patrick.net

"It wouldn't help at all. It's ultimately not close to feasible and any attempt at doing so would crash the economy. Do you see why your point was laughable now?"

Are you kidding. You made no argument. How would you think you've convinced anyone of anything.

Why isn't it feasible?

Why would it crash the economy?

Let's start there. Please explain in detail why you believe this?

"Francois Hollande tried a mini version of what tatupu is suggesting, and it ended up chasing tens of thousands of high net individuals out of France. A full scale return to 1950 would completely hollow out the economy and make the U.S completely noncompetitive on the global stage."

hahaha--that's what the 1% would like you to believe.

joeyjojojunior says

Why isn't it feasible?

Because it's not 1950, it's 2017. US Companies now have to compete against international companies. China, Japan and Europe aren't burnt out husk from War, and their products and services are now up for sale on the world market with equal or even better quality than domestic U.S equivalents. Geez, this is embarrassing to even have to explain.

U.S companies can barely keep production and jobs in the U.S now due to cost. Imagine if you increased the corporate tax rate 15%, you would chase even more companies and jobs overseas. This is very, very basic stuff man.

"Because it's not 1950, it's 2017. US Companies now have to compete against international companies. China, Japan and Europe aren't burnt out husk from War, and their products and services are now up for sale on the world market with equal or even better quality than domestic U.S equivalents. Geez, this is embarrassing to even have to explain. U.S companies can barely keep production and jobs in the U.S now due to cost. Imagine if you increased the corporate tax rate 15%, you would chase even more companies and jobs overseas. This is very, very basic stuff man."

It is basic stuff. Which is why I can't believe you are arguing it. You don't seem like an uneducated person. First off--I'm arguing to raise personal tax rates back to 1950 levels. I didn't say anything about corporate tax rates. But, we can certainly discuss corporate rates as well if you like.

joeyjojojunior says

hahaha--that's what the 1% would like you to believe.

Right, the 1% invented the fact that France lost nearly 40,000 millionaires after Hollande announced his 75% super tax on millionaires.

Hollande destroyed economic growth and caused massive capital flight with his policies. Tax revenues from corporate taxes, individual income tax, and value-added tax (VAT) were down by 6.4 billion, 4.9 billion, and 5 billion euros each year the "super" tax was in effect. The French economy completely stagnated and never had over 0.8% GDP growth in any fiscal quarter when the tax was in effect.

This is exactly what would happen in the U.S with your 1950s proposal, except it would be 10x worse.

"Hollande destroyed economic growth and caused massive capital flight with his policies"

So, you think capital will fly from the world's largest economy? The only that accounts for 1/4 of world economic activity?

The US is awash in capital. People jump at the chance to earn 2%.

joeyjojojunior says

So, you think capital will fly from the world's largest economy?

With 1950s taxes, it wouldn't remain the world's largest economy for long.

You cannot tax something into prosperity.

If 1950's tax policies were so great, why didn't we just keep using them? If you reject that globalization has no effect on modern tax policy, then why didn't we just stick with 1950s policy if it was working out so well?

"With 1950s taxes, it wouldn't remain the world's largest economy for long."

uh-huh. Because Goran says so.

The economy works well when the money circulates well: companies-> employees -> consumers -> companies.

Accumulation points need to be penalized. For the greater good.

In a world where Argentina's 100 yrs bonds are selling like hot cakes, no one can claim that capital is precious and needs to be preserved.
The rich are desperate to lend their money to the governmentS, instead of investing in new productive ventures and paying more people in the process.
In these specific conditions, it makes a lot of sense for governments to take the money through taxation (instead of borrowing it) and spend it into productive investments typically best done by governments, like infrastructures.
Again, it's good for everyone.

FortWayne says

I think wages should not be taxes more than 10% ever.

What exactly do you plan to give up to achieve this? Not that would ever happen since you are just a bullshit artist, but put up a budget that would achieve this . Let's see your numbers. We'll be waiting, and waiting, and waiting.

I always love the libertarian/conservative/teabag argument that any government services they use are critical, it's the other guys services that need to be cut.

Strategist says

Socialists want a socialist country.

And nobody on here is a socialist.

joeyjojojunior says

Strategist says

Socialists want a socialist country.

And nobody on here is a socialist.

I think most lean towards socialism.

Strategist says

What difference does it make?

Implementation is everything. Judging things based on the labels you assign them is just plain foolishness. You are treating economics like a religion. You should be treating it like an engineering discipline.

Dan8267 says

Strategist says

What difference does it make?

Implementation is everything. Judging things based on the labels you assign them is just plain foolishness. You are treating economics like a religion. You should be treating it like an engineering discipline.

WTF Call them what you will.......A loser by any other name is still a loser.

Strategist says

WTF Call them what you will.......A loser by any other name is still a loser.

Perfect, you can't define either socialism or "true capitalism" but you want to debate the relative merits. You can't make this stuff up.

bob2356 says

Perfect, you can't define either socialism or "true capitalism" but you want to debate the relative merits. You can't make this stuff up.

Strategist is ok with redistribution of wealth from a guy who is working for it to a guy that's sitting and doing nothing with money an index fund. That's the core of the discussion. To hyperbole the topic, they will start talking about welfare recipients next.

tr6 says

Strategist is ok with redistribution of wealth from a guy who is working for it to a guy that's sitting and doing nothing with money an index fund. That's the core of the discussion. To hyperbole the topic, they will start talking about welfare recipients next.

Yes, that argument is wack.

Redistribution in all forms is theft (whether from the poor laborer or the rich billionaire). Let each man keep most of what he earns to do with as he wishes. Why not just reqiored a flat tax percentage across the board, and stop robbing Peter to pay Paul and vice-versa and trying to correct for "social cosmic injustice".

I love how all the socialism boosters in here are like "Well, stealing from the poor is wrong, but if you make over $150,000, it's okay so steal from you." That's what makes your arguments weak as shit. There's no ideological consistency.

Strategist says

WTF Call them what you will.......A loser by any other name is still a loser.

1. Neither cats nor submarines can fly, but only an idiot doesn't distinguish between the two.
2. All countries are dependent on socialism including the United States. According to your blanket statement, the U.S. is a loser.
3. The U.S. military is the largest socialist program in all of human history. Again, according to your blanket statement, that makes the U.S. military a loser.

Strategist says

What do you call USSR, East Germany, Cuba, Venezuela, Vietnam? Winners?

Communist dictatorships whose economies were ruined by concentrating power and wealth into the hands of a few individuals just like what can and does happen in capitalist countries. Furthermore, there are an infinite number of ways to structure an economy, not just two.

FortWayne says

That second S in USSR stands for Socialist

The S in United States stands for states as in independent sovereign governments, yet the United States is not a confederation of independent sovereign states, it is a single country with providential governments we mislabel as states instead of provinces.

How many legs does a horse have, if you call its tail a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it one! -- Abraham Lincoln

Dan8267 says

By the way, if you go just off of names, your going to be fooled. Iceland is green and lush. The vikings named it Iceland to discourage immigrants. Meanwhile, Greenland is covered in ice. The vikings named it Greenland to encourage immigrants.

This is what Iceland looks like.

This is what Greenland looks like.

But hey, plan your vacation based on the names of places.

Only fools care more about labels than reality. Stop being triggered by labels and start looking at how systems really behave in the real world.

bob2356 says

Strategist says

WTF Call them what you will.......A loser by any other name is still a loser.

Perfect, you can't define either socialism or "true capitalism" but you want to debate the relative merits. You can't make this stuff up.

Why do I have to educate everyone?

Socialism | Definition of Socialism by Merriam-Webster
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism
Definition of socialism. 1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.

Capitalism: Definition, Examples, Pros, Cons - The Balance
https://www.thebalance.com › Investing › U.S. Economy › Economic Theory
Mar 6, 2017 - Definition: Capitalism is an economic system where private entities own the factors of production. The four factors are entrepreneurship, capital ...

Strategist says

I call them countries that practice democracy and capitalism.

Then you are wrong. There are no democracies in the world and hasn't been since the ancient city-state of Rome.

Dan8267 says

Strategist says

What do you call USSR, East Germany, Cuba, Venezuela, Vietnam? Winners?

Communist dictatorships whose economies were ruined by concentrating power and wealth into the hands of a few individuals

There is hope for you Dan, lots of hope. :)

Dan8267 says

just like what can and does happen in capitalist countries.

Oops. There is no hope for you, Dan. None at all. :(

Strategist says

Capitalism is an economic system where private entities own the factors of production. The four factors are entrepreneurship, capital ...

Once you have defined a term, you are powerless to choose the properties of the term. Yes, capitalism is an economic system where "private entities own the factors of production". No one can then impose properties on what constitutes capitalism. The properties are whatever happens as a result of "private entities owning the factors of production".

This means that free markets are not derived from the definition of capitalism and empirical verification is needed to determine if free markets arise from or are blocked by capitalism. The empirical evidence shows the later. Free markets can only exist when the control of "factors of production" by "private entities" is restricted because those private entities will use control of the factors of productions to prevent free markets as free markets actually reduce profitability. So one cannot be both for free markets and capitalism. They are conflicting goals.

"Redistribution in all forms is theft (whether from the poor laborer or the rich billionaire). Let each man keep most of what he earns to do with as he wishes. Why not just reqiored a flat tax percentage across the board, and stop robbing Peter to pay Paul and vice-versa and trying to correct for "social cosmic injustice"."

I don't care about moral or fair or injustice. I want a system that allows the economy to grow and function as well as possible. Pure capitalism with no regulation and checks to redistribute wealth will always lead to high inequality with an owner class and serfs. Then civil unrest. This is not ideal.

Much better is for government to take steps to remedy the inherent problems with capitalism with some regulations to fix it.

Strategist says

Oops. There is no hope for you, Dan. None at all. :(

This is exactly why I say you treat economics like a religion. Everything you believe about it is dogma. Empirical evidence and mathematics are irrelevant to you.

joeyjojojunior says

I don't care about moral or fair or injustice. I want a system that allows the economy to grow and function as well as possible. Pure capitalism with no regulation and checks to redistribute wealth will always lead to high inequality with an owner class and serfs. Then civil unrest. This is not ideal.

WTF? Where has "pure unregulated capitalism" ever been practiced in the world? Stop making stuff up tatupu.

Market based capitalism under sovereign citizens and governments has taken place and it was responsible for raising more people out of poverty in the history of the planet.

"Market based capitalism under sovereign citizens and governments has taken place and it was responsible for raising more people out of poverty in the history of the planet."

I agree. Capitalism with the right regulations works great.

Goran_K says

Market based capitalism under sovereign citizens and governments has taken place and it was responsible for raising more people out of poverty in the history of the planet.

Hey, it is not about poverty. In the end, it is about our country and our economy. Because our tax revenue is dwindling, the school gets the budget cuts. And they can't offer the services to the kids who need it. What happens if we don't educate kids? We get bunch of losers. What happens to the country if there is nothing but a bunch of losers? Our saving grace is the foreigners. They come here, take our jobs, and take the seat at our prestigious colleges.

This graph makes sense that 1% wants you to stay where you are at. They don't want you to flourish or get the equal chance, so they can continue to suck the life blood out of you. What good of parasite are you if you kill your host? A good parasite is that one that doesn't kill the host with poverty but one that keeps the host barely alive. After all, you don't want the host to overtake you and kill you. That is why the middle class is disappearing fast.

Nobody says

This graph makes sense that 1% wants you to stay where you are at. They don't want you to flourish or get the equal chance, so they can continue to suck the life blood out of you. What good of parasite are you if you kill your host? A good parasite is that one that doesn't kill the host with poverty but one that keeps the host barely alive. After all, you don't want the host to overtake you and kill you. That is why the middle class is disappearing fast.

I'm a multi-millionaire. How is the 1% hurting me?

joeyjojojunior says

I agree. Capitalism with the right regulations works great.

Yes. You see how poverty fell drastically while the overall tax burden in the U.S fell?

"Yes. You see how poverty fell drastically while the overall tax burden in the U.S fell?"

No I don't, because you didn't show that.

joeyjojojunior says

No I don't, because you didn't show that.

Uh we've been discussing this for like 20 post. Remember, "I want the 1950s back"?

Goran_K says

This is BS. You can bet it counts a subsistence farmer (earning $0) as absolute poverty while a worker in a Nike shoe factory earning $3 a day is not in absolute poverty.
The type of self serving BS we came to expect from the establishment economists.

Strategist says

What do you call Canada, Japan, West Germany, Australia, France, and......ROFLOL......China huh? Losers??

I call them countries that practice democracy and capitalism.

The last president of France, Francois Hollande, was a socialist. He would call himself a socialist and be called a socialist by most people in the US.

Heraclitusstudent says

This is BS. You can bet it counts a subsistence farmer (earning $0) as absolute poverty while a worker in a Nike shoe factory earning $3 a day is not in absolute poverty.

The type of self serving BS we came to expect from the establishment economists.

Heraclitusstudent says

This is BS. You can bet it counts a subsistence farmer (earning $0) as absolute poverty while a worker in a Nike shoe factory earning $3 a day is not in absolute poverty.

The type of self serving BS we came to expect from the establishment economists.

It's not BS. You should see the graphs for access to clean water (due to new clean water tech), caloric intake (due to food cost being reduced), and access to education (because of the growth of the internet). They show corresponding rises.

That's capitalism at work.

Nobody says

This graph makes sense that 1% wants you to stay where you are at. They don't want you to flourish or get the equal chance, so they can continue to suck the life blood out of you. What good of parasite are you if you kill your host?

Look at the graph again. If the 1% continue to suck the life blood out of the rest, how do you account for falling poverty rates?
The poor in the US never had it so good. They have products only the rich could afford at one time...Cars, appliances, airline travel, cell phones, etc. Even kings 200 years ago did not have these luxuries.

The graph is for the world, not the US.

joeyjojojunior says

The graph is for the world, not the US.

The "poor" in the World have never had it so good either. They have more access to daily needs, and necessities than at any point in human history.

Thank you Capitalism.