Piano World Home Page Forums Restricted and Archives The Coffee Room Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry

Pardon my misunderstanding but this:

is difficult to construe as anything other than a statement that tax increases caused economic growth.

I would not quarrel much with the rest of what you said except to say that deficits by themselves do not hinder economic growth. Another important part of the picture is total government spending as a percentage of GDP. You can have zero deficits and still have a stagnant economy since, as you said, the government is draining away too much of the available capital. If we are now running high deficits then maybe we need to hold down domestic spending which has been ballooning in recent years (no kudos to the Republican Congress on that I might add).

I have been mulling this one over for days.

Are you proposing that the common man makes political decisions solely on the basis of personal gain without regard for consequence to others? Without regard for the lessons of the past? It seems a harsh indictment, if this is indeed your position.

Or rather is it your position that the educational system has deteriorated such that the common man is no longer capable of rational thought? That the religious institutions of our day no longer present their parishioners with guidance adequate to make moral decisions? Or sufficient reason to make decisions on that basis?

Or have I misread the entire thing?

The essential difference.

FACT: The US was attacked on Sept 11, 2001 by a concerted terrorist effort that required years to plan and execute, was determined to kill people and bring down our society and way of life.

FACT: This terrorist menace was financed and aided by a number of national governments including that of Saddam Hussein.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,82542,00.html

FACT: We do not live in a world where everyone can just get along because we have different opinions of what is right and wrong.

[Before the white man arrived on the American Great Plains, the Cheyenne and Arapaho people fought wars against the Ute and their relatives over the issue of eating dogs. The Cheyenne and Arapaho considered this practice worth killing for.]

FACT: Wars are staged and fought to prove that the loser’s view of the world was mistaken.

FACT: Wars will no longer be necessary when all regard certain opinions as foolish, stupid or dangerous.

That's the problem with some of you. You disagree with a point and make it clear you can't accept any chance you'd be wrong.

I would be tickled to death to see a "flat tax", or perhaps a national sales tax, in lieu of the American "progressive" tax system.

You're point?

Repeat after me: Punitive tax systems do not work, and are good for no one!

We'll have a look at that.

1. You are penalizing anybody who seeks to climb the economic ladder. The more I make, the more in percentage terms you want to take a way from me.

Oh come on! My example was 200k...
Once you get to that level of pay you're not going to go up in little increments... chances are you're some managing director who gets 20% pay rises or so. You'll still work hard. (See enterprise environment)

I'm not suggesting that the difference between a 61-80k and 81k-100k bracket should be overwhelming.

When you get to 200k, losing a few of those extra dollars aren't going to hurt you as much as if you were lower down the scale.

You are discouraging growth. People will spend the extra money. Most folks with higher incomes, have higher bills. It seems to be an axiom that one does not live over one's means, but one lives up to every penny of them.

You'll probably not believe me since I can't remember which issue of BRW this came out of. But anyhow:

-Countries with a higher % of wealth in middle class have better growth (in OECD).
-Consumer confidence falls less during economic downturn in countries with less concentrated wealth (the rich are not going to be as liberal with their money but everyone has to buy food).

Wrong, David. I trust you're far enough along in your education to realize that at identical tax rates the person earning $200K will pay more than 3 times the taxes as someone earning $60K. Not good enough for you?

Firstly: If you assume everyone you don't agree with has a grade 3 education the U.S.A. is some uneducated place. (Unless interest rates are learnt in university? :p )

Anyhow: Let's suppose we set the rate at a flat 40%.

Person A drops to 120k
Person B drops to 36k

You might argue, well person a is paying 56k more tax!!!!

But wouldn't you agree that the difference between 10k and 15k is much larger than 20k and 30k in real living terms? The difference between 40k and 30k is much larger than 80k and 60k?

Sure it's 4 times the difference of money, but hey... any difference (practically) between 500 million and 1 trillion?

Now you'll argue that person A worked harder to get more money, went to some private school and never used the public health system. But I'll counter that with:
-Everybody should be entitled to the same set of basic living conditions (more income required to meet that when running a family with children)
-Person A does not work harder just because he earns more (I used to do odd jobs in IT for around $30 an hour, a lot more than some cleaner working his bum off and getting $10- I believe I did a lot less work).
-Person A would've been able to earn that because of the taxes paid by previous generations to pay for his education, safety in the country, etc.
(Would he have the same chances if his parents didn't have to pay tax, but lived in Bangladesh? Only if he was at the pinnacle).

I do believe that Person A should pay a higher rate (reasonably, otherwise that becomes communism).

Hard work, persistence and drive to acheive should have its reward.

Absolutely, but see above.

Anyone who honestly believes that tax increases create economic growth has no understanding of economics.

Yup. Don't take me wrong, this is correct. But tax cuts to the middle class are going to be better (socially, and economically) than tax cuts to the top.

If you want some sort of idea what tax system I'd think is appropriate (this isn't thought out [prolly cause a budget collapse! :p ], but just to show I'm no communist)
Tiered System
0-20k no tax
20-50k 30%
51-150k 40%
150+ 50%

E.g. Earn 60k, 10k is taxed at 40%, 30k taxed at 30%, 20k not taxed.

Of course, the very rich all have their ways of scamming things. (Research done in BRW showed the average CEO payed a lower tax rate than the average person earning 100k Damn their competent accoutants! )

And if you're interested, here are Australia's tax scales (1998, with the new tax system. I haven't checked if they've changed, and these are purely from my memory so don't kill me if I'm wrong)
0-6k no tax
6-20k 17%
20-50k 30%
50-60k 40%
60k+ 47%
But then our welfare system is shocking. If you're a lazy bum with half a brain you can rort the system and become a dole bludger, getting about as much as minimum award wage. Enter food coupons

Steve Miller
That the religious institutions of our day no longer present their parishioners with guidance adequate to make moral decisions? Or sufficient reason to make decisions on that basis?

From what I have read most religious institutions in the world (including the USA, including GWB's own church) are strongly opposed to this war and 75% of the US citizens support it.

Whew! Am I ever glad that this guy does not set our tax rates!

An open note to Peter,

Dear sir,

Would you please explain to me, and many of the other non-economic professionals, your take on progressive tax structures, and their economic effects upon the taxpayers of a country that uses such a system, such as the U.S.?

The 8 years of prosperity under Bill Clinton's presidency had nothing to do with taxes IMO, but with a general confident approach to life.

How long is it going to take you to understand this ?

The essence of capitalism is confidence, not self-rightneousness and anger.

Confidence is a spiritual/managerial quality.

Bringing democracy to the Middle East though is a very confident project.

There is so much self-rightneousness and anger though.

Well, the main thing is to succeed and learn to love and respect thy neighbour.

I'm joking.

First, let's sent Saddam to The Hague.

So much for the parking lot theory addicts.


I would suggest putting him in the same cell as Milosevic.

Larry, wouldn't that be very close to your torture pole ?


I bet both of them would suffer more.

Two stalinian dictators playing Mine is bigger than yours for decades.

I can't wait.

Go troops Rahhhhhhh! Rahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

Taking your examples into consideration a few things strike me. Family B pays 10 TIMES the tax of family A. This is on a flat tax scale. What you propose is an even greater difference. Also, family A's income is an amount of one income @ minimum wage w/o overtime, or apparently ambition. This individual lacks the additional aspect of 'drive' that I spoke of. Laziness should not be rewarded as is currently the tax system (ex. earned income credit--where more tax then was paid in is given to low income bracket such as you describe with family A. That is a REWARD!! Rewards are MOTIVATORS of behavior.) I feel concerned for family A but I do not feel bad for them as they are not exercising good judgement or basic human survival skills.

When we allow our government to get involved in sliding tax scales we are in essence giving them the power to motivate our earning/spending habits, thereby 'govern' by social engineering. It is not expected that they should be concerned in playing out scenarios of different outcomes for family A or family B. They can't govern effeciently if they are exercising obiously opinionated formulas of family living (that will change person to person when public office positions change) when deciding something as important as tax contribution. Flat tax takes out governmental opinion and bias/influence.

This backs up what I'm talking about. Lower tax brackets actually have more take home pay then some in the higher tax bracket. In your scenario I wouldn't WANT a raise! So I'd better start slacking off on the job!

Steve

You keep implying that education will allow a man to make moral decisions. Education only makes a person more knowledgeable in their area of study, it has nothing to do with moral decisions, and it definitely does not give them common sense.

Education broadens a person's knowledge of earthly things. Morality separates man from animals.

My position? Let's combine your two scenarios.

The common man, because of a deteriorating social system makes decisions, both political and moral, solely on the basis of personal physical comfort without regard for consequences to others. The social system not the education system has deteriorated such that the common man is no longer capable of rational thought. The religious institutions today for the most part no longer present their parishioners with guidance adequate to make moral decisions.

The bible (moral law) and civil law are two separate entities. Civil law governs you body and your actions; moral law governs your soul and you thoughts.

The bible recognizes and acknowledges civil law and authorities. In some cases moral law and civil law are compatible and in some they are in conflict. The bible though expects man to obey all civil laws even if the civil laws are in conflict with moral law. The trend I see is that the conflicts between civil law and moral law are becoming more numerous, and most religious institutions are bowing to the comfort demands of their parishioners and relaxing their positions on conflicting laws in favor of the civil law. The bible hasn't changed its position though.

The bible recognizes and acknowledges the need for civil authorities to make laws to maintain civil authority and to punish criminals for violating these laws even to the point of capitol punishment. It does not authorize or condone abortion in any form. A lot of religious institutions are relaxing their stand on this matter. What once was a moral law and a civil law that were compatible is now a law in conflict. Common man for his comfort and convenience has embraced this civil law so strong that we now are aborting over 5000 innocent babies every day.

The common man is not capable of having rational thoughts. The, in your words educated, people that are protesting capitol punishment which is acknowledged by the bible are the same ones that are proponents of abortion, which is prohibited by the bible. Are these rational thinking moral people?

This same thing can be applied to drugs, homosexuality, material possessions, idolitry, etc.

Because something is legal by civil law does not mean it is by moral law. Civil law may save your body, but moral law can save your soul.

lb

Why do you argue that the common man is not capable of rational thought? I assume you feel you are capable of it. Do you feel that you are intellectually superior to the common man? Or are you arguing that those who do not agree with your view of morality can only come to another view because their thinking processes are impaired?

To me, those who are opposed to abortion but so defiantly in favor of the death penalty and war are just as incongruent in their thinking as the examples you give above. But I would not say these people are incapable of rational thought or have impaired thinking processes. I may disagree with them, but they, themselves, are capable of justifying what seems to me to be contradictions in thinking. Thus I accept their views, while disagreeing with them, as valid for them.

I cannot believe what I just read (posted by lb).


I did not know that you still had that kind of integrist in the western world.

And George Bush is one of them ?

I am an atheist or rather an agnostic.

I have been in spiritual path for 35 years and I do think the Human Rights are the only moral law mankind needs.

But if you do not believe in the Bible, you do not have moral sense ?

What an insult to the intelligence and sensitivity of man !

What a lack of confidence in one's own ability to think and judge what one thinks/feels is right or wrong !

There is deep worry to have is this kind of fanatics has the right to buy guns and start wars.

You mean one just started a war ?

I didn't know.

Come on man, where have you been ?

You won't believe it : I have spend all the time I did not work on the most amusing and friendly of forums.



Sorry lb, but I really think you should have brain surgery before it's too late.
I hate to see such selfrighteous unintelligent insulting opinions in a place where people are trying to improve their judgement and understanding.

You think I am pretty intolerant myself ?

That's right. When I stifle, I have to kick in all directions. It is such a horrible feeling.
Those same people who wanted Christ dead and asked the Americans (sorry, the Romans) to do the job shared your certainties and moral selfrighteousness.
Your words are a crucifixion of the mind and spirit of man.
Amen.

Lazy pianist,
? Or are you arguing that those who do not agree with your view of morality can only come to another view because their thinking processes are impaired?

What are you on, LP ?
Can I have some ?
lb does not have a view : his is a parrot in disguise.

If you go to church, you do not need a thinking process. It's all in the book.

Who said so ?

lb said so.
He as been saying it since thousands of years.

You mean it started before our Lord Jesus Akhbar died for us and rose the third day ?

Way before that.
Before man used his reason, he used tradition as a crutch.

I see.

LP : stop being a traitor ,rejoin the team of those who are searching, let go of the team of those who have found.
Do not be the other side of lb, LP.


lb : it is not personal. But religion is doing enough harm now. Just keep it for what it is : the enrichment of the human spirit or/and soul.
Moral is for men to create and take good care of. That's what democracy is about.
Moral is a process : a very difficult and painful one.
But how would you know ?
Sorry, lb, I did it again.

Jodi, I want to start this brain tai chi chuan on April 7th. Please ask your instructor.
:rolleyes:

Benedict

I do not have any trouble with those who go to Church. I do not even have trouble with those, like lb, who build their entire morality based on a strict interpretation of the Scriptures they adhere to.

The problem I have is that so many seem to become intolerant of iothger viewpoints and feel morally superior to those who do not believe as they do.

I keep trying to understand why they do this; what makes them decide their morality is somehow superior to that of others. And I keep trying to understand why so many feel they are not only capable of judging others but seem to feel it is mandatory they do.

I would really like to hear from lb to see if he does believe what it sounds like he says he believes. If he does, I will not be able to agree with him, but at least I will have a better understanding of where he is coming from and who he is as a human being.

To me, understanding others is a good thing.

To me, understanding others is a good thing.

I can't believe what I am reading.

Why don't you do something really useful, like asking insistantly that all the troops go home now before it is too late and SHAME is on you for eternity.

While you work on understanding others, we feel hopeful that indeed a person is not necessarily doomed to repeat the same thing over and over.

Please go on understanding.
Once you have understood, please explain it to us.

I like joking with you because you are so peaceful.
I hope you do not feel hurt by my heavy bombing.

Not at all. Indeed, I don't even mind those who call me a communist, a traitor or whatever else I have been called in the past few weeks.

What frustrates me most are those whose minds are closed. To me, this is a tragedy because the human mind and human heart have such a large capacity for greatness when they are open.

To me, this is a tragedy because the human mind and human heart have such a large capacity for greatness when they are open.

When do you start opening your mind and heart ?
We are all waiting.


If you succeed, we'll give it a try.

Beware of germs when there open though. Life can be a messy process.

benedict

You have exceeded my expectations of you!!!

Did I touch a nerve?

lb

LP

Is there no earthly reason at all that no matter how heinous that you could justify any war or capitol punishment?

lb

lb

A couple of weeks ago I was asked to explain what it would take for me to justify a war -- and I did so. Feel free to check the archives.

I was told that my criteria would make almost all wars impossible. This is true. War should always be the VERY last resort, used only when nothing else can work. Mankind is better than a bunch of savages who have to solve problems through violence, death and destruction. I want war to be the VERY last solution, used ONLY after any and all other alternatives have been tried and found not working.

As far as the death penalty is concerned.. no, I cannot justify it. The death penalty has, it seems to me, three primary purposes.

1) To keep society safe from those who would harm others.

One need not kill a person to achieve this.

2) To punish a person severely for the crime they have done.

Again, one need not kill them to punish them severely. Indeed, there are those on this Board, Jolly being one I believe, who argue the death penalty is more humane than life in prison.

3) To seek revenge for the victims and/or society. While I understand the victims wanting revenge, I reject it as a motive worthy of a civilized society.

Now that I have answered your questions, lb, let's go back to mine based on your response to Steve Miller:

Why do you argue that the common man is not capable of rational thought? I assume you feel you are capable of it. Do you feel that you are intellectually superior to the common man? Or are you arguing that those who do not agree with your view of morality can only come to another view because their thinking processes are impaired?