Sorry, it doesn't work that way. There is no difference. What the tax is meant to achieve is irrelevant. You don't get something for free. A tax decreases incentive and "curbs those behaviors"; there is no way around that. I think you're missing the point. Once again, you don't get things for free. Obama and supporters of his decisions are going to curb economic success by their spending, because we eventually have to pay for it. How do we pay for it? Thinking optimistically, we pay for it with higher taxes. See above about taxes decreasing incentive. Thinking pessimistically, we will pay for this spending with more than just money, considering communist China will be the largest owner of our enormous debt.
Taxing the rich is basically making them work harder for their money. So you're saying that people that make a ton of money don't want to work that hard? A disincentive isn't a ban. They can still make as much as they did before, they just have to work harder for it.
You are saying that the richest in this country are not optimal utilizers, and that by reducing their resources, they will become MORE efficient and move them more towards an optimal utilization. Wow. Just wow. Epic fail.
It's clear they are not. At some point, you just can't spend all that money. Look at Bill Gates. His fortune, instead of being spent on building more factories or buying lavish toys that others make, is going to fund education in Africa, etc. A worthy cause, to be sure, but it doesn't increase the GDP much, does it? barfo
Oh come on Barfo. You just quoted half of my sentence. Obviously they aren't absolutely optimal. The point is that taxing them more definitely won't make them closer to optimal. Bill Gates doesn't really apply here, since he doesn't really have income anymore. He will see smaller tax increases than people that actually have incomes, and not just capital gains.
You certainly seemed to be implying that the wealthiest were in fact optimal utilizers. In Bill's case, it clearly would make him closer to optimal, because he has excess capital that he is unable/unwilling to spend. Really? He just has it all under the mattress? I find that very difficult to believe. barfo
Nope, I wasn't implying that. I was implying that the richest are most likely the most optimal utilizers. Never did I say that they are absolutely optimal. Sorry you missed that. I assume you know the difference between income tax, payroll tax, and capital gains tax. Also, you might want to try reading the rest of the thought, where I said he would be affected less than most people, due to his lack of fixed income.
I missed it because it wasn't what you said. But I'm still not convinced, even with the clarification added. What makes the rich more likely to be optimal utilizers? Yes, what's your point? I'm not convinced that Bill doesn't have a substantial amount of ordinary income - although I'd agree he doesn't have W-2 wages. barfo
You have the order flipped. Try again. If you don't see the point, you don't understand the differences, and I should not have assumed that you do. Oh, and I didn't mention this before, and I should: perhaps you should completely read what I write, where the thought gets completed.
I don't see a significant difference between the way I phrased it and the way you phrased it, but I will try again. What makes the richest most likely to be the most optimal utilizers? barfo
I don't understand what you are asking. Are you disputing my claim that the richest people are most likely the most optimal utilizers? (Or worded more correctly: the most optimal utilizers are more likely to be the richest people.)
I'm asking why you claim that, yes. That's what I'm asking. I'm asking that. It is what I'm asking. barfo
Just because that's not the intention, doesn't mean that it doesn't happen. Jimmy Carter refused to support the Shah of Iran because he was a dictator. In his place came a theocracy even more brutal than the Savak. It was unintentional, but he was responsible. On the flip side, President Bush overthrew Saddam Hussein and a civil war erupted. That wasn't intentional, but we had a responsibility to quell it. Unintended consequences matter. You know, since you're so critical of President Obama, with which of his policies have you disagreed the most vehemently? Why? As for barfo and Minstrel, barfo is giving him a long, long leash taking a "wait and see" attitude and Minstrel thinks we should mirror Western Europe. Neither have uttered a critical word of President Obama.
By your logic, giving money to the poor is allowing them to not work as hard for their money. So it's a double disincentive where everyone works less hard. Great stuff.
Would you call then-Senator Obama or his wife liberal? [video=youtube;hZQ03kgB6Bg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZQ03kgB6Bg&feature=related[/video] (Yes, it's a crackpot website, but their words are their own).
They're not "snide labels". Economic research has proven as close as you can come to economic law that increasing the marginal tax burden on individuals lowers their willingness to work for what they perceive to be diminishing returns. Furthermore, giving free services and benefits to those that haven't earned them robs them of a work ethic over the long term. The old rule of the Soviet Union was "they pretend to pay us and we pretend to work." Incentives matter. Look more closely. Well, it's safe to say there are plenty that hated President Bush. I don't hate President Obama, but I'm a natural skeptic. It amazes me that because of his skin color or because he suceeded a president who was so reviled by the Left that intelligent people would check their intellect at the door and just take as gospel anything he says. I actually find the fawning over him a bit disturbing. My words are intentional. The Left in this country constantly mocks people of faith as naive rubes, yet Obama is their God. I find the irony rich. Their faith in Obama is no different than the faith in God of the people they mock. It's probably different. I actually look at my president with skepticism. When he's wrong, I criticize him. And those same people that were so quick to jump all over our previous president for his every misstep now looks the other way when our current president makes errors even more grave.
LOL yes, I am "so critical" of president Obama and I disagree "vehemently" with his policies. Christ, I said "a few times." I guess if we're not criticizing the way you want us to, then we're not criticizing at all. I have stated before that I am far from an economist. Still, I fail to see how economic research can claim quantify notions like willingness and work ethic. I'm a young liberal, living in Portland, surrounded by Obama supporters. I'm about as close as you can get. Stupid people are on both sides. There were PLENTY of lockstep Bush apologists, even towards the end of his disastrous presidency, that took his words as "gospel." It amazes me that you assume people follow what Obama says because of his skin color. I know your words are intentional. You're basically saying what I said, but leaving out the part about you making it all up so you can have an excuse to dismiss their opinions as invalid. You can't see the difference between Obama's popularity and faith in a religious deity? You're making less and less sense as the year progresses. So do I. "Wrong," however, is subjective. You don't think we criticize Obama because we don't agree with your criticisms. We may have different criticisms, some you may not even agree with. Just because we haven't selected a Fox News approved talking point to get angry about on the Internet doesn't mean we're not critical of the president. I'll tell you what: when Obama botches an invasion of a sovereign nation, I'll make sure to criticize him.
You have yet to point to one item where you've criticized him. Arthur Laffer did some work in this area. You take a look at tax rates and then you compare it to productivity, GDP and tax income received. From there, the only variables are the ones you described. You quantify those fuzzy principles by outlining their borders rather than coloring from the middle. Baaa. Baaaa. What does President Bush have to do with it? It seems every time someone that supports Obama finds themselves in an untenable position, they pull out the Bush card. It's a weak argument getting weaker every day. You don't believe white guilt or black pride played a role in his ascension? Do you believe if President Obama were a howlie who went to Punahao, Occidental, Columbia and Harvard he would be President now? Like it or not, but there were people who voted for him simply because of his skin color. You tell me how Hillary Clinton loses 94% of the black vote to then-Senator Obama if it's not because he's black. And the evidence is anecdotal, but all you do is have to listen to NPR and hear how many white people felt that a black president helped to remove the stain of this country's Original Sin. Again, I'm saying that people have replaced one God with another. Ah, the old "talking point" canard. Go back and find new bumper stickers to shape your ideas. As for being critical of President Obama, I'll believe it when I see it. Until then, you're nothing but an unquestioning shill. I'll tell you what: when Obama botches an invasion of a sovereign nation, I'll make sure to criticize him.[/QUOTE]
