Signs of the Times - and a question

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by whell

I have no idea where that perspective comes from. The guy's a college prof so he's probably in the $200k range plus or minus, unless he's published. Certainly not in the same league as the "corporate rich" who are typically reviled in this forum.

So much for keeping petty partisan politics out of your thread, eh whell? What a joke.

[whell]

Originally Posted by bobabode

So much for keeping petty partisan politics out of your thread, eh whell? What a joke.

It's was an honest question. It don't get the reference. And I did not mention a political party. Try again.

[ebacon]

Originally Posted by whell

It's was an honest question. It don't get the reference. And I did not mention a political party. Try again.

I didn't get it either. Might be some ganja in that post.

[d-ray657]

Not all economic questions need to be partisan, but it is unrealistic to suggest that economic analysis is not values laden. Most certainly, tax policy is values laden. So is any prediction of the behavior of individual and business given particular stimuli. For example, one area where there is a substantial gap in perception between Whell and I is the level of trust that we have in the response of business entities or individuals given the opportunity to retain a greater portion of profits. I tend to think that the inclination would be to keep more rather than invest more. I do think we have ready evidence of what happens when we rely solely on the market to make an equitable distribution of the society's wealth - we have a gilded age. To borrow Whell's nomenclature (though not his conclusions), I don't trust those who have control of financial and physical capital to properly value human capital.

I also do not see the harm or unfairness in taxing different types of income production. After all, we as a society provide the infrastructure and social framework that permits capital to be put to productive use. Why should not some of the value gleaned from that be returned to society? Because our perspective causes us to differently evaluate the utility of taxation at all levels of wealth creation, one can't say that an economic analysis that damns such taxation does not reflect a political perspective.

Regards,

D-Ray

[whell]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

I also do not see the harm or unfairness in taxing different types of income production. After all, we as a society provide the infrastructure and social framework that permits capital to be put to productive use. Why should not some of the value gleaned from that be returned to society? Because our perspective causes us to differently evaluate the utility of taxation at all levels of wealth creation, one can't say that an economic analysis that damns such taxation does not reflect a political perspective.

Regards,

D-Ray

So there is no science of economics? Only conjecture informed by bias or an agenda? I'd think the law of supply and demand had risen to the stature of the law of gravity, but maybe I'm wrong...?

Also, I think sentence #2 is really a stretch. To analogize, are you suggesting that just because a business might operate its delivery trucks or truck in raw materials using the Interstate, that society gets to lay claim via the tax code to a portion of that business's profits? Does that then mean that toll roads equate to double taxation? .

Why isn't returning to society the value of a quality product at a reasonable price sufficient?

[bobabode]

Oooo got me there. Toll roads are a perversion.

[bobabode]

So by saying "the corporate rich who are typically reviled here" you're trying to not to bait people? Now I get it. Just your attempt at a non partisanish discussion. The emperor has no clothes.

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by ebacon

I didn't get it either. Might be some ganja in that post.

Smells like cheap wine in yours.

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by whell

So there is no science of economics? Only conjecture informed by bias or an agenda? I'd think the law of supply and demand had risen to the stature of the law of gravity, but maybe I'm wrong...?

Also, I think sentence #2 is really a stretch. To analogize, are you suggesting that just because a business might operate its delivery trucks or truck in raw materials using the Interstate, that society gets to lay claim via the tax code to a portion of that business's profits? Does that then mean that toll roads equate to double taxation? .

Why isn't returning to society the value of a quality product at a reasonable price sufficient?

You pulled out the straw man this time. Another foul logical fallacy.

I don't intend this to be a straw man, but a legitimate question. Are you suggesting that commercial activity is exempt from the social contract? Honestly, I see paying taxes as part of the social contract. Corporations cannot have it both ways. If they are persons entitled to equal protection of the laws and free speech, then they are persons with obligations to society, including the obligation to pay taxes.

Let me make an analogy to your question. Why isn't a person contributing an honest day's work a sufficient return to society that he shouldn't be subject to taxes on the wages paid for that labor? It seems to me that your position is placing a higher societal value on capital than labor. It makes a financial contribution to society greater than a human contribution. When economic analysis starts from that position, or for that matter, from a position that places a labor on a higher plane, it is most certainly value-laden and not pure science.

Regards,

D-Ray

[whell]

Woah! We're way of course now! However, since you injected the social contract arguement, here goes:

- the social contract concept is not an absolute. It's a theory at best, and is philosophy rather than science. I'd point to Locke as a basis for my responses about a social contract, and I imagine you'd point to someone like Rousseau. Under the law, two sides need to agree to be bound by a contract, and since you and I can't agree on the content of a social contract, I suggest we move on.

- there is an agreement that you and I are party to: the US Constitution. It does give the government the power to levy taxes. The constitution gives the gov't the authority to tax revenue and income. It leaves the determination of rates and wage bases of that tax to congress. So regardless of any social contract, corps and individuals are subject to tax, and regardless of the social contract individuals and groups can petition gov't to modify that tax.

Now to you question, capital and labor are of equal import in an economic discussion. Labor is required to convert capital, but without capital labor can have no product. Taxing capital does nothing but devalue it, reducing its value versus labor.