re: Which of the following is better for the economy?

quote:

---

You tout the property rights of some but not the property rights of others.


What are you talking about? I universally apply property rights. I'm generally curious? You think I'm anti-Israeli? Yet you support their socialistic government. How am I the person who is anti-Israeli?

---

Because you support the rights of the Palestinians being killed by Israelis targeting rocket launchers, but not the rights of the Israelis who are killed by Palestinian rockets fired from those locations. If you knew the conflict, you would understand that there are no good guys. There are no underdogs, there are no cheering masses welcoming peace. There is only hate, tempered by millennia of abuse and heated by decades of strife. There is no right or wrong, only shades of grey. The fact that you so readily ignore that to confirm your own biases troubles me.

If you will do so so readily in one subject, why not another? How can anything you say be taken seriously if your bias so erodes your principles elsewhere? Does your ignorance and bias blind you in economics as well? Domestic politics?

quote:

---

but not the rights of the Israelis who are killed by Palestinian rockets fired from those locations.

---

This is a lie. I am absolutely opposed to Israelis being killed by Hamas. It just rarely happens and when it does people justify Israel bombing a few hundred Palestinian citizens.
As I have said previously, only 2 Israeli citizens have been killed, 500+ Palestinians.

quote:

---

This is a lie. I am absolutely opposed to Israelis being killed by Hamas. It just rarely happens and when it does people justify Israel bombing a few hundred Palestinian citizens.
As I have said previously, only 2 Israeli citizens have been killed, 500+ Palestinians.

---

Yet you lack the vision to see that one necessitates the other. Israel is protecting their property rights. They created the Iron Dome which renders most of those rockets useless. They offered peace, and Hamas decided to keep hurling rockets. Some people just cannot be reasoned with. Some people only know force. That is why some government must still exist, to remove those people who only abide by force and nothing more. Those who would forfeit the rights of others for naught but wanton savagery and hate have no legitimate claim to rights for their own selves.

quote:

---

t is a mathematical impossibility for a few politicians to contain the knowledge to know how to spend our scarce resources, no matter how small, more efficiently than an entire society.

---

Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth should be required reading for any advocates of governmental central planning.

quote:

---

Governments can not do this by definition. If you think Hamas is the greatest violator of Israeli rights, you are incorrect. How are those tanks and missiles paid for (minus $3B from the US)?

And again, if there was action specific against the people who were firing rockets I wouldn't have qualms with it, but that IS NOT what is happening. 80% of the dead are civilians, that is NOT what you are claiming.

---

Because the rockets are fired from among the civilians! Besides you ignore the billions WE give Palestine as well! Our foreign aid doesn't just go to Israel, it goes to Egypt, Palestine, Lebanon, Pakistan, Iraq, Afghanistan, ect. We are paying for the missiles for both sides.

80% of the dead are civilians because this is a guerrilla war being fought in an urban environment where the guerrillas purposefully position themselves around children to create outrage when those children are collateral damage.

I don't think investment or the economy would take a hit if a few million pennies were taken out

quote:

---

I don't think investment or the economy would take a hit if a few million pennies were taken out

---

They absolutely would. Would it be a big hit? No, but it would be a hit. In order to rationalize taking such funds from an economy, it is necessary to use those funds to create something that enables the creation of more funds in the future. Redistributing the pennies to 5000 people is just moving the money around. It would be a net loss of around zero if there was no loss of funds due to the process needed to confiscate those pennies and redistribute them. So already, you're at a loss. In order to make such a hypothetical loss "worth it" is an investment in physical infrastructure. Something used by all for the betterment of society. Roads, bridges, schools, power grids, drainage canals, widening rivers for ships, better ports, pipelines, rail lines, ect. By spending money to make the movement of goods less expensive or to make the goods themselves more available, it is possible for such a confiscation to pay for itself. However, wanton spending will not do so. Only measured, calculated, and careful spending on worthwhile projects will achieve such an affect.

quote:

---

First, let's assume that the government is pondering a 1 cent tax on all tax-paying Americans (that's around 165 million people). These are the options

---

When you say there are 165 million paying taxes, please define what kind of taxes are these 165 million people paying?

For instance 85 million income tax forms were filed in 2010 which covered an estimate 122 million people. So already your plan "loses" 43 million dollars and that's only if you tax some families 2 cents instead of one cent.

Others pay payroll taxes. Do you want to tax those people too? If you do that would certainly add in extra pennies.

quote:

---

A) the tax is not enacted, which means everyone keeps that penny

---

And nothing changes.

quote:

---

B) the state enacts the penny tax, and gains a little more than one million dollars in revenue. The revenue is dispersed to 5000 people, in the form of $320.

---

Since you originally said 165 million people I assume you meant the Federal Govt. and not the state, right?

So first question is, how do you collect the one cent from all the tax payers? What mechanism do you use? Remember now someone has to see the tax bill is sent to the right places. Someone has to collect the one cent tax. Someone has to count the one cent tax collections, Someone has to select 5000 people and someone has to send out the 320 dollar checks.

My question is who pays these people? Do you pay them before or after you collect the 162 million? If you pay afterwards, then obvious you can't send out all of the 162 million, right? or do you borrow the money increasing the federal debt to be paid back later? That's what the govt. does now, right?

quote:

---

In my view, option B is far better, for $320 dollars in the hands of 5000 people will actually cause a spike in sales, while 165 million having one extra penny is essentially worthless.

---

I don't think B is better. I think I explained why.

quote:

---

Which of the following is better for the economy?

---

Not enough information to answer. Prior to when the tax was implemented, the level of consumption may have been optimal, sub-optimal, or super-optimal relative to the level of savings. Your conclusion that

quote:

---

option B is far better, for $320 dollars in the hands of 5000 people will actually cause a spike in sales

---

is only true if consumption was previously sub-optimal and saving super-optimal.

quote:

---

It's a lot more complex than "taking water from one side of the pool, putting it in the other side, and claiming the water level has risen."

---

Indeed.