The Flat Tax

[Rshermr]

I'd like to see the number of working poor who labor for the 1%. The claim that the very wealthy create jobs maybe partly true - they do hire gardeners and such. I suspect (and I admit to not doing any research) that fewer jobs are created by the 1% then by small business owners, special districts or local, state and federal governments.

Since Foxfyre makes the claim the 1% are job creaters I suppose she can enlighten me.

I'm thinking Bill Gates hires at least a couple more people than a gardner, but I could be wrong.

Bill Gates hires only as many as he is forced to hire by the people who create demand for his companies products. As in, the consumers. He hires none just to hire them. And he creates no demand himself. Just as he produces nothing. His employees produce. He finances.

 

[Rshermr]

I'd like to see the number of working poor who labor for the 1%. The claim that the very wealthy create jobs maybe partly true - they do hire gardeners and such. I suspect (and I admit to not doing any research) that fewer jobs are created by the 1% then by small business owners, special districts or local, state and federal governments.

Since Foxfyre makes the claim the 1% are job creaters I suppose she can enlighten me.

Gardeners and butlers need work too, and it is honest work. So do not scorn that. But 1 percenters also fund a lot of, if not most of, the museums, hospitals, and university expansions I mentioned. And there have been very few times in my lifetime that I have not depended on 1 percenters or at least the ten percenters in some way for my income whether that be in media, communications, or any of the other occupations I have been blessed to have in a lifetime of work.

It is what the 1 percenters buy that creates millions of jobs where there would otherwise not be a market for the products. It is what the 1 percenters do with their money that makes it possible for the middle class to expand their own opportunities.

Remember, Adam Smith's famous line: "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest." The rich may not be consciously intending to benefit the rest of us, but they do.

How do you think it would benefit you if all the richer people could suddenly be busted down to your income level?

And just think of all of the additional time we would have if we did not have to read your straw man arguments.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I'd like to see the number of working poor who labor for the 1%. The claim that the very wealthy create jobs maybe partly true - they do hire gardeners and such. I suspect (and I admit to not doing any research) that fewer jobs are created by the 1% then by small business owners, special districts or local, state and federal governments.

Since Foxfyre makes the claim the 1% are job creaters I suppose she can enlighten me.

I'm thinking Bill Gates hires at least a couple more people than a gardner, but I could be wrong.

You're mostly wrong, but not this time. So we have one 1%, Good show.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I'd like to see the number of working poor who labor for the 1%. The claim that the very wealthy create jobs maybe partly true - they do hire gardeners and such. I suspect (and I admit to not doing any research) that fewer jobs are created by the 1% then by small business owners, special districts or local, state and federal governments.

Since Foxfyre makes the claim the 1% are job creaters I suppose she can enlighten me.

Gardeners and butlers need work too, and it is honest work. So do not scorn that. But 1 percenters also fund a lot of, if not most of, the museums, hospitals, and university expansions I mentioned. And there have been very few times in my lifetime that I have not depended on 1 percenters or at least the ten percenters in some way for my income whether that be in media, communications, or any of the other occupations I have been blessed to have in a lifetime of work.

It is what the 1 percenters buy that creates millions of jobs where there would otherwise not be a market for the products. It is what the 1 percenters do with their money that makes it possible for the middle class to expand their own opportunities.

Remember, Adam Smith's famous line: "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest." The rich may not be consciously intending to benefit the rest of us, but they do.

How do you think it would benefit you if all the richer people could suddenly be busted down to your income level?

Oh come on. Name names, not foundations. We know that many of the very rich have foundations and provide grants, simply look to the Koch Brothers who 'donate' to conservative causes such as Americans for Prosperity, the Heritage Foundation, Freedom Works and the CATO Institute. No conflict of interest there, simply benevolence.

BTW the butcher and baker have been put out of business by Wal-Mart and Costco, as well as other small business (glasses, photography, watchmaker, etc.) At least Costco pays union wages and provides good benefits. Of course Wal-Mart's owners (four I believe) are high in the list of top ten richest Americans - that's kinda awkward for you, isn't it?

As for your other remark, the working stiffs buy one hell of a lot more Chevy's than MZB's, a hell of a lot more deli sandwiches each workday, have more dry cleaning done, buy more products from the hardware store, go to more movies and buy more birthday and Christmas presents and houses, dishwashers, clothes dryers, stoves and ....much more as long as they receive good wages and benefits than do the 1%.

BTW, what would happen if all those who labor suddenly sat down and refused to work?

 

[Auteur]

I checked out the link; there is nothing there other than the 17% figure and the $36,000 amount. So I'll take that at face value, no deductions, no tax credits, no exemptions, no differential rates. I'll let you squeal when you see the consequences, but hey, it's your plan!

At the 2013 rate rates, standard deduction, and personal exemption a couple filing married jointly with 4 exemptions would have a tax liability of $ 820. That's it. So they save $820.

A person with a million dollars of income would pay $ 329,390 in tax. Under the Forbes plan, that family saves $163,880. Now who really benefits?

I can make the examples worse. I suppose all of the refundable credits are abolished (you did say no credits did you not?) which pulls $100 billion or so out of the working poor.

I didn't hear about this plan being revenue neutral. How much spending cuts will be necessary to offset cutting taxes on millionaires by 50% or more? Where will they come from?

With a top marginal rate of 17%, compared to today's 39.6% as income rises the tax burden on the most affluent approaches a reduction of 57%.

So the Forbes plan as presented is totally unworkable, generates half the revenue of today, and is grossly unfair to everyone except the most wealthy. What's not to like?

It is unfair only if you are of the ilk that believes it is unfair to require those who pay no federal income taxes to be required to pay some.

It is not unfair to have the lowest income people pay low or no tax.

It is unfair only if you believe those with the incentive, intelligence, and work ethic to lawfully and ethically acquire great wealth should not be able to do so.

You are deifying a class of individuals based on their wealth. A minimum of life experience should give you second thoughts here.

It is unfair only if you believe we are geting our money's worth from government and it is a good thing that more and more of the American economy is swallowed up in an ever more bloated bureaucracy.

Americans have a relatively small public sector compared to other similar countries. And public institutions do not "swallow up" anything, they merely operate in a slightly different fashion from organizations in the private sector. They may or may not do this in an efficient manner, which is largely a question of management ability. This is just as much an issue in the private sector.

It is unfair only if you don't believe that all laws should be applied equitably across the board and politicians should be able to use the tax code or any other process to benefit a particular constituency they depend on to keep them in power.

Corruption is not the same thing as planning. And if you enjoy reading about corruption, try some tails about Enron, or Goldman Sachs. They are much deeper reading.

It is unfair only if you believe that poor people are what drive the economy, create jobs, build the infrastructure, and fund great institutions of healing, learning, research, R & D, and philanthropy.

Generally speaking, the middle class is the most important driver of the economy. Jobs are created by governments directly, and by their policies. They are also created by non-profits, small and large businesses, some of which may be flush with money, and others poor and struggling. The infrastructure and other items you mention are actually created by workers, and by society at large to the extent that tax monies and public facilities are used. If a rich individual wants to make a donation, the excellent, give him or her a pat on the back. But if you are suggesting a society in which the peasants all stand and wait out in the fields, until a nobleman rides by and decides to flip a few coins towards a worthy effort, then what you will have will be something resembling Czarist Russia.

Be careful what you wish for.

Indeed. I'd suggest that Americans do more than be careful, and that they agitate for real political reform, one in which the average citizen will have a voice, rather than being drowned out by the financially obese.

 

[AmazonTania]

Nonsense. Employment may come from any point of the compass, including government, non-profits, struggling and poor small business, affluent large corporations, or others.

In other words, people with money or those who own the means of production. The government has to get it's revenue from somewhere, and majority of it isn't from the poor. Small businesses and large corporations obtain their funding from somewhere, and it isn't from the poor.

So my point still stands.

Theoretically, we could all work for government, with every function of life a subset of the state. Or, to go to the other extreme, all services could be contracted out, and all would be in the private sector.

There is no invisible guiding hand that assuredly makes the wise and energetic rich, the dishonest and slothful poor, and counts and distributes coins to their exact place in the universe. Those on the uber-right will tell you this, but they have their own agenda, and should be taken with a grain of salt.

People do what's in their own self interests. No one wakes up the next morning and think about whether or not their actions will help out the economy. And opinions to the contrary is pure fantasy.

So the question is, what works? The appalling mess of the US health care system is a good example. Some ventures, such as insurance, often work better in the public sector. Others work better in the private sphere.

I don't see how it's an appalling mess. The US has better health care outcomes than most advance economies. No one complains about the quality. They only complain about the cost. That makes it an economically issue. And health care was very inexpensive before the public sector became involved.

In the region I live in, mining is a big part of the economy. Forest products slightly larger again. Both of these are slightly smaller than the trade in illegal drugs though. That's definitely where the profits are. So, how to allocate? It would make sense, using your logic, to forget about investing in mining and forestry, and concentrate on selling drugs.

You could if drugs weren't illegal in the first place. The government finds it feasible to allocate resources from the private sector to keep the war on drugs going.

Allocation by government is not necessarily expensive. Canada "allocates" resources towards health care through government, yet the per capita cost is less there than for Americans, who have health care resources "allocated" by the private sector.

You know who also spends less than America per capita, third world countries where there is no health care. It helps if you actually know how to use the 'per capita' metric.

You should know that the Canadian system (as well as all other UHC systems) implements price controls on their health care, so the government isn't allowed to spend more than a certain amount relative to the countries GDP. As a result, you have no innovation in Canada. 60% of all medical research is done in the United States. In Canada, you have no innovation, if any at all. The last life saving drug to ever be developed in Canada was probably 30 years ago.

I don't think I get your point. Yes, offshoring and globalzation are broader issues, ones for which solutions will be difficult. My point is that for the US government, the future of employment is, and must, be an issue. For GM, or any other corporation, it need not, and is not. That is inherent in the mission and the functioning of these two different entities. And that's why government must have sufficient revenue and hence authority to rule on pro-social issues.

Who says that it should be? GM sole responsibility are towards their consumers. In order to create jobs, you have to create value. GM is creating value to someone else. Increasing, we find that the Government cannot create value. All they can create is work.

Left to the punters on Wall Street, how quickly would the great depression of the '30s have ended? Left to the corporate bandits on Wall Street, how soon would the great recession of '08 turned into the great depression of the decade? Left to the private insurance industry, how many Americans would still be without health care, and what kind of premiums would the rest be paying?

Considering that it was the central government along with the Federal Reserve which was solely behind the Great Depression of the 1930's, Depression of the Late 2000's and the increasing cost of health care? These issues would have never arisen in the first place.

 

[AmazonTania]

Poorly. Not because the poor don't have some clout, but because greed is no longer a deadly sin, it has become a virtue.

Greed is defined as a desire to acquire more than what is necessary for basic survival. This categorises everyone. Greed has never been a deadly sin. It's always a part of human nature. As expectations of the quality of life increases, people expected more from their standard of living. Can you name a single era in history before the 17th century when anyone, anywhere ever protested poverty? I doubt that you can. Did people suddenly become greedy around the 18th century? Not really, people just expected more as their quality of life increased.

It can be argued that the only thing one needs for basic survival are a few articles of clothing, a one room apartment and two meals a day. Anything more than this is greed.

As always, Greed is subjective.



No one ever makes money with that attitude, so stop pontificating. In order to make money, it has to be available to other people.



Again, greed virtually defines everyone. It's a constant, not a variable. How does anyone make money in a market system? They find out what people want, and they give it to them. People can only make more money by making people like me and you better off.

That is greed.

While it's not a perfect see:

James Chowning Davies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As the differential between the very rich - the 5% - and those who once believe they could achieve such success widens shit hits the fan. That may include so many of the Callous Conservatives who vote for Republicans and Libertarians - they one day might string up Rand Paul from a tree.

The 5% is not very rich. It's just affluent. Rich is defined by a net worth exceeding $1 million dollars. And I'm really not clear on what your issue is. Is your issue that many people will not be able to make it into the 1% or is your issue that people won't get a chance to succeed in life?

The issue as expressed in the "J Curve" is simple; rising expectations unmet lead to an emotional crisis/catharsis which can evolve into violence. When a whole set of individuals suffer such a disappointment a small spark may set off a conflagration. And such a spark can be ignited by a charismatic leader.

Sounds like the current talking head occupying the white house. Again, how has that worked out for you so far?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Greed is defined as a desire to acquire more than what is necessary for basic survival. This categorises everyone. Greed has never been a deadly sin. It's always a part of human nature. As expectations of the quality of life increases, people expected more from their standard of living. Can you name a single era in history before the 17th century when anyone, anywhere ever protested poverty? I doubt that you can. Did people suddenly become greedy around the 18th century? Not really, people just expected more as their quality of life increased.

It can be argued that the only thing one needs for basic survival are a few articles of clothing, a one room apartment and two meals a day. Anything more than this is greed.

As always, Greed is subjective.



No one ever makes money with that attitude, so stop pontificating. In order to make money, it has to be available to other people.



Again, greed virtually defines everyone. It's a constant, not a variable. How does anyone make money in a market system? They find out what people want, and they give it to them. People can only make more money by making people like me and you better off.

That is greed.



The 5% is not very rich. It's just affluent. Rich is defined by a net worth exceeding $1 million dollars. And I'm really not clear on what your issue is. Is your issue that many people will not be able to make it into the 1% or is your issue that people won't get a chance to succeed in life?

The issue as expressed in the "J Curve" is simple; rising expectations unmet lead to an emotional crisis/catharsis which can evolve into violence. When a whole set of individuals suffer such a disappointment a small spark may set off a conflagration. And such a spark can be ignited by a charismatic leader.

Sounds like the current talking head occupying the white house. Again, how has that worked out for you so far?

Sounds like you can't respond to my comment based on political science, so you default to a stupid remark.

 

[AmazonTania]

The issue as expressed in the "J Curve" is simple; rising expectations unmet lead to an emotional crisis/catharsis which can evolve into violence. When a whole set of individuals suffer such a disappointment a small spark may set off a conflagration. And such a spark can be ignited by a charismatic leader.

Sounds like the current talking head occupying the white house. Again, how has that worked out for you so far?

Sounds like you can't respond to my comment based on political science, so you default to a stupid remark.

I don't understand political science. I really don't care about politics either. I saw the words 'charismatic leader' and automatically thought Obama.

So, what exactly are you trying to say?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Sounds like the current talking head occupying the white house. Again, how has that worked out for you so far?

Sounds like you can't respond to my comment based on political science, so you default to a stupid remark.

I don't understand political science. I really don't care about politics either. I saw the words 'charismatic leader' and automatically thought Obama.

So, what exactly are you trying to say?

I don't believe you need to know much about political science to understand that Hitler used patriotism and the harsh reparations Germany suffered by the Treaty of Versailles to seize power, and after the fire in the Reichstag*** become a despot.

What I suggested was the "J" Curve is a theory that revolutions are at times a result of the people's expectation of better days thwarted by reality, and a man like Hitler or Lenin could rally the people to overthrow the established order. In our case The Constitution.

*** "On February 27, 1933, the German parliament (Reichstag) building burned down due to arson. The government falsely portrayed the fire as part of a Communist effort to overthrow the state.

"Using emergency constitutional powers, Adolf Hitler’s cabinet had issued a Decree for the Protection of the German People on February 4, 1933. This decree placed constraints on the press and authorized the police to ban political meetings and marches, effectively hindering electoral campaigning. A temporary measure, it was followed by a more dramatic and permanent suspension of civil rights following the February 27 burning of the parliament building."

 

[AmazonTania]

Sounds like you can't respond to my comment based on political science, so you default to a stupid remark.

I don't understand political science. I really don't care about politics either. I saw the words 'charismatic leader' and automatically thought Obama.

So, what exactly are you trying to say?

I don't believe you need to know much about political science to understand that Hitler used patriotism and the harsh reparations Germany suffered by the Treaty of Versailles to seize power, and after the fire in the Reichstag*** become a despot.

What I suggested was the "J" Curve is a theory that revolutions are at times a result of the people's expectation of better days thwarted by reality, and a man like Hitler or Lenin could rally the people to overthrow the established order. In our case The Constitution.

*** "On February 27, 1933, the German parliament (Reichstag) building burned down due to arson. The government falsely portrayed the fire as part of a Communist effort to overthrow the state.

"Using emergency constitutional powers, Adolf Hitler’s cabinet had issued a Decree for the Protection of the German People on February 4, 1933. This decree placed constraints on the press and authorized the police to ban political meetings and marches, effectively hindering electoral campaigning. A temporary measure, it was followed by a more dramatic and permanent suspension of civil rights following the February 27 burning of the parliament building."

So you want to overthrow the government? Why? I thought the 1% is the cause of all your problems...

 

[Wry Catcher]

I don't understand political science. I really don't care about politics either. I saw the words 'charismatic leader' and automatically thought Obama.

So, what exactly are you trying to say?

I don't believe you need to know much about political science to understand that Hitler used patriotism and the harsh reparations Germany suffered by the Treaty of Versailles to seize power, and after the fire in the Reichstag*** become a despot.

What I suggested was the "J" Curve is a theory that revolutions are at times a result of the people's expectation of better days thwarted by reality, and a man like Hitler or Lenin could rally the people to overthrow the established order. In our case The Constitution.

*** "On February 27, 1933, the German parliament (Reichstag) building burned down due to arson. The government falsely portrayed the fire as part of a Communist effort to overthrow the state.

"Using emergency constitutional powers, Adolf Hitler’s cabinet had issued a Decree for the Protection of the German People on February 4, 1933. This decree placed constraints on the press and authorized the police to ban political meetings and marches, effectively hindering electoral campaigning. A temporary measure, it was followed by a more dramatic and permanent suspension of civil rights following the February 27 burning of the parliament building."

So you want to overthrow the government? Why? I thought the 1% is the cause of all your problems...

Wow. Thanks for playing. If you got that from what I posted you're way beyond hope.

 

[AmazonTania]

That's really all I saw. Maybe you should stop being so vague.

 

[Wry Catcher]

That's really all I saw. Maybe you should stop being so vague.

That's sad.

 

[AmazonTania]

Sorry. Maybe you can explain what your issue is… Again…

 

[Wry Catcher]

Sorry. Maybe you can explain what your issue is… Again…

Maybe you could read it again and again.

 

[Wry Catcher]

For those who don't get my "issue":

The Flat Tax is demagoguery at its finest. No one likes to pay taxes, but few of us would want government services curtailed to the extent a flat tax of 10% would cause. Some people seem to believe that those who pay a top rate of 90% do so on all of their income. Most of us know that is not true.

The truth being a billionaire pays the same tax that I do and all of us do on equal earnings. The rate goes up on schedules listed in the tax booklet as does income. A flat rate would simply increase the amount of wealth of the very wealthy, rapidly and enormously" in proportion to the hoi polloi of which I proudly belong.

"Wealth = Power, and in a society where money can buy political ads and influence our road to a pure Plutocracy would be facilitated by a 10% flat tax. Hence, those Libertarian types who claim to support Liberty and Freedom for the individual really don't. For economic slavery is little different than confinement.

Does that help?

 

[asterism]

For those who don't get my "issue":

The Flat Tax is demagoguery at its finest. No one likes to pay taxes, but few of us would want government services curtailed to the extent a flat tax of 10% would cause. Some people seem to believe that those who pay a top rate of 90% do so on all of their income. Most of us know that is not true.

The truth being a billionaire pays the same tax that I do and all of us do on equal earnings. The rate goes up on schedules listed in the tax booklet as does income. A flat rate would simply increase the amount of wealth of the very wealthy, rapidly and enormously" in proportion to the hoi polloi of which I proudly belong.

"Wealth = Power, and in a society where money can buy political ads and influence our road to a pure Plutocracy would be facilitated by a 10% flat tax. Hence, those Libertarian types who claim to support Liberty and Freedom for the individual really don't. For economic slavery is little different than confinement.

Does that help?

Taxation for social engineering doesn't work and it never has.

 

[AmazonTania]

For those who don't get my "issue":

The Flat Tax is demagoguery at its finest. No one likes to pay taxes, but few of us would want government services curtailed to the extent a flat tax of 10% would cause. Some people seem to believe that those who pay a top rate of 90% do so on all of their income. Most of us know that is not true.

The truth being a billionaire pays the same tax that I do and all of us do on equal earnings. The rate goes up on schedules listed in the tax booklet as does income. A flat rate would simply increase the amount of wealth of the very wealthy, rapidly and enormously" in proportion to the hoi polloi of which I proudly belong.

I really didn't see how this fit into that other political stuff you were spouting. While billionaires may pay the same tax rate, they do not make the same type of income. It's really essentially false that billionaires are paying the same tax rate as people like you. Billionaires who actually perpetuate this myth to fool the masses. Those of us in the financial industry already know most of the tricks people use to avoid income taxes.

The current income system isn't fair regardless. Two people making the same amount of income can virtually pay a different amount in taxes entirely. A flat tax is much more fair for everyone. It would not only increase the income of the wealth, but for everyone else as well.

"Wealth = Power, and in a society where money can buy political ads and influence our road to a pure Plutocracy would be facilitated by a 10% flat tax. Hence, those Libertarian types who claim to support Liberty and Freedom for the individual really don't. For economic slavery is little different than confinement.

Does that help?

Explain how being able to keep your property is not liberty.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Implicit in your post is the notion that free markets always function efficiently, while government tends to be bureaucratic and wasteful. Yet this is not necessarily the case, as history has shown. Oldfart explains the fallicy of free markets much more knowledgeably than I in the post on the previous page. And the derision of government in the US is of course famous by this point; it is a long running imperative of the financially omnipotent, spun out to serve their best interests, which is a low tax, low regulation environment. For the middle class and lower, this is not a welcome development.

As for welfare, I think this is often an emotional issue as resentment looms large in those that have to work hard at jobs that are not all that desirable, and suffer the thought that others are getting a free ride. Again, it serves the needs of the affluent to spin this image as much as possible, because these are the sort of services they will never need. In fact welfare forms a rather small part of the budget in the US, quite a bit less than in other countries. Are people more content to be poor these days? I'd like to see a study that backs this up. If anything, I imagine being poor is even more of an anathema today, as images of the ultra rich are everywhere, and the contrast must be upsetting.

In our complex society today, governments "meddle" every second of the day, as they must. Without that, we would look more like Somalia than a '60s image of suburbia.

Oldfart made a fool out of himself in that post.

I have a challenge for you, prove that, without government meddling, we would be in worse shape.

I won't hold my breath.

Well for one, FDR put in the SEC after your wealthy american heroes crashed the stock market. Things went along pretty good for for 60, 70 years. Then your wealthy friends were able to overthrow glass-steagal (they stopped the government meddling), and not long after that, they pulled off another crash of the economy and their wealth has increased because of it.

Wealthy Americans crashed the market all by themselves?

Why don't you lay out all the factors that led to the crash before you try to simplify it to something that is totally irrelevant?