Hypothetical: Let's Negotiate an Overhaul of the Economy

Despite all its flaws, even Karl Marx came up with a Labor Theory of Value. I'm not quite sure how that equates to "equality of outcome" that you refer to.

 

As a liberal interested in a good life for all he answer is "no" to a newly packaged libertarian/ conservative rich proposal.

Forget reducing taxes on the wealthy to a level much lower than paid in times of our country's greatest middle class prosperity, whether you call it the "fair tax" or not, but good try.

Restore the more or less recently repealed inheritance tax, which served the country well for many years during the period of peak middle class prosperity. Wow how progressive and as usual with libertarian thought experiments how ahistorical without actual real world successful examples.

Eliminate social security. Good luck with this libertarian and mutual fund industry financed wet dream. Again history has shown how effective social security is for reducing poverty of retirees-- and sorry for conservative and libertarians types also very popular. Doncha dare try to steal the trillions taken out of tens of millions of employees paychecks and promised to them by social security.

Hey as a sop throw in a bit of Finnish equality of education that the rich with their even greater prosperity due to reduced taxes could supplement at will. I do appreciate the tacit acknowledgement of how the Finnish public school education model is so superior over the current drive to turn public education into just another profit center for the .01%. However, no need to have the previous bones to the wealthy proposed in your other points that reduce other great historically proven programs that in US history and current Finninsh history have shown to be very effective in creating a good life for all. Let's just create here the good Finnish public education model.

Overall just another model probably hatched in a think tank created by the .01% with the task of spinning to the 99% further reduction in the taxes of the .1%.

Just say "no" to libertarian wet dreams albeit with a new package.

 

I believe they did this, it was called the Stanford Prison Experiment. Results here:

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Z0jYx8nwjFQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

No way in hell for 2 and 3.

 

you are an idiot.

 

when people talk about half-a-loaf compromise, this would definitely be it Brandyon

a bit unbalanced though, really only #2 is conceding anything to the right

#3 is not possible politically, ever

 

No, he didn't. He adopted it from other classical economists. And the labor theory of value is garbage anyways. See: Marginal Revolution.

Almost nothing in the OP's post can qualify as libertarian (#3 is ok.) glynch, you should know that by now.

 

Where did he came up with this list?

 

2 - would be horrible for the economy, and is making the wrong people take on too much of the sacrifice to pay down the debt.

3 - Would be horrible for the economy. It would significantly drop our already low standard of health care in the U.S.

4. Isn't really just. I don't mind taxing inherited wealth more, but eliminating it all together doesn't seem the way to go about things.

5. I'm mostly okay with.

 

It is not all libertarian, but certainly not exactly honest to say "almost nothing" is libertarian (read anti-government and anti-taxation crazy).

Well reducing tax rates on the wealthy and completely elimiminating any hint of progressive taxation is.

At least you admit that doing away with social security and medicare is, unlike sneaky types like Ryan and the Pauls who pretend to "reform" it..

You know this.

BTW I use "libertarian" as just conservative GOP economics as they appear to those outside the small meetings as being so similar.

 

I theorized that it is the latest offering from a libertarian think tank funded by the .01%.

On second thought, however given the abolishment of inheritance tax and the nod to public education, it might be your typical liberarian theorist-- a healthy young guy who thinks he is smarter than the average bear and can win in Darwinian world-- who is writing from his dorm room or blogging from home during highschool.

Let me see if doing the google helps provide the answer.

 

FairTax is progressive

 

The only tax policy I would say is libertarian is the elimination of all income taxes. Ron Paul had this on his platform in his Presidential runs. Flat tax/fair tax/whatever else it can be called is not libertarian.

I think Ron Paul's position was to gradually reduce the various welfare programs in this country using the money saved from bring all the troops home overseas. To me, that's a very moderate, practical approach, and one that I could side with. But, again, I am out of touch with the general electorate.

That "libertarian" is often misused by politicians and various organizations funded by special interest groups is not a good reason for you to misuse it. George Orwell and the corruption of language and all that stuff.

 

No it is not. Progressive means that the wealthy pay at a higher rate than the middle and poor folks.

Even the great champion of Bain Capitalists everywhere Mitt was willing to trade off loop holes for lower rates as in general the loopholes for most of the wealthy do not compensate for higher rates..

Just raise the rates on capital gains and the ridiculous carried interest bs and the system will become much more progressive.

I know you hope/expect some day to be in the $1 million per year income bracket.

 

That "libertarian" is often misused by politicians and various organizations funded by special interest groups is not a good reason for you to misuse it. George Orwell and the corruption of language and all that stuff.[/QUOTE]

Interesting. Orwell was a Democratic Socialist.

When small groups use words in a way not generally known, (even if somehow correct) I'm not sure talking about corruption of the language applies when the vast majority see it otherwise.

 

Which the FairTax does (in fact it removes all taxes on the poor entirely).

What will this achieve?

 

duplicate

 

So what would it achieve. Ignoring the fantasy of tax cut not lowering revenue.
More revenue for the government. Lower deficits which conservatives care about only when the Dems are in power. Gasp ! More money to help those ravaged by THE MARKET.

I'm not up on the latest anti-tax spin, but I must assume that the hoary "flat tax" has been renamed the "fair tax" for pr purposes. Obviously folks above your pay grade perhaps on Fox renamed this. No doubt the calculations are that the very wealthy could save much more by reducing their rates, albeit not taxing the poor despite this being a bit distressing to them.

I suppose we could talk if the"poor" were given a pass on all sales taxes, gasoline taxes, motor vehicle taxes, hotel taxes, property taxes and every other tax. You would also have to give the poor free education and health care as reduced government revenues would eliminate any help they get in those areas.
Then we might really have the motivation to be lazy and poor some folks posit is so widespread.