You are assuming a "nothing" before, and positively asserting that it's impossible to have such fluctuations from "nothing". That isn't addressed in the article, so would be a new theory by you. Yet you are expecting others to prove your theory for you.
You are correct, I am relying on ex nihilo nihil fit (nothing comes from nothing). To get around this, the theory in question changes the definition of nothing to be a quantum vacuum, which is already something. So, yes, if we can change the definition of nothing, then anything is possible, include division by zero.
What do you mean by "before"? Don't we have to face the possibility that there may be certain properties of existence that are impossible for us to even ask about, never mind understand. Perhaps the only choice is God or ignorance. The only certainty is that I don't know.
Trying to leave religion out of it. The article states that spontaneous quantum fluctuations could have created the big bang. I am only asking that if there needed to be something that existed that allowed these spontaneous quantum fluctuations to occur that then led to the big bang, then maybe the big bang wasn't the start of the universe and/or time.
There was no before. Time was created with the Big Bang. Otherwise you are saying the Big Bang occured in a pre-existing universe, which is not the case. Then you have to ask yourself about this pre-existing universe and how it was created and so on. The before question is pointless.
That is my point. If their were quantum fluctuations prior to the big bang that led to the big bang then the big bang wasn't the beginning, because something already existed. In other words, if spontaneous quantum fluctuations were the cause of the big bang, then they had to pre-exist prior to the big bang, which doesn't make sense.
If there were quantum fluctuations before the big bang, then something had to exist before the big bang. As such, what was proven could be that the big bang was not the beginning of the universe versus the universe came into existence spontaneously.
Besides, showing something could have happened this way is not the same as proving it did happen this way. Just because there could have been a second shooter on the grassy knoll doesn't mean there was a second shooter on the grassy knoll.
It seems to me that the auditors, who passed the company accounts as being "true" should be held liable - and then get punished for negligence.
That would depend on what type of "opinion" the auditors issued on the company's financial statements. However, if they did issue a clean opinion, then like in the Enron and MCI scandals, they will be held accountable. Then again different countries have different accounting standards, so what applies in the US or even Europe may not apply in SE Asia.
One would think that before lending $3B, banks would ask to see audited financial statements. If they didn't, then they lost this money through their own negligence. If they did, then the accounting firm the provided the audits is liable (assuming it gave clean opinions). Neither of those mean the company itself wasn't fraudulent. I wonder if it was truly banks that made these loans or venture capitalists chasing after something that was obviously too good to be true?
The research in this article is important. It shows that what was always theoretically an option is actually possible in practice. Scalability, efficiency, effort to produce - none of that matters at this stage. Obviously that would all be interesting next steps, but this shows that the principle works. And that is damn interesting.
If scalability and efficiency don't matter at this point, then I've got a potato fuel cell that you can build at home. All it takes is a potato and a zinc and copper rod. Works great for running a small clock, for instance. It even has the advantage of being biodegradable. If only I could get a grant, I could work on improving the scalability and efficiency.
Imagine every battery replaced by a canister of jet fuel. It would be the Petroleum Industry's dream.
Imagine every battery replaced by a canister of jet fuel. It would be the Terrorist Industry's dream.
Forget Lethal Weapon. Jet fuel is basically kerosene. You can't just touch a match to it and it explodes.
Actually, some batteries are more explosive than an equivalent (shall we say 3oz.?) sized canister of jet fuel.
Kerosene needs the right conditions to explode, unlike gasoline. It does burn, however. Kerosene, jet fuel and diesel fuel are all basically the same thing, just different purity levels.
And by-products. Hydrogen fuel cells release water vapor as the by-product. What would a petroleum powered fuel cell release and would it be better than what is released in an engine (particularly when scaled up to provide the same power outputs).
Wrong. The university has both authority and declared purpose which, among other things, permits them to eject ANY nonenrolled student (think homeless wanderers) at will for violating the declared purpose of the University set down in the Charter.
NOT like a park at all.
Do try again!
And if they only eject nonerolled students of faith or color, they get in trouble. Besides, this group is paying to use the facility, so it is very unlikely that they would be charged with trespassing. You can argue all you want, but the courts have already spoken on this and religious groups have just as much access to public facilities as any other group. Now, if the university opts to quit allowing anybody to rent the facilities, then that is their choice, but as long as they do, it has to be non-discriminatory.
A university is a public forum and most get state/federal money. As such, it is as available to use by the public as a public park. If the University makes its facilities available to other groups, then they must for this group, too. Otherwise, if they allow all speech but religious speech, then they are in fact, violating the constitution. Now, if it is a private university that does not receive government funds, then they could possibly deny them the use. But free speech means that the government, in this case a government funded university, can't prohibit speech just because it doesn't agree with it.
This isn't about free speech. The idiots can make whatever claim they wish but NOT using the School in propaganda. Most socialists, like most Capitalist Running Dogs, can be convinced by evidence (see David Brooks and Milton Friedman for examples of both) Religionists cannot, therefore have no place in claiming to 'debate'
It is most definitely about free speech. Are they being disruptive? No. Are they being dangerous (like calling fire in a theater)? No. On what grounds, exactly, would you deny them the right to assemble and to speak what they believe to be true? Just because you or I may disagree with the subject or nature of their speech does not deny them the right to exercise it.
I don't think the flag burning of the 1970s was appropriate, but I recognize that the people who did, had the right to do so to express their viewpoint.
Really? The best scientific minds, in their times said the world was flat and that everything revolved around the earth. That was even after using the scientific method. Then some wacky guy named Copernicus had some wacky idea that this was all wrong. A later guy named Galileo picked up where Copernicus left off and took it even further. Of course he wasn't allowed to publish his findings and the authorities of the day tried to squelch him from teaching his crazy ideas (by that time, Copernicus was shown to have the right idea, but got the math wrong).
Anyway, today, we accept all of this as fact, but at the time is was considered by the scientific community as crazy. Even in modern times, we had the steady state theory of the universe versus the expanding universe we accept today. Even, at the time, the notion of the big bang was deemed crazy by the scientific community.
Science works by having a theory and testing it. It then holds as accepted until some other theory better describes the phenomenon in question. Even today, the big bang and expanding universe have problems with quantum theory that the greatest minds of the day have reconciled by saying there were different laws of physics at the creation of the universe than there are today (of course that is as provable as a deity). That will hold until somebody, in the future, comes up with a better model and furthers our understanding.
Real science isn't all neat. It can be quite messy. We build paradigms and models and even ideologies based on science and when some new scientific theory is proposed, it is almost always fraught with dissension.
So, unless you have evidence to the contrary, I stand by my statement that "...most of the science that you accept that came from what you are calling evidence based studies was once considered crazy, too." That is how science advances.
I'm presuming you'd rather they give their arguments in an echo-proof room instead of in the open where those who disagree are present and can reproach? Hint: It's not about convincing them, it's about preventing them from convincing others.
Do we really think that a large number of undecided creationists/evolutionists exist that we are afraid that letting this group hold a meeting will sway them or bring harm to them? I'd be much more worried about other groups on campus that are allowed to freely meet, than a bunch of creationists.
Scientists aren't picking sides. That is the whole point. You develop a theory for how things happen based on collected evidence and derivations. If your hypothesis doesn't fit the data, it isn't valid.
It doesn't matter how much contrary evidence you provide against creationists. By their own definitions, they can never be falsified. How do you debate that?
Any true scientist would admit that if a deity exists, by definition it would be outside the realm of what we casually refer to as nature and as such, science can neither prove nor disprove such a being exists. Why get all worked up over what a believe held by only a minority of religious people?
You nailed it REASONED debate Creationists admit they can NEVER be convinced There went reason and debate
It is likely that socialists and communists and feminists and misogynists and just about any other "-ist" won't ever be convinced either. Should we deny them the right to assemble and free speech, also?
Youa re usiung the same fallacy which is placing on the same level flat earther versus the rest. You can have all opnion you want - at home or at your church. At a university I expect evidence based studies. NOT opnion. If you want that go to a social study or political U (snark).
Of course most of the science that you accept that came from what you are calling evidence based studies was once considered crazy, too. It is the free discussion of ideas that is at the heart of the university system. Even ideas we think are wrong. What kind of university would it be that ignored one's right to assembly and freedom of speech?
As I stated in my other post, I am not proposing the fair tax, it is most aggressive and does exactly what you say it does. I am proposing a tax system that shifts the burden upwards so that the more income one makes, the more taxes one pays. Fair tax usually is a consumption tax, which is a glorified sales tax. Almost all fair tax proposals includes some kind of payment to the poor to help them out with it. However, if it were truly fair, there wouldn't be a need for this payment.
In the 1960s, when the US had some of its greatest increases in GDP, the tax rate was pretty high. What drove the economy was the purchasing power of the middle class. However, since the 1980s, tax law has shifted more and more of the tax burden onto the middle class, pushing many downward and for those who remain, they have less spending ability because of the higher tax burden. As such, the economy has faltered and for the most part has been sustained by consumer debt to make up for the reduced purchasing power. However, debt financing can only go so far before it catches up to you, like it has now, which is why we have companies reporting record profits, paying record dividends and high unemployment.
The mantra "Don't tax the job creators" is a fallacy. Taxing the wealthy doesn't hurt jobs, if the tax burden is lifted from the middle class. Demand for goods and services creates jobs and most of that demand has come historically from the middle class. Policy in the US should be to restore the middle class, at least if we want a strong economy. No "job creator" is going to higher people if there isn't a demand for the goods and services that the employees provide. On the other hand, they will regardless of the tax burden if there is somebody to consume those goods and services. That's the whole idea behind supply and demand.
The "fair tax" is anything but fair. We need to return to a system that taxes people based on their ability to support the needs of the society they are in. That is the system that built America and made it strong.
How is that increasing the burden on the middle class? It actually balances the burden between middle class and wealthy so that Warren Buffet's secretary no longer pays more taxes than he does.
It's increasing the burden on the middle class because it's decreasing the burden on the poor and on the wealthy. Tax revenues aren't going to appear out of thin air, they're going to have to come from the middle class. The Fair Tax would effectively eliminate any taxes paid by Mr. Buffet, as he only actually spends a tiny, negligible proportion of his income, and that is the only portion of his income that would be taxable under a consumption tax. Proportionally, his secretary spends a much greater share of her income (nearly all of it), so unless she's hovering very near the poverty line, a larger proportion of her income would be going towards taxes.
It is not decreasing the burden on the middle and upper classes. If anything, the lower to middle middle class will see a slight decrease. The upper middle class will be about the same as they are now. The upper class, however, will see an increase because the many loopholes and deductions that allow for them to have a lower effective tax rate than the middle class would be eliminated.
Let's say Buffet's secretary makes $60,000/yr and is in a family of 4. Deduct the $36,000 from that for the poverty level plus 25% portion and she pays tax on $24,000. She is being taxed on 40% of her income. Say one of his managers makes $200,000 with a family of 4, after removing the poverty level, she is taxed on $164,000 on 82% of her income. Buffet, making millions would be taxed on virtually all of his income. But the reality is that everybody gets the same poverty level allowance, so everybody gets the same break.
That is also the main reason such a proposal is unlikely to pass -- the upper class is the ones that politicians cater to and it is unlikely they will go for a plan that increases their taxes, no matter how fair it might be. (It also explains the overwhelming support for the "fair" tax by the upper class, because it actually reduces their tax burden further).
I'm interested in protecting the middle class. The poor don't need to be taxed and by removing them reduces the government subsidy required to help sustain them. The wealthy, because of the way are tax code is written often have a very low effective tax rate, so currently, it is the middle class with the biggest tax burden. Going to a system, like I (and many others) proposed, balances out the tax burden between the wealthy and the middle class so they both have the same tax burden.
You don't need a sliding scale if the tax rate is applied to all income instead of just wages. A sliding scale is the sign of a system that has built in inequities. However, with the current system, that favors the accumulation of wealth, if I am paid wages of $100,000, I am taxed higher than somebody who has the brunt of their income in the form of realized gains. Base taxes on all wealth and it doesn't matter how the money is made. That is part of the design behind consumption taxes except that you can shelter consumption taxes by investing it instead of spending it. Unfortunately, the middle class can't afford to set aside that much of their income to avoid paying taxes on it.
A flat tax on all income (no exemptions or deductions), whether you include a poverty break or not, is the fairest system. Everybody pays the same percentage of what they have.
That does sound like a great way of shifting a large portion of the tax burden to the middle class. I'm not sure why you think doing so would "fix" anything, unless you feel that the existence of a middle class is problematic.
But it doesn't because the poverty level amount is first deducted from everybody's income. Then anything above that amount is taxed at the same percentage. No deductions, no exemptions,etc. If you make $10,000 above the poverty level amount, you are tax x% on that 10,000. If you make $1M over that poverty amount, you are taxed x% on that $1M. The middle class person making just $10,000 over the amount pays 1% of the amount the person making $1M over does.
How is that increasing the burden on the middle class? It actually balances the burden between middle class and wealthy so that Warren Buffet's secretary no longer pays more taxes than he does.
Consumption taxes are a form of sales tax and are most regressive. Income taxes are the least
Payroll taxes, such as FICA, are far more regressive than a typical sales tax, with the normal exemptions for necessities. Bill Gates is not talking about replacing income taxes with consumption taxes. He is talking about replacing payroll taxes.
But regression/progression is only one factor in taxation. Another important factor is what behavior it drives. Consumption taxes drive less consumption and more saving. Payroll taxes drive lower workforce participation and less job creation.
Payroll taxes, like FICA are regressive only because their is a cap above which they aren't withheld. Lift the cap and they are no longer regressive. Problem solved. In addition, Social Security would be solvent. If they had indexed the cap back in the 1970s as was proposed, the first $275,000 of wages would be subject to it.
As for the behavior, you are correct that consumption taxes lower consumption which lowers demand for goods and services which then lowers wages and the number of jobs to produce those goods and services. Hardly seems desirable. As for payroll taxes causing lower workforce participation and less job creation, that is false. Do you really believe that companies base their hiring off of payroll taxes? Companies base their hiring decisions from the goods and services the public demand. The employee's share of payroll taxes comes from the employee, themself. The employer's share, is fica/medicare and is 7.65%, it's a cost of labor. Lowering it won't create more hiring, raising it will cause a decrease of jobs in the shortfall but as middle class workers have more purchasing power, so they demand more goods and services, hiring increases to supply those goods and services.
Jobs are a result of demand for goods and services. The biggest driver of that demand, outside of military spending, is the middle class. It is a falacy to think that business owners and corporations are job creators. They are not. They simply fulfill the demand for the goods and services by hiring. GM isn't going to hire workers if there is nobody to purchase the vehicles those workers would produce.
Consumption taxes are just another form of sales tax, with the difference being when the tax is paid. As such, since the poor will use all of their income for consumption whereas the wealthy only a fraction of it, it is extremely regressive. That's why most schemes to implement it include various hacks to give money back to the poor. The result is that the middle class end up paying the brunt of their wages in a consumption tax while the wealthy still only pay a fraction. Taxing all of income, with no deductions, would be the fairest system. If you receive money (or the equivalent benefit of money), it is taxed.
A tax on consumption hits those hardest who consume the most: the middle and lower classes.
Why do you think the middle and lower classes consume the most? I think observation and evidence suggest that people with more money, tend to consume more. (And it's a lot more, so not-close that I don't understand why there's any disagreement on this point.)
Perhaps I'm missing something. What is it?
It is true that somebody making $250,000/yr will probably consume more than a person making $25,000/yr. The problem is that there are a lot more people making $25,000/yr than $250,000/yr. The average per capita income in the US is around $42,000 as of 2012. So, yes, Bill Gates consumes more than most Americans. The problem is the cumulative spending of the 99% who aren't at his level, far outweigh the 1% who are.
Wealth accumulation (by and large) is not the big issue with income inequality. The bigger issues are the access to better education, better security, better health care, etc that wealth provides is as it creates a negative feedback loop.
Economies are driven by the purchasing power of the middle class. Wealth accumulation leads to a decreasing middle class and an increasing lower class. Therefore, the bigger issues you mention are a direct result of wealth accumulation.
If, instead of accumulating wealth, it was spent, then the goods and services provided would create more jobs. The demand to fill these jobs, will increase the wages paid to get good workers. The increased pay the workers receive will stimulate even more demand for goods and services.
Wealth accumulation is not the solution. It is the cause of the problem.
Never mind this being the stupidest idea on earth, we already have a wealth tax, and it has a name: inflation
How does inflation fund government services to the general populace? Genuinely curious. I like taxes, I get a benefit from them. I don't see much benefit from inflation (that I am aware of but I am ignorant of much macroeconomics).
Funding government services and managing inequality are separate problems. That doesn't mean that you can't address both with a single solution, but it's a good idea to keep in mind that they are separate so you don't insist on sub-optimal solutions merely because they target both problems if better solutions address the problems separately.
They are separate, but closely related. If there was a more equitable system in the US, then the government wouldn't need to fund social programs like they do now. Most of the increases in social programs over the past 25 years are because of the inequity that is in place.
Slashdot Mirror
You are assuming a "nothing" before, and positively asserting that it's impossible to have such fluctuations from "nothing". That isn't addressed in the article, so would be a new theory by you. Yet you are expecting others to prove your theory for you.
You are correct, I am relying on ex nihilo nihil fit (nothing comes from nothing). To get around this, the theory in question changes the definition of nothing to be a quantum vacuum, which is already something. So, yes, if we can change the definition of nothing, then anything is possible, include division by zero.
"before the big bang"
What do you mean by "before"? Don't we have to face the possibility that there may be certain properties of existence that are impossible for us to even ask about, never mind understand. Perhaps the only choice is God or ignorance. The only certainty is that I don't know.
Trying to leave religion out of it. The article states that spontaneous quantum fluctuations could have created the big bang. I am only asking that if there needed to be something that existed that allowed these spontaneous quantum fluctuations to occur that then led to the big bang, then maybe the big bang wasn't the start of the universe and/or time.
There was no before. Time was created with the Big Bang. Otherwise you are saying the Big Bang occured in a pre-existing universe, which is not the case. Then you have to ask yourself about this pre-existing universe and how it was created and so on. The before question is pointless.
That is my point. If their were quantum fluctuations prior to the big bang that led to the big bang then the big bang wasn't the beginning, because something already existed. In other words, if spontaneous quantum fluctuations were the cause of the big bang, then they had to pre-exist prior to the big bang, which doesn't make sense.
If there were quantum fluctuations before the big bang, then something had to exist before the big bang. As such, what was proven could be that the big bang was not the beginning of the universe versus the universe came into existence spontaneously.
Besides, showing something could have happened this way is not the same as proving it did happen this way. Just because there could have been a second shooter on the grassy knoll doesn't mean there was a second shooter on the grassy knoll.
They shouldn't be getting their $3 billion back
It seems to me that the auditors, who passed the company accounts as being "true" should be held liable - and then get punished for negligence.
That would depend on what type of "opinion" the auditors issued on the company's financial statements. However, if they did issue a clean opinion, then like in the Enron and MCI scandals, they will be held accountable. Then again different countries have different accounting standards, so what applies in the US or even Europe may not apply in SE Asia.
One would think that before lending $3B, banks would ask to see audited financial statements. If they didn't, then they lost this money through their own negligence. If they did, then the accounting firm the provided the audits is liable (assuming it gave clean opinions). Neither of those mean the company itself wasn't fraudulent. I wonder if it was truly banks that made these loans or venture capitalists chasing after something that was obviously too good to be true?
The research in this article is important. It shows that what was always theoretically an option is actually possible in practice. Scalability, efficiency, effort to produce - none of that matters at this stage. Obviously that would all be interesting next steps, but this shows that the principle works. And that is damn interesting.
If scalability and efficiency don't matter at this point, then I've got a potato fuel cell that you can build at home. All it takes is a potato and a zinc and copper rod. Works great for running a small clock, for instance. It even has the advantage of being biodegradable. If only I could get a grant, I could work on improving the scalability and efficiency.
Imagine every battery replaced by a canister of jet fuel. It would be the Petroleum Industry's dream.
Imagine every battery replaced by a canister of jet fuel. It would be the Terrorist Industry's dream.
Forget Lethal Weapon. Jet fuel is basically kerosene. You can't just touch a match to it and it explodes.
Actually, some batteries are more explosive than an equivalent (shall we say 3oz.?) sized canister of jet fuel.
Kerosene needs the right conditions to explode, unlike gasoline. It does burn, however. Kerosene, jet fuel and diesel fuel are all basically the same thing, just different purity levels.
Important question: efficiency?
And by-products. Hydrogen fuel cells release water vapor as the by-product. What would a petroleum powered fuel cell release and would it be better than what is released in an engine (particularly when scaled up to provide the same power outputs).
Wrong. The university has both authority and declared purpose which, among other things, permits them to eject ANY nonenrolled student (think homeless wanderers) at will for violating the declared purpose of the University set down in the Charter.
NOT like a park at all.
Do try again!
And if they only eject nonerolled students of faith or color, they get in trouble. Besides, this group is paying to use the facility, so it is very unlikely that they would be charged with trespassing. You can argue all you want, but the courts have already spoken on this and religious groups have just as much access to public facilities as any other group. Now, if the university opts to quit allowing anybody to rent the facilities, then that is their choice, but as long as they do, it has to be non-discriminatory.
A university is a public forum and most get state/federal money. As such, it is as available to use by the public as a public park. If the University makes its facilities available to other groups, then they must for this group, too. Otherwise, if they allow all speech but religious speech, then they are in fact, violating the constitution. Now, if it is a private university that does not receive government funds, then they could possibly deny them the use. But free speech means that the government, in this case a government funded university, can't prohibit speech just because it doesn't agree with it.
This isn't about free speech. The idiots can make whatever claim they wish but NOT using the School in propaganda.
Most socialists, like most Capitalist Running Dogs, can be convinced by evidence (see David Brooks and Milton Friedman for examples of both)
Religionists cannot, therefore have no place in claiming to 'debate'
It is most definitely about free speech. Are they being disruptive? No. Are they being dangerous (like calling fire in a theater)? No. On what grounds, exactly, would you deny them the right to assemble and to speak what they believe to be true? Just because you or I may disagree with the subject or nature of their speech does not deny them the right to exercise it.
I don't think the flag burning of the 1970s was appropriate, but I recognize that the people who did, had the right to do so to express their viewpoint.
Umm no it wasn't but thanks for playing.
Really? The best scientific minds, in their times said the world was flat and that everything revolved around the earth. That was even after using the scientific method. Then some wacky guy named Copernicus had some wacky idea that this was all wrong. A later guy named Galileo picked up where Copernicus left off and took it even further. Of course he wasn't allowed to publish his findings and the authorities of the day tried to squelch him from teaching his crazy ideas (by that time, Copernicus was shown to have the right idea, but got the math wrong).
Anyway, today, we accept all of this as fact, but at the time is was considered by the scientific community as crazy. Even in modern times, we had the steady state theory of the universe versus the expanding universe we accept today. Even, at the time, the notion of the big bang was deemed crazy by the scientific community.
Science works by having a theory and testing it. It then holds as accepted until some other theory better describes the phenomenon in question. Even today, the big bang and expanding universe have problems with quantum theory that the greatest minds of the day have reconciled by saying there were different laws of physics at the creation of the universe than there are today (of course that is as provable as a deity). That will hold until somebody, in the future, comes up with a better model and furthers our understanding.
Real science isn't all neat. It can be quite messy. We build paradigms and models and even ideologies based on science and when some new scientific theory is proposed, it is almost always fraught with dissension.
So, unless you have evidence to the contrary, I stand by my statement that "...most of the science that you accept that came from what you are calling evidence based studies was once considered crazy, too." That is how science advances.
I'm presuming you'd rather they give their arguments in an echo-proof room instead of in the open where those who disagree are present and can reproach? Hint: It's not about convincing them, it's about preventing them from convincing others.
Do we really think that a large number of undecided creationists/evolutionists exist that we are afraid that letting this group hold a meeting will sway them or bring harm to them? I'd be much more worried about other groups on campus that are allowed to freely meet, than a bunch of creationists.
Scientists aren't picking sides. That is the whole point. You develop a theory for how things happen based on collected evidence and derivations. If your hypothesis doesn't fit the data, it isn't valid.
It doesn't matter how much contrary evidence you provide against creationists. By their own definitions, they can never be falsified. How do you debate that?
Any true scientist would admit that if a deity exists, by definition it would be outside the realm of what we casually refer to as nature and as such, science can neither prove nor disprove such a being exists. Why get all worked up over what a believe held by only a minority of religious people?
You nailed it
REASONED debate
Creationists admit they can NEVER be convinced
There went reason and debate
It is likely that socialists and communists and feminists and misogynists and just about any other "-ist" won't ever be convinced either. Should we deny them the right to assemble and free speech, also?
Youa re usiung the same fallacy which is placing on the same level flat earther versus the rest. You can have all opnion you want - at home or at your church. At a university I expect evidence based studies. NOT opnion. If you want that go to a social study or political U (snark).
Of course most of the science that you accept that came from what you are calling evidence based studies was once considered crazy, too. It is the free discussion of ideas that is at the heart of the university system. Even ideas we think are wrong. What kind of university would it be that ignored one's right to assembly and freedom of speech?
As I stated in my other post, I am not proposing the fair tax, it is most aggressive and does exactly what you say it does. I am proposing a tax system that shifts the burden upwards so that the more income one makes, the more taxes one pays. Fair tax usually is a consumption tax, which is a glorified sales tax. Almost all fair tax proposals includes some kind of payment to the poor to help them out with it. However, if it were truly fair, there wouldn't be a need for this payment.
In the 1960s, when the US had some of its greatest increases in GDP, the tax rate was pretty high. What drove the economy was the purchasing power of the middle class. However, since the 1980s, tax law has shifted more and more of the tax burden onto the middle class, pushing many downward and for those who remain, they have less spending ability because of the higher tax burden. As such, the economy has faltered and for the most part has been sustained by consumer debt to make up for the reduced purchasing power. However, debt financing can only go so far before it catches up to you, like it has now, which is why we have companies reporting record profits, paying record dividends and high unemployment.
The mantra "Don't tax the job creators" is a fallacy. Taxing the wealthy doesn't hurt jobs, if the tax burden is lifted from the middle class. Demand for goods and services creates jobs and most of that demand has come historically from the middle class. Policy in the US should be to restore the middle class, at least if we want a strong economy. No "job creator" is going to higher people if there isn't a demand for the goods and services that the employees provide. On the other hand, they will regardless of the tax burden if there is somebody to consume those goods and services. That's the whole idea behind supply and demand.
The "fair tax" is anything but fair. We need to return to a system that taxes people based on their ability to support the needs of the society they are in. That is the system that built America and made it strong.
How is that increasing the burden on the middle class? It actually balances the burden between middle class and wealthy so that Warren Buffet's secretary no longer pays more taxes than he does.
It's increasing the burden on the middle class because it's decreasing the burden on the poor and on the wealthy. Tax revenues aren't going to appear out of thin air, they're going to have to come from the middle class. The Fair Tax would effectively eliminate any taxes paid by Mr. Buffet, as he only actually spends a tiny, negligible proportion of his income, and that is the only portion of his income that would be taxable under a consumption tax. Proportionally, his secretary spends a much greater share of her income (nearly all of it), so unless she's hovering very near the poverty line, a larger proportion of her income would be going towards taxes.
It is not decreasing the burden on the middle and upper classes. If anything, the lower to middle middle class will see a slight decrease. The upper middle class will be about the same as they are now. The upper class, however, will see an increase because the many loopholes and deductions that allow for them to have a lower effective tax rate than the middle class would be eliminated.
Let's say Buffet's secretary makes $60,000/yr and is in a family of 4. Deduct the $36,000 from that for the poverty level plus 25% portion and she pays tax on $24,000. She is being taxed on 40% of her income. Say one of his managers makes $200,000 with a family of 4, after removing the poverty level, she is taxed on $164,000 on 82% of her income. Buffet, making millions would be taxed on virtually all of his income. But the reality is that everybody gets the same poverty level allowance, so everybody gets the same break.
That is also the main reason such a proposal is unlikely to pass -- the upper class is the ones that politicians cater to and it is unlikely they will go for a plan that increases their taxes, no matter how fair it might be. (It also explains the overwhelming support for the "fair" tax by the upper class, because it actually reduces their tax burden further).
I'm interested in protecting the middle class. The poor don't need to be taxed and by removing them reduces the government subsidy required to help sustain them. The wealthy, because of the way are tax code is written often have a very low effective tax rate, so currently, it is the middle class with the biggest tax burden. Going to a system, like I (and many others) proposed, balances out the tax burden between the wealthy and the middle class so they both have the same tax burden.
You don't need a sliding scale if the tax rate is applied to all income instead of just wages. A sliding scale is the sign of a system that has built in inequities. However, with the current system, that favors the accumulation of wealth, if I am paid wages of $100,000, I am taxed higher than somebody who has the brunt of their income in the form of realized gains. Base taxes on all wealth and it doesn't matter how the money is made. That is part of the design behind consumption taxes except that you can shelter consumption taxes by investing it instead of spending it. Unfortunately, the middle class can't afford to set aside that much of their income to avoid paying taxes on it.
A flat tax on all income (no exemptions or deductions), whether you include a poverty break or not, is the fairest system. Everybody pays the same percentage of what they have.
That does sound like a great way of shifting a large portion of the tax burden to the middle class. I'm not sure why you think doing so would "fix" anything, unless you feel that the existence of a middle class is problematic.
But it doesn't because the poverty level amount is first deducted from everybody's income. Then anything above that amount is taxed at the same percentage. No deductions, no exemptions,etc. If you make $10,000 above the poverty level amount, you are tax x% on that 10,000. If you make $1M over that poverty amount, you are taxed x% on that $1M. The middle class person making just $10,000 over the amount pays 1% of the amount the person making $1M over does.
How is that increasing the burden on the middle class? It actually balances the burden between middle class and wealthy so that Warren Buffet's secretary no longer pays more taxes than he does.
Consumption taxes are a form of sales tax and are most regressive. Income taxes are the least
Payroll taxes, such as FICA, are far more regressive than a typical sales tax, with the normal exemptions for necessities. Bill Gates is not talking about replacing income taxes with consumption taxes. He is talking about replacing payroll taxes.
But regression/progression is only one factor in taxation. Another important factor is what behavior it drives. Consumption taxes drive less consumption and more saving. Payroll taxes drive lower workforce participation and less job creation.
Payroll taxes, like FICA are regressive only because their is a cap above which they aren't withheld. Lift the cap and they are no longer regressive. Problem solved. In addition, Social Security would be solvent. If they had indexed the cap back in the 1970s as was proposed, the first $275,000 of wages would be subject to it.
As for the behavior, you are correct that consumption taxes lower consumption which lowers demand for goods and services which then lowers wages and the number of jobs to produce those goods and services. Hardly seems desirable. As for payroll taxes causing lower workforce participation and less job creation, that is false. Do you really believe that companies base their hiring off of payroll taxes? Companies base their hiring decisions from the goods and services the public demand. The employee's share of payroll taxes comes from the employee, themself. The employer's share, is fica/medicare and is 7.65%, it's a cost of labor. Lowering it won't create more hiring, raising it will cause a decrease of jobs in the shortfall but as middle class workers have more purchasing power, so they demand more goods and services, hiring increases to supply those goods and services.
Jobs are a result of demand for goods and services. The biggest driver of that demand, outside of military spending, is the middle class. It is a falacy to think that business owners and corporations are job creators. They are not. They simply fulfill the demand for the goods and services by hiring. GM isn't going to hire workers if there is nobody to purchase the vehicles those workers would produce.
Consumption taxes are just another form of sales tax, with the difference being when the tax is paid. As such, since the poor will use all of their income for consumption whereas the wealthy only a fraction of it, it is extremely regressive. That's why most schemes to implement it include various hacks to give money back to the poor. The result is that the middle class end up paying the brunt of their wages in a consumption tax while the wealthy still only pay a fraction. Taxing all of income, with no deductions, would be the fairest system. If you receive money (or the equivalent benefit of money), it is taxed.
Why do you think the middle and lower classes consume the most? I think observation and evidence suggest that people with more money, tend to consume more. (And it's a lot more, so not-close that I don't understand why there's any disagreement on this point.)
Perhaps I'm missing something. What is it?
It is true that somebody making $250,000/yr will probably consume more than a person making $25,000/yr. The problem is that there are a lot more people making $25,000/yr than $250,000/yr. The average per capita income in the US is around $42,000 as of 2012. So, yes, Bill Gates consumes more than most Americans. The problem is the cumulative spending of the 99% who aren't at his level, far outweigh the 1% who are.
Wealth accumulation (by and large) is not the big issue with income inequality. The bigger issues are the access to better education, better security, better health care, etc that wealth provides is as it creates a negative feedback loop.
Economies are driven by the purchasing power of the middle class. Wealth accumulation leads to a decreasing middle class and an increasing lower class. Therefore, the bigger issues you mention are a direct result of wealth accumulation.
If, instead of accumulating wealth, it was spent, then the goods and services provided would create more jobs. The demand to fill these jobs, will increase the wages paid to get good workers. The increased pay the workers receive will stimulate even more demand for goods and services.
Wealth accumulation is not the solution. It is the cause of the problem.
Never mind this being the stupidest idea on earth, we already have a wealth tax, and it has a name: inflation
How does inflation fund government services to the general populace? Genuinely curious. I like taxes, I get a benefit from them. I don't see much benefit from inflation (that I am aware of but I am ignorant of much macroeconomics).
Funding government services and managing inequality are separate problems. That doesn't mean that you can't address both with a single solution, but it's a good idea to keep in mind that they are separate so you don't insist on sub-optimal solutions merely because they target both problems if better solutions address the problems separately.
They are separate, but closely related. If there was a more equitable system in the US, then the government wouldn't need to fund social programs like they do now. Most of the increases in social programs over the past 25 years are because of the inequity that is in place.