Does the money you earn belong to you or the state?

[saveliberty]

What part of the federal deficit gets you all confused? Your too new to know, but I have no party affiliation. Was planning on voting for Hillary after Obama ruined that one. Voted Bob Barr instead. How do you know what I was saying five years ago? Grasping at straws, the sign of a losing argument. lol

 

[Synthaholic]

eagleseven, flat-taxes are macroeconomically inept,

That's only if you assume that the poor can grow economies faster than the rich...a Keynesian fallacy.

moreover the effective burden of tax is not flat, just the rate. i see sales tax and point of sales VAT as equally inept, and not likely a constitutional recourse of congress in the US. these are shit policies which only romania would combine. they do so out of cluelessness. the US tax system is one of the best laid in the world, and offers greater potential to support business while funding the largess than do other systems in place elsewhere.

I disagree. The US Tax system is a haphazard collection of idiotic rules and endless loopholes thrown together by a hundred Congresses all jockeying to buy the votes of their respective generation.

It is proof that you can make a flawed system functional by pouring enough money into it.

---

Do you know any tax accountants who sing the praises of our tax system? Do you know anyone who loves to do their taxes?

Yes - all of them! It's what keeps them employed. If everyone could do their taxes easily by themselves, the majority of CPAs would be out of work.

The accounting industry is a very large and powerful lobby.

 

[JBeukema]

they discourage trade, commerce and consumption, the basis of our economy. they crudely protect industry, rendering them less competitive without protection. the internalized economy is a pipe dream which we've long outgrown.

Earth's economy is internalized. The idea that you must always have something external to interact with in order to drive the economy is a fallacy.

 

[antagon]

i dont argue necessity with that point, beukema. i argue prosperity.

 

[JBeukema]

Clarify.

What resources do we need aside from oil that we don't have? We certainly don't need to import poisonous toys, leaded everything, and crap steel?

What do we gain by going from a powerhouse of manufacturing to nothing more than consumers borrowing money from China to buy oil from OPEC to grease the tanks to invade fuck knows who next while praying noone cuts us off and lets us starve?

 

[2Parties]

What do we gain by putting up political and literal walls to peaceful trade?

Unfair Free Trade | Economic Thought

 

[JBeukema]

I don't believe in 'free trade'

 

[2Parties]

I know you don't. The piece is in response to an article attacking free trade.

 

[saveliberty]

What do we gain by putting up political and literal walls to peaceful trade?

Unfair Free Trade | Economic Thought

I think the word your looking for is jobs.

 

[2Parties]

Why are "jobs" and work inherently good?

The government could create 10 million jobs and a bunch of work tomorrow for people to dig holes in the desert. The government could create transportation jobs by banning Fed Ex and UPS from shipping packages and making people walk goods across the country.

 

[JBeukema]

What do we gain by putting up political and literal walls to peaceful trade?

Unfair Free Trade | Economic Thought

I think the word your looking for is jobs.

'Economic Security?'

 

[JBeukema]

What do we gain by putting up political and literal walls to peaceful trade?

Unfair Free Trade | Economic Thought

I think the word your looking for is jobs.

'Economic Security?'
In some cases, 'National Security'

 

[antagon]

Clarify.

What resources do we need aside from oil that we don't have? We certainly don't need to import poisonous toys, leaded everything, and crap steel?

you've digressed to the idea of needing things, rather than the bigger system whereby prosperity comes from trade and industry. so far, we've gone as far as better harnessing the proceeds of this trade for social benefit both for direct participants and society overall. i'm talking about labor laws and health/human svcs. these are constraints on production in their ultimate effect. rather than having a free labor market and a constrained commerce market like the 19th century, we have a constrained labor market with a freer commerce market. we've dismantled many protections which took aim at consumption, and now consumption has flourished in what are considered modern, consumer economies. they're all coincidental with developed economic bases, because of these policies.

retreating to revisiting constraint on trade is not a solution. it will reduce the prosperity which the trade and consumption basis of the economy has afforded our society. this is why i feel more innovative policy should be employed rather than the crudest of protections which fail to serve the society, but which merely benefit industrial relics which become inefficient and reliant on this subsidy in the long term. the key dividend i think we're after is an increase in domestic labor market consumption instead of disloyal offshoring for cheaper, merchantilist labor forces. why not compete directly and extend expensibility for wages on domestic workers? up to a %, a cap, or on an hourly basis. i prefer hourly because it targets the specific demographic in the labor market which is begging for the support.

no constraint on consumption -- no burning the candle at both ends -- just a solution to the idea that the cheapest labor source for goods destined for our market is abroad.

 

[Old Rocks]

or does the ownership pass to the state somewhere at some income level?

Folks keep on saying that reducing tax rates from 35 to 30 is a "giveaway" on high incomes. Since the person earned it in some fashion, how does that 5% belong to the state so that they could "give it away?"

How much does each of us owe to the governments that create the wonderful conditions that we live in today? The inrastucture that provides water that you can drink safely out of the tap is not free. The roads that can take you anywhere in this nation did not grow there by themselves. The fighter jets that protect our nation are spendy machines.

The social structure, infrastructure, and regulations that create the oppertunities for an
American to become very wealthy cost money. So why should you not pay for what has allowed the oppertunity? And damned few pay 35%. Even Warren Buffet states that most middle class pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes than do the wealthy.

When someone in the middle class pays taxes, it represents an inconveniance. When the working poor pay taxes, it is less food, shelter, or going without medicine. When the wealthy pay taxes, it is less extreme luxuries that they can have. They might have to do with a Bentley instead of a Rolls.

Put all the taxes back to where they were under Clinton. After all, we had the longest sustained boom in our nations history with that tax structure. And then there are the building times of the '50s. Look up what the tax rates for the wealthy were then.

 

[JBeukema]

retreating to revisiting constraint on trade is not a solution. it will reduce the prosperity which the trade and consumption basis of the economy has afforded our society.

I disagree with the premise that outsourcing production and labour and making us dependent on enemy powers is any route to prosperity.

the key dividend i think we're after is an increase in domestic labor market consumption

And how do you propose we trigger such a thing?

why not compete directly and extend expensibility for wages on domestic workers?

Clarify. You mean why not let AMericans be paid $5/day, too?

 

[JBeukema]

How much does each of us owe to the governments that create the wonderful conditions that we live in today?

This is a false premise. We don't owe the government anything. Rather we have a moral and social responsibility to contribute as we can to our collective efforts, such as funding the military and infrastructure. It goes without saying that we should also have equal say in what projects are to be undertaken. I, for one, loathe the fact that our city manager (who lives outside the city and is not elected) and the city council seem to operate wholly independently of the public will and that Congress seems to use the financial resources of their backers to prevent honest candidates from running (such as refusing to see third party candidates in the national debates).

Mussolini called such things fascism.

When someone in the middle class pays taxes, it represents an inconveniance. When the working poor pay taxes, it is less food, shelter, or going without medicine. When the wealthy pay taxes, it is less extreme luxuries that they can have. They might have to do with a Bentley instead of a Rolls.

Well said.

 

[Rozman]

I submit that sales ( buyer's) tax is NOT regressive.
Those who earn less, spend less. Therefore those on the lower rungs of the economic ladder pay LESS in sales tax. So actually those who earn more and spend more pay a proportionate share of sales taxes.

It is regressive. Poor people spend it all, and get taxed on it all. While rich people invest and don't get taxed on earnings for decades. Rich people also save, earning interest. Rich people also give money away, getting tax deductions. Rich people also have more qualified accountants and more tax deductions.

Trust me, Warren Buffet says that he pays less federal income tax than his own secretary.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cu5B-2LoC4s[/ame]

Taxes, Warren Buffett, and Paying My Fair Share - NYTimes.com

In case you didn't know it he is the second wealthiest human alive.

Trust me, Warren Buffet says that he pays less federal income tax than his own secretary.
There is NO way he pays less in taxes....His percentage is probably less.The Secretary may pay 28% - 30%....and Buffet maybe 5%

There's a tremendous difference in the secretaries tax bill based on 60k salary or 5% on billions....Who pays more in the end?

 

[antagon]

retreating to revisiting constraint on trade is not a solution. it will reduce the prosperity which the trade and consumption basis of the economy has afforded our society.

I disagree with the premise that outsourcing production and labour and making us dependent on enemy powers is any route to prosperity.

this is not the premise. the premise is that we are a consumption based economy and that waging tariffs or other crude protections which assault consumption and commerce will compromise prosperity commensurately. i go on to point out that an innovative approach more directly addresses the externality...

the key dividend i think we're after is an increase in domestic labor market consumption

And how do you propose we trigger such a thing?

i go on to point out that an innovative approach more directly addresses the externality...

why not compete directly and extend expensibility for wages on domestic workers?

Clarify. You mean why not let AMericans be paid $5/day, too?

no. that's why i went through that whole paramble about production constraints. i stated the mechanism: "extend expensibility for wages on domestic workers" that is to say allow businesses to write of some of their labor cost. i suggested hourly.

here is more from another thread:

antagonian protectionism entails broad subsidy of $2-3 dollars/hour on hourly wages up to a cap, for example. this will empower job market demand, and in turn labor market demand, which would allow policy-level austerity to entitlements and a transition of the largess to productivity support rather than subsistence

i mean entitlements by 'subsistence'. this is part of a pack of policies to fix the problem of mercantilist leeches without fucking up the economy the way i see tariffs would.

 

[loosecannon]

Clarify.

What resources do we need aside from oil that we don't have? We certainly don't need to import poisonous toys, leaded everything, and crap steel?

you've digressed to the idea of needing things, rather than the bigger system whereby prosperity comes from trade and industry. so far, we've gone as far as better harnessing the proceeds of this trade for social benefit both for direct participants and society overall. i'm talking about labor laws and health/human svcs. these are constraints on production in their ultimate effect. rather than having a free labor market and a constrained commerce market like the 19th century, we have a constrained labor market with a freer commerce market. we've dismantled many protections which took aim at consumption, and now consumption has flourished in what are considered modern, consumer economies. they're all coincidental with developed economic bases, because of these policies.

retreating to revisiting constraint on trade is not a solution. it will reduce the prosperity which the trade and consumption basis of the economy has afforded our society. this is why i feel more innovative policy should be employed rather than the crudest of protections which fail to serve the society, but which merely benefit industrial relics which become inefficient and reliant on this subsidy in the long term. the key dividend i think we're after is an increase in domestic labor market consumption instead of disloyal offshoring for cheaper, merchantilist labor forces. why not compete directly and extend expensibility for wages on domestic workers? up to a %, a cap, or on an hourly basis. i prefer hourly because it targets the specific demographic in the labor market which is begging for the support.

no constraint on consumption -- no burning the candle at both ends -- just a solution to the idea that the cheapest labor source for goods destined for our market is abroad.

a consumer economy has never worked all that well. For one thing it was reserved only for the wealthiest nations. And a production economy is old school obsolete. What we need is an economy that is less dependent on consumption and production and more focused on quality of results, iow much better stuff and much more benefit from getting it, using it, being served by it.

We need an efficient economy. Not a wasteful, maximum throughput of raw materials economy.

The world is entering a squeeze as population expands and resources are being diverted away from developed nations toward developing nations. It may be time to liberate Americans from the need to own a car, or each and every tool in existence, or a redundancy of products barely used but still procured for every resident.

In some ways this requires a more robust social network than we have. More public services but at a huge savings on the personal level. More infrastructure, but at a huge net savings for all. A different kind of freedom, but a new set of freedoms all the same.

The service sector is already 70% of our economy, but much of it is parasitic services. We need a smarter service economy, or some new kind of economic base.

Face it, our share of the finite pie is shrinking. I am sure we can both agree on that 100%!

In any case we are gonna have fewer raw materials at our disposal, and whatever economy we have will either be preemptive in recognizing that or it will suffer as a result.

 

[loosecannon]

I submit that sales ( buyer's) tax is NOT regressive.
Those who earn less, spend less. Therefore those on the lower rungs of the economic ladder pay LESS in sales tax. So actually those who earn more and spend more pay a proportionate share of sales taxes.

It is regressive. Poor people spend it all, and get taxed on it all. While rich people invest and don't get taxed on earnings for decades. Rich people also save, earning interest. Rich people also give money away, getting tax deductions. Rich people also have more qualified accountants and more tax deductions.

Trust me, Warren Buffet says that he pays less federal income tax than his own secretary.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cu5B-2LoC4s[/ame]

Taxes, Warren Buffett, and Paying My Fair Share - NYTimes.com

In case you didn't know it he is the second wealthiest human alive.

Trust me, Warren Buffet says that he pays less federal income tax than his own secretary.
There is NO way he pays less in taxes....His percentage is probably less.The Secretary may pay 28% - 30%....and Buffet maybe 5%

There's a tremendous difference in the secretaries tax bill based on 60k salary or 5% on billions....Who pays more in the end?

No you are wrong, he pays less total federal tax than his secretary, read the link. And Google only pays 2.4% tax on it's profits from overseas business because it uses a legal mechanism called the Double Irish to avoid paying taxes.

Google Pays Only 2.4 % Tax Rate, Hoards Profits in Cayman Islands | ChattahBox News Blog

You can't make this shit up, the rich are not paying any taxes at all. Exxon paid 0% tax in 2009. Literally 0%. NONE! Not a penny.