Re: Consumption 2: The Return (With New and Improved Definitions and Proofs!)

Date: Fri Mar 30 2001 - 04:38:38 PST

In a message dated 3/30/01 1:03:39 AM Eastern Standard Time,

<< Once more, with gusto:
      A straight consumption tax is an equitable (i.e., EQUITABLE-2) system
      which does not artificially influence wealth accumulation in any way.
      A straight consumption tax is not regressive under reasonable
 So, I retract my previous retraction, while simultaneously provisionally
 "suspending" my support for FairTax pending further analysis. The straight
 consumption tax, which turns out not to be "regressive" at all, takes the
 Other than that, I'm not sure yet... But I promise to report back! >>

geege aims poison blow dart at jeff's ass as he turns to leave.

while it's not the "job" of taxation to redistribute wealth, neither is it
the "job" of government to "help families" (cough) with exemptions for
children or marriage (funny that to tax married people singly is considered a
"penalty" (and all the hype over this tax when it applies to a very small
percentage of couples anyway - just lots of good "pro-family" press for the
states' electeds)). there is recognized somewhere by people with a more
elegant grasp of positive reciprocity (the economic building block of even
the most primitive societies) that what's good for one group returns to the
other group in ways not mathematically projectable.

but economically manifest.

i am convinced that libertarians are posessed of (or by) a special brain
chemistry that is complexity averse (wayne exepted). their notions procede
from a dichotomy labeled "fair" and "unfair." democrats start with "smart"
and "not smart." republicans: "us" and "them."


whom can i alienate today?


This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Apr 27 2001 - 23:15:15 PDT