It comes down to the courts. Make a challenge and they get to decide. (although I am sure someone has tried that already)
In the majority (overwhelmingly so) of the upper group do pay more than they use in the way of assistance programs.
I apply logic and common sense to what I read, but there are variables based on the individual, which when it comes to something as subjective as personal valuation of a dollar, are impossible to gauge. Impossible. Especially when attempted to be painted across a group.
I have fairly thick skin, so I don't worry it. You, and some text books may view it as antiquated, but it applies logic and common sense, which several economic theories do not. I don't know all the fine details of marginal utility, but the gist of it from what I have read is applying a subjective view of an unknown persons valuation of money.
How can you apply a subjective view of value, when everyone is paying the exact same percentage, with an allowance for those truly in the lowest groups? You cannot apply the same basis. The allowance is not for a subjective valuation of a dollar, it is in lieu of existing credits, such as the personal deductions (standard or itemized) and the EIC.
Right, but there are certain trends that are virtually universal. Let me put it this way:
You have $1 to your name. How likely are you to buy a $1 lollipop?
Now pretend you have $1000000 to your name. How likely are you to buy a $1 lollipop?
If that likelihood changed, then clearly the utility of money to you changes marginally. If that likelihood changes for most if not all people, then we can assume that the utility of money changes marginally for everyone. And many, many studies have already shown that people think this way.
You are making an assumption that a flat tax is "fair" because everyone pays the same percentage by assuming that means they value the money as a percentage the same. But that isn't true. Again, the logical basis for your argument minus any data is the same as my basis minus any data. Add the data though, and (from what I know and have read) it heavily favors my viewpoint. Again, go back to the lollipop example if you want to understand why on a microeconomic scale.
Perhaps, but is that relevant? You are saying the income tax is not actually legitimate law. The courts decide the validity of the law as per the law. That's just how it is.
I disagree. I think it shows the system of checks and balances that our founders envisioned.
I am getting way too distracted from studying right now...
I need to close this tab...
I already said I prefer a progressive consumption tax in place of all income, corporate, and capital gains taxes.
I disagree. I think it shows the system of checks and balances that our founders envisioned.
I am getting way too distracted from studying right now...
That is where we disagree. I don't see the checks and balances working like they should. What I see is men manipulating the Constitution to fit their own best interests.
Well studying is more important
.
I myself think a progressive tax on income would be fine. I would increase taxes for imported goods. Especially if they are not favorable to importing our goods in an equal or close to equal fashion.
Why tax income- something that has a longer-run more positive effect (and something we want to incentivize) when you can tax something with a worse longer-run effect like consumption or negative externalities?
And tariffs are not a good idea- trade is good. Such protectionism generally only helps the trade groups that lobby for them and hurts pretty much everyone else.
How does not having tariffs benefit us? I said if the country was not willing to trade equally with us then a tariff should be imposed. If we take more from of another countries good then they do of ours how does that benefit us? It would seem to me that country would be making out better then we would.
Here is an example of a tariff doing some good.
http://conversableeconomist.blogspot.com/2012/05/tire-tariffs-saving-jobs-at-900000.html
It is about the aggregate. A country wanting to subsidize their manufacturers so OUR consumers can buy them cheaper is not a bad thing. Remember, macro, including individual trade transactions are not a zero-sum game- they don't happen in a vacuum. Using your reasoning, why not just buy only American- cut off all trade altogether?
Also, the article you posted to is making MY argument, not yours. It is pointing out how insane such a tariff is
It is about the aggregate. A country wanting to subsidize their manufacturers so OUR consumers can buy them cheaper is not a bad thing. Remember, macro, including individual trade transactions are not a zero-sum game- they don't happen in a vacuum. Using your reasoning, why not just buy only American- cut off all trade altogether?
Also, the article you posted to is making MY argument, not yours. It is pointing out how insane such a tariff is
Well to be honest with you I would if I could by American only. Though not much is made in America anymore. SO I am man enough to know when I been corrected.
"Buying American" for the sake of buying American often hurts America. That is the most ironic part of such a movement (same thing with a lot of "buy local" movements- as one economist put it (I can't remember who off the top of my head)- if that worked, then why not just buy within your household? Keep the money flowing in your family- clearly doesn't work- subsistence farming is hardly the best way to get rich or stay rich).
Eh there are suggestions we are making a comeback. I posted a few threads in economics a bit back about it. Still a lot of stuff made here either way including "foreign" goods like Toyota and Honda
Eh there are suggestions we are making a comeback. I posted a few threads in economics a bit back about it. Still a lot of stuff made here either way including "foreign" goods like Toyota and Honda
Not like it once was the late 80's and earlier 90's saw the decline of American Manufacturing. I put the blame on greed really. I know certain things are still done in the US Toyota and Honda have finishing Plants in the US. Though entire cars are no longer built in the US the companies that claim the car is an AMerican made car is a lie. The company is American though the car is far from made in America.
Similar threads
