🚀 go-pugleaf

dmeyers@panix.com (David Meyers) wrote:

>In article <jcwagner-1906961202440001@canberra-12.slip.uiuc.edu> jcwagner@uiuc.edu (Jon Wagner) writes:

>>> Up with the consumption tax.

>>And down with the poor.  Didn't you learn any normative economics in
>>preparing for law school.

The poor gets a refund.  Did you even read the plan?

I scored in the top 5% of an macro economics class at Georgia Tech
(Econ 2002) without attending a lecture.  I made an A in the class and
was able to exempt the final.  Why?  Because I read the book and
understand the whole system.

Normative economics.  Is that based on the normal distribution curve?

>Non sequiter.

How many people really understand Latin?  You are not reaching a broad
audience.  Arrogant prescribed language.

>While a flat, exemptionless consumption tax may be regressive
>with respect to income (while, obviously flat with respect
>to consumption), you are making quite an assumption.

It is a flat rate tax that does have exemptions, usually giving more
exemptions to the poor.

Maybe banks will not have good landscaping because they cannot write
off their landscaping, but they should be able to afford it if they
wish to have good landscaping still because of lower rent.  Oh well,
landscaping would be taxed and the banks would probably not go for it.
There goes the landscaping industry.  Maybe its not a great idea after
all.  Where will all this money get spent?  Its hard to say.  I would
say maybe you would get better quality landscaping.  Who knows.

>A consumption tax which exempts, say, groceries, rent, and
>purchase of primary residence would _greatly_ favor the poor
>who spend most of their income on those very things.

Everyone spends money on gas.  I wonder how much tax gas
would have?

>Then again, as soon as you open the discussion to listing
>exemptions to the tax, you start down the path towards
>the politically twisted tax we have now with its absurdly
>complicated rules for exemption.

Making totally fair and right is a very complicated situation.
Maybe its best left to supply and demand.

>I would have to say the only exemptions I would permit
>would be, perhaps, the first $500/mo of rent and plain,
>uncooked dry beans and rice.  The twinkie lobby would
>oppose me...

Rent would likely not be above $500/month for a nice apartment.
McDonalds would cost over $5 however.

Thanks, the NST might not be such a good plan after all. But the
income tax is just as bad.  Any tax plan will have the plan to bring
in the same amount of revenue. Its just a question of how bad will it
disrupt the current economy, what wil be the side effects,  and how
big of a recession.  

The only good plan is a reduction of the government and making it more
efficient and encouraging the natural economy (the things the PEOPLE
really need and desire and the actual cost of those goods/services in
the most efficient/quality manner), not the normative economy.