<p>50g50g - I am criticizing your argument, not you. </p>
<p>Let me also suggest that you study patterns of intergenerational wealth (that is, how much change occurs between generations in terms of particular families’ wealth) in countries where there are redistristributive policies and ones where there are not. If you do so, you’ll find that some modicum of redistribution is necessary to prevent the development and continuation of firmly entrenched classes. When class differences are stark and nondynamic, the degree to which one works hard has little to no connection to how much money one makes and accumulates. Redistributive policies are exactly what enable hard work to matter for success.</p>
<p>My comments are not ideological – they are based on the way the world works. The field of research sometimes is called political economy.</p>
<p>If you have an Amazon account, then use the “search inside this book” feature to read from page 14 (to get to page 14, you can search the book for the word “money,” then click the link to page 14, then read until the excerpt stops on page 16, and then search for another word that’s on page 16, click the link to 16, and then read until that excerpt stops, etc. keep searching the key words to hit the next page…hehe I am an Amazon cheater :)). It’s a bit inconvenient and for some reason some of the words won’t show up…might as well go buy the book or get it from the lib.</p>
<p>^Well, no, Amazon isn’t that stupid. You can’t read more than like 20 pages using that method and it’s really annoying, but it’s useful when you know what chapter of a book you need, like now. Because otherwise you’re just stuck with the given excerpt which is just the first 10-20 pages, half of which is blank or Table of Contents.</p>
<p>Using the book that you mentioned, I searched “president” and the search results give me most of the pages in the book. Does Amazon stop you [removes the “Search Inside This Book” option] after you’ve read 20 pages?</p>
<p>^Yeah, it’s weird. Even if you log in again and try to go to a different link, you can’t get to the later pages. It figures you out. I dunno–the system has changed a bit over the past year or so. I’m not sure how much you can do anymore.</p>
<p>The money you have and the money your parents earned were made possible by a governmental system that built roads, regulated financial markets, educated citizens, provided security, and eradicated diseases, among other things. Countries with weak governments are not more prosperous, they are weak and chaotic. No one wants to invest in them.</p>
<p>When you undermine progressive taxation, you undermine government’s ability to create the conditions for prosperity. When you uphold the idea that “it’s my money, I get to keep all of it,” you undermine the government activities that create an educated workforce and a transparent and competitive market system.</p>
The income tax, in general, is idiotic because it hurts productivity. Why someone would want to make our most productive citizens less productive is ludicrious.</p>
<p>^Lol sigh. Don’t you realize the income tax is what goes toward building that society that enabled the income-earner to earn the income in the first place? That enabled the system of income to even come into existence???</p>
<p>I remember when during the Clinton years, Republicans claimed that his tax policy would absolutely, positively KILL the economy. Instead, we had a period of strong economic growth, productivity increases, and fairly good economic distribution – all much better than what we have today.</p>
<p>What EVIDENCE do you have that income tax hurts productivity? Are there years where productivity declined after the income tax went up? If you compare states by state income tax and productivity, what do you see? How about it – want to make an ideological claim or want to prove something with evidence?</p>
<p>Kind of reminds me of those who say that raising the minimum wage decreases employment – except there’s no evidence that it does!!</p>
<p>momfromme if memory serves, there was a huge downturn in the economy right after Clinton, so there is your evidence right there. Also, you are forgetting about the remarkable progress our economy has made since Bush’s tax cuts. And I think Mr Payne is talking about graduated income taxes.</p>
<p>I really shouldn’t get involved… I really shouldn’t… I want to just walk away… but nobody yet has said what I’m about to say.</p>
<p>
Money is something that we exchange for goods and services. It gets changed around from person to person, from place to place with every transaction. When you earn money, you take it away from someone else. When you spend money, it goes from you to someone else. </p>
<p>Grades are not like this. Every percentage point you earn doesn’t take away a percentage point from someone else. Likewise, you can’t exchange your points for anything (unless it’s an arrangement made by the teacher). Once you’ve earned it, it’s there. It’s yours. There’s nothing you can do with it–though you do get nonmaterial rewards for it, like honors, scholarships, and job opportunities (if you feel like considering that “nonmaterial”), though in a conventional sense there’s no “rate” like there are prices. It’s more of a subjective thing; if someone thinks you’ve done well enough and gotten a high enough grade, then they reward you for it. If they think your grade has gotten too low, then they set up consequences for that, too. But they’re not life, death, health, sickness, food on the table, no food on the table sort of consequences.</p>
<p>I’m not refusing to pay taxes, I’m saying the govt. has no right to take from the rich and give to the poor. For what it’s worth, I’m at about the basement of the tax bracket, so this isn’t me being selfish saying they shouldn’t be taking my money, this is me saying I don’t want other people’s money.</p>
<p>So tax increases in 1993 produce a downturn in 2001? That’s your evidence? Very silly!!! No economist would ever argue that. And I thought GW Bush said the economy tanked because of 9/11. Even he didn’t blame Clinton.</p>
<p>Govt takes from all of us – not just the rich. And then govt provides services that benefit all of us. The vast majority of government spending has nothing to do with helping the poor per se. Even if it did, wouldn’t that help all of us? After all, is a good society one with an underclass that can’t climb its way out of poverty?</p>
<p>By the way, what do you think of a federal tax system that allows a lot of one’s mortgage payment to be a tax deduction while (for federal taxes) none of one’s rent payment is a tax deduction? This is a tax arrangement that is far more helpful to middle and upper class people than the poor.</p>
<p>Anniushka your point is completely moot because it is not in sync the context of the analogy. The analogy is presenting a situation where grades CAN be exchanged, and that is what the girl finds disagreeable. </p>
<p>And momfromme, what made you think I agreed with President Bush’s reasoning? As a matter of fact, the economic downturn started happening before 9/11. 9/11 just sent it down even farther. And I don’t see why the belief in problematic long-term effects of Clinton’s fiscal policy is silly. The other thing is that you still fail to recognize the recent economic progress. Also, your point about providing government services is moot as well. What we are saying is why should the rich have to pay more for government services than everyone else, especially since the poor are relying more on government services than the rich.</p>