Speech by Dr. Ben Carson at Nat'l Prayer Breakfast

[quote]Da Man reloaded wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]doogie wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
^ Thank you. One dollar means more to the man with ten dollars than do one hundred million dollars to the man with a billion dollars.[/quote]

The man with 10 dollars who only pays in a dollar gets WAY more for his money than the guy who pays in one hundred million dollars.[/quote]

This is not as simple as you might think. To whom does the lion’s share of the benefit of a prohibitive military go, for example–to he has much, or to he who has little? The same question can be asked with regard to police forces and fire brigades and investments in infrastructure and energy security. And to whom does the majority of the benefit of universal literacy brought on by public education go, to Mark Zuckerberg or to the farmhand barely paying rent?

More importantly, your point does not stand with regard to most American workers. If you took an extra ten percent of my best friend’s income, it would crush him. If you took an extra ten percent of Mitt Romney’s, it would not crush him. That is the law of decreasing marginal utility, and he takes nothing more from the government than does Mitt Romney (assuming that he ends up taking more out of SS than he pays in [and that is far from certain], the greater value that Mitt Romney derives from government service as outlined in the previous paragraph will at least negate this).

Which does not mean I’m a huge fan of high taxes or socialism. But this whole “flat tax is the only fair structure” simplistic bullshit is just that. I am almost certain that our resident accountant agrees with me on that point.

[/quote]

I think beans supports flat or consumpption taxes. maybe he will chime in here and set us straight.[/quote]

I will try to dig up something he said fairly recently about a flat tax being stupid because of how hard it hits the poor. I think.

[quote]doogie wrote:
The guy paying a dollar gets the same military, the same roads, the same school system, and the same fire department as the guy paying a hundred million. Just because the billionaire (or his family) was smart enough to accrue wealth doesn’t mean he gets special government services.[/quote]

This doesn’t address my point.

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Da Man reloaded wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]doogie wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
^ Thank you. One dollar means more to the man with ten dollars than do one hundred million dollars to the man with a billion dollars.[/quote]

The man with 10 dollars who only pays in a dollar gets WAY more for his money than the guy who pays in one hundred million dollars.[/quote]

This is not as simple as you might think. To whom does the lion’s share of the benefit of a prohibitive military go, for example–to he has much, or to he who has little? The same question can be asked with regard to police forces and fire brigades and investments in infrastructure and energy security. And to whom does the majority of the benefit of universal literacy brought on by public education go, to Mark Zuckerberg or to the farmhand barely paying rent?

More importantly, your point does not stand with regard to most American workers. If you took an extra ten percent of my best friend’s income, it would crush him. If you took an extra ten percent of Mitt Romney’s, it would not crush him. That is the law of decreasing marginal utility, and he takes nothing more from the government than does Mitt Romney (assuming that he ends up taking more out of SS than he pays in [and that is far from certain], the greater value that Mitt Romney derives from government service as outlined in the previous paragraph will at least negate this).

Which does not mean I’m a huge fan of high taxes or socialism. But this whole “flat tax is the only fair structure” simplistic bullshit is just that. I am almost certain that our resident accountant agrees with me on that point.

[/quote]

I think beans supports flat or consumpption taxes. maybe he will chime in here and set us straight.[/quote]

I will try to dig up something he said fairly recently about a flat tax being stupid because of how hard it hits the poor. I think.[/quote]

And i will gladly admit i am wrong. for some reason I seem to recall him talking about how jacked the current tax system is and preferring some other alternative.

I could of course be completely out of my mind. wouldnt be the first time.

[quote]doogie wrote:
The guy paying a dollar gets the same military, the same roads, the same school system, and the same fire department as the guy paying a hundred million. Just because the billionaire (or his family) was smart enough to accrue wealth doesn’t mean he gets special government services.[/quote]

This line of thinking sounds much better than it ever works!
At some point, wealth means you get whatever government service you desire.

[quote]Gettnitdone wrote:
What are you talking about Alpha…

The guy who has a job earning 40K is still creating value, as is the guy earning 200K. In a flat tax the 40K person is paying 4K while the other guy is paying 20K – 4K means more to the lower earner than 20K to the 200K earner. [/quote]

I am talking about myths.

This is a superficial observation.

If I value the freedom that a 40k job affords me 4k means actually less to me because less stress and a less responsibility job and more time with my family or in self-indulgence is obviously what is more important, means more, to me otherwise I would be exerting myself to be on the 200k job.

Also the 20k is more important to the 200k earner is more important to me because it affords me to have a 40k job.

Without his industriousness I might not have the freedom of a low responsibility job.

If you however, told me: But Alpha I feel better if I give more than 20k of my 200k income to the man who gets to enjoy his $1 Papst Blue Ribbon watching the super bowl with his mates while I am working late nights managing the company so he can have the security of coming into work in the morning.

Then I would say: You are welcome to do so if it makes you sleep better at night.

But hurting the stronger members of society in the name of equality is a feminist doctrine of faux equality.

To each according to its own value.

Think equity not equality.

The 40k earner is not equal to the 200k earner - they are both equitable to society.

On the other hand we can talk about the psychology of the the 40k earner who feels the need for the 200k earner to be hurt.

Why is this good to society?

And why is it that the “old myth” that has proved its wisdom with millenia of proof not good for society?

Please include why the Jewish community is strong and prospers where ever their communities are founded.

You’re basically saying 2 controversial things: 1) the 200k person works harder than the 40K person and 2) the 200k individual is more valuable to society than the 40K individual. Both points are kind of insulting, given on a handful of higher paying jobs actually require the person to work harder or longer (doctors being an exception I can think of on the top of my head). More often than not their high income comes from occupations requiring specialised skill, generally attained through modest amounts of training and experience.

The latter is important if we look at an example that hits home to me personally, being a soon-to-be graduate. Talk to any college grad working at a large company (especially in finance and accounting) and they will tell you they get worked to death. There is something inherently unfair, as it relates to taxation, about the grad paying the same rate on his income as his boss’ boss who spends his mornings flirting with the new secretary and then the rest of the day on the phone or “meeting clients.” This kind of culture is prevalent in business and I would guess in most other areas of occupation.

Another example is the single mother (probably living in a rough neighbourhood) working two jobs while trying to raise her son(s). Tell her that our philandering executive is being taxed at the same rate she is.

[quote]Alpha F wrote:

[quote]Gettnitdone wrote:
What are you talking about Alpha…

The guy who has a job earning 40K is still creating value, as is the guy earning 200K. In a flat tax the 40K person is paying 4K while the other guy is paying 20K – 4K means more to the lower earner than 20K to the 200K earner. [/quote]

I am talking about myths.

This is a superficial observation.

If I value the freedom that a 40k job affords me 4k means actually less to me because less stress and a less responsibility job and more time with my family or in self-indulgence is obviously what is more important, means more, to me otherwise I would be exerting myself to be on the 200k job.

Also the 20k is more important to the 200k earner is more important to me because it affords me to have a 40k job.

Without his industriousness I might not have the freedom of a low responsibility job.

If you however, told me: But Alpha I feel better if I give more than 20k of my 200k income to the man who gets to enjoy his $1 Papst Blue Ribbon watching the super bowl with his mates while I am working late nights managing the company so he can have the security of coming into work in the morning.

Then I would say: You are welcome to do so if it makes you sleep better at night.

But hurting the stronger members of society in the name of equality is a feminist doctrine of faux equality.

To each according to its own value.

Think equity not equality.

The 40k earner is not equal to the 200k earner - they are both equitable to society.

On the other hand we can talk about the psychology of the the 40k earner who feels the need for the 200k earner to be hurt.

Why is this good to society?

And why is it that the “old myth” that has proved its wisdom with millenia of proof not good for society?

Please include why the Jewish community is strong and prospers where ever their communities are founded.

[/quote]

This still has nothing to do with the fact of decreasing marginal utility. It’s also filled with meaningless stereotypes.

I have a question: who works harder, a Navy SEAL making 60k/year or a Harvard professor making 175k?

But again, more importantly, none of this has anything to do with the law of decreasing marginal utility.

Just like Dr. Carson pointed out: You are veiled by your personal beliefs and brought the PC police out. [quote]

Another example is the single mother (probably living in a rough neighbourhood) working two jobs while trying to raise her son(s). Tell her that our philandering executive is being taxed at the same rate she is. [/quote]

Would you like a tissue?

Dr. Carson’s mother did not subscribe to your belief system of the victim “poor unfortunate soul” mentality.

Btw, I totally understand where you are coming from. You’re looking at it from the entrepreneur level, which definitely fits well with your argument. The problem is, the economy isn’t built exclusively on entrepreneurship, in the most practical of ways. Sure, entrepreneurship is an important component on any healthy economy but it is a myth most people work for small businesses.

The relationship between small business and corporations is interesting though. If you create an environment that encourages entrepreneurship then you’re probably creating a net surplus of employment because the gain in jobs from more small businesses likely exceeds the loss of jobs at corporations from increased competition. But that is only theoretical and questions remain if you factor in losses in savings and investment. The fact is, corporations are an economic necessity, they help the free-market because they are free-markets themselves internally.

We are heading into economic governance here of course. The topic at hand and the above comments, which relate to economic governance, are very indirectly connected (to the point of non-association) but I went there anyway because well, I’m me and I just do stuff like this when I’m bored. But check out Coase’s Nature of The Firm and work by Oliver Williamson if you are interested.

[quote]Alpha F wrote:

Just like Dr. Carson pointed out: You are veiled by your personal beliefs and brought the PC police out. [quote]

Another example is the single mother (probably living in a rough neighbourhood) working two jobs while trying to raise her son(s). Tell her that our philandering executive is being taxed at the same rate she is. [/quote]

Would you like a tissue?

Dr. Carson’s mother did not subscribe to your belief system of the victim “poor unfortunate soul” mentality.

[/quote]

It has nothing to do being a victim. You defended the flat tax by talking about “freedom” and “value,” which are much more in the lane of “personal beliefs” than decreasing marginal utility, which is the ultimate back-bone of any comments I am making.

And I said your assumptions were insulting, not Dr. Carsons, he hardly gave a promotional speech on implementing the flat tax. He had a simple and short foray into the subject.

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Alpha F wrote:

[quote]Gettnitdone wrote:
What are you talking about Alpha…

The guy who has a job earning 40K is still creating value, as is the guy earning 200K. In a flat tax the 40K person is paying 4K while the other guy is paying 20K – 4K means more to the lower earner than 20K to the 200K earner. [/quote]

I am talking about myths.

This is a superficial observation.

If I value the freedom that a 40k job affords me 4k means actually less to me because less stress and a less responsibility job and more time with my family or in self-indulgence is obviously what is more important, means more, to me otherwise I would be exerting myself to be on the 200k job.

Also the 20k is more important to the 200k earner is more important to me because it affords me to have a 40k job.

Without his industriousness I might not have the freedom of a low responsibility job.

If you however, told me: But Alpha I feel better if I give more than 20k of my 200k income to the man who gets to enjoy his $1 Papst Blue Ribbon watching the super bowl with his mates while I am working late nights managing the company so he can have the security of coming into work in the morning.

Then I would say: You are welcome to do so if it makes you sleep better at night.

But hurting the stronger members of society in the name of equality is a feminist doctrine of faux equality.

To each according to its own value.

Think equity not equality.

The 40k earner is not equal to the 200k earner - they are both equitable to society.

On the other hand we can talk about the psychology of the the 40k earner who feels the need for the 200k earner to be hurt.

Why is this good to society?

And why is it that the “old myth” that has proved its wisdom with millenia of proof not good for society?

Please include why the Jewish community is strong and prospers where ever their communities are founded.

[/quote]

But again, more importantly, none of this has anything to do with the law of decreasing marginal utility.
[/quote]

No, smh.

I do not believe decreasing marginal utility is more important to talk about. And from the standpoint of debate technique, a topic you seem to find it important to harp on, it’s an ineffective debate technique to repeatedly, futilely demand that others stay on sidetracks of your choice. Perhaps if one succeeded in these demands it would be an effective technique, but your repeated efforts at this either always or almost always fail. This particular instance is an excellent example. It’s in your mind that diminishing marginal utility proves what is just. It’s fine, and laudable, to express that you believe this. But demanding that others return to this idea of yours and keep talking about it, particularly after it’s already been thoroughly responded to, shows you up as a lightweight with a list of talking points and a mistaken idea of his skills at meaningful discussion.

A second aspect here, beyond the above, is the hypocrisy. Fundamentally you demand that others keep returning to the aspects you deem important, but you rarely if ever apply such a principle to yourself.

Yet a third aspect is that what goes on with you is clearly not discussion, but lecturing. You have your prepared lecture and set of points, gotten from wherever, and nothing can deviate from that. Not the flow of discussion, and certainly not your own “thoughts.” So that makes any exchange with you inherently not a discussion. But discussion is what most of us are here for, and is what I am here for. You’re here, it seems, for your talking points, for your demands that your side-tracks must become the new topic for everyone who responds, and to polish your balls.

Of course there will always be such persons on forums, but when they show themselves they can be recognized for what they are.

Returning to this specific thread, I’ve already dealt with how diminishing marginal utility is not the be-all, end-all of what is just, let alone even a part of what is just, without bringing personal philosophical grounds into it. However, when we bring this into it it makes it even more the case that I really cannot care less about your sophomoric belief that diminishing marginal utility is the definition of what is just, which most likely you “learned” from some leftist professor or other. I find the shallowness there to be extreme. Wisdom does not reside in such shallowness as comes from your youth and leftist indoctrination. For example it’s entirely your prerogative to discard Biblical wisdom if you wish, but there are also thousands of years of deeper philosophy to which you’d compare your utterly simplistic concept of what is just, if you were in fact engaged in intellectual thought. But clearly you are not.

With regard to wisdom, I made that very clear right at the start when I first replied to you that the Principles of Justice as respected through the Divinely inspired Judeo system of taxation is greater than a man made new age doctrine that leads into progressive taxation.

We disagree fundamentally, above and beyond your lecturing style and your repeated insistence that everyone must return to your talking points.

There is no discussion when not only you dodge any actual discussion but use this style. From the standpoint of other readers there is no discussion to be read between us. From the regard of whether there’s even the potential of a trace of value to me from your writings, first intellectually there is not for the reasons I’ve given already, and then further my core beliefs are completely different from yours and so personally, on top of your arguments being utterly shallow and not standing up to factual analysis as already shown, they’re philosophically anathema.

You don’t get to dictate what is more important to talk about. You’re utterly mistaken in thinking that because you demand to talk about diminishing marginal utility, that that is what we will now talk about,. What is more important for you to talk about is utterly meaningless for me and a non-reality with regard to what is just.

On the other hand, feel free to elaborate on how you, with your tender years ( I have studied the Jude-Christian system for 20 years - your conscious life time ) have come to make such a bold statement that the wisdom of Judeo system of taxation is a superseded “old myth”.

And, just saying: “I used the law of diminishing marginal utility” as an argument does not count because that would be like a religious fanatic telling you to go look up Genesis chapter 1. I care no more about you making that your law than you do about his way of deciding. But, again, you are hypocritical and demand from others different than what you yourself do.

I repeat: the law of diminishing marginal utility as a measure of what is just is to me what the fable of the Bible is to you.

We can agree to disagree or you can go ahead and explain why you think the Judeo system of taxation is an “old myth” without just saying that is so because it has been replace by a man made doctrine they gave you as a suppository of “truth” in College - and that is superior because it came from the church of college education.

Having said that, you are welcome to express your self as you please. Your continuous demand that I return to your sidetracks however, will not be entertained further.

Again however your hypocrisy rises in yet another way, with regards to what you consider the proof of what is just: Either you have decided to give up your washing machine and your car because there is a child in Africa who experiences greater marginal utility of the dollars those sales could raise more than you do, or you have not and you are an unjust person in your own eyes. As typical for a liberal, you’re so generous with taking other people’s money and so deft at applying your concepts of justice to others but not, I expect, to yourself.

Or perhaps you do indeed give away everything you have past the subsistence level of a child in Africa: if so, and only if so, then I’ve misjudged what you are.

And now that my post is covered by using the lives of the innocent, no liberal can say anything about my logic because they would constitute and insult and I therefore have the higher moral ground.

As you’re so fond of saying, but I expect that hypocritically you won’t accept as proving anything in this case: End of story. Case closed.

It is in fact however the end of the story with regard to my replying to you. It’s unlikely, however, to be the end of you pretending to be engaged in intellectual discussion when what you do is actually entirely different.

I wanted to talk about a specific point made in the video. I brought up decreasing marginal utility. You engaged in this conversation and then veered off into some kind of rambling semi-coherent diatribe. I made the point that your post had little to do with what Gettnitdone and I meant. I don’t demand anything of you, but I will tell you when you’re wasting your time by writing enormous, vapid posts to me.

My point, if it matters, is this–I don’t have any problem with a flat tax, but I don’t think that a reasonable progressive tax is the affront to justice that so many people pretend it is, because of decreasing marginal utility–because the confiscation of a set amount of income deals a different kind of blow to different kinds of people, namely people with different incomes.

[quote]smh23 wrote:
I wanted to talk about a specific point made in the video. I brought up decreasing marginal utility. You engaged in this conversation and then veered off into some kind of rambling semi-coherent diatribe. I made the point that your post had little to do with what Gettnitdone and I meant. I don’t demand anything of you, but I will tell you when you’re wasting your time by writing enormous, vapid posts to me.

My point, if it matters, is this–I don’t have any problem with a flat tax, but I don’t think that a reasonable progressive tax is the affront to justice that so many people pretend it is, because of decreasing marginal utility–because the confiscation of a set amount of income deals a different kind of blow to different kinds of people, namely people with different incomes.[/quote]

You should have only said "yes, ma’am. "

[quote]JEATON wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
I wanted to talk about a specific point made in the video. I brought up decreasing marginal utility. You engaged in this conversation and then veered off into some kind of rambling semi-coherent diatribe. I made the point that your post had little to do with what Gettnitdone and I meant. I don’t demand anything of you, but I will tell you when you’re wasting your time by writing enormous, vapid posts to me.

My point, if it matters, is this–I don’t have any problem with a flat tax, but I don’t think that a reasonable progressive tax is the affront to justice that so many people pretend it is, because of decreasing marginal utility–because the confiscation of a set amount of income deals a different kind of blow to different kinds of people, namely people with different incomes.[/quote]

You should have only said "yes, ma’am. "[/quote]

I couldn’t stomach reading that entire mess, so it would have been odd of me to have answered in the affirmative.

[quote]Da Man reloaded wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Da Man reloaded wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]doogie wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
^ Thank you. One dollar means more to the man with ten dollars than do one hundred million dollars to the man with a billion dollars.[/quote]

The man with 10 dollars who only pays in a dollar gets WAY more for his money than the guy who pays in one hundred million dollars.[/quote]

This is not as simple as you might think. To whom does the lion’s share of the benefit of a prohibitive military go, for example–to he has much, or to he who has little? The same question can be asked with regard to police forces and fire brigades and investments in infrastructure and energy security. And to whom does the majority of the benefit of universal literacy brought on by public education go, to Mark Zuckerberg or to the farmhand barely paying rent?

More importantly, your point does not stand with regard to most American workers. If you took an extra ten percent of my best friend’s income, it would crush him. If you took an extra ten percent of Mitt Romney’s, it would not crush him. That is the law of decreasing marginal utility, and he takes nothing more from the government than does Mitt Romney (assuming that he ends up taking more out of SS than he pays in [and that is far from certain], the greater value that Mitt Romney derives from government service as outlined in the previous paragraph will at least negate this).

Which does not mean I’m a huge fan of high taxes or socialism. But this whole “flat tax is the only fair structure” simplistic bullshit is just that. I am almost certain that our resident accountant agrees with me on that point.

[/quote]

I think beans supports flat or consumpption taxes. maybe he will chime in here and set us straight.[/quote]

I will try to dig up something he said fairly recently about a flat tax being stupid because of how hard it hits the poor. I think.[/quote]

And i will gladly admit i am wrong. for some reason I seem to recall him talking about how jacked the current tax system is and preferring some other alternative.

I could of course be completely out of my mind. wouldnt be the first time.[/quote]

I’m very much anti consumption taxes at the federal level. Mainly because I don’t trust the federal government to not go ape shit with this, and try and manipulate behavior more than it does with the current IRC. At least when it is at the state level, I can drive to a different state to purchase goods, or move.

As for flat tax v current IRC, I prefer the current IRC for the following reasons:

  1. A progressive tax is more “fair”. Although under current conditions too many people don’t have skin in the game, and Bush actually did more for “poor” people in this area than anyone will admit. His brackets are part fo the “skin in the game” problem.

  2. A progressive tax is much more complicated than a flat tax. This ensures I have a job. A flat tax might strip me of around 200-600 billable hours a year. Ouch.

My dislike of a flat tax has as much, if not more to do with #2 than #1.

[quote]Alpha F wrote:

There is no discussion when not only you dodge any actual discussion but use this style.[/quote]

This sentence does not mean anything and it does not make sense, but I believe that I know what you’re trying so desperately to get across.

You’re very wrong. I’ve had fantastic debates on this board. I’ve emerged battered but happy to have gone toe to toe with the likes of Beans, Push, Sexmachine, Cortes, TB, Utah, Tiribulus, Zeb during election cycles, even DD despite the fact that he and I sometimes get too heated.

I can’t same the same for you and Jeaton. Perhaps that says something about me. Then again, perhaps it says something about the two of you.

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

  1. A progressive tax is more “fair”. Although under current conditions too many people don’t have skin in the game, and Bush actually did more for “poor” people in this area than anyone will admit. His brackets are part fo the “skin in the game” problem. [/quote]

CB, I’m curious about this. I assume that you’d like to see taxes rise somewhat in the low brackets, but keep a progressive structure in place?

$40k vs $200k ?

Libs don’t care that the guy making $200k is paying $20k in taxes, what they hate is that he has $180k left over.

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

  1. A progressive tax is more “fair”. Although under current conditions too many people don’t have skin in the game, and Bush actually did more for “poor” people in this area than anyone will admit. His brackets are part fo the “skin in the game” problem. [/quote]

CB, I’m curious about this. I assume that you’d like to see taxes rise somewhat in the low brackets, but keep a progressive structure in place?[/quote]

I liked Romney’s plan actually. Lower rates accross the board, and limit below the line deductions to a certain % of AGI. (On top of the tax free investment income for those with an AGI under 250k. This is HUGE for retired folks.)

This puts more money in the hands of the earners thoughout the year, and forces them to make spending choices on their own.

Major issues with this:

Government isn’t getting as much throughout the year, and instead in big chunks in April. This will force them to re-work late payment penalties tables. They won’t like this, they want their money upfront, much like a mafia Don.

A lot of people won’t understand this and will spend like assholes and then be like “WHAT?” when they owe the government the same 2,000 they did under the old system, but no have less withholdings.

See, every year I see people get giddy for their tax returns. I would say like 60-75% of these people don’t understand that it is their own money they are getting back, that they lent to the government, interest free, for however long. The rest of the people happy about this are shitty savers and need big brother to do it for them…

A flat tax hits lower income people harder than higher income peopel and would have to get gradually higher with the more your AGI is… So pretty much what we started with, lol.

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Alpha F wrote:
The principles of what is just is greater than progressive taxation.[/quote]

And the law of diminishing marginal utility explains what is just.[/quote]

No, I wrote a thesis on this shit and this rests on the assumption that utility is cardinal and commensurable.

It is neither, which draws the rug out from under welfare theory.

If Harsanyi cannot do it, I doubt that you can.