34 replies to this topic

[Farnan]

 Abbaddabba, on Friday, March 3rd, 2006, 2:31 PM, said:

An increase in tax rates will decrease work effort if the increased tax burden is carried by people who get their income primarily from... not shockingly, their work effort.

Bull. No one is going to refuse to work/work as hard because they'll be taxed. This is an economic urban myth.If people need money and obtain money via work effort---regardless of taxation, they'll work as much as it takes that will support their living standards. Will they take steps to minimize taxes? Sure, but they aren't going to purposefully give up a 1000 paycheck because 25% of it will go to taxes.

[Abbaddabba]

Quote

Bull. No one is going to refuse to work/work as hard because they'll be taxed. This is an economic urban myth.

Uhh...I said theyre going to work less, not that they'll refuse to work or work less hard.When you make less you want to work more to compensate for the decrease in pay... (wealth effect)But since the return on each hour worked is less, people will sooner substitute an hour of work for an hour of leisure and therefor work less. you choose to make this substitution earlier on when the pay is less. (substitituion effect)It's generally agreed that the substitution effect dominates (has a greater effect) than the wealth effects.Im sure there are individual exceptions. But that's what the evidence shows for society at large, from the studies that ive seen.

[Farnan]

 Abbaddabba, on Friday, March 3rd, 2006, 3:25 PM, said:

Uhh...I said theyre going to work less, not that they'll refuse to work or work less hard.When you make less you want to work more to compensate for the decrease in pay... (wealth effect)But since the return on each hour worked is less, people will sooner substitute an hour of work for an hour of leisure and therefor work less. you choose to make this substitution earlier on when the pay is less. (substitituion effect)It's generally agreed that the substitution effect dominates (has a greater effect) than the wealth effects.Im sure there are individual exceptions. But that's what the evidence shows for society at large, from the studies that ive seen.

I just don't buy this. Most people barely recognize a tax increase or decrease--it causes negligable impact on most people's paychecks. The average tax cut for gwb's cut was 289 bucks per year. That is 5.50 per week. Tell me that is going to make an impact on how hard someone works.

[Abbaddabba]

So you're saying that a negligable tax cut has a negligable impact on work effort.Ok.So what's your point again?I really dont care about your politics. Im not endorsing any policy or politician by saying what i am.

[violaman]

I think it is absurd that very few discussions on abortion even mention the origin of the law of the land as defined by two key Supreme Court opinions: Roe v. Wade (http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/Roe/) and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (http://caselaw.lp.fi...l=505&invol=833). They aren't that long and they are the cornerstone of American abortion law. Regardless of moral standing on the issue it doesn't ever directly convert to a public policy so I think this discussion should be better suited to reflect actual abortion law instead of hypo econ.

[semaj550]

What hasn't been directly stated here, on the topic of wealth redistribution, is that said practice tends to decrease the savings of those from whom wealth is taken. Savings, basically, is a temporary removal of money from the economy. When one's disposable income is greater than one's spending, one saves. The more an economy saves over a given period the lower its GDP for that same period. Therefore, if you take a wealthy person's savings and give it to a person who could not afford the basic necessities of life without the redistributed wealth you have now put more money into the economy. This has a direct and real impact on GDP, inflation and the capital markets. The result is not absolute collapse of the markets or unbearable inflation, however, you hamper the free market's ability to operate efficiently. Inefficency costs us all.Does the marginal social cost exceed the marginal social benefit for each dollar of redistributed wealth? Is said social benefit a positive good? Is there a point where the tradeoff suffers from diminishing marginal returns? These questions require one to assign values based on personal preference and the large gap between what one person may prefer and what another prefers is really the root of the debate.It is pretty difficult to convicingly argue that wealth redistribution does not damage a free market economy. What is much easier to argue, though, is that this "damage" has value and should be tolerated to a point. Personally I would prefer a mostly "laissez faire" approach to fiscal policy but that doesn't make anyone else's preference less valid. That's why it's so difficult to reconcile the debate. How do you assign priority to values other than by majority decision? Is tyranny of the majority even desirable?

[nvrmndtbolcks]

FOOLS

[chrozzo]

 nvrmndtbolcks, on Saturday, March 4th, 2006, 5:48 PM, said:

FOOLS

whatever, why dont you go abort yourself

[srblan]

 Cooker, on Friday, March 3rd, 2006, 8:51 AM, said:

The point is, no one has the right to do whatever they want with his own body, and there are many such situations in which this is the case (drug laws, sodomy laws, suicide laws, and so on). Also, in reality there is no such thing as "human" rights given to you at birth, and certainly no right to a medical proceedure that has existed less than 100 years. If abortion was some part of a birth given human rights package then how in the world would a woman 500 years ago redeem her abortion card??

By this logic, you would allow the possibility that Congress could legislate people wishing to get bypass surgery or even a vasectomy. There are many rights that pertain to technologies that we did not have 500 years ago that we do today.The fact is that almost every medical procedure that we use today has existed for less than 75 years, forget about 100... 100 years ago, we barely had anestesia. Don't you think that it is unreasonable for someone to decide what my best interest is if I have the capacity to decide for myself?

[Loismustdie]

 srblan, on Wednesday, March 8th, 2006, 6:30 PM, said:

By this logic, you would allow the possibility that Congress could legislate people wishing to get bypass surgery or even a vasectomy. There are many rights that pertain to technologies that we did not have 500 years ago that we do today.The fact is that almost every medical procedure that we use today has existed for less than 75 years, forget about 100... 100 years ago, we barely had anestesia. Don't you think that it is unreasonable for someone to decide what my best interest is if I have the capacity to decide for myself?

100 years ago we didn't even know that a black mans blood and a white mans blood are the same, excluding blood types. Crazy biblical scientific facts.

[Cooker]

 srblan, on Wednesday, March 8th, 2006, 5:30 PM, said:

By this logic, you would allow the possibility that Congress could legislate people wishing to get bypass surgery or even a vasectomy. There are many rights that pertain to technologies that we did not have 500 years ago that we do today.The fact is that almost every medical procedure that we use today has existed for less than 75 years, forget about 100... 100 years ago, we barely had anestesia. Don't you think that it is unreasonable for someone to decide what my best interest is if I have the capacity to decide for myself?

My original point was that the law already doesn't allow you to do whatever you want with your body. You cannot take any drugs you want, you cannot legally commit suicide, and there are many other things that are already not allowed. The OP then responded that abortion was a human right that all humans are born with. What you quote is my repsonse showing that in fact all humans are not born the the right to abortion.Certainly, Congress can legislate whatever the hell they want. The courts can rule it "unconstitutional" then Congress can change the constitution. If enough people wanted it then I think vasectomy or bypass surgery could be made illegal (although I can't imagine how you would get a massive enough groundswell of support to make bypass surgey illegal).

[brvheart]

I'm pro life.

[chrozzo]

 brvheart, on Monday, March 13th, 2006, 5:55 PM, said:

I'm pro life.

great minds think alike, and other, less great minds think other than what we think

[Skyblue]

An important point that often gets overlooked when debating abortion is that restrictive legislation makes little or no difference. The Republic of Ireland - abortion pretty much illegal due to being such a strong Catholic countryUK - abortion fairly relaxedNetherlands - totally relaxedUSA - legal but huge political issue due to many strong views for/against abortionBrazil - (might be wrong as read about this stuff a long time ago) abortion illegalWell the abortion rates per head of poulation of all of these countries are very similar. Therefore, laws mean very little. Women will get abortions and little can be done. In Ireland many women go to England to have abortions, or obtain them illegally in their own country. In Brazil, many many abortions are carried out illegally. I'm sure I also read that, globally, around 200,000 women a year die from illegal abortions. So at the end of the day by making abortions illegal all you do is increase the chances of back-street illegal abortions that bring greater risk to women's lives. Or make them have to travel further!Personally, I'm pro-choice. I don't think I have any right to tell a women what she can or can't do with her body. Plus, many women who want abortions do not make the decision lightly and usually want them for the right reasons, ie can't support a child, no father about, not ready for children. Anyone that goes by the Bible to take a stance on this is crazy. Think for yourself please. Whilst the Bible may be able to teach us how to live our lives in certain ways that respect ourselves and our nieghbours, it is also just a book and should not be taken literally on every matter. Plus it is dated in this day and age when it comes to many issues.

[Kajagugu]

How did we get to wealth redistribution from a discussion about a woman's right to choose?You're kidding yourselves people. There are things in life you can't get over. If your wife or daughter or you yourself was brutally raped and became pregnant, there is no way the rapist's child will not cause more heartache for everyone involved down the line. And don't give me that crap about adoption solutions because going through a full term pregnancy and knowing that you have a child somewhere that was a result of a terrible event is not something you can just forget.