Keynesian Job Program / Stimulus Plan

[Taco John]

[La literatura]

Originally Posted by listopencil

Mmmm. The things I would do to that woman.

I would pay her taxes and Blue Ivey's nanny for two years to hear her fart through the telephone /chiefsplanet

[listopencil]

Originally Posted by La literatura

Thanks for the post. I don't believe that the poor would pay less taxes, however. I actually think they would pay a lot more as a percentage of their income than they do now. Poor people generally spend all the money they get on consumer goods. Even middle class people often live paycheck to paycheck and put just a small amount towards savings, and rely on their employer matching their retirement funds and rely on that.

The people who would benefit from a consumption tax are entirely the rich. They already benefit from the "progressive" (now, it's almost regressive) income tax model right now, and it's created huge wealth inequality.

I think the better solution is to close loopholes and special interests for most of the rich and middle class, but rates at their moment are good.

That's certainly true. I don't think the poor would pay less taxes mostly because they don't really pay taxes, they just wouldn't be getting that big tax return at the end of the year. The consumption tax I had in mind would be dependent on the amount of the transaction. Similar to sales tax. Certain staples (milk, bread, rent up to a certain amount, etc.) could be exempt from consumption tax if it looks like it's going to end up screwing the poor over. Luxury items (large boats and other high dollar properties, nonessential high-end services, etc.) could entail a higher consumption tax if that proves necessary. Even a combination of a low flat income tax with a consumption tax might work.

[listopencil]

Originally Posted by La literatura

I would pay her taxes and Blue Ivey's nanny for two years to hear her fart through the telephone /chiefsplanet

Oh shit, the lights just went out at the Super Bowl. For God's sake make sure that Ray Lewis doesn't have a knife.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by La literatura

Please read more carefully.

Ok, I misread that. So where are you confused, because a Roth IRA (taxed on front end but not on back end) is the opposite as a consumption tax (untaxed on front end, taxed on back end)? You should be using a traditional IRA for your examples, but even then you aren't dealing with IRA limitations and early withdrawal penalties.

[La literatura]

Originally Posted by patteeu

Ok, I misread that. So where are you confused, because a Roth IRA (taxed on front end but not on back end) is the opposite as a consumption tax (untaxed on front end, taxed on back end)? You should be using a traditional IRA for your examples, but even then you aren't dealing with IRA limitations and early withdrawal penalties.

I never compared an IRA to a consumption tax. I only said that it's possible (very possible, in fact) to save enough to build a nice little nest egg, even with an income tax. This was my response to a comment which I took to basically say, "We would be able to save a nice little nest egg if we didn't have an income tax, but rather had a consumption tax."

[listopencil]

Originally Posted by La literatura

I never compared an IRA to a consumption tax. I only said that it's possible (very possible, in fact) to save enough to build a nice little nest egg, even with an income tax. This was my response to a comment which I took to basically say, "We would be able to save a nice little nest egg if we didn't have an income tax, but rather had a consumption tax."

Imagine if you paid no tax on money that you saved, though.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by La literatura

I never compared an IRA to a consumption tax. I only said that it's possible (very possible, in fact) to save enough to build a nice little nest egg, even with an income tax. This was my response to a comment which I took to basically say, "We would be able to save a nice little nest egg if we didn't have an income tax, but rather had a consumption tax."

No, as I've already pointed out once before, you said we can "do all of that". The fact is that we can't do all of that. We can only do some of that. You were wrong.

[La literatura]

Originally Posted by listopencil

Imagine if you paid no tax on money that you saved, though.

So instead of a $5.5K limit, you would want no limit?

[listopencil]

Originally Posted by La literatura

So instead of a $5.5K limit, you would want no limit?

I want to abolish the income tax system. It's badly broken. I don't want savings to be taxed at all.

[Comrade Crapski]

Jenson paid no taxes because he doesn't work. Like Sandra Fluke, he'll be a professional student until he's in his thirties.

He'll also still be a virgin (unless getting ****ed up the ass counts).

[La literatura]

Originally Posted by Comrade Crapski

Jenson paid no taxes because he doesn't work. Like Sandra Fluke, he'll be a professional student until he's in his thirties.

He'll also still be a virgin (unless getting ****ed up the ass counts).

You've just outlined my 10 year plan.

[Comrade Crapski]

The picture is unequivocal. During the four years that the U.S. government has dubbed "an economic recovery" the U.S. economy has been losing jobs at the fastest rate in recorded history for every year of this so-called recovery.

Having a background in economics and statistics, I've explained in numerous commentaries precisely how andwhy the concocted "statistics" claiming to show "new jobs" have no basis in reality. The problem is that unless readers themselves have a reasonably sophisticated understanding of the mathematics involved, it may be difficult for them to follow such reasoning.

However, everyone can understand a line going straight down. This is the U.S. labor market, and has been for the past four years: a line going straight down. There is no set of conditions where a line going straight down can translate into "more jobs."

This is the only "unadjusted" labor statistic produced by the U.S. government -- therefore it must represent the truth. What does that make all of the "adjusted" numbers purporting to show the U.S. economy "adding jobs" month after month after month?

That's right: lies.

http://www.thestreet.com/story/11862...?kval=dontmiss

[patteeu]

He makes a nice speech though. That's about the only thing that separates him from Jimmy Carter.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by Brainiac

I've said in the past on this site that Keynes is undoubtedly spinning in his grave in horror at how his economic philosophy has been twisted and distorted by the current gang in Washington. Keynes proposed intentionally running surpluses in good times and deficits during economic downturns. He didn't propose running trillion dollar deficits every freaking year and having the government provide everything from the cradle to the grave.

Referring to Obamanomics as Keynesian is akin to saying that Scott ***** is running the Chiefs just like the New England Patriots.




.

Here's where Keynes screwed up though: He trusted politicians with money. It's a system that enables politicians to spend. This one point alone makes it fundamentally flawed. Central planning, a plank of socialism, never works. Never.