patrick.net

Do you believe in the Constitution? The Founding Fathers answered that question quite conclusively.

HappyGilmore says

Do you believe in the Constitution? The Founding Fathers answered that question quite conclusively.

This isn't a question about the founding fathers opinion, it's about the fairness of people who don't contribute to the tax system being able to vote themselves other people's money.

Goran_K says

This isn't a question about the founding fathers opinion, it's about the fairness of people who don't contribute to the tax system being able to vote themselves other people's money.

That's why I asked if you believe in the Constitution?

Or do you only believe in parts of it?

I've always (for the last 10 years) said I don't think we should have an income tax or a sales tax at all, but only a tax on land values.

* No one made the land, so taxing it does not discourage its production the way that income tax and sales tax discourage work and commerce.
* It's impossible to hide land.
* Old people who cannot pay the tax should be allowed to let the tax debt accumulate to be paid of the proceeds after they die.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism

So... current situation:
1- An increasing amount of money go to the rich vs poor (increasing inequalities)
2 - Rich people (Trump) have just cut taxes for themselves while increasing spending
3 - the main bottleneck of the economy is poor end-demand (outside debt) due to poor people not having any money

Goran's conclusion: poor people decisions on tax policy is a problem so important we need to debate it in a thread.

HappyGilmore says

you

HappyGilmore says

you

HappyGilmore says

you

Please try to stick to the point being argued, and not make it about the person.

Patrick says

Please try to stick to the point being argued, and not make it about the person.

No problem. Please enforce said rules on everyone and not just those that differ in political viewpoints.

HappyGilmore says

No problem. Please enforce said rules on everyone and not just those that differ in political viewpoints.

Don't worry, it will be, and fairly so.

Patrick says

I've always (for the last 10 years) said I don't think we should have an income tax or a sales tax at all, but only a tax on land values.

So you believe for example Facebook should pay less in taxes than a farm operation, in spite of earning order of magnitudes more money?

For example:

Goran_K says

Would you support private AR15 ownership if the 2nd amendment were repealed? Non-criminals, non-psychos. Would you support it?

Sniper says

So, your guess is better than my true data from actual gun and dog owners?

Liberal Logic at it's best.

Goran_K says

Yes you did.

Was Vietnam/Afghanistan solid proof that armed militia can withstand a national army through the use of small arms and IEDs? 16 years going and Afghanistan is still in turmoil?

You think the 2nd amendment really has no value?

Goran_K says

The top 20% of income earners pay 95% of the tax burden in the United States.

It would be interesting to find these numbers for other countries.

Heraclitusstudent says

So... current situation:
1- An increasing amount of money go to the rich vs poor (increasing inequalities)
2 - Rich people (Trump) have just cut taxes for themselves while increasing spending
3 - the main bottleneck of the economy is poor end-demand (outside debt) due to poor people not having any money

Goran's conclusion: poor people decisions on tax policy is a problem so important we need to debate it in a thread.

1 - Income inequality is a fake problem. We had this conversation already. The economy is not a zero sum game.

2 - The tax cut hits everyone across the board not just the rich.

3 - "the main bottleneck of the economy is poor end-demand (outside debt) due to poor people not having any money" WTF?

Conclusion: Goran's question still needs to be answered.

HappyGilmore says

For example:

All three were sticking to the point at hand.

No one here is discussion the Constitution.

Patrick says

The top 20% of income earners pay 95% of the tax burden in the United States.

It would be interesting to find these numbers for other countries.

The key point to remember here is that the reason for that is the incredible income inequality in the US right now. When all the money is in the hands of 20% of the people, the taxes MUST be collected from them.

You can't get blood from a turnip.

If you want to even the tax burden, reduce inequality.

Heraclitusstudent says

So you believe for example Facebook should pay less in taxes than a farm operation, in spite of earning order of magnitudes more money?

There are no farms where Facebook is, and no Facebook where the farms are. The tax rates would be orders of magnitude different.

Part of the beauty of Georgism is that land values appropriately reflect the economic activity taking place on them, more or less.

Would be interesting to know just how much high-value land Facebook is using.

HappyGilmore says

The key point to remember here is that the reason for that is the incredible income inequality in the US right now. When all the money is in the hands of 20% of the people, the taxes MUST be collected from them.

You can't get blood from a turnip.

If you want to even the tax burden, reduce inequality.

Taxes would still be collected from the 20%. No one is saying don't tax the Top 20%.

But why not a flat tax across the board?

Goran_K says

1 - Income inequality is a fake problem. We had this conversation already. The economy is not a zero sum game.

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.

Goran_K says

HappyGilmore says

Do you believe in the Constitution? The Founding Fathers answered that question quite conclusively.

We didn't have an income tax when the Constitution first became law of the land and didn't until temporarily during the Civil War and later permanently around 1917.

We had excise, tariff, and head taxes on the Federal level only.

TwoScoopsPlissken says

We didn't have an income tax when the Constitution first became law of the land and didn't until temporarily during the Civil War and later permanently around 1917.

Yep, but they pretty clearly articulated that all men are created equally and that rich people shouldn't have larger voting rights than poor people. That pretty much goes against everything this country was founded upon.

Patrick says

Part of the beauty of Georgism is that land values appropriately reflect the economic activity taking place on them, more or less.

And doesn't penalize people for improving their property - nor benefit them to keep their property in shabby condition (ie slumlords pay the same as the similarly sized apartment building that's brand new and shiny that's the same size plot on the same block)

Nor is there any means for criminals or wealthy people to dodge the tax. You can't launder or conceal a geospatial location.

Patrick says

It would be interesting to find these numbers for other countries.

Remember when Hollande wanted to raise the top tax rate to 75%?

It had the support of six out of 10 voters in the COUNTRY (this would mean all people making over $188,000 USD would give up 75% of their income to the government).

If the courts had not struck it down, it would have went into law.

HappyGilmore says

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.

False.

Apple didn't exist in 1960.

Apple has a market cap of nearly a trillion dollars now.

The pie simply gets bigger.

Goran_K says

It had the support of six out of 10 voters in the COUNTRY (this would mean all people making over $188,000 USD would give up 75% of their income to the government).

I doubt it. It almost certainly was a graduated tax, meaning only income over 188K would be taxed at the highest rate. The US used to have a top rate of 90% and the country prospered.

HappyGilmore says

The US used to have a top rate of 90% and the country prospered.

No it didn't. Individual wealth is higher today than it was 6-7 decades ago when that was the tax rate.

A 90% tax rate today would completely annihilate U.S global competitiveness.

Goran_K says

No it didn't.

It didn't? What part of the economy is better now vs. then?

Goran_K says

A 90% tax rate today would completely annihilate U.S global competitiveness.

It would have nothing to do with competitiveness.

Here's a table with the best GDP growth years and their corresponding top tax rate. Sure seems like higher tax rates HELP growth.

Goran_K says

The 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. Have not we gone over this a million times on this forum? Income tax is only 47% (and soon to be less) part of Federal government revenue.

Tax burden does not include sales taxes that all poor people either.

anotheraccount says

Goran_K says

The 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.

Goran_K says

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.

Patrick says

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.

Are we sure about wages being flat since say February 2017?

HappyGilmore says

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.

Satoshi_Nakamoto says

HappyGilmore says

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.

You beat me too it.

Something reeks of hypocrisy (or something else).

HappyGilmore says

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.

Sniper says

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.

HappyGilmore says

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.

anotheraccount says

Sniper says

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.

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.

anotheraccount says

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.

HappyGilmore says

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.

Heraclitusstudent says

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.