The Real Problem with a Progressive Tax Structure [W:103]

[ARealConservative]

My signature is rather compelling.

only to marxists and their lot. to most, it is absolute drivel. as intellectual as using fair share as if it meant something to anybody but government sycophants.

 

[Kushinator]

only to marxists and their lot. to most, it is absolute drivel. as intellectual as using fair share as if it meant something to anybody but government sycophants.

Only the economically illiterate would label the exerts from the Wealth of Nations as Marxist. How is reality treating you these days?

 

[ARealConservative]

Only the economically illiterate would label the exerts from the Wealth of Nations as Marxist. How is reality treating you these days?

only a marxist would consider feeding yourself, and providing other things you need to survive as an expense to society.

 

[Kushinator]

only a marxist would consider feeding yourself, and providing other things you need to survive as an expense to society.

Maybe you should study Marxism before making generalizations and labeling members. It would do wonders in improving the accuracy of your posts (it can go nowhere but up).

If you didn't want to address the exert from Wealth of Nations, why even waste the time responding to my post?

 

[ARealConservative]

Maybe you should study Marxism before making generalizations and labeling members. It would do wonders in improving the accuracy of your posts (it can go nowhere but up).

If you didn't want to address the exert from Wealth of Nations, why even waste the time responding to my post?

maybe you shouldn't quote mine Adam Smith to try to make claims he never made.

his idea of a public expense is certainly not the same as yours Marxie.

 

[Kushinator]

maybe you shouldn't quote mine Adam Smith to try to make claims he never made.

Add wealth of nations to your future reading list.

his idea of a public expense is certainly not the same as yours Marxie.

A most unsupportable position, given you have not studied the works of either.

 

[ARealConservative]

Add wealth of nations to your future reading list.



A most unsupportable position, given you have not studied the works of either.

you aren't fooling anybody here Marxie. health care, food, etc, etc, is not a public expense. your quote mining works in high school, go back there.

 

[Kushinator]

health care, food, etc, etc, is not a public expense.

It certainly is an expense of the public, you just happen to disagree with it. Reality hasn't been too kind to your irk. Normative rants lacking positive reinforcement will continue to fall on deaf ears while leading your understanding of political economy deeper into obscurity.

 

[Kushinator]

FWIW:

The necessities of life occasion the great expence of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expence of the rich; and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be any thing very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expence, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.

Wealth of Nations, Book V, Section II, page 911. It should be mentioned that the very idea of income taxation did not exist at the time, and taxation methods of that time where inherently Georgist. That does not render the passage as incompatible within the context of current taxation schemes.

 

[ARealConservative]

It certainly is an expense of the public, you just happen to disagree with it. Reality hasn't been too kind to your irk. Normative rants lacking positive reinforcement will continue to fall on deaf ears while leading your understanding of political economy deeper into obscurity.

The wealth of Nations does not even come close to arguing for the rich to buy food or medicine for the poor. The closest you can get is showing the poor should not be taxed buying food and medicine, but they should be taxed for luxury items

so nice try Marxie, but I went to college long ago and you quote miners existed then too. still just as big of liars and dunces I see, when do you graduate btw?

 

[Henrin]

Maybe you should study Marxism before making generalizations and labeling members. It would do wonders in improving the accuracy of your posts (it can go nowhere but up).

If you didn't want to address the exert from Wealth of Nations, why even waste the time responding to my post?

Is this the same Wealth of Nations that Keynes acted like didn't exist? Isn't your position kind of awkward then considering you support Keynes and Adam Smith? Since you know, one thought the other didn't exist?

 

[Kushinator]

The wealth of Nations does not even come close to arguing for the rich to buy food or medicine for the poor. The closest you can get is showing the poor should not be taxed buying food and medicine, but they should be taxed for luxury items

so nice try Marxie, but I went to college long ago and you quote miners existed then too. still just as big of liars and dunces I see, when do you graduate btw?

Do you believe there is achievement in labeling me something other than what i am?

Secondly, try and read the material before commenting. The taxation methods in reference were Georgist. There were no means of taxation on purchases of food or medicine. You have no resorted to making **** up. Congrats! Such actions are certainly not beneath you.

 

[Kushinator]

Is this the same Wealth of Nations that Keynes acted like didn't exist? Isn't your position kind of awkward then considering you support Keynes and Adam Smith? Since you know, one thought the other didn't exist?

I support a plethora of political economic thought. The idea that you can somehow confine complete enlightenment into the works of few and specific periods of time is ridiculous. Much can be gained by understanding the works of Marx, Smith, Riccardo, Marshall, Hayek, Keynes, Sameulson, Fisher, Friedman, Lucas, Stiglitz, Krugman, etc....

A multi-school approach ensures you will not be found outside your depth.

 

[ARealConservative]

Do you believe there is achievement in labeling me something other than what i am?

I know exactly what you are.

Secondly, try and read the material before commenting. The taxation methods in reference were Georgist. There were no means of taxation on purchases of food or medicine. You have no resorted to making **** up. Congrats! Such actions are certainly not beneath you.

The material you are quote mining was presented to me years ago. you are just a long line of dishonest people pretending to know things you don't know.

This country has long asked the rich to pay the lions share of the public expense, and they have.

 

[Henrin]

I support a plethora of political economic thought. The idea that you can somehow confine complete enlightenment into the works of few and specific periods of time is ridiculous. Much can be gained by understanding the works of Marx, Smith, Riccardo, Marshall, Hayek, Keynes, Sameulson, Fisher, Friedman, Lucas, Stiglitz, Krugman, etc....

A multi-school approach ensures you will not be found outside your depth.

Can you tell Keynes that, please? He didn't happen to agree with you.

I have no idea how anyone finishes Marx's work. :/ It's bad enough reading the excuse that Keynes calls logic, but Marx, just kill me now. I got half the way through and quit. The stupid was too strong.

 

[Kushinator]

The wealth of Nations does not even come close to arguing for the rich to buy food or medicine for the poor.

When did i say it did?

It does argue that the rich should be be taxed at a higher proportion than the poor (my point).

Strawmen will not cut it!

 

[Kushinator]

Can you tell Keynes that, please? He didn't happen to agree with you.

So what? I am not here to praise any particular school of economic thought.

 

[austrianecon]

My signature is rather compelling.

To clear this up more for you Kush.

Adam Smith isn't calling for a progressive tax. Rather here is the whole section..

"The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion"

Adam Smith is actually arguing for a property tax. Not a progressive income tax which many fail to understand.

 

[Kushinator]

I know exactly what you are.



The material you are quote mining was presented to me years ago. you are just a long line of dishonest people pretending to know things you don't know.

This country has long asked the rich to pay the lions share of the public expense, and they have.

Again, normative rants that lack positive support are meaningless. I know you don't do economics, but some of us have actually studied the subject in great depth.

 

[ARealConservative]

When did i say it did?

It does argue that the rich should be be taxed at a higher proportion than the poor (my point).

Strawmen will not cut it!

Adam Smith's idea on how to collect tax to pay for the public expense has zero bearing on today's idea of government. Once taxes were used to pay for private matters, such as food and clothing, only Marxists would refuse to see the flaw in continuing to adhere to such a structure.

 

[ARealConservative]

Again, normative rants that lack positive support are meaningless. I know you don't do economics, but some of us have actually studied the subject in great depth.

so when is graduation again?

 

[Kushinator]

To clear this up more for you Kush.

Adam Smith isn't calling for a progressive tax. Rather here is the whole section..

"The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion"

Adam Smith is actually arguing for a property tax. Not a progressive income tax which many fail to understand.

Read my post.

Progressive taxation is inherent in Georgist taxation. A well schooled economists would know this.

 

[Kushinator]

so when is graduation again?

When confronted with reality, is it easier to just create your own version to suit your needs? Your haste to go to insults is rather telling!

 

[ARealConservative]

When confronted with reality, is it easier to just create your own version to suit your needs? Your haste to go to insults is rather telling!

I see a student still struggling to figure out the truth from the lies. tell me I'm wrong

 

[Kushinator]

Adam Smith's idea on how to collect tax to pay for the public expense has zero bearing on today's idea of government.

Of course! It's the concept that you still cannot seem to wrap your head around. Just because you don't agree with the current reality does not negate Smith's support for progressive taxation.