Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (622723)	8/3/2011 7:43:12 PM
From: TopCat	4 Recommendations Respond to of 1584048

"If you really care about helping the poor, why don't you go volunteer? You'll do a lot more to help the poor that way than to continue spreading your anti-rich hatred." That's a great idea except that Ted has absolutely no interest in helping the poor.

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (622723)	8/3/2011 8:58:49 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1584048

What were two Republicans thinking, calling Obama 'tar baby' and 'boy'? Republican Rep. Doug Lamborn of Colorado and commentator Pat Buchanan, a former candidate for president, both apologized Wednesday for using racially charged terms to refer to Obama. csmonitor.com

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (622723)	8/3/2011 9:02:01 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 1584048

Ted, it doesn't take a psychologist to recognize envy. Nor does it take one to recognize denial. Apparently it does because you couldn't be more wrong. I don't see a problem with Ferrari sales rising. You do, and it's all because of class envy. Bingo. Now we have projection.........your's. So the rich get richer. Fine, let them be. If you really care about helping the poor, why don't you go volunteer? You'll do a lot more to help the poor that way than to continue spreading your anti-rich hatred. How do you know that I don't? For someone who knows very little about me, you make a lot of assumptions. And you know what they say about assuming.

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (622723)	8/3/2011 10:59:19 PM
From: TimF	1 Recommendation Respond to of 1584048

Epstein on the Flat Tax Richard Epstein has an article arguing for a flat tax on two grounds. First, progressive taxes generate wasteful tax avoidance. If you've ever talked to someone in asset management for wealthy people you'll know that the most pressing issues have nothing to do with picking good pre-tax investments, because moving income across time or some artificial category has a much bigger after-tax return. Secondly, when taxes are shared pro-rata the discussion on the size of government is more rational because everyone internalizes the cost. Currently only half of working Americans pay income taxes and so don't have to consider the tax effects on their income. These are good arguments, but I'd add the following. James Mirrlees won a Nobel prize for his work on optimal taxes (see his seminal 1971 paper, An Exploration in the Theory of Optimum Income Taxation). In these models the optimal tax rates depend on assumptions about the distribution of income earning ability, the rate at which the marginal utility of income declines, and how much the tax rate deters income producing. It is easy to see the utilitarian argument for progressive taxation: rich people don't value $1 as much as the poor, so they should be taxed more on that final dollar, but there is a powerful countervailing force which is less obvious. Given income earning opportunities are lognormally distributed, the highest earners generate much more wealth than the middle income earners. Thus, under most parameterizations you find that lower tax rates on the high earners are better because these earners are wealth-producing machines. Higher tax rates on the most productive people affects these people first, which is the exact opposite of what you want, which is to affect them the least--as far as maximizing total wealth created. I find this literature compelling because I'm a libertarian, which is really just a dynamic utilitarian: I like to count up happiness over time in a world where people choose their actions in anticipation of certain payoffs, unlike simple utilitarians that assume output is given. Further, we tend to take for granted the unintended benefits of wealth in terms of science, art, and general human camaraderie; Marx's 'idiocy of rural life' comes from never having time to think. Unfortunately, I think the problem is worsened by the practical fact that people are more concerned with relative than absolute income; we are more envious than we are greedy. It is a hard thing for most people, especially intellectuals, to acknowledge benefits from their rich moral inferiors who never so intended it, people who seem to enjoy it without any sense of extra obligation. Such 'progressives' see progressive tax rates as a good thing no matter how much wealth is destroyed because preventing one dollar more going to the Koch brothers is worth $10 dollars less going to a bunch of working stiffs, especially because these stiffs would probably in some way be doing business with such a bastard. This is why the Mirrlees model is now so quaint. No one really cares about quantifying the trade-off in wealth vs. equality, because for people who care about relative wealth, aggregate wealth doesn’t matter, and what drives their confabulations is bringing down those above them (see above). No one wants to look at trade-offs because admitting there is one highlights the fiscal multipler isn’t greater than one. Better to focus on aggregate GDP, which assumes government spending and investment are perfect substitutes, and argue about the multiplier in the context of insufficient aggregate demand, a fancy both defensible and sterile. Envy, while natural, is a vice to rise above and not a virtue to celebrate under the pretext of equality and justice. falkenblog.blogspot.com