View Single Post
Old 02-21-2013, 02:18 PM   #114
patteeu patteeu is offline
The 23rd Pillar
patteeu's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2002
Casino cash: $19337
Originally Posted by Loneiguana View Post
I disagree with your economic theory. I will expand on this later.


On to your economic theory. I believe in a progressive tax system because I believe it is the most fair form of payment for the services provided by society that increase wealth.

For example: A restaurant cannot make any money if there is not a basic road to connect it to customers,if it doesn't have basic utilities, a educated workforce, reasonable certainty of security, etc. All these things have in common is they are supported by our government and society, for the benefit of economic prosperity. We all benefit. I challenge you try to become a multi-millionaire in a country lacking basic infrastructure or a country without a strong police force.

Now, some benefit more. Since the American society played a role(one aspect of many) in someone becoming successful, I believe their taxes should be proportional to that. The rich just have more to lose if American Society goes down. Remember, that all income is taxed the same up to certain levels. My twenty thousand a year is taxed just the same as Trumps first twenty thousand. Hence progressive.

I also believe that a higher top tax rate promotes reinvestment into companies and businesses, as seen in the 1960's.

I also am aware that the Chicago School of Economics (which is generally your theories) have failed in the past. I would encourage you to look at Chile between 1973 and 1989.

Source: http:// www.huppi. com/kangaroo/L-chichile.htm
"Chile: The laboratory Test"

"Many people have often wondered what it would be like to create a nation based solely on their political and economic beliefs. Imagine: no opposition, no political rivals, no compromise of morals. Only a "benevolent dictator," if you will, setting up society according to your ideals.

The Chicago School of Economics got that chance for 16 years in Chile, under near-laboratory conditions. Between 1973 and 1989, a government team of economists trained at the University of Chicago dismantled or decentralized the Chilean state as far as was humanly possible. Their program included privatizing welfare and social programs, deregulating the market, liberalizing trade, rolling back trade unions, and rewriting its constitution and laws. And they did all this in the absence of the far-right's most hated institution: democracy.

The results were exactly what liberals predicted. Chile's economy became more unstable than any other in Latin America, alternately experiencing deep plunges and soaring growth. Once all this erratic behavior was averaged out, however, Chile's growth during this 16-year period was one of the slowest of any Latin American country. Worse, income inequality grew severe. The majority of workers actually earned less in 1989 than in 1973 (after adjusting for inflation), while the incomes of the rich skyrocketed. In the absence of market regulations, Chile also became one of the most polluted countries in Latin America. And Chile's lack of democracy was only possible by suppressing political opposition and labor unions under a reign of terror and widespread human rights abuses.

Conservatives have developed an apologist literature defending Chile as a huge success story. In 1982, Milton Friedman enthusiastically praised General Pinochet (the Chilean dictator) because he "has supported a fully free-market economy as a matter of principle. Chile is an economic miracle." (1) However, the statistics below show this to be untrue. Chile is a tragic failure of right-wing economics, and its people are still paying the price for it today. "

/the article continues, citing all statistics.
We've tried radical equality before too.

So after all of that, you completely missed the point of my "theory". It's really math, more than theory. If you're poor and you want to move up in terms of class, how do you do it? You have to have more income. Progressive income tax schemes will tax that additional income harder than a flatter income tax scheme will. Which guy is going to be more upwardly mobile? The guy whose additional income is getting diverted to the state or the guy whose additional income is going to his pocket? The answer is pretty obvious.

Your sense of fairness (which I don't agree with, btw) doesn't trump math.

“The American people are tired of liars and people who pretend to be something they’re not.” - Hillary Clinton
Posts: 92,464
patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote