patrick.net

debyne says

Now that's a central planner talking if I ever heard one. Screw individual rights and let's do what "I" think is best for the greater good.

Uh, how does setting up a tax structure screw individual rights?

Are you under the impression that rich people have the RIGHT to pay lower taxes than middle class and poor people?

^ yeah, that's my take too.

The question is if they can keep some of the people -- enough to stay in power -- fooled all of the time.

Start with the top 5% as inside-party economic elite, add another 20% as the nomenklatura in media, military, police, they're still 25% away from power in our democratic system.

http://kfmonkey.blogspot.com/2005/10/lunch-discussions-145-crazification.html

says ~27% is the crazification factor here. Shit!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_net_international_investment_position_per_capita

is the scoreboard, and we ain't even on it. $5.5T in the hole the other way, actually.

jazz music says

I grant you your point, it's true but

Gawd what conjecture...

tatupu70 says

Uh, how does setting up a tax structure screw individual rights?

Are you under the impression that rich people have the RIGHT to pay lower taxes than middle class and poor people?

I didn't say that setting up a tax structure screws individual rights. Setting up a tax structure that makes higher income people pay more than others is a violation of equal property rights. That's like forcing someone who is rich to pay double the price for a movie ticket.

How are rich people paying less taxes? We have a progressive tax structure that forces them to pay far more. I know for a fact that my effective tax rate is much higher than someone making half my income.

debyne says

I didn't say that setting up a tax structure screws individual rights. Setting
up a tax structure that makes higher income people pay more than others is a
violation of equal property rights.

What exactly are equal property rights?

debyne says

How are rich people paying less taxes? We have a progressive tax structure
that forces them to pay far more. I know for a fact that my effective tax rate
is much higher than someone making half my income.

That's pretty simple. Real rich people don't earn their income as wages, they earn as capital gains. As I'm sure you know, capital gains rate is not progressive and relatively low. The fact that you earn as wages means you aren't among the really rich.

tatupu70 says

What exactly are equal property rights?

Property is something you own such as a house or actual money that you earn as income. Equal property rights would be treating everyone exactly the same as to what they're allowed to do with that property and how it's taxed by the gov't.

tatupu70 says

That's pretty simple. Real rich people don't earn their income as wages, they earn as capital gains. As I'm sure you know, capital gains rate is not progressive and relatively low. The fact that you earn as wages means you aren't among the really rich.

But the capital gains rate is the same for everyone, and it's based on a percentage. Percentages, by nature, are progressive already because the amount you pay goes up by the amount you earn. Not sure why you still think the rich are paying less...nothing is stopping others from taking advantage of it. Go see how much Warren Buffett pays in taxes compared to yourself, and see who pays more.

Regardless, I don't think there should be any taxes on capital gains or dividends anyway. We should have consumption taxes only.

debyne says

Equal property rights would be treating everyone exactly the same as to what
they're allowed to do with that property and how it's taxed by the gov't.

Have "equal property rights" as you describe them ever existed?

A tax structure as you desire is a quick way to Mad Max status.

debyne says

But the capital gains rate is the same for everyone, and it's based on a
percentage. Percentages, by nature, are progressive already because the amount
you pay goes up by the amount you earn. Not sure why you still think the rich
are paying less...nothing is stopping others from taking advantage of it. Go see
how much Warren Buffett pays in taxes compared to yourself, and see who pays
more.

Regardless, I don't think there should be any taxes on capital gains or
dividends anyway. We should have consumption taxes only.

Yes, why don't those poor people just start buying more stocks??? What the hell is wrong with them?

Again--your ideas are why the 1% own 30% (and growing) of the wealth right now. If you can't see why that is bad, then you need take a step back and try to understand how the economy works.

tatupu70 says

why don't those poor people just start buying more stocks???

more people's money in the market would just push yields lower than they are now, too.

"I don't think there should be any taxes on capital gains or
dividends anyway."

while with my Georgist hat on I might think this is great in theory, in the real world, not taxing the rich at all will just result in ever-increasing wealth concentration, since money "makes" money and mere labor has no chance to compete against it any more, if it ever did.

But preferable to the Piketty solution would be just to eliminate the rents in housing, healthcare, FIRE, our trade deficit directly. For the first three, this would require "public options" I guess (changing our economy to look more like what Finland/Sweden/Germany/Denmark/Norway are doing), and the latter requires either import tariffs and/or printing to match what China and our other trade partners are doing.

tatupu70 says

As I'm sure you know, capital gains rate is not progressive and relatively low. The fact that you earn as wages means you aren't among the really rich.

you got a dislike by the resident moron here, but you are correct.

http://taxfoundation.org/article/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-data

shows "the 1%" collected between 1/6 and 1/5 the national income and paid a 23.5% tax rate on that take.

1% taking 20%. Business as usual here!

tatupu70 says

Have "equal property rights" as you describe them ever existed?

A tax structure as you desire is a quick way to Mad Max status.

I thought it existed before the federal income tax was instituted back in the early 1900s. Were we mad max back then without taking into consideration technological advancements? I don't think so.

tatupu70 says

Yes, why don't those poor people just start buying more stocks??? What the hell is wrong with them?

Again--your ideas are why the 1% own 30% (and growing) of the wealth right now. If you can't see why that is bad, then you need take a step back and try to understand how the economy works.

Like I said, make all taxes consumption-based and then the capital gains/income tax issue goes away. Everyone pays for usage of something or sales....the rich will pay more because they spend/use more, but that's their decision.

I think consumption-based taxation will ultimately end up taxing the rich more because you'd eliminate the stupid loopholes. But along with all of this, we need to shrink gov't and leave more money in the private sector to innovate and produce, which will lift the tide for all boats.

debyne says

Like I said, make all taxes consumption-based and then the capital gains/income tax issue goes away. Everyone pays for usage of something or sales....the rich will pay more because they spend/use more, but that's their decision.

I think consumption-based taxation will ultimately end up taxing the rich more because you'd eliminate the stupid loopholes. But along with all of this, we need to shrink gov't and leave more money in the private sector to innovate and produce, which will lift the tide for all boats.

Just wanted to read that again

indigenous says

Just wanted to read that again

Good. Now print it out, frame it, put it on your wall, and jerk off to it fortnightly.

debyne says

jerk off to it fortnightly

I like the post, but not that much. OTH do what ever the fuck you want to

debyne says

Like I said, make all taxes consumption-based and then the capital gains/income tax issue goes away. Everyone pays for usage of something or sales....the rich will pay more because they spend/use more, but that's their decision.

Consumption taxes - do you mean national sales tax, VAT, or consumption taxes on specific items (like luxury vehicle taxes, for example)

control point says

debyne says

Like I said, make all taxes consumption-based and then the capital gains/income tax issue goes away. Everyone pays for usage of something or sales....the rich will pay more because they spend/use more, but that's their decision.

Consumption taxes - do you mean national sales tax, VAT, or consumption taxes on specific items (like luxury vehicle taxes, for example)

Yes. Gas taxes, toll roads, definitely luxury taxes, sales taxes, energy usage taxes, etc.

debyne says

tatupu70 says

Yes, why don't those poor people just start buying more stocks??? What the hell is wrong with them?

Again--your ideas are why the 1% own 30% (and growing) of the wealth right now. If you can't see why that is bad, then you need take a step back and try to understand how the economy works.

Like I said, make all taxes consumption-based and then the capital gains/income tax issue goes away. Everyone pays for usage of something or sales....the rich will pay more because they spend/use more, but that's their decision.

I think consumption-based taxation will ultimately end up taxing the rich more because you'd eliminate the stupid loopholes. But along with all of this, we need to shrink gov't and leave more money in the private sector to innovate and produce, which will lift the tide for all boats.

Fully agree.

debyne says

Like I said, make all taxes consumption-based and then the capital gains/income tax issue goes away. Everyone pays for usage of something or sales....the rich will pay more because they spend/use more, but that's their decision.

By percentage, you'd be giving the rich a huge tax cut and the middle and lower classes a huge tax increase. You would end up paying more taxes.

debyne says

I think consumption-based taxation will ultimately end up taxing the rich more because you'd eliminate the stupid loopholes. But along with all of this, we need to shrink gov't and leave more money in the private sector to innovate and produce, which will lift the tide for all boats.

You think incorrectly. And as Bill says--shrinking government means laying off a LOT of people. I don't disagree that we need to cut defense spending, but until we figure a way to reduce inequality, it will make things worse. Not better.

tatupu70 says

By percentage, you'd be giving the rich a huge tax cut and the middle and lower classes a huge tax increase. You would end up paying more taxes.

The tone of your statement is based on the assumption that lower and middle classes pay too much already when, in fact, they pay too little.

debyne says

The tone of your statement is based on the assumption that lower and middle classes pay too much already when, in fact, they pay too little.

lol. If you think so, why don't you quit your job and see how you like paying "too little" taxes?

tatupu70 says

If you think so, why don't you quit your job and see how you like paying "too little" taxes?

If I quit my job then I don't make any income, which means I don't pay any taxes. Not sure I understand your statement.

debyne says

tatupu70 says

If you think so, why don't you quit your job and see how you like paying "too little" taxes?

If I quit my job then I don't make any income, which means I don't pay any taxes. Not sure I understand your statement.

Then you would be paying too little, ie zero.

Call it Crazy says

tatupu70 says

By percentage,

Ahhh, playing the "percentage" card again.....

You're right, we should all just pay $100k annually in taxes. Anyone who doesn't pay is guilty of tax evasion, a felony. All felons cannot vote.

Sound about right?

consumption tax.
case closed.

Call it Crazy says

control point says

Call it Crazy says

tatupu70 says

By percentage,

Ahhh, playing the "percentage" card again.....

You're right, we should all just pay $100k annually in taxes. Anyone who doesn't pay is guilty of tax evasion, a felony. All felons cannot vote.

Sound about right?

Perfect! (I'll take that decrease)

BAHAHAHAHAHA!

Good one.

If you can't survive without working for somebody else, you ain't middle class.

Middle class means you're either a professional who works for themselves, you rent tools or housing, or have enough assets that generate enough income to live off of, even if that's at survival/poverty levels.

If you need to work for a living you are working class.

Grandma Jenkins owns a big house free and clear, by renting out the rooms or running a B&B she can survive. She's Middle Class, even though she only makes $20k a year not counting Social Security.

John Dewey-Cheatham is a lawyer, he makes $100k a year. Even if he lost 3/4 of his client base, he would make $25k a year. He is middle class.

Ernest McAdams is a C++ programmer, he owns a new car, $100k in his stocks, and 27-years left on a 30 year mortgage. If he is fired from his $50k job, he's fucked, because he owns no rental property and cannot live off dividends or appreciation on his stocks. Sucking craigslist "I could do my own website, but I don't want to bother so here is $100" dick wouldn't provide enough to even remotely meet his basic living expenses. He is WORKING Class.

control point says

Then you would be paying too little, ie zero.

That's why this "central planning" doesn't work. Politicians sit in a room and decide what is too much or too little based on socioeconomic class, and take favors to make such decisions in order to get reelected. Make what people pay based on consumption, and the guesswork and politics is taken out of it...problem solved.

jazz music says

And of of course that must be why the lower and middle classes are thriving, prospering, affording so many luxuries nowadays, yachts, cars, vacations, and not just disappearing into financial irrelevance ... uhhh how about housing? education? healthcare? retirement? nutrition?

That has nothing to do with taxes and mostly due to poor choices like having too many kids, buying nice cars, getting iphones and tablets, and saving up for that Coach bag. If the poor and middle class are suffering, it's because they're spending too much and/or making good job/career choices. If folks spent less and saved more, prices would come down to make life more affordable, and more of them could invest money in stocks, bonds or real estate.

Don't blame the tax system for the demise of the country's poor and middle class...blame our consumerism society and lack of fiscal discipline. I even think a consumption-based tax system would help drive people to earn more, save more, and spend less.

However, a purely based consumption tax will be too oppressive if we don't drastically cut the size of gov't including military, entitlements, etc. But, making transformational cuts to the size of gov't and gov't spending is something we have to do anyway.

debyne says

If the poor and middle class are suffering, it's because they're spending too much. If folks spent less and saved more, prices would come down to make life more affordable, and more of them could invest money in stocks, bonds or real estate.

Don't blame the tax system for the demise of the country's poor and middle class...blame our consumerism society and lack of fiscal discipline.

That is not entirely true, and perfunctory understanding of the situation.

indigenous says

That is not entirely true

At least you admit it's mostly true. I'm talking in generalities here. Of course there are people suffering due to job loss, healthcare crises, etc.., and those are separate, structural issues that need to be dealt with, but the tax system will NOT fix them. For example, I'm a fan of the individual mandate for healthcare and much of what Obamacare has to offer...the implementation has just sucked.

debyne says

At least you admit it's mostly true.

I do, but the overarching problem is not caused just by taxes.

The biggest problem affecting the middle class is inflation. This is what has created inequality, but more importantly a lower standard of living in the middle class.

Secondly the money that has been parked at the upper quintile is not invested in nascent business which is the engine for jobs.

It is true jobs have been off shored but part of the culprit has been the Chinese devaluing their currency and the US allowing them to do it. This is because of Milton Friedman's brainchild the floating exchange rate that is allowed to run with out being monitored and with a built in inflation target of 3%. No matter what jobs were going to be off shored but they would have not disappeared nearly as fast if the dollar had been monitored.

4th the corruption of the country by cronyism. Since the 17th amendment the country has been subject to the tyranny of democracy. This has resulted in the banking industry being bailed out, an explosion in the DOD, endless subsidies, the government getting into the healthcare business, the higher education business, etc etc. Canada has far fewer of these type problems at least in banking because these laws are voted on by a senate that is not elected by the citizens but rather appointed. Similar to this country before the 17th amendment.

5th the government has no business in healthcare.

6th borrowing money because of the reserve currency status that has allowed the fed to not have to worry about financing the non stop wars for the past what 12 years and how many trillion?

debyne says

If folks spent less and saved more, prices would come down to make life more
affordable, and more of them could invest money in stocks, bonds or real estate.

Except you forgot that people would get laid off, unemployement would rise, and you'd create a whole bunch more people with no job and no money who can't afford anything. You don't think production would stay the same as you reduce demand, do you? And lower production = fewer jobs.

debyne says

I even think a consumption-based tax system would help drive people to earn
more, save more, and spend less.

You haven't thought that scenario all the way through yet.

indigenous says

The biggest problem affecting the middle class is inflation.

I definitely agree. Monetary inflation accentuates the the disparity between the rich and the poor.

jazz music says

You've been listening to radio talk show host microphone bullies and Foxbots.

Your post was too long. I don't listen to talk shows and watch Faux News. I never said we shouldn't help the poor with any sort of social safety net, I'm just talking about how the tax system should be structured.

tatupu70 says

You don't think production would stay the same as you reduce demand, do you?

I don't think the answer is to spend beyond our means and buy crap we don't need instead of investing it. We're a global economy, so the idea is to get other countries to consume our production...that's how we get a trade surplus and make our country richer, not by consuming our own stuff.

debyne says

I don't think the answer is to spend beyond our means and buy crap we don't
need instead of investing it. We're a global economy, so the idea is to get
other countries to consume our production...that's how we get a trade surplus
and make our country richer, not by consuming our own stuff.

OK--how does having Americans save more lead to other countries buying our stuff?