Debates
12 Dec 07
12 Dec 07
Is it in the best interests of society to have an economic model that is dependent on performance? Specifically, when doing poorly, remove market restrictions and taxes, when doing well, add more of them. In other words - the better the economy is doing the more "socialist" programs we should have.
Agree or disagree?
12 Dec 07
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungIt is better to just try and get a level playing field, let the money
Is it in the best interests of society to have an economic model that is dependent on performance? Specifically, when doing poorly, remove market restrictions and taxes, when doing well, add more of them. In other words - the better the economy is doing the more "socialist" programs we should have.
Agree or disagree?
flow where it will by us as long as no one can shut out anyone else
from attempting to do better, more power to them.
I hate the punish the successful as if being successful was some how
a bad thing. Treat everyone the same, flat rates, hit one hit them all.
Kelly
12 Dec 07
Originally posted by KellyJayThere are at least four ways to "treat people the same" regarding schemes of taxation. We could tax everyone the same dollar amount, we could tax everyone the same proportion of their income, we could tax everyone according to their ability to pay, we could tax everyone on the basis of their consumption of public services. Our commitment to liberty and egalitarianism is neutral between these schemes of taxation (at least until further premises are provided).
It is better to just try and get a level playing field, let the money
flow where it will by us as long as no one can shut out anyone else
from attempting to do better, more power to them.
I hate the punish the successful as if being successful was some how
a bad thing. Treat everyone the same, flat rates, hit one hit them all.
Kelly
12 Dec 07
Originally posted by AThousandYoungIs your notion of "doing poorly" an aggregative notion, or is it sensitive to the actual (and perhaps radically unequal) distribution of primary goods?
Is it in the best interests of society to have an economic model that is dependent on performance? Specifically, when doing poorly, remove market restrictions and taxes, when doing well, add more of them. In other words - the better the economy is doing the more "socialist" programs we should have.
Agree or disagree?
12 Dec 07
1 edit
Originally posted by bbarrAggregative if I understand the word correctly. GDP if considering national policies, GSP if state policies, etc.
Is your notion of "doing poorly" an aggregative notion, or is it sensitive to the actual (and perhaps radically unequal) distribution of primary goods?
The idea is to free up the market when the economy needs a boost and tax it when there's tons of money.
12 Dec 07
Originally posted by KellyJayYou neither understand my question nor have the English competence to provide an answer that makes sense.
It is better to just try and get a level playing field, let the money
flow where it will by us as long as no one can shut out anyone else
from attempting to do better, more power to them.
I hate the punish the successful as if being successful was some how
a bad thing. Treat everyone the same, flat rates, hit one hit them all.
Kelly
12 Dec 07
Originally posted by AThousandYoungThis approach is ridiculous. When the economy is doing poorly is when you need the "socialist" programs the most. When the economy is doing well, presumably they would be needed less. Assuming that at least some of that prosperity is being spread around and isn't being hoarded by a rapacious elite. After all, when did the New Deal get launched? During the roaring 20s? No, it was during the depths of the depression.
Is it in the best interests of society to have an economic model that is dependent on performance? Specifically, when doing poorly, remove market restrictions and taxes, when doing well, add more of them. In other words - the better the economy is doing the more "socialist" programs we should have.
Agree or disagree?
12 Dec 07
2 edits
Originally posted by AThousandYoungVery Keynesian. Tax in good times and spend in bad times. The broader consensus among economists these days though is that that sort of policy only makes things worse. While there is still research being done measuring the cost of business cycles under different scenarios, it is generally thought of as very very small. The losses from distorting the economy are larger.
Is it in the best interests of society to have an economic model that is dependent on performance? Specifically, when doing poorly, remove market restrictions and taxes, when doing well, add more of them. In other words - the better the economy is doing the more "socialist" programs we should have.
Agree or disagree?
Under this policy, in good times you encourage people not to save or work as much (because of higher taxes). So what should they do with they're higher income? Consume more of it. Then when bad times come lower taxes encourages them to consume less, work more and save more. In the end, you increase the volatility of consumption over the cycle. Generally, this is thought of as a bad thing. People most often want to have a "smooth" consumption pattern with some upward trend.
Still all normative economic policy questions must respect Arrow's Impossibility Theorem. There is no best social welfare function that we should be trying to maximize. If your main concern is with minimizing the number of poor people, then your preferred "optimal" policy will almost surely be different than that of one who is more concerned with the mean or median household.
12 Dec 07
Originally posted by telerionThanks!
Very Keynesian. Tax in good times and spend in bad times. The broader consensus among economists these days though is that that sort of policy only makes things worse. While there is still research being done measuring the cost of business cycles under different scenarios, it is generally thought of as very very small. The losses from distorting the eco ...[text shortened]... ely be different than that of one who is more concerned with the mean or median household.
12 Dec 07
Originally posted by AThousandYoungStrongly disagree. One need look no further than Cuba, North Korea or the failed Soviet Union to see the effects of communism/socialism: poverty, famine, pestilence and death.
Is it in the best interests of society to have an economic model that is dependent on performance? Specifically, when doing poorly, remove market restrictions and taxes, when doing well, add more of them. In other words - the better the economy is doing the more "socialist" programs we should have.
Agree or disagree?
12 Dec 07
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterCuba's the only country in the world with an acceptable human development index that's consuming less than 1 earth's worth of resources per head. Bad on them!
Strongly disagree. One need look no further than Cuba, North Korea or the failed Soviet Union to see the effects of communism/socialism: poverty, famine, pestilence and death.
12 Dec 07
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterRecalculating the tax rate can hardly be considered as communism.
Strongly disagree. One need look no further than Cuba, North Korea or the failed Soviet Union to see the effects of communism/socialism: poverty, famine, pestilence and death.
12 Dec 07
Originally posted by mrstabbyExactly what is an "acceptable human development index". Can you provide the source for your information ?
Cuba's the only country in the world with an acceptable human development index that's consuming less than 1 earth's worth of resources per head. Bad on them!