Size Of Government - What Do We Really Want?

[jdw_fire]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Texas Proud Just because someone is expecting a large net profit from business this year does not mean that investing more will bring a comensorate of profits... I work at a small company and can tell you that we are expecting the best year ever.... but if we invested that profit, it would go to waste as there are not any more 'current customers'...

the same can be said in response to the suggestion that lowering income tax rates will increase investment in small businesses. i.e. if investing in the business wont bring comensorate profits than lowering the tax rates wont induce additional investment in said business. so why wasnt anyone making your argument when tax rates were being lowered in the 2000 decade?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Texas Proud Or the exact opposite occurs.... they decide not to generate those profits in the first place as the work/reward ratio is no longer in their favor... laying off people and making things worse.... If you never get profits out of a business, then the business will eventually fail... Again, if you reinvest you are doing so to GET MORE PROFITS than what you invest.... so the taxes hit you harder.. and at some point you do not get more profits than you invest and you are throwing away money.... it just does not add up....

well they may decide to do what i said (or just invest the amount of profit over say $250K/yr) in the short term to focus on growing the value of the business in that same short term thus attempting to converting the income from the net profit to a capital gain (provided said business does actually grow). eventually this business owner may grow his/her business large enough (hire enough employees) that s/he can cut back on his/her own work hours and actually receive a higher per hour wage for his/her business without moving his income into a higher tax bracket. a desire to reduce working hours without reducing total pay is a valid reason to grow the business while keeping the net profit about constant (say, maybe, $250k/yr).

it may be funny but it seems to me that, all other things being equal, the higher the tax rate, the more likely profits will be reinvested in the company producing said profits because greater investment can be made in that company at a lower after tax cost. (eg. at a tax rate of 10%, $1 of reinvestment costs the owner $.90 in after tax money but at a tax rate of 50%, $1 of reinvestment costs only $.50 in after tax money.)

also, when you consider the current tax rates and consider the greater job/economic growth that has happened at higher tax rates i think the tax rates would have to be very much higher then they are now for these business owners to "decide not to generate those profits in the first place as the work/reward ratio is no longer in their favor". therefore there is lots of room to raise the tax rates before your dire prediction would occur and in the mean time my example could easily be happening.

o and btw i was, in response to an earlier post, providing an example of how a tax increase could increase job/economic growth. it doesnt have to work for all tax rates to provide said increase for some of them.

[FreeAtLast]

My daughter just took a job with the Federal Government so I have to say with her as an addition it is just the right size.

[samclem]

It's a rare ability indeed to imagine a tax increase that simultaneously removes money from private businesses, reduces the efficiency of capital use, but somehow makes businesses grow despite (because of?) these handicaps.

"Children, I have just ten pounds of seed corn for use next year, all that is left of our small harvest. Our land is poor. Yes, I know of Yadrow's bountiful land where I might grow much corn from these meager seeds, having a plentiful haul to feed us even after paying him rent. How lucky are we to have the tax man instead, for he would take half our seeds if I dare plant them elsewhere. My decision is made! I'll plant the seeds in our own rocky dust and await the meager harvest. Likewise, Yadrow benefits not from our seed nor our labor. This policy is wise, surely, though see the wisdom I do not."

And thus the nation grew poorer.

[nphx]

[QUOTE=ziggy29;1088227]Maybe we need to look at what Germany is doing? QUOTE]

I.Q. Test Scores by Country

would suggest that lovers of Germany or Denmark may suggest that these top 10 countries iq wise versus a dilluting #32 rank for the USA...

[samclem]

[QUOTE=nphx;1089004]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ziggy29 Maybe we need to look at what Germany is doing? QUOTE] I.Q. Test Scores by Country would suggest that lovers of Germany or Denmark may suggest that these top 10 countries iq wise versus a dilluting #32 rank for the USA...

Leaving aside the difficulties of normalizing a cross-cultural IQ test, I wonder if anyone is going to be swayed by a by-mail test administered to self-selected samples. And the sample sizes: How was it possible to find the right 2 people to represent the intelligence of all Russians?

[Hamlet]

This thing is saying that the average IQ in the US is 138?

I'm pretty sure that that is at least 30 points too high.

Isn't 100 generally considered the average score?


[QUOTE=samclem;1089041]

Quote:

Originally Posted by nphx Leaving aside the difficulties of normalizing a cross-cultural IQ test, I wonder if anyone is going to be swayed by a by-mail test administered to self-selected samples. And the sample sizes: How was it possible to find the right 2 people to represent the intelligence of all Russians?

[Midpack]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jdw_fire that isnt reality. 10 years ago we were coming off a year where the fed government had run a surplus and there was talk that soon, the entire national debt would be owned by the SS trust fund. the federal government's finances looked pretty good thus giving the impression there wasnt anything unsure about SS or medicare. why would anyone retiring then (and for some years after then) not expect to receive them both in full?

Soc Sec first got into trouble almost 40 years ago. Though effective steps have been taken to shore up Soc Sec (at a cost to payers), most everyone knows the fixes would not be permanent as the demographic challenges have been known as long. Soc Sec has been amended many, many times, some to add/improve benefits and others to extend solvency Social Security (United States) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. The demographic challenges have been known for way more than 10 years, and they're the fundamental challenge that everyone was or should have been aware of IMO. And though it's certainly used often enough, the use of the term 'trust fund' is questionable.

Quote:

Throughout the 1950s and 1960s, during the phase-in period of Social Security, Congress was able to grant generous benefit increases because the system had perpetual short-run surpluses. Congressional amendments to Social Security took place in even numbered years (election years) because the bills were politically popular, but by the late 1970s, this era was over. For the next three decades, projections of Social Security's finances would show large, long-term deficits, and in the early 1980s, the program flirted with immediate insolvency. From this point on, amendments to Social Security would take place in odd numbered years (years that were not election years) because Social Security reform now meant tax increases and benefit reductions. Social Security became known as the "Third Rail of American Politics." Touching it meant political death. Several effects came together in the years following the 1972 amendments which rapidly changed the outlook on Social Security's long-term financial picture from positive to problematic. By the 1970s, the phase-in period, during which workers were paying taxes but few were collecting benefits, was largely over, and the ratio of elderly population to the working population was increasing. These developments brought questions about the capacity of the long term financial structure based on a pay-as-you-go program.

[explanade]

Well it is a fact that SSI proceeds were diverted to pay for other programs, which would have had shortfalls otherwise, because of the tax cuts.

[jdw_fire]

Quote:

Originally Posted by samclem It's a rare ability indeed to imagine a tax increase that simultaneously removes money from private businesses, reduces the efficiency of capital use, but somehow makes businesses grow despite (because of?) these handicaps.

thank you for the complement, the rare ability seems to be being able to think outside the box and keeping an open mind.

i think you are missing the point that actually may make this work which is that because of the higher tax rates the business owner (instead of taking the profit and paying taxes on it) decides to reinvest some or all of the profit from his/her business back into his/her profitable business. there is a large incentive for him/her to do this reinvesting in his/her own business because s/he can in essence get the federal government to subsidize that investment by making it tax deductable. the higher tax rates would actually make more of the possible business equipment upgrades and/or expansions cost effective since the business owner wouldnt have to pay full price (due to the federal government subsidy via taxes). remember, anything the government subsidizes it gets more of, so higher tax rates should really encourge investment in small businesses.

it is interesting though that your response only contains general platitudes of the "lower taxes is better" crowd but no specifics about where my example (specifically) is wrong. all the "refutations" presented have to assume that the business i am talking about is not doing well, or that investment in it wouldnt grow it or that investment elsewhere would be more profitable. well if these are the case then it would make even less sense to reinvest in it if the tax rates are low, and that refutes the agrument that lower tax rates will stimulate the small business owner and provide him/her incentive to invest in his/her own company.

Quote:

Originally Posted by samclem "Children, I have just ten pounds of seed corn for use next year, all that is left of our small harvest. Our land is poor. Yes, I know of Yadrow's bountiful land where I might grow much corn from these meager seeds, having a plentiful haul to feed us even after paying him rent. How lucky are we to have the tax man instead, for he would take half our seeds if I dare plant them elsewhere. My decision is made! I'll plant the seeds in our own rocky dust and await the meager harvest. Likewise, Yadrow benefits not from our seed nor our labor. This policy is wise, surely, though see the wisdom I do not." And thus the nation grew poorer.

cute story but totally doesnt fit my example. again with the assumption that the business isnt doing well. the whole point of many stimulus packages it to encourge the start up and investment in small businesses. higher tax rates will do that, as i have shown. and the higher tax rates have the added advantage of helping to balance the federal budget.

[samclem]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jdw_fire i think you are missing the point that actually may make this work

I think you are missing the point that capital produces the most growth (jobs, wealth, etc) when it is put to the best use. "Best Use" may or may not be in the small business that produces it. If your tax scheme artificially reduces the efficiency of these capital flows (that is, it impedes them) by favoring one business (the business that produced it) over other businesses (that the market shows are expected to produce more grwth-per-dollar-invested), then the tax doesn't help businesses overall.
You claim to have an open mind, but you seem to be reading right past my main point. You've responded "around" my fundamental "issue" with your idea three times now without addressing it. Step back from the case of a single business which might be favored by a particular tax policy and look at the universe of all businesses. Then ask: How does it help the economy when we discourage the flow of capital to the businesses expected to produce the most growth-per-dollar-of-new-investment? Obvious answer: It does not help the economy, it hurts it.

[Purron]

I know this may be every kind of wrong, but the older I get the less I care. Perhaps I'm "losing my religion" (nothing to do with religion - just letting go). I should have been a musician instead of an accountant/regulator/banker/whatever. Music has always been the way for me. Too bad I've never had talent as a creater of music. Tried in my youth.

‪R.E.M. - Losing My Religion (Video)‬‏ - YouTube

[ERD50]

--- delete, sorry cross posted as I tried to edit...

So looking at my later post, maybe one could make the case that if it was known that there would be some fixed number of years at a higher tax rate, followed by years at a lower tax rate - that could spur investment. They could write off at the higher rate, reap the rewards at the lower rate. Same strategy many individuals use with a ROTH IRA.

But it falls apart with consistent high rates, no?


-ERD50

[ERD50]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jdw_fire ... i think you are missing the point that actually may make this work which is that because of the higher tax rates the business owner (instead of taking the profit and paying taxes on it) decides to reinvest some or all of the profit from his/her business back into his/her profitable business. there is a large incentive for him/her to do this reinvesting in his/her own business because s/he can in essence get the federal government to subsidize that investment by making it tax deductable. the higher tax rates would actually make more of the possible business equipment upgrades and/or expansions cost effective since the business owner wouldnt have to pay full price (due to the federal government subsidy via taxes). remember, anything the government subsidizes it gets more of, so higher tax rates should really encourge investment in small businesses. ...

Seems to me that this is a wash. OK, so he can invest (creating an expense) to offset gains and the higher taxes. Fine. But what's the point? To create gains that are taxed at that same higher rate as what was avoided?

Let's put numbers to it - Say a person has a $1M taxable gain. Let's look at it with 50% effective tax rates versus 25% effective tax rates:

@ 50% rates, the $1M is tax is $500K and Take Home is $500K
@ 25% rates, the $1M is tax is $250K and Take Home is $750K

So consider if they invest instead of take the profit, and assume they get a nice 50% return on their investment the next year (or over a number of years), so they have 1.5M taxable gain -

@ 50% rates, the $1.5M is tax is $750K and Take Home is $750K
@ 25% rates, the $1.5M is tax is $375K and Take Home is $1125K

In all cases the take home is greater at lower tax rates. And the delta due to investing is 1.5x greater ($375K vs $250K) at the lower tax rate, which would seem to motivate investment.

Did I go wrong somewhere? (Yes, it's not a wash, lower rates encourage investment.)

-ERD50

[jdw_fire]

Quote:

Originally Posted by samclem I think you are missing the point that capital produces the most growth (jobs, wealth, etc) when it is put to the best use. "Best Use" may or may not be in the small business that produces it. If your tax scheme artificially reduces the efficiency of these capital flows (that is, it impedes them) by favoring one business (the business that produced it) over other businesses (that the market shows are expected to produce more grwth-per-dollar-invested), then the tax doesn't help businesses overall. You claim to have an open mind, but you seem to be reading right past my main point. You've responded "around" my fundamental "issue" with your idea three times now without addressing it. Step back from the case of a single business which might be favored by a particular tax policy and look at the universe of all businesses. Then ask: How does it help the economy when we discourage the flow of capital to the businesses expected to produce the most growth-per-dollar-of-new-investment? Obvious answer: It does not help the economy, it hurts it.

well lets look at what is happening now. we have the lowest tax rates in decades yet very little growth is going on. it can be argued that the growth that is taking place is only a result of the massive amount of money creation being done by the fed. a relative few are growing their wealth but the vast majority of americans are getting poorer. could all this be because there isnt any real investment in business going on now, but instead the few people at the top are just lining their pockets with cash while the getting is good? at least my "tax scheme", as you put it, will get some investment in business going, albeit probably more investment in small, privately owned businesses. and BTW it wouldnt necessarily stop investment in businesses not your own. i never said that the CG tax would be changed. however if there is a goal of improving the wealth of many people rather than just a few then i think that my "tax scheme" holds merit. i see your point that overall, in an ideal world (but what is happening now isnt working ideally as i mentioned earlier), maybe more total wealth will be created if there are no capital restrictions but that wealth will be (is being) more and more concentrated in fewer and fewer hands and i dont think that is good for america. i have heard so many speeches and read so much on how the small business is sooo important to the health of the american economy. well my "tax scheme" encourges (strongly) the investment in small, privately owned businesses, while yours just makes the rich, richer. i am looking to have a very healthy america not just a few super rich americans.

and then how bout you deal with the other problem we are currently facing and that is funding our government, these topics are interrelated. as you know our government has run up a huge debt and it continues to grow. i am sure that your answer to that is to just cut spending (as that would be the most productive way to keep capital unrestricted) but you and i both know that isnt gonna happen. this country has decided to spend money collectively on certian things and in doing such we need to pay for said things therefore taxes are required. and even with the massive debt and current deficits we, as a country, need to spend much more to repair/rebuild our country's many infrastructures. so how do we pay for that? if we dont change the tax rates, at least at the high end, we will never be able to pay for this. and then, once the super rich have finished lining their pockets what is to stop them from just leaving and watching from afar as america crumbles. given all that is on our plate i think you need to consider them all together.

one other thing to consider is that if you keep taking from the poorer people (to include what most people call the middle class) you may very well get a revolt and just what do you think that will do to your flow of capital?

anyway, back to my example, currently not much growth (economic or job) is happening by big business (and hasnt for a while) even though you have your low tax rates. so since that doesnt seem to be working how bout trying to stimulate small businesses with my "tax scheme", which did seem to work in the late 90s and earlier. i know i know, your gonna say that there isnt any evidence that the higher tax rates in the past was the cause of the growth (no evidence that it wasnt either) but at least they didnt stop the growth and frankly we need the higher taxes anyway to pay out debts.

[jdw_fire]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ERD50 Seems to me that this is a wash. OK, so he can invest (creating an expense) to offset gains and the higher taxes. Fine. But what's the point? To create gains that are taxed at that same higher rate as what was avoided? Let's put numbers to it - Say a person has a $1M taxable gain. Let's look at it with 50% effective tax rates versus 25% effective tax rates: @ 50% rates, the $1M is tax is $500K and Take Home is $500K @ 25% rates, the $1M is tax is $250K and Take Home is $750K So consider if they invest instead of take the profit, and assume they get a nice 50% return on their investment the next year (or over a number of years), so they have 1.5M taxable gain - @ 50% rates, the $1.5M is tax is $750K and Take Home is $750K @ 25% rates, the $1.5M is tax is $375K and Take Home is $1125K In all cases the take home is greater at lower tax rates. And the delta due to investing is 1.5x greater ($375K vs $250K) at the lower tax rate, which would seem to motivate investment. Did I go wrong somewhere? (Yes, it's not a wash, lower rates encourage investment.) -ERD50

Quote:

Originally Posted by ERD50 --- delete, sorry cross posted as I tried to edit... So looking at my later post, maybe one could make the case that if it was known that there would be some fixed number of years at a higher tax rate, followed by years at a lower tax rate - that could spur investment. They could write off at the higher rate, reap the rewards at the lower rate. Same strategy many individuals use with a ROTH IRA. But it falls apart with consistent high rates, no? -ERD50

absolutely not if CG are still taxed at a lower rate, and maybe not even if they arent (eg. if the business owner wants to work fewer hours per day/week/month/yr but not take a pay cut. see earlier post)

[samclem]

Okay, now I understand what your higher taxes are supposed to achieve. We could have gotten here a lot quicker if you'd dropped the "good for the economy" rationale a few posts back.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jdw_fire well lets look at what is happening now. we have the lowest tax rates in decades yet very little growth is going on.

.Millions of different variable in play, very difficult to take one and say it is causative without solid regression analysis. But to imply higher tax rates bring economic growth is truly , umm, "out of the box" as you say.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jdw_fire a relative few are growing their wealth but the vast majority of americans are getting poorer. . . . however if there is a goal of improving the wealth of many people rather than just a few. . . . . . . wealth will be (is being) more and more concentrated in fewer and fewer hands . . . just makes the rich, richer. i am looking to have a very healthy america not just a few super rich americans.

. . . Followed by more paragraphs on the need for more taxes on the "super rich . . .who are lining their pockets" etc.

If you want to make the case, on its own merits, for greater wealth redistribution from higher-income people to lower income people, that is fine. Or if you want to make the case that we should take money from the prosperity-producing private sector and put it into the public sector. Just make the case for these transfers honestly and don't think anyone is going to believe it is "good for the economy" without some real support.

Quote:

frankly we need the higher taxes anyway to pay out debts.

"frankly," we may or may not need higher tax rates. Many believe we need a lot less spending and possibly higher tax revenues.

[cb7010]

It is interesting to me just looking at the pie charts above that only a fraction of our current federal government budget are on items that the founding fathers and constitutuion enumerated for the federal government to undertake. Thus, if we actually put the government back to performing only those functions, we'd have huge surplusses and have the debt paid off in a jiffy.

Doesn't mean I am not compassionate for pointing this out; but, Social Security, Medicare, and Welfare we not functions the constitution saw the federal government undertaking. And, although defense was, I am pretty sure they didn't envision the type of foreign adventurism we are engaged in now.

[explanade]

World was a lot different when the Constitution was written.

Founding fathers didn't see people living into their 70s or 80s or health care costs being crazy.

Conservatives have had 80 years to challenge the constitutionality of SS and 50 years to challenge the constitutionality of Medicare. They have a very conservative Supreme Court and federal judiciary now, full of "strict constructionists."

If they can abrogate these programs through the courts, now is the time to do it.

[ERD50]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jdw_fire absolutely not if CG are still taxed at a lower rate,

Can you edit my example numbers to show this? I'm not following you.

Quote:

and maybe not even if they arent (eg. if the business owner wants to work fewer hours per day/week/month/yr but not take a pay cut. see earlier post)

Can you point it out? Your long paragraphs w/o capitalization make it tough to scan. Offhand though, it sounds pretty 'fabricated'.

Quote:

Originally Posted by explanade World was a lot different when the Constitution was written. Founding fathers didn't see people living into their 70s or 80s ...

wiki says (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founding_Fathers_of_the_United_States )

Quote:

Death age of the Founding Fathers. For their era, the 1787 delegates (like the 1776 signers) were average in terms of life spans.[9] Their average age at death was about 67. The first to die was Houston in 1788; the last was Madison in 1836. Secretary Charles Thomson lived to the age of 94. Johnson died at 92. John Adams lived to the age of 90. A few—Franklin, Jefferson, Madison, Williamson, and Wythe—lived into their eighties. Either 15 or 16 (depending on Fitzsimons's exact age) died in their seventies,

-ERD50

[explanade]

What was the average life span back then?

And the average/median life span today?