Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Lol, you clearly don't understand marginal utility.
By the way here is you entire original post.
Which supported my point, that when I brought up diminishing marginal utility, it was in the context of tax policy, not whether society should be some anarchic Thunderdome in which you can take something from somebody else because you would get more utility from it.
Yep...if you can barely make ends meet, and can't save for retirement, obviously you aren't doing enough to cut the debt. Just ignore the tax cuts for the wealthy, loopholes in the tax structure for the wealthy, and bailouts being used as 6 figure bonuses at AIG.
LOLOLOLOL!!!
Turn the lazy bastards upside down and shake them! I'm sure a few coins will fall out!
Poor people dont have money because they are too busy helping to ring up the national debt, sucking from the tit of the federal government. When the federal government cuts people from welfare, revenues skyrocket while deficits drop.
And what do the poor people then do once they have been cut off - go work the jobs that enable them to earn a living wage?
Which supported my point, that when I brought up diminishing marginal utility, it was in the context of tax policy, not whether society should be some anarchic Thunderdome in which you can take something from somebody else because you would get more utility from it.
So you don't understand the concept of marginal utility. $100 for someone making 10k may mean the difference between food or shelter where as its marginal utility for a billionaire could be used as means to light cigars. So somehow this is rational for taking the billionaires 100 bucks?
So you really didn't mean marginal utility, you meant something more along the lines of each according To his abilities, each according to his needs. An equally repugnant concept.
So you don't understand the concept of marginal utility. $100 for someone making 10k may mean the difference between food or shelter where as its marginal utility for a billionaire could be used as means to light cigars.
This is exactly what I said. $100 to a person making $10k is more important, has more value to that person, than $100 to a person making $100k.
Quote:
So somehow this is rational for taking the billionaires 100 bucks?
If you're the government, and you need to raise $100, and the only two people from whom you can do so are the person making $10k and the person making $100k, one consideration is who would value the $100 less. Here, the person making $100k clearly would, because as you say, $100 to a person making $10k could be the difference between food or shelter. That's the basis by which it may be rational to impose a higher marginal income tax rate on a higher income.
Quote:
So you really didn't mean marginal utility, you meant something more along the lines of each according To his abilities, each according to his needs. An equally repugnant concept.
Please stop putting words in my mouth, you're quite clumsy at it.
You seem very educated in the subject of Corporate taxes. Maybe you can help me understand something.
How does a corporation pay taxes without passing that expense along to their customers?
Are we supposed to let corporations blackmail us into keeping their taxes low, for fear of their raising their rates? What a crock of... stuff!
How about, they pay their taxes like good citizens, and settle for a decent profit margin, instead of an obscene one? Let 'um raise their rates- if they go too high, we stop buying from them, and they go @#$%-up!
And what do the poor people then do once they have been cut off - go work the jobs that enable them to earn a living wage?
Oh wait...they aren't there.
That's the whole problem in the first place.
Thats what they said in the 1990's but they managed to find jobs, lowering the welfare rolls to record levels and balanced the budgets...
Guess its amazing to many that when you make cuts, which result in people working, that revenues increase to the federal government. To some of us, thats common sense..
This is exactly what I said. $100 to a person making $10k is more important, has more value to that person, than $100 to a person making $100k.
If you're the government, and you need to raise $100, and the only two people from whom you can do so are the person making $10k and the person making $100k, one consideration is who would value the $100 less. Here, the person making $100k clearly would, because as you say, $100 to a person making $10k could be the difference between food or shelter. That's the basis by which it may be rational to impose a higher marginal income tax rate on a higher income.
Please stop putting words in my mouth, you're quite clumsy at it.
So we are back where we started, my analogy was right on target.
Now as for where we are to get the 100 bucks. Here's a novel idea. Spend 100 bucks less and you need not confiscate it from anyone.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
