🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4qak26$qng@mule2.mindspring.com>, cabernet@mindspring.com
(Keith) wrote:

> 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?

No. No one has ever posted a real copy of it.  If someone does that, or
gives me a URL or tells me about a newapaper story on it, I'll read it
 
> 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.

You never attended a lecture and read the book and you understand the
whole system.  That wasn't a real economics class, then.  Economics can't
be taught straight from a book like that all the time.

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

No.
 
> >Non sequiter.

I didn't write it. 

> 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.

Maybe at Georgia Tech.

> 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.