How would raising taxes affect you and our economy?

Originally Posted by cannabineer

I genuinely do not know.

Good point, but I already knew that.

Originally Posted by UncleBuck

beenthere: specializing in logical fallacy and nitrogen deficiencies.

Pretty bold statement for a newb!

Originally Posted by beenthere

Good point, but I already knew that.

Then why ask? Your manners speak plainly for your politics.
You earn a Merit Badge, young scout. cn

Originally Posted by cannabineer

I verbalized my main point, which does not require looking at the graphs at any high resolution. If trickle down works, we should not see a continued divergence between the richest and the rest. You correctly pointed out that the first graph was about capital income, so I provided another that totals taxable income, incl. salaries etc. I did ask, and am asking again, Mr Neutron: do you support or find logical fault with this concept, and if so, how do you arrive there? cn

Sorry about the delay. Internet connection was lost yesterday morning. I don't know if I'll still have it when I try to post this. Downloaded Firefox and tried to get a decent enlargement of that second graph but the larger I zoomed, the grainier it got, same as Safari. But... I'm not going to argue the graph or the stats. Stats are like a bikini, they show a lot but not everything. The reasons for the disparity could be something else. I think it is hasty to blame "trickle down" for it. I have seen "trickle down" work. It's not perfect or the be-all-end-all that the opposition seems to think it was supposed to be, when they denounce it but that is a common mistake in many rejections of free market economics. It's like me saying "there is no room for collectivism". I am a staunch advocate for "individualism" but we both know that there needs to be a balance between the two. Right now, the collectivists have increasingly more leverage when, to properly balance, the individual needs to have way more weight or protection, to balance the collective. The individual is the smallest minority. Trickle down has a role in our economy but it's not the whole economy. Trickle up has a role in our economy but it's not the whole economy. I am more concerned about the theft going on right under our noses. If the rich are the evil ones in all of this, then why doesn't that ever growing federal government do something? Because money talks and we know what walks. So, how do we fix that? Hand over even more power to the government? Or shrink the government back to it's Constitutional level while restoring the people's rights AND responsibilities. Government works best that governs the least. When there is less power in DC, this shit won't happen nearly as much, it won't be Utopia but it has happened before and it could be again.

Originally Posted by Mr Neutron

Sorry about the delay. Internet connection was lost yesterday morning. I don't know if I'll still have it when I try to post this. Downloaded Firefox and tried to get a decent enlargement of that second graph but the larger I zoomed, the grainier it got, same as Safari. But... I'm not going to argue the graph or the stats. Stats are like a bikini, they show a lot but not everything. The reasons for the disparity could be something else. I think it is hasty to blame "trickle down" for it. I have seen "trickle down" work. It's not perfect or the be-all-end-all that the opposition seems to think it was supposed to be, when they denounce it but that is a common mistake in many rejections of free market economics. It's like me saying "there is no room for collectivism". I am a staunch advocate for "individualism" but we both know that there needs to be a balance between the two. Right now, the collectivists have increasingly more leverage when, to properly balance, the individual needs to have way more weight or protection, to balance the collective. The individual is the smallest minority. Trickle down has a role in our economy but it's not the whole economy. Trickle up has a role in our economy but it's not the whole economy. I am more concerned about the theft going on right under our noses. If the rich are the evil ones in all of this, then why doesn't that ever growing federal government do something? Because money talks and we know what walks. So, how do we fix that? Hand over even more power to the government? Or shrink the government back to it's Constitutional level while restoring the people's rights AND responsibilities. Government works best that governs the least. When there is less power in DC, this shit won't happen nearly as much, it won't be Utopia but it has happened before and it could be again.

Thank you for the detailed and thoughtful reply, Mr. Neutron.
I agree that collectivism is not a good thing. However I see our society and government headed inexorably in that direction, with both Democrats and Republicans participating in the headlong slide toward a sort of political gravity gradient, with Big Government at the bottom. But how to perform or even visualize the bolded ... I don't know. With predatory capital as sophisticated as it is, I see no viable way to prune the nanny organization and simultaneously restore/protect rights. It's a good destination with the nontrivial problem of "no path from here to there".

As for trickle down ... I'm advancing the very simple idea that if it works, wealth ratios would show it. I see wealth ratios continuing to diverge, which strongly implies to me that trickle down is not a useful homeostatic principle, which seems to be the objective of all economic architects. If anything, it strikes me as a cruel joke by those who are surfing the instabilities in an evolving socioeconomic arrangement to become a plutocracy unseen since Renaissance Italy.
But how to legally , effectively and not (politically) self-destructively correct that? I do not know. cn

Originally Posted by beenthere

Pretty bold statement for a newb!

lol.

nothing bold at all about calling those gangly yellow twigs of yours nitrogen deficient.

as a "newb", i am at least capable of adding proper amounts of nitrogen and iron in my feeding schedule, among others.

notice how the sugar leaf around the bud is green still, while you can spot a single yellow fan leaf below?



that was the first time i ever tried to grow outdoors. year 2 is treating me better.



nitrogen, how does that work? LOL!

Originally Posted by UncleBuck

lol.

nothing bold at all about calling those gangly yellow twigs of yours nitrogen deficient.

as a "newb", i am at least capable of adding proper amounts of nitrogen and iron in my feeding schedule, among others.

notice how the sugar leaf around the bud is green still, while you can spot a single yellow fan leaf below?



that was the first time i ever tried to grow outdoors. year 2 is treating me better.



nitrogen, how does that work? LOL!

I forgot more than you know about growing newb. LOL is right, you probably don't even know what a sugar leaf is.

While those aren't bad looking little vegging plants in your pic, they're certainly nothing to brag about, and what's up with that mag deficient mite infested bud of yours? LOL

You go right ahead and keep adding that nitrogen to your flowering plants and I'll continue to NOT.
I imagine when you get some more experience under your belt, you'll finally figure out why your leaf to bud ratio is higher than optimum, your buds are a bit stretched and not rock hard and how to get that shitty fertilizer taste out of your smoke. Fucking moron! LMAO

If I grew I would add nitrogen all the way up to 2 weeks before chop. And I do not imagine my leaf to bud ratio would be affected. As that is pretty much pre-determined by the genes you choose to grow out.
If I grew I would have tight nugs that are a breeze to manicure and get chopped at 60 days.
But I dont know anything. I dont grow marijuana. That is illegal and stupid