Scrap the Welfare State and Give People Free Money

Obviously I'm not advocating giving $1T to Bill Gates, but this is a fundamental misunderstanding that gets repeated over and over again. Rich people do not keep their money under their mattresses. Much of it they keep in a variety of financial instruments, most commonly stocks and bonds. Sale of stock is how many companies finance their operations, which includes, among other things, hiring people who pay taxes. Bonds are how corporations and governments fund things like building factories, roads and schools.

Even if Bill just kept it in the bank, the bank now has more money to lend at easier terms to businesses needing capital.

There is a serious economic study and debate about how much of a "multiplier" effect you get from handing money to a poor person vs. to a rich person. It wouldn't surprise me if it were higher for the poor person, but it's surely not 0 for the rich person.

Even prior to 1986 FOPA amendment, the number of people who actually owned such firearms was low -- but then again, they were only used in two crimes, in both cases by police officers. Most people who take advantage of this are collectors and movie makers.

As for me, I'll pass on jumping through enormous hoops only to buy a machine that turns money into noise: ask a member of the US armed forces how many times he's actually used the M4 or M16 in fully auto or even burst as opposed to semi-auto. This is reflected in the M16/AR-15 design: they aren't designed for "spray and pray", they're designed for carefully aimed and disciplined fire in semi-auto mode (with occasional full-auto bursts for supressive fire or against metal armour).

> I personally think not. Is there really a difference between hand grenades and automatic rifles? Again, I personally think not.

Well for starters, go to a range that rents automatics (like one in Las Vegas), shoot a fully automatic rifle, and then put it down. Then, pull the pin on a hand-grenade, drop the hand-grenade next you, and then stand in place :-) [No, I don't actually encourage you to do this]. Or you may want to consider why police cruisers have rifles (albeit semi-automatics) but not (explosive) grenades -- rifles are person-to-person weapons, grenades are effectively area/anti-materiel weapons. (Random note: When I lived in USSR, my school PE classes actually included "grenade toss" -- you'd toss a stick grenade filled with inert substance -- as a sport; it's quite challenging.)

I think the difference is immense, they're completely different kinds of weapons -- first of all hand grenades, aren't technically arms if you use the definition of arms used when the constitution was written.

They would not be protected by the second amendment even if fully automatic weapons were. Fully automatic weapons on the other hand aren't protected for the same reason "shouting fire in a crowded theater" (as much as I hate this phrase...) isn't protected, grenades are not protected for the same reason that setting fire to a theater isn't protected.

While this isn't tested, semi-auto rifles, are almost certainly protected -- as they're owned by civilians in great numbers (unlike hand grenades or automatic rifles) and compare to pistols (demonstrated per case law to be protected by second amendment) are far less frequently used in homicides (despite there being more rifles/shotguns in circulation than pistols). This certainly passes the "unusual and dangerous test" used in Heller to rule out automatic rifles, hand-grenades, missiles, nukes, etc... and all the other frequently asserted strawmen.

I'll point you at an excellent book that offers a far more nuanced reading of the second amendment than either side wants to admit -- http://www.amazon.com/Gunfight-Battle-Over-Right-America/dp/... -- including the discussion of what militia means (which is different from what it means in Switzerland, although not entirely unrelated)

Marginal impact is greater. Using the numbers I listed above your marginal tax rate at a income of $10k/year is NEGATIVE 100%, at an income of $100k/year it would be 0%, at $500k/year it would be 8%, at $1m/year it would be 9%... asymptotic increasing towards 10%.

> ...there is always a positive incentive to higher income

Sorry, you are correct. I should have said there is increased income doesn't increase disincentives.

> Only if the flat rate is set very high compared to the existing rates paid by most of the population.

The point wasn't being made on total net revenue but on cost per dollar collected due to compliance enforcement and bureaucratic overhead. Regardless the flat tax rate CAN be set very high as long as there is a corresponding offset in the MBI. Ultimately the ACTUAL rate people pay could be similar to the amount they currently pay but normalized over the population as a whole.

> If this includes taxing capital gains as income

> To do this, government has to alter the definition of taxable income

Which is why I specifically mentioned ALL income.

> This does not eliminate their ability to make similar decisions in the future

This is very true, and probably the strongest argument you made in your post. Hopefully such exemptions would "stand out" with such a simplified tax structure but any government that exists will continually work to expand it's power at the expense of the governed.

> Everybody feels the effect of rate changes now

Everybody does NOT feel the effects of a rate change as often lower tax rates are unmodified while higher tax rates are adjusted.

> Define "market freedom".

Sorry, "market freedom" is both to general and arguable incorrectly used in this case. I should have said it equalizes market manipulation by the government.