THOUSANDS march through Scotland's capital against state visit by DRUMPF

The laffer curve is an argument against extremely high taxation such as the 75% tax.
After cutting the 50% tax , revenue increased.
As corporation tax has been cut I believe revenue has increased ( I may be wrong)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11498135/Why-lower-corporation-tax-means-more-for-Treasury.html
Your blind if you can't see this.
The fact your defending a 75% tax is farcical


And Keynes's theories haven't failed previously? , look a the 70's, Callaghan admitted it himself.
Also those articles don't necessarily prove his theories failed.
The funny thing is in my original post I said Friedman didn't support austerity , rofl.


Nope I'm not confident , nor did I claim to be an expert.
But your confidence is shining here.
You don't know me so can't judge my knowledge and you weren't part of this argument either.


I was not personally attacking one , I think your the one launching personal attacks .

Thank you for repeating back to me what I already said. I'm not defending a 75% tax. I'm criticizing your attempt to discredit progressive taxation systems by citing an extreme example and a theory that doesn't and was never meant to discredit progressive taxation rates.

T
I never said Keynes' theories never 'failed'. It is not a matter of the theory 'failing' - it is, as I said, a matter of application. All economics theories are based on assumptions that are virtually never met in reality. So all can 'fail' when applied in the real world.

T

You're just saying your not confident. But someone who wasn't wouldn't not be so cutting when debating someone else. Don't doubt that - when debating this topic against you - I am very confident. That's because I can judge you, based on what you've written.

I wasn't part of this argument but this is a public forum and if you're afraid to appear a fool then I will graciously let you wallow in your errors.

For your arrogance, hypocrisy and rudeness towards Chaotic, and the way you tagged in people who agreed with you to gang up on them, feel free to consider yourself 'attacked'.

I didn't say it did discredit progressive taxation.

Agreed

I have not appeared as a fool ,precisely the opposite , you are free to believe what you like
I'm not really bothered if you 'attacked' me.
I consider this argument to be over!
See you on GE day!

You want progressive taxation? Exactly , you want other peoples money that you haven't earned. Have you learn the laffer curve , oh wait you don't understand economics so I don't expect you to. Lets see what happened when a 75% tax was introduced in France https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/31/france-drops-75percent-supertax The deficit soared , revenue fell , unemployment increased. Again shows you don't understand economics.

This is what you said:



If the link wasn't there to give evidence against progressive taxation then one can only assume it was therefore for no reason at all.

The fact that you say you don't appear foolish as you dole out weak arguments whilst simulatanously accusing other people of not knowing what they're talking about does not make it so.

I don't gain anything from this argument, so I'm fine to see it end - but I'm sure you'll remember this exchange the next time you accuse someone of running from a debate because they're not equipped for it.

The link was there to shows that overly high progressive taxes don't work. I never at any points said progressive taxation doesn't work and is discredited.
None of my arguments were weak but you are free to believe so.
Funny how you only picked the progressive taxation part and none of the other points

(extreme rates of taxation). .

T. Then you brought up the laffer curve as it it was relevant and then you put that link - which apparently wasn't meant to have anything to do with progressive taxation.

Therefore, you commented on Chaotic's post about progressive taxation and public services with an argument against something they weren't talking about (extreme rates of taxation). It sounds to me like you're trying to backtrack.

What do we want? Free **** at the point of access.

Who's gonna give it to us? Progressive wealth redistribution.
.

"'None of my arguments are weak" - I can't say I'm blown away by the strength of that.

you dole out weak arguments

It is related to progressive taxation , I pointed it out as an example that overly high progressive taxation doesn't work

That was your failing then, because you gave 'evidence' without actually making an argument. The only thing you mentioned was the progressive tax rates. Then you brought up the laffer curve as it it was relevant and then you put that link - which apparently wasn't meant to have anything to do with progressive taxation.

Thanks for the compliment

The argument was very general , my argument of extreme progressive taxation is valid. We already have progressive taxation so I was under the assumption he wanted it to be more progressive so I brought up the laffer curve ( more revenue for HMRC after 50p tax rate was cut).

Hmmm , seems you used a similair phrase, you aren't blown away by a similar statement you made?

I doubt we'll gain much by debating fiscal multipliers etc. so lets leave it there

Corbyn, Stalin, Castro and Mao had their faults, but I wouldn't call them nutters...

Sadly not; the person I quoted seemed to. Still, I do have some hope for Corbyn.

Bored, so might as well help out @ChaoticButterfly who's generosity towards you and humility is a prime example of the concept that "the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt".

Progressive taxation - being something that can be supported by anyone not matter how much income they earn is clearly not about taking others' money. You cannot accuse Chaotic of wanting others' money without knowing how much they pay into the system and how much they get out. Even if you did it would be an argument against the person - i.e. Irrelevant in a discussion about economics. The Laffer Curve isn't and never has been an argument against progressive taxation, it is a theory that supposes that extremely high absolute tax rates might be counterproductive. Indeed if you are arguing that overtaxing is a show of greed then it is ridiculous to use the laffer curve as part of your argument because using the curve (which we can only guess at the shape of) is about trying to extract as much tax revenue from the taxpayer as possible before they take measures to avoid tax. I realize that some right-wingers are so limited in their thinking that they think the words 'laffer curve' constitute an argument but to anyone who's looking for a genuine low-tax economy and not a cheap (and flimsy) argument the curve has nothing to offer them.

The hypocrisy of calling out someone for using the Guardian as a source and then doing so yourself is amusing but unimportant. Though it should be noted that Chaotic was not saying the articles 'disproved' Friedman - rather, they were showing you real life occasions when the application of his theories had failed. The exact same thing you attempted to do with your article. With regards to the example you cite, as far as I'm aware there was no significant effect on unemployment, indeed the tax was quickly abolished and the increase in the deficit would be due to falling to predict the revenues the tax would bring rather than being a direct result of the tax. Needless to say, an example of a tax not bringing in revenue is no argument against progressive taxation or public services. There is a reason why there is a near-universal consensus on both these things, regardless of the existence of a few intelligent economists who might disagree. You have been the one hiding behind Friedman's academic achievements rather than demonstrating your own understanding of economics.



All I got from reading your exchange is that Chaotic is modest and doesn't wish to go in depth into economic theory because they know they only have a shallow understanding. That doesn't mean your understanding is better, it just means you're more confident - again, I'm reminded of the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

Corbyn, Stalin, Castro and Mao had their faults, but I wouldn't call them nutters...

Although most of your points here are sound Ray, I strongly disapprove of you praising Chaotic Butterfly, particularly with regard to "humility."

This is the same reprehensible human being who advocated violence as a political tool and said Milo Yiannopoulous should be punched.

Now, despite my overwhelming urge to post an ironic Pinochet meme in response, I think it's time we call out these sorts of vile ideologies that endorse violence against those that disagree with us and do so in a peaceful way.

You really think Corbyn is in the same list as figures like Mao and Stalin?

Thatcher and Reagan started globalisation. She is the devil. The working class are screwed because of her.

Chants of "down with Trump, down with May". Speeches addressing May and the greater threat of the far right world wide, this wasn't limited in focus on Trump, although he has acted as a catalyst for action.

Yesss

One can only dream...

If you can't wave a flag with a swastika on without severe reprimandations and potentially legal action I don't see why the same shouldn't be for any communist insignia. Considering how the body count for communism is 4x as high.