Why are you cowards so scared to discuss the HONESTY of Rand Paul?

HOLY SHIT

I just read a WHOLE page of discourse without the name calling and bile that usually upends discussions that would otherwise be productive and thought- provoking. Well done gents, well done.

It's a very old thread...

And the good Cap'n never did answer my question.

And the good Cap'n never did answer my question. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Didn't see earlier that you had asked for my opinion on something, since I don't exactly keep up with this forum on an everyday basis like some of you guys.

However ...

Didn't I address that very question a couple of years ago in one of our previous tax discussions?

Captain... What would YOU recommend now, as tax reform you support? Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Didn't I address that very question a couple of years ago in one of our previous tax discussions? Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

Here you go, COG...

...a few conservative economists (Harvard's Robert Barro, for example) have suggested that it would be beneficial to replace the payroll tax and income taxes on about the bottom three deciles of the income distribution with a consumption tax, and levy a simplified flat tax on higher incomes. The point is that relative to the status quo, such a tax system would be far more efficient, would produce less of what we refer to as "deadweight loss," and would do less to disincentivize employment, investment, and production.

And huge piles of junk that have been added to the tax code over the last few decades could be hauled off. Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

He also referenced Robert Barro's proposal in #79 of this thread.

Here you go, COG...



He also referenced Robert Barro's proposal in #79 of this thread. Originally Posted by lustylad

Yes. I saw that. But I didn't know if he was endorsing that, or not. If that's his idea, fine, as far as it goes. As far as I know, the Good Cap'n has not put forth what he thinks would be a good tax system for the country. My question was, if a new country came you for advice on how to set up a mechanism for funding their government, what would you advise them, Captain Midnight? This is a brand new government with no system in place, so there is nothing to reform. What would be the best system to get them started?


That was my question, Captain Midnight. And no, you didn't answer it.

My question was, if a new country came to you for advice on how to set up a mechanism for funding their government, what would you advise them, Captain Midnight? Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Hard to say, COG... wouldn't the answer depend on a host of factors you haven't specified - e.g. the new country's population, GNP size and composition, natural resources, labor sophistication, income distribution, poverty levels, infrastructure needs, access to capital markets, etc.?

But you already understand that since you used to teach university-level economics, right?

If you'd taken the time to read my original post, LL, you'd see those questions were answered. Let's say a country of, say, 300 million people with a mixed economy. Feel free to add whatever other assumptions you need in order to answer, Cap'n.

It's a simple question. Jeez, lighten up.

It's a simple question. Jeez, lighten up. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Not a simple question at all. If it's a country of 300 million, it still makes a huge difference whether that population is young or aging since that determines how much the govt needs to spend for things like pensions and healthcare. Assuming a "mixed economy" doesn't tell us anything. An oil-exporting country (such as Russia or Saudi Arabia) can rely on oil revenues to fund a big chunk of its budget, reducing the need to tax its own citizens. There are far too many variables involved to answer your question intelligently, which is probably why the Captain ignored it. Instead of saying add your own assumptions, why don't you just admit you're talking about the US?

Not a simple question at all. If it's a country of 300 million, it still makes a huge difference whether that population is young or aging since that determines how much the govt needs to spend for things like pensions and healthcare. Assuming a "mixed economy" doesn't tell us anything. An oil-exporting country (such as Russia or Saudi Arabia) can rely on oil revenues to fund a big chunk of its budget, reducing the need to tax its own citizens. There are far too many variables involved to answer your question intelligently, which is probably why the Captain ignored it. Instead of saying add your own assumptions, why don't you just admit you're talking about the US? Originally Posted by lustylad

I did. In the original post. This question isn't for you. You may answer if you want, but it's not for you. So answer Start from scratch. If you need to make an assumption, go ahead. I had this question on a test at university. Your simply avoiding answering it. Which is fine. It's wasn't directed at you. And the Captain can avoid it, too, if he wants.


There's no budget. There is no funding mechanism. They want advice on what to do, and how to do it. If you want, assume a budget, and then decide how to fund it. Don't get caught up in specifics, I'm looking for general concepts and theories. What would an ideal tax system look like.

You're simply trying to re-ignite the past discussion that the Captain and I had. I'm not trying to do that. Quit trying to start shit. I can do that quite well on my own, and I have no intention of using this to start any arguments or anything. I will promise right now that I will not attack his answer in any way. I may ask some questions, but they will be asked respectfully. I'm not re-hashing old ground. I made that agreement with the Captain awhile ago, and I'm not going back on it.

CuteOldGuy,

First, as I've mentioned in several replies to your queries in the past, I never wished to get into the business of advocating for any particular tax system, although I have always been willing to discuss what may be reasonably viable from a political point of view. It must be recognized that every form of taxation is likely to burden the economy with some degree of deadweight loss, since it would necessarily disincentivize certain activity if the rates were set at substantially higher than trivial levels. There's simply no way around that. To that end, that's why I think Professor Barro and many others have suggested that in an ideal world, a consumption tax should be part of the mix, but only part, since the U.S. government spends far, far too much to allow a consumption tax to come remotely close to financing the whole ball of wax. In order to do so, you would have to set the national sales tax rate to a ridiculously high level. Needless to say, if you were to do so, many small business owners and service providers would arrange for a substantial portion of receipts to take a detour around the cash register, like in Italy and Greece. Also, consumption of new goods would be severely suppressed. The demand for new cars, for instance, would drop precipitously relative to that for good late model pre-owned ones, since the latter would not be subject to the FairTax. The distortions would surely destabilize large swaths of the economy.

Additionally. you mentioned that your hypothetical new republic has no established funding mechanism and "no budget." How in the world can anyone recommend what type of tax system to utilize if there's no budget? Did you intend for the hypothetical country to just emulate the U.S. in every way, including a full range of entitlement programs and defense spending? Or did you have in mind more of a libertarian utopia, where policymakers might wish to eschew high levels of spending on such things?

By the way, since you appear so eager to broach the issue of unanswered questions, why don't you answer the one I left for you at the end of this thread?

http://www.eccie.net/showthread.php?t=964762

Note the last two posts in the thread (For that matter, the prior half-dozen or so as well.)

Earlier in that thread I described myriad reasons why the FairTax, from both political and policy points of view, is as much of a non-starter as anything I've ever seen.

Yet you claimed that more "economists" and "financial experts" have "worked on" the FairTax than any other plan. Yes, seriously. You actually said that. Here's the quote from 02/14/2014:

...More economists and financial experts have worked on the FairTax than any other plan... Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

(Really? Who are they?)

You can see that in my last post in the thread, I asked you to tell us who these mysterious "financial experts" might be.

But that was followed by nothing but radio silence.

Now, Captain. I was trying to avoid our former discussion as well as the resulting disrespect. I thought we had reached an agreement. Apparently not. I will not go down that road with you again. If you want to rant and call names, that is on you. I was trying to just get some sense of where you were at. I even responded to LL in an earlier post that I had intention of being critical or contentious with your answer. Apparently, we define "respect" differently. Fine. I'll take that as your answer.

Good day, sir.

Now, Captain. I was trying to avoid our former discussion as well as the resulting disrespect. I thought we had reached an agreement. Apparently not. I will not go down that road with you again. If you want to rant and call names, that is on you... Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Huh? What rant? What names? Did I miss something? All I read was a thoughtful reply.

Seems like someone else needs to "lighten up."

Huh? What rant? What names? Did I miss something? All I read was a thoughtful reply.

Seems like someone else needs to "lighten up." Originally Posted by lustylad

Yep! Pretty amazing, huh?

But there's one thing people need to understand about followers of the FairTax cult. They tend to launch into high dudgeon if you in any way challenge the wild exaggerations and other laughable bullshit served up in the Boortz-Linder book and on their advocacy websites. I have challenged COG multiple times over the last few years to post a link to a reputable, unbiased source bolstering his claims of the FairTax's viability and workability. Or, alternatively, he could try to cogently explain the issue in his own words. (That'll be the day!) Of course, he whiffs every time. He won't answer the questions because he obviously can't do so in a convincing, reasoned fashion.

If you check out that book or take a glance at the websites, you'll see more sleight of hand than you would at any magic show!

This thread has lasted longer than the Rand Paul Presidential Candidacy.