The Flat Tax

[Quantum Windbag]

You're an idiot. That maybe one of the dumbest comments since Stephanie or CrusaderFrank posted.

I was willing to look the other way on your straw man. If you're going to do ad hominem too; it's just time to unsubscribe.

An ad hominem is a personal attack instead of responding to an argument. I called him an idiot simply because he attacked me ("You are afraid of wealth"). The rest of his post was at best vague but included another attack on me ("you don't understand...").

I understand Windbag very well, calling him an idiot was a example of me being nice.

I did not attack you in that post, The attack was when I said your brain is crap.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You're an idiot. That maybe one of the dumbest comments since Stephanie or CrusaderFrank posted.

The wealth does not control the government, if it did Microsoft would never have been hit with an anti trust suit when they refused to pay tribute.

If Microsoft were owned by the Koch brothers methinks the money Mr. Gates donates to good causes would have been spent 'donating' to members of congress to increase their collective wealth.

Microsoft does lobby Congress now, because they learned that god (the government) will demand tribute if they do not pay off the priests.

 

[eagle1462010]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/308099-what-should-the-highest-income-tax-rate-be.html

Already a thread where this topic is being discussed.

So? This thread has a finer point; even if the OP did throw out a straw man. And even it were exactly the same; my point would still be, so?

So what. Take it however you choose. I put data up on that post using IRS data showing actual numbers for a 15% Flat Tax.

I'm not posting that data again on this thread, so I referred the other thread. If you don't want to go there then................Whatever Floats your boat.

 

[Toro]

The tax code is fucking bizarre.

Exempt the first $X, then tax all sources of income at X%.

Done.

 

[Graphix]

If you use certain equipment in a video you may be able to deduct them as a business expense.

 

[Wry Catcher]

the Koch brothers.....Heeeerrre we go ....


so lets see;


New York-Presbyterian Hospital Weill Cornell: $15 million

M.D. Anderson Cancer Center: $25 million

The Hospital for Special Surgery: $26 million

Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center: $30 million

Prostate Cancer Foundation: $41 million

Deerfield Academy: $68 million

Lincoln Center's NY State Theater: $100 million

Massachusetts Institute of Technology: $139 million


Lobbying Spending Database - Koch Industries, 2013 | OpenSecrets

Lobbying Spending Database - Microsoft Corp, 2013 | OpenSecrets


you're such a hackasaurus....

Your opinion, mine is you lie by omission.

 

[The Rabbi]

Your opinion, mine is you lie by omission.

What he posted wasn't opinion, lamebrain.
You just hate wealthy successful people because you've spent your life in LE sucking cock. You're fine with plutocrats making over $200k/yr in public pensions, but not fine with people actually earning that much by working.
You fail to mention any argument against the flat tax other than it might benefit wealthy people. That's your sole concern, Mom he got a bigger piece than me!
In fact flat tax is the fairest thing out there: everyone pays the same. So no off shore bank accounts. No tax loopholes. And especially no non-tax paying voters voting themselves more and more. Maybe that's the part that bothers you.

 

[Politico]

Hey guys and gals. A comment or two would be of interest. 39 stopped by and didn't vote or make a comment. Why?

Because it ain't gonna happen.

 

[Auteur]

If you went to a fooball game, and there were no referees, in fact no sports officials at all, how do you think the game would be played? A kick here, and elbow there, from steroid inflated bruisers? Battles and beatngs on the field? Or worse? Would the sport endure at all?

Wait a minute, you may say, these are professionals, they wouldn't do that. No? What is the record so far, even with the oversight of all kinds of officials?

Ok, you may say, maybe but the ultimate judge would be the fans. They wouldn't go to games that had slid that far. No? What's the evidence? For one thing, with no oversight, fans wouldn't know all that was going on, and so could not make an informed choice. For another, people often make choices that seem illogical, for reasons that don't coorrespond to an intellectual decison about the issue in front to them. For example, a study a few years back found that most fans enjoyed the fights in hockey more than other aspects of the game.

The idea that the "market" will always cause the correct distribution of resources is a simplistic fallacy.

Redistribution through taxes is like having an overall, publicly sanctioned referee for the economy. Building more coal fired power plants might be the most profitable thing to do in the short term, but taking a broader view for society, it is probably a dumb idea. Who's going to say no, unless there is a referee? Tax policy can move a society into more productive, sustainable, pro-social directions than would be the case if left to narrow self interest.

One of the most important aspects of a succesful modern economy is having a functioning middle class. Statistically, those with a middle income tend to spend with the most beneficial effect. Their money goes into the community, to businesses that creat employment. When there is a huge surplus of income, it can often lead to negative effects, such as the recent housing bubble, or stock market run-ups. Tax policy is a way to ensure a vibrant middle class.

A flat tax would simply redistribute wealth upwards, in an economy where this is already a massive problem. The idea that the rich would then use this money in the most pro-social manner is absurd, if history has any meaning at all.

 

[asterism]

If you went to a fooball game, and there were no referees, in fact no sports officials at all, how do you think the game would be played? A kick here, and elbow there, from steroid inflated bruisers? Battles and beatngs on the field? Or worse? Would the sport endure at all?

Wait a minute, you may say, these are professionals, they wouldn't do that. No? What is the record so far, even with the oversight of all kinds of officials?

Ok, you may say, maybe but the ultimate judge would be the fans. They wouldn't go to games that had slid that far. No? What's the evidence? For one thing, with no oversight, fans wouldn't know all that was going on, and so could not make an informed choice. For another, people often make choices that seem illogical, for reasons that don't coorrespond to an intellectual decison about the issue in front to them. For example, a study a few years back found that most fans enjoyed the fights in hockey more than other aspects of the game.

The idea that the "market" will always cause the correct distribution of resources is a simplistic fallacy.

Redistribution through taxes is like having an overall, publicly sanctioned referee for the economy. Building more coal fired power plants might be the most profitable thing to do in the short term, but taking a broader view for society, it is probably a dumb idea. Who's going to say no, unless there is a referee? Tax policy can move a society into more productive, sustainable, pro-social directions than would be the case if left to narrow self interest.

One of the most important aspects of a succesful modern economy is having a functioning middle class. Statistically, those with a middle income tend to spend with the most beneficial effect. Their money goes into the community, to businesses that creat employment. When there is a huge surplus of income, it can often lead to negative effects, such as the recent housing bubble, or stock market run-ups. Tax policy is a way to ensure a vibrant middle class.

A flat tax would simply redistribute wealth upwards, in an economy where this is already a massive problem. The idea that the rich would then use this money in the most pro-social manner is absurd, if history has any meaning at all.

Proper oversight of the stated rules by a non-playing outsider is the referee, not a government entity that steps into the game to sometimes give one team the touchdown because the other team is scoring too much.

 

[asterism]

If you went to a fooball game, and there were no referees, in fact no sports officials at all, how do you think the game would be played? A kick here, and elbow there, from steroid inflated bruisers? Battles and beatngs on the field? Or worse? Would the sport endure at all?

Wait a minute, you may say, these are professionals, they wouldn't do that. No? What is the record so far, even with the oversight of all kinds of officials?

Ok, you may say, maybe but the ultimate judge would be the fans. They wouldn't go to games that had slid that far. No? What's the evidence? For one thing, with no oversight, fans wouldn't know all that was going on, and so could not make an informed choice. For another, people often make choices that seem illogical, for reasons that don't coorrespond to an intellectual decison about the issue in front to them. For example, a study a few years back found that most fans enjoyed the fights in hockey more than other aspects of the game.

The idea that the "market" will always cause the correct distribution of resources is a simplistic fallacy.

Redistribution through taxes is like having an overall, publicly sanctioned referee for the economy. Building more coal fired power plants might be the most profitable thing to do in the short term, but taking a broader view for society, it is probably a dumb idea. Who's going to say no, unless there is a referee? Tax policy can move a society into more productive, sustainable, pro-social directions than would be the case if left to narrow self interest.

One of the most important aspects of a succesful modern economy is having a functioning middle class. Statistically, those with a middle income tend to spend with the most beneficial effect. Their money goes into the community, to businesses that creat employment. When there is a huge surplus of income, it can often lead to negative effects, such as the recent housing bubble, or stock market run-ups. Tax policy is a way to ensure a vibrant middle class.

A flat tax would simply redistribute wealth upwards, in an economy where this is already a massive problem. The idea that the rich would then use this money in the most pro-social manner is absurd, if history has any meaning at all.

You've got that wrong. One of the (if not THE) most important aspects of a successful modern economy is a fair and efficient system of commerce. The result of a successful economy is a strong middle class.

The problem with using the tax code as a means to engineer society is that it does not adequately fund the government.

 

[jasonnfree]

Hey guys and gals. A comment or two would be of interest. 39 stopped by and didn't vote or make a comment. Why?

I voted for the progressive tax. We've had it since before WW1. It helped build america and the middle class. As far as I know, no major countries that used a graduated income have switched to a flat tax. Furthermore when I see republican politicians favoring a flat tax I get suspicious.

 

[The Rabbi]

Hey guys and gals. A comment or two would be of interest. 39 stopped by and didn't vote or make a comment. Why?

I voted for the progressive tax. We've had it since before WW1. It helped build america and the middle class. As far as I know, no major countries that used a graduated income have switched to a flat tax. Furthermore when I see republican politicians favoring a flat tax I get suspicious.

Except for Russia and most of the former combloc, where it has boosted their economies tremendously.
Progressive tax built this country like the atom bomb built Hiroshima.

 

[oldfart]

The idea that the "market" will always cause the correct distribution of resources is a simplistic fallacy.

What makes the "free market" ideology so misleading is that most of the proponents are unaware of the assumptions behind it. To get markets to get to optimal solutions you have to assume the following:

1. Perfect competition in all product, factor, and financial markets, a.k.a. NO LARGE FIRMS.
2. No collusion among market participants, including no trade associations.
3. Perfect information in real time instantly available to all market participants.
4. Perfect knowledge by all market participants of the future with no uncertainty. The market participants must also be immortal.
5. The complete absence of all externalities, both positive and negative (i.e. social cost must equal private cost) in all markets.

This is not a representation of the real world. If people really believe in "market solutions" then they would not obsess on the ideal but would work toward solutions that address these failings and make markets work more like perfectly competitive models. Of course that would mean abandoning 99.44% of all conservative cant, but hey, they don't want to improve things, they just want a political issue.

Redistribution through taxes is like having an overall, publicly sanctioned referee for the economy. Building more coal fired power plants might be the most profitable thing to do in the short term, but taking a broader view for society, it is probably a dumb idea. Who's going to say no, unless there is a referee? Tax policy can move a society into more productive, sustainable, pro-social directions than would be the case if left to narrow self interest.

In the case of the federal government, taxes are a tool of fiscal policy (draining funds from the private sector) and a tool for social and economic policy (tax credits etc). Per se, taxes are not a form of regulation, but they are very important in creating quasi-markets. You can have a regulation, for example, banning mercury emissions in coal fired electric plants above a certain level. Energy producers who are below the emission standards will not change their behavior, no matter how easy it would be. Those who are over the limit do a cost-benefit analysis to determine if it is cheaper to reduce the emissions or pay the fine. Guess what? A lot of the times it's cheaper to pay the fine. But place a tax on the mercury discharge, or better yet issue a fixed number of mercury certificates equal to the goal (say a 50% reduction), and let a market determine who solves the problem and how. Some will buy the certificates, some will change their production methods to reduce mercury, and some will fund research into more cost effect ways to stop mercury emissions. My number two son is a PhD researcher in macromolecular engineering working for a major chemical company who was on that particular project. It shut down 30 days after EPA announced higher thresholds than the industry was anticipating.

One of the most important aspects of a succesful modern economy is having a functioning middle class. Statistically, those with a middle income tend to spend with the most beneficial effect. Their money goes into the community, to businesses that create employment. When there is a huge surplus of income, it can often lead to negative effects, such as the recent housing bubble, or stock market run-ups. Tax policy is a way to ensure a vibrant middle class.

Only if tax policy is intended to support a middle class! It's a value-neutral tool. Since the 80's it has mainly been used to concentrate corporate power in both manufacturing and financial sectors, promote international tax avoidance distorting trade, and redistribute massive amounts of income and wealth to the top 0.01% of households.

A flat tax would simply redistribute wealth upwards, in an economy where this is already a massive problem. The idea that the rich would then use this money in the most pro-social manner is absurd, if history has any meaning at all.

First, you are correct that there is no reason the wealthy would use increased resources in a way the rest of us would deem socially beneficial. There's a good study of charitable giving that makes that point, and the listing of Koch brothers' donations upthread backs it up. Poor and middle class citizens give most of their charitable donations to their church and charities they are familiar with (Red Cross, United Way, rescue missions, youth programs, etc) which support both the middle class itself and people truly in distress. Rich charitable contributions are mostly to medical research and cultural organizations such as the orchestra, ballet, opera, and so forth. PBS may push their cultural programs to entice larger fund raisers, but their true base of support is anchored by Big Bird.

 

[AmazonTania]

What makes the "free market" ideology so misleading is that most of the proponents are unaware of the assumptions behind it. To get markets to get to optimal solutions you have to assume the following:

1. Perfect competition in all product, factor, and financial markets, a.k.a. NO LARGE FIRMS.
2. No collusion among market participants, including no trade associations.
3. Perfect information in real time instantly available to all market participants.
4. Perfect knowledge by all market participants of the future with no uncertainty.
5. The complete absence of all externalities, both positive and negative (i.e. social cost must equal private cost) in all markets.

This is not a representation of the real world. If people really believe in "market solutions" then they would not obsess on the ideal but would work toward solutions that address these failings and make markets work more like perfectly competitive models. Of course that would mean abandoning 99.44% of all conservative cant, but hey, they don't want to improve things, they just want a political issue.

There is nothing misleading about the Free Market. You really just do not understand it. Most of the assumptions are formulated among the opponents, not the proportions.

1. Nothing under free market is designed to prevent large firms. In fact, it encourages their creation. A large firm would never have complete 100% market share in a free market. At all.
2. The only real examples of market collusion are when market intervention is involved. The Free Market is better equipped to deal with this sort of factor.
3. Market participants have all the knowledge they need with the price system. The price system operates in real-time.
4. The role of profits gives market participants a better understanding of what the future holds.
5. Nothing under the Free Market eliminates externalities. Thats a complete misrepresentation of the Free Market.

Keep in mind, we already have two real world Free Market examples to use as guidelines: Hong Kong and Singapore. They're the Freest economies in the world and far better performing. As for working towards solutions, many already do. Free Market economics are generally a response to the failures of market intervention.

 

[oldfart]

What makes the "free market" ideology so misleading is that most of the proponents are unaware of the assumptions behind it. To get markets to get to optimal solutions you have to assume the following:

1. Perfect competition in all product, factor, and financial markets, a.k.a. NO LARGE FIRMS.
2. No collusion among market participants, including no trade associations.
3. Perfect information in real time instantly available to all market participants.
4. Perfect knowledge by all market participants of the future with no uncertainty.
5. The complete absence of all externalities, both positive and negative (i.e. social cost must equal private cost) in all markets.

This is not a representation of the real world. If people really believe in "market solutions" then they would not obsess on the ideal but would work toward solutions that address these failings and make markets work more like perfectly competitive models. Of course that would mean abandoning 99.44% of all conservative cant, but hey, they don't want to improve things, they just want a political issue.

There is nothing misleading about the Free Market. You really just do not understand it. Most of the assumptions are formulated among the opponents, not the proportions.

Actually many of these assumptions have been in classical economic theory since Adam Smith, if not before. Most of them can be found in Alfred Marshall. The best traditional treatment is Joan Robinson's theory of imperfect competition, and there is a recent trend for Nobel's to go to people writing about market asymmetry and information imperfections, including people like Lucas.

I don't know of anyone who opposed free markets, not even Oscar Lange (University of Chicago and Polish Central Planning Board). The economic debate (as opposed to the ideological political debate which is all about money) has always been about how to make markets work more efficiently. The world is as we find it, with externalities and imperfect competition, regulatory capture and imperfect information. The greatest legacy of Milton Friedman (and the reason he is disappearing from the ideological Right, becoming an Unperson) is his exposition of the role of government using a pragmatic standard of what markets can do and what government can do to improve market behavior. It's really Friedman vs Hayek; with von Mises closer to Friedman.

[1]Nothing under free market is designed to prevent large firms. In fact, it encourages their creation. A large firm would never have complete 100% market share in a free market. At all.

The perfect competition model supposes a sufficient number of firms with sufficiently small market share that each views its demand curve as horizontal. The market fixes the price and the firm then determines its output. Supply curves are the aggregate of firm quantity decisions adjusted by firms entering and leaving the market. This model does not allow for branding, ignores location, and like Adam Smith's famous comment, takes a dim view of collusion. Imperfect competition spans a range from minor differentiation a la Joan Robinson (the drugstore on the corner) through progressively more market concentration to oligopoly and duopoly models and ending in outright monopoly. It's the DEGREE of monopoly power that matters, the close to the perfectly competitive model (a flea market) the more the results look like the results of the perfectly competitive model. And the reverse for markets with higher degrees of monopoly or monopsony power. To the degree that any firm can create differentiation and grow, it acquires some monopoly power (from the differentiation if not the size!) and departs from the results of the competitive model.

Now "free markets" do not mean the perfectly competitive model. But I propose that to the degree that "free markets" (I really think the term is way too elastic to have much meaning) depart from the perfectly competitive model, especially in the area of product differentiation, the less the advantages of classical economics perfect competition model will apply.

[2]The only real examples of market collusion are when market intervention is involved. The Free Market is better equipped to deal with this sort of factor.

What market intervention provoked the collusion Adam Smith observed in 1776? Intervention has been the response to collusion, not the other way around.

[3]Market participants have all the knowledge they need with the price system. The price system operates in real-time.

Really? Then we can throw out most of the work of the 80's and 90's. The field was dominated by work on information asymmetry and decision making in conditions of imperfect knowledge.

[4]The role of profits gives market participants a better understanding of what the future holds.

I'm not sure what that means. There is a difference between spot markets and futures markets. Are you referring to futures markets as a time arbitrage?

[5]Nothing under the Free Market eliminates externalities. Thats a complete misrepresentation of the Free Market.

At last we agree! "Free markets" don't handle externalities. But they could. Re-read my argument for market based solutions to pollution above. Voucher plans for education are another example of public policy to achieve social and economic goals by encouraging market-like behavior by participants.

Keep in mind, we already have two real world Free Market examples to use as guidelines: Hong Kong and Singapore. They're the Freest economies in the world and far better performing. As for working towards solutions, many already do. Free Market economics are generally a response to the failures of market intervention.

My answer is that economic policy is a process of trial and error. Hopefully theory and history steer us away from programs that are doomed to fail by inherent flaws. After that, we go with what works and stop doing what doesn't work. Both markets and market intervention will fail some of the time. We should not give up on either. The solution to bad policy is not no policy, it is good policy.

I started my economic career studying the Soviet economy. I doubt you will ever encounter a more severe critic of the central planning model than me. But the extreme "free market" model is equally unworkable. We need to work with some reasonable toolkit rather than be deluded that some form of orthodoxy (anarchistic capitalism or Marxist socialism) is a real solution. I will come down on the side of making the economic system work for the benefit of the participants in general. I believe in Adam Smith's "Invisible Hand", but I also believe as Adam Smith did, that it needs a little help from proper government policy.

Best always,

Jamie

 

[Foxfyre]

Because your OP is crap.
"The truth..."

Why is the OP "crap"?

This is your OP

Demagoguery at its finest. No one likes to pay taxes, but few of us would want government services curtailed to the extent a flat tax of 10% would cause. Some people seem to believe that those who pay a top rate of 90% do so on all of their income. Most of us know that is not true.

The truth being a billionaire pays the same tax that I do and all of us do on equal earnings. The rate goes up on schedules listed in the tax booklet as does income. A flat rate would simply increase the amount of wealth of the very wealthy, rapidly and enormously.

Wealth = Power, and in a society where money can buy political ads and influence our road to a pure Plutocracy would be facilitated by a 10% flat tax. Hence, those Libertarian types who claim to support Liberty and Freedom for the individual really don't. For economic slavery is little different than confinement.

It is crap because of the unsupportable notion that a flat tax would somehow lead to a plutocracy. Don't you know that we already have that? We have a professional ruling class who keeps itself in power and is constantly increasing its power by removing almost half the people from the tax roles and promising them cradle to grave security. That ensures they keep voting for the ruling class and they don't care how much in taxes the rest of us pay.

Do you honestly in your wildest dreams think funneling more money from wealthier Americans to that ruling class will somehow make anything more equal? And the more punishment inflicted on those wealthiest Americans, the less their money will be available in any form to help the rest of us.

A flat tax that everybody, rich and poor alike pays, would mean that everybody has some skin in the game. Changes in the tax code would be felt by those the ruling class depends on to keep them in power, and that means that policy would likely be more advantageous to all of us. It would be an excellent first step to begin wresting the control and total power from that ruling class and restoring it to the American people where it belongs.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What makes the "free market" ideology so misleading is that most of the proponents are unaware of the assumptions behind it. To get markets to get to optimal solutions you have to assume the following:

1. Perfect competition in all product, factor, and financial markets, a.k.a. NO LARGE FIRMS.
2. No collusion among market participants, including no trade associations.
3. Perfect information in real time instantly available to all market participants.
4. Perfect knowledge by all market participants of the future with no uncertainty. The market participants must also be immortal.
5. The complete absence of all externalities, both positive and negative (i.e. social cost must equal private cost) in all markets.

Why do I have to assume stupid things that have nothing to do with free markets in order to believe in free markets?

This is not a representation of the real world. If people really believe in "market solutions" then they would not obsess on the ideal but would work toward solutions that address these failings and make markets work more like perfectly competitive models. Of course that would mean abandoning 99.44% of all conservative cant, but hey, they don't want to improve things, they just want a political issue.

They are not representative of anything other than your delusions. You cannot find a single pro free market economist that ever made assumptions like this. The only place I ever see them is on internet blogs written by idiots who think that the only way to have a vibrant economy is to have the government planning it. Even Marxist economists that oppose free market solutions do not argue that a free market requires perfect knowledge among all participants, they leave that position for the drooling idiots that think that 9/11 was an inside job.

In the case of the federal government, taxes are a tool of fiscal policy (draining funds from the private sector) and a tool for social and economic policy (tax credits etc). Per se, taxes are not a form of regulation, but they are very important in creating quasi-markets. You can have a regulation, for example, banning mercury emissions in coal fired electric plants above a certain level. Energy producers who are below the emission standards will not change their behavior, no matter how easy it would be. Those who are over the limit do a cost-benefit analysis to determine if it is cheaper to reduce the emissions or pay the fine. Guess what? A lot of the times it's cheaper to pay the fine. But place a tax on the mercury discharge, or better yet issue a fixed number of mercury certificates equal to the goal (say a 50% reduction), and let a market determine who solves the problem and how. Some will buy the certificates, some will change their production methods to reduce mercury, and some will fund research into more cost effect ways to stop mercury emissions. My number two son is a PhD researcher in macromolecular engineering working for a major chemical company who was on that particular project. It shut down 30 days after EPA announced higher thresholds than the industry was anticipating.

Which is exactly why we need to rewrite the tax code. Taxes should exist only to provide revenue for the government, and impact everyone equally. Anything else is a violation of the rule of law.

Only if tax policy is intended to support a middle class! It's a value-neutral tool. Since the 80's it has mainly been used to concentrate corporate power in both manufacturing and financial sectors, promote international tax avoidance distorting trade, and redistribute massive amounts of income and wealth to the top 0.01% of households.

No it hasn't, but thanks for proving me right about you being a whacko fringe idiot, and not a serious thinker in economics.

First, you are correct that there is no reason the wealthy would use increased resources in a way the rest of us would deem socially beneficial. There's a good study of charitable giving that makes that point, and the listing of Koch brothers' donations upthread backs it up. Poor and middle class citizens give most of their charitable donations to their church and charities they are familiar with (Red Cross, United Way, rescue missions, youth programs, etc) which support both the middle class itself and people truly in distress. Rich charitable contributions are mostly to medical research and cultural organizations such as the orchestra, ballet, opera, and so forth. PBS may push their cultural programs to entice larger fund raisers, but their true base of support is anchored by Big Bird.

Charities do not support the middle class.

Idiot.

 

[Auteur]

If you went to a fooball game, and there were no referees, in fact no sports officials at all, how do you think the game would be played? A kick here, and elbow there, from steroid inflated bruisers? Battles and beatngs on the field? Or worse? Would the sport endure at all?

Wait a minute, you may say, these are professionals, they wouldn't do that. No? What is the record so far, even with the oversight of all kinds of officials?

Ok, you may say, maybe but the ultimate judge would be the fans. They wouldn't go to games that had slid that far. No? What's the evidence? For one thing, with no oversight, fans wouldn't know all that was going on, and so could not make an informed choice. For another, people often make choices that seem illogical, for reasons that don't coorrespond to an intellectual decison about the issue in front to them. For example, a study a few years back found that most fans enjoyed the fights in hockey more than other aspects of the game.

The idea that the "market" will always cause the correct distribution of resources is a simplistic fallacy.

Redistribution through taxes is like having an overall, publicly sanctioned referee for the economy. Building more coal fired power plants might be the most profitable thing to do in the short term, but taking a broader view for society, it is probably a dumb idea. Who's going to say no, unless there is a referee? Tax policy can move a society into more productive, sustainable, pro-social directions than would be the case if left to narrow self interest.

One of the most important aspects of a succesful modern economy is having a functioning middle class. Statistically, those with a middle income tend to spend with the most beneficial effect. Their money goes into the community, to businesses that creat employment. When there is a huge surplus of income, it can often lead to negative effects, such as the recent housing bubble, or stock market run-ups. Tax policy is a way to ensure a vibrant middle class.

A flat tax would simply redistribute wealth upwards, in an economy where this is already a massive problem. The idea that the rich would then use this money in the most pro-social manner is absurd, if history has any meaning at all.

You've got that wrong. One of the (if not THE) most important aspects of a successful modern economy is a fair and efficient system of commerce. The result of a successful economy is a strong middle class.

The problem with using the tax code as a means to engineer society is that it does not adequately fund the government.

Yes, we want a fair and efficient system of commerce, but a strong middle class is not necessarily an outcome of this. Today the middle class is atrophying, and it is not because of the fairness or unfairness of markets, but due to techological change, and to the social and political paradigm that has arisen, partly due to fundamental change, and partly due to the spin of those whose goal is self-interest.

 

[The Rabbi]

If you went to a fooball game, and there were no referees, in fact no sports officials at all, how do you think the game would be played? A kick here, and elbow there, from steroid inflated bruisers? Battles and beatngs on the field? Or worse? Would the sport endure at all?

Wait a minute, you may say, these are professionals, they wouldn't do that. No? What is the record so far, even with the oversight of all kinds of officials?

Ok, you may say, maybe but the ultimate judge would be the fans. They wouldn't go to games that had slid that far. No? What's the evidence? For one thing, with no oversight, fans wouldn't know all that was going on, and so could not make an informed choice. For another, people often make choices that seem illogical, for reasons that don't coorrespond to an intellectual decison about the issue in front to them. For example, a study a few years back found that most fans enjoyed the fights in hockey more than other aspects of the game.

The idea that the "market" will always cause the correct distribution of resources is a simplistic fallacy.

Redistribution through taxes is like having an overall, publicly sanctioned referee for the economy. Building more coal fired power plants might be the most profitable thing to do in the short term, but taking a broader view for society, it is probably a dumb idea. Who's going to say no, unless there is a referee? Tax policy can move a society into more productive, sustainable, pro-social directions than would be the case if left to narrow self interest.

One of the most important aspects of a succesful modern economy is having a functioning middle class. Statistically, those with a middle income tend to spend with the most beneficial effect. Their money goes into the community, to businesses that creat employment. When there is a huge surplus of income, it can often lead to negative effects, such as the recent housing bubble, or stock market run-ups. Tax policy is a way to ensure a vibrant middle class.

A flat tax would simply redistribute wealth upwards, in an economy where this is already a massive problem. The idea that the rich would then use this money in the most pro-social manner is absurd, if history has any meaning at all.

You've got that wrong. One of the (if not THE) most important aspects of a successful modern economy is a fair and efficient system of commerce. The result of a successful economy is a strong middle class.

The problem with using the tax code as a means to engineer society is that it does not adequately fund the government.

Yes, we want a fair and efficient system of commerce, but a strong middle class is not necessarily an outcome of this. Today the middle class is atrophying, and it is not because of the fairness or unfairness of markets, but due to techological change, and to the social and political paradigm that has arisen, partly due to fundamental change, and partly due to the spin of those whose goal is self-interest.

The middle class is not atrophying. That is nonsense. Incomes and household wealth are down, not because of the market but because of gov't intervention in the market. If we undid everything the gov't did for the last 6 years, including under Bush, we would see normal growth rates of 6 and 7%.