patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,196,517 comments by 14,074 users - Blue, RC2006, whitewater online now
Should poor people be allowed to vote on tax policy?
invite response
2018 Mar 28, 4:33pm 21,136 views 90 comments
« First « Previous Comments 28 - 67 of 90 Next » Last » Search these comments
28
MrMagic
2018 Mar 28, 5:48pm
MrMagic
2018 Mar 28, 5:48pm
anotheraccount says
Another straw man.
The chart in the OP says INCOME TAX, not medicare or S.S.
Goran_K saysThe top 20% of income earners pay 95% of the tax burden in the United States
Does not include social security and medicare taxes that all poor people pay.
Another straw man.
The chart in the OP says INCOME TAX, not medicare or S.S.
29
Heraclitusstudent
2018 Mar 28, 5:49pm
Heraclitusstudent
2018 Mar 28, 5:49pm
Goran_K says
This is not a zero sum game but the question is everyone's share rising? The answer is no as evidenced by flat wage growth. And even flat wage growth hides:
- flat on average but the poor fared even worse than flat.
- flat in overall inflation adjusted terms hide that housing, or healthcare prices went through the roof.
So we just went through 30 yrs of the lowest 50% of the population seeing their standards of living eviscerated while the rich made out like bandits.
You can't simply hide behind a "it's not a zero sum game".
Goran_K says
Right but the rich still got most of the nominal breaks.
Goran_K says
Yep! we need to add several trillions of debts - every year - just to maintain the current "end demand". If we stopped adding debt, the end demand would collapse, like it did in 2008. The gov had to start compensating by adding huge amount to the national debts.
Why are we in this situation????
Because the poorest 70% have no fucking money to spend, and the richest don't NEED to spend. They don't know what to do with their money outside accumulating it.
Conclusion: some right wing people are still fighting Reagan's war, even though we now have the opposite problems.
1 - Income inequality is a fake problem. We had this conversation already. The economy is not a zero sum game.
This is not a zero sum game but the question is everyone's share rising? The answer is no as evidenced by flat wage growth. And even flat wage growth hides:
- flat on average but the poor fared even worse than flat.
- flat in overall inflation adjusted terms hide that housing, or healthcare prices went through the roof.
So we just went through 30 yrs of the lowest 50% of the population seeing their standards of living eviscerated while the rich made out like bandits.
You can't simply hide behind a "it's not a zero sum game".
Goran_K says
2 - The tax cut hits everyone across the board not just the rich.
Right but the rich still got most of the nominal breaks.
Goran_K says
3 - "the main bottleneck of the economy is poor end-demand (outside debt) due to poor people not having any money" WTF?
Yep! we need to add several trillions of debts - every year - just to maintain the current "end demand". If we stopped adding debt, the end demand would collapse, like it did in 2008. The gov had to start compensating by adding huge amount to the national debts.
Why are we in this situation????
Because the poorest 70% have no fucking money to spend, and the richest don't NEED to spend. They don't know what to do with their money outside accumulating it.
Conclusion: some right wing people are still fighting Reagan's war, even though we now have the opposite problems.
30
Heraclitusstudent
2018 Mar 28, 5:52pm
Heraclitusstudent
2018 Mar 28, 5:52pm
Patrick says
But even with different land values, the land value is still a tiny fraction of what Facebook earns, whereas it is hugely superior to what a farm earns.
You would have to adjust tax rates based on something else than land value to be fair.
I still don't understand the idea here.
There are no farms where Facebook is, and no Facebook where the farms are. The tax rates would be orders of magnitude different.
But even with different land values, the land value is still a tiny fraction of what Facebook earns, whereas it is hugely superior to what a farm earns.
You would have to adjust tax rates based on something else than land value to be fair.
I still don't understand the idea here.
31
FuckTheMainstreamMedia
2018 Mar 28, 5:58pm
FuckTheMainstreamMedia
2018 Mar 28, 5:58pm
Are we sure about wages being flat since say February 2017?
32
RWSGFY
2018 Mar 28, 7:06pm
RWSGFY
2018 Mar 28, 7:06pm
HappyGilmore says
Oh, NOW we actually like the Constitution...
Didn't seem to be the case in "repeal the 2A" thread.
Do you believe in the Constitution? The Founding Fathers answered that question quite conclusively.
Oh, NOW we actually like the Constitution...
Didn't seem to be the case in "repeal the 2A" thread.
33
MrMagic
2018 Mar 28, 7:52pm
MrMagic
2018 Mar 28, 7:52pm
Satoshi_Nakamoto says
You beat me too it.
Something reeks of hypocrisy (or something else).
HappyGilmore saysDo you believe in the Constitution? The Founding Fathers answered that question quite conclusively.
Oh, NOW we actually like the Constitution...
Didn't seem to be the case in "repeal the 2A" thread.
You beat me too it.
Something reeks of hypocrisy (or something else).
34
Reality
2018 Mar 28, 8:07pm
HappyGilmore says
Top tax bracket rate has little to do with actual amount of tax paid. Back when top tax rate was near 90%, as it is the case in some other countries now, the top executive jobs came with perks like free cars, free residence and free blowjobs from young pretty things on the payroll of the companies and the government agencies! The employers simply didn't pay that much cash out to the executives when 90% of the pay would be intercepted by a 3rd party.
Also, if GDP growth is your primary goal, you ought to love the actual Nazi Party, which produced the highest GDP ever recorded in the modern world: 30% annual growth rate in the first few years after Hitler and Nazi Party came to power in Germany! All those huge political rallies, waste production in preparation for wars and paying thugs to beat people up and shoving them into concentration camps all add up to GDP statistics! Never mind not a single VW ("the people's car") could be made affordable to a single German consumer until long after WWII. Yup, the higher the VW Bug's cost (hence unaffordable to German consumers) the higher the GDP when sold to the Germany Army.
GDP accounting is essentially fraud when it takes into account non-market non-competitive transactions. For example, if a medical procedure cost $1000 in a competitive market place, it adds only $1000 to GDP; whereas if the hospital doing the same procedure runs up $10,000 and is paid by the government or insurance company forced by government to make only 10% profit (therefore huge incentive to run up cost; 10% of $1000 is only $100, whereas 10% of $10,000 is $1000!), it's counted as $10,000 addition to GDP.
Here's a table with the best GDP growth years and their corresponding top tax rate. Sure seems like higher tax rates HELP growth.
Top tax bracket rate has little to do with actual amount of tax paid. Back when top tax rate was near 90%, as it is the case in some other countries now, the top executive jobs came with perks like free cars, free residence and free blowjobs from young pretty things on the payroll of the companies and the government agencies! The employers simply didn't pay that much cash out to the executives when 90% of the pay would be intercepted by a 3rd party.
Also, if GDP growth is your primary goal, you ought to love the actual Nazi Party, which produced the highest GDP ever recorded in the modern world: 30% annual growth rate in the first few years after Hitler and Nazi Party came to power in Germany! All those huge political rallies, waste production in preparation for wars and paying thugs to beat people up and shoving them into concentration camps all add up to GDP statistics! Never mind not a single VW ("the people's car") could be made affordable to a single German consumer until long after WWII. Yup, the higher the VW Bug's cost (hence unaffordable to German consumers) the higher the GDP when sold to the Germany Army.
GDP accounting is essentially fraud when it takes into account non-market non-competitive transactions. For example, if a medical procedure cost $1000 in a competitive market place, it adds only $1000 to GDP; whereas if the hospital doing the same procedure runs up $10,000 and is paid by the government or insurance company forced by government to make only 10% profit (therefore huge incentive to run up cost; 10% of $1000 is only $100, whereas 10% of $10,000 is $1000!), it's counted as $10,000 addition to GDP.
35
anotheraccount
2018 Mar 28, 8:14pm
anotheraccount
2018 Mar 28, 8:14pm
Sniper says
The chart says that. Goran explicitly uses the words "tax burden" which is wrong.
The chart in the OP says INCOME TAX, not medicare or S.S.
The chart says that. Goran explicitly uses the words "tax burden" which is wrong.
36
Reality
2018 Mar 28, 8:16pm
HappyGilmore says
They did! They did not specify who in each state had the right to vote. It ought to be quite clear that the horses (which enjoyed the same electoral college vote apportionment as slave head count) did not vote by themselves, but had votes cast by someone else on their behalves. How the electoral college votes was to be decided in each state was up to the state legislature.
People who were wards of other people obviously did not have the vote. That meant people under 21 didn't have the right to vote. Slaves who enjoyed free housing, free food, free education and free medicine, all decided by other people (slave owners) instead of themselves making choices (buying those goods and services with their own money) did not have the right of vote. Likewise, people on welfare (i.e. enjoying free housing, free food, free education and free medicine, as ward of the state) should not have the right to vote.
Do you believe in the Constitution? The Founding Fathers answered that question quite conclusively.
They did! They did not specify who in each state had the right to vote. It ought to be quite clear that the horses (which enjoyed the same electoral college vote apportionment as slave head count) did not vote by themselves, but had votes cast by someone else on their behalves. How the electoral college votes was to be decided in each state was up to the state legislature.
People who were wards of other people obviously did not have the vote. That meant people under 21 didn't have the right to vote. Slaves who enjoyed free housing, free food, free education and free medicine, all decided by other people (slave owners) instead of themselves making choices (buying those goods and services with their own money) did not have the right of vote. Likewise, people on welfare (i.e. enjoying free housing, free food, free education and free medicine, as ward of the state) should not have the right to vote.
37
MrMagic
2018 Mar 28, 8:18pm
MrMagic
2018 Mar 28, 8:18pm
anotheraccount says
OK, we'll try this a different way.
What "tax burden" does a person making $250K pay for Medicare and S.S. and what "tax burden" does a person making $30K pay?
Please show the dollar amounts for each.
Sniper saysThe chart in the OP says INCOME TAX, not medicare or S.S.
The chart says that. Goran explicitly uses the words "tax burden" which is wrong.
OK, we'll try this a different way.
What "tax burden" does a person making $250K pay for Medicare and S.S. and what "tax burden" does a person making $30K pay?
Please show the dollar amounts for each.
38
MrMagic
2018 Mar 28, 8:21pm
MrMagic
2018 Mar 28, 8:21pm
anotheraccount says
OK, let's cover that too.
What approximate Sales "tax burden" does a person making $250K pay on their purchases and what Sales "tax burden" does a person making $30K pay?
Please show the dollar amounts for each.
Tax burden does not include sales taxes that all poor people either.
OK, let's cover that too.
What approximate Sales "tax burden" does a person making $250K pay on their purchases and what Sales "tax burden" does a person making $30K pay?
Please show the dollar amounts for each.
39
Reality
2018 Mar 28, 8:27pm
HappyGilmore says
It is not a zero-sum game. A couple percentage a year real growth should never be taken for granted. A couple percentage a year real growth is actually very good: doubling living standards every 36 years, or every generation! Setting aside the GDP nonsense that account for more and more government waste, the US only sustained 2+% annual real growth in the "Guilded Age" from roughly mid-19th century to early-20th century.
Living standards doubling every generation can only be sustained if the decisions regarding resource allocation are left to a relatively free market process so that those given power and resources by consumers as individual free agents get to decide. If left to a government monopolistic authority to allocate resources for the society, we'd end up with the situation in Venezuela, North Korea and the first year after Mayflower landed in Plymouth: more than half the people died in that first year due to starvation because they tried to farm all the land in common instead of private ownership. Between Mayflower and Venezuela, we have the entire 20th century of over 100+ million people dying in socialist/communist countries that tried allegedly better schemes than relatively free market allocation of resources.
The economic stagnation in the US in the past few decades is precisely the result of centralizing economic management.
Actually it IS a zero sum game. Real growth in the US is measured by productivity growth. That is a couple percent a year. So, for all intents and purposes it is a zero sum game.
Income inequality is, by far, the biggest problem in the US economy right now.
It is not a zero-sum game. A couple percentage a year real growth should never be taken for granted. A couple percentage a year real growth is actually very good: doubling living standards every 36 years, or every generation! Setting aside the GDP nonsense that account for more and more government waste, the US only sustained 2+% annual real growth in the "Guilded Age" from roughly mid-19th century to early-20th century.
Living standards doubling every generation can only be sustained if the decisions regarding resource allocation are left to a relatively free market process so that those given power and resources by consumers as individual free agents get to decide. If left to a government monopolistic authority to allocate resources for the society, we'd end up with the situation in Venezuela, North Korea and the first year after Mayflower landed in Plymouth: more than half the people died in that first year due to starvation because they tried to farm all the land in common instead of private ownership. Between Mayflower and Venezuela, we have the entire 20th century of over 100+ million people dying in socialist/communist countries that tried allegedly better schemes than relatively free market allocation of resources.
The economic stagnation in the US in the past few decades is precisely the result of centralizing economic management.
40
Reality
2018 Mar 28, 8:38pm
Heraclitusstudent says
In a real market economy, money going to a rich person would be the result of the rich person delivering something that is superior to all the alternatives that other people can buy. Not sure why that's even a bad thing.
Cutting taxes means giving people more choices where to spend money/resources, instead of letting a central authority making such decisions; that's a good thing. Increasing spending means letting a central authority make more decisions on how to spend more resources; a bad thing.
No. That is never the real problem. If poor people have less money, the goods/services they buy would just come down in price. That is actually beneficial to the poor: they usually have less debt (as they don't qualify to borrow), so deflation doesn't hurt them. If the poor people get more money, they would bid up the prices of goods/services that they buy, resulting in inflation, which hurts the poor (usually having cash in hand instead of assets and loans) far more than the wealthy who usually have assets and loans associated with assets. The very idea of handing out money by the government hurt the poor and benefit the rich; that's precisely why the more government intervention in the market place, the greater polarization.
1- An increasing amount of money go to the rich vs poor (increasing inequalities)
In a real market economy, money going to a rich person would be the result of the rich person delivering something that is superior to all the alternatives that other people can buy. Not sure why that's even a bad thing.
2 - Rich people (Trump) have just cut taxes for themselves while increasing spending
Cutting taxes means giving people more choices where to spend money/resources, instead of letting a central authority making such decisions; that's a good thing. Increasing spending means letting a central authority make more decisions on how to spend more resources; a bad thing.
3 - the main bottleneck of the economy is poor end-demand (outside debt) due to poor people not having any money
No. That is never the real problem. If poor people have less money, the goods/services they buy would just come down in price. That is actually beneficial to the poor: they usually have less debt (as they don't qualify to borrow), so deflation doesn't hurt them. If the poor people get more money, they would bid up the prices of goods/services that they buy, resulting in inflation, which hurts the poor (usually having cash in hand instead of assets and loans) far more than the wealthy who usually have assets and loans associated with assets. The very idea of handing out money by the government hurt the poor and benefit the rich; that's precisely why the more government intervention in the market place, the greater polarization.
41
bob2356
2018 Mar 28, 9:15pm
Goran_K says
Funny, I thought sales taxes, property taxes, corporate taxes, FICA, taxes, excise taxes, etc., were also part of the tax burden in the United States. Despite that deceptive use of the word taxes in the name apparently in the world according to Goran they are not. You learn something new on patnet every day.
It would appear that some people believe that the no taxation without representation principal, which was the founding principal of the country, is some sort of a flexible sliding scale that can be used as a pick and choose exercise depending on what partizan political point they want to make.
But wait, there's more:
#1 Air Transportation Taxes (just look at how much you were charged the last time you flew)
#2 Biodiesel Fuel Taxes
#3 Building Permit Taxes
#4 Business Registration Fees
#5 Capital Gains Taxes
#6 Cigarette Taxes
#7 Court Fines (indirect taxes)
#8 Disposal Fees
#9 Dog License Taxes
#10 Drivers License Fees (another form of taxation)
#11 Employer Health Insurance Mandate Tax
#12 Employer Medicare Taxes
#13 Employer Social Security Taxes
#14 Environmental Fees
#15 Estate Taxes
#16 Excise Taxes On Comprehensive Health Insurance Plans
#17 Federal Corporate Taxes
#18 Federal Income Taxes
#19 Federal Unemployment Taxes
#20 Fishing License Taxes
#21 Flush Taxes (yes, this actually exists in some areas)
#22 Food And Beverage License Fees
#23 Franchise Business Taxes
#24 Garbage Taxes
#25 Gasoline Taxes
#26 Gift Taxes
#27 Gun Ownership Permits
#28 Hazardous Material Disposal Fees
#29 Highway Access Fees
#30 Hotel Taxes (these are becoming quite large in some areas)
#31 Hunting License Taxes
#32 Import Taxes
#33 Individual Health Insurance Mandate Taxes
#34 Inheritance Taxes
#35 Insect Control Hazardous Materials Licenses
#36 Inspection Fees
#37 Insurance Premium Taxes
#38 Interstate User Diesel Fuel Taxes
#39 Inventory Taxes
#40 IRA Early Withdrawal Taxes
#41 IRS Interest Charges (tax on top of tax)
#42 IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax)
#43 Library Taxes
#44 License Plate Fees
#45 Liquor Taxes
#46 Local Corporate Taxes
#47 Local Income Taxes
#48 Local School Taxes
#49 Local Unemployment Taxes
#50 Luxury Taxes
#51 Marriage License Taxes
#52 Medicare Taxes
#53 Medicare Tax Surcharge On High Earning Americans Under Obamacare
#54 Obamacare Individual Mandate Excise Tax (if you don't buy "qualifying" health insurance under Obamacare you will have to pay an additional tax)
#55 Obamacare Surtax On Investment Income (a new 3.8% surtax on investment income)
#56 Parking Meters
#57 Passport Fees
#58 Professional Licenses And Fees (another form of taxation)
#59 Property Taxes
#60 Real Estate Taxes
#61 Recreational Vehicle Taxes
#62 Registration Fees For Ne Businesses
#63 Toll Booth Taxes
#64 Sales Taxes
#65 Self-Employment Taxes
#66 Sewer & Water Taxes
#67 School Taxes
#68 Septic Permit Taxes
#69 Service Charge Taxes
#70 Social Security Taxes
#71 Special Assessments For Road Repairs Or Construction
#72 Sports Stadium Taxes
#73 State Corporate Taxes
#74 State Income Taxes
#75 State Park Entrance Fees
#76 State Unemployment Taxes (SUTA)
#77 Tanning Taxes (a new Obamacare tax on tanning services)
#78 Telephone 911 Service Taxes
#79 Telephone Federal Excise Taxes
#80 Telephone Federal Universal Service Fee Taxes
#81 Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Taxe
#82 Telephone State And Local Taxes
#83 Telephone Universal Access Taxes
#84 The Alternative Minimum Tax
#85 Tire Recycling Fees
#86 Tire Taxes
#87 Tolls (another form of taxation)
#88 Traffic Fines (indirect taxation)
#89 Use Taxes (Out of state purchases, etc.)
#90 Utility Taxes
#91 Vehicle Registration Taxes
#92 Waste Management Taxes
#93 Water Rights Fees
#94 Watercraft Registration & Licensing Fees
#95 Well Permit Fees
#96 Workers Compensation Taxes
#97 Zoning Permit Fees
The top 20% of income earners pay 95% of the tax burden in the United States
Funny, I thought sales taxes, property taxes, corporate taxes, FICA, taxes, excise taxes, etc., were also part of the tax burden in the United States. Despite that deceptive use of the word taxes in the name apparently in the world according to Goran they are not. You learn something new on patnet every day.
It would appear that some people believe that the no taxation without representation principal, which was the founding principal of the country, is some sort of a flexible sliding scale that can be used as a pick and choose exercise depending on what partizan political point they want to make.
But wait, there's more:
#1 Air Transportation Taxes (just look at how much you were charged the last time you flew)
#2 Biodiesel Fuel Taxes
#3 Building Permit Taxes
#4 Business Registration Fees
#5 Capital Gains Taxes
#6 Cigarette Taxes
#7 Court Fines (indirect taxes)
#8 Disposal Fees
#9 Dog License Taxes
#10 Drivers License Fees (another form of taxation)
#11 Employer Health Insurance Mandate Tax
#12 Employer Medicare Taxes
#13 Employer Social Security Taxes
#14 Environmental Fees
#15 Estate Taxes
#16 Excise Taxes On Comprehensive Health Insurance Plans
#17 Federal Corporate Taxes
#18 Federal Income Taxes
#19 Federal Unemployment Taxes
#20 Fishing License Taxes
#21 Flush Taxes (yes, this actually exists in some areas)
#22 Food And Beverage License Fees
#23 Franchise Business Taxes
#24 Garbage Taxes
#25 Gasoline Taxes
#26 Gift Taxes
#27 Gun Ownership Permits
#28 Hazardous Material Disposal Fees
#29 Highway Access Fees
#30 Hotel Taxes (these are becoming quite large in some areas)
#31 Hunting License Taxes
#32 Import Taxes
#33 Individual Health Insurance Mandate Taxes
#34 Inheritance Taxes
#35 Insect Control Hazardous Materials Licenses
#36 Inspection Fees
#37 Insurance Premium Taxes
#38 Interstate User Diesel Fuel Taxes
#39 Inventory Taxes
#40 IRA Early Withdrawal Taxes
#41 IRS Interest Charges (tax on top of tax)
#42 IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax)
#43 Library Taxes
#44 License Plate Fees
#45 Liquor Taxes
#46 Local Corporate Taxes
#47 Local Income Taxes
#48 Local School Taxes
#49 Local Unemployment Taxes
#50 Luxury Taxes
#51 Marriage License Taxes
#52 Medicare Taxes
#53 Medicare Tax Surcharge On High Earning Americans Under Obamacare
#54 Obamacare Individual Mandate Excise Tax (if you don't buy "qualifying" health insurance under Obamacare you will have to pay an additional tax)
#55 Obamacare Surtax On Investment Income (a new 3.8% surtax on investment income)
#56 Parking Meters
#57 Passport Fees
#58 Professional Licenses And Fees (another form of taxation)
#59 Property Taxes
#60 Real Estate Taxes
#61 Recreational Vehicle Taxes
#62 Registration Fees For Ne Businesses
#63 Toll Booth Taxes
#64 Sales Taxes
#65 Self-Employment Taxes
#66 Sewer & Water Taxes
#67 School Taxes
#68 Septic Permit Taxes
#69 Service Charge Taxes
#70 Social Security Taxes
#71 Special Assessments For Road Repairs Or Construction
#72 Sports Stadium Taxes
#73 State Corporate Taxes
#74 State Income Taxes
#75 State Park Entrance Fees
#76 State Unemployment Taxes (SUTA)
#77 Tanning Taxes (a new Obamacare tax on tanning services)
#78 Telephone 911 Service Taxes
#79 Telephone Federal Excise Taxes
#80 Telephone Federal Universal Service Fee Taxes
#81 Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Taxe
#82 Telephone State And Local Taxes
#83 Telephone Universal Access Taxes
#84 The Alternative Minimum Tax
#85 Tire Recycling Fees
#86 Tire Taxes
#87 Tolls (another form of taxation)
#88 Traffic Fines (indirect taxation)
#89 Use Taxes (Out of state purchases, etc.)
#90 Utility Taxes
#91 Vehicle Registration Taxes
#92 Waste Management Taxes
#93 Water Rights Fees
#94 Watercraft Registration & Licensing Fees
#95 Well Permit Fees
#96 Workers Compensation Taxes
#97 Zoning Permit Fees
42
Reality
2018 Mar 28, 9:31pm
Heraclitusstudent says
This explanation makes no sense whatsoever. Does Bezos have $100 Billion dollars stacked up in his basement? Of course not. His wealth is in his ownership of Amazon, the stocks of which have been bid up on the marginal transactions, just like the 5% transactions of housing stock every year decides the price of the housing stock. The owners of stocks and houses (and almost all other productive capitals) are not at all piling money up in their homes equal to their asset value . . . in fact it's precisely the opposite: not enough money piling up as reserves is what causes financial collapse! The collapses are always the result of bubbles, during which people over-leveraged and over-invested based on too optimistic expectations. The problem is not the rich unwilling to spend, but they invest (which is no different from spending in economic statistics) too liberally!
Recession and depression almost always result from government monetary policies that induce widespread misallocaiton of resources: a wide cross section of investors having too optimistic expectations on the future returns of their investments, resulting in expectations not being met, therefore assets have to be repriced.
We did not need to add several trillions of debts. In fact, the additional debt taken on by the government only served to prevent the repricing to a level where other consumers can buy up assets cheap! For example, the money propped up real estate prices in NYC and SFBA prevented the real clearing of the market place and have kept many on the Patnet from buying their own homes! The bailouts are the problem, not the solution. Giving more money to people who are bad at running their finances would only exacerbate the problem.
Yep! we need to add several trillions of debts - every year - just to maintain the current "end demand". If we stopped adding debt, the end demand would collapse, like it did in 2008. The gov had to start compensating by adding huge amount to the national debts.
Why are we in this situation????
Because the poorest 70% have no fucking money to spend, and the richest don't NEED to spend. They don't know what to do with their money outside accumulating it.
This explanation makes no sense whatsoever. Does Bezos have $100 Billion dollars stacked up in his basement? Of course not. His wealth is in his ownership of Amazon, the stocks of which have been bid up on the marginal transactions, just like the 5% transactions of housing stock every year decides the price of the housing stock. The owners of stocks and houses (and almost all other productive capitals) are not at all piling money up in their homes equal to their asset value . . . in fact it's precisely the opposite: not enough money piling up as reserves is what causes financial collapse! The collapses are always the result of bubbles, during which people over-leveraged and over-invested based on too optimistic expectations. The problem is not the rich unwilling to spend, but they invest (which is no different from spending in economic statistics) too liberally!
Recession and depression almost always result from government monetary policies that induce widespread misallocaiton of resources: a wide cross section of investors having too optimistic expectations on the future returns of their investments, resulting in expectations not being met, therefore assets have to be repriced.
We did not need to add several trillions of debts. In fact, the additional debt taken on by the government only served to prevent the repricing to a level where other consumers can buy up assets cheap! For example, the money propped up real estate prices in NYC and SFBA prevented the real clearing of the market place and have kept many on the Patnet from buying their own homes! The bailouts are the problem, not the solution. Giving more money to people who are bad at running their finances would only exacerbate the problem.
43
CBOEtrader
2018 Mar 28, 9:39pm
CBOEtrader
2018 Mar 28, 9:39pm
Goran_K says
This is why we have a constitution (or used to rather)
Should the poor be allowed to vote other people's money to themselves via the government?
This is why we have a constitution (or used to rather)
44
MisdemeanorRebel
2018 Mar 28, 10:33pm
MisdemeanorRebel
2018 Mar 28, 10:33pm
bob2356 says
But not all taxes are remotely equal in weight.
Hey, how much income tax and payroll tax do illegal day laborers pay from their off-the-books job?
If they don't pay anything, does that mean their Dreamer Kids don't get to go to school at $10k/year?
Funny, I thought sales taxes, property taxes, corporate taxes, FICA, taxes, excise taxes, etc., were also part of the tax burden in the United States. Despite that deceptive use of the word taxes in the name apparently in the world according to Goran they are not. You learn something new on patnet every day.
But not all taxes are remotely equal in weight.
Hey, how much income tax and payroll tax do illegal day laborers pay from their off-the-books job?
If they don't pay anything, does that mean their Dreamer Kids don't get to go to school at $10k/year?
45
MisdemeanorRebel
2018 Mar 28, 10:36pm
MisdemeanorRebel
2018 Mar 28, 10:36pm
Neoliberals:
1. Companies don't pay enough Corporate Tax
Yet
2. We need to have Global Trade
But
3. Companies use Inversion thanks to complex Global Trade, to mislead where and how their profits were made
And so
4. We don't collect enough Corporate Tax
Yet
5. Let's bring in millions of unskilled immigrants, that'll help solve the revenue problem. Anybody opposed to this is a racist.
And
6. Leave Amazon alone, Trump, even though it's one of the worst Corporate Inversion abusers in the World! It's no problem Bezos owns the US Capital paper of record, either!
1. Companies don't pay enough Corporate Tax
Yet
2. We need to have Global Trade
But
3. Companies use Inversion thanks to complex Global Trade, to mislead where and how their profits were made
And so
4. We don't collect enough Corporate Tax
Yet
5. Let's bring in millions of unskilled immigrants, that'll help solve the revenue problem. Anybody opposed to this is a racist.
And
6. Leave Amazon alone, Trump, even though it's one of the worst Corporate Inversion abusers in the World! It's no problem Bezos owns the US Capital paper of record, either!
46
HappyGilmore
2018 Mar 29, 5:04am
Satoshi_Nakamoto says
The Founders set up a method for repealing Amendments--that is completely Constitutional.
Nothing hypocritical.
Oh, NOW we actually like the Constitution...
Didn't seem to be the case in "repeal the 2A" thread.
The Founders set up a method for repealing Amendments--that is completely Constitutional.
Nothing hypocritical.
47
HappyGilmore
2018 Mar 29, 5:49am
Reality says
I agree that there was non-cash benefits during those times, but I'm pretty sure that there is a decent correlation between top tax rate and actual amount of tax paid. But, it's interesting that inequality was much lower during times with high top tax rates. GDP growth was much stronger. Tax burden was spread out much more evenly. There was a much stronger middle class. Real wage growth was much stronger. Families could be comfortable on one income. None of those are coincidental.
Reality says
lol--so GDP growth is a bad thing now?
Reality says
The US averaged 2.8% productivity growth from 1948 - 1973. (In case you forgot--that was when we had high top tax rates.)
https://www.bls.gov/lpc/prodybar.htm
Reality says
The truth is exactly the opposite of the above statement.
Top tax bracket rate has little to do with actual amount of tax paid. Back when top tax rate was near 90%, as it is the case in some other countries now, the top executive jobs came with perks like free cars, free residence and free blowjobs from young pretty things on the payroll of the companies and the government agencies! The employers simply didn't pay that much cash out to the executives when 90% of the pay would be intercepted by a 3rd party.
I agree that there was non-cash benefits during those times, but I'm pretty sure that there is a decent correlation between top tax rate and actual amount of tax paid. But, it's interesting that inequality was much lower during times with high top tax rates. GDP growth was much stronger. Tax burden was spread out much more evenly. There was a much stronger middle class. Real wage growth was much stronger. Families could be comfortable on one income. None of those are coincidental.
Reality says
Also, if GDP growth is your primary goal, you ought to love the actual Nazi Party, which produced the highest GDP ever recorded in the modern world:
lol--so GDP growth is a bad thing now?
Reality says
A couple percentage a year real growth should never be taken for granted. A couple percentage a year real growth is actually very good: doubling living standards every 36 years, or every generation! Setting aside the GDP nonsense that account for more and more government waste, the US only sustained 2+% annual real growth in the "Guilded Age" from roughly mid-19th century to early-20th century.
The US averaged 2.8% productivity growth from 1948 - 1973. (In case you forgot--that was when we had high top tax rates.)
https://www.bls.gov/lpc/prodybar.htm
Reality says
The economic stagnation in the US in the past few decades is precisely the result of centralizing economic management.
The truth is exactly the opposite of the above statement.
48
HappyGilmore
2018 Mar 29, 5:52am
Reality says
Sorry--just want to make sure I understand this. You are equating someone who maybe lost their job and is having some tough times with a slave?
So, all men aren't created equal then?
Slaves who enjoyed free housing, free food, free education and free medicine, all decided by other people (slave owners) instead of themselves making choices (buying those goods and services with their own money) did not have the right of vote. Likewise, people on welfare (i.e. enjoying free housing, free food, free education and free medicine, as ward of the state) should not have the right to vote.
Sorry--just want to make sure I understand this. You are equating someone who maybe lost their job and is having some tough times with a slave?
So, all men aren't created equal then?
49
Y
2018 Mar 29, 6:10am
Y
2018 Mar 29, 6:10am
Excluding googles 57 versions of sex is gender racism
HappyGilmore says
HappyGilmore says
So, all men aren't created equal then?
50
CBOEtrader
2018 Mar 29, 6:33am
CBOEtrader
2018 Mar 29, 6:33am
HappyGilmore says
Neither individuals nor groups are born with the same gifts. Inequality then begets more inequality. Its an enormous issue that no state or economic system has solved. The closest we get are within small, homogeneous societies. These small groups are effectively modernized tribes, with most people holding the same values and affinity for group loyalty.
(Now ask yourself if allowing in murderous migrants who refuse to assimilate helps of hurts these small modern tribe societies. Compare Sweden and Iceland for real world experiment.)
Limiting voting rights to those land owners who had skin in the game wasnt a terrible idea. Elitest as fuck, but it worked due to the shared value system amongst the landowners.
So, all men aren't created equal then?
Neither individuals nor groups are born with the same gifts. Inequality then begets more inequality. Its an enormous issue that no state or economic system has solved. The closest we get are within small, homogeneous societies. These small groups are effectively modernized tribes, with most people holding the same values and affinity for group loyalty.
(Now ask yourself if allowing in murderous migrants who refuse to assimilate helps of hurts these small modern tribe societies. Compare Sweden and Iceland for real world experiment.)
Limiting voting rights to those land owners who had skin in the game wasnt a terrible idea. Elitest as fuck, but it worked due to the shared value system amongst the landowners.
51
HappyGilmore
2018 Mar 29, 6:50am
CBOEtrader says
I don't think the Founders perceived the right to vote as a gift.
CBOEtrader says
Who doesn't have skin the game of life?
Neither individuals nor groups are born with the same gifts
I don't think the Founders perceived the right to vote as a gift.
CBOEtrader says
Limiting voting rights to those land owners who had skin in the game wasnt a terrible idea.
Who doesn't have skin the game of life?
52
CBOEtrader
2018 Mar 29, 7:00am
CBOEtrader
2018 Mar 29, 7:00am
HappyGilmore says
Yes I am aware I took that in a different direction than you intended.
HappyGilmore says
No one. Neither would land owners be the most applicable modern day interpretation of that concept. Goran is pondering if net worth is a better proxy for voting on tax issues only. If we had the constitution back protecting against income taxation, we wouldn't need to worry about this.
of course, there is a case to be made that the resulting unequal load balancing between states of our previous tariff based economy is why we had a civil war.
taxation is destruction one way or another. i dont pretend to have the answer
I don't think the Founders perceived the right to vote as a gift.
Yes I am aware I took that in a different direction than you intended.
HappyGilmore says
Who doesn't have skin the game of life?
No one. Neither would land owners be the most applicable modern day interpretation of that concept. Goran is pondering if net worth is a better proxy for voting on tax issues only. If we had the constitution back protecting against income taxation, we wouldn't need to worry about this.
of course, there is a case to be made that the resulting unequal load balancing between states of our previous tariff based economy is why we had a civil war.
taxation is destruction one way or another. i dont pretend to have the answer
53
anonymous
2018 Mar 29, 7:15am
I have long believed that people paying too little in taxes cannot vote, period.
54
HappyGilmore
2018 Mar 29, 8:32am
CBOEtrader says
A very poor case that is easily disproven.
CBOEtrader says
Yep, and I'm just pointing out that his pondering seems to be against the very principles this country was founded upon.
of course, there is a case to be made that the resulting unequal load balancing between states of our previous tariff based economy is why we had a civil war.
A very poor case that is easily disproven.
CBOEtrader says
Goran is pondering if net worth is a better proxy for voting on tax issues only
Yep, and I'm just pointing out that his pondering seems to be against the very principles this country was founded upon.
55
MrMagic
2018 Mar 29, 8:40am
MrMagic
2018 Mar 29, 8:40am
HappyGilmore says
Like the 2nd amendment?
Yep, and I'm just pointing out that his pondering seems to be against the very principles this country was founded upon.
Like the 2nd amendment?
57
Goran_K
2018 Mar 29, 9:01am
Goran_K
2018 Mar 29, 9:01am
HappyGilmore says
Why?
If the corporate tax rates in comparable markets are much lower, why would a company invest into the U.S?
It would have nothing to do with competitiveness.
Why?
If the corporate tax rates in comparable markets are much lower, why would a company invest into the U.S?
58
Goran_K
2018 Mar 29, 9:02am
Goran_K
2018 Mar 29, 9:02am
HappyGilmore says
Was it the high tax rate, or a globally interdependent competitive economy?
Here's a table with the best GDP growth years and their corresponding top tax rate. Sure seems like higher tax rates HELP growth.
Was it the high tax rate, or a globally interdependent competitive economy?
59
Goran_K
2018 Mar 29, 9:05am
Goran_K
2018 Mar 29, 9:05am
bob2356 says
You're completely off base here.
I'm simply talking about the "fairness" of voting a higher percentage of taxes into your own pocket than you contribute via taking it from people who earn more, aka a Progressive taxation plan.
People keep bringing up the Constitution, but the Constitution was created way before there was a Federal income tax.
Now that one exists, I think it's a valid question.
Funny, I thought sales taxes, property taxes, corporate taxes, FICA, taxes, excise taxes, etc., were also part of the tax burden in the United States. Despite that deceptive use of the word taxes in the name apparently in the world according to Goran they are not. You learn something new on patnet every day.
It would appear that some people believe that the no taxation without representation principal, which was the founding principal of the country, is some sort of a flexible sliding scale that can be used as a pick and choose exercise depending on what partizan political point they want to make.
You're completely off base here.
I'm simply talking about the "fairness" of voting a higher percentage of taxes into your own pocket than you contribute via taking it from people who earn more, aka a Progressive taxation plan.
People keep bringing up the Constitution, but the Constitution was created way before there was a Federal income tax.
Now that one exists, I think it's a valid question.
60
HappyGilmore
2018 Mar 29, 9:08am
Goran_K says
I thought we were talking about individual tax rates. When did we switch to corporate rates?
But, high corporate rates have actually been shown to lead to more investment as investment is pre-tax. So, investing lowers taxes.
Why?
If the corporate tax rates in comparable markets are much lower, why would a company invest into the U.S?
I thought we were talking about individual tax rates. When did we switch to corporate rates?
But, high corporate rates have actually been shown to lead to more investment as investment is pre-tax. So, investing lowers taxes.
61
HappyGilmore
2018 Mar 29, 9:09am
Goran_K says
It's pretty interesting that the top 20 best GDPs all occur under high top tax rate environments. Pretty hard to argue that high top tax rates lower growth.
Was it the high tax rate, or a globally interdependent competitive economy?
It's pretty interesting that the top 20 best GDPs all occur under high top tax rate environments. Pretty hard to argue that high top tax rates lower growth.
62
HappyGilmore
2018 Mar 29, 9:12am
Goran_K says
But the Constitution very clearly states that everyone is created equal under the law. Rich people don't get extra votes due to their wealth.
To even consider something like the OP is disgusting, IMO. It would lead to a permanent aristocracy (I guess we're headed there already, but this would speed it up considerably) as rich folks don't want the lower classes to have opportunity to join them.
People keep bringing up the Constitution, but the Constitution was created way before there was a Federal income tax.
But the Constitution very clearly states that everyone is created equal under the law. Rich people don't get extra votes due to their wealth.
To even consider something like the OP is disgusting, IMO. It would lead to a permanent aristocracy (I guess we're headed there already, but this would speed it up considerably) as rich folks don't want the lower classes to have opportunity to join them.
63
Goran_K
2018 Mar 29, 9:16am
Goran_K
2018 Mar 29, 9:16am
HappyGilmore says
This is completely false.
High corporate tax rates universally suppress capital investment. This is why the EU flounders and why the Asian Tigers were able to build massive economies.
But, high corporate rates have actually been shown to lead to more investment as investment is pre-tax. So, investing lowers taxes.
This is completely false.
High corporate tax rates universally suppress capital investment. This is why the EU flounders and why the Asian Tigers were able to build massive economies.
64
Goran_K
2018 Mar 29, 9:18am
Goran_K
2018 Mar 29, 9:18am
HappyGilmore says
None of them are 90%.
It's pretty interesting that the top 20 best GDPs all occur under high top tax rate environments. Pretty hard to argue that high top tax rates lower growth.
None of them are 90%.
65
Goran_K
2018 Mar 29, 9:20am
Goran_K
2018 Mar 29, 9:20am
HappyGilmore says
Yes, equal.
Equal would be a flat tax.
Unequal would be a progressive tax scheme.
But the Constitution very clearly states that everyone is created equal under the law. Rich people don't get extra votes due to their wealth.
Yes, equal.
Equal would be a flat tax.
Unequal would be a progressive tax scheme.
66
HappyGilmore
2018 Mar 29, 9:25am
Goran_K says
No, it's true. Higher rates encourage capital investment to reduce tax burden.
Goran_K says
lol--this is true.. One of the best years was 94%, and 4 of the best years was 91%. So 25% of the best GDP years occurred when the top tax rate was > 90%.
his is completely false.
High corporate tax rates universally suppress capital investment. This is why the EU flounders and why the Asian Tigers were able to build massive economies.
No, it's true. Higher rates encourage capital investment to reduce tax burden.
Goran_K says
None of them are 90%.
lol--this is true.. One of the best years was 94%, and 4 of the best years was 91%. So 25% of the best GDP years occurred when the top tax rate was > 90%.
67
HappyGilmore
2018 Mar 29, 9:26am
Goran_K says
Nope. Equal is everyone's vote having the same weight in electing officials.
Yes, equal.
Equal would be a flat tax.
Unequal would be a progressive tax scheme.
Nope. Equal is everyone's vote having the same weight in electing officials.
« First « Previous Comments 28 - 67 of 90 Next » Last » Search these comments
The top 20% of income earners pay 95% of the tax burden in the United States. Poor people overwhelmingly take back from the tax system in terms of benefits (they are not a net contributor to the system). Middle class people tend to wash when it comes contributions vs taking.
My question, is this fair? It seems to me the most fair system would be a simple flat tax across the board with no modifications up or down based on income level.
Should the poor be allowed to vote other people's money to themselves via the government? For instance support for universal health care according to Pew Research was nearly 100% for income levels below $50,000, but only enjoyed a 40% favor with income levels above $200,000. That makes sense, but is it fair?