Facing enormous federal budget deficits at a time when we are not paying teachers enough, not repairing our roads, bridges, and municipal water supply systems, and not inspecting the meat we eat, can multi-trillion-dollar tax cuts really be a sensible policy?……

i could not help but think that he doesnt care at all for the reason that things are that way.

early on, leftist/socialist/communists, decided to divert revenue streams from such things as bridges, to such things as social programs.

one only needs to read the congressional record and the pages about bundt the farmer and crockett the senator called not yours to give, to understand the core reason we are in this pickle.

note that this ‘communist economist’ says nothing as to the validity of stealing from one group to give to another group.

without a “law of socialist limitation” bascially a cap that says beyond this amount we will not take money… the needs expand to the point that people can make up interesting reasons that others of whose money it isnt, think its a good way to spend.

what would be the state of bridges adn society if the 51 trillion that is going into sociel services over its history, went to productivity and so forth. how much better off would all our lives have been if that 51 trillino ended up in research, insurance, housing, bridges, medicine, and so forth? whats more, it would have gone that way if no one took it for other things. not to mention the effect on the averate persons sense of doing legally whats right, when they need to work aroudn what the state does thats wrong.

anyone want to point out that a progressive tax was a soviet invention, and a major point of communists in their desire for things to visit the west. the book the naked communist, points out that a progressive tax is one of their goals.

but whats interesting is that an equal apportioned tax would do what they SAY they want without ever having all that overhead.

if everyone paid 5 percent in, and the total amount was divided up evenly among everyone, rich and poor… what would be the mathematical result?

the middle would stay stationary… the wealthy would lose a bit off the top… and the poor would get a boon.

the state would take their cut off the top, say 20%… that still would leave a huge disbursment, and no way to wiggle aroudn it.

the law would be so simple, it would not have exceptions.. it would not allow for favoritism and lobbying… how?

but that would be the kind of tax that our founders invisioned if any there would be one.

[and removing the irational logic that allows imortal companies made up of people to be treated like people politically and legally, might not be a bad thing either]

go through the history.. the word “progressive” is a synonim (now), for socialization..

its what progressive education turned out to be… and progressive health care… and now progressive taxation..

to quote
“We Americans are the singularly most compassionate in the world, the most benevolent and the most naive people there have ever been. We even believe that Communism is dead because the Berlin Wall came down. Communism ain’t dead. It is called something else. It is called “progressive”. It is called “Social Democracy”. It is called “Democracy”. Some even call it “International Democracy”†?think George Soros here. Political Correctness has blind-sided those that merely go along with the emotionally weak.”

after all, why would all these ideas all lead to totalitarianism of one sort or another… after all, to take that much from wealthy people one will ahve to treat them like kulaks…

if one didnt, maybe someone like gates might take a billion and put it on the street to cause what?

this is why such promotions would have to have a totalitarian license first… for if your going to take it all away from a wealthy person, they might just dump it on your enemies for spite.

lets see… he is worth more than 40 billion.. lets say he gives 20 billion to al qeada to stop the progressive tax and such people in government.

this is why they have to grab it all if they are going to grab so much. so in effect his argumetn is a soft call for communism to redistribute wealth, and he doesnt use the old word communism, he uses the new one “progressive”

he takes his orders from the old soviet school

here are the the original ten planks of the Communist Manifesto written by Karl Marx in 1848.

1. Abolition of private property and the application of all rent to public purpose.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

6. Centralization of the means of communication and transportation in the hands of the State.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State, the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

8. Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of Industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.

10. Free education for all children in government schools. Abolition of children’s factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production…..

so really… what is Frank really proposing here?

Is it Economic Man vs. Cultural Man?–read my essay in here, “Capitalism and Marxism in America,” which raises the point:

Corporate America: What Went Wrong?
http://corporateamericawhatwentwrong.blogspot.com/

Also, to learn what’s really afoot with globalization, read my report on Lt. Col. Roberts’ 1968 booklet, “The Anatomy of a Revolution”:

Planned Destruction of America: Open Letter
http://planneddestructionofamerica.blogspot.com/

An excellent quote that says it all.

However human, envy is certainly not one of the sources of discontent that a free society can eliminate. It is probably one of the essential conditions for the preservation of such a society that we do not countenance envy, not sanction its demands by camouflaging it as social justice, but treat it, in the words of John Stuart Mill, as “the most anti-social and evil of all passions.”

As another example, suppose someone wants a large house to host charity balls. Frank would penalize them, thus limiting their ability to garner funds to help the poor, the underprivileged, and the widows and orphans.

Frank equates consumption to a uniformly negative behavior. There are many reasons why people may want to buy more–not the least of which might be to donate to the less well off. Trying to second guess motives and assign evil intentions is an impossible task.

How about let’s apply Frank’s idea to government itself? Politicians undoubtedly look out at how well their fellow politicians in other countries are living, and what sorts of monuments to themselves (and weapons!) they are building and so on. They may decide that they need to keep up, or surpass, them. To do that they need to increase taxes (as Frank gives them an excuse to do).

So to be consistent, Frank ought to advocate that the wealth that this consumption tax expropriates should be burned or buried in the ground. Strangely, he doesn’t advocate that.

Sometimes we can’t see the forest for the trees. By attempting a point by point rebuttal Prof. Gordon is distracted from the true horror of what Frank is proposing. Who cares about Frank’s “positional” construct? The real evil is the idea that you can force people to think a certain way by using taxation and I suppose when that fails then what?

I hardly think that by critiquing this book that Prof. Gordon is lending credence to it. We need to know what the public is reading and should be prepared to respond to it.

The fellow that asked me to stand down was older than I was: he was there with what appeared to be his wife. I was a teenager at the time.

You can interpret these facts in any way you wish. Myself, I would peg it as being well-behaved.

Surely inflation and credit creation are a major cause of a consumption “arms race” leading to increased inequality and reduced capital formation. With a static money supply, houses would not increase in price every year., and might even depreciate due to wear and tear Other luxury goods, e.g. cars would depreciate even more quickly than today. Consumer goods e.g. art would no longer be seen as investments.

The research of Dr. Thomas Stanley (The Millionaire Next Door) calls Frank’s bluff on this one. According to Stanley, the vast majority of millionaires/billionaires in the country live in modest middle class neighborhoods. Without a doubt, these wealthy people have friends with much larger houses, yet they choose to live in smaller houses because they have a different set of values. All we can assume from Frank’s book is that he is envious of the wealthy and assumes everyone else is, too. Only he wants to turn his envy into law.

Also, Frank assumes just one outcome to inequality—envy. And he assumes that the envy leads to an “arms race.” But instead of envy, let’s assume that a poorer person simply admires the larger house of a neighbor. Such admiration could motivate the poorer person to get more education, start a business, work a second job, or find ways to improve himself and increase his income. Frank seems to believe that the only option left to the admiring person is to spend more. However, most people of average intelligence realize that their income limits their current spending, so to increase spending, they must increase income, and to increase income, they must become more productive. As Smith pointed out, self-interest leads to civilization.

Finally, Frank wants to punish the rich in order to soothe the stinging envy of the not-so-rich. But by taxing the rich even more, he reduces their savings; reduced savings translates into less capital investment; lower capital investment reduces productivity and ultimately wages. So Frank’s cure would eventually increase the inequality he despises so much.

The flip side of the coin is that as the value of your home increases, so do your property taxes.

The flip side of the coin is that as the value of your home increases, so do your property taxes.

Why? Because you are a nice person or because you didn’t want to get into a fight that you might lose?

He also seems to believe that government revenue went down when the top rates of income tax were cut – when, of course, government revenue from “the rich” has greatly increased.

All this ignorance in an “economist” is deeply depressing – but only too common.

As for “free riders”…..

Indeed this is often a non problem.

For example, ship owners and other donated money for the building of light houses on the coasts of Britian in the 18th and 19th centuries – even though they would benefit whether they contributed or not.

Just as people still give money to the R.N.L.I. (the sea rescue volunteers) even though they will rescue people regardless of whether they have donated money.