Nobel winners attack Bush economics - Page 3

Urban Ranger · February 9, 2003, 04:01

Quote:

Originally posted by David Floyd
Look, I don't give a flying **** if cutting/eliminating capital gains taxes, inheritence taxes, and things of like help the economy or hurt it. The point is, those taxes are inherently unfair, because they are double taxation.

How is capital gains tax double taxation?

Quote:

Originally posted by David Floyd
Granted, all taxation is unherently unfair

Maybe you can enlighten us how would a government function without $?

GeneralTacticus · February 9, 2003, 04:04

From what he's said previosuly, he wants all government services to be funded by volutnary contributions, lotteries, and user fees.

KrazyHorse · February 9, 2003, 04:05

Except that lotteries are dependent on government monopolies.

Imran Siddiqui · February 9, 2003, 04:06

Quote:

How is capital gains tax double taxation?

Well the initial investment comes from after-taxed money.

KrazyHorse · February 9, 2003, 04:06

Quote:

Maybe you can enlighten us how would a government function without $?

Government? What are you, some sort of commie?

Kropotkin · February 9, 2003, 05:34

Damn it, there is no nobel prize in economics!

I read a paragraph that Barro was somewhat positive, but I guess that's 'cause he hasn't got that prize that doesn't exists...

el freako · February 9, 2003, 13:11

Quote:

Originally posted by Kropotkin
Damn it, there is no nobel prize in economics!

Sorry but there is.

At least one previous winner that I know of was Hernando se Soto.

Oerdin · February 9, 2003, 13:23

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
SS comes from payroll taxs, Oerdin. A flat tax won't do anything to it.

Imran: There is absolutely know SS trust fund. Protending there is one is just an accounting game. The funds come directly from the treasury's "General Fund" so it doesn't matter wither we spend the $650 billion on tax cuts for stock dividends or tax cuts for pay roll taxes. The money comes from the same source and only Rush Limbaugh denies this.

With a flat tax there are three options 1) raise everyone's taxes up to the highest bracket 2) lower everyone's taxes to the lowest bracket 3) raise some and lower others. In any case income tax accounts for 50% of the annual tax revinue so a significant lowering of income tax would effectively bankrupt the state unless you decreased spending by an equal amount and if you think politicians are going to slash medicare & SS then I've got a nice bridge I want to sell you.

DuncanK · February 9, 2003, 13:32

Quote:

Originally posted by el freako
Well sorry to be contrarian but I think that the US is desperately in need of more saving and less consumption.

So you are saying to raise interest rate?

Quote:

Originally posted by el freako
Long-term GDP growth is very closely related to the growth in the capital stock, and the growth of the capital stock is closely related to net investment (that's total investment less depreciation).

That's only because as the economy grows wealth is created. It's not the other way around.

Quote:

Originally posted by el freako
But another trouble is that the US is not saving anything like enough to finance this much needed investment, indeed it isn't even saving enough to meet the low investments it's currently making.

Do you know what what interest rates are? It's very easy and cheap to borrow right now. There is plenty of capital in the economy. If anything we are in danger of a liquidity crisis.

Kropotkin · February 9, 2003, 13:34

Quote:

Originally posted by el freako
Sorry but there is.

At least one previous winner that I know of was Hernando se Soto.

Is this some kind of bad and/or esoteric joke?

Oerdin · February 9, 2003, 13:35

Quote:

Originally posted by David Floyd
The point is, those taxes are inherently unfair, because they are double taxation. Granted, all taxation is unherently unfair, but double taxation is even worse.

If you don't like the supposed double tax (I say there is no double tax since they are two different transactions) then why aren't you up in arms about the triple tax most seniors pay on their SS income? They pay a tax when they earn the money, a tax when then get their money back from SS, and anyone making over a certain amount is forced to pay a tax of their tax! Talk about unfair.

Why should anyone pay a tax on the amount of tax they pay? The triple of taxation of seniors is unreasonable because seniors are one of the segments of society who can least afford to pay triple taxes on their income. If we're interested in fairness then we'd eliminate the triple tax seniors pay before we give tax brakes to millionares.