lets-retire
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2004
- Messages
- 1,798
Wow, very impressive spawn of my simple news report on the tax bill. Way to go guys!
Ha
And the discussion is still mostly civil.
Wow, very impressive spawn of my simple news report on the tax bill. Way to go guys!
Ha
I had to go back and read the first post. Totally forgot how this started. Good work!Wow, very impressive spawn of my simple news report on the tax bill. Way to go guys!
Ha
Okay, I should have been more careful with the wording. People disagree on how much our taxes should be tilted and will provide various pros and cons for their positions. I think lines like "A poor person never gave me a job" are misleading and therefore don't count as valid arguments. I was trying to say that $100,000 in the hands of 100 middle income people will generate just as many jobs or just as much productivity growth as the $100,000 dollars in the hands of one high income person.
Looking at the numbers the low estimate looks like requires 600K in tax cuts on middle class folks and $750K for upper income people for each new job and the high estimate requires something like 150-200K in tax cuts per new job.According to CNN, the two-year cost of the tax cuts for high earners will be about $75 billion, while the estimated cost of the cuts for incomes below $250,000 is about $310 billion, or four times larger. In other words, in the "high estimate" world, a $300 billion stimulus composed only of tax cuts on income above $250,000 would reduce unemployment by 40 basis points, while one of a similar size composed entirely of tax cuts on income below that level would lower it by about 50 basis points. That isn't nothing, but it isn't a particularly large difference in effectiveness, either.
I believe I did understand your intention in making the analogy (though I don't agree with you at all).
Yes, that's what I understand you to be saying. Here is what I'm saying: there's miles of difference between what may be and what is. I am willing to concede that income redistribution which is intended to have good effects may actually, as it turns out, have bad effects. I am willing to concede that when income redistribution has had a good outcome, that as good, or an even better outcome may have been obtained without redistribution. But showing that a thing is conceptually possible does not show that it's true. The case that you present us is just a bunch of maybes.All I'm saying is that some well intentioned social services can seem like a very good thing in isolation, but when you look at the big picture and the long term effect, maybe they are actually doing harm over-all?
Here are a few facts about those insignificant small business owners; many of whom would be negatively impacted by higher taxes, from the US Department of Commerce to chew on... (#4 is especially interesting with unemployment hovering around 10%)
I can see that if taxes go up on managers but nobody else, we would have to pay managers more pre-tax to keep the same number.I'm not sure you made that point at all (though this thread is getting long, I may have missed it).
You did make the point that those 100 middle income people may well create as much demand for jobs as 1 rich person. I can accept that as a hypothetical (might even be more). But remember, those homeowners aren't going to separately deal with every laborer and co-ordinate the work. That takes a businessperson/manager, and they likely make a better buck to take on that work. If they get less compensation, expect fewer of them (or they marginally work less hours, and take on less jobs as it is marginally worth less to do so).
But I don't get this. Businesses will not stop hiring managers. Similarly, if we tax plumbers more we may have to pay them more to get them to come to work. I don't see how raising taxes on managers does more damage than raising taxes on plumbers.With fewer of those managers available, you are going to have to compete harder for their business (and the ones that stay in the business are the ones who couldn't find higher paying work - probably not the best/brightest). Prices go up for these services, and some people decide to do without - whoops, fewer jobs for those workers now!
I'm arguing against the "who wrote the check" fallacy. When the gov't taxes gasoline, the check for taxes literally comes from the refiner, but nobody believes that the refiner isn't able to pass it along to someone else. The real economic impact is different from who writes the check. The fact that a rich person may sign my paycheck doesn't mean that the rich person is somehow the only critical player in this multi-person economic arrangement.The paycheck is literally coming from the businessperson, not the homeowner (it is indirectly). Hence the saying. Again, it takes two to tango.
[ Indy-The claim is that the lost economic activity when you raise taxes on high income people is greater than the lost activity when you raise taxes on middle class people. That's the thing that I've never seen validated.]
Well, I don't think I ever claimed that, and it might or might not be true. I'm simply responding to the claims that taxing the rich will not affect them at all. I don't think that is right either. There may very well be a multiplier effect. We need someway to understand the sum total of the relative effects.
But I'll re-repeat myself - I am thinking that raising taxes on everyone to the point that we would balance the budget and make a dent in the debt would get enough voters attention to actually start changing policy approaches. Announce a 10 year phase in to give people time to think about what it means. Of course, politicians won't do this, they hope to kick the can down the street. One of these days I'm afraid they are going to find an angry mob at the end of that street, picking up the can and looking to do some damage.
No, I don't think a head tax is workable. But I like to throw it out there as sort of a mental "reset button" when we talk about flat versus progressive. A head tax could be considered 'fair' by some, so it's worthy of discussion, right?
I'm in favor of progressive taxes. And tax simplification so that actually has some meaning. I just don't like the knee-jerk reaction that taxing the rich even more, while half the filers pay such low single-digit average FIT is a slam-dunk 'solution'.
-ERD50
Yes, that's what I understand you to be saying. Here is what I'm saying: there's miles of difference between what may be and what is. I am willing to concede that income redistribution which is intended to have good effects may actually, as it turns out, have bad effects. I am willing to concede that when income redistribution has had a good outcome, that as good, or an even better outcome may have been obtained without redistribution. But showing that a thing is conceptually possible does not show that it's true. The case that you present us is just a bunch of maybes.
I fully understand (at least I understand what I believe I understand )...
But Westerskies was making an argument that he did not get any extra benefits of society that would have helped him achieve his level of success... one of those was a statement that he paid 100% of his tuition. I just pointed out that even if he did so, going to a state university and paying 100% means taxpayers in that state paid for him to go also....
Wealth redistribution comes in many forms. It's not just the cash payments to the unemployed or the poor (welfare, medicaid) which seem to get all the attention.
Child tax credits/deductions for example. Children don't "pay" into the system for the government services they enjoy. Shouldn't parents pay extra rather than less?
In countries without big-government social safety nets the kids work in the fields or in factories. These kids help feed their families. Kids in America run up massive student loans while majoring in art history or (gasp) french literature.
Just a modest proposal..
I don't think that progressive taxes cause any harm to our economy just because they sometimes impact successful manager/owners. The before-tax rewards of those jobs are high enough to attract plenty of people even with progressive taxes.
Apparently we've been talking past one another. I'm not claiming that taxing the high income has no impact, I'm saying the impact isn't greater.
No, not at all. We're just trying to make sense of things.That doesn't seem so controversial does it? Or anything for people with different viewpoints to get upset about?
But I'll re-repeat myself - I am thinking that raising taxes on everyone to the point that we would balance the budget and make a dent in the debt would get enough voters attention to actually start changing policy approaches. Announce a 10 year phase in to give people time to think about what it means. Of course, politicians won't do this, they hope to kick the can down the street. One of these days I'm afraid they are going to find an angry mob at the end of that street, picking up the can and looking to do some damage.
...
I'm in favor of progressive taxes. And tax simplification so that actually has some meaning. I just don't like the knee-jerk reaction that taxing the rich even more, while half the filers pay such low single-digit average FIT is a slam-dunk 'solution'.
-ERD50
The students in London are disagreeing violently that their college costs will be tripled from about US$5000/yr to US$15000/yr and they are letting their opinion be heard. On 12/9/2010, Prince Charles' car was spotted on his way to a charity event, and was attacked by a student mob chanting "Off with their heads". A car window was smashed and a can of paint was splashed. A commentator said that it could have been worse, as many protesters carried gasoline and could have used that. What Charles has got to do with this tuition increase, I don't know, other than being in the wrong place at the wrong time....
That doesn't seem so controversial does it? Or anything for people with different viewpoints to get upset about? Let's just understand what we are doing, and do the best we can we can with what we have. It's basic common sense, who can disagree?
-ERD50
Eh? What do you have against French literature? Or are you against all literature?Kids in America run up massive student loans while majoring in art history or (gasp) french literature.
Which was kind of my point. If I don't receive the benefits offered by the taxpayer from going to a public school, then the argument that I have to pay higher taxes because I have benefited from the taxpayer subsidizing my education loses its effect. An argument can be made that instead of paying back the taxpayer, I should have to pay back whatever private industry subsidized my education, but that is a bit off topic.
With all due respect, many of us on the board here understand exactly how our society is working. Although everyone in the US is provided an education and multiple opportunities to make what they want out of life, there is a growing segment of our population that smugly thinks it knows better than the rest how to build the Utopian society it envisions for it's like-minded citizenry; all they need are unlimited funds and a lack of accountability to accomplish their lofty goals. For some reason, they can't quite seem to raise the funds necessary to fund all of their ever-expanding programs on their own, so they feel compelled to force their neighbors to pay a much larger share of the bill by wringing their hands and waving a banner of self-serving morality.
I do understand this- the Government never gave anyone something that it didn't take away from someone else first. The government doesn't create wealth, commerce does. Maybe the class warfare so ominously predicted in this thread should come from the top down, not the bottom up? We are several generations down the road with failed feel-good entitlement programs, our educational systems are failing, and our infrastructure is falling apart. Our government has expanded while the economic engine that generates the funds to pay for it has faltered. What we need is to reduce the size of the public sector, wean able-bodied adults away from the public trough, and demand accountability for what we already pay in taxes, not impose punitive taxes on those who already pay the vast majority of taxes in this country. Imagine how healthy we would be if we were able to put everyone on welfare/food stamps/ 99+ week unemployment, etc. who is physically able to work into a tax-generating private sector job? Shake your fist and express moral outrage at the very concept, but I believe it's the first step in making people accountable for themselves and not expect Uncle Sugar to provide for their day-to-day existence.
I also understand that it takes money to run our government, and provide essential services, and have no problems paying my fair share of taxes for this. I do have a problem when people tell me I am receiving more benefits from our government than others and therefore I need to write a bigger check each year for reparations.
Except I never made that argument (that you should pay more because you benefited from subsidized education)... and I don't think anybody else did... maybe you can find that a bring it to my attention...
My point was that anybody who says they got where they are today with only their hard work and nothing from anybody else is just wrong... that is what I was trying to point out...
What others were trying to say (and I am not anywhere near a fan of this argument) is that because of the US system, your hard work can pay off handsomely and THAT is why you should pay more taxes.... to support that system....
After 20 years, it's usually not about the money anymore...Kind of like the simplistic military retirement pay issue, where people see that they are working for half pay if they stay in the military passed 20 years.
After 20 years, it's usually not about the money anymore...
This just continues to ignore the laws of supply demand. It may attract 'plenty' but it will attract less at lower effective compensation. How can that not cause 'any harm'? We had 'plenty' of gasoline at $4.00/gallon, but it slowed the economy. I'm sorry, but it's hard to discuss this sensibly if one continues to ignore the effects of that.
Apparently. But it's tough since the bolded sections seem to contradict each other. And it's getting too long to go back through all the old posts to reconstruct, so how about you concisely restate what it is you are trying to say with regard to the tax proposals?
I'll restate mine: Spreading any tax increases across all taxpayers is likely to get them voting for more sensible government policies and reduced spending, since the spending affects them more directly. The 'rich' already pay a very high % of FIT, with the lower 50% of filers paying very little.
I won't take it at face value that the 'rich' have more influence on political policies, there are big voting blocks of non-rich with plenty of power. I'd give examples, but it would drive this further into political hot territory.
-ERD50
A more fundamental reason is that society winds down without homegrown children. If you don't believe this, just manage to live another 50 years or so and you will see.Personally, I think that the fundamental reason for the child tax credits is that they will more than make up for the money that the parents would pay if the credit wasn't available. After all, don't they want more people to fund the gov't coffers.
Excellent point. Get a quality set of language DVDs, software or audios. Master the accent. Go to France. Teach a little English, read your Flaubert and Verlaine, have a tremendous amount of fun, go to a few free lectures, get in on some pillow tutoring. Return home, much better qualified in French literature than the hapless US French major who was mostly taught by someone named Johnson and was bored stiff.And back to the education discussion... Let's not talk about how useful or practical the study of French literature is. I want to ask what the cost of that study should be. How much does it cost to purchase some old classics, and to hire a good professor, whose lectures can now be shared via video? As with any public endeavor, we should ask how we can achieve the same result by spending more wisely, and not just by throwing more money at the problem.
I tend to write awfully long posts, and then still get in trouble because I didn't write the extra words.
I should have said "I don't think progressive taxes do any more harm to the economy than flat taxes." Does that reconcile the contradiction?
The above is an economic discussion. You seem to be more interested in the political science perspective. You think that if we fully funded government spending with a flat tax we'd have better spending decisions. I agree.
I think it has been a very long time since there was any name calling here. It was fun, but it led to unfortunate thread closures, poster departures, etc., etc.Hey, are we agreeing too much? Is it time to throw in some name-calling and get this thread closed?
-ERD50
I think it has been a very long time since there was any name calling here. It was fun, but it led to unfortunate thread closures, poster departures, etc., etc.
Ha