## How does deregulation mean more economic freedom for everyone?

 Quote by Greg Bernhardt Does economic freedom = deregulation?
The two may be related - doubtful they are equal.

Recognitions:
Gold Member
 The Congressional Research Service has withdrawn an economic report that found no correlation between top tax rates and economic growth....
(ref)

What was our reason for not taxing the rich more?
So we could be that much more in debt?

hmmm....

Om: Mr. Peterffy, what are your opinions on taxing the rich.
TP: The rich support the poor primarily via taxes. I paid $1.9 billion in taxes in my lifetime. Om: Bloomberg, how rich is Mr. Peterffy? Bloomberg: He has an estimated net worth of$7.6 billion.
Om: NPR, how did he make his fortune?
NPR: He didn't want to type in the orders. He and his engineers hacked into the NASDAQ terminal and wired it up to their own computer, which traded automatically based on algorithms.
Om: Algorithmic trading? Sounds like the stuff of Quants.
Om: Quant, what do you think of these quants?
Quant: I think its fantastic, that people who take risks, should be compensated for taking risks. But only if they are taking risks themselves. Taking risks with other peoples money, you should not get compensated for. I'm sorry. .... Sadly though, it does in this business.
Om: Mr. Peterffy, do you think we need more regulations in the stock market?
TP: We are competing at milliseconds. And whether you can shave three milliseconds of an order, has absolutely no social value.
TP: I am voting Republican.
Om: I see. OmCheeto, what is your take on Mr. Peterffy?
OmCheeto: Well, this is just my humble opinion, but I think Mr. Peterffy would be penniless if the stock market had been well regulated, rather than a virtual gambling casino for the wealthy.
Om: You sound like a conspiracy theorist. What makes you think Mr. Peterffy isn't sincere in his statement that "America is on a slippery slope, headed towards becoming a Socialist, failed state, like his homeland of Hungary"?
OmCheeto: Several reasons:
a. America has one of the lowest tax rates in the industrialized world. Ergo, we are far from being socialist.
b. Mr. Peterffy is a Wall Streeter. Wall Streeters don't want rules that impede their accumulation of wealth.
c. Other Wall Streeters use their financial power to try and influence elections, when it suits their financial interests.
d. If the Democrats had their way, as in, implementing a transaction fee on trading on the stock market, Mr. Peterffy would be broke.
e. Money is power
f. Power corrupts
g. Gob loads of money corrupts, a lot
h. Since I became an investor in the stock market, I haven't given 1/10 of what I used to, to charitable organizations. I now understand greed.
Om: Wow. You are a whack job Mr. OmCheeto.
OmCheeto: I don't know what that means, so I'll take it as a compliment.

--------------------------------
ok to delete.

Mentor
 Quote by OmCheeto What was our reason for not taxing the rich more? So we could be that much more in debt?
The amount of money we take in is not determined by the top rate alone, it is determined by the average rate. So what you just said is only half a thought. The other half, presumably, is that tax rates for everyone else should be kept the same or lowered while the tax rates for the rich are raised a lot.

So my answer to the question is: I don't think it would be fair.

Recognitions:
Gold Member
 Quote by russ_watters The amount of money we take in is not determined by the top rate alone, it is determined by the average rate. So what you just said is only half a thought. The other half, presumably, is that tax rates for everyone else should be kept the same or lowered while the tax rates for the rich are raised a lot. So my answer to the question is: I don't think it would be fair.
Well, presumably, we lowered the taxes on the wealthiest the most, as there was supposed to be some trickle down effect. It appears to me,

that it simply trickled into their bank accounts.

Oh! Look at that bottom 40%. Virtually nothing to show for all their tax cuts.
What did they do with all that money we didn't tax them I wonder.
Probably bought crack!
 Recognitions: Gold Member To be honest, you can't see trickle-down from pie portions, you have to look at whether the whole pie grew or shrunk relative to inflation and gas/food prices. I think it still fails this test, but this is also in the wake of a recession.

Recognitions:
Gold Member
 Quote by Pythagorean To be honest, you can't see trickle-down from pie portions, you have to look at whether the whole pie grew or shrunk relative to inflation and gas/food prices. I think it still fails this test, but this is also in the wake of a recession.
hmmm.... I'm not quite sure what you're saying.

All I know is that we are trading information, on a platform, created by, whom I would now call, hippies.

There are those with ideas, that change the world for the better. And there are those with ideas, that suck the life out of it.

Regulation decides, or, IMHO, should decide, who profits more.

Mentor
 Quote by OmCheeto Oh! Look at that bottom 40%. Virtually nothing to show for all their tax cuts.
How can you show the impact of a change with a chart that shows one moment in time?

Also, distribution of wealth is a very poor indicator because standard of living does not correlate well with wealth, particularly after the popping of the housing bubble inverted a lot of mortgages.
 What did they do with all that money we didn't tax them I wonder. Probably bought crack!
How is that useful?

Recognitions:
Gold Member
 Quote by russ_watters How is that useful?
Election's tomorrow.

You don't like poor people that don't pay federal taxes.

I don't like crackheads, as they steal my **** when I'm at work.

I thought maybe we had something in common.
 Mentor I have no idea what the median income is for crackheads, but it sounds like you are implying some sort of corellation.... You're kind of all over the place though, so I don't see your point.
 Recognitions: Gold Member Jim Kata: [QUOTE..., but it doesn't matter because I am done talking to you after this post. [/QUOTE] too bad you did not quit sooner and spare us.

Recognitions:
 Quote by Naty1 Jim Kata: [QUOTE..., but it doesn't matter because I am done talking to you after this post.

too bad you did not quit sooner and spare us.[/QUOTE]

Speak for yourself.
 Recognitions: Gold Member Just heard a report on the news: Regulatory rules cost US business about $1 trillion annually in regulatory compliance costs. It was not specified, but I assume this is beyond IRS tax requirements. In a$15T economy, that can't help competitiveness.

 Quote by russ_watters Everyone. That's what across-the-board tax cuts do, for example. A trillion dollars in tax cuts and a trillion dollars in stimulus have the same initial effect on the country's balance sheet, but the tax cuts give you the choice of how to spend the money whereas the direct stimulus is the government choosing where to spend the money (on failing alternate energy companies...?).
Wrong you fail to incorporate the multiplier effect and the marginal propensity to save. Government stimulus is a direct increase to AD while cutting taxes aren't as effective.

 Quote by DosCadenas Wrong you fail to incorporate the multiplier effect and the marginal propensity to save. Government stimulus is a direct increase to AD while cutting taxes aren't as effective.
Where is the multiplier in a failing alternate energy company (the example cited by Russ Waters in the post you responded to)?
 Recognitions: Science Advisor Still, when you give tax cuts to people who can already afford every thing they want/need and more, those cuts are not usually spent in the "real economy" but instead are saved or used in speculation. If you can already pay for everything you want and more, what difference is a tax stimulus going to make?

 Quote by Mentalist How does deregulation mean more economic freedom for everyone? Wages have been going down for 20+ years now, so I don't see much of the benefits. That is, unless, I am looking at it the wrong way. But cite some sources please.
Milton Friedman opposed the Equal Rights Amendment because it took away women's economic freedom to work for less money than a man. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hsIpQ7YguGE

 Quote by Bacle2 Still, when you give tax cuts to people who can already afford every thing they want/need and more, those cuts are not usually spent in the "real economy" but instead are saved or used in speculation. If you can already pay for everything you want and more, what difference is a tax stimulus going to make?
Tax credits can be designed to spur investment in equipment and technology.