Left/Right Economics

[HazMatBlue]

This thread is for the discussion of economic viewpoints, the economic policies followed by right-wingers and policies followed by left-wingers.

Basic run through of economic viewpoints:

Reaganomics (right-wing): More or less, tax breaks to big companies and "the rich" with the purpose of those companies then being able to hire more people. More people hired means companies can grow develop, and the whole economy grows with it.

"Clinton"omics (left-wing): More taxes, especially for those making more money. More money is sent to the poor and social programs such as welfare. The idea of the system is to help the poor and unemplyed back on thier feet to again become economically productive Citizens.

Dont think i've ever seen a thread like this, so lets see if it works

[Chrizzle fo' Shizzle]

I disagree with both ideas because they involve the government giving money away to people

[Reaganista]

this thread is juvenile
i think both plans have places where they can and should be effectively employed
but they're overused

I disagree with both ideas because they involve the government giving money away to people
you mean taking less away

[HazMatBlue]

Reaganomics is taking less, left-wing economics is taking more

[Reaganista]

bill clinton didn't do anything even vaguely left wing

[HazMatBlue]

He tried to socialize medicare, and cut the defence budget by 10 billion. I used his name more so as an example of a left-winged person. Less so for what all he did with the economy.

[Jharaski]

I like the idea of not having to spend much money to begin with, and a small, flat tax of a reasonable percent is used across the board. Small business should get the most tax breaks. There is the argument that giving the tax breaks to large corporations helps everyone because of the trickle down theory. This is sometimes correct, but not always. Companies have number crunchers who decide the best prices - high prices without losing too much business. It's rare that they'll say "oh we got all of this money, so we don't need to raise prices!"

On the other hand, giving it to the poor creates an endless cycle. They grow to depend on it, and they need even more. Nogo.

However, give it to small business - that's the key! They create competetition and jobs, great things for the economy. I'm definitely right wing, but I'm not a nutjob.

[I Am a Hat]

this sounds like how you would describe economics to a first grader/retarded person

[Chrizzle fo' Shizzle]

you mean taking less away

Taking from some and giving to others

[HazMatBlue]

It's rare that they'll say "oh we got all of this money, so we don't need to raise prices!"


They wont stop raising prices, but they'll grow into a larger company. Larger companies need more workers, unemplyment falls and the economy grows.

Also at the same time lower taxes wont hamper new companies and small business, so its good all around

[Jharaski]

They wont stop raising prices, but they'll grow into a larger company. Larger companies need more workers, unemplyment falls and the economy grows.

Also at the same time lower taxes wont hamper new companies and small business, so its good all around


Maybe if they're desperate, the tax break will prevent it. Unlikely. Which is why tax breaks should go to new and small companies, which are way more likely to struggle.

[Reaganista]

Taking from some and giving to others
all reagan did was take less away from some

I like the idea of not having to spend much money to begin with, and a small, flat tax of a reasonable percent is used across the board. Small business should get the most tax breaks. There is the argument that giving the tax breaks to large corporations helps everyone because of the trickle down theory. This is sometimes correct, but not always. Companies have number crunchers who decide the best prices - high prices without losing too much business. It's rare that they'll say "oh we got all of this money, so we don't need to raise prices!"
um
lol

He tried to socialize medicare,

he didn't do it
he talked about it

and cut the defence budget by 10 billion. I used his name more so as an example of a left-winged person. Less so for what all he did with the economy.
um that's not left wing

[Reaganista]

ok explain the logic

[Spoonful of Shame]

How is Clinton left wing? I would agree he is left of Reagan or Bush but he is hardly left when looking at the whole political spectrum.

[Interviewer/surveyer]

this sounds like how you would describe economics to a first grader/retarded person
This is coming from a hat everyone...pretty insane.

[Jude]

Everyone pays the same rate. The more you make, the more you pay, but it's still the same rate as everyone else. There are enough multi-millionaires that would pay a large sum... but still the same percentage of their paycheck as everyone else. The lower-class doesn't get away with getting anything for free. Not saying they typically do... but at least if they are paying the same tax as everyone else, no one can say they are freeloading. And the middle-class wouldn't be getting screwed, either.
Yeah but "fair" can be applied any number of different ways. In one sense it's fair to tax everyone the same. In another sense it's not. Let's say your tax rate is, arbitrarily, 25 percent. If I'm a poor single mother with 2 kids and getting a paycheck for 800 dollars every two weeks, the 200 coming out of that is really going to hurt. Whereas, if I'm a multimillionaire, or a giant corporation, 25% is a rate I can easily handle losing (especially if the hypothetical government here is as intertwined with big business as the US government really is) and have plenty left over to invest or whatever.

How fair is THAT? What about the single mother's 2 kids who are getting educated in ****ty public schools, malnourished, lacking clothing and heat in winter, and in need of far better health care than they can get? Is it fair to them?

That should be enough.

[griftadan]

that was the worst run through of economic thought, ever.

[Joey Hoser]

I'm dissapointed in all of you :(

You've been discussing for more than a page and you haven't gotten past Clinton vs. Reagan yet.

[MegaPhony]

I don't know much about economics, but I don't think the rich need any fucking breaks...

[thrashfanatic2010]

The key to a successful free market economy is a living wage minimum, emphasis on small businesses in a highly competitive market and equal opportunity and getting what you put into.

and killing all the jews as well.

[MegaPhony]

The key to a successful free market economy is a living wage minimum, emphasis on small businesses in a highly competitive market and equal opportunity and getting what you put into.


Once again, I know nothing of economics, but that makes a lot of sense to me. Almost too much sense, like a 'communism is the best form of government, too bad true communism can't exist' way.

[thrashfanatic2010]

Once again, I know nothing of economics, but that makes a lot of sense to me. Almost too much sense, like a 'communism is the best form of government, too bad true communism can't exist' way.


killing all the jews is also another important factor into my theory as well.

[MegaPhony]

Melgibsonism?

[griftadan]

I don't know much about economics, but I don't think the rich need any fucking breaks...

you're right, you don't know much about economics.

anyways, to give this thread some real meaning, the typical three major thoughts of economics are

1. command economies (marx), where the goods are produced and distributed through a central power or public hands (can be the same thing)

2. market economies (smith, hayek), where goods are produced and distributed by private entities through voluntary transaction, with a strong sense of property rights.

3. mixed economies (keynes), which is a mix of the above two. this is where there is still a sense of private enterprise in the economy, but where the government intervenes in very aspects of the economy (the monetary system, prices, business practices) in order to bring about a desired effect (helping the poor, expanding local industry, etc). this is what most the world falls under, including the original two models presented in this thread.

each have different aims and purposes, although their ability to acheive those ends is up for debate. i myself obviously favor market economies, but hoepfully my rundown was atleast slightly balanced.

[Jude]

that was the worst run through of economic thought, ever.
Huh?

It was just an elucidation of the many meanings of "fairness."

[Reaganista]

Everyone pays the same rate. The more you make, the more you pay, but it's still the same rate as everyone else. There are enough multi-millionaires that would pay a large sum... but still the same percentage of their paycheck as everyone else. The lower-class doesn't get away with getting anything for free. Not saying they typically do... but at least if they are paying the same tax as everyone else, no one can say they are freeloading. And the middle-class wouldn't be getting screwed, either.
when i said explain the logic i meant explain how that would help the economy
not moralize at me

[griftadan]

Huh?

It was just an elucidation of the many meanings of "fairness."

not really, it was more of an explanation of two different ways a mixed economy can be applied.

[Hababi]

The key to a successful free market economy is a living wage minimum, emphasis on small businesses in a highly competitive market and equal opportunity and getting what you put into.


Many things can only be done by corporations. Hey, I like small business too, but there is also a need for corporations.

As for a living wage, you can't just introduce a massive raise in in the minimum wage into the economy. If tomorrow we would raise the minimum wage to $9 an hour, it would wreak havoc on the economy. Inflation would skyrocket and people would be worse off, not better off.

A much better idea would be tying future minimum wage increases to increases in inflation. Thus, minimum wage would rise naturally.

[Reaganista]

hey even better abolish minimum wage

[griftadan]

uh oh.

[Iskandar]

hey even better abolish minimum wage
Because the poor can never be poor enough!

[DillingerEscp]

all reagan did was take less away from some


um
lol


he didn't do it
he talked about it


um that's not left wing

yeah, clinton talked about it, hence why they said he tried to socialize medicare.

cutting the DEFENSE budget is very left wing.

[Reaganista]

no it's not
it's very the cold war was over and he didn't think we had any threats left
Because the poor can never be poor enough
no because the unskilled should be allowed to work

[griftadan]

Because the poor can never be poor enough!

its pretty hard not to be poor when you can't get a job, too.

[Jude]

not really, it was more of an explanation of two different ways a mixed economy can be applied.
No...trust me...I wrote it. I was just pointing out to someone that you can't just say your economic system is based on "fairness" and be done with it since there are too many different standards of fairness.

Well I guess it was what you said too, but that wasn't the point.

[pooble]

If tomorrow we would raise the minimum wage to $9 an hour, it would wreak havoc on the economy.

well yes.

Inflation would skyrocket and people would be worse off, not better off.

i will say i disagree with that however. raising a minimum wage would not create inflation, it would create unemployment.

when forced to pay higher wages businesses will simply not higher workers, as their DMVP will be lower. labor (effected by the minimum wage) becomes an unprofitable factor of production and instead entrepreneurs will invest in more capital or land.

EDIT: on a further note, if we are trying to discuss economic theory using reagan and clinton as the 2 chief schools of economic thought than.. well.. stop.

[Iskandar]

no because the unskilled should be allowed to work
I've missed something here. What does abolishing minimum wage have to do with the unskilled working?

[Reaganista]

what does banning people from working below a certain price point have to do with the unskilled working
are you dense

[Iskandar]

what does banning people from working below a certain price point have to do with the unskilled working
are you dense
No.

So you want to allow unskilled labourers to work for barely enough to subsist on, at the cost of hard-won wages for every mininum-wage worker, so they can ... what? Contribute? I thought they had no skills and therefore weren't capable of contributing.

Better idea: Offer education to unskilled workers so they can get real 'fing jobs.

[Reaganista]

So you want to allow unskilled labourers to work for barely enough to subsist on
or less

at the cost of hard-won wages for every mininum-wage worker
what

so they can ... what? Contribute? I thought they had no skills and therefore weren't capable of contributing.
no skills doesn't mean they're incapable of contributing
it just means that they're capable of carrying out any task that could be assigned to an idiot

[Hababi]

i will say i disagree with that however. raising a minimum wage would not create inflation, it would create unemployment.


Well I think it'd do both :p Stagflation :o


when forced to pay higher wages businesses will simply not higher workers, as their DMVP will be lower. labor (effected by the minimum wage) becomes an unprofitable factor of production and instead entrepreneurs will invest in more capital or land.


This is true.

[Iskandar]

or less
So what's the point of that? At least it's possible to subsist on welfare, if only barely.
what
Ensuring minimum wages was and remains a difficult process. Minimum wage is a guaranteed privilege for all workers. Why take it away now?
no skills doesn't mean they're incapable of contributing
it just means that they're capable of carrying out any task that could be assigned to an idiot
So why can't they be paid minimum wage for that? It's not that much more.

[Reaganista]

So what's the point of that? At least it's possible to subsist on welfare, if only barely.
the point is that it makes no sense to ban people from work simply because no one values their work highly

Ensuring minimum wages was and remains a difficult process.
defying the laws of supply and demand always is
it also usually fails spectacularly

Minimum wage is a guaranteed privilege for all workers. Why take it away now?
because it's wasteful and ineffiecient
it's unfair and illogical to stop two people from completing a transaction because what's being sold isn't highly valuable

So why can't they be paid minimum wage for that? It's not that much more.
because no one will hire them at a loss
damn man

[griftadan]

No...trust me...I wrote it. I was just pointing out to someone that you can't just say your economic system is based on "fairness" and be done with it since there are too many different standards of fairness.

Well I guess it was what you said too, but that wasn't the point.

looks like i was talking to the threadstarter than.

[Reaganista]

we should abolish income taxes altogether

[HazMatBlue]

we should abolish income taxes altogether

where is government going to get its money from?

[Reaganista]

yeah i heard that you aren't allowed to tax anything besides income!

[HazMatBlue]

I think income tax provides a bit too much revenue for the government to cut it out completely. Taxes on everything else would have to be raised quite a bit to make up for the difference

[Reaganista]

um other taxes are equally adept at generating revnue

[HazMatBlue]

I dont think they could generate enough to make up for a total lack of income tax. But if there was a way to get rid of income tax without harmful economic result, i'd be all for it

[Reaganista]

But if there was a way to get rid of income tax without harmful economic result
income tax is a harmful economic result

[HazMatBlue]

any tax can be a harmful economic result, but we gotta have them

[Chrizzle fo' Shizzle]

The current income tax is horribly sloppy

[Reaganista]

all income taxes are disencentives to work

[HazMatBlue]

all income taxes are disencentives to work

Very true, but I think theyre tolerable when theyre not too high, and they should be lower

The current income tax is horribly sloppy

Just curius, do you mean anything by this?

[Chrizzle fo' Shizzle]

With all the various kinds of deductables and whatnot, it's difficult to get the right amount of taxes from a person

[owenbassist]

what form of tax do you think would be better, tway? a large tax on consumption?

[Reaganista]

a large tax on consumption
that's probably a worse idea than income taxes

[owenbassist]

then what solution do you propose?

[pooble]

Well I think it'd do both :p Stagflation :o

well.. minus the flation part.

where is government going to get its money from?

print some more!

what form of tax do you think would be better, tway? a large tax on consumption?

that doesn’t work. Consumption taxes always eventually reduce incomes.

[griftadan]

i think i remember him wanting a wealth tax, which probably isn't a bad idea.

[-1up!-]

print some more!

:smash: Just like Germany in the 1920ies... Government had the great idea to print money, and inflation went so high that prices doubled every 49 hours or so.

[SubtleDagger]

Refl printing more money is like the typical pseudo-economical person's thoughts on governmental funding.

[griftadan]

Refl printing more money is like the typical pseudo-economical person's thoughts on governmental funding.

the funny part is that half of the worlds countries have tried it at one point or another.

[pooble]

hell half or more are probably doing it as we speak

[MegaPhony]

:smash: Just like Germany in the 1920ies... Government had the great idea to print money, and inflation went so high that prices doubled every 49 hours or so.

They used to bring wheelbarrows full of money to go grocery shopping :smash:

[Activista anti-MTV]

Yeah Robin Hood had some good ideas he just took it a little to far...

[nowhesingsnowhesobs]

I think estate tax is pretty good. You need more of it in the US.

[Reaganista]

waiting for people to die to tax them is ridiculous

and it's an easy target for politicians because is seems heartless and frightening

[Smokey D]

Increasing liquidity in money supply isn't always bad. It sustained the Italian economy for five decades.

[Chrizzle fo' Shizzle]

waiting for people to die to tax them is ridiculous

and it's an easy target for politicians because is seems heartless and frightening

It would provide a nice incentive for people to stay alive

[Jude]

I understand what you're saying.

It just pisses me off to work my *** off to go to school, get a decent paying job, then have to pay out the *** in taxes... only to see the woman down the street go cash her welfare check to go buy some smokes and play bingo.

Well that's also not fair. to you and other taxpayers. Further bearing out the point I made.

[Reaganista]

It would provide a nice incentive for people to stay alive
they've already got one, though

[Jude]

they've already got one, though
They also appear to have plenty of incentive to work, leading me to conclude that your "disincentive to work" argument against income taxes is a bit off.

[Reaganista]

no it's an absolute and factual certainty that taking away some of the reward for work makes work less desirable. there couldn't be anything more obvious than this

incentive to live is absolute
and not having to pay taxes isn't the reason for this

[Iskandar]

I really dislike conservatives who dislike taxes.

Guess what? Governments pay for public works; therefore they deserve taxes.

[Reaganista]

um, you've gotta deal with basic economic realities no matter how many little red stars you wish upon

and income is a stupid thing to tax
and public works are often really ****ty and wasteful

[Iskandar]

um, you've gotta deal with basic economic realities no matter how many little red stars you wish upon

and income is a stupid thing to tax
and public works are often really ****ty and wasteful
Yeah, hospitals, highways and schools sure suck.

What do you propose we tax besides income?

[Jude]

no it's an absolute and factual certainty that taking away some of the reward for work makes work less desirable. there couldn't be anything more obvious than this

Yeah, technically. Not practically.

[Hababi]

What do you propose we tax besides income?

Purchases.

I don't agree with it, but that's just the most viable alternative :p

[-1up!-]

no it's an absolute and factual certainty that taking away some of the reward for work makes work less desirable. there couldn't be anything more obvious than this

For one who sees nothing but himself.

[nowhesingsnowhesobs]

For one who sees nothing but himself.
or instead: For one who sees the world as it is.

Income tax is a disincentive to work.

[Hababi]

or instead: For one who sees the world as it is.

Income tax is a disincentive to work.

Against the larger incentive to...have...money. For people who can make a decent wage, this incentive far outweighs having to give some of it back.

[Jude]

Income tax is a disincentive to work.
In the same way that having to wipe your *** is a disincentive to poop.

[Iskandar]

I don't see a problem with income tax. Would anyone care to enlighten me?

[Reaganista]

like almost all things, leisure time has a diminishing rate of return, a person who has 120 leisure hours a week won't value one hour as highly as a person who has 20
there eventually comes a time where a leisure hour has more utility to them then their pay for a work hour
if you lower their pay this time comes faster, thus they work less
damn you people

[Iskandar]

like almost all things, leisure time has a diminishing rate of return, a person who has 120 leisure hours a week won't value one hour as highly as a person who has 20
there eventually comes a time where a leisure hour has more utility to them then their pay for a work hour
if you lower their pay this time comes faster, thus they work less
damn you people

because you're being rewarded less for your work
I don't see the connection between leisure hours and income tax.

Are you claiming that leisure hours are generally increasing?

[Reaganista]

I don't see the connection between leisure hours and income tax.
um
you're kidding right
whatever hours you don't work or eat/sleep/so on are leisure hours

Are you claiming that leisure hours are generally increasing?
Dropper- reading comp 101: F

[Iskandar]

um
you're kidding right
whatever hours you don't work or eat/sleep/so on are leisure hours
Thank you for patronizing me. I know what leisure hours are.


Dropper- reading comp 101: F
its hard to comprehend a
poorly written jumble
of characters

[nowhesingsnowhesobs]

In the same way that having to wipe your *** is a disincentive to poop.

You can't control the amount of crap you need to **** out your arse nor can you get the state to have a crap for you.

[Amit]

ahahah

this thread is pure gold

[Hababi]

ahahah

this thread is pure gold

Any thread that involves as indepth discussion about the process of excreting as the effects of tax systems :p

[Amit]

You can't control the amount of crap you **** out your arse

yes you can

[nowhesingsnowhesobs]

don't be so ****ing anal about it.

[Reaganista]

Thank you for patronizing me. I know what leisure hours are.

then you must see the connection
or I've horribly underestimated your capacity for stupid


its hard to comprehend a
poorly written jumble
of characters
but you are free to
reformat the characters
however you please

[Amit]

don't be so ****ing anal about it.

lmao ahahahlkasdl;ska i am seriously lollin right now

[Iskandar]

then you must see the connection
or I've horribly underestimated your capacity for stupid
You have. I have an IQ of 20. I barely function.
but you are free to
reformat the characters
however you please
Garth, that was a haiku.

[Amit]

thread has reached critical mass of lulz prepare for shutdown

[Reaganista]

You have. I have an IQ of 20. I barely function.
income taxes tax the hours that you work
any hours where you are not working or doing other things necessary for survival are leisure hours
this means that the decision to work an extra hour is based on the marginal utility of an hour of work vs. an hour of leisure
so when you decrease the reward for an hour of work leisure looks comparatively more attractive

what's not to understand

[Iskandar]

income taxes tax the hours that you work
any hours where you are not working or doing other things necessary for survival are leisure hours
this means that the decision to work an extra hour is based on the marginal utility of an hour of work vs. an hour of leisure
so when you decrease the reward for an hour of work leisure looks comparatively more attractive

what's not to understand
Nothing. I understand it perfectly. This post is worded much more succinctly than your previous one, which was vague and confusing. Thank you.

Now could you please suggest a viable alternative to income tax?

[Futue te Ipsum]

we still talking about ****?

[nowhesingsnowhesobs]

Garth, that was a haiku.
Garth?

[Amit]

we still talking about ****?

i hope so futue
i hope so for the sake of
the economy

[Iskandar]

Garth?
It's a movie quote.

[Hababi]

i hope so futue
i hope so for the sake of
the economy

i don't understand haiku
i never did
i never will

Is that some good haiku or what?:amaze:

[Amit]

5 syllables
7 syllables
5 syllables

i know it's stupid foreigner poetry

[Reaganista]

english makes haiku
far too easy it's supposed
to be an art form

Is that some good haiku or what?
No, not at all

Now could you please suggest a viable alternative to income tax?
I'd tax savings
it would be onerous as long as we have foreign nations to serve as tax shelters, but income tax is also really onerous

[Hababi]

5 syllables
7 syllables
5 syllables

i know it's stupid foreigner poetry

oh darn the thing with
syllables, what's up with that
this style really sucks :o

[Iskandar]

I'd tax savings
it would be onerous as long as we have foreign nations to serve as tax shelters, but income tax is also really onerous
I really don't see income tax as a problem in the way of decreasing the reward of work. Maybe if income tax were 50% or so, but rates are always much lower.
oh darn the thing with
syllables, what's up with that
this style really sucks
It's not really possible to write authentic haiku in English. They're not based on syllables, but morai (a unit of time used to measure the Japanese language, since it is a stress-timed language).

[Hababi]

Blah stressed and unstressed
That's why I worked on my own
Custom made language

It was called Stevese. And it was grand. It would've been an easy to grasp, yet colorful and expansive language.

[Amit]

It's not really possible to write authentic haiku in English. They're not based on syllables, but morai (a unit of time used to measure the Japanese language, since it is a stress-timed language).

ooo didn't know that

[Iskandar]

ooo didn't know that
You can try, but it won't be the real deal.

[Amit]

yeah i get it

[Iskandar]

yeah i get it
kk.

[Jude]

You can't control the amount of crap you need to **** out your arse nor can you get the state to have a crap for you.
:lol:
This point is absurd. Income tax may be a disincentive to work, but it does not stop most people from working. A minority of people in the US are unemployed, and a very small minority of them are not seeking employment. I would bet my wages from this summer that if income tax were removed, the unemployment rate would not be affected.

The rest of this thread....is pretty funny, yeah.

[Reaganista]

I really don't see income tax as a problem in the way of decreasing the reward of work. Maybe if income tax were 50% or so, but rates are always much lower.

This point is absurd. Income tax may be a disincentive to work, but it does not stop most people from working. A minority of people in the US are unemployed, and a very small minority of them are not seeking employment. I would bet my wages from this summer that if income tax were removed, the unemployment rate would not be affected.

Do neither of you understand seriously understand marginalism, or are you just ****ing with me?
either way I'm done lecturing you

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marginalism

[Iskandar]

Do neither of you understand seriously understand marginalism, or are you just ****ing with me?
either way I'm done lecturing you

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marginalism
I reject it in favour of the labor theory of value, because I'm a brainwashed leftist blowhard.

[Reaganista]

I think it's hilarious that you think the two ideas are incompatible, or even address the same thing.

the idea of rejecting marginalism in general is hilarious

[nowhesingsnowhesobs]

This point is absurd. Income tax may be a disincentive to work, but it does not stop most people from working. A minority of people in the US are unemployed, and a very small minority of them are not seeking employment. I would bet my wages from this summer that if income tax were removed, the unemployment rate would not be affected.That's not the main point

[-1up!-]

or instead: For one who sees the world as it is.

Income tax is a disincentive to work.

I see the world as it is, I am very sane and don't see income tax as a disincentive to work at all.

Stop making absolute statements.

[Jude]

That's not the main point
The main point is some retarded technicality that has no bearing on reality.

[griftadan]

I see the world as it is, I am very sane and don't see income tax as a disincentive to work at all.

Stop making absolute statements.

its a disincentive to work harder or acheive more.

[Reaganista]

I see the world as it is, I am very sane and don't see income tax as a disincentive to work at all.
so the amount you're being paid has no bearing on whether you work or not?

[-1up!-]

so the amount you're being paid has no bearing on whether you work or not?
Limited bearing. I can't say the salary doesn't matter to me, and I'd be surprised at someone who would say that, but I'm hardly materialist and probably care a lot less about money than the average individual. I just don't get how you can judge or classify a job using only the salary it brings.

[Futue te Ipsum]

you guys still talking ****?

[nowhesingsnowhesobs]

The main point is some retarded technicality that has no bearing on reality.
no. I repeat: income tax is a disincentive to work. It doesn't stop people working but, generally speaking, it reduces the amount of time people are prepared to spend working.

[Iskandar]

I think it's hilarious that you think the two ideas are incompatible, or even address the same thing.

the idea of rejecting marginalism in general is hilarious
I was being facetious.

[Jude]

no. I repeat: income tax is a disincentive to work. It doesn't stop people working but, generally speaking, it reduces the amount of time people are prepared to spend working.
Proof that this happens in practice and not just in theory plz

[Damage]

I'm a very big advocate of traditional, conservative, supply-side economics. I typically find liberal economic theories to be actions based on wishful thinking. I really get worked up about social programs, especially because the government has no incentive to keep these programs well mantained. I generally think privatization is the way to go because whatever the program is, it will be done well and efficiently, or else a competing entrepreneur will take it over. The government has no competition. Yes, the government's job is to take care of its people, but that does not necessarily mean they will do it more effectively than a competitive market will.

[Damage]

I wouldn't say income tax is really a disincentive to work. The tax system is set up in such a way that you're typically getting enough marginal benefit from working extra/harder versus your manhours being exerted, even when taking into account taxes. The only time I feel there may be an exception is when someone gets a raise that puts them into the next tax bracket, but even then, it's just more incentive to make more money within that bracket.

As far as a low flat tax, I understand how people would think that would be a good idea, but what incentive does the government have to do that? What choice does the uber-rich have to get out of that 33 percent bracket other than make less money? It's not as though they're going to move to another country, where there's a less free market (except maybe Hong Kong's an exception,) and more than likely, higher tax rates anyway.

[Reaganista]

I can't say the salary doesn't matter to me, and I'd be surprised at someone who would say that, but bull**** bull**** bull**** bull**** bull**** bull**** bull****.

as long as you admit that then marginalism applies to you
it still would even if you didn't admit it, but you'd just be a liar

Proof that this happens in practice and not just in theory plz
do you have a job

[Iskandar]

The government has no competition.
Yes, they do. They have to do a good job and please the masses or another party will be elected at the end of their term.

[Antifa]

Once again, I know nothing of economics, but that makes a lot of sense to me. Almost too much sense, like a 'communism is the best form of government, too bad true communism can't exist' way.

Right, because that's what state-funded education told me.

[Reaganista]

I wouldn't say income tax is really a disincentive to work. The tax system is set up in such a way that you're typically getting enough marginal benefit from working extra/harder versus your manhours being exerted, even when taking into account taxes.

as you get less liesure hours they become relatively more valuable
there must always come a point where having your own free time is more valuable to you than whatever it is you're being paid

The only time I feel there may be an exception is when someone gets a raise that puts them into the next tax bracket, but even then, it's just more incentive to make more money within that bracket.
you have no understanding of this

[Danish]

I'm a very big advocate of traditional, conservative, supply-side economics. I typically find liberal economic theories to be actions based on wishful thinking. I really get worked up about social programs, especially because the government has no incentive to keep these programs well mantained. I generally think privatization is the way to go because whatever the program is, it will be done well and efficiently, or else a competing entrepreneur will take it over. The government has no competition. Yes, the government's job is to take care of its people, but that does not necessarily mean they will do it more effectively than a competitive market will.

The government clearly has an incentive to keep social programs well maintained. If they don't, they'll lose the next election.

Privatization is terrible. Private corporations are absolutely incapable of providing public services affordably and within the public interest. First of all, privatized services are almost always more expensive. Second, a corporation's only guiding principle is profit. If a company can't make a profit from something, they won't do it. They are incapable of considering other principles (like the public good). Public services are far superior to private services. A simple comparison between Canada's health care system and the US' proves this. Canada's healthcare system is cheaper to run and more accessible. Additionally, we have to remember that our governments are elected and publicly accountable, while corporations are not.

[griftadan]

The government clearly has an incentive to keep social programs well maintained. If they don't, they'll lose the next election.

that might be true if most people knew what the hell their own government is doing, which is the case here. plus much of the inneffeciency lies in the millions of workers in the bueracracy, none of which are elected.

Privatization is terrible. Private corporations are absolutely incapable of providing public services affordably and within the public interest.

they do it all the time. food. clothing. transportation. housing.

First of all, privatized services are almost always more expensive.

yeah but you don't pay taxes to corporations, and the product quality is almost always going to be better.

Second, a corporation's only guiding principle is profit. If a company can't make a profit from something, they won't do it. They are incapable of considering other principles (like the public good).

you say that as though this will never lead to public good.

Public services are far superior to private services. A simple comparison between Canada's health care system and the US' proves this. Canada's healthcare system is cheaper to run and more accessible.

the US healthcare system isn't a good example. our governments policies are protectionist and stifle competition, driving up prices along with other things such as our tort policy.

Additionally, we have to remember that our governments are elected and publicly accountable, while corporations are not.

i say their both equally accountable. no business will continue to operate if it displeases the market. the difference between business and the government is that businesses can't use force.

[Amit]

:-o

[Jude]

do you have a job
Yeah I do although it's just a summer job so I get all the money back in April that I lose from my paychecks.

But even if I didn't i would still work this job because it pays about 2 grand for the summer and isn't that hard. Clearly I would rather have an under the table job but I'm going to work either way.

[Reaganista]

Yeah I do although it's just a summer job so I get all the money back in April that I lose from my paychecks.
no you don't

But even if I didn't i would still work this job because it pays about 2 grand for the summer and isn't that hard. Clearly I would rather have an under the table job but I'm going to work either way.
do you get what i mean when i say marginal
this is not an all-or-nothing proposition dammit

[Jude]

no you don't However much I get. I can never be bothered to figure out exactly how much I do or don't get back.


do you get what i mean when i say marginal
this is not an all-or-nothing proposition dammit
I've honestly forgotten what the hell we're talking about anymore.

[Reaganista]

You're completely hopeless

[Damage]

The government clearly has an incentive to keep social programs well maintained. If they don't, they'll lose the next election.

Privatization is terrible. Private corporations are absolutely incapable of providing public services affordably and within the public interest. First of all, privatized services are almost always more expensive. Second, a corporation's only guiding principle is profit. If a company can't make a profit from something, they won't do it. They are incapable of considering other principles (like the public good). Public services are far superior to private services. A simple comparison between Canada's health care system and the US' proves this. Canada's healthcare system is cheaper to run and more accessible. Additionally, we have to remember that our governments are elected and publicly accountable, while corporations are not.

That's entirely opinion. Either you pay taxes or you pay corporations who will do a better job, and that's no opinion.

[Damage]

as you get less liesure hours they become relatively more valuable
there must always come a point where having your own free time is more valuable to you than whatever it is you're being paid


you have no understanding of this

Well, it's implied that there is a point where marginal cost exceeds marginal benefit. You obviously can't work 24 hours a day.

Yes, as a matter of fact, I do have an understanding of this. It happened to my father. He got a raise, got put into the next tax bracket, and was not happy about it. If you'd like to elaborate why I have no understanding of this concept, be my guest.

[Jude]

You're completely hopeless
I was definitely right whatever the argument was though.

[Reaganista]

Yes, as a matter of fact, I do have an understanding of this. It happened to my father. He got a raise, got put into the next tax bracket, and was not happy about it. If you'd like to elaborate why I have no understanding of this concept, be my guest.
this has nothing to do with getting raised into the next tax bracket
even with a flat percentage tax, any income tax is a disencentive to work

[Iskandar]

That's entirely opinion. Either you pay taxes or you pay corporations who will do a better job, and that's no opinion.
That depends on your definition of "better job." In Canada, there is healthcare ranging from adequate to very good available to any citizen. In America, there is healthcare ranging from adequate to excellent available depending on your socioeconomic status, which is defined partially by work but also by heritage, race, class etc. I know which one I prefer.