steve Forbes.

 

[morganist]

There is no better way other than the government getting out of the way and stop trying to repeal the business cycle. Government actions create instability and excesses in the economy. Eventually you have inflation. People instead of being productive, spend their time trying to game the system to beat the distortions resulting from inflation. e.g. price controls, currency controls etc.

I've been thinking more that inflation is being caused by the fluctuating incomes variable pension annuities are paying and a high pension saving allowance creates. Since these two factors have been managed and tightened in the United Kingdom all the economic targets have been like flat lines. Seriously I don't know how much of a problem not managing and stabilising pension saving and annuity income was before they were reformed it in the United Kingdom.

 

[zdreg]

How are you defining "progressive". There is nothing progressive about a flat tax . It is flat, not progressive. A flat tax taxes all dollars , no matter their order earned, at the same rate. That's flat, not progressive because the millionth dollar is taxed at the same rate as the
10,001-th dollar!!!. A flat tax becomes regressive when you take into account that the rate of return on capital > economic growth rate. That flat tax is on balance regressive, but it is also a clever way to redistribute wealth from the middle class to the wealthy by the back door. I am firmly against upward redistribution schemes because they are socially destabilizing and bad for the long range health of the economy.

But golly gee, they sure sound great when promoted by the likes of Steve Forbes.

. I gave the example but you are in a state of denial. It is the overall tax rate that is progressive. If i make 100k and the first 50k is exempt from taxes because of my family size I pay 1000 in taxes My overall tax rate is 10%. 1000/100,000= .10
if I make 2million Ipay 400,000 which is 20%. A 20%rate is twice a 10% rate that is the progression from 10% to20% rate.

 

[GordonReid]

I was actually surprised to read such an article