"BAR" wrote in message
. ..
Peter Skelton wrote:
On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 19:04:40 -0700, Fred J. McCall
wrote:

Peter Skelton wrote:

:On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 13:15:13 -0700, Fred J. McCall
wrote:
:
:Peter Skelton wrote:
:
::On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 08:55:18 -0700, Fred J. McCall
wrote:
::
::Peter Skelton wrote:
::
:::On Sat, 13 Sep 2008 22:00:23 -0700, Fred J. McCall
wrote:
:::
:::Taxes based on income should be flat. They distort the economy
the
:::least that way and allow it to function closer to its optimum
levels.
:::
:::
:::That, of course, is a religious statement, devoid of proof and
:::unprovable.
:::
::
::No, Peter, that is a basic fact, as you would know if you knew
::anything at all about Economics.
::
::Another religious statement, followed by a flat lie. If you have
::a proof, show it. ::
:
:No 'religious' statement and no lie.
:
:Where and when did you get your degree in economics, Peter?
:
:So now you're attempting to appeal to expertisde gained in your
:time in the seminary? Religious statement followed by lie, as I
:said.
:

First time I ever heard anyone call CU Boulder a "seminary". So far
the only lies here seem to have Peter tracks on them.

Humour ddead and still pretending he didn't lie.
:
:One can find economists who agree with Fred on this, and others
:who don't. It is trivial to prove that, in a very low income
:society, a flat tax doesn't work. It's also not hard to prove
:that, in a very high income society, it's the best. As there is
:no proven definition for high or low income in the context of
:these theories, and no way to prove such a definition belief in
:their application to the US is religious, not scientific.
:

Peter, as usual, is confused. He appears to be trapped in normative
economics, which is not what is being discussed. The statement was
that a flat tax is LESS DISTORTIVE of the economy, leading to
generally more optimal economic market choices. This is regardless of
income of the society. Certainly lower taxes (of any kind) are less
distortive than higher taxes, but that's rather irrelevant to the
discussion.

Absolute bull**** Fred. The claim being made is "Taxes based on
income should be flat." You're simply lying, again.

Your supportive statement "They distort the economy the least
that way and allow it to function closer to its optimum levels."
is true under some conditions which I bothered to spell out (and
you agree with) but it is not the claim. Learn to tell the truth.

At low incomes a flat tax large enough to support the state
collapses the economy (and kills people and might spark revolt).
That is, in the opinion of the sane, distortion.

I mentioned nothing about level of taxation, why did you
introduce this irrelevance?

This is not opinion and you're not going to find any competent
economists who disagree with it. Note that the statement being made
is not the same as saying it is 'best'. That is a normative judgment.
It is also, apparently, how, in his ignorance of the subject, Peter is
interpreting the actual statement being made.

It is purely opinion Fred, economics is still largely art. There
is no shortage of economists who are well aware of the facts and
say so. If you read (you can read, but seldom bother), you'll
find that "flat tax" articles very often argue from the pov that
a simple system is better than a complex one and a flat tax is
simple. The examples trotted out are not from states that had
undergone significant political change recently, and whose tax
systems were disfunctional before.

Flat tax is another of the ideas that sweeps economic thought
periodically. It's not the first I've lived through and it won't
be the last.

Should sales taxes be progressive?

Flat tax will never be. Taxation is one of the greatest controls
politicians have over the people. So they can bless one section and screw
another depending on their opinions and donors opinions.