i am certainly not equivocating, in the way you claim i am.
i am equivocating between things which are not significantly different, things that warrant equivocation, for the purpose of clear thinking.
getting paid X and handing back Y, is not significantly different from being paid X-Y and not handing back anything.
hence it is proper to equivocate between the two.
well i gave you some, which you simply deny without argument, aside from the bare assertion that you believe the difference to be significant you have not motivated this with any of the kind of reason you challenged me for (which i gave).
indeed you do sir.
No, because the action X happens, and the action Y is completely different in character than the character of action X. The paying of taxes is a very specific act, and tax-consumption is a very different act; surely, to assert that government-employees consume more from the tax-pool than they contribute to it is correct, but to assert that they do not pay taxes is incorrect. Indeed, the latter assertion is a needless obfuscation that completely shoves aside the entire depth of the economics of tax-consumption in order to suit a certain point of view.
Equivocations are never proper, they serve only to obfuscate the debate by confusing terms.
No, you gave political arguments, do not equivocate between politics, and economics.
income withholding? anyhow, i tire of this two and froing, you’re desire of mere pedantry merely serves to obfuscate and smokescreen ‘what is going on’ vis production and consumption.
technically you are right. as right as saying when i loan you a penny for 5 pecoseconds, that i loaned you a penny for 5 pecoseconds. and it was . no-joke. but significant.
I suppose insisting that insignificant charades are significant will win the day. and occams razor will lie on the floor dull and rusty.
such is life, with all the anti-libertarians here on mises forums these days.
no, the argument are economic, they sharply contrast the productive with the parasites. with no room to hide. no smokescreen.
I dunno, ‘not equivocating’ sounds like work. I think we should stick to popular consensus lest we get any crazy ideas.
It is significant even though it is 5 pecoseconds, action happened, and action should not be equivocated away.
Occam’s razor is of no significance here, Occam’s razor, in economics esspecially, cannot be used to slice away action. Occams razor does not obfuscate; rather, its role is to ensure that the theory describes the phenomena in a manner that is economic with the evidence, it does not slice away the phenomena to be described.
lol. A stratton clone ? Another person clueless about the nature of political economy ? a troll ? … ?
No, because being a “parasite” depends on an individual’s tax-consumption, but your model completely cuts away, with “Occam’s razor”, the depth of tax-consumption.
Strange, many of the greatest works in political economy, Wealth of Nations, and Human Action included, do not obfuscate the economics of a situation to forward a political agenda.
i dont think it will set off any ABCT boom bust. what say you?
LOL. Did you read wealth of nations ?
how does it do this ?!?! the opposite !!! government employeers are all tax consumers to the depth of the difference between their ‘official income’ and their joke of a taxable amount.
need i spell it out to you , that civil servants will go on strike and say things like, ‘we are tax payers too, we have rights, blah ,blah’
and we say shut up tax consumers who dont pay taxes, you cant fool us with your charades
Economics is not merely about boom, and bust cycles. Economics is about the whole plethora of human action in society, and that 5 pecosecond long transaction may very well have lasting consequences.
please now take the time to describe to me something that is insignificant.
I would just like an answer to my question concerning who pays the incomes of government employees.
Notice the qualifier:
Wealth of Nations was very much openly critical of the mercantillist policies of its day, but it did not abuse Occam’s razor to slice out entire parts of an economic analysis (as is being done here with tax-consumption) to suit its agenda. If I am wrong, please give me the quotation from Wealth of Nations that proves me wrong.
Yes thieves can organize their deceptions.
And yet you said a few posts back that economics has nothing to do with politics, so, politics using your logic isn’t human action… Makes it difficult to figure out what you’re trying to say at times. But go on, I’m merely making a minor point.