isadore;989766 wrote:As you admit the consumption tax would be regressive, increasing the tax burden of those least able to pay. They already maybe paying other payroll taxes with state and local taxes. They don’t have a lot of skin to give.

It doesn't have to be regressive, and regressive is really only an issue as far as basic necessities. If you can't pay a 15% sales tax then you more than likely can't afford the item in the first place, but entitlement is another topic.

Also, none of what you mentioned "propped up" the middle class. Those were benefits accruing to everyone, rich and poor alike and mostly aimed at helping the poor. Outside of the draft, the volunteer military has been heavily skewed toward lower income classes. I'm not going to debate on how much we spend directly and indirectly on military, but conferring a benefit for military service is really not geared toward any income class. Also, nothing has changed - all the benefits you cite as "porpping up the middle class" are still available and then some. What propped-up or created the middle class was economic growth, leading to labor shortages that didn't face nearly as fierce global competition. Along with organized labor, the govt didn't really have to do anything other than allow organized labor and let basic capitalism and supply/demand run their due course.

Raising taxes, which marginally wouldn't hurt much at all, is not part of any solution that doesn't also make massive, MASSIVE cuts to spending. And the ivory tower can talk theory all they want - I took those classes but I also live and breathe the real deal in the business world. It's a fact that tax increases and other regulatory costs are absorbed by the worker and the customer via some combination of higher prices, lower wages and less hiring.

I'll say it again, raising taxes does absolutely nothing to address the fundamental problem of declining global competitiveness (more accurately, increasing global competitiveness abroad) of the line worker. Making the govt a middle man to redistribute profits is horribly ineffective and inefficient. No competent person tries to run a business like we run our govt.

And "economists universally agree" is not an oxymoron. There are some actual well-esablished, broadly accepted fundamental tenets. Taxes on productivity reduce productivity. No remotely competent economist disagrees with that. It's also partly why tax increases almost always underproduce revenue - because in addition to lower productivity, businesses manage their tax liability (nor is it all about loopholes, either).

gut;989803 wrote:It doesn't have to be regressive, and regressive is really only an issue as far as basic necessities. If you can't pay a 15% sales tax then you more than likely can't afford the item in the first place, but entitlement is another topic.

Also, none of what you mentioned "propped up" the middle class. Those were benefits accruing to everyone, rich and poor alike and mostly aimed at helping the poor. Outside of the draft, the volunteer military has been heavily skewed toward lower income classes. I'm not going to debate on how much we spend directly and indirectly on military, but conferring a benefit for military service is really not geared toward any income class. Also, nothing has changed - all the benefits you cite as "porpping up the middle class" are still available and then some. What propped-up or created the middle class was economic growth, leading to labor shortages that didn't face nearly as fierce global competition. Along with organized labor, the govt didn't really have to do anything other than allow organized labor and let basic capitalism and supply/demand run their due course.

Raising taxes, which marginally wouldn't hurt much at all, is not part of any solution that doesn't also make massive, MASSIVE cuts to spending. And the ivory tower can talk theory all they want - I took those classes but I also live and breathe the real deal in the business world. It's a fact that tax increases and other regulatory costs are absorbed by the worker and the customer via some combination of higher prices, lower wages and less hiring.

I'll say it again, raising taxes does absolutely nothing to address the fundamental problem of declining global competitiveness (more accurately, increasing global competitiveness abroad) of the line worker. Making the govt a middle man to redistribute profits is horribly ineffective and inefficient. No competent person tries to run a business like we run our govt.

And "economists universally agree" is not an oxymoron. There are some actual well-esablished, broadly accepted fundamental tenets. Taxes on productivity reduce productivity. No remotely competent economist disagrees with that. It's also partly why tax increases almost always underproduce revenue - because in addition to lower productivity, businesses manage their tax liability (nor is it all about loopholes, either).

“Basic necessities,” you have the god like ability to determine what they are for pensioners and working poor in America. Car, no, a cell phone, no, a microwave, no, an air conditioner in Georgia or in a 100 degree Chicago summer, no. For you 15% may not make a big difference but you of course want more of their skin in the game.
“Benefits aimed mainly at the poor.” What did I list, FDIC that one really aimed at the poor, mortgage tax deductions aimed at the class the contains the largest percentage of renters and the homeless. You lack a sense of history in your discussion of the GI Bill. Today of course we have a volunteer military recruited mainly from the 3[SUP]rd[/SUP] and 4[SUP]th[/SUP] quintile (see Time Magazine from a couple weeks ago) But the GI Bill was created at the end of WWII for the draft army that fought that struggle, over 13 million of them from all classes. The bill provided funds to go to college, and low cost loans to buy a house, and start a business. The rich did not need these benefits but the rest of America did. It regenerated the middle class that had been nearly destroyed by the Great Depression.
It is interesting that you try to prove a point by saying that all economists supposedly accept an idea you endorse. But in the same writing you condemn Nobel Prize winning economists who endorse taxing the rich as “ivory tower” eggheads, whose opinions on the economy should be dismissed.
The government of the United States should not be run like a corporation. They are soulless profit machines usually amoral, occasionally immoral. One of the stated aims of the United States government from its inception was “to promote the general welfare” of the American people not make a profit. I doubt if taxing the rich appreciably more will do much to hurt American business. And for the rich they have a lot of extra skin to put in the game.
I know you see regulation as interfering with our global competitiveness. Cut those regulations, lets go back to the 72 hours workweek, no overtime, no minimum pay, cut those safety regulations, end workmen’s compensation, and lets get those kids back in factories so we can be globally competitive.

isadore;990028 wrote:“Basic necessities,” you have the god like ability to determine what they are

It's not rocket science - food, shelter and shirt on your back. I don't think I'm alone in that definition, much less thinking it doesn't require a god-like omnipotence.

Yes, let's not run the govt like a going concern (i.e. for-profit business)...no, let's run it in a manner to bleed the country dry. Thumbs-up, Bammer!

Find me ONE economist who will say taxes aren't a drag on productivity/growth. Thanks for playing...ba-bye

What a mean world you want for our working poor and pensioners enough food to prevent starvation, a roof of any kind over their head and clothes they are wearing then tax them so the rich and corporations wont have to put any more skin in the game. Poor Americans would live a hellish existence.
Why would I possibly consider what economists thought when those at the peak of their profession are according to you only "ivory tower" eggheads who know nothing of the real world. How could economist who you see as dwelling in a kind of cloud cuckoo land know anything about whether taxes effect production.
It is interesting that as our government shrank in its regulatory and taxing functions our problems increased, leading to the debacle at the end of the Bush Presidency. The last time we let a successful businessman run our government it was Herbert Hoover.

isadore;990812 wrote:The last time we let a successful businessman run our government it was Herbert Hoover.

The last time we let a successful politician run Big Government it was....it was....I'll get back with you.

isadore;990812 wrote:What a mean world you want for our working poor and pensioners enough food to prevent starvation, a roof of any kind over their head and clothes they are wearing then tax them so the rich and corporations wont have to put any more skin in the game. Poor Americans would live a hellish existence.
Why would I possibly consider what economists thought when those at the peak of their profession are according to you only "ivory tower" eggheads who know nothing of the real world. How could economist who you see as dwelling in a kind of cloud cuckoo land know anything about whether taxes effect production.
It is interesting that as our government shrank in its regulatory and taxing functions our problems increased, leading to the debacle at the end of the Bush Presidency. The last time we let a successful businessman run our government it was Herbert Hoover.

Again, show me ONE economist who disagrees that taxes are a drag on productivity. It's a very basic question, and your repeated dodging is either indicative of trolling or complete ignorance.

Also, to blame the problems on shrinking regulatory and taxes shows an ignorance of history. You might do well to read-up on the Great Depression, the gas/oil crisis of the 80's, the S&L crisis, or LTCM just to name a few. The Great Recession has also been global, so to blame that strictly on the lack of US regulation and tax is idiotic - it really firmly has its roots in a global liquidity crisis fueled by multiple central banks priming the pump to fight deflation fears.

As for a roof over their head, food on the table, and clothes on their back being a "hellish" existence you ought to take a gander at how 95% of the world lives - the "working poor and pensioners" don't have anything remotely close to a hellish existence, and the ones actually working and/or on a pension have it much, much better than that. We can't afford to be a welfare state, even if we confiscate everything the rich and corporations make. Socialism is failing all over the world, and when you look at those righting the ship (such as Canada) they've actually scaled back their spending significantly (a commodities boom doesn't hurt).

believer wrote:The last time we let a successful politician run Big Government it was....it was....I'll get back with you.

Now that is funny, a good line. I guess you can say by a least one measure anybody who becomes President is a successful politican because they have risen to the top of that profession. Hoover would seemingly meet the definition of a successful businessman he rose to the top of his profession, built a successful business and retired from it a multi millionaire as Truman would meet the definition of a failed businessman with his bankrupt habderdashery. But very few would see Hoover as a successful President while most Americans with any historical sense and alot of those egghead historians consider Truman a successful President. Historical revisionism in our view of Presidents is continuous, Truman was considered a failure when he left the Presidency (to err is Truman) his standing have risen but Hoover's remain pretty constant. George W. Bush would be rated low now with most polling continuing to give him primary blame for the present economic situtation and a mix view on his foreign policy. People's views may change depending on our situation in the future.

gut;990990 wrote:Again, show me ONE economist who disagrees that taxes are a drag on productivity. It's a very basic question, and your repeated dodging is either indicative of trolling or complete ignorance.

Also, to blame the problems on shrinking regulatory and taxes shows an ignorance of history. You might do well to read-up on the Great Depression, the gas/oil crisis of the 80's, the S&L crisis, or LTCM just to name a few. The Great Recession has also been global, so to blame that strictly on the lack of US regulation and tax is idiotic - it really firmly has its roots in a global liquidity crisis fueled by multiple central banks priming the pump to fight deflation fears.

As for a roof over their head, food on the table, and clothes on their back being a "hellish" existence you ought to take a gander at how 95% of the world lives - the "working poor and pensioners" don't have anything remotely close to a hellish existence, and the ones actually working and/or on a pension have it much, much better than that. We can't afford to be a welfare state, even if we confiscate everything the rich and corporations make. Socialism is failing all over the world, and when you look at those righting the ship (such as Canada) they've actually scaled back their spending significantly (a commodities boom doesn't hurt).

Gosh you have seemed to abandoned your point about government policy not aiding the middle class.
Lets go back to historically to check your point about high taxes killing productivity. Actually as some economists have pointed out our highest periods of growth have been during periods of high taxation with growth rates declining with tax cuts.
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/06/02/234238/conservative-myth-taxes-growth/
“shows an ignorance of history” “the gas/oil crisis of the 80s”
As opposed to you I do know that the precipitating events that produced the Great Depression and the Great Recession happened in the world’s largest economy. We dragged them down. And those events and the SL collapse were all produced by a lack of regulation /low taxing/government action. An unregulated market had put American agricultural in a depression for nearly a decade before the Stock Market Crash.
How nice of you to tell American poor how lucky they are not be Malawians. How they have it made. With the cuts to the budget envisioned by you and other, we will get the chance to move closer to Great Depression and Malawian situations. 16 million American children live in poverty, something you see as not so bad, they are just so lucky to be in America. The food pantries are emptying and now you want to cut social programs, Malawi here we come. I know from the effects on the health of family older family members , the malnutrition caused by the Great Depression it physically scarred them for life.