Did you write this yourself?  If you did, I like people who think things through on their own.

I would question the very first premise.  The primary incentive to do X is not necessarily for money.  It is to benefit one's self directly or indirectly.

Benefit to one's self can include one or more of: happiness, health, social relationships, pleasure.  The role of money in these is often optional and usually very flexible.

 The free market's the best mechanism ever devised to put resources to their most efficient and productive use. The government isn't particularly good at that. But the market isn't so good at making sure that the wealth that's produced is being distributed fairly or wisely. Some of that wealth has to be plowed back into education, so that the next generation has a fair chance, and to maintain our infrastructure, and provide some sort of safety net for those who lose out in a market economy. And it just makes sense that those of us who've benefited most from the market should pay a bigger share.

When you get rid of the estate tax, you're basically handing over command of the country's resources to people who didn't earn it. It's like choosing the 2020 Olympic team by picking the children of all the winners at the 2000 Games. -- Warren Buffet

...the bulk of the debt is a direct result of the President's tax cuts, 47.4 percent of which went to the top 5 percent of the income bracket, 36.7 percent of which went to the top 1 percent, and 1.5 percent of which went to the top on-tenth of 1 percent, typically people making $1.6 million a year or more. -- Barack Obama

Trickle down does not work, has never worked, will never work.  Yet, Republicans take it as a leap of faith like religious fundamentalists accept creationism despite evidence to the contrary. Sorry, you're convoluted arguments are not arguments.

I think it has some valid points though the argument, as I see it, suffers from omissions and oversimplifications.

If he wants to come back and discuss it, I will go into more detail.  At this point, I'd welcome anyone who tries honestly to put a real idea forward instead of the pointless and unthinking mud fights that are the norm for political "debates."

One error in it is in the assumption that it's *ALWAYS* primarily about money.  People don't generally have children for the tax breaks, for example.  You're not typically going to get rich starting your own business.

There are other factors to consider in encouragement/inhibition.

Well, using axiom's example, if I'm mowing his lawn for $100 and his neighbor's gardener is doing the same job for $90, I am likely to get canned and my competitor will get the job. The government loses $5 in taxes, the competitor doubles his income, and the big winner is the employer who gets $10 tax free for doing nothing. This is fine until axiom wonders why the pothole on his street is not repaired. The government is short $5 to maintain infrastructure.

If I am pushing my mower to your house to mow your yard on a dirt road,and lets say for fun,that $50.00 tax paves said road ,my incentive to be a component of all this is high.

ctpaw ~ we owe each other a coke.LOL

The free market's the best mechanism ever devised to put resources to their most efficient and productive use. The government isn't particularly good at that. But the market isn't so good at making sure that the wealth that's produced is being distributed fairly or wisely

I don’t know what this means, nor do I know what part of my blog this is in response to. I have no actually defined free market economics in my blog entry but rather refuted 3 common points made by some. To try and respond though, I’d point out that for every $1 earned a value greater than $1 must have been given to the consumer. So the business about wealth being distributed happens automatically under a free market through trade.

When you get rid of the estate tax, you're basically handing over command of the country's resources to people who didn't earn it. It's like choosing the 2020 Olympic team by picking the children of all the winners at the 2000 Games. -- Warren Buffet

I want to point out that I did not argue against the death tax, nor did I argue for any method of taxation so this comment seems to be irrelevant to my blog entry. However, theres a few things to say about this quote. First, the notion of “handing the countries resources” assumes that the country ‘owns’ the property at hand, and since the death tax involved private property is not owned (or should not be) by the government. So the idea of it being a ‘country’s resource’ is based on a false premise. Second, if you believe in freedom, you’re allowed to give your children or family food, gifts, money anything you like as long as its no forced.

Buffet’s point could be used to argue against allowing children live with their parents altogether since the child of wealthy parents will with a higher standard of living then a poor child – a stand of a living that child did not earn. If you were to use Buffet’s logic consistently we should install a ‘starting line’ program where each new born is put into the woods to build himself up to a productive citizen. Each of us are born into a world with the fruits of our ancestors without earning them.

The Olympics is a race where the purpose is to see who is the fastest. Our economic ‘system’ is not really for any purpose. I don’t see what his analogy is supposed to suggest.

...the bulk of the debt is a direct result of the President's tax cuts, 47.4 percent of which went to the top 5 percent of the income bracket, 36.7 percent of which went to the top 1 percent, and 1.5 percent of which went to the top on-tenth of 1 percent, typically people making $1.6 million a year or more. -- Barack Obama

I want to point out that I did not argue for Bush’s tax policies, nor did I argue for any method of taxation so this comment seems to be irrelevant to my blog entry. Obama is partly wrong since you can’t have debt without spending. Second, it’s false to suggest that when taxes are cut that less revenue will result – capital gains case & point.

Trickle down does not work, has never worked, will never work.  Yet, Republicans take it as a leap of faith like religious fundamentalists accept creationism despite evidence to the contrary. Sorry, you're convoluted arguments are not arguments.

I want to point out that I did not argue for ‘trickle down’ so this comment seems to be irrelevant to my blog entry. I also did not hear a single criticism of my entire blog in any of your comments. As far as the trickle down stuff, ill simply quote the economist Thomas Sowell in his book “Basic Economics”

   There have been many economic theories over the centuries, accompanied by controversies among different schools of economists. But one of the most politically prominent economic theories today is one that has never existed among economists-the "trickle down" theory.2 People who are politically committed to policies of redistributing income and who tend to emphasize the conflicts between business and labor, rather than their mutual interdependence, often accuse those opposed to them of believing that benefits must be given to the wealthy in general or to business in particular, in order that these benefits will eventually "trickle down" to the masses of ordinary people. But no recognized economist of any school of thought has ever had any such theory or made any such proposal. It is a straw man. It cannot be found in even the most voluminous and learned histories of economic theories.

   Proposals to reduce taxes on capital gains, for example, are often opposed politically by saying that those who make such proposals believe in a "trickle down" theory of economics. In reality, economic processes work in the directly opposite way from that depicted by those who imagine that profits first benefit business owners and that benefits only belatedly trickle down to workers.

   'A writer in India refers to those promoting a change from government planning to a freer market as people who have "blind faith in the 'trickle-down' theory of distributing the benefits of economic growth among different socio-economic groups in the country." But free market economics is not about "distributing" anything to anybody. It is about letting people earn whatever they can from voluntary transactions with other people.

   When an investment is made, whether to build a railroad or to open a new restaurant, the first money is spent hiring people to do the work. Without that, nothing happens. Even when one person decides to operate a store or hamburger stand without employees, that person must first pay somebody to deliver the goods that are going to be sold. Money goes out first to pay expenses and then comes back as profits later-if at all. The high rate of failure of new businesses makes painfully clear that there is nothing inevitable about the money coming back.

   Even with successful and well-established businesses, years may elapse between the initial investment and the return of earnings. From the time when an oil company begins spending money to explore for petroleum to the time when the first gasoline resulting from that exploration comes out of a pump at a filling station, a decade may have passed. In the meantime, all sorts of employees have been paid-geologists, engineers, refinery workers, truck drivers. It is only afterwards that profits begin coming in. Only then are there any capital gains to tax. The real effect of a reduction in the capital gains tax is that it opens the prospect of greater future net profits and thereby provides incentives to make current investments.

   Nor is the oil industry unique. No one who begins publishing a newspaper expects to make a profit-or even break even-during the first year or two. But reporters and other members of the newspaper staff expect to be paid every payday, even while the paper shows only red ink on the bottom line.

   Amazon.com began operating in 1994 but its first profits did not appear until the last quarter of 2001, after the company lost a total of $2.8 billion over the years. Even a phenomenally successful enterprise like the McDonald's restaurant chain ran up millions of dollars in debts for years before it saw the first dollar of profit. Indeed, it teetered on the brink of bankruptcy more than once in its early years. But the people behind the counter selling hamburgers were paid regularly all that time.

   In short, the sequence of payments is directly the opposite of what is assumed by those who talk about a "trickle-down" theory. The workers must be paid first and then the profits flow upward later-if at all.

Rather than paraphrase from my recollection, I included the quotes for the sake of veracity.

Under the first item of your lengthy blog, you referred to five aspects of taxation as "bizzare." Not taxing profits would make sense if the people integral to the production of that wealth shared in it, say in the form of a bonus or raise. This would relate to the wage incentive. But that doesn't happen. The wealth becomes concentrated by a relative few. Were it otherwise, the government needn't mandate a minimum wage. 

True, capital outlay must proceed any business endevor. By all means, investors should not be begrudged rewards for their risk. But there is a difference between capital and profit. Wealth generated by profits from wealth at hand is not the same as capital outlay starting a business from scratch. Nor would McD's have been allowed to run up a debt of millions had there been no reasonable expectation of profits.

If I may refer to your lawn mower example, if you replaced the $90 gardener with one charging $80, the government would lose another $5 in taxes, the gardener would increase his income at a lesser rate, the employer would double his tax free income from $10 to $20; an increase of 100% by doing nothing. Meanwhile, the pothole on your street remains unrepaired (and gets worse) because there's a shortfall of $10 in revenue.

Now, if you argue that's your $20 you earned it, and if the tax man takes 50% of it, you will have to fire the gardner because you can't afford to pay him, the tax man may relent and figure the $20 will trickle down to the gardner and help the economy. You may instead stuff the $20 under your mattress and look for a gardner who charges $70.

So, two gardeners are out of a job. That's competetion. One gardner is working for 20% less than the first gardner. The employer has increased his tax free wealth by $20. And no doubt is calling the municipal road fixers and telling them to get out here and fix the pothole.

Incidently, at the last debate Tom Brokaw asked both candidates who they would hire as Sec. of the Treasury. McCain suggested Warren Buffet. Obama answered Warren Buffet would be considered. Who would you hire?

I'd hire Paul Krugman, if he'd have the job.  And try to coax  Paul Volcker back at least as an advisor to the Fed Chairman.

Under the first item of your lengthy blog, you referred to five aspects of taxation as "bizzare." Not taxing profits would make sense if the people integral to the production of that wealth shared in it, say in the form of a bonus or raise. This would relate to the wage incentive. But that doesn't happen. The wealth becomes concentrated by a relative few. Were it otherwise, the government needn't mandate a minimum wage. 

Payment is determined by the two parties, you don’t pay someone more simply because you made more profit, you pay them more if their skill/productivity is worth more. By the same token, you don’t pay more for food just because you have more money, the price of the apple is determined by the value of the apple.

Now, if you argue that's your $20 you earned it, and if the tax man takes 50% of it, you will have to fire the gardner because you can't afford to pay him, the tax man may relent and figure the $20 will trickle down to the gardner and help the economy. You may instead stuff the $20 under your mattress and look for a gardner who charges $70.

So, two gardeners are out of a job. That's competetion. One gardner is working for 20% less than the first gardner. The employer has increased his tax free wealth by $20. And no doubt is calling the municipal road fixers and telling them to get out here and fix the pothole.

I don’t understand what you’re trying to argue. What is the point of this?

Well, the point is wealth--money if you will--goes somewhere. If it is accumulated by a few then obviously wealth is under the control of a few and the economy is not quite the free market that promotes the circulation of that wealth. "Spreading the wealth" whether by breaking up a monopoly, making price fixing unlawful, denying tax breaks, or increasing taxation is a balancing act. Right now, I'd guess the economy is out of balance somewhere. (On network news, ABC I think, says the SEC is under scrutiny for promoting a "permissive" and misleading environment on Wall Street--not doing their job, in other words, when it should have been applying a brake.)

I don't mean to vilify corporate conglomerates or knowledgeable, shrewed investors. But when I see a talking head in the form of a CEO who has raked in tens on millions while his company goes down the toilet blame the middle class for "overextending credit" and "living beyond their means," yeah, I get offended. He's including fixed incomes and minimum-wage single moms, and I conclude it's time to "spread the wealth."

I will conclude my opinions on this subject by saying I was under the impression that your blog was one of those cut-and-paste jobs that you may have arbitrarily posted. You have my apology for jumping to that conclusion. If my posts seem off-topic and not related to your post, I was simply pointing out that there are more factors of the economy than the ones you stated. Given the state of affairs, I am not so naive as to think anything will be rectified soon. However, Obama's and Buffet's philosophical views of the economy are a step in the right direction--which is what the on-going election is about: which direction the country takes.

Axiom, I also thought that you were arguing in favor of this position, rather than just putting it out here.  When you denied doing so, I decided not to comment further.

My point, and that of some other people, was that incentive is more complex than that, and that there actually is an incentive to pay taxes, once you consider where taxes are (or should be) put to use.

The whole idea of taxation is to "spread the wealth". Obama didn't create the idea. Alaska has a nice annual program of "spreading the wealth" to Alaskan residents on state owned stocks in oil companies.