Re: Inflation? That's not inflation....
- From: Andre Lieven <andrelieven@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2007 15:54:18 -0700
On Sep 30, 5:09 pm, "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Andre Lieven <andrelie...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
se...@xxxxxxxxx (Seth) wrote:
No, that's your strawman. Keith very clearly stated that it gets
spent 100 times. His arithmetic is right, too.
I spend a dollar. The storekeeper keeps 95 cents. He spends the
95 cents; the seller keeps 90.25 cents. And so it goes, until the
100 recipient has about 0.6 cents.
Of course, taxes don't generally work that way; VAT is charged on
the incremental part, not the total; sales taxes are charged only
to the final retail buyer, not all along the production chain.
I wasn't following the goods, I was following the money. The dollar
is spent on goods by an end user who pays perhaps 5% in sales taxes.
The store then gives what's left of the dollar to one of their
employees as salary. About 30% of it goes to state, federal, and SS
taxes. The employee then pays what's left as rent for his apartment.
Taxes are zero. The apartment then pays what's left for water, which
is included in the utilities, and that is taxed. Et cetera.
Once again, the error here is that you seem to view this money path
as having *a termination point*. It... doesn't.
The sheer idiocy of this view is that, in order for it to not be
idiocy, the government would have to burn the money when they get
it, rather than pay most of it out in purchases, salaries, and the
rest. Which all go right back into the economy...
As I pointed out, if they *did* burn the money, that would just enrich
everyone in proportion to how much cash each person has.
Indeed, and others have shown you just how wrong that claim was.
I see no need to repeat that portion of the thread.
If *I* were to be given lots of money, I would "pay most of it out in
purchases, salaries, and the rest." So why not have the government
give me money instead of taking it from me? How is one a better idea
than the other?
Because you cannot use it to build roads, etc., etc. The amount of
money you'd get would then be about what everyone gets, thus no
efficiency of mass purchases.
And, by your reasoning, what's wrong with theft? If someone picks
your pocket, he'll certainly spend the money.
Actual thieves don't build and maintain roads for you, etc., etc.
I pay taxes. I *get* Medicare, roads, etc., etc.
If I were robbed, I then lose the money, and get... *nothing
whatsoever*.
Thats a big difference. If you don't see that difference, then explain
to
us all why no foreign gov't, that entered your neighbourhood during
The Cold War, made you speak Russian and eat borscht.
Andre
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Inflation? That's not inflation....
- From: Keith F. Lynch
- Re: Inflation? That's not inflation....
- Prev by Date: Re: Inflation? That's not inflation....
- Next by Date: Re: Inflation? That's not inflation....
- Previous by thread: Re: Inflation? That's not inflation....
- Next by thread: Re: Inflation? That's not inflation....
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading