1) Thomas Jefferson was very clearly for a graduated tax system
2) You can't have a flat tax without bankrupting the country as it is not revenue neutral
A word about redistribution of wealth
- Thread starter jonbig04
- Start date
1) Thomas Jefferson was very clearly for a graduated tax system
2) You can't have a flat tax without bankrupting the country as it is not revenue neutral
So the Economist Quality of Life Index is a sham. The per capita income is a sham. And socialist never works even though the socialist country with the massive taxes is tied with the US because it should be "mighty" and be doing better.
Just trying to follow you here.
Thank you for an example of the "exceptionalist fallacy." This is not logic, nor is it valid argument.
Sweden has a balanced budget -- the US is bankrupt.
Perhaps the US should copy what they're doing, or even 10% of what they're doing.
Alright, they lowered their cap gains to a high of 63%.
Perhaps we should lower our maximum tax rates to 63%?
They spend less on health care than we do. Why did they need to ration it again -- because the costs were too high?
Alright, so far per capita income is meaningless. Economists quality of life index is meaningless. Life expectancy is meaningless. And they're bankrupt even though their budget is balanced.
Surrender!
I'd love this as this would make the tax system significantly easier.
I guess some potential problems I see:
- Further house price depreciation because people will lose the tax benefits of writing off interest.
- People whining that have kids who can't get their dependent deductions anymore....not that I care, I think the child tax credit is BS anyway....of course I have no kids so I'm biased
Maybe they can implement a higher sales/consumption tax to make up the difference since I don't know if a 15% tax is enough revenue to support our broke ass subprime POS gummint's spending.
I dunno a cross between flat tax/consumption tax?
Could you elaborate on point 2? Thanks.
Sure.
"the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation writes to then majority leader Richard Gephardt in response his request for an analysis of the Armey plan. The letter notes:
"Viewed in isolation, the effect of the [Armey plan's] changes in the standard deduction, exclusion of investment income, and reduction in the top marginal tax rate could cause decreases in revenue in excess of $200 billion annually."
And that's even if everybody except the super-rich paid higher tax rates. In other words, your taxes go up under the flat plan, and it still can't be revenue neutral.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote from Mav88:
Or conversely can you explain how the big bad US tied with mighty Sweden? But that wasn't really my point, which once again was that that whole ratings thing is a sham.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So the Economist Quality of Life Index is a sham. The per capita income is a sham. And socialist never works even though the socialist country with the massive taxes is tied with the US because it should be "mighty" and be doing better.
Just trying to follow you here.
You do have obvious problems following subtle arguments, I've noticed.
Let's review; you brought up quality of life index, not me, you claim it means something, not me. All I pointed out is that even if it means much it is effectively tied anyway. You were the one trying and take an effectively meaningless quantity and make a point with it- not me. Therefore it was your strawman that needed knocking down, not mine, and the burden is on you to demonstrate why with your own showcased index the US ties your socialist nirvana. You even at one point claimed to be able to calculate life satisfaction.
Let me give you another logical fallacy you hold: you claim that sweden's higher average lifespan means something about the health care system and use it as a tool for comparison without even the slightest attempt at normalization. Differences in genetics, how infant mortality is registered, climate, culture, resource distribution among patients, etc. and not even mentioned. I don't even have to look it up, I will bet you that the state of Minnesota has the same life expectancy within meaningful statistical error solely because they are also a mostly nordic people living in a colder climate. I will also bet you this without even verifying; the suicide rate, alcoholism rate, and depression rate are worse in the socialist nivana.
I never said per capita income is meaningless, I said PPP is better because it at least attempts to account for variation in cost of living. You went off saying basically for the same reason that nominal is better- go figure.
My point has always been that to hold up another country as the model to emulate, as demos do with sweden, is sort of stupid. First of all I would not even pick Sweden- I would want to be more like Norway, Qatar or some other oil exporter. Life is sweet there, just sit on your ass and collect oil checks. A moment's rational thought though blows that fantasy away. It's pretty much the same with Sweden, a small exporter with a nordic homogeneous population, just a little reflection on that by a sane person would tell you that there is no way we'll ever be like Sweden. Like most liberal dreams, utopian and impractical.
The only lesson I draw from sweden is that a rich and prosperous people bankrupted themselves in 1992 with socialism, that much is undeniable. They have found a balance by simply offsetting the destructive effects of socialism with enough conservative economic measures to make it work for now. It is easier for them because of their inherent advantages I mentioned and that's why they can for the moment withstand a higher overall tax rate. But nevertheless the lesson remains that socialism is what caused their problem in the first place.
Once again for the slow ones: They didn't balance their budget with more socialism, they balanced it with conservative principles. Lesson for the US: if we try and work out our monetary problems with more socialism, will be fail.
US socialism is its own animal, and we have plenty of it, so we don't need to look for outside comparisons. We have universal healthcare coverage for certain segments of our population, I told you that earlier. It is by far the most lavish in the world, and it is bankrupting us. The social welfare budgets are never large enough, the need is never filled nor will it ever be. We have learned it over and over again, Sweden learned it, but american democrats can't get it through their fat heads.
Alright, they lowered their cap gains to a high of 63%.
Perhaps we should lower our maximum tax rates to 63%?
where the fuck did you get that?
They spend less on health care than we do. Why did they need to ration it again -- because the costs were too high?
what's your point? the costs are always too high and there is never enough.
Alright, so far per capita income is meaningless. Economists quality of life index is meaningless. Life expectancy is meaningless. And they're bankrupt even though their budget is balanced.
If you could read, you would realize how dumb that comment is.
Absolutely. I've noticed that every statistic available "means nothing."
What statistics do mean something?
It's a straight measure of 9 quality of life inputs. How can it not mean something?
Exactly -- a point that I'm more than willing to concede (even though it's wrong too.) If socialism doesn't work, and increasing tax rates destroys an economy, then Sweden shouldn't manage a tie.
A strawman is when I make up an argument that you haven't made. Statistics are statistics and by most measures, although not all of them, Sweden does better overall.
No, I haven't said that one can directly be drawn from the other - however one statistic is evidence however.
The OECD has done these studies, would you like to know what they found?
Maybe they're depressed because they don't have to find a health insurance provider and deal with the health insurance bills.
I didn't say nominal was "better" (that would be stupid, they are different things.) I DID say that PPP is only applicable when the prices are comparable, and there's been more than a few studies which have ripped PPP to shreds as inapplicable.
I was in Norway last year. As a general rule they don't use their oil revenue to support their social system, and yet they are richer, with a MUCH higher quality of life, more technology, better health care -- for me it was shocking, like a Mexican coming to America. I didn't realize how bad off North America was.
Nope. Their oil revenue is put into a fund specifically for future use and investment outside of Norway.
There's no rule that we have to be exactly like them. The fact is that experts are telling us for the financial bailout to emulate the "Swedish model." If that model works, it's worth examing other facets of their system.
That's just silly. They have a balanced budget and still have a massive, massive social system.
You sound like you're describing the US, not Sweden.
Even their moves in a conservative direction left them vastly more socialist than the US. And they have a balanced budget.
Except that it read "in excess of $200 billion annually." Not $200 billion.
Plus your taxes would go up under a flat tax.
Are you kidding? Remember the Grace Commission?
W.R. Grace and crew were commissioned by the Gumming to do a study... they dug into the budget and found like $450Billion in waste. The Gummint basically chucked the report into the trash... I guess because, "didn't want to do it" (cut spending, that is)