Derek McGowan

in other news, Im about a mile from riots happening as we speak in Baltimore http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/baltimore-city/bal-university-of-baltimore-closes-amid-high-school-purge-threat-20150427-story.html

I think, Derek, this is something Dr. Floyd Ferris would be really happy to hear. Allow me to explain why I stand behind my above statement.Speaking of ones lack of entitled income as an evil is/could very well be rehtorical in the real world because unless you own your own business than you don't actually feel the money being taken from you. I have real estate rentals, residential and commercial so I do my own taxes and I pay my own taxes but I am not of the majority. Most people either pay no taxes (seniors, disabled, or poor) or work for someone else who subtracts the taxes for them. If they weren't aware that taxes were being taken out how many of them would be outrage over this "thereotical" amount that is taken. And I mean let's be real here,the world is not full of heavily engaged capitalists looking to maxmize every working hour. The rhetoric would have had no effect on Elke either because she would have been working for a corporation that did not reveal her tax "burden". I put burden in quotes because her budget is based on what she does get, not some number that she could get. The same with pay among peers. If your job pays you enough( by your standards) how could possibly be militant about what you COULD be getting unless you knew about your peers getting more. In fact when you do find out, you only get mad because of human imagination which shows you what you could be doing, and not so much because of the principal of getting cheated. You (most people not all) just want the possibilities. Now let's talk about the 20% who do have businesses and pay income tax. Not all of them have a problem with taxes. At least not allof them look at it as you do. I myself take issue with taxes mostly because they are involuntary. Not because they are involuntary to me, I don't actually mind paying what I consider to be my part, but because they are involuntary to others who may not hold my same feelings. I respect others freedom and indivduality to recognize that not everyone is the same or wants to be the same. We all have different motivations, therefore we should push for freedom. Meaning I would still be free to donate to NASA (the reason for my above statement) and to road crews. And if you didn't want to donate,and didn't still use or benefit from those service, then you would be free to retract. See my book

It's a fair question, but while we wait for MSK response, I'd like to ask you, what is the minimum amount of government influence that would define it as totalitarian?Are there any countries today that do not fall under your definition?

I actually recently started a group called Soul on Fire where the purpose is to help the members find and follow their passions through exploration, inspiration motivation and accountability. Soon to be advertised on MeetUp!

I think that the statement would more comparably be that in exchange for having a nibble of his own tail, the mice get to feast (relative feast based on their size) on the skin of an elephant. I don't disagree with your other information though Francisco but it brings up a different question/issue one that maybe I should start a different thread for- In the instance that taxes were completely obliterated, which means all re-distributions from from the 20%, what is the defense against the inevitable violent revolution that would take place? Not that this uprising would be condoned by me but history has shown quite clearly that when one group gets richer, even if it is by law or honest practices, the other group (the majority) gets jealous and pissed off. The morality of keeping your portion of taxes might fail in the face of a mob at your front steps. Especially if the police feel that they are wronged as well. There was a History channel commercial many years ago when they were advertising for their documentary miniseries on the French revolution. It had a MasterCard theme. I don't remember all the words and I can't find it on YouTube (fail!) but it was funny and yet true. It was showing a fashion party inside some well decorated palace for a bunch of rich people and as the camera panned the place the narrator said stuff like Necklace of the finest pearls- $10,000 Caviar from the coasts of Normandy- $ 1,000 a ounce and then it should outside the castle where a mob of peasants were growing and the narrator said the price of having a fabulous dinner while the common folk starve to death outside? Your head!

Sure thing I didn't say that you should be paying his bills. Who ever hired him should pay for a day's work. Here you could say that the citizen/tax payer hired him and Luca as a citizen is actually saying that no, he didn't ask for this person's work so he shouldn't have to pay. But that wasn't my point. My point is that I get an implication that the salary that this person receives is a sham because it is "redistributions" I feel that you can be free to disparage the actual morality of the job that gets done but to say that a person's reward for a honest day of work is a sham is going a bit too far. I feel that there are many CEO's that have lead their companies down the path to ruin. Those CEO's should not get a performance bonus but they should get paid for every day that they work even until the final day that the company collapses or they are fired and I would not say that the pay that they got was undeserved. So in summary, education may not be a rightful job for the government but the high school math teacher who is doing his or her best to spark something in their students, that spends hours extra per day working on lessons and planning field trips, who also happens to receive their from a government entity should not be said to be a crook or a leech. They did a honest day's work and should be paid by whoever hired them, namely the state. This is a good example and I retract my statement on Medicare not being a redistribution. Still going to have to disagree with Social Security being one.... The "A bum on welfare" statement though kinda reinforces my idea that you are focusing too much on the welfare aspect of government and taxes. I don't live in the EU and perhaps I should do further research but what would your characters have to talk about if their was no welfare component of government but the other departments still existed? Would NASA scientists (back to the US ) doing incredibly deep non-war related work, which has translated into many benefits for the citizens, which were released into the public's hands for private use still be the basis a tax knocking book? From your perspective I mean, I know that there was that Stadler component in Atlas Shrugged (which I don't agree with) Or what about the Center for Disease Control or the Presidency itself. You may very well say that the government shouldn't have its nose in any of those things and that's fine, my question is would you call those workers crooks and leeches since they would get paid with tax dollars? You said you weren't working in a idealized world.... Are taxes and the welfare state pissing you off? Do not live in the EU. Clearly its not that simple. Hmm, I actaully know several people who have been married more than once and never divorced. I also knew a polygamous couple (one of the wives recently left) and they never seemed to have trouble with the law. Why, because you don't have to get married through the state. Married has governmental ties because of tax implications but the institution of marriage is a spiritual or even a cultural one that doesn't have to go through the state at all. Being married in front of a judge does not somehow make the relationship stronger than being married in front of the town elders or religious leaders. And the break up, if and when the partners get tired of each other, will sometimes have societal consequences whether the state involved or not. Sure minds must be changed to look at relationships in a more natural way but I wouldn't continue to throw the big bad government in as a dark shadowy figure behind all that ills the world. As a side note, while I again agree with your notion of the unnaturalness of marriage, something must also be said about the fact of humans too easily moving from one whim to another. Minds change and they change back, and one thing is cool today and old hat tomorrow. There are benefits to sticking it out with something even if the new shiny thing is within your grasp. Children for example should be exposed to as many things as possible to find where their passions lay but then the parents do need to step in and guide the child down the path to perfection even when the practice gets tedious and they just want to go outside and play. Personally I don't think that intellectual property laws should stand. And I'm saying that as an artist, writer and overall creative person. I could care less if someone took my idea and manufactured it without me getting paid. My problem only comes in if/when that person then tries to copyright my idea in order to prevent me from using it, but that is just another scenario that wouldn't exist without patent laws. What I personally produce is for me to use however I see fit but it stops right there, at my personally produced thing/store/service. I can't complain if someone make more money off my idea than I do, because its my responsibility to market and distribute that item in a way that gets me whatever profits I need or desire. Have you ever seen the movie Flash of Genius? I spent the whole movie wondering when the protagonist was just going to move on a create something new. Yes I would want the Wikipedia page to have my name on said product as the inventor but other than legacy, why should I care. I actually did not get/read the part where he goes back to "that night" in his proposal.... I did think that the proposal was a good compromise* between Luca and the parents. *compromise is more than likely the wrong word, but the idea that he didn't just tell the parents what he was going to do but tried to make them see his perspective in non-threatening terms I have a question for your characters though Why would it be preferable to Elke or to Luca or to me or you to leave a career that you are passionate about for more or less philosophical reasons? You have address this several times in the book with the opening where Luca is clearly desiring to go back to his Aerospace roots and also with Elke wrestling emotionally with leaving her post. The you also tried to bring the philosophical argument into the real world with your bit on the new sector tax which shut down the Elke's project. My problem with this is that someone would be willing to do some random menial (to them) profession for the rest of their lives because there is a disagreement with the infrastructure of their chosen passion? That's like me saying that I will never paint again because the minerals that are used in oil paints come from a country who has human rights violations. I simply wont get my supply from that country anymore, there are always (well most of the time ) alternatives. I could switch to acrylic, or water colors or even to pure black and white graphite drawings. I'm not going to leave a career I love because the new mid manager decided to group me with some colleagues that I don't like. Or because the CEO decided to partner with a another company that I don't approve of. People's pet projects get shut down all the time in the private sector. If you don't like it, I think you should find a company that is more in line with your values, not leave the profession all together.

Interesting about the quotation rules, I didnt know that. As far as the book goes, this review will be highly influenced by the implication of your opening post. In it I understood you to say that many of the scenarios/characters in Atlas Shrugged were unrealistic and your story would be placed in a more realistic setting. Atlas Shrugged gets something of a pass because Rand specifically said that she was working in a idealized fashion. She described men, not as they are but how they should be, therefore when I read it I can focus more on the base lessons and not so much on the surface details of this or that character reaction. With that being said... I did enjoy the pacing of the story and the plot itself. I liked the chapters named after specific photography projects and each project leading to more change in the female protagonist. But... because you said that you weren't going idealistic, I do have some issues (up for discussion) with some elements of the story. For example on pg 28 you have your first major discussion about taxes. Why do people use the analogy with the sheep and wolves voting on whats for dinner? This is not how most of the tax vote works. Mostly its not one group voting to eat another group but it is the majority deciding to eat of themselves. The wolves would be voting to take a bite of the sheep and also of themselves. Also why would Elke say that she is a strong elephant able to carry 100 leeches and not even notice? First, it would appear to me that if she could perform such a feat than the argument is non-practical. Philosophical rhetorical burdens have no effect on real life. When you discovered that the human body is a carrier of millions of bacteria, some harmful some good but almost none which effect your daily life in any way, do you still feel the need to wipe them out? But again, she shouldn't have said that because from the stories description of her understanding, she doesn't (didn't at that point) think that she was supporting other anyway but was contributing as a group to a pool of resources. This was a prime time for you to give a much more realistic lesson about the involuntary nature of taxes and how that robs you of freedom and choice, forget the whole leeches and parasites rhetoric. Also I have a physical reaction whenever I hear someone say that taxes are at the"point of a gun" like somehow that force is only used by the government in immoral acts. No, all human interactions, at base, devolve into carrot or stick threats and promises. I wrote a bit more extensively here. The sex scene also was a bit of a let down in that it was very Randian. I keep reading each line expecting some twist but instead it kinda appeared to be a script out of one of her books, so much so that I could almost guess what would be said next and by the end our female protagonist change her speaking patterns and personality to Dagny's. Luca feel bad at the end of sex scene (that was refreshing) because he felt that he didn't earn her, he merely took what he wanted, but then she says he did earn it "all those years before by becoming the man that..." and "I don't want anything from you that you would not give freely..." On page 36, you have a discussion about a governmental inspection. I have to disagree with your conclusions on the grounds that your story places the inspection in a chemical facility that causes possible radiation leaks. It just so happens that we are a few days outside of the 2 year anniversary of the building collapse in Bangladesh. In that instance I would say that though the structure was faulty and that no one should have been in there working I can agree that the job of inspecting that could be handled by a private firm. Building inspection has a low enough expertise and cost point of entry that independent inspectors would not be to dependent upon those firms that they are suppose to be policing. But you have a possibility of radiation leaking out into the public and the government's responsibility is to protect me and my property from your lack of proper infrastructure. The employees there may feel that as long as they aren't growing third arms then they shouldn't have to hire a private firm to check for leaks but that's on them. Radiation on the other hand is a serious public problem. The clean up and securing of such a facility entails high enough costs that private firms will cut corners for the company that hires them (for a little kick back of course) Government officials can be bought off as well, sure, but when it comes to radiation public outcry and accountability will tend to lead to fewer outright ignoring of the rules. Keeping in mind that you said that the officials had real equipment to use in their sweeps and their were real experts doing the inspection. You did not present us with the bumbling cronies of Atlas Shrugged. Then how can either of our protagonists be upset realistically or philosophically, that the inspection lead to s shut down? Any code enforcement company, whether public or private, by definition, must be able to ENFORCE the rules. If your company is not in alignment with the standards than they must have the ability to shut you down until you get into alignment. If they can't whats the point of them? And the standards cannot be based on your level of inconvenience at the time. If the rules say that you cannot have a kitchen full of mold and roaches, then it doesn't matter if you are in the middle of the lunch rush. You need to be shut down until you fix it. One of the characters could have acknowledged that, instead it became a point of- we were sooo close, and now we will lose precious days fixing a non-related problem. Pg 42. You make reference to intellectual property. Not something I believe in but I'll give it a quick swing anyway- did Luca pay the church when he took the photographs in there? In Atlas Shrugged we have a idealized world in which 90% of the world population really has no idea of how the world works or what they are doing. They are all stupid, lazy and parasites in the truest sense. But your world is supposed to be based on reality, so I question why is it that this argument against taxes is framed from the perspective welfare. Redistribution is not a major part of the US budget (I understand you may not live in the US so you may have a different understanding than I) and yes that means that I don't agree that Social security and medicare are re-distributions, but the evil of the system is constantly pronounced as the few who support the parasitical many with their life blood. All of the people who work for the government are not soulless bureaucrats who only look for ways to take other peoples money, in fact many of them believe in what they are doing (having no personal connections at all to the actual taking of money) and even if they didn't. Even if the vast majority of governmental workers weren't teachers, firefighter, police, military, code enforcement, scientists, diplomats,CIA and FBI agents etc (with a very small minority actual being congressional members who pass tax laws and IRS workers who collect them) it cannot be argued that this people are doing a days work. Ok, so there are many who are lazy, but lets be honest, there are many in the private field who are lazy as well and just as protected, but the point is that it doesn't matter if you personally respect the industry someone works in, it really doesn't even matter if the industry is moral. If someone does work then they need to be compensated. There is no moral defense for those who pulled to handles for the gas chambers and they should have went to jail but that doesn't mean that they should have been paid. They were hired for a job, they did it and they should be paid. To call someone's pay at the end of a hard week "re distributions" doesn't sit well with me. Pg 43. Elke mentions the fact that if a person refuses to pay for something and yet still uses it, they themselves are leeches. I appreciate the fact that you put that in there but then you gave Luca the weakest rebuttal ever. He merely says that he didn't ask for the government to be the supplier of such service and if they weren't the only guys in town providing such service he would go else where. Again, personal inconvenience is not a justification for a lack of integrity especially not for a person of such moral fortitude that Luca otherwise appears to be. If the government provides water and Luca has no choice but to either use it or take a 5 gallon drum out to a fresh water stream everyday, then he is just going to have to make that trip OR allow for the justifications of others who use the services (while actually paying for them by the way) Does he accept items through the mail?(still speaking from a US perspective) Did he pay the full un subsidized cost of his train ticket? The train helping him to maintain his business by taking him to such exotic locations needed for his photographic backgrounds. Does he drive on roads? I did see you post above #40, where it appears that you are wrestling with this idea as well, but that internal debate does not come across in the narrative. pg 45 There is a small discussion on the loss of community compassion because all responsibility has been off loaded onto the government. I am empathetic to this idea but I don't know if the full lack of community can be contained only within the tax-and-safety-net debate. pg 61 I agree about your ideas on marriage being too constraining for many people but you really didn't have to ty that to the government. You don't get thrown in jail if you get a divorce. In fact people do it all the time, ask Kim Kardashian! (first marriage 4 years, second 72 days) I would say something as well on your depiction of Elke's chemical company getting hit with a tax with the result of her project being scrapped or on your ending where Elke will now become a consultant and model for magazines while working under the table, but so far I've said enough. I agree with some of your above comments on what it will take to change the mentality of the people, and with that a change in the governmental structure, I suppose I just have a different realism based way in which it can occur- see my book Thanks for the free read. p.s. this makes 5 books that I have read after being mentioned on these forums- Atlas Shrugged: the novel, the film, the philosophy, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress (followed up with Stranger in a Strange land), Ayn Nation under God, and Daniel Evergreen's book (member of this site) Evolution: A theory of everything

I finished the book but I need to be at my pc to put forth my best response. For now, waiting curb-side to pick up my wife, I'll just post the typos that I found Pg 51- third paragraph up from bottom, there appears to be a missing quotation mark at the end the paragraph. Pg 63- misspelled Englischer. You left out the c. Pg 39- you wrote "focused her yes" instead of focused her eyes Pg 43- "trained at hour heads" instead of our heads

intellectual property (and the opening article) is a major reason why I don't agree with the line from Atlas Shrugged- there is no conflict among reasonable men.... that was a paraphrase The idea is that two people, at the slightest hint of conflict, would calmly examine the situation and yield their own desires to the side with the more reasonable claim. Such as the Rearden-giving-up-Dagny-to-Galt thing. My counter example from the real world is with cell phones. They come locked with certain software and made to use on certain networks. This is perfectly reasonable for the phone makers. But consumers find that they can give their (paid for) devices new or better functionality, so they have to jail break the phone. Reason is also on their side. In fact the phone maker should be able to see their side of the argument and agree that someone should be able to use their intellectual power and their property and produce something bigger and better. At the same time the consumer should easily agree with the phone maker and their financial and intellectual property motivations. Conflict indeed

While Brant and Moralist argue back and forth over Moralist's view of the world, I'll actually be commenting on the book later this evening.

Hola

Reading the book now...

Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong. Learn economics please. I could sit here and painstakingly explain the whole entire field of economis to you, or you could just go read about it, because I know from this one statement that you have not done that yet. I'm sure you are well meaning, but please consider the following: "It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a 'dismal science.' But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance." - Murray Rothbard Well you are going to have to help me out a bit. Can you at least tell me where to look for your evidence that prices would not go up if everyone had more buying capacity.Economics is a big field. P.s. I am going with the "quantity theory of money"

People have gotten so overly concerned with children's safety and the funny part is that many of those overly protective parents themselves didn't grow up under such restrictive rules. There is too little faith given to a child's ability to explore their environment and too much gravity given to the threat of kidnappers. Personally I think that if you are 8+ years old, and you don't live near a deep body of water or a dense forest (or maybe a major highway) then you should be sent out on your own. Get some exercise, explore, get away from your parents, learn your surroundings. I know when I was growing up, I would tell my mother I was going for a walk and she would say "ok" and I'd be miles away from home for hours. If your child doesn't know enough to not get in the car with a stranger then you are simply doing a poor job of parenting

your use of the word "trump" has not been authorized by Fransisco

Would you consider imprisonment to be moral being that the criminal has forfeited their rights? Would you then consider it moral for the government to be able to imprison criminals on behalf of the citizens who need their own rights defended? Would you say that it is moral for individuals to delegate that right to government? Since the original question is whether you can delegate a right which is not moral for individuals to government, would you say that it is moral for individuals to imprison others even in the case of self-defense? So if someone attacks me, it is moral/well within my rights to imprison them in my basement for 5 years? ps. it appears we have to definitions on what "trumped" means

Fransisco, if you choose to ignore the reality that morality HAS been reinterpreted throughout the thousands of years of history and the implication that our agreed upon morality (i too believe in the morality that you espouse) will eventually change as well, that is your right. In fact Ayn rand specifically challenged accepted morality as further proof of the reinterpreting of morals

1. maybe not delegate to others but certain circumstances can and do change the definition of what is moral. A easy example is imprisonment/execution of a criminal/murderer. The right to not be held prisoner or the morality against murder (when it comes to execution) can be trumped by the need for justice or protection from this person. 2. They require the right by virtue of the role they play. If you are a parent, you acquire the ability to defend your child (against harm from others) at all costs. This can be further played out in having to steal from a grocery store to feed your child in the event of Zombie Uprising or Nuclear Winter. As a CEO you have a responsibility to make as much profit for your shareholders as possible. As an leader, the group is looking to you to protect or guide them, thus they give your the right to protect or guide them. 3. As humans we make the definitions of what is moral. The process is to simply change the definition. This is done all the time by people in or out of government. 4. I was actually thinking about this question recently in regards to the Avengers. When they are done protecting the planet from aliens, do they have a responsibility to clean up the destruction caused by their protection. But in reality I think that police do pay if they kick your door in (? I really don't know?) 5. "morally obligated"? Maybe not morally but unless they want to incur the consequences of disobeying then they will. Same as a child parent relationship. Same as any relationship. A friend says they wont be your friend anymore unless you help them break into someone's house. Either you choose to go in with them or you take the consequences and lose a friend.

Hola

In order to prove that ending taxation is going to add an additional X number of dollars to the economy, I never said it would again additional money. In fact I keep trying to say otherwise. And by this remark "Thus there will not be a greater number of dollars chasing the same or fewer goods. Therefore, no inflation." it appears you are not following the specific form of inflation I'm using. But its all good, thanks for your input

The amounts of overhead doesn't effect my argument only because the money that goes into the mid managers pockets is still money that is being used without it effecting the inflation rate. The inflation rate based on one person having 10 dollar more capacity vs that person having a 7 dollar capacity and 6 others (the beneficiaries of tax payments) getting an extra 50cent on their already low 3 dollar capacity. I do feel that the money is not spent as effectively as it could be but could it be spent at all if inflation wiped it out.

Francisco, I already addressed this... in the very response that you are responding too. What do you think the unemployment rate is? Official rate is 5.5% ..........but c'mon! We can easily triple that to 15% Not enough? Okay lets make it 30%. So 30% of the US population doesn't work at all. How much of that 30% do you think survive only on government benefits? Unemployment insurance only lasts 6-8 months. Some people no matter what there condition would never sign up for benefits. But still lets say that 20% of the 30% of US population survive on benefits (right now I'm leaving out those who get benefits but still make some money for reasons I will answer in a bit) So under the no tax system. The the 20% are now under incredible pressure, they are getting nothing to survive on so half of them get jobs, 5% become permanent dependents on family and the last 5% die. Most jobs pay MORE* than benefits (not including unemployment insurance) so buying capacity goes up for the 80% who were adding to the tax pool in the first place and for the 10% with jobs now AND 5% of the population died or moved to Mexico. So with buying capacity up for 95% of the population, you don't think prices will adjust? Lets make the number 90%, you don't think it would still adjust upward? Hell, make it 80%, I'm thinking prices will rise. *Have you ever been on welfare? I have. Single mother, four kids (divorce and restraining order because of abuse) I remember a time my mother got checks from 3 different sources and she was excited that we were riding around with "half-a-thousand dollars" That's three sources for 500 dollars. Of course this was during the 80's so the amounts are probably higher but its not like these people are getting a 40,000 dollar salary or even a 15,000 dollar salary from the government. So their buying capacity is NOT causing prices to rise. At the same time a person making 50 grand is taxed at 25% which is 12,500. If a store looks at their customer base and finds that they make 15,000 from welfare prices are x, but if stores all over the US (since 80% of population would get increased buying capacity through no taxes) saw that their customer base suddenly went from having 37,500 to spend to now having 50,000 to spend.... What problems do you see with a federal minimum wage of 10 dollars an hour? Beyond the fact that employers are being told what to pay their employees? Maybe you would say that prices will rise? Prices will rise at McDonald's because of the higher costs of labor? So that shouldn't effect you at all because you don't eat at McDonald's right? Prices wouldn't rise everywhere else simply because the the entire bottom of the income pyramid moved up.... I'm thinking they will. Why is the costs of living higher in the US than it is in Mexico? Partially because people have more to spend. Why is the costs of living higher in NYC than it is in Mississippi? Can't be that the higher wages in NYC are only in housing businesses who then have to raise rates because their costs are so high. No the average wage is higher across all sectors and that by itself makes housing costs higher. A producer puts out a product and feels around for the correct price by raising it until it falls into equilibrium for what people are willing/able to pay. If neighborhood income is higher than prices in that neighborhood are higher What about those who do make money and still get benefits (which are not alot) or what about Solyndra. The money that they get is the bonuses production money I was talking about. They receive the money and are able to do something/anything with it AND because they aren't (the welfare queens) getting a whole lot relatively speaking, their capacity doesn't increased prices on a whole. But if 70-80% of the population, Hell you know what, 60% of the population's buying capacity went up, prices would surely adjust Or maybe not.....

As I have shown, that would not be the case. People who are net tax producers would be richer. But net tax recipients such as Solyndra (or any rent seeker of your choice) would be poorer. There is no reason to suppose that shifting control of tax money from the government back to the rightful owner would cause an increase in the money supply. I have no idea why you say that "that money [would] have been swallowed up by inflation if it stayed with the original source." Let's say Citizen A pays $10,000 a year in taxes. Let's say, for simplicity, that Citizen B is the sole recipient of A's loot. Taxes are then abolished. A is now $10,000 richer (although he may need to use part of that sum to pay for an insurance/security provider). But B will no longer have any part of the $10,000. Nor will the bureaucrats who once administered the redistribution. What then is the source of your promised inflation? I would suggest that you look at the real cause of inflation which is not cutting or abolishing taxes but the manipulation of the money supply by the government. its apparent that you havent really understood what I mean. Sure my theory can still be wrong, very wrong but you aren't looking at it the way I am, possibly because I am explaining it poorly. Its not that there would be a rise in the supply of money, its that the buying capacity of (okay, you got me- not all) of most of the population would rise and that in and of itself would cause prices to rise. Prices rise for three (market) reasons 1. imbalance of supply and demand 2. the costs associated with producing have gone up- energy, labor costs, etc 3. the mere fact that people have more to spend. Number three is what I'm looking at. People who make clothing for the rich charge more simply because their clients have more money to spend. College prices have gone up, largely because the government floats lots of loans which artificially increases the buying capacity of prospective students. Lets not forget that the price of anything is "what people are willing to pay" If incomes are curbed, people cant pay as much and prices have to lower if you want to stay in business/retain a customer base. If incomes go up, people are willing to spend more on dinners and then the restaurant prices in turn start creeping up. However large the actual amount of the population who get by solely get by on government handouts is, you you might even say as high as 20% of the population, if the other 80% buying capacity increases because they no longer have to pay taxes, that will result in higher market prices. Maybe not overnight, but it certainly will. And when it does (and I'm not saying whether that is wrong or right- this is just a statement of math) that would seem to mean that less "work" would get done per dollar. Again why, because in the tax system scenario Bob makes $100 he gets taxed 20% and keeps $80. Bob is smart to keep his housing cost at 25% of income. Market forces, based on general population buying capacity, supply housing at $20, groceries at x percentage and entertainment at x percentage (check gone ) BUT that $20 that was taking off the top BEFORE the market calculated the prices based on #3 above, is still able to be used in what ever way. In the non-tax scenario. Bob keeps the full 100. But now the market supplies housing at $25 and food and entertainment at relative appreciations. Check gone again but this time the full 100 is used up on LESS than it would have been used in the tax scenario

The progressive tax thing was a good point to bring up but what does your above quote have to do with my equation? Whether or not Solyndra or any other company, doing what you approve or disapprove of, has no bearing on whether MORE work is done per dollar with a tax system. The money redistributed, whether as direct payments to citizens or to contractors IS the money skimmed off the top I spoke of in my opening post and (as I can see it) that money what have been swallowed up by inflation if it stayed with the original source. This is a question about inflation and how taxes may bypass inflation not a opportunity to give the standard complaints about welfare or well trodden dogma. In fact forget that this is about our world all together and just look at it in abstract terms. If my thoughts are wrong, then prove them wrong in abstract terms, forget current politics (though I did post in the politics thread

what does this mean in regards to the inflation I mentioned and how do you know?