Is our tax system progressive enough?

[quote name='mykevermin']Not to mention is naive and intellectually simplistic underlying assumptions that emphasize the folly of supply-side policies that would help the economy[/quote]


Myke, you've been blaming "supply-side economics" for all sorts of problems for years, and whenever you're asked to explain what you mean, you seem to avoid doing so. You've also called people here supply-siders. Maybe you could go into more detail about exactly which policies you consider to be "supply-side", or point me to a post where you've already done that if I missed it. Is it just cutting taxes for the rich that you feel is responsible for everything?


Idealism is well and good, but trying to implement idealism into the society such a flawed species, rife with potential for error and exploitation, and in denial of the very world we live in that serves as a refutation of your hopeless ideology, is a fool's errand. You might as well try to bring us to ascendancy via the comet Hale-Bopp like Marshall Appelwhite did. You'll achieve as much in your career.
Click to expand...


WTF? If I hadn't seen the name of the post's author, I could've sworn this was an argument against progressive ideology. And it wouldn't be a bad one, either.


[quote name='Capitalizt']myke, the very fact that someone can earn vast sums of wealth means they are ALREADY BENEFITING THE ECONOMY on a whole. This is not a red herring. It's fact.[/QUOTE]


I see what you're getting at, but I disagree with you on this point Capitalizt. There are thousands, if not millions, of rich people today who are a net drain on society.


[quote name='elprincipe']I'm not sure I would. I've read all about the Fair Tax and of course know about VAT systems, but they are somewhat unwieldy and have their own problems. I guess at this point I'd keep the income tax but make it dramatically lower, but more progressive, if I had my way. Other than the proposals I just mentioned, is there another way you would suggest?[/QUOTE]


I'm thinking about taxes that would be completely different from both income taxes and sales taxes. If you think about it, income taxes and sales taxes are very similar - they're both taxes on exchanges of goods or services. Aren't there alternatives to this, something to do with the environment, maybe?


[quote name='Capitalizt']myke, if you're going to criticize "supply side" economics, at least define it first. My understanding is that it means an attempt to reduce the size and power of government by cutting taxes and spending.[/quote]


Yeah, but I think there are supply-siders who don't even want cuts on spending.


As for exploitation, I suppose it depends how you define it. My definition of exploitation involves force or the threat of force. I don't see that anywhere today.
Click to expand...


I must have misunderstood you here, because I see it all over the place...?
 
[quote name='rickonker']
I'm thinking about taxes that would be completely different from both income taxes and sales taxes. If you think about it, income taxes and sales taxes are very similar - they're both taxes on exchanges of goods or services. Aren't there alternatives to this, something to do with the environment, maybe?
[/quote]


I like where you're heading with this train of thought. A "best of both worlds" approach would be great for the taxed and the beneficiaries of taxation.
 
[quote name='Capitalizt']methinks you're the one blinded by philosophy friend. I get the impression the logical side of your brain knows I am right and is battling with your emotional side. You've got lots of hatred/envy of the rich that has built up over the past few years and it's a shame that the emotion usually wins that fight. ;)[/quote]

pish-posh, poppycock, and balderdash. I do not hate anyone who is wealthy, but I am savvy enough to see that any economic system is an inherently social institution. No person creates wealth on their own, with no assistance in terms of labor, no assistance in terms of those who purchase or use the commodities, no assistance in terms of government intervention or nonintervention.

I see that everyone in society, wealthy and non-wealthy alike, are where they are by a combination of birthright, social structure and the array of opportunities that result from your placement in it, and the interest/involvement in others. Bill Gates became wealthy to the extent that he required employees to work under him and consumers to buy his products. He is not a self-sustaining economy of one that produces and consumes itself.

Recognizing the social nature of created and expanded wealth, I recognize that it is a false ideology to suggest that the wealth earned is an unarguable objective reality to which one can claim to be their own island.

Moreover, I am the one who is using data in my posts, something you have done nothing but flippantly disregard rather than actually intellectually wrangle, all the while postulating absurd hypotheticals of 98.5% tax rates, obscuring the actual conversation with ridiculous logically fallacious slippery slope arguments.

I am the one who sees the erosion of the middle class in the United States, the increasing reality of dual-income households in the United States - and the marginal 32% growth in earnings for the middle quintile, and even lower for the bottom two - the three quintiles MOST LIKELY to have two-incomes. So we double the amount of labor coming out of a house, and marginally increase their earnings over time by about 37%. And you claim, despite growth of 256% at the top, that it is those who are earning 256% more on average than they were 30 years ago who are actually suffering and being unfairly treated.

You look at the world we live in, the real economic trends, the real economic data, the reality of work and labor for over half the nation, and you dare to tell me that I'm the one clinging to ideology?

You have demonstrated absolutely NOTHING that exists in the real world to support your philosophy. You cling to a notion that has been disproven, trying to argue it has not truly been tested. You're no different than the undergraduate members of the ISO who argue that Communism has never truly been tried, and that it is the answer to everything.

You have not produced a single micron of evidence to support any argument you've made in this thread. You are a perpetual series of philosophical blathering, misguided faith in laissez-faire economic systems, and the purely idiotic idea that our tax system can be reduced to a simple percentage, and that somehow represents "equity."

I'm passionate and personal because you're a fucking idiot, not because I despite the wealthy. You're setting up guises for claims and points I haven't made because you can't fucking argue.

What does your free market look like? Do we take away tax penalties on businesses that pollute or misuse finite natural resources? That's interfering in the free market! Do we not subsidize the cost of the next sports stadium in your big city? That's interfering in the free market! Do we enforce safety and health regulations that businesses subscribe to in order to take care of employees? That's interfering in the free market? Do we penalize companies that would rather pay the fines they incur when their employees die in a mine collapse, rather than actually maintain a safety standard that reflects what our technology allows? That's interference in the free market!

Libertarian laissez-faire capitalism is a childish sort of thinking that's about as robustly developed as a Miss America pageant wishing for world peace. The worst part about it is the smug satisfaction that reeks out of the blithering idiots who think that working in terms of a handful of constant percentages is a plausible way of running a government that oversees 300 million people.

If you think the rich are so unfairly maligned, why don't you start a fuckin' charity to collect money for 'em?
 
[quote name='rickonker']Myke, you've been blaming "supply-side economics" for all sorts of problems for years, and whenever you're asked to explain what you mean, you seem to avoid doing so. You've also called people here supply-siders. Maybe you could go into more detail about exactly which policies you consider to be "supply-side", or point me to a post where you've already done that if I missed it. Is it just cutting taxes for the rich that you feel is responsible for everything?[/QUOTE]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply-side_economics

Not to be any more snippy than I already am, but really? I need to explain supply-side policies to you?

edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics this one, too.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply-side_economics

Not to be any more snippy than I already am, but really? I need to explain supply-side policies to you?

edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics this one, too.[/QUOTE]


That doesn't help me, because I'm trying to understand the way you use the term. Is anyone who wants tax cuts for the rich a supply-sider to you? Because that would be different from the more widely accepted view.

My view of "supply-side economics" is that it's become more like a package of political propaganda than a coherent school of economic thought. This helped some rich people who just wanted a way to sell tax cuts for the rich, and now it's helping you as a target.
 
[quote name='willardhaven']What do you propose Myke?[/QUOTE]

Getting off of CAG and playing Resident Evil 4.

[quote name='rickonker']That doesn't help me, because I'm trying to understand the way you use the term. Is anyone who wants tax cuts for the rich a supply-sider to you? Because that would be different from the more widely accepted view.

My view of "supply-side economics" is that it's become more like a package of political propaganda than a coherent school of economic thought. This helped some rich people who just wanted a way to sell tax cuts for the rich, and now it's helping you as a target.[/QUOTE]

Anyone who argues that we need tax cuts, whether general or targeted at specific groups, as a means of increasing incentives or growing the economy.

We have $10 Trillion in debt. There'll be time to cut taxes when we pay that off. In the meantime, any tax cut can fuck right off. Bring back the prior higher capital gains tax rates while we're at it, as that cut sure as shit hasn't helped the market or investors.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Anyone who argues that we need tax cuts, whether general or targeted at specific groups, as a means of increasing incentives or growing the economy.[/QUOTE]


Ok, but if we use that definition, these guys would be supply-siders too:

Keynesian macroeconomics, by contrast, contends that tax cuts...should be targeted at cash-strapped, lower-income earners, who are more likely to spend additional income.
Click to expand...


That's not very surprising, because supply-siders and Keynesians are not as different as you seem to imply.

supply-siders such as Jude Wanniski have argued for lower tax rates to increase tax revenues, and that redistribution of income through taxation was essential to the health of the polity
Click to expand...
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Bring back the prior higher capital gains tax rates while we're at it, as that cut sure as shit hasn't helped the market or investors.[/QUOTE]

If the purpose of high taxation is to pay off our massive debt, certainly a reasonable position, should not we lower the capital gains rate instead? After all, lowering the capital gains tax rate has been shown to increase government revenue. Unless, like Obama, you think that we should increase it to be "fair" even though it hurts everyone?

[quote name='rickonker']I'm thinking about taxes that would be completely different from both income taxes and sales taxes. If you think about it, income taxes and sales taxes are very similar - they're both taxes on exchanges of goods or services. Aren't there alternatives to this, something to do with the environment, maybe?[/QUOTE]

Maybe. What about a tax on pollution, trash, wastewater and the like? Talk about your incentives to conserve. Maybe if we did something like that we wouldn't have supermarkets selling products with six layers of packaging.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']If the purpose of high taxation is to pay off our massive debt, certainly a reasonable position, should not we lower the capital gains rate instead? After all, lowering the capital gains tax rate has been shown to increase government revenue. Unless, like Obama, you think that we should increase it to be "fair" even though it hurts everyone?[/quote]


That's the supply-side position we're talking about. I think Myke disagrees with it, even though he has a different definition for supply-side.


Maybe. What about a tax on pollution, trash, wastewater and the like? Talk about your incentives to conserve. Maybe if we did something like that we wouldn't have supermarkets selling products with six layers of packaging.
Click to expand...


Yeah, something along those lines sounds better to me.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']pish-posh, poppycock, and balderdash. I do not hate anyone who is wealthy, but I am savvy enough to see that any economic system is an inherently social institution. No person creates wealth on their own, with no assistance in terms of labor, no assistance in terms of those who purchase or use the commodities, no assistance in terms of government intervention or nonintervention.
[/quote]

Of course not..Capitalism is nothing more than voluntary trade for voluntary benefit. Gates paid every one of his workers and suppliers on terms that were favorable to both parties. Microsoft was build from the ground up based on voluntary exchange. Nothing was done by pointing a gun to someone's head and demanding their time, energy, or products without just and agreeable compensation. No customer was robbed under the threat of violence either. This is what differentiates private enterprise from government.

Recognizing the social nature of created and expanded wealth, I recognize that it is a false ideology to suggest that the wealth earned is an unarguable objective reality to which one can claim to be their own island.
Click to expand...
hmm..and who has ever said that here?

I am the one who sees the erosion of the middle class in the United States, the increasing reality of dual-income households in the United States - and the marginal 32% growth in earnings for the middle quintile, and even lower for the bottom two - the three quintiles MOST LIKELY to have two-incomes. So we double the amount of labor coming out of a house, and marginally increase their earnings over time by about 37%. And you claim, despite growth of 256% at the top, that it is those who are earning 256% more on average than they were 30 years ago who are actually suffering and being unfairly treated.
Click to expand...
Fixed pie...again. You still have that stubborn fallacy stuck in your brain myke..that the 256% gain is somehow hurting those that only saw a 37% gain...that that wealth was STOLEN from the poor somehow. Talk about pish-posh, poppycock, and balderdash...

You have demonstrated absolutely NOTHING that exists in the real world to support your philosophy.
Click to expand...
This is not philosophy myke.. It's logic. First, I already pointed out how it was impossible to to hard data on the number of people indirectly harmed by government policy. I explained how interventionist policy always has visible beneficiaries and invisible victims bur apparently I didn't do a good job apparently, so I'm including an article below I hope you will spend 5 minutes reading.

I've been taking about observing human behavior here and drawing logical inferences from what you see. A universal fact about humanity is that we like to avoid pain whenever possible..and when you increase the pain (cost) of any particular activity, you tend to get less of it. The same goes for taxation..which is a penalty on activity. Clinton cut the capital gains tax in the 90s and revenue soared because people started trading stocks again. Their incentive to trade was increased by a lower tax burden. He reduced the PAIN of realizing those gains and revenue from them doubled in less than a year. Now, what if we hiked the capital gains rate back up today? Can we have a precise number to tell us how much wealth will be locked up as people refuse to realize their gains? No...That wealth is locked up..unmoving, unseen, and untaxed. You can't put a number on it.
You don't really need a pie chart to use your common sense on these issues do you?

myke, this is for you...Read it carefully. If you understand properly, it will change your entire perception of economics and things like government spending and taxation:

http://mises.org/story/3000

Hopefully this will help you move beyond your current beliefs that wealth is a fixed quantity, and that soaking the rich is something that can be done without unseen costs to society.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='mykevermin']pish-posh, poppycock, and balderdash. I do not hate anyone who is wealthy, but I am savvy enough to see that any economic system is an inherently social institution. No person creates wealth on their own, with no assistance in terms of labor, no assistance in terms of those who purchase or use the commodities, no assistance in terms of government intervention or nonintervention.
[/quote]

Of course not..Capitalism is nothing more than voluntary trade for voluntary benefit. Gates paid every one of his workers and suppliers on terms that were favorable to both parties. Microsoft was build from the ground up based on voluntary exchange. Nothing was done by pointing a gun to someone's head and demanding their time, energy, or products without just and agreeable compensation. No customer was robbed under the threat of violence either. Voluntary exchange vs coercion is what differentiates private enterprise from government.

Recognizing the social nature of created and expanded wealth, I recognize that it is a false ideology to suggest that the wealth earned is an unarguable objective reality to which one can claim to be their own island.
Click to expand...
hmm..and who has ever said that here?

I am the one who sees the erosion of the middle class in the United States, the increasing reality of dual-income households in the United States - and the marginal 32% growth in earnings for the middle quintile, and even lower for the bottom two - the three quintiles MOST LIKELY to have two-incomes. So we double the amount of labor coming out of a house, and marginally increase their earnings over time by about 37%. And you claim, despite growth of 256% at the top, that it is those who are earning 256% more on average than they were 30 years ago who are actually suffering and being unfairly treated.
Click to expand...
Fixed pie...again. You still have that stubborn fallacy stuck in your brain myke..that the 256% gain is somehow hurting those that only saw a 37% gain...that that wealth was STOLEN from the poor somehow. Talk about pish-posh, poppycock, and balderdash...

You have demonstrated absolutely NOTHING that exists in the real world to support your philosophy.
Click to expand...
This is not philosophy myke.. It's logic. First, I already pointed out how it was impossible to to hard data on the number of people indirectly harmed by government policy. I explained how interventionist policy always has visible beneficiaries and invisible victims bur apparently I didn't do a good job apparently, so I'm including an article below I hope you will spend 5 minutes reading.

I've been taking about observing human behavior here and drawing logical inferences from what you see. A universal fact about humanity is that we like to avoid pain whenever possible..and when you increase the pain (cost) of any particular activity, you tend to get less of it. The same goes for taxation..which is a penalty on activity. Clinton cut the capital gains tax in the 90s and revenue soared because people started trading stocks again. Their incentive to trade was increased by a lower tax burden. He reduced the PAIN of realizing those gains and revenue from them doubled in less than a year. Now, what if we hiked the capital gains rate back up today? Can we put a precise number on the wealth that will be locked up as people refuse to realize their gains? No...That wealth is invisible..unmoving, unseen, and untaxed, because the cost of moving it is too prohibitive in the investor's eyes. We may not be able to put a precise number on it, but you don't really need a pie chart to use your common sense on these issues do you myke?

This is for you...Read it carefully. If you understand properly, it will change your entire perception of economics and things like government spending and taxation:

http://mises.org/story/3000

Hopefully this will help you move beyond your current beliefs that wealth is a fixed quantity, and that soaking the rich is something that can be done without unseen costs to the middle class.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Capitalizt']Of course not..Capitalism is nothing more than voluntary trade for voluntary benefit. Gates paid every one of his workers and suppliers on terms that were favorable to both parties. Microsoft was build from the ground up based on voluntary exchange. Nothing was done by pointing a gun to someone's head and demanding their time, energy, or products without just and agreeable compensation. No customer was robbed under the threat of violence either. This is what differentiates private enterprise from government.
[/QUOTE]


As has happened many times before, I see what you're getting at, but disagree in this case. Microsoft is a bad example because it was a beneficiary of government power.


You still have that stubborn fallacy stuck in your brain myke..that the 256% gain is somehow hurting those that only saw a 37% gain...that that wealth was STOLEN from the poor somehow.
Click to expand...


Your point would normally be valid - if someone makes a 256% gain, that doesn't necessarily mean someone who only made a 37% gain is hurt - but in this case, wealth was stolen from the poor in a way most progressives don't understand.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='mykevermin']pish-posh, poppycock, and balderdash. I do not hate anyone who is wealthy, but I am savvy enough to see that any economic system is an inherently social institution. No person creates wealth on their own, with no assistance in terms of labor, no assistance in terms of those who purchase or use the commodities, no assistance in terms of government intervention or nonintervention.
[/quote]

Of course not..Capitalism is nothing more than mutual trade for mutual benefit. Gates paid every one of his workers and suppliers on terms that were favorable to both parties. Microsoft was build from the ground up based on voluntary exchange. Nothing was done by pointing a gun to someone's head and demanding their time, energy, or products without just and agreeable compensation. No customer was robbed under the threat of violence either. Voluntary exchange vs coercion is what differentiates private enterprise from government.

Recognizing the social nature of created and expanded wealth, I recognize that it is a false ideology to suggest that the wealth earned is an unarguable objective reality to which one can claim to be their own island.
Click to expand...
hmm..and who has ever said that here?

I am the one who sees the erosion of the middle class in the United States, the increasing reality of dual-income households in the United States - and the marginal 32% growth in earnings for the middle quintile, and even lower for the bottom two - the three quintiles MOST LIKELY to have two-incomes. So we double the amount of labor coming out of a house, and marginally increase their earnings over time by about 37%. And you claim, despite growth of 256% at the top, that it is those who are earning 256% more on average than they were 30 years ago who are actually suffering and being unfairly treated.
Click to expand...
Fixed pie...again. You still have that stubborn fallacy stuck in your brain myke..that the 256% gain is somehow hurting those that only saw a 37% gain...that that wealth was STOLEN from the poor somehow. Talk about pish-posh, poppycock, and balderdash...

You have demonstrated absolutely NOTHING that exists in the real world to support your philosophy.
Click to expand...
This is not philosophy myke.. It's logic. First, I already pointed out how it was impossible to to hard data on the number of people indirectly harmed by government policy. I explained how interventionist policy always has visible beneficiaries and invisible victims bur apparently I didn't do a good job apparently, so I'm including an article below I hope you will spend 5 minutes reading.

I've been taking about observing human behavior here and drawing logical inferences from what you see. A universal fact about humanity is that we like to avoid pain whenever possible..and when you increase the pain (cost) of any particular activity, you tend to get less of it. The same goes for taxation..which is a penalty on activity. Clinton cut the capital gains tax in the 90s and revenue soared because people started trading stocks again. Their incentive to trade was increased by a lower tax burden. He reduced the PAIN of realizing those gains and revenue from them doubled in less than a year. Now, what if we hiked the capital gains rate back up today? Can we have a precise number to tell us how much wealth will be locked up as people refuse to realize their gains? No...That wealth is locked up..unmoving, unseen, and untaxed. You can't put a number on it.
You don't really need a pie chart to use your common sense on these issues do you?

myke, this is for you...Read it carefully. If you understand properly, it will change your entire perception of economics and things like government spending and taxation:

http://mises.org/story/3000

Hopefully this will help you move beyond your current beliefs that wealth is a fixed quantity, and that soaking the rich is something that can be done without unseen costs to the middle class.
 
[quote name='rickonker']As has happened many times before, I see what you're getting at, but disagree in this case. Microsoft is a bad example because it was a beneficiary of government power.
[/quote]

That is a problem of socialism, not of capitalism. ;)

Subsidies, bailouts, loans, tarriffs, etc. Everything designed benefit one group over another are decidedly anti-capitalistic in my book. We need a level playing field with established rules...not a playing field where the goal posts are continually moved back and forth to favor one class of players over another. And slow players should not be given baseball bats to break the kneecaps of faster players. That might give you a more equal result in the end, but it is certainly not a JUST result.
Your point would normally be valid - if someone makes a 256% gain, that doesn't necessarily mean someone who only made a 37% gain is hurt - but in this case, wealth was stolen from the poor in a way most progressives don't understand.
Click to expand...

Orly? How so? If they received government funding or favoritism, you could certainly make that case. Otherwise, nothing was stolen.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='rickonker']As has happened many times before, I see what you're getting at, but disagree in this case. Microsoft is a bad example because it was a beneficiary of government power.
[/quote]

That is a problem of socialism, not of capitalism. ;)

Subsidies, bailouts, loans, tarriffs, etc. Everything designed benefit one group over another are decidedly anti-capitalistic in my book. We need a level playing field with established rules...not a playing field where the goal posts are continually moved back and forth to favor one class of players over another. And slow players should not be given baseball bats to break the kneecaps of faster players. That might give you a more equal result in the end, but it is certainly not a JUST result.
Your point would normally be valid - if someone makes a 256% gain, that doesn't necessarily mean someone who only made a 37% gain is hurt - but in this case, wealth was stolen from the poor in a way most progressives don't understand.
Click to expand...
Orly? How so? If they received government funding or favoritism, you could certainly make that case. And again, those are not problems of capitalism..but of a corrupt political system.
 
[quote name='Capitalizt']If they received government funding or favoritism, you could certainly make that case.[/QUOTE]


Exactly.
 
[quote name='Capitalizt']Of course not..Capitalism is nothing more than voluntary trade for voluntary benefit. Gates paid every one of his workers and suppliers on terms that were favorable to both parties. Microsoft was build from the ground up based on voluntary exchange. Nothing was done by pointing a gun to someone's head and demanding their time, energy, or products without just and agreeable compensation. No customer was robbed under the threat of violence either. Voluntary exchange vs coercion is what differentiates private enterprise from government.[/quote]

Adam Smith's PHILOSOPHY, eh? Yes, of course, the employer and the worker are so balanced in their power. That's how the changes in worker's wages have kept pace with the wealthy over 30 years, and how workers have been able to lobby the government for benefits in the much the same way, and for the same things, that the wealthy and employers have.

Oh, wait, except that's not true.

Fixed pie...again. You still have that stubborn fallacy stuck in your brain myke..that the 256% gain is somehow hurting those that only saw a 37% gain...that that wealth was STOLEN from the poor somehow. Talk about pish-posh, poppycock, and balderdash...
Click to expand...

Are you this fucking stupid or just deliberately picking your points? When you increase the amount of average labor coming out of a household over 50%, and see a net gain in constant dollars varying from 11 to 37%, you're already talking about an average net DECLINE in the income of the average person. They've had to put another person out there in the workforce in order to make ends meet. You change the number of hours coming out of a household from 40 to 80 (a 100% increase in case you don't get numbers once we move beyond mere income), and the income increases should be expected to MATCH. If, and here's the kicker, your argument of mutually beneficial laissez-faire capitalism is, in fact, true.

Moreover, that makes the assumption that the cost of goods remains the same in constant dollars that they were 30 years ago and also today. Which is, with very few exceptions, laughably untrue. Most of what we would call "necessities" have gone up in cost, further reducing the actual power of this pseudo-increased income.

You're comparing an increase of 256% with an increase of 37%, praising the former for being the arbiters who brought us the latter. But, in all of your "logic," you're failing to realize the changing conditions in the average household, such as inflation and the normalization of dual-income households.

This is not philosophy myke.. It's logic.
Click to expand...

See, here's where you're wrong. A logical proposition would be true in all cases you mentioned. You rationalize away that your ideal market conditions never existed to pooh-pooh away instances where tax cuts fuck things up economically. Someone invested in logic deals with propositions and associations, not smoke and mirrors and post-hoc rationalization.

I suggest you go rediscover the difference between philosophy and logic before using those words again. The difference is the difference between church and math class.
 
Myke, first of all...where is the universal law of economics that says wage growth must be constant among everyone in every sector of society? We live in a dynamic world with radically unequal conditions..unequal people with unequal desires and unequal ambitions living in unequal circumstances with unequal opportunities available to them. With knowledge and every other commodity being unequally distributed, what on earth gives you the idea that EQUAL wage growth among everyone is a natural thing?

Secondly, kindly explain how the people making large sums of money today had any impact over what has happened over the past 30 years in the global economy. Do you think the top quintile today are the same ones who were making money 3 decades ago? They were in MIDDLE SCHOOL my man! How exactly have the businessmen of 2009 had any impact over 30 years of inflation, changing prices, global trade, changing technology, and radical differences in global supply and demand..?

Kindly explain how the current rich guys (who were 10-15 years old 30 years ago) are to blame for the many external factors that led to the rise of dual income households.. Who exactly are you blaming here?? Who is in charge of the conspiracy?

You do have a point about inflation playing a big part of the puzzle but I have a funny feeling you will misdiagnose that problem as well...preferring to blame "greed" and price gouging for rising prices rather than the massive devaluation of our money by the federal reserve. Amirite?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Adam Smith's PHILOSOPHY, eh?[/QUOTE]


Well, yes, myke. Adam Smith was indeed a philosopher. He even considered his Theory of Moral Sentiments to be superior to The Wealth of Nations.

BTW, any response on Keynesians as supply-siders?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Getting off of CAG and playing Resident Evil 4. [/quote]

I was tempted to post that picture of the boy from Shane again, but I'm sure nobody would get it like last time.
 
[quote name='Capitalizt']Secondly, kindly explain how the people making large sums of money today had any impact over what has happened over the past 30 years in the global economy. Do you think the top quintile today are the same ones who were making money 3 decades ago? They were in MIDDLE SCHOOL my man! How exactly have the businessmen of 2009 had any impact over 30 years of inflation, changing prices, global trade, changing technology, and radical differences in global supply and demand..?

Kindly explain how the current rich guys (who were 10-15 years old 30 years ago) are to blame for the many external factors that led to the rise of dual income households.. Who exactly are you blaming here?? Who is in charge of the conspiracy?
[/quote]

What percentage of the top quintile grew up in a house in the top quintile?
 
Myke's dropping knowledge on this thread like wages for the middle class. Seriously, I can't even join in this argument because I don't want to put in the research hours.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']What percentage of the top quintile grew up in a house in the top quintile?[/quote]

What does it matter? Do you expect government to equalize all wealth and ability so everyone on the planet starts from the same place? Should the feds use their power to remedy every cosmic injustice?

What s next? Should we subsidize ugly girls and mutilate beautiful ones so they all have an equal chance at being supermodels? After all, why is it fair that some are born beautiful and others not?

Hate to break it to ya, but life isn't fair bud..The world is a very unequal place, and any attempt to impose artificial equality is not only impossible..but devastating to personal liberty. Equality of outcome and individual freedom are mutually incompatible. You can't have both.
 
[quote name='Capitalizt']What does it matter? Do you expect government to equalize all wealth and ability so everyone on the planet starts from the same place? Should the feds use their power to remedy every cosmic injustice?[/quote]

I'm looking for a reference point.

If somebody was born in the top quintile, landing in the top quintile after a childhood of good schools and good neighborhoods isn't too surprising.

If somebody was born in the bottom quintile, landing in the top quintile after a childhood of bad schools and bad neighborhoods is surprising.

So ...

The person in the top quintile today may indeed be a victim, but, without any data, that can't be certain.

It's OK. I'm sure friendly fire will gain you more converts.
 
[quote name='rickonker']BTW, any response on Keynesians as supply-siders?[/QUOTE]

Tax cuts directed at the lowest income earners can be characterized as "trickle-up" policies in the way that Reaganomics is often called "trickle-down" policy. I don't see that as supply-side because you're not providing benefits to those who 'supply' the marketplace with goods and jobs, but, rather, those people who would use those services. The 'demand' side, as it were.

But maybe I'm confusing the recipient with the means of receiving, with the latter being key in discerning supply-side from other policies. If the latter receives 'stimulus checks,' in the absence of a tax cut, that's not supply-side IMO. (think of Bush's stimulus checks last year). If they receive tax cuts, even retroactive ones, that's supply-side (think of Bush's tax-cut checks from 2001-2002).

1031-biz-webLEONHARDTcx.gif


Here's some perspective. Funny how the decline in tax rates amongst the wealthy seems to correspond with the explosion of our national debt.

October 31, 2007
Economic Scene
Plain Truth About Taxes and Cuts
By DAVID LEONHARDT

Correction Appended

You’re going to hear a lot about taxes over the next two years. Some of the things you hear will be true. Others will be less true. The goal here today is distinguish between the two.

Last week, Charles B. Rangel, the Democrat who heads the House Ways and Means Committee, introduced a bill to overhaul the tax code. Above all, it would raise taxes on the affluent to pay for the elimination of the alternative minimum tax, which is hitting more and more upper-middle-class families. The bill has no chance of becoming law anytime soon.

Yet Republicans immediately and gleefully seized on the proposal as a preview of what a Democratic president would do. Vice President Dick Cheney called it “a bad proposal” filled with “terrible ideas” that would do “an awful lot of damage” to the economy. Most Democrats are less eager to talk about the Rangel proposal, but it’s clear that they also think a fight over taxes can work to their advantage in 2008 and beyond. Tax policy, as they see it, is one way to soothe the middle class’s economic anxiety.

There are big philosophical questions about taxes that facts alone can’t answer. How important is it to let people keep the money that they earn? Will higher tax rates cause more cheating? How important is it to ensure that take-home pay is rising for every group of Americans?

But there are also some basic facts that ideology can’t change.

If you keep these five in mind, you will have an easier time keeping up with the debate:

As a group, the rich pay a greater share of taxes than in the past.

The top 1 percent of taxpayers — those with adjusted gross income of at least $267,000 in 2004 — paid more than 25 percent of all federal taxes that year, according to the Congressional Budget Office. That was up from 15 percent in 1979.

People sometimes pick nits with these statistics, and the numbers are indeed imperfect. They don’t include state and local taxes, which hit the middle class and the poor harder than federal taxes. On the other hand, the numbers ignore money that the government sends back to taxpayers, like Social Security, which mostly goes to the poor and middle class.

But don’t get bogged down in all this. The big picture is clear enough. The main reason for the trend is also clear.

The affluent are paying more of the taxes because they’re making so much more money.

Tax cut advocates like to argue that taxes on the affluent have entered the realm of Robin Hood. This year, Ari Fleischer, Mr. Bush’s former press secretary, wrote an op-ed piece for The Wall Street Journal suggesting that a small slice of taxpayers was being asked to foot almost the entire bill for the federal government. “The problem is that there is a tipping point after which piling taxes onto the rich will leave the government unable to meet its obligations,” Mr. Fleischer wrote.

Reading that, you would probably assume that the tax rates on high-income families have soared over the last generation. But they haven’t.

A family in that top 1 percent of earners paid a total federal tax rate — including everything from payroll taxes to income taxes to capital gains taxes — of 30 percent in 2004. That was down from 41 percent a decade before. Since the 1950s, tax rates on high-income families have generally been falling.

The top earners pay a bigger share of the government tab than in the past because their incomes have risen so sharply — even more sharply than their tax bills. (Mr. Fleischer was able to claim the opposite by looking only at income taxes.)

The affluent, in short, are paying less in taxes on every dollar they earn but earning many more dollars.

Corporates taxes have dropped significantly in recent decades.

There are two strange facts about corporate taxes. Everyone from Mr. Rangel on the left to Fred Thompson on the right is saying that high corporate taxes are hurting American companies. But the effective corporate tax rate isn’t any higher than it has been on average over the last 25 years, and it’s far lower than it was in the 1960s and ’70s.

“A dirty little secret is that the corporate income tax used to raise a fair amount of revenue,” says Richard Clarida, a Columbia University economist and former Treasury Department official under Mr. Bush.

What’s going on here? This country really does have a high corporate tax rate, but it also has so many loopholes that companies can often avoid paying the tax. A much smarter policy, economists say, would include a lower rate with fewer loopholes. “Both the incentive and the ability to avoid the tax would then be smaller,” says Leonard Burman, director of the Tax Policy Center in Washington.

The nation’s total tax bill hasn’t changed much over the years.

Put it all together — less corporate tax collection and lower individual tax rates, combined with more income for the people who face the highest tax rates — and the trends mostly cancel each other out. The taxes that the federal government took in last year equaled 18.4 percent of the gross domestic product, almost exactly the average since 1980. The overall tax burden rose in the 1990s, fell during Mr. Bush’s first term and has drifted up in the last few years as corporate profits and upper-end incomes surged.

The obvious conclusion is that moderate shifts in taxes don’t dictate economic growth. Mr. Bush’s father and Bill Clinton raised taxes — and the economy grew for almost the entire decade of the 1990s. The current administration has cut taxes — and the economy has grown for almost all of this decade.

So if short-term economic growth were the only thing to worry about, you could make a good argument either for cutting taxes or for raising them. Unfortunately, there is another problem out there.

The budget deficit is worse than either party says it is.

Mr. Bush has predicted that the deficit will disappear by 2012. But that prediction depends on the fiction that the alternative minimum tax will be allowed to grow ever larger in coming years. The Democratic presidential candidates, meanwhile, are promising to pay for their new programs in part by getting rid of some of Mr. Bush’s tax cuts. But those tax cuts are already scheduled to expire under current law. The official budget numbers have already taken their demise into account.

White House officials are absolutely correct when they note that the current budget deficit isn’t especially large. But it will soar in coming years, as baby boomers stop working (and stop paying very much in taxes) and instead move onto the Social Security and Medicare rolls If nothing changes over the next couple of decades, the United States will build up a debt burden to resemble Argentina’s, as Mr. Burman points out.

There are several ways to prevent that. Taxes could be raised across the board, or they could be raised on the affluent. Or the Medicare budget — a much bigger problem than Social Security — could be held in check if the government figured out how to say no to some expensive medical procedures. Or all of the above could happen. But something has to give. No amount of clever argument can pay the bills.

E-mail: [email protected]

Correction: November 5, 2007

A chart with the Economic Scene column in Business Day on Wednesday about trends in tax rates by income group referred incompletely to the taxes that were analyzed. The tax rates included capital gains, payroll, estate, gift and corporate taxes — not just income taxes. A corrected chart is at nytimes.com/business.
Click to expand...

This guy's on the money.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Here's some perspective. Funny how the decline in tax rates amongst the wealthy seems to correspond with the explosion of our national debt.[/quote]

Now, Now. You know we were fighting the commies back then. If we hadn't spent so much money, that toothless whore, Russia, would have started World War III.

Isn't OK for your future to be mortgaged so that an enemy is permanently disabled?
 
[quote name='willardhaven']I think the point is, the world is growing more unfair at a consistent and high rate. Eventually the scale breaks and everything falls off.[/QUOTE]

I think someone should also point wages have been lagging behind productivity for decades.

I don't think the ricky and cap aka the tag team of fail know very much about economics or even just the work of Adam Smith.
 
I'll ask you msut. Who exactly has been in charge of the 50 year conspiracy to hold wages down? How is taxing the rich more going to increase the wages of the middle class?

Solutions plz.
 
[quote name='Capitalizt']I'll ask you msut. Who exactly has been in charge of the 50 year conspiracy to hold wages down? How is taxing the rich more going to increase the wages of the middle class?

Solutions plz.[/quote]

I'm going with banks and seductive consumerism.

...

Let's play hypothetical.

Let's assume Mr. Rich makes $1,000,000 is taxed at 50%. His take home pay is $500,000. Let's assume Mr. Rich employs Mr. Middle Class at $50,000.

Mr. Rich's tax rate is increased to 70% for $1,000,000, but is only 60% for $900,000. At $1,000,000, his take home pay is $300,000. If Mr. Rich increases Mr. Middle Class's wages to $150,000 (or employs 3 of Mr. Middle Class's brothers), his take home pay is $360,000.

Granted, that assumes Mr. Rich wants to spite the government taking the majority of his pay.
 
Your calculations are off a bit I think.. With progressive taxation, he would pay 60% on 900k and 70% from $900k-1 million. 70% would only be paid on the final $100k. That means he would be paying an extra $10,000 in taxes..That's not going to make him want to triple Mr Middle Class's wages to $150,000. Mr Middle class would be making nearly half of what Mr.Rich is taking home then...Not very sustainable for most employers.
 
[quote name='Capitalizt']Your calculations are off a bit I think.. With progressive taxation, he would pay 60% on 900k and 70% from $900k-1 million. 70% would only be paid on the final $100k. That means he would be paying an extra $10,000 in taxes..That's not going to make him want to triple Mr Middle Class's wages to $150,000. Mr Middle class would be making nearly half of what Mr.Rich is taking home then...Not very sustainable for most employers.[/quote]

No. In my very skewed scenario, Mr. Rich pays 60% on 900K and 70% on 1M. That would mean there is a $100K deterrent to making $1 more past $999,999.

Don't get caught up in the real world bullshit.

...

Regarding banks and seductive consumerism being the root of the conspiracy, any thoughts?
 
root of the conspiracy? lol, no..I don't really think there is any conspiracy to hold down wages at all. All I've been doing is pointing out that we live in an unequal world, with unequal growth and unequal sharing of the blesssings. There is no grand NWO illuminati plot against the middle class and favoring our corporate overlords..but that seems to be the conclusion of others here. The fact is we live in a dynamic economy and stuff happens. Living standards can rise and fall for many different reasons..but if I did have to point to a single cause as to why people are struggling now and why 2 incomes are required to raise a family instead of one is because our currency is worth much so less today than it was a few decades ago. The fed has been printing money like mad, inflating away the value of the dollar. More dollars in circulation = less value per unit = higher prices and less purchasing power for workers.. It's the ultimate hidden tax that nobody can avoid. Of course that's a whole nother can of worms and I'm sure the big government apologists here will defend the fed till their dying breath..so lets just leave it alone. ;)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
root of the conspiracy? lol, no..I don't really think there is any conspiracy to hold down wages at all. All I've been doing is pointing out that we live in an unequal world, with unequal growth and unequal sharing of the blesssings. There is no grand NWO illuminati plot against the middle class and favoring our corporate overlords..but that seems to be the conclusion of others here. The fact is we live in a dynamic economy and stuff happens...Living standards can rise and fall for many reasons, but if I did have to point to a single cause as to why people are struggling now and why 2 incomes are required to raise a family instead of one is because our currency is worth much so less today than it was a few decades ago. The fed has been printing money like mad, inflating away the value of the dollar. More dollars in circulation = less value per unit = higher prices and less purchasing power for workers.. It's the ultimate hidden tax that nobody can avoid. Of course that's a whole nother can of worms and I'm sure the big government apologists here will defend the fed till their dying breath..so lets just leave it alone. ;)
 
[quote name='gareman']please define "personal liberty"?[/quote]

I subscribe to the "your freedom ends where my nose begins" definition.

Fraud, theft, and violence must be banished from human relationships. Liberty can't thrive where violence is present. Consenting adults should be free to do as they please in both the boardroom and the bedroom. Respect other people and their right to property, and you will have a peaceful and free society.

Some government is a necessary evil. It must always exist to defend people from theft and violence...but when it goes much beyond that and into the realm of tinkering with people's lives..subsidizing some, penalizing others, regulating and controlling our economic and moral decisions.. When fashionable political preferences of the day can be forcibly imposed on all of us, it becomes a great threat to liberty.
 
[quote name='Capitalizt']I subscribe to the "your freedom ends where my nose begins" definition.

Fraud, theft, and violence must be banished from human relationships. Liberty can't thrive where violence is present. Consenting adults should be free to do as they please in both the boardroom and the bedroom. Respect other people and their right to property, and you will have a peaceful and free society.

Some government is a necessary evil. It must always exist to defend people from theft and violence...but when it goes much beyond that and into the realm of tinkering with people's lives..subsidizing some, penalizing others, regulating and controlling our economic and moral decisions.. When fashionable political preferences of the day can be forcibly imposed on all of us, it becomes a great threat to liberty.[/quote]

Ok. I can accept that, but is it fair to say then that you believe the role of a government is to protect people from death no matter how much that life may suck socially, economically, or academically? Its not about the quality of life but just that life keeps on living.
 
I don't mind a minimum safety net for people who truly can't support themselves and have noone to fall back on. Nobody wants to see disabled and mentally handicapped people dying in the streets. There is a place for minimal government in that area IMO, but those sorts of problems are almost always handled more effectively on a state/city/local level. My main concern is restricting the federal monster that has it's tentacles wrapped around everything. Welfare on a state level is fine.. There are plenty of other necessary functions for state governments too...roads, courts, street lights, police/fire/ems, maybe a few parks and libraries..things that are unprofitable for private enterprise but benefit everyone in society for a relatively tiny cost. Local government isn't the problem. The 3.6 trillion dollar beast in Washington is what we need to worry about.
 
[quote name='Capitalizt']Nobody wants to see disabled and mentally handicapped people dying in the streets. [/quote]

I'm cool with it. How is speeding up the inevitable for inferior stock or burdening the producer of inferior stock a bad thing? Why not?
 
[quote name='Capitalizt']lols..heartless bastard. Your avatar is very appropriate. ;)[/quote]

Let's expand this a little.

Sarah Palin has a kid with Downs' syndrome. She chose to have a baby when the risks for Downs' syndrome were higher. She had plenty of children before that one.

In the near to moderate future, she might be poor.

If she applies for government assistance, should I support feeding her baby with the limited capabilities?
 
ah the good old slippery slope.. I don't have all the answers, but suffice it to say I think it should be much much more difficult than it is today to get government assistance. Once every opportunity for work and private charity has been exhausted..once she is evicted and put on the street with no place to go, at that point the state should step in..offering her room board in a homeless shelter..along with an education so she can finally get a GED and stop sounding like a dumb bitch all the time. Then maybe she can find a real job to support her kids.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Tax cuts directed at the lowest income earners can be characterized as "trickle-up" policies in the way that Reaganomics is often called "trickle-down" policy. I don't see that as supply-side because you're not providing benefits to those who 'supply' the marketplace with goods and jobs, but, rather, those people who would use those services. The 'demand' side, as it were.

But maybe I'm confusing the recipient with the means of receiving, with the latter being key in discerning supply-side from other policies. If the latter receives 'stimulus checks,' in the absence of a tax cut, that's not supply-side IMO. (think of Bush's stimulus checks last year). If they receive tax cuts, even retroactive ones, that's supply-side (think of Bush's tax-cut checks from 2001-2002).[/QUOTE]


I don't think there's any real difference, especially when all of that is being borrowed anyway, as you've pointed out. Whether it's called a "stimulus check" or a "tax cut" doesn't really matter.

So I don't know myke. By your own definition, the differences in methodology and methods are so small, if they even exist, that it doesn't seem right to blame one "side" for everything under the sun while suggesting the other side has all the right answers.

[quote name='Msut77']I don't think the ricky and cap aka the tag team of fail know very much about economics or even just the work of Adam Smith.[/QUOTE]


More unsubstantiated insults, as expected. Earlier in the thread, you weren't able to answer simple questions about your point of view. Now people should take you seriously when you question the knowledge of others? :lol:

Every single person in this thread apparently disagrees with everyone else, and yet most can explain and discuss points of view without relying on insults. Maybe you should learn from that.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='rickonker']
Every single person in this thread apparently disagrees with everyone else, and yet most can explain and discuss points of view without relying on insults. Maybe you should learn from that.[/QUOTE]

That's right. I disagree with every person in this thread.

Bastards!
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']That's right. I disagree with every person in this thread.

Bastards![/QUOTE]
But aren't you now in this thread? :shock:
 
[quote name='rickonker']
More unsubstantiated insults, as expected. Earlier in the thread, you weren't able to answer simple questions about your point of view. Now people should take you seriously when you question the knowledge of others? :lol:

Every single person in this thread apparently disagrees with everyone else, and yet most can explain and discuss points of view without relying on insults. Maybe you should learn from that.[/quote]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AnTmS7I3sMA

EDIT: Oh fuck you, embedding disabled.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top