patrick.net

Bap33 says

there is no proof of a Godless evolution (if you like that term)

There is also no proof of a godded evolution.

Bap33 says

nor is there proof of a single cell life form becoming an advanced life form.

There is a mountain of evidence for this, and it is only growing. If you are unaware of this evidence then you probably choose to remain in the dark on the subject of evolution, and that is your prerogative.

Bap33 says

THere is only proof of selective breeding by animals with close DNA.

While there is proof of this, it is not the only thing that there is proof of.

Bap33 says

The proof there is God is in the universe around us all.

There is no proof of this. If there was actual proof of the existence of god(s) then whichever religion could provide the proof would be flooded with converts. It is funny to me that you choose to ignore actual physical evidence, and tons of scientific data providing proof for evolution, yet you believe in the vaguest ethereal "proofs" in gods.

If you could even prove god(s), what good is faith?

Bap33 says

Have a fantastic day.

You too.

leoj707 says

It is funny to me that you choose to ignore actual physical evidence, and tons of scientific data providing proof for evolution, yet you believe in the vaguest ethereal "proofs" in gods.

If you could even prove god(s), what good is faith?

Yeah, that much is clear from what Bap said. This is like the "it's just a theory" people -- there's a focus on form instead of substance, but also that certain forms are given more weight than other forms. In this case, religious theory ("someone said something many years ago") is given more weight than scientific theory ("we can design experiments that are consistent with how things act, today") even though there's little substance behind the former other than faith, and tons of substance behind the latter in the form of tons of scientific evidence.

leoj707 says

severe disappointment, indignation,

There you said it. Considering the amount of time some of us put into writing posts (probably more than the amount of time spent with many of our relatives outside the immediate family members), having the content arbitrarily edited and then attributed to us with exactly the opposite of what wrote would indeed be "severe disappointment, indignation and anguishment."

corntrollio says

There's a difference between those two. It's odd that you don't understand the difference, because it's not like this is subtle.

What difference? Both are attributing statements to someone holds dear the exact opposite sentiment. Are you telling me that you don't think mass raping of women is abominable?

BS. This is nonsense. You dish out at least as much mental anguish from your affirmative posts as you could possibly suffer from someone accidentally misquoting you.

So long as I do not attribute those posts to you, it's freedom of expression.

This is a forum and misattribution doesn't matter that much (and is probably not even actionable in almost every case). Context always matters. Go ahead and sue if you disagree. You will fail. Trying to compare this to news with celebrity situations is absolute nonsense.

We are not talking about accidental misattribution here, but intentional mis-attribution with explicit malicious intent to cause anguishment. Celebrities usually enjoy less protection from comments and reports than private citizens.

You're just trying to shut down debate. The irony is that your ideological beliefs about "pain and suffering" are clouding your ability to make a good argument about libel.

Me trying to shut down debate? Are you out of your mind? How is randomly changing what posters write to exactly the opposite of what they write a debate??? Doing that would indeed be attempt to shut down debate.

Reality says

There you said it.

Actually I did not say it I was just quoting a definition.

Reality says

...having the content arbitrarily edited and then attributed to us with exactly the opposite of what wrote would indeed be "severe disappointment, indignation and anguishment."

But I did say:
leoj707 says

So, if you can prove something akin to seeing a loved one murdered then you should be able to win your suit. Make sure that you start crying openly in the work place, and are often found curled up in the fetal position in the break room sobbing about those meanies on Patrick.net.

You need to convince a judge or jury not yourself.

Reality says

We are not talking about accidental misattribution here, but intentional mis-attribution with explicit malicious intent to cause anguishment.

Nonsense. Any anguish is contrived, and you haven't even told us which post was allegedly edited and how it was edited to mean something different than you originally intended. In either case, it still wouldn't meet the standards of libel in any court unless it were particularly egregious and caused real damages. As I said, if you think it's actionable, go ahead and sue. I'd love to see that.

Barring that, I'm done with this discussion -- again you're trying to shut down debate, because taken to its logical extreme, if I bona fide misinterpret what you said in debate, you would call that libel for misinterpreting you, which is not a good policy. In addition, you're shutting down debate by making us focus on a spurious claim, and we're all dumber for it -- simple misdirection from a crappy argument.

Too rational to be exciting. What we're talking about here is hate, and the ability to slightly injure someone you hate.

Perhaps it's time to take a break or vacation, Patrick. Maintaining a site like this is not easy, especially under the current economic environment. It is however important to be mindful of whether you are still yourself, and still the person that the Mrs married. Sometimes I can get over-worked and become wistful too. When one senses oneself is being animated by the darker angels within us, perhaps it's time for a break or vacation.

Back to the topic at hand. Hate is a very self-destructive emotion. Dealing in hate is a little like dealing in terminal drugs: the addicts die from the products that you are pushing and the customer base shrinks. You really don't want your website populated by unemployed self-haters that want put jackboots on their neighbors all the time; they can't pay your bills because they don't have money (unable to provide valuable service to their neighbors).

IMHO, people post here because they want to be heard. Although sometimes many of us can be quite antagonistic towards each other, it is not out of genuine hatred towards each other, but simply can't stop responding because every response is positive proof that someone is reading your post! Expressions of disagreement illicit more responses! LOL. As a new media venue, your website will be better off channelling that positive desire instead of channelling wanton hatred. Letting people vote multiple times and letting people vote on their own posts would generate revenue for you quickly. BTW, just to be a step ahead, no it's not a good idea to print fiat credit of your own to thumb down on posts that you do not personally agree, Patrick; i.e. you probably shouldn't vote. The dealer in a market place (even of opinions) has to maintain at least a semblance of neutrality and fairness lest he loses customers and counter-parties. The goal here is to attract more votes, not to drive people away.

But maybe paying 0.1 cents to mark a comment as "Left" or "Right" would be a sufficient insult to make it worth paying. Perhaps I should physically shift a comment to the left or right on each vote!

Many issues are not at all one-dimensional left vs. right. Nolan Chart style 2D graph makes somewhat more sense, but gets complicated very quickly.

A flat tax defies all logic.

Say a family without paying any tax, can not even afford a remotely decent life on their income, should they pay that flat rate ?

Okay, say someone (a family) makes just 10K more than this. Should they pay that flat rate on that 10K ? Exactly when does the flat rate kick in ? At what level of income ? Isn't that judgement arbitrary ? Who is to say when someone is poor enough that they don't have to pay that rate ?

And then what, once you determine that, it's the same on up to billions?

I don't see how that's fair.

If our income (job) markets are wide open, then you will have people making 100s and even 1000 times the average income.

I believe it's arguable, that even though a persons income is 1000 times above the average income, that maybe their lifestyle and investment outcome should only be 600 times as good as average.

But on this particular issue, I am at the core of the reason why I am a progressive.

Where as people such as some posters here, they are at their core with the right wing team for reasons having to do with religion, guns and other social and cultural reasons. When it comes to taxes, they're just backing their way into an irrational argument that fits with their team's position. (what their wealthy overlords tell their gullible servants to believe)

Too bad this type of person can't see through their own BS.

corntrollio says

Nonsense. Any anguish is contrived, and you haven't even told us which post was allegedly edited and how it was edited to mean something different than you originally intended.

Patrick already stated what editing was done. In that particular post each instance of "government" was replaced with "corporation." It would be as if you wrote an anti-rape article, and someone went in there and substituted every instance of "rape" with "sex," and make it look like you were anti-sex when you have repeated made the point that you are pro-sex, voluntary/consensual sex, but anti-rape.

(btw, in case anyone wonders why so much analogizing to sex, I'm trying to jazz up the discussion at little for Patrick's eyeball/traffic/excitement needs. LOL).

marcus says

A flat tax defies all logic.

Say a family without paying any tax, can not even afford a remotely decent life on their income, should they pay that flat rate ?

Okay, say someone (a family) makes just 10K more than this. Should they pay that flat rate on that 10K ? Exactly when does the flat rate kick in ? At what level of income ? Isn't that judgement arbitrary ? Who is to say when someone is poor enough that they don't have to pay that rate ?

And then what, once you determine that, it's the same on up to billions?

The logic there is two fold:

1. Votes matter, even votes from low income people. It is important for voters of moderate means to understand what tax is. It is not some selfless God redistributing wealth for the benefit of the poor but a bite out of the economy due to the inefficiency of monopoly (government by definition is monopoly). Two or more competing "rich" business owners can be far more beneficial to the poor (as they have to bid up the wage price of the poor in the competition and/or deliver better goods/service) than a "government" taking the money from all the same "rich" business owners and give it to one of the assembled rich men. That's all government tax/transfer really is; it's not a transfer to the poor but a transfer to the contractor chosen by the government instead of letting the poor decide which of the numerous rich men they'd like to do business with.

2. Flat tax is easier to administer than tax tiers, hence less resources will be wasted on tax collection and compliance.

The necessity of a cut-off lower boundary is not a "fairness" issue but a political issue. The sooner people realize that tax on any income is illegitimate and counter-productive, the sooner we can get rid of income tax altogether and therefore obviate the need for cut-off boundary at all.

Reality says

Patrick already stated what editing was done.

Okay, then you're high, because there were no posts edited above when I view this thread. I cannot find any spot where "government" was replaced with "corporations in control of government."

Anyway, what Patrick *proposed but didn't do* still wouldn't be libel. It fits within obvious defenses, especially when in the context of a political discussion.

Again, I dare you to sue.

corntrollio says

Okay, then you're high, because there were no posts edited above when I view this thread. I cannot find any spot where "government" was replaced with "corporations in control of government."

Anyway, what Patrick *proposed but didn't do* still wouldn't be libel. It fits within obvious defenses, especially when in the context of a political discussion.

That's because I had edited it back, and expanded on "government" to a set of phrases that both Patrick and I can agree (so I hope).

Again, I dare you to sue.

Am I missing something here? Are you asking to have your posts edited to mean exactly the opposite of what have been writing?

Reality says

Flat tax is easier to administer than tax tiers, hence less resources will be wasted on tax collection and compliance.

How exactly is it easier? You look at a tax table to see how much you owe in either case.

All the deductions and loopholes are a completely different topic than flat vs. progressive tax code.

marcus,
if the fair flat tax is found to be 20%, then the 10K incomer owes $200.

the Rush types that make 50mil pay 1mil.

they only get one vote each, and you find that to be fair? Shouldn't Rush's vote be weighted to match his tax burdan? (im kidding, but im right)

On weighted votes: It would be nice if a voters percentage of participation in elections was tied to the value of their vote.

The Catholic Church now accepts evolution, except in maintaining that was directed by God to create humans. So it's no problem for that team anymore.

they also pray to dead people and to things other than God. Both are no-no's.

Bap33 says

if the fair flat tax is found to be 20%, then the 10K incomer owes $200.

the Rush types that make 50mil pay 1mil.

That's insanity (tying votes to money). Although we are moving in that direction (toward fascism) very rapidly.

And 20% of 10K is 2000. 20% of 50million is 10 million.

I find the idea of a flat tax to be absurd. But it is close to what we have already (not including capital gains tax being lower).

That is, not including that we have a relatively flat tax, that kicks in gradually.

10% on income between $0 and $8,375
15% on the income between $8,375 and $34,000; plus $837.50
25% on the income between $34,000 and $82,400; plus $4,681.25
28% on the income between $82,400 and $171,850; plus $16,781.25
33% on the income between $171,850 and $373,650; plus $41,827.25
35% on the income over $373,650; plus $108,421.25

Married Filing Jointly or Qualifying Widow(er) Filing Status

[Tax Rate Schedule Y-1, Internal Revenue Code section 1(a)]
10% on the income between $0 and $16,750
15% on the income between $16,750 and $68,000; plus $1,675
25% on the income between $68,000 and $137,300; plus $9,362.50
28% on the income between $137,300 and $209,250; plus $26,687.50
33% on the income between $209,250 and $373,650; plus $46,833.50
35% on the income over $373,650; plus $101,085.50

And then basically the government spends payroll taxes (issuing IOUs) because these taxes don't cover our spending.

OH, and we need to cut entitlements !!!

Bap33 says

Shouldn't Rush's vote be weighted to match his tax burdan? (im kidding, but im right)

Just curious--do you really feel that way? That seem un-American to me.

no, one vote, one nation, as seen above. But, I also see it only fair to pay a flat tax. Can't possibly be seen as fair allowing weighted tax burdan and unweighted voting... can it?

Bap33 says

Can't possibly be seen as fair allowing weighted tax burdan and unweighted voting... can it?

Your acting like you ARE Ruch Limbaugh, but I never thought you were anywhere near that stupid. And no I'm not calling you names (except maybe a troll).

Because I don't believe that you believe that.

Money already has TONS of extra influence through supporting candidates and lobbyists. This needs to be undone to a great extent.

The additional tax burden for "the rich" is fair, because money grows exponentially, and because beyond a certain point (when bills are paid), additional discretionary income is far different than the income that takes one up to where they can afford a good education for their kids, and a good retirement.

If you were to (or could) graph a function that valued the "need" for more money, or the possibility of using money productively, as a function of income level, you find that once a persons net worth gets beyond certain point, this need is decreasing.

tatupu70 says

How exactly is it easier? You look at a tax table to see how much you owe in either case.

Entire armies of accountants are hired and numerous volumes are written on revenue recognitions and asset depreciation schedule options/choices . . . why? Because contrary to the steady-state economic model, businesses have ups and downs due to economic cycle. "Progressive" tax makes revenue recognition and asset depreciation in different years result in different tax liabilities.

Reality says

Entire armies of accountants are hired and numerous volumes are written on revenue recognitions and asset depreciation schedule options/choices . . . why? Because contrary to the steady-state economic model, businesses have ups and downs due to economic cycle. "Progressive" tax makes revenue recognition and asset depreciation in different years result in different tax liabilities.

That has nothing to do with progressive taxation, and everything to do with an overly complicated tax code.

Bellingham Bob says

Um, stores won't post their prices if they are higher that the guy across the street.

To clarify, gasoline is the only good that you can comparison shop while driving b

I still wouldn't be that sure of that. I have two convenience stores right next to each other and both advertise tobacco, milk, coffee and eggs in the windows. Granted is also a gas station (which also has higher prices on tobacco).If I drive around the corner the drug store has milk prices advertised.

Sometimes there can be local signage laws. I know of a town that does not allow for electric signs (and that includes backlight). 711's all over the region here have displays of basics of the above items in windows.

Maybe things are different in the Bay Area but in New England it has been this way for decades.

Before 1990 retailers could not open on sundays so maybe advertising was allowed to attract people.

We have a concept here called "package stores". Supermarkets generally are not allowed to sell alcohol (they allow a few). Package stores sell alcohol, tobacco (sometimes cigars due to competition) and lottery tickets. Because of this they kinda HAVE to advertise from the street. The only time advertising in papers occurs is around holidays (memorial, 4th, labor, Christmas, NYE). For the most part they are not chains.

http://www.boston.com/news/health/articles/2010/08/30/tobacco_signs_still_target_citys_poorer_areas/
They have tried to zone out tobacco ads but they still occur

If you just search anywhere in new england on google maps and go to street view you can find tobacco and alcohol advertising on the street level. I just searched one area and they had seven different alcohols advertised on their store front which is across the street from a tobacco store with two prices in their windows.

tatupu70 says

Reality says

Entire armies of accountants are hired and numerous volumes are written on revenue recognitions and asset depreciation schedule options/choices . . . why? Because contrary to the steady-state economic model, businesses have ups and downs due to economic cycle. "Progressive" tax makes revenue recognition and asset depreciation in different years result in different tax liabilities.

That has nothing to do with progressive taxation, and everything to do with an overly complicated tax code.

"Progressive" taxation is the only reason why deciding the year of revenue recognition and asset depreciation (choosing different schedules) matter. It is quite apparent that you have no tax filing / income experience beyond basic steady wage income. For many small busienss owners / job creators, revenue/income can fluctuate dramatically from year to year. Say if you have a business that has $300k revenue in one year but only $100k the next year (or vice versa), in which year to expense a $50k capital investment would make a huge difference in tax liablity; in fact, any accountant worth his salt would recommend looking closely into if there's any justifiable reason to shift revenue recognition of part of the fat year to the lean year. Different sets of numbers have to be run over and over again for comparison. A flat tax would obviate much of the economically non-productive effort for tax collection and compliance.

In any case, the even more important reason for flat taxation is this:

Votes matter, even votes from low income people. It is important for voters of moderate means to understand what tax is. It is not some selfless God redistributing wealth for the benefit of the poor but a bite out of the economy due to the inefficiency of monopoly (government by definition is monopoly). Two or more competing "rich" business owners can be far more beneficial to the poor (as they have to bid up the wage price of the poor in the competition and/or deliver better goods/service) than a "government" taking the money from all the same "rich" business owners and give it to one of the assembled rich men. That's all government tax/transfer really is; it's not a transfer to the poor but a transfer to the contractor chosen by the government instead of letting the poor decide which of the numerous rich men they'd like to do business with.

Can you predict ahead of time which year will be $300K and which will be $100K? Otherwise, how can you plan as you suggest??

Reality says

Votes matter, even votes from low income people. It is important for voters of moderate means to understand what tax is.

That is a highly offensive statement.

Reality says

It is not some selfless God redistributing wealth for the benefit of the poor but a bite out of the economy due to the inefficiency of monopoly (government by definition is monopoly).

Wrong. It is a method of ensuring a healthy economy. The larger the wealth disparity, the sicker the economy.

Has anyone else noticed that the common view held by the anti-fair-taxation people seems to be that all rich people are rich for no good reason, or got to be rich UNFAIRLY so they all should be made to pay for all earnings above what "they" (the anti-fair crowd) feel is enough to "get by on". Where does that kind of mind set come from? Is it from the liberal biased media? Or, is it from the higher education arenas, where progressive leftists thought is forced into minds of mush?? Or, does it require a few pounds of smoked dope to really let this kind of anti-fair, anti-freedom, anti-productive, anti-American thought process take hold?? Maybe it's the effects of all three that result in this mindset?? There should be some study done to find out where this anti-right infection started and who (Soros et al) is funding such thought.

If you think Rush is stupid ... and then you call me stupid .... then I must say, "Thank you, you are too kind."

On an unrelated note: Did Moonbeam just removed all 2nd ammendment rights from Californians with the stroke of a pen? Did anyone get a memo or a chance to vote on gun right removal? I know, it's all good when it's progressive/leftist/liberals doing all things away from the eyes of the people, and away from the ballot box.

tatupu70 says

Can you predict ahead of time which year will be $300K and which will be $100K? Otherwise, how can you plan as you suggest??

Yes, in many businesses that can be predicted with good educated guess. Many businesses have book-to-bill ratio, and many others can get a clue from their past experience. If a business can not make educated guesses about future, how can they make capital investment at all? Of course, people can make mistakes in predicting the future.

That is a highly offensive statement.

Why? Are you saying votes from low income people don't matter? or are you saying ignorance is conducive to the political process? As founding fathers predicted, well informed voters are crucial for keeping the Republic.

Wrong. It is a method of ensuring a healthy economy. The larger the wealth disparity, the sicker the economy.

On the contrary, government taxation and redistribution increase wealth disparity not decreasing it. Currently, workers in the public sector make twice as much as workers in the private sector; in order words, the government takes from the lower income private sector workers and give it to the wealthier workers in the public sector, whose entire income comes from taxation and taxation-through-inflation. Even increasing taxation on the top 1-3% ($200k/yr and up, 3mil to 9mil people), that is still taking money from the relatively worse off to give to the hands controlling even more concentrated wealth: the top 0.001% (3000 people or so) actually controlling the government spending and derive benefit from it as recipients of lucrative government contracts.

Reality says

Why? Are you saying votes from low income people don't matter? or are you saying ignorance is conducive to the political process? As founding fathers predicted, well informed voters are crucial for keeping the Republic.

Come on. Now you're trolling. Your implication is that "people of moderate means" don't understand taxation. Give me a break.

Reality says

On the contrary, government taxation and redistribution increase wealth disparity not decreasing it.

All evidence to the contrary, of course.

Reality says

Currently, workers in the public sector make twice as much as workers in the private sector

I'm laughing out loud. You think the wealth disparity is from the government workers making $80K instead of $40K in the private sector??? You really need to get out more.

Reality says

Yes, in many businesses that can be predicted with good educated guess. Many businesses have book-to-bill ratio, and many others can get a clue from their past experience. If a business can not make educated guesses about future, how can they make capital investment at all?

OK--find me one business that predicts a drop in sales from $300K to $100K from one year to the next.

Just one.

Bap33 says

Has anyone else noticed that the common view held by the anti-fair-taxation people seems to be that all rich people are rich for no good reason, or got to be rich UNFAIRLY so they all should be made to pay for all earnings above what "they" (the anti-fair crowd) feel is enough to "get by on".

I've never once seen that argument. It's a strawman.

tatupu70 says

OK--find me one business that predicts a drop in sales from $300K to $100K from one year to the next.

Just one.

That's more or less what one of my businesses did from 2007-08 to 2008-09. I predicted a 50-60% drop in revenue, and the real drop came in at close to 67%. One does not have to be all that precise in those predictions; a mere significant drop (or increase) expected is enough to necessitate tax planning ahead of time under the "progressive" tax scheme. BTW, that same business was experiencing 50+% expansion each year in the years leading into 2006-07; I recognized that as a bubble in progress. Many of my competitors who failed to make that recognition simply went out of business after 2008.

That's the nature of business in the real world outside government sinecure jobs. People's preference change over time; unless you stoop down to robbing them (like a government job or a union job does), you have to prepare for their freedom to change their preferences, including away from what you have to offer to something else.

Flat tax? No problem. Just make the flat tax rate 90%, and include all estate and capital gains tax rates as the same.

Retirement age could be 50 then. Government provides a basic level of shelter, food, health care, post secondary education, personal transportation, and entertainment.

Based on the GNI - $14.6T (2010), we should have roughly $13.1T in receipts. Add to the current budget of $3.6T the increase needed for these basic neccesities: 310 million people times $20k per year ($6.2T) we get a total budget of $9.8T, leaving us a surplus of $3.3T per year. We could pay off the debt in five years!

Its fair - we all pay the same percentage of our income in taxes...

I am being sarcastic by the way.

Let me throw one out there and see what response I get...

The EIC is a tax credit for the small businessman...or at least a tax credit for the corporation that largely employs low-skilled labor.

Discuss.

Reality says

That's more or less what one of my businesses did from 2007-08 to 2008-09. I predicted a 50-60% drop in revenue, and the real drop came in at close to 67%.

Construction??

Bap33 says

Has anyone else noticed that the common view held by the anti-fair-taxation people seems to be that all rich people are rich for no good reason, or got to be rich UNFAIRLY

Wait, you're actually for fairness? I thought you were a Republican.

So if you think fairness is a good thing, do you also think it's fair that bankers who completely failed in the free market should get massive taxpayer bailouts to pay their gigantic bonuses?

And do you think it's fair that their tax rate on those gigantic bonuses is lower than the middle class tax rate?

david1 says

Construction??

No. But many of my most free spending clients during the peak must have been getting money from construction and real-estate/financing. Some of them probably saw 90% decline, if not 100% (ie. going out of business). My business was only secondarily related to that money flow. The vendors that I buy from saw my spending at their counters decline by anywhere between 30% to 90%. Heck, even the USPS/UPS/FedEX saw a 60% decline in their business from me.

david1 says

Flat tax? No problem. Just make the flat tax rate 90%, and include all estate and capital gains tax rates as the same.

Economy is not about throwing "macro" numbers around, but the very detailed decisions and choices that each of us make everyday in deciding what we prefer. That's how limited resources in society (including time and space) get channeled to producing what can improve our lives. Concentrating all the decision making powers into the hands of government bureaucrats would only foster corruption, violence and inhumanity.

Retirement age could be 50 then. Government provides a basic level of shelter, food, health care, post secondary education, personal transportation, and entertainment.

Here's the problem: when we go to a grocery store or a restaurant, we do not buy a blob called "food" (much less "basic level of food"). Instead, we buy apple (specific breed of apple, not crab apple), chicken (specific cut of specific quality), beef (specific cut and freshness), eggs, etc. etc. based on our economic means and personal preference/priorities. Taking 90% of what the producers and distributors can make from bringing forth the apples, chicken, beef and eggs would quickly disincentivize them from continuing the effort.

We already have examples of what it's like to have a 90% tax rate and have the government provide a basic level of food to everyone . . . as in a really really basic level that is far below what we enjoy today in the US. Look to North Korea for your answer. There is literally no lower bounds to how low a basic level of food, shelter, medicine, education and transportation can go. All of that is provided for more or less free in North Korea . . . all extremely basic, to a level that we'd consider barbarous existence, for all except for the select few leaders of course.

Reality,

I am not advocating a 90% flat tax rate and government takeover of the food industry - as I said, I was being sarcastic.

What I was doing was making the argument that if a constant tax rate is "fair," then a 90% flat tax rate is also fair.

Reality says

Taking 90% of what the producers and distributors can make from bringing forth the apples, chicken, beef and eggs would quickly disincentivize them from continuing the effort.

I see this Republican talking point all the time. I would like to see any validation to the statement however. This is essentially the "you can't tax the job creators" argument. What the data shows is that GDP growth is over 2% higher in real terms when the highest marginal tax rate is over 50% in this country. Now correlation is not causation, and higher taxes do not neccesarily equate to greater economic growth. That is the correlation, though there are many other factors that contribute to economic growth. So I don't see how the argument can be made that higher tax rates causes laziness (and lower economic output). Show me the data, don't just speak anecdotally.

Reality says

All of that is provided for more or less free in North Korea . . . all extremely basic, to a level that we'd consider barbarous existence, for all except for the select few leaders of course.

Barbarous is in the eye of the beholder. Have you ever been to North Korea? Maybe I think it is barbarous that 1/6 of out country goes without healthcare.

The most interesting thing you say here is "all except for a few leaders." I guess it depends on how many, on what percent, is a few, but to me 1% is a few. We have leaders here (that 1%) that would look at how the rest of live as pretty barbarous. Well at least if they had to live that way. They are fine with us living that way obviously.

My point is you mention how barbarous it is in North Korea for a few leaders to live well while the rest have a much more basic sort of life. How is that different from the US? We have leaders..they live much better than we do...

marcus says

I find the idea of a flat tax to be absurd. But it is close to what we have already (not including capital gains tax being lower).

It's pretty close to what we have if you look at effective tax rates.

Bap33 says

Has anyone else noticed that the common view held by the anti-fair-taxation people seems to be that all rich people are rich for no good reason, or got to be rich UNFAIRLY so they all should be made to pay for all earnings above what "they" (the anti-fair crowd) feel is enough to "get by on".

Nice strawman, but completely unfounded in reality. I've never seen anyone express this view. Hell, I'm one of the people taxes would go up on. Man, Bap's comments keep getting more unintelligent and more unintelligible over time.

tatupu70 says

That has nothing to do with progressive taxation, and everything to do with an overly complicated tax code.

Agreed. This is what Congress does. You take a simple code, then you add all kinds of loopholes to it over time. Eventually, you blow the whole code away and then start over as lobbyists hack away at it.

david1 says

What I was doing was making the argument that if a constant tax rate is "fair," then a 90% flat tax rate is also fair.

Tax is not fair because it is forcible taking. Some forms are somewhat less unfair than others.

So I don't see how the argument can be made that higher tax rates causes laziness (and lower economic output). Show me the data, don't just speak anecdotally.

Take away 90% of the salary of all government employees, and see how many of them will show up for work. hmm, I seem to recall many of them were striking due to a 10% reduction or less.

Barbarous is in the eye of the beholder. Have you ever been to North Korea? Maybe I think it is barbarous that 1/6 of out country goes without healthcare.

Are you really that clueless? Hundreds if not thousands of starving North Koreans flee to China each year, a place where some of us believe slave labor is prevailing working condition, in order to make a living. Healthcare and medical insurance (getting ripped off by insurance companies before getting medical service) are two entirely different issues. Even the poorest in the US are living far better lives than the average people in North Korea.

The most interesting thing you say here is "all except for a few leaders." I guess it depends on how many, on what percent, is a few, but to me 1% is a few.

Another sign of basic math failure. 1% of 300mil is 3 million people! That's an enormous number of people. The only people enjoy good standards of living in North Korea are in the immediate entourage of their "Dear Leader."

We have leaders here (that 1%) that would look at how the rest of live as pretty barbarous. Well at least if they had to live that way. They are fine with us living that way obviously.

That's utter bullshit. The top 1%, or 3 million people, are not leaders. Most of them are hapless victims of over-taxation and over-regulation just like the rest of us.

My point is you mention how barbarous it is in North Korea for a few leaders to live well while the rest have a much more basic sort of life. How is that different from the US? We have leaders..they live much better than we do...

The "barbarous existence" that I mentioned in regard to North Korea was referring to the low absolute standards of living for most people living there. They are literally starving! despite government promise to deliver a basic level of food, shelter, medicine, education, etc. etc. all for free. How many starving Americans do you know have been dodging internal security and border patrols to flee to China to have a chance at making a living in what some of us consider "slave labor"?

Reality says

Take away 90% of the salary of all government employees, and see how many of them will show up for work. hmm, I seem to recall many of them were striking due to a 10% reduction or less.

Anecdoctal. Not proof...no data.

Reality says

Even the poorest in the US are living far better lives than the average people in North Korea.

Ahh..poor, but at least not dirt poor.

Ok...you are fighting over ~60% of our wealth while the top 1% takes the other 40%. I'd rather fight to take part of that 40%.

Reality says

How many starving Americans do you know have been dodging internal security and border patrols to flee to China to have a chance at making a living in what some of us consider "slave labor"?

None. How many North Koreans to do you that have done the same to China? None. Apparently facts are not your strong suit. According to wikipedia (a suspect source I know, but better than any other I have seen posted by YOU) there are 20-30,000 North Korean refugees in China. 60-70% of those are women, 70-80% of those due to human trafficking. So about half of at most 30,000 are leaving N. Korea? Wow. The flight from peril in North Korea is shocking.

Look up the demographics of that 1% and then come back and try to argue they are not, for the most part, our leaders.

What is a leader? Look up your Senator. He is in there. Your Rep. probably is too. State Senators, probably. Your doctor, he probably is. Your boss, he is. Or his boss. Let me check. Nope - no fry cooks. Let's see, who else is in that 1%...oh yeah, that guy you listen to on the radio and get your talking points...he is in there. All of the guys you watch on TV are in that group too...

Do you know what a leader is?

david1 says

Anecdoctal. Not proof...no data.

Do actually believe taking away 90% of all public employees' wages and salaries, and they will continue to show up for work? If that's the case, government deficit can be solved instantly: cut all public employees' salaries by 90%!

Ahh..poor, but at least not dirt poor.

Ok...you are fighting over ~60% of our wealth while the top 1% takes the other 40%. I'd rather fight to take part of that 40%.

What do you mean by "take"? Taxation and government spending does not take wealth and distribute out to the population evenly. Do you actually believe that if we break down a multi-million dollar MRI machine into screws and bolts and give it out to everyone, the pieces can still do MRI? If you believe 40% of capital assets are owned and controlled by 3,000,000 people, how does transfer that decision making power to the top 3000 or so top government officials and their assistants help you? At least with the 3,000,000, you have the option of choosing another vendor to deal with if you find one not to your liking. With government bureaucrats, you have no alternative choice. Does it matter if you have a nominal/ficticious share in that ownership that you can not possibly sell? Ask the starving North Koreans: each one of them is allegedly an owner in all their country's wealth.

None. How many North Koreans to do you that have done the same to China? None. Apparently facts are not your strong suit. According to wikipedia (a suspect source I know, but better than any other I have seen posted by YOU) there are 20-30,000 North Korean refugees in China. 60-70% of those are women, 70-80% of those due to human trafficking. So about half of at most 30,000 are leaving N. Korea? Wow. The flight from peril in North Korea is shocking.

Say what? Do you even read the numbers you cite? Tens of thousands of North Koreans have fled North Korea to be in China in search of better living. The same China that some of us believe having slave labor working conditions. Do you have any idea the risk a North Korean has to undertake to flee his/her homeland? Does the shooting deaths of East Germans fleeing to West Germany ring a bell? North Korean government has similar shoot to kill orders against all citizens trying to flee their de facto serfdom.

Look up the demographics of that 1% and then come back and try to argue they are not, for the most part, our leaders.

1% is 3,000,000 people in this country! Math is obviously not your forte.

What is a leader? Look up your Senator. He is in there. Your Rep. probably is too. State Senators, probably. Your doctor, he probably is. Your boss, he is. Or his boss. Let me check. Nope - no fry cooks. Let's see, who else is in that 1%...oh yeah, that guy you listen to on the radio and get your talking points...he is in there. All of the guys you watch on TV are in that group too...

Do you know what a leader is?

Is that some kind joke? You are equating lawmakers that constitute 0.0001% of the population with people with any sorts of expertise therefore often listened to, like 10-20% of the population? You can fire your doctor any time. You can quit your job any time. With government officials imposed on you at the point of the gun, it's an entirely different story.

Any and all taxation is nothing more than concentrating power from the 3,000,000-100,000,000 people to a much tighter group of 1/1000 that size.