No need to cry.  In fact, just the opposite.  Your newest "theory" is hilariously funny in it's sheer stupidity.

No need to elaborate on it, either.  It's monumental absurdity stands for itself.

Good job.

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/27/2014 1:41:00 PM (view original):
Perhaps it would be easier to cap the cost of goods/services.   Gallon of milk: $2.  Loaf of bread:  50 cents.   Steak dinner: $5.

Less people in poverty because the cost of living is much lower.

Good idea?

Nothing is capped. You can pay your executives any salary you want.

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/27/2014 1:41:00 PM (view original):
Perhaps it would be easier to cap the cost of goods/services.   Gallon of milk: $2.  Loaf of bread:  50 cents.   Steak dinner: $5.

Less people in poverty because the cost of living is much lower.

Good idea?

Can we do this with gas?  That would make me happy.  Thanks.

Posted by burnsy483 on 6/27/2014 1:46:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/27/2014 1:41:00 PM (view original):
Perhaps it would be easier to cap the cost of goods/services.   Gallon of milk: $2.  Loaf of bread:  50 cents.   Steak dinner: $5.

Less people in poverty because the cost of living is much lower.

Good idea?

Can we do this with gas?  That would make me happy.  Thanks.

Of course.   We making everything cheaper so less people will be in poverty.   The big salaries have to come down because the profits will be cut. 

It's a win for everybody.

Posted by bad_luck on 6/27/2014 12:29:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/27/2014 12:15:00 PM (view original):
Because "we need to stop the accumulation of wealth at the top"?

Why do we need to do that?

Because it's good for the economy.

Do you even understand that the wealthy are the ones who CREATE jobs?  Buying gourmet meals means more restaurant jobs, more food prep jobs (that foie gras doesn't grow itself), more farm jobs, more tax revenue, etc.  Buying big-*** houses means more domestic jobs (housekeeping, gardening, maintenance, etc.), more real estate jobs, more banking jobs, more finance jobs, more furniture jobs (gotta fill the house), and so on.

If I make less money, the first people who lose income are my housecleaners and my gardeners.  Then come the restaurant workers because we won't eat out as often.  If my income goes down, MY DISCRETIONARY expenses go down, and other people lose money.

Posted by toddcommish on 6/27/2014 2:03:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/27/2014 12:29:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/27/2014 12:15:00 PM (view original):
Because "we need to stop the accumulation of wealth at the top"?

Why do we need to do that?

Because it's good for the economy.

Do you even understand that the wealthy are the ones who CREATE jobs?  Buying gourmet meals means more restaurant jobs, more food prep jobs (that foie gras doesn't grow itself), more farm jobs, more tax revenue, etc.  Buying big-*** houses means more domestic jobs (housekeeping, gardening, maintenance, etc.), more real estate jobs, more banking jobs, more finance jobs, more furniture jobs (gotta fill the house), and so on.

If I make less money, the first people who lose income are my housecleaners and my gardeners.  Then come the restaurant workers because we won't eat out as often.  If my income goes down, MY DISCRETIONARY expenses go down, and other people lose money.

Do you even understand that the same Keynesian cycle you just described applies to everyone?

Policy that puts more money in the pockets of the poor and middle class creates even more jobs because there are many, many more poor and middle class.

Posted by bad_luck on 6/27/2014 2:15:00 PM (view original):

Posted by toddcommish on 6/27/2014 2:03:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/27/2014 12:29:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/27/2014 12:15:00 PM (view original):
Because "we need to stop the accumulation of wealth at the top"?

Why do we need to do that?

Because it's good for the economy.

Do you even understand that the wealthy are the ones who CREATE jobs?  Buying gourmet meals means more restaurant jobs, more food prep jobs (that foie gras doesn't grow itself), more farm jobs, more tax revenue, etc.  Buying big-*** houses means more domestic jobs (housekeeping, gardening, maintenance, etc.), more real estate jobs, more banking jobs, more finance jobs, more furniture jobs (gotta fill the house), and so on.

If I make less money, the first people who lose income are my housecleaners and my gardeners.  Then come the restaurant workers because we won't eat out as often.  If my income goes down, MY DISCRETIONARY expenses go down, and other people lose money.

Do you even understand that the same Keynesian cycle you just described applies to everyone?

Policy that puts more money in the pockets of the poor and middle class creates even more jobs because there are many, many more poor and middle class.

What about a policy that puts more money back into everyone's pocket? wouldn't that create the most jobs?

Posted by moy23 on 6/27/2014 3:48:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/27/2014 2:15:00 PM (view original):

Posted by toddcommish on 6/27/2014 2:03:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/27/2014 12:29:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/27/2014 12:15:00 PM (view original):
Because "we need to stop the accumulation of wealth at the top"?

Why do we need to do that?

Because it's good for the economy.

Do you even understand that the wealthy are the ones who CREATE jobs?  Buying gourmet meals means more restaurant jobs, more food prep jobs (that foie gras doesn't grow itself), more farm jobs, more tax revenue, etc.  Buying big-*** houses means more domestic jobs (housekeeping, gardening, maintenance, etc.), more real estate jobs, more banking jobs, more finance jobs, more furniture jobs (gotta fill the house), and so on.

If I make less money, the first people who lose income are my housecleaners and my gardeners.  Then come the restaurant workers because we won't eat out as often.  If my income goes down, MY DISCRETIONARY expenses go down, and other people lose money.

Do you even understand that the same Keynesian cycle you just described applies to everyone?

Policy that puts more money in the pockets of the poor and middle class creates even more jobs because there are many, many more poor and middle class.

What about a policy that puts more money back into everyone's pocket? wouldn't that create the most jobs?

A couple points:

1) the amount of money is less important than the spread. Meaning 100,000 people having an additional few thousand dollars is better than a few thousand people having an additional $100,000.

2) I don't know if we can really effectively put money into enough hands through tax cuts alone. As you've pointed out many times, most taxes are paid by people in the upper income brackets. Giving this money back to people who already have a lot of money is less effective stimulus than finding ways to increase income at the low end.

Posted by bad_luck on 6/27/2014 4:22:00 PM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 6/27/2014 3:48:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/27/2014 2:15:00 PM (view original):

Posted by toddcommish on 6/27/2014 2:03:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/27/2014 12:29:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/27/2014 12:15:00 PM (view original):
Because "we need to stop the accumulation of wealth at the top"?

Why do we need to do that?

Because it's good for the economy.

Do you even understand that the wealthy are the ones who CREATE jobs?  Buying gourmet meals means more restaurant jobs, more food prep jobs (that foie gras doesn't grow itself), more farm jobs, more tax revenue, etc.  Buying big-*** houses means more domestic jobs (housekeeping, gardening, maintenance, etc.), more real estate jobs, more banking jobs, more finance jobs, more furniture jobs (gotta fill the house), and so on.

If I make less money, the first people who lose income are my housecleaners and my gardeners.  Then come the restaurant workers because we won't eat out as often.  If my income goes down, MY DISCRETIONARY expenses go down, and other people lose money.

Do you even understand that the same Keynesian cycle you just described applies to everyone?

Policy that puts more money in the pockets of the poor and middle class creates even more jobs because there are many, many more poor and middle class.

What about a policy that puts more money back into everyone's pocket? wouldn't that create the most jobs?

A couple points:

1) the amount of money is less important than the spread. Meaning 100,000 people having an additional few thousand dollars is better than a few thousand people having an additional $100,000.

2) I don't know if we can really effectively put money into enough hands through tax cuts alone. As you've pointed out many times, most taxes are paid by people in the upper income brackets. Giving this money back to people who already have a lot of money is less effective stimulus than finding ways to increase income at the low end.

yes but if more people at the bottom that love to spend have more $ and more at the top that create jobs have more $ isn't that a perfect harmony?

Sure. The fair tax doesn't do that, though.

Posted by bad_luck on 6/27/2014 10:07:00 PM (view original):
Sure. The fair tax doesn't do that, though.

actually it does....

the poor effectively have a 0% or negative tax rate if they buy used nd collect the prebate.... the rich have closer to a 23% tax rate.

Posted by moy23 on 6/27/2014 10:38:00 PM (view original):
How to fix america...

split the country into 2 - Its heading that way anyways.

everything west of the mississippi is a red state that will cater to the small govt, less taxes crowd. This country can be called the republic of america. they will spend uber $$ protecting the borders and on defense. Its citizens can conceal & carry guns. they will encourage free markets and capitalism. They will build a keystone pipeline, drill in texas and alaska, and build nuclear power plants to become energy efficient and independant. This country will be fiscally conservative by nature.

The other country east of the mississippi will be called the democratic states of america. this country will open its borders, amnesty everyone, heavily tax its wealthiest citizens and treat them like pariahs. This country will use tax money to heavily support welfare, unemployment, and a single payer healthcare system. Here big business is considered bad and the corporate tax rates will be high. Military spending will be minimal because everyone will love this country and would never do it any harm. Coal and Oil will be regulated out of this country and replaced by solar and wind power. Everyone will earn at least $15 as mandated by this country's law. This country will spend more than they collect in taxes.

Problem solved - everyone is happy. Pick your side. Live with the consequenses of your choice.

I said this 70 pages ago BH... which side are you choosing?

You can't rent an apartment "used." Groceries don't come "used."

That's where most money goes when you're poor. There's no way for them to avoid the tax on most of their income. The fair tax is regressive and you're delusional if you think otherwise.

Didn't you say that paying tax was "part of the deal of living here"?

Posted by bad_luck on 6/27/2014 10:41:00 PM (view original):
You can't rent an apartment "used." Groceries don't come "used."

That's where most money goes when you're poor. There's no way for them to avoid the tax on most of their income. The fair tax is regressive and you're delusional if you think otherwise.

28% of those in poverty smoke... and smokes are currently taxed at nearly 50%. at least the fair tax lowers their tax to 23% flat on smokes.

I hate to break this to you but there is no sales tax when you rent... only buying new, not renting.

under the fair tax a person that needs furniture, clothes, and a car can buy used and pay 0% in sales tax and 0% income tax,... it does not get better than that.... PERIOD.... oh, wait... it does... they get a prebate of at least $2491 per year or $210/mo no matter what as a single person... $4800 as a married couple.

Can you find a way to buy clothes, furnature, and a car for 0% tax under the current system? please provide an example. Thanks!