Obama's get rich quick scheme: Adopting a VAT Tax.

[Cantih]

http://sperraul.mnsi.net/images/comics/lucky_ducky.png

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Psst, small business owners aren't anywhere near the 'haves' being discussed in the last 10-ish posts.

Psst, maybe they eventually would be if not for regulations mentioned in the article which is the point.

[Kuya]

Did I read that right Kuya? It's sounds like your objective is not only to reduce the gap, but to do so from the top down, not the bottom up, which would indicate you're blinded by hatred or some other synonym.

I realize that you're not going to, but at times one has to relinquish their ideology. This is because one has to come to the understanding that, although one's beliefs might have their uses and there may come a time when they are correct, no ideology is useful or correct in all situations.

In this sense, American conservative ideology goes hand in hand with greater income/wealth polarization. So it's completely counterproductive.

[Max™]

What the fuck are you doing, asking people to consider viewpoints besides their own?

You dumb bastard.

[pahnphoenix]

you need to understand that while he might think he came to his ideology through logic and reason, he didn't. you aren't getting him out of it with logic or reason either. conservatives aren't "mistaken". they don't go through a logical process that unfortunately turns out flawed. they have different motivations and influences.

obviously, everyone, left and right, is influenced by things beyond reason (not that you can't use reason to *explain* these influences). reason will get you nowhere in the current discussion, if you're interested in changing his mind. if you're putting on a show for spectators (which can be valuable), reason might be somewhat helpful.

[Kuya]

I understand that, like the first part of my first sentence says:

I realize that you're not going to,

I also believe i was the one who once said that logic and reason only work on those who are logical and reasonable. And as a psychology student i am also quite aware that the notion that humans are inherently rational animals is quite false or incomplete.

So yes, rarely are my discussions in this forum meant to convince the person i'm arguing against, but rather, to convince those who are watching the argument. The only people i can honestly say i would attempt to influence would be Cadsuane, skirkle, correction, and a few others.

[Max™]

I always wondered what the motivations for conservatives and liberals is...

[aurik]

Man if only we could alleviate the tax burden on those poor small business owners making over $250k per year, we could really cut down on wealth polarization.

edit: brb paying my VAT tax by withdrawing money from the ATM machine using my PIN number.

[Olo401]

Yea I'm dreaming. Hindering or preventing business creation does not contribute to the income gap.

Yes you are dreaming. The dream is your misguided belief that the tax rate is hindering business, when the tax rates are at historical lows not seen since the days of the Robber Barons. The reality is the concentration of wealth is the reason for the income gap.

As far as the original topic of discussion goes.. Do I think a VAT is necessary? No, absolutely not. What is necessary is an inheritance tax of 60% or more on non-land assets over $5 million. Republicans/Libertarians are so big on keeping what they've earned, yet they refuse to concede the fact that INHERITED WEALTH IS NOT EARNED WEALTH.

[Rhinox]

Psst, maybe they eventually would be if not for regulations mentioned in the article which is the point.

its cute how you think all small business owners would be 'haves' in an unfettered free market.

[zoobernut]

Just because it needs to be said again. Small business owners are the ones that are in the "middle" that on average earned nothing. The top earners are not small business owners so they wouldn't be hindered or touched by an increase in taxes on the top 10% income earners.

[archibaldcrane]

Swampy's point is that if more people "in the middle" had fewer restrictions on starting new businesses, they'd be able to escape the "middle" via their new small business. There's plenty of small business owners in the top 10% of earners (basically 75k a year for an individual).

He's correct, it's just something that isn't particularly important in the grand scheme of things and he's acting like it would be a panacea, without acknowledging any of the drawbacks of decreased regulation.

[zoobernut]

Makes sense. I still don't see how that would help anything due to that very tiny percentage at the very top that controls the majority of the money in the country. At that level you are no longer a small business owner but a large one.

[Cantih]

Somewhat relevant to where the discussion has gone
http://theferrett.livejournal.com/1534590.html
http://theferrett.livejournal.com/15...7566#t75197566

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Swampy's point is that if more people "in the middle" had fewer restrictions on starting new businesses, they'd be able to escape the "middle" via their new small business. There's plenty of small business owners in the top 10% of earners (basically 75k a year for an individual).

He's correct, it's just something that isn't particularly important in the grand scheme of things and he's acting like it would be a panacea, without acknowledging any of the drawbacks of decreased regulation.

What's the drawback of decreased regulation of the kind mentioned in the article?

And it's not just about the owners, it's about the jobs they would create along the way.

[Kuya]

The issue, i think, is making sure that the wrong forms of regulation are eliminated. This can be done with proper investigation. But you not only need to investigate why certain forms of regulation fail, but why they are implemented in the first place. This article does precisely some of these things, and that's good.

The problem appears when certain right-wingers, grab the article and use it as proof of their belief in free markets, deregulation, etc. The value of this article is not in supporting beliefs, but in providing evidence in the need of diligence and civic responsability. A need to make sure government institutions function properly, and that we cannot take them for granted.

edit: it should also be mentioned, that incentives towards entrepeneurship need to be provided given that people aren't going to venture out if they feel that the economic environment is negative (financial crisis, recession).

[aurik]

The main issue I have with decreasing regulation is that politicians spend all sorts of time and political capital arguing about which regulations are appropriate to reduce, and then they don't get around to addressing the real issues.

Case in point, we're trying to have a discussion about reducing wealth polarization, something that you have professed to have no real interest in. So, instead, you've redirected the conversation to decreasing regulations that sometimes impede entrepreneurship. (Hey, that's essentially the republican plan the last 2 years: gum up the legislative process as much as humanly possible so that while the democrats do have the ability to set the agenda in congress, very little can actually be done.)

How about we get back on subject and talk about real, substantive things that can be done to reduce income polarization?

[Kuya]

Precisely. Deregulation is pretty low on the things that might help reduce income/wealth polarization, so something like that is best left for a discussion of specifics when or after something substantial is done about the problem. If we get bogged down on something like this, we might get stuck in spotty legislation that barely accomplishes what it set out to do, because it gets stuck at minor details and fails to address fundamental questions and solutions.

[archibaldcrane]

What's the drawback of decreased regulation of the kind mentioned in the article?

And it's not just about the owners, it's about the jobs they would create along the way.

Regulated signage, for one, keeps neighborhoods and business districts from falling into, for lack of a better word, visual disarray, lowering property values and preventing "high-end" districts from keeping their appeal.

You can argue that the detriment of this regulation is worse than the benefit, and that's fine - but there's a benefit too.

The point is, Swampy, even if a judicious and impartial critical look was taken at all these "small business roadblock" regulations and the needless ones were augmented or eliminated, it wouldn't have a drastic impact on wealth polarization.

It would help a little probably, but it's not the type of overarching change needed.

[aurik]

I would say that it will do very little to help the wealth polarization problem. The problem isn't that people can't go from 20th percentile to the 50th, or 75th percentile to the 90th. The problem is that the distance between the 99th percentile and the rest of the spectrum is widening at a rapid pace.