What is a fair tax rate?

[NYcarbineer]

Let them move into a "poor house": no drugs, no extra rooms, no extra TVs, no beauty treatments, no tatoos.

Well... I'd say that's prison but... Pretty sure all of those are there.

If they cannot get a job and get out, then after a set amount of time, give them a "modest" place, and let them eat in a common kitchen (they can use Michelle Obama's school menus) to keep them healthy. No one should want to stay on "handouts".

*blink*blink*

And you would pay for that with... Taxes?

Here's my stance point blank.

You have to not tax the living wage, because frankly all you'll be doing is take money from them, and then give them more back in the form of goods/services in which to live. But now you are also paying the fee's for the bureaucracy of it.

It's flat out cheaper not to tax people in poverty. And that's the logical view pure math and economics.... Without any bullshit right dominant brain help your fellow man out you rich bastards getting in the way of it.

I agree.

A flat tax on anyone living above the poverty line.

To be revenue neutral that would amount to a big tax increase on middle/lower middle income Americans.

 

[logical4u]

To this day, east and west Germany are an object lesson in failed socialist economic theory.

Apparently you can show how socialism/communism/islam (system)/facism/liberalism has failed time and time again, and those that have been brainwashed will ignore all the facts/history and evidence, and claim "this time", it will be different.

Castro
Stalin
PolPot
Kim
Tsung

all promised "workers" they would be better off. What happened? Millions of people (workers too) were butchered to keep the new dictator/tyrant in power, while the economies went into the tank, people starved, health care suffered, and opportunity became a rare thing.

By all means, let's take the only nation that said the individual would take care of themselves if given a chance and improve life for those around them, by allowing them to keep what they earned, and turn it into another failed example.

 

[Shelzin]

Well... I'd say that's prison but... Pretty sure all of those are there.


*blink*blink*

And you would pay for that with... Taxes?

Here's my stance point blank.

You have to not tax the living wage, because frankly all you'll be doing is take money from them, and then give them more back in the form of goods/services in which to live. But now you are also paying the fee's for the bureaucracy of it.

It's flat out cheaper not to tax people in poverty. And that's the logical view pure math and economics.... Without any bullshit right dominant brain help your fellow man out you rich bastards getting in the way of it.

I agree.

A flat tax on anyone living above the poverty line.

To be revenue neutral that would amount to a big tax increase on middle/lower middle income Americans.

At current level spending levels... Yes.

How many damn times must it be explained to you that the main problem isn't anything more than over spending? Do you disagree with that? If you do for the love of god say so.

 

[Londoner]

How can corporate profits increase if consumer spending decreases?

By expanding debt based consumption. This is why household debt began to explode in the 80s when we all started receiving 3 credit card offers a week. As high paying manufacturing jobs were shipped to China, the USA made up for lost wages by expanding the credit economy. Morning in America was brought to you by American Express, Master Card, Visa and Subprimes. This is how we sustained the consumption that drove the domestic economy. Staring with Reagan - to make up for money that wasn't trickling down into solid American manufacturing jobs - American households went increasingly into debt until the overhang of consumer debt got so bad that our politicians resorted to endless trickery to keep the economy going.

The term "consumption economy" is Marxist drivel. All economies are the result of production and consumption. Without production, there can be no consumption. The former drives that later.

The term as Im using it comes from a Rightwing professor named Daniel Bell. Let me try to explain what he means.

In his book "The Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism" he recounts a very common story. During the postwar years when our global competitors were in a shambles, the USA was manufacturer to the world. We had a production-centered economy along with robust consumption. But we were definitely a nation of producers.

The problem with our postwar "production economy" was that owners and investors didn't want to see their returns undermined by first world labor costs. So . . . starting in the late 70s (and accellerating under Reagan/Clinton), manufacturing shifted to the developing world because, among other things, labor costs were much cheaper. Today, Walmart gets the lion's share of its production from communist China because freedom-hating nations can get away with paying their workers pennies a day.

When the USA ceded its manufacturing dominance to places like China (and the global south), its economy shifted more toward consumption. Let me try to be clear here: we traded manufacturing plants for shopping malls. Americans would now sell/consume stuff produced in other places.

That is, we shifted from buying stuff we produced (with high wages) to consuming stuff others made (by going into debt). Let me try to be clear here: since we no longer had the high wages that came with our postwar production economy, we increasingly had to borrow money in order to consume the stuff made in China. [Why did we increasingly turn to debt? Because we traded high paying manufacturing jobs for low paying retail/temp jobs w/o benefits - and most of the postwar programs designed to stimulate middle class demand were dismantled to make room for tax cuts to the suppliers] Who do you think loaned us the money to buy the silly Chinese goods? China. [Don't try to explain this to someone who gets the lion's share of their information from rightwing news sources because their pundits simply don't talk about where the capitalist gets his labor and raw material. Why? - because the same places that produce our goods so cheaply (e.g.,Mexico, China, Saudi Arabia) are places that talk radio demonizes in order mobilize their base. Hence the contradiction: the places and people over which talk radio agitates are, in fact, the places and people that American investors use for production and raw materials. This is why Reagan's Amnesty Bill was so funny. It gave Southern California corporations cheap labor, but it was also strategic fodder for talk radio which agitated the moronic GOP base RE "illegals" and the loss of English as a first language. It was a brilliant triangulation, and one that only an illiterate voting base would buy into]

Where do "higher wages" come from in this "consumption economy," magic?

It used to stem partly from labor unions, however flawed, and labor shortages (which drove up wages). But it also came from a number of "hit or miss" government programs designed to give middle class families things like cheaper college education (which not only got more of our population educated so they could contribute, but freed up more money for consumption). Reagan signaled an end to high wages by dismantling Labor Unions, undermining programs designed to give the middle class affordable education, and accelerating the globalization of production so that capital could flee to the cheapest labor markets. [It looks like you don't understand the tension between Labor and Capital, nor the compact made during the postwar years ensuring that more of the surplus profit was given to the worker through a variety of channels. The point of globalization was to make sure capital was not held hostage to any single labor market. If American workers wanted higher wages, production was shifted to the 3rd world, which would protect investor-returns. This is how the American high wage system was dismantled, and why there was a need to expand credit to American families]

That isn't what Reagan endorsed. It's just Marxist horseshit.

Not sure what you mean here. One of Reagan's primary achievements was to unburden capital from what he felt were artificially high labor costs which dis-incentivized investment. One of the reasons he passed the single largest Amnesty Bills in American history was to break union control of labor in Souther California. This dramatically lowered production costs and investment-returns across industries, from agriculture to construction and fast food.

Also, you seem to be using the term Marxist in an illiterate way that suggests you've been educated by [things like] rightwing punditry rather than studying actual texts. Marx did not believe in the "consumption economy" or "consumer culture". He thought that reducing humans to "workers" or "consumers" was alienating. I happen to disagree with him emphatically, but my disagreement doesn't stem from blind obedience to an ideological system which terms everything it disagrees with as "Marxist".

The problem with this kind of illiteracy is that is makes no distinction between say "Keynes" (who emphatically believed in markets and property rights but sought to outsmart the business cycle) and Marx (who emphatically did not believe in markets). By blurring these two historical figures you lose the capacity to effectively argue against them. You end up making generalizations that seem more angry than literate.

 

[Londoner]

How many damn times must it be explained to you that the main problem isn't anything more than over spending? Do you disagree with that? If you do for the love of god say so.

This is too simplistic. You need to distinguish between spending on things like the Hoover Dam and industrial infrastructure, and spending on, say, bailing out large corporations (e.g, S&L ....or... Bush 2008 Meltdown) or spending on poorly conceived military intervention.

You need to distinguish between the spending that took place in the Cold War Pentagon and NASA ... which developed much of the technology that fueled the 80s consumer electronics boom... from spending several billion dollars in aid > Reagan to Hussein/Iraq in the 80s.

Or what about the spending on FDR's work programs that saved Ronald Reagan's father during the Great Depression. FDR viewed this as giving good people a leg up during hard times. He believed that if you saved an American family - like he saved the Reagan family - that they would go on to make great contributions some day. Some people think that government spending to save the Reagan family had a multiplier effect.

Or what about borrowing 2 billions a day from China to pay for the Bush tax cuts? The old Republican party believed that you could never give tax cuts unless you paid for them - and they certainly wouldn't bankrupt future generations to borrow money so billionaires could pay zero taxes, despite benefiting disproportionately from infrastructure investments, subsidies, bailouts and outsourcing jobs to cheaper labor markets.

Spending is more complicated than you make it seem, especially when you fail to distinguish between infrastructure spending and welfare spending. It feels like talk radio when you say it.

 

[francoHFW]

Clinton levels, with 45% over 1 million, 50 over 10 million, 55 over 20 million, 55 over 30 million, 60 over 40 million.

 

[Darkwind]

No they wouldn't.

They are bankrupt right now, but I don't see you complaining about that.

A nail hammered into wood had never been tried until the first time it happened. From that, we have skyscrapers. Never tried is no excuse for never trying.

Darkwind -

It is simply a fact that if the US introuced a flat tax rate of 10% tomorrow, the federal government would lose hundred of billions of dollars per year. That money would have to be borrowed.

The current state of US sovereign debt is catastrophic and you want to borrow more?

Again, you seem to miss the point The federal government is losing TRILLIONS of dollars per year and we are borrowing half of our spending right NOW!

Do you get it yet? The system you propose IS NOT WORKING!

 

[Saigon]

Darkwind -

Yes, I do get it.

Tax levels in the US simply do not generate enough revenue for the state to function.

And borrowing more money is unlikely to be a solution many people buy into.

 

[Unkotare]

Yes, I do get it.

Tax levels in the US simply do not generate enough revenue for the state to function.

Clearly, you DON'T get it, you ignorant foreign busy-body.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

How can corporate profits increase if consumer spending decreases?

By expanding debt based consumption. This is why household debt began to explode in the 80s when we all started receiving 3 credit card offers a week. As high paying manufacturing jobs were shipped to China, the USA made up for lost wages by expanding the credit economy. Morning in America was brought to you by American Express, Master Card, Visa and Subprimes. This is how we sustained the consumption that drove the domestic economy. Staring with Reagan - to make up for money that wasn't trickling down into solid American manufacturing jobs - American households went increasingly into debt until the overhang of consumer debt got so bad that our politicians resorted to endless trickery to keep the economy going.

The term "consumption economy" is Marxist drivel. All economies are the result of production and consumption. Without production, there can be no consumption. The former drives that later.

The term as Im using it comes from a Rightwing professor named Daniel Bell. Let me try to explain what he means.

In his book "The Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism" he recounts a very common story. During the postwar years when our global competitors were in a shambles, the USA was manufacturer to the world. We had a production-centered economy along with robust consumption. But we were definitely a nation of producers.

The problem with our postwar "production economy" was that owners and investors didn't want to see their returns undermined by first world labor costs. So . . . starting in the late 70s (and accellerating under Reagan/Clinton), manufacturing shifted to the developing world because, among other things, labor costs were much cheaper. Today, Walmart gets the lion's share of its production from communist China because freedom-hating nations can get away with paying their workers pennies a day.

When the USA ceded its manufacturing dominance to places like China (and the global south), its economy shifted more toward consumption. Let me try to be clear here: we traded manufacturing plants for shopping malls. Americans would now sell/consume stuff produced in other places.

That is, we shifted from buying stuff we produced (with high wages) to consuming stuff others made (by going into debt). Let me try to be clear here: since we no longer had the high wages that came with our postwar production economy, we increasingly had to borrow money in order to consume the stuff made in China. [Why did we increasingly turn to debt? Because we traded high paying manufacturing jobs for low paying retail/temp jobs w/o benefits - and most of the postwar programs designed to stimulate middle class demand were dismantled to make room for tax cuts to the suppliers] Who do you think loaned us the money to buy the silly Chinese goods? China. [Don't try to explain this to someone who gets the lion's share of their information from rightwing news sources because their pundits simply don't talk about where the capitalist gets his labor and raw material. Why? - because the same places that produce our goods so cheaply (e.g.,Mexico, China, Saudi Arabia) are places that talk radio demonizes in order mobilize their base. Hence the contradiction: the places and people over which talk radio agitates are, in fact, the places and people that American investors use for production and raw materials. This is why Reagan's Amnesty Bill was so funny. It gave Southern California corporations cheap labor, but it was also strategic fodder for talk radio which agitated the moronic GOP base RE "illegals" and the loss of English as a first language. It was a brilliant triangulation, and one that only an illiterate voting base would buy into]

Where do "higher wages" come from in this "consumption economy," magic?

It used to stem partly from labor unions, however flawed, and labor shortages (which drove up wages). But it also came from a number of "hit or miss" government programs designed to give middle class families things like cheaper college education (which not only got more of our population educated so they could contribute, but freed up more money for consumption). Reagan signaled an end to high wages by dismantling Labor Unions, undermining programs designed to give the middle class affordable education, and accelerating the globalization of production so that capital could flee to the cheapest labor markets. [It looks like you don't understand the tension between Labor and Capital, nor the compact made during the postwar years ensuring that more of the surplus profit was given to the worker through a variety of channels. The point of globalization was to make sure capital was not held hostage to any single labor market. If American workers wanted higher wages, production was shifted to the 3rd world, which would protect investor-returns. This is how the American high wage system was dismantled, and why there was a need to expand credit to American families]

That isn't what Reagan endorsed. It's just Marxist horseshit.

Not sure what you mean here. One of Reagan's primary achievements was to unburden capital from what he felt were artificially high labor costs which dis-incentivized investment. One of the reasons he passed the single largest Amnesty Bills in American history was to break union control of labor in Souther California. This dramatically lowered production costs and investment-returns across industries, from agriculture to construction and fast food.

Also, you seem to be using the term Marxist in an illiterate way that suggests you've been educated by [things like] rightwing punditry rather than studying actual texts. Marx did not believe in the "consumption economy" or "consumer culture". He thought that reducing humans to "workers" or "consumers" was alienating. I happen to disagree with him emphatically, but my disagreement doesn't stem from blind obedience to an ideological system which terms everything it disagrees with as "Marxist".

The problem with this kind of illiteracy is that is makes no distinction between say "Keynes" (who emphatically believed in markets and property rights but sought to outsmart the business cycle) and Marx (who emphatically did not believe in markets). By blurring these two historical figures you lose the capacity to effectively argue against them. You end up making generalizations that seem more angry than literate.

China called. They want their wall back