If you reread what I said, I did not say taxation of rich or poor people, I said taxation of BUSINESS ENTITIES.

business entities do the following:

-Provide dividend payments and stock value as the major income of the rich.

-Provide dividend payments and stock value as income for 401K retirement plans and saving accounts.

-Provide employment and salary to the middle class and poor.

By cutting tax on business you increase all of the above, that is why the rich and the poor got richer in the real example given here.

By increasing tax on business you decrease all of the above. Harming the rich, the middle class, and the poor.

 

Also what I was describing was in a sane economy.  If you decide to do wealth redistribution (communism) as in your example you will immidiately destroy the economy (all the rich LEAVE the country or stop working to become poor. Making everyone dirt poor). Russia was socialist in a perpetual "transition period" towards communism... zimbabwe is a good example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zimbabwe#Economy

In the VERY short term it is... they will be less poor for a few months as they spend the money that was given to them (after being taken)... but they will soon run out and be poorer than before. again, note zimbabwe

Well to be picky, a business would cover one run by an individual (sole trader), and hence personal taxation would be applicable, as opposed to a company which would be a separate legal entity and hence have corporation tax apply (although to be fair at some point I forgot the specific mention of business that you gave and looked more at rich/poor, so hence could've tailored my answer a bit better).

Anyway, if talking about companies, the same effects can also occur. If companies taxes are increased, that means they will likely reduce employment slightly and/or increase prices. However the end effect on the poor can still be positive, since they're getting the money from the company.

Wealth redistribution isn't communism. Communism is simply the extreme where (in pure form) you take all the income from everyone and have the state redistribute it. To argue redistribution is communism is to argue almost all of the developed countries are really communist states! As for "all" the rich leaving, again that's wrong. Some may leave, but not all, because money isn't the only consideration here (and even if it was, income after taxation wouldn't be the sole consideration) - you have the (1-off) relocation expenses, the fact that you will move away from all your friends+family, you might not be moving to an english speaking country, etc. etc., meaning you can increase taxes on the rich to make the poor richer. The same with companies, although slightly differently - as long as you can make profits, you'll have companies. An increase in tax won't remove profits, it'll simply affect the return provided. So, some companies may relocate, but not all.

A poor example, which suggests you're confusing taxation with property rights. Zimbabwe has suffered (in part) because they've ignored property rights, which form the backbone to a functioning economy. Remove them, and people will no longer be confident that they will be able to keep any of the benefits of a risk they've taken by say setting up a business or company. Companies won't want to invest for fear that the state just comes in and takes it all over, and the end result is you have an economy at deaths door. That's before you get into the issues of taking say farms away from the productive+more efficient people of society, and giving it to the less efficient ones, which obviously then reduces efficiency/productivity (ontop of the damaging effects of the destruction of property rights). Also I'm assuming we're talking about the more general taxes on income/profits (i.e. % based) as opposed to windfall taxes which would bear a bit more relation to the extreme cases such as zimbabwe.

Oh Leauki, at it again I see.

Actually, in this regard you are the ignoramus my good fellow!

You accuse me of always making up the facts to fit the situation, and yet I routinely provide my sources.

So, in regards to Chile much of my information comes from this book:

http://www.naomiklein.org/shock-doctrine

It's called the Shock Doctrine. It spends a great deal of time looking at what hapenned in Chile, economically and politically. There is an exhaustive bibliography quoting all of the sources she used in her book, which you are more than free to peruse!

Did the GDP grow under Pinochet?

Yes, absolutely. Show me where I ever disputed that.

Did standards of living increase along with the GDP for the average person?

Not by a long shot! In fact, for the average joe quality of life went into the toilet, while a very few elite were awash in unbelievable wealth. Holding to my original position, if you knew anything about Chile's history beyond a few paragraphs on wikipedia you'd know that the 70's under pinochet were a very dark time for most and a brilliant time of luxury for a very few.

But as I always have openly stated, I am an absolute idiot. Don't take my word for it. Read the book. In fact, I will buy this book and ship it to you, if you would trust me to do so. No lie. You can order it online very easily, chances are good you can get it in your local bookstore.

In fact, in this same book Naomi Klein also has some very interesting things to say about Israel and the Palestinian situation. I recommend you read it for that alone if nothing else.

Please, forgive me. I was unaware that you were driving a Merkava across the border into Lebanon (or were you piloting an F-16? I'm a little shady on that)

Ah yes, Iraq again. So, how much poison gas did Saddam have by the time that the U.S invaded in 2003?

And how large was AQ in Iraq when the U.S invaded? Did they have division sized headquarters setup to export terror around the world? Please provide sources!

Again, the Iraq invasion WOULD NOT have hapenned if the U.S people did not feel threatened by Iraq.

That threat was manufactured.

At the time of the invasion, Iraq had a very small amount of gas that was decades old.

And Iraq had no connection to 9/11.

There was no massive presence in Iraq of AQ prior to the U.S occupation.

In fact, Kuwait and Israel weren't concerned about Iraq as a threat at all, with Israel pushing the U.S to do more about Iran than Iraq.

But, you regularly accuse me of making things up.

Here is the U.S president admitting that Iraq had no WMD's and had nothing to do with 9/11

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_A77N5WKWM

but, before that there was this wonderful speech telling us that Iraq had WMD's, was hiding them, was lying about them, and was planning on using them against us;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJEIAuUQDAc&feature=related

And, never mind that Bush went on tv and stated that Iraq was trying to get uranium from Nigeria, an accusation which was proven false and which resulted in a CIA undercover operative being revealed by a member of the White House. A member who was instantly pardoned by the president after being convicted. hhhmmmm.........

Actually, you never do. Do you think you are known for providing sources? I think this is the first time I ever saw a posting of yours with links!

Trust me. I never ever do. You are the most unreliable source I know of. Whatever you tell me, I can safely assume that the exact opposite is true. It has been hilarious.

I never said it did. The fact that George Bush also "admits" that Iraq had nothing to do with 911 doesn't surprise me.

Except in Halabja. I was there. People told me.

 

Thanks for the sources.

Next time please give sources for things you said which someone actually doubted, not other things that we hadn't even discussed and possibly never disagreed about (Iraq and 911).

 

I have heard other reports.

Plus I don't even know how you can tell the age of a gas that falls apart within weeks and then remains the same for decades. I have seen pictures of the gas being used in civilians from 15 years before the invasion. How could it have been "decades old" if it had been used less than 20 years before?

 

 

 

 

Incidentally,

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9384

The book you refer to as a "source" regarding Chile is an opinion about the economy, NOT a collection of facts.

Assuming that by "source" you mean opinions that agree with you (rather than facts which might or might not agree with you), I think I remember you giving a "source" once before. It was also an opinion based on no obvious research.

Now, the DATA Naomi Klein based her opinion/book on would be a "source".

 

It was and is politically impossible to invade Iran. It would also be the wrong strategy. Iraq had violated a cease-fire several times. It was a reasonable assumption that international law would be applied and that the UN would allow the invasion. The UN refused to follow international law, so the coalition went "alone".

I can tell you that Israel and Kuwait were concerned about Iraq as a threat, given that Israel was still suffering from Iraq-funded terrorist attacks and Kuwait was still trying to find out what happened to their citizens abducted by Iraq during the occupation.

It's the old thing again: you are telling me one thing and the locals are telling me something else. And, obviously, you are right and they are wrong.

 

"If wealth is not distributed then we will go back to the days of debtor prisons and company towns in which the workers are forever beholden to the company store for their entire lives....coal mining towns from the 19th century anyone?" Great treatise. The trickle down theorists--concerned only for themselves who might accidentally share--did not have Henry Ford in mind who really believed that in the long run sharing pays off.

"So you are basically telling us that you use the word "redistribution" not for the act of redistributing wealth from X to Y but for the act of refraining from doing so?" On the contrary, it is the process of subverting the progressive system that served the nation for decades in order to unleash thievery on the national treasury, thereby reversing distributive value.

CharlesCS: I'm old enough to rely on memory, thank you very much. Carter vetoed the congressional move to drop the margin from 70-50%. Reagan moved into make it a reality and then in the mid 80s dropped it to 28%--and regrettably with Democrats help. "YOu are wrong on so many points. First, Reagan did not "redistribute" anything. He took less. Redistribute means to take from those that have, and give to those who dont have (even if they have some, they get more than they had). Second, you are 100% wrong on tax shelters. The fact that the percent of taxes paid by the wealthiest actually increased significantly because it no longer paid to put money in tax shelters blows part 2 of your diatribe out of the water." The redistribution was invented by McCain not me. Nevertheless, the immediate effect of the tax drop was a dramatic drop in revenue sharing to the states, education aid dwindled, medical costs exploded because the larger profits thanks to lower taxes jumped. Tax shelters other than trusts and charities were not a big deal until all kinds of ways to defer tax became the norm. As for union busting, Reagan betrayed the actors guild and became anti-union as Cal gov. Larry Kuperman: RIGHT ON!

That doesn't make any sense. The "progressive system" is a redistribution system. "Subverting" it thus means stopping redistribution.

(I assume "subverting" is the new double-speak for "disagreeing with"?)

 

You just love to nitpick. I mentioned that I did not invent redistribution and used in the context of McCain. "Subverting" means just that; the Reagan era definitely undermined a system that was working well.

The most generous country in the world in voluntary giving, both to our own citizens in need and those of other countries, and you consider it an 'accident' on the part of people 'concerned only for themselves.'  Arrogant demagogic class warfare.

You can obfuscate all you want but income redistribution (not 'spreading the wealth' - that's a fiction intended to buy votes) which is the objective of BO & the Dems is not 'progressive' anything.  A nation that decides to no longer reward hard work & success is a nation that deserves what it gets.

With regards to my "long"--relative--lapses in not commenting it is precisely this glitch where I cannot capture quotes without block and paste on the quick reply blue screen. It is annoying. I followed Doc's advice and deleted forum cookies but it didn't help.

The most generous country in the world in voluntary giving unless, of course, you include the cost of DOD expenditures in keeping the "Peace" globally. Satistically this doesn't hold up when you consider percapita aid and percentages of wealth. A nation that decides to no longer reward hard work & success is a nation that deserves what it gets. We have always done that! It's just too bad you don't include the real plumbers and waitress.

I take it "undermine" is another word for "reform"?

Boy, when Obama wins, we'll have to face lots of new-speak, don't we?

In just a few months Americans who used to disagree with the President will be subverting his policies. And instead of wanting reform, they'll try to undermine his plans. I wonder if there is any other new words we will have to get used to.

 

Try a different Web browser.