From: Kevin Freels (megaquark@hotmail.com)
Date: Mon Sep 15 2003 - 15:13:16 MDT
Having been brough up with a belief in supply-side economics, it is
difficult for me to accept that people who have more taken from them will
work harder.
BUT. As a salesperson, I do know that I closed more loans when I was making
30% than now when making 70%. I'll have to ponder that for a few days.
I think the largest problem with taxation is how the money is spent. If
people didn't realize that they can vote to give themselves more of other
people's money, we would probably have a society that was much more
productive.
Kevin Freels
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Davis" <jrd1415@yahoo.com>
To: <extropians@extropy.org>
Sent: Monday, September 15, 2003 3:46 PM
Subject: RE: POLITICS: Tax reality
> Thanks to Robert and to Reason for their submissions.
> As Robert's cautionary note cautions, this is a
> volatile subject, so all and sundry should be
> respectful and wary and practice safe sects. Reason
> as ever is the soul of, er, reason, ...and moderate
> discourse. Love youse guys.
>
> Two comments if I may.
>
> From Krugman's piece we have the following:
>
> "The starting point of supply-side economics is an
> assertion that no economist would dispute: taxes
> reduce the incentive to work, save and invest."
>
> to which I direct your particular attention. In
> support of the above, the paragraph finishes with:
>
> "A businessman who knows that 70 cents of every extra
> dollar he makes will go to the I.R.S. is less willing
> to make the effort to earn that extra dollar than if
> he knows that the I.R.S. will take only 35 cents. So
> reducing tax rates will, other things being the same,
> spur the economy."
>
> If this is something "that no economist would
> dispute", (I would suppose because the data in support
> of this assertion is rock solid, unrelenting, and
> without flaw, though I've not seen this data
> personally) nevertheless, allow me, for the sake of
> balance, to take the opposing view.
>
> If you tax an (over)achiever, and thus reduce his
> income--take him down a notch from that to which he
> has become accustomed--shall he not then, in
> conformity with his nature, resolve to redouble his
> efforts, work harder, recover that which he has lost,
> and strive as before for ever greater glory, and still
> ever greater glory after that? Camels and capitalists
> aren't quitters. Rather they persevere right up to
> the moment when their back snaps. No?
>
> Thus, it follows that more taxes on the rich, and more
> taxes after that, and after that, motivates
> achievement and drives the engine of productivity.
> (and if there are no economists to support this view,
> perhaps that reflects a uniformity of obeisance to the
> swinishly over-rich, would that I were one.)
>
> In support of this theory of high taxes to optimize
> productivity, I give you two examples: Alabama, with
> low taxes and low everything else (as cited in the
> Krugman piece) and California--or as Spike is wont to
> call it, "Taxifornia"--which is a virtual utopia of
> prosperity arising from hyper-achievement, despite (or
> perhaps in consequence of) a near-crushing tax burden
> (and traffic hell/road rage/fremen training regimen to
> make international terrorism seem a case of hiccups by
> comparison).
>
> PS: I'm not arguing in favor of taxation or other
> Arrakis-style hardening, but rather for a balanced
> view on the theoretical front.
>
> Best, Jeff Davis
>
> "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who
> said it--no matter if I have said it--unless it agrees
> with your own reason and your common sense."
> Buddha
>
> --- Reason <reason@exratio.com> wrote:
> > I suppose I should post the obligatory warning about
> > Krugman; anything he
> > writes should be viewed with extreme suspicion from
> > an economic point of
> > view. Have a look at:
> >
> > http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=1318
> >
> > Reason
> > http://www.exratio.com
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-extropians@extropy.org
> > > [mailto:owner-extropians@extropy.org]On Behalf Of
> > Robert J. Bradbury
> > > Sent: Monday, September 15, 2003 4:12 AM
> > > To: Extropy List
> > > Subject: POLITICS: Tax reality
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I know it is probably unwise for me to post this.
> > But it may
> > > be useful for people in the U.S. as well as
> > foreign observers
> > > of U.S. politics to understand one aspect of the
> > U.S. political
> > > arena.
> > >
> > > Why is this important? Because the politics are
> > driving decisions
> > > that may seriously impact the funds available in
> > the future for
> > > everything from the National Nanotechnology
> > Initiative to DARPA
> > > funding of AI research to biotech and health
> > related research.
> > >
> > > So, save a copy of:
> > >
> > > September 14, 2003
> > > The Tax-Cut Con
> > > By PAUL KRUGMAN
> > >
> >
> http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/14/magazine/14TAXES.html?pagewanted=print
> > >
> > > It is long, but perhaps one can sit down, read it
> > and think about
> > > some points it makes and some potential
> > consequences.
> > >
> > > Mind you, I am not as opposed to deficit funding
> > as I once was --
> > > but I want to see clear evidence that the funds
> > will primarily
> > > be being used to accelerate technology development
> > that will bail
> > > us out. I'm not sure that I see that at this
> > time.
> > >
> > > Interestingly, if one looks at the U.S. "war on
> > terrorism" as well
> > > as the Columbia disaster -- both appear to be
> > costing out at a rate
> > > slightly in excess of $50 million per human life
> > lost. It would be
> > > interesting to compare that with "standard" values
> > of human life
> > > that courts use for wrongful death suits which I
> > would guess are
> > > typically an order of magnitude less.
> > >
> > > Robert
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
> http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Sep 15 2003 - 15:21:30 MDT