Bush Administration vs. the Bill of Rights in the SCOTUS

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

I'll lay it on the line right here: Shrub is an Asshole. Shrub needs to be Impeached for disobeying the very same Constitution he was sworn to uphold.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Doesn’t “basic economics” also have a few things to say about deficit spending.

Doesn’t it suggest that tax cuts (even if you can afford them) will stimulate the economy more if it they are targeted at the middle and lower middle income groups who have limited disposable income gather than at the already very rich.

On what basis can you be sure that Kerry will tax and spend more than Bush, I wasn’t aware that spending had fallen under Bush in fact I’ve read that Pork is at an all time high.

Demand side economics doesnt really work due to one thing. Say's law. "Supply creates its own demand" Supply comes first. Without suppliers, there is nothing for the middle and lower classes to demand. If we tax the rich, who produce the goods, then they will not be able to produce and sell their goods, this means that the middle and lower class will not only have no job, but wil have nothing to buy, and what they can buy will be prioced so high they cant afford it.

If taxes are low all around(I favor a flat income tax) then the producers can sell goods and services, and the consumers can afford to buy them.

Without demand, supply is worthless or is never created in the first place. Say's Law is bullshit.

But humans are self0intersted. When they see something nifty they want it. And if they ahve the means to trade for it...

THis is why I favor a low flat tax, rather than a gratuated tax. Because BOTH SIDES are needed for the equation to work.

[Patrick Degan]

Demand side economics doesnt really work due to one thing. Say's law. "Supply creates its own demand" Supply comes first. Without suppliers, there is nothing for the middle and lower classes to demand. If we tax the rich, who produce the goods, then they will not be able to produce and sell their goods, this means that the middle and lower class will not only have no job, but wil have nothing to buy, and what they can buy will be prioced so high they cant afford it.

If taxes are low all around(I favor a flat income tax) then the producers can sell goods and services, and the consumers can afford to buy them.

Without demand, supply is worthless or is never created in the first place. Say's Law is bullshit.

But humans are self-intersted. When they see something nifty they want it. And if they ahve the means to trade for it...

Gee... I guess that explains all the privately-built moon colonies —oh wait, those don't exist. No big demand for living on the moon, y'see...

THis is why I favor a low flat tax, rather than a gratuated tax. Because BOTH SIDES are needed for the equation to work.

Even Adam Smith accepted the principle of progressive taxation. And while both sides are necessary, it is the demand-side which has precedence because otherwise there is no rationale for supply.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Before someone can demand something they must produce something in order to gain the means of exchange. Neither can exist without the other.

Have a source for Adam Smith and his support for a progressive income tax?

[Patrick Degan]

Before someone can demand something they must produce something in order to gain the means of exchange. Neither can exist without the other.

And before it makes sense to undertake the capital investment in creating a supply of something, there must be a guarantee that there will be a consumer base, or demand, for that product in the first place. This actually is not a difficult concept to grasp.

Have a source for Adam Smith and his support for a progressive income tax?

Book Five, Chapter Two, Part the Second, An Inquiry Into The Nature And Causes Of The Wealth Of Nations:

Linky

CHAPTER II

Of the Sources of the General or Public Revenue of the Society

PART 2

Of Taxes

THE private revenue of individuals, it has been shown in the first book of this Inquiry, arises ultimately from three different sources: Rent, Profit, and Wages. Every tax must finally be paid from some one or other of those three different sorts of revenue, or from all of them indifferently. I shall endeavour to give the best account I can, first, of those taxes which, it is intended, should fall upon rent; secondly, of those which, it is intended, should fall upon profit; thirdly, of those which, it is intended, should fall upon wages; and, fourthly, of those which, it is intended, should fall indifferently upon all those three different sources of private revenue. The particular consideration of each of these four different sorts of taxes will divide the second part of the present chapter into four articles, three of which will require several other subdivisions. Many of those taxes, it will appear from the following review, are not finally paid from the fund, or source of revenue, upon which it was intended they should fall.

Before I enter upon the examination of particular taxes, it is necessary to premise the four following maxims with regard to taxes in general.

I. The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state. The expense of government to the individuals of a great nation is like the expense of management to the joint tenants of a great estate, who are all obliged to contribute in proportion to their respective interests in the estate. In the observation or neglect of this maxim consists what is called the equality or inequality of taxation. Every tax, it must be observed once for all, which falls finally upon one only of the three sorts of revenue above mentioned, is necessarily unequal in so far as it does not affect the other two. In the following examination of different taxes I shall seldom take much further notice of this sort of inequality, but shall, in most cases, confine my observations to that inequality which is occasioned by a particular tax falling unequally even upon that particular sort of private revenue which is affected by it.

II. The tax which each individual is bound to pay ought to be certain, and not arbitrary. The time of payment, the manner of payment, the quantity to be paid, ought all to be clear and plain to the contributor, and to every other person. Where it is otherwise, every person subject to the tax is put more or less in the power of the tax-gathered, who can either aggravate the tax upon any obnoxious contributor, or extort, by the terror of such aggravation, some present or perquisite to himself. The uncertainty of taxation encourages the insolence and favours the corruption of an order of men who are naturally unpopular, even where they are neither insolent nor corrupt. The certainty of what each individual ought to pay is, in taxation, a matter of so great importance that a very considerable degree of inequality, it appears, I believe, from the experience of all nations, is not near so great an evil as a very small degree of uncertainty.

III. Every tax ought to be levied at the time, or in the manner, in which it is most likely to be convenient for the contributor to pay it. A tax upon the rent of land or of houses, payable at the same term at which such rents are usually paid, is levied at the time when it is most likely to be convenient for the contributor to pay; or, when he is most likely to have wherewithal to pay. Taxes upon such consumable goods as are articles of luxury are all finally paid by the consumer, and generally in a manner that is very convenient for him. He pays them by little and little, as he has occasion to buy the goods. As he is at liberty, too, either to buy, or not to buy, as he pleases, it must be his own fault if he ever suffers any considerable inconveniency from such taxes.

IV. Every tax ought to be so contrived as both to take out and to keep out of the pockets of the people as little as possible over and above what it brings into the public treasury of the state. A tax may either take out or keep out of the pockets of the people a great deal more than it brings into the public treasury, in the four following ways. First, the levying of it may require a great number of officers, whose salaries may eat up the greater part of the produce of the tax, and whose perquisites may impose another additional tax upon the people. Secondly, it may obstruct the industry the people, and discourage them from applying to certain branches of business which might give maintenance and unemployment to great multitudes. While it obliges the people to pay, it may thus diminish, or perhaps destroy, some of the funds which might enable them more easily to do so. Thirdly, by the forfeitures and other penalties which those unfortunate individuals incur who attempt unsuccessfully to evade the tax, it may frequently ruin them, and thereby put an end to the benefit which the community might have received from the employment of their capitals. An injudicious tax offers a great temptation to smuggling. But the penalties of smuggling must rise in proportion to the temptation. The law, contrary to all the ordinary principles of justice, first creates the temptation, and then punishes those who yield to it; and it commonly enhances the punishment, too, in proportion to the very circumstance which ought certainly to alleviate it, the temptation to commit the crime. Fourthly, by subjecting the people to the frequent visits and the odious examination of the tax-gatherers, it may expose them to much unnecessary trouble, vexation, and oppression; and though vexation is not, strictly speaking, expense, it is certainly equivalent to the expense at which every man would be willing to redeem himself from it. It is in some one or other of these four different ways that taxes are frequently so much more burdensome to the people than they are beneficial to the sovereign.

The evident justice and utility of the foregoing maxims have recommended them more or less to the attention of all nations. All nations have endeavoured, to the best of their judgment, to render their taxes as equal as they could contrive; as certain, as convenient to the contributor, both in the time and in the mode of payment, and, in proportion to the revenue which they brought to the prince, as little burdensome to the people. The following short review of some of the principal taxes which have taken place in different ages and countries will show that the endeavours of all nations have not in this respect been equally successful.

[Alyrium Denryle]

And before it makes sense to undertake the capital investment in creating a supply of something, there must be a guarantee that there will be a consumer base, or demand, for that product in the first place. This actually is not a difficult concept to grasp.

Oh of course, but before a person can demand a good, there must be a good to demand. And before someone can demand something, they must produce something to exchange.

As I have said, they are mutually inclusive.

in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state. The expense of government to the individuals of a great nation is like the expense of management to the joint tenants of a great estate, who are all obliged to contribute in proportion to their respective interests in the estate.

This can also be interpreted as a percentile tax(which is generally what is intended by a flat tax), rather than as a "you pay 500 dollars a year rather than 15% of your income"

Taxes are literally the price of government. And because everyone is equal in the eyes of the law, each persons investment in the state which protect them should be proportional to their income, ie. the same percentage of their encome.

[Alyrium Denryle]

I probably misworded that...

Have many things going through my head at once.

Basically, because everyone recieves the same protection from the state, the investment they make in that state must be proportional to their abilities(a percentage would work) and proportional to the protection they recieve(the same in our country)

[Patrick Degan]

And before it makes sense to undertake the capital investment in creating a supply of something, there must be a guarantee that there will be a consumer base, or demand, for that product in the first place. This actually is not a difficult concept to grasp.

Oh of course, but before a person can demand a good, there must be a good to demand. And before someone can demand something, they must produce something to exchange.

As I have said, they are mutually inclusive.

And it makes no fucking sense to produce a good that there isn't a demand for to begin with.

in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state. The expense of government to the individuals of a great nation is like the expense of management to the joint tenants of a great estate, who are all obliged to contribute in proportion to their respective interests in the estate.

This can also be interpreted as a percentile tax(which is generally what is intended by a flat tax), rather than as a "you pay 500 dollars a year rather than 15% of your income"

Taxes are literally the price of government. And because everyone is equal in the eyes of the law, each persons investment in the state which protect them should be proportional to their income, ie. the same percentage of their encome.

Rank sophistry. Smith says nothing beyond what his plain text describes. Unless you can find that "interpretation" somewhere else in The Wealth Of Nations, you have no argument.

[Joe]

Have a source for Adam Smith and his support for a progressive income tax?

He never supported a progressive income tax per se (such a tax didn't exist until the 19th century, AFAIK) but one of his four criteria for a good tax system is equitable distribution (the more wherewithal you have to pay, the more you pay).

[Alyrium Denryle]

And it makes no fucking sense to produce a good that there isn't a demand for to begin with.

They why the fuck does anything new get invented? I can guarantee that the automobile was not in demand before it was invented. Or how about Penicllin(sp)? Was it in demand before it was invented?

A person produces a good because they think they can make money doing it, but before anyone can demand said good, they must have produced something as well(be it a good or a service) in order to obtain whatever means of exchange they will use to barter for said good.

Supply, production, comes before anyone can demand anything, because to demand, one must produce.

Again, the two are necessary for each other to exist.

I. The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government,

All citizens must pay taxes

as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.

As colse as possible to their respected ability to pay them. (ie. a person who makes 500 dollars a month should not have to pay $12000 in taxes)

who are all obliged to contribute in proportion to their respective interests in the estate.

Everyone is protected equally by the state. Therefore every person has the same respective interests and should not have to pay more, in proportion to their abilities, than another.

I fail to see how that can be interpreted in any simpler a fashion.

What economic or moral sense does it make for a wealthy person to pay more, in proportion to his/her income, than a poorer person, when they recieve the same benifits? We may as well start putting yellow starts on the wealthy while we are at it.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Have a source for Adam Smith and his support for a progressive income tax?

He never supported a progressive income tax per se (such a tax didn't exist until the 19th century, AFAIK) but one of his four criteria for a good tax system is equitable distribution (the more wherewithal you have to pay, the more you pay).

Oh yeah, the more dollars you pay, but not a greater percentage of your income.

[Alyrium Denryle]

edit: Yellow starts>change to>yellow stars

[Patrick Degan]

And it makes no fucking sense to produce a good that there isn't a demand for to begin with.

They why the fuck does anything new get invented? I can guarantee that the automobile was not in demand before it was invented. Or how about Penicllin(sp)? Was it in demand before it was invented?

Riiiight. There was just no big need to find effective cures for diseases which killed in the thousands every year until penicilin was stumbled upon.

A person produces a good because they think they can make money doing it, but before anyone can demand said good, they must have produced something as well(be it a good or a service) in order to obtain whatever means of exchange they will use to barter for said good.

They "think they can make money doing it" because there is reason to presume that a demand will exist for it. Presumably this may be one reason why there aren't a lot of factories devoted to producing ermine violins.

Supply, production, comes before anyone can demand anything, because to demand, one must produce.

And to have any reason to produce, people must demand a thing. Only artists create things from the pure hell of it —and more than 3/4 of them have an eye toward making something on the art market for their efforts.

Again, the two are necessary for each other to exist.

And again, without a reason to produce something, i.e. a demand, nobody is going to toss their money into said needless production.

I. The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government,

All citizens must pay taxes

as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.

As colse as possible to their respected ability to pay them. (ie. a person who makes 500 dollars a month should not have to pay $12000 in taxes)

And Adam Smith supports your bullshit interpretation where, exactly?

who are all obliged to contribute in proportion to their respective interests in the estate.

Everyone is protected equally by the state. Therefore every person has the same respective interests and should not have to pay more, in proportion to their abilities, than another.

The principle of equality before the law says that nobody shall be held above or below the law. It does not state that everybody will be treated exactly the same as everybody else under all circumstances. Again, where does Adam Smith support your self-serving interpretation of his own text?

I fail to see how that can be interpreted in any simpler a fashion.

We're not concerned with how you wish to see what Smith's words meant, we're concerned with where in Smith's text the support for your self-serving interpretation of his own words is found.

What economic or moral sense does it make for a wealthy person to pay more, in proportion to his/her income, than a poorer person, when they recieve the same benifits? We may as well start putting yellow starts on the wealthy while we are at it.

Except they do not receive the same benefits, as even a cursory scan of the tax laws demonstrates —nevermind the fact that they do not receive the same level of protection for property. It is also observable that taxation is a zero-sum operation: if the rich aren't paying taxes, the working classes must do so. If income isn't taxed, it must come from exices or property value or both. If profit isn't taxed, it must come from every other form of taxation. Since the working classes would suffer from having a relatively large proportion of their income assessed, the logic of the situation points toward a larger share falling upon those with the greater ability to pay and who are assured of having a larger financial position afterward even after taxes are paid.

[Plekhanov]

They why the fuck does anything new get invented? I can guarantee that the automobile was not in demand before it was invented.

Are you suggesting that the potential market for the “horseless carriage” wasn’t readily apparent to many before a viable alternative was devised?

Or how about Penicllin(sp)? Was it in demand before it was invented?

As I recall penicillin was initially developed in a government funded Universty (Oxford) and then developed with US Government funds in the US partially in response to WWII.

Even if penicillin hadn’t been developed by the oh so inefficient government are you seriously suggesting that the potential demand for a general cure to the bacterial infections, which killed hundreds of thousands/millions, wasn’t obvious?

Aside from your questionable selection of examples to back up your case I hope that you can see from your discussion with Patrick Degan that the superiority of the policies you presume Bush has (but doesn’t seem all that keen to enact) compared to the Kerry policies you didn’t specify, is rather more complicated than “simple economics”.

[Andrew J.]

They why the fuck does anything new get invented? I can guarantee that the automobile was not in demand before it was invented. Or how about Penicllin(sp)? Was it in demand before it was invented?

There is usually little or no demand for what a thing is, but plenty for waht it can do.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Jesus fucking christ, I have said over and over again, supply is needed for demand to exist, because one way or another one must produce to demand, but at the same time, one must demand for another to produce. Why are we still arguing that point?

How praytell does Adam smith support your interpretation? My interpretation is simpler, and is frankly within better historical context as the concept of a progressive income tax was not even considered until the late 19th century.

Except they do not receive the same benefits, as even a cursory scan of the tax laws demonstrates —nevermind the fact that they do not receive the same level of protection for property. It is also observable that taxation is a zero-sum operation: if the rich aren't paying taxes, the working classes must do so. If income isn't taxed, it must come from exices or property value or both. If profit isn't taxed, it must come from every other form of taxation. Since the working classes would suffer from having a relatively large proportion of their income assessed, the logic of the situation points toward a larger share falling upon those with the greater ability to pay and who are assured of having a larger financial position afterward even after taxes are paid.

Strawman, I never said there should not be an income tax, or that in our time period, that rich and poor recieved the same benifits. Simply because in Smiths time, and for some time after his death, the concept of a progressive income tax did not exist.

And frankly, all taxes are, in the end payed by the final consumer. Because a businesman will raise prices to pay his taxes.

[Joe]

How praytell does Adam smith support your interpretation? My interpretation is simpler, and is frankly within better historical context as the concept of a progressive income tax was not even considered until the late 19th century.

Patrick never said that Smith would have supported a progressive income tax, just the principle of progressive taxation. Property taxes can be progressive as well, and they were.

[Alyrium Denryle]

How praytell does Adam smith support your interpretation? My interpretation is simpler, and is frankly within better historical context as the concept of a progressive income tax was not even considered until the late 19th century.

Patrick never said that Smith would have supported a progressive income tax, just the principle of progressive taxation. Property taxes can be progressive as well, and they were.

Very well, that point is conceeded.

[Andrew J.]

Jesus fucking christ, I have said over and over again, supply is needed for demand to exist, because one way or another one must produce to demand, but at the same time, one must demand for another to produce. Why are we still arguing that point?

Because you're wrong, probably. Right now, for example, there is a demand for an HIV/AIDS cure. Supply? Nonexistent. The demand is there, so the first people that can actually make such a thing are going to get filthy rich (or, because they'll probably be working for drug companies, filthy richer ).

[Alyrium Denryle]

Jesus fucking christ, I have said over and over again, supply is needed for demand to exist, because one way or another one must produce to demand, but at the same time, one must demand for another to produce. Why are we still arguing that point?

Because you're wrong, probably. Right now, for example, there is a demand for an HIV/AIDS cure. Supply? Nonexistent. The demand is there, so the first people that can actually make such a thing are going to get filthy rich (or, because they'll probably be working for drug companies, filthy richer ).

Drug companies and scientists are working on that as we speak. Hell, I will be working on that.

But tell me, with what money are these people demanding a cure for HIV/AIDS? To demand something, is to be willing and able to purchase it as you hopefully remember.

To get said money, they msut have worked, when one works, they produce something, they produce because someone demanded something, who in turn worked and produced something because someone demanded it.

[Vympel]

Wouldn't this be the proper time for the far right to start running away from Bush as fast as humanly possible? I mean the want 'smaller' government right?

All those fuckers truly care about is low taxes for the rich to advance trickle-down aka "we're pissing on you" economics and someone to advance their bullshit religious agenda. 'Small' government doesn't seem to enter into it- that's the province of real conservatives.

[Andrew J.]

Jesus fucking christ, I have said over and over again, supply is needed for demand to exist, because one way or another one must produce to demand, but at the same time, one must demand for another to produce. Why are we still arguing that point?

Because you're wrong, probably. Right now, for example, there is a demand for an HIV/AIDS cure. Supply? Nonexistent. The demand is there, so the first people that can actually make such a thing are going to get filthy rich (or, because they'll probably be working for drug companies, filthy richer ).

Drug companies and scientists are working on that as we speak. Hell, I will be working on that.

But tell me, with what money are these people demanding a cure for HIV/AIDS? To demand something, is to be willing and able to purchase it as you hopefully remember.

Eh, somebody'll buy it for most of them. The UN, charities, rich bleeding-hearts, their governments (if their governments have money and socialized healthcare). And of course rich people with AIDS will buy it for themselves.

To get said money, they msut have worked, when one works, they produce something, they produce because someone demanded something, who in turn worked and produced something because someone demanded it.

Then you agree demand comes first and then the supply, yes?

[Alyrium Denryle]

Wouldn't this be the proper time for the far right to start running away from Bush as fast as humanly possible? I mean the want 'smaller' government right?

All those fuckers truly care about is low taxes for the rich to advance trickle-down aka "we're pissing on you" economics and someone to advance their bullshit religious agenda. 'Small' government doesn't seem to enter into it- that's the province of real conservatives.

*raises hand*

How dare they call themselves right wingers.

[Joe]

All those fuckers truly care about is low taxes for the rich to advance trickle-down aka "we're pissing on you" economics and someone to advance their bullshit religious agenda. 'Small' government doesn't seem to enter into it- that's the province of real conservatives.

Jesus, he's figured us out!

*melts*

[Alyrium Denryle]

Because you're wrong, probably. Right now, for example, there is a demand for an HIV/AIDS cure. Supply? Nonexistent. The demand is there, so the first people that can actually make such a thing are going to get filthy rich (or, because they'll probably be working for drug companies, filthy richer ).

Drug companies and scientists are working on that as we speak. Hell, I will be working on that.

But tell me, with what money are these people demanding a cure for HIV/AIDS? To demand something, is to be willing and able to purchase it as you hopefully remember.

Eh, somebody'll buy it for most of them. The UN, charities, rich bleeding-hearts, their governments (if their governments have money and socialized healthcare). And of course rich people with AIDS will buy it for themselves.

To get said money, they msut have worked, when one works, they produce something, they produce because someone demanded something, who in turn worked and produced something because someone demanded it.

Then you agree demand comes first and then the supply, yes?

No. There is no "first" it is cyclical. You cannot have one without the other first proceeding it. The first economic exchange was probably some cave person who had a shiny shell the other wanted, and traded a piece of meat for it. They both demanded something, and they both supplied something. But they both had to work in some fashion to get what they originaly had. We have no way of knowiing whether they knew tohe other person would trade shell for meat...