How do we fix the economy???

DDHv wrote:From: http://thecrux.com/are-you-ready-for-hillary/

Politics is the enemy of prosperity.

The secret to prosperity is that wealth isn’t zero-sum. Wealth is not a pizza where if I have too many slices, you have to eat the Domino’s box. We can make more pizza. Everybody wins.

But political power is zero-sum. There’s only one winner in politics. We can’t wedge the fat butts of two congressmen into one seat in the House of Representatives. And we can’t – and wouldn’t want to – build another Oval Office so that Hillary and Donald can both be president.

A comment was made: the two known ways to get wealth are political, which means dividing the pie; or economic, which involves increasing the pie's size or quality.

By this definition, either can be done privately or publicly. The politicos tend to focus on what they know best, even when it works poorly. When people only think about grabbing a larger piece of the pie, the pie tends to get trashed

That´s a stinking pile of crap.

We already KNOW that that bullshit isn´t true.

Well no Tensh. What seems to happen is the people with the biggest share of the pie try for the biggest share of the new pie. (I accidently wrote piggest. It might fit better actually )

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

Someone will always grow their portion of the pie faster than anyone else. The question is will that person generate that wealth honestly by providing services that people want and will pay for or will they use power and influence (government or otherwise) to exhort it from others?

Punishing achievement will ensure the latter.

Annachie wrote:Well no Tensh. What seems to happen is the people with the biggest share of the pie try for the biggest share of the new pie. (I accidently wrote piggest. It might fit better actually )

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

PeterZ wrote:Someone will always grow their portion of the pie faster than anyone else. The question is will that person generate that wealth honestly by providing services that people want and will pay for or will they use power and influence (government or otherwise) to exhort it from others?

Punishing achievement will ensure the latter.

If by "punishing achievement" you mean "taxing higher rates of income more" the relationship is exactly the opposite. NOT taxing higher rates of income at higher levels inevitably results in people taking advantage of that situation to amass massive amounts of wealth and then use said wealth to rig the system in their favor to entrench themselves at the top.

Sure some people will try to do the same thing in any environment... but lowering tax rates on the highest income levels is like taking the brakes off of that process. Or throwing an accelerant on a fire. See: what happened to the US middle class since Reagan took an axe to the top progressive income tax brackets.

PeterZ wrote:Someone will always grow their portion of the pie faster than anyone else. The question is will that person generate that wealth honestly by providing services that people want and will pay for or will they use power and influence (government or otherwise) to exhort it from others?

Punishing achievement will ensure the latter.

Annachie wrote:Well no Tensh. What seems to happen is the people with the biggest share of the pie try for the biggest share of the new pie. (I accidently wrote piggest. It might fit better actually )

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

Growing the pie at what ever rate is not the issue so much as the public dollars it may have taken to "provide the oven"...
Do you have a factory that makes pies? Did you build the infrastructure to get the flour and eggs and other raw materials in? Did you build the water treatment plant for supply and waste water? Did you develop the regulations that make sure you get butter instead of lard? What about the finished product... do you make sure that your competition is not 'cheating' with improper weights and measures or cutting costs by dumping his waste water into that little stream that supported native trout before he go his bakery there?
Or how about the schools where your line employees learn to read and write so they can follow your instructions? The pie baker does not have to do all that just to get their pies out the door.

Some of your pie has to go to support the infrastructure... finding the fair and reasonable way to be sure that no one cheats on this is also part of the infrastructure.

I have said earlier, government is not "a for profit business" it is intended to support the 'climate' in which "for profit business" can operate.
Do a search on Nestle Waters California operation that is pulling from a reservoir in San Bernardino national forest. Even though there is drought, in 2015 the drew 36 million gallons of water and they are still paying 1978 rate of $524 / year while the sold 4 billion $ worth annually. They said it would violate their rights to have to renegotiate and the top government rep said it was too complicated. Now he is a high paid consultant for Nestle.


Stripping the top coat off a road surface every 7 years and conducting proper resurfacing is expensive but it is still cheaper than letting the road fall apart and need to be rebuilt.
Building a school, hiring qualified teachers and keeping the roof from leaking and the light turned on have to be paid for.

I live in a town where the budget is decided by town meeting and a referendum. So far we have had to go through this process three times. The first two times important infrastructure maintenance was cut from the budget. This to me, is the height of foolishness.

It seems that too many people expect far more than they are willing to pay for.

Fix the economy??? Fix the government by starting with term limits then, eliminate the pension and perks of the bureaucrats and former legislatures who take these "THANK YOU GIFT" jobs when their term is over.

Taxes are necessary. Setting rates to punish is not. Moreover setting rates to punish is stupid. 90% marginal income tax rates is punitive.

gcomeau wrote:

PeterZ wrote:Someone will always grow their portion of the pie faster than anyone else. The question is will that person generate that wealth honestly by providing services that people want and will pay for or will they use power and influence (government or otherwise) to exhort it from others?

Punishing achievement will ensure the latter.

If by "punishing achievement" you mean "taxing higher rates of income more" the relationship is exactly the opposite. NOT taxing higher rates of income at higher levels inevitably results in people taking advantage of that situation to amass massive amounts of wealth and then use said wealth to rig the system in their favor to entrench themselves at the top.

Sure some people will try to do the same thing in any environment... but lowering tax rates on the highest income levels is like taking the brakes off of that process. Or throwing an accelerant on a fire. See: what happened to the US middle class since Reagan took an axe to the top progressive income tax brackets.

PeterZ wrote:Taxes are necessary. Setting rates to punish is not. Moreover setting rates to punish is stupid.

Rates were never set to punish, except in the eyes of people who resent paying taxes anyway.

90% marginal income tax rates is punitive.

In what way? It restrains the degree to which people can endlessly amass greater and greater amounts of wealth at a ridiculous pace, but at no point in a marginal income tax structure are you ever WORSE off for making more money.

90% is probably a bit over the top, however people forget that whatever the highest tax rate is no one pays that on all their income. You pay lower rates on each step, then anyone on the highest level has smart accountants to find loopholes and dodges.

gcomeau wrote:

PeterZ wrote:Taxes are necessary. Setting rates to punish is not. Moreover setting rates to punish is stupid.

Rates were never set to punish, except in the eyes of people who resent paying taxes anyway.

90% marginal income tax rates is punitive.

In what way? It restrains the degree to which people can endlessly amass greater and greater amounts of wealth at a ridiculous pace, but at no point in a marginal income tax structure are you ever WORSE off for making more money.

[quote="PeterZ"]Taxes are necessary. Setting rates to punish is not. Moreover setting rates to punish is stupid. 90% marginal income tax rates is punitive.





Yes Peter... Taxes are necessary and they should go where they do the most good for the most people.
When I made reference to my town budget, there were two issues that I would rather not have had to pay... But I understood my responsibility and voted yes on all items.

You do know that, when the federal income tax was instated 1) it was intended to be temporary and 2) only people who made more than 1,000,000 / year paid it.
Congress was also part time job then but once they got the taste for it... worse than a heroin addict They couldn't get enough.
I am not proposing that the top earners pay 90% only that they pay the same rate as Joe six pac who is working two jobs to make ends meet.

Let's discuss income taxes. Are they the best means to tax a sovereign people?

One argument against an unrestricted income tax is that the tax is a tacit assertion that the government owns all of the citizens' income and allow them to keep some of that income. The officials who set the tax at 100% would not be re-elected but they could do it. To some of us the theoretical assertion that government owns all income is disturbing.

I would prefer some sort to sales tax as opposed to the income tax. Taxing income is not responsive to the ebb and flow of the economy. A sales tax incents government to encourage economic activity. The more activity, the more tax revenue. Effectively people voluntarily pay their taxes. Sales tax rates can vary from 0% to some higher number for luxury goods. Let low income people get tax exempt cards. They need to be applied for every year.

Bottom line is that this method is more consistent with voluntary exchange and so morally superior to a system based on compulsion.

C. O. Thompson wrote:Yes Peter... Taxes are necessary and they should go where they do the most good for the most people.
When I made reference to my town budget, there were two issues that I would rather not have had to pay... But I understood my responsibility and voted yes on all items.

You do know that, when the federal income tax was instated 1) it was intended to be temporary and 2) only people who made more than 1,000,000 / year paid it.
Congress was also part time job then but once they got the taste for it... worse than a heroin addict They couldn't get enough.
I am not proposing that the top earners pay 90% only that they pay the same rate as Joe six pac who is working two jobs to make ends meet.