patrick.net

joeyjojojunior says

I want to change the tax laws. That's the point.

But, extreme wealth inequality causes the economy to stop working. Money velocity falls, demand falls, unemployment increases. And it's a positive feedback loop, so as demand falls and unemployment rises, it causes demand to fall further and unemployment to rise even more. We've been over this already.

Money velocity falls? Another "there is only one pie" theory. Money velocity falls because of socialist redistribution. You're taking away incentive for people to invest and create "new pies" in the economy. Your solution is creating the problem you're describing. We've been over this already; the end result is people end up stealing toilet paper, and eating their pets like in Venezuela.

joeyjojojunior says

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2014/01/income-mobility-us-terrible-least-its-not-getting-worse/

Another false conundrum by fake new purveyor Mother Jones.

My brother in law makes $250,000 a year as a corporate lawyer. His father is a multi-millionaire property developer. That doesn't mean my brother in law is "impoverished". That's a ridiculous point.

Show me who is impoverished and I can almost guarantee they've broken one of the 3 rules according to the Brookings Institute.

Dan8267 says

FortWayne says

Government collects 50cents of every dollar earned though taxes, and it's in the red constantly. Fucking insane, stop doing same shit and expecting different result! Stop taxing us.

Stop taxing productivity and start taxing rent seeking.

Someone disliked this lmao

We should tax stupidity, if you believe that taxing things we want less of, yields less of them.

This entire conversation is trapped in a Death or Oogoo paradox. Taxing labor vs taxing Capital, yet nary a peep about taxing Land! This in and of itself, is proof that we have an education problem.

Any real American Capitalist knows that the only way out is to eliminate all taxes on Labor, and replace them with Land taxes.

I'm tired of these Socialist failed losers, demanding my labor be taxed so heavily to fund their Socialist Wars and military, and their Socialist roads.

"Another false conundrum by fake new purveyor Mother Jones"

Because Goran says so? Are all these articles wrong as well?

http://www.epi.org/publication/usa-lags-peer-countries-mobility/
http://inequality.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/Pathways-SOTU-2016-Economic-Mobility-3.pdf

"Money velocity falls?"

Of course it does.

"Your solution is creating the problem you're describing. We've been over this already; the end result is people end up stealing toilet paper, and eating their pets like in Venezuela."

Funny, I don't recall people stealing toilet paper and eating their pets in the 1950s in the US. Do you have any articles detailing this? Because the end result I'm looking for is the US tax code of 1950

There's nothing funnier than claiming that high lawyer wages in our "Capitalist" system, are dictated by the Free Market.

If this were a Capitalist country, and wages were dictated by the Free Market, lawyers would be lucky to make minimum wage

"Exactly. You can't say "Oh I make less than my dad, I'm impoverished". That's such a ridiculous argument."

Nobody is saying that except your disingenuous argument.

"That's why claiming "making less than your father" makes you impoverished is such a bad argument. It's a tree in a forest without context."

And it's why nobody makes that argument except you.

joeyjojojunior says

I'm looking for is the US tax code of 1950

Yes, you want to go back to a time before globalization, international competition, and a globally interdependent economy.

You're 70 years late.

"Yes, you want to go back to a time before globalization, international competition, and a globally interdependent economy. You're 70 years late."

What does that have to do with the tax code?

joeyjojojunior says

What does that have to do with the tax code?

Exactly. When Goran can't answer or wants to end a conversation that he is getting schooled on, he posts laughing faces.

Well done.

joeyjojojunior says

Exactly. When Goran can't answer or wants to end a conversation that he is getting schooled on, he posts laughing faces.

Well done.

I'm just amused. It's like a guy saying "Nice sports cars need 91 or higher Octane gas to function reliably" and a guy completely ignorant of how cars work says "What does gas have to do with cars?"

So you just smile, chuckle, and take a moment to enjoy the levity.

"I'm just amused. It's like a guy saying "Nice sports cars need 91 or higher Octane gas to function reliably" and a guy completely ignorant of how cars work says "What does gas have to do with cars?" So you just smile, chuckle, and take a moment to enjoy the levity."

hahaha-- OK, when you're done chuckling, please tell me why globalization prevents the US from having a 1950s tax code.

I'm certainly not saying that's going to solve all the problems, but it may help with some. And your reply was that making taxes more progressive somehow turns the US into Venezuela. Do you now realize your mistake?

joeyjojojunior says

I'm certainly not saying that's going to solve all the problems, but it may help with some

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?

"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.