Why we have to redistribute income through taxes

[Dad2three]

Common dreams? It figures.

So after your crap about wanting sourcing and data, you choose ad homs instead? lol

Common dreams is a liberal blog.

So you don't like the links they provide? Again, why the ad homs,. if CD is wrong, show it, why and how, instead you'll go the right wing ideological route of sticking your thumbs in your ears and sticking your tongue out

 

[Dad2three]

The system is not rigged.
If you're looking for rigged systems try Venezuela, the Western European Socialist countries and any other nation where people are destined to exist in a caste type system.
This is the result of the trade off. The more government provided goodies, the less freedom of upward mobility.

NOT according to the ACTUAL data, unless you mean those goodies we give the 'job creators' and Corps?



Harder for Americans to Rise From Lower Rungs

But many researchers have reached a conclusion that turns conventional wisdom on its head: Americans enjoy less economic mobility than their peers in Canada and much of Western Europe. The mobility gap has been widely discussed in academic circles

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/u...-to-rise-from-lower-rungs.html?pagewanted=all




The Loss of Upward Mobility in the U.S.


Most studies back up the idea that the U.S. has lost the upper hand for upward mobility to Europe and Canada over the last several decades.


The Loss of Upward Mobility in the U.S. | TIME.com


DON'T LET ACTUAL DATA AND FACTS GET IN THE WAY OF YOUR IDEOLOGY, IT USUALLY DOESN'T!

Excessive taxation is a solution?

SERIOUSLY? Excessive? Did we have any 'job creators' post WW2 till Reagan? How about billionaires? Any economic growth in the US? How about employment?



Non-Partisan Congressional Tax Report Debunks Core Conservative Economic Theory


The conclusion?

Lowering the tax rates on the wealthy and top earners in America do not appear to have any impact on the nation’s economic growth.

This paragraph from the report says it all—

“The reduction in the top tax rates appears to be uncorrelated with saving, investment and productivity growth. The top tax rates appear to have little or no relation to the size of the economic pie. However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top of the income distribution.”


Non-Partisan Congressional Tax Report Debunks Core Conservative Economic Theory-GOP Suppresses Study - Forbes


CBO: Fed tax rates hit historic low

The average tax rates for American households reached a historical low in 2009, according to a report issued by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office.

Indeed, federal taxes for American households averaged 17.4 percent in 2009, a historical low over the 1979 to 2009 period.

WEIRD, WASN'T THAT WHEN THE TP (BIRCHERS) WERE FORMED?


CBO: Fed tax rates hit historic low - Tim Mak - POLITICO.com


Your taxes are really low, in one chart

The average filer saw her effective tax rate drop from 22 percent in 1979 to 18.1 percent in 2010

Your taxes are really low, in one chart - The Washington Post


Tax bills in 2009 at lowest level since 1950


Federal, state and local income taxes consumed 9.2% of all personal income in 2009, the lowest rate since 1950

Tax bills in 2009 at lowest level since 1950 - USATODAY.com


WHERE WERE THOSE 'JOB CREATORS' AGAIN?




Libertarians are frauds and parasites but unfortunately have been successful in hiding their dangerous disease under war hating, and freedom loving. Sadly their freedom isn't freedom, it is chaos and opens the door to a real loss of democracy.

 

[Mathbud1]

Got it, willfully ignorant, not demand for jobs dummy, demand for products or services, in your theory, India and China should be a paradise for their citizens right? lol

Oh I get it then, like how there was a huge demand for tablets BEFORE Apple came out with the iPad. Oh wait, there wasn't.

If demand alone drove the market, there would never be any innovation (or at least not nearly as much.)

I will admit I was wrong to make the blanket statement that "demand doesn't create jobs." Demand can be a great motivator for companies to create jobs, but demand alone won't create anything. Someone has to step up with capital and drive to create jobs. Otherwise in YOUR theory China and India would be paradise: no other country has as much demand as them so no other country should be able to create jobs as well. Right?

So if Apple came out with the tablets and it DIDN'T have demand, would there be jobs? See Dot Com bust, LOTS of innovation right?

CONSUMER DEMAND CREATES THE JOBS, YOU ARE TRYING TO SELL 'TRICKLE DOWN' AS A TOOL FOR THE 1%ers

My theory on China and India says THOSE nations should have near zero unemployment based on YOUR premise that markets create jobs versus demand from consumers!

There was little to no demand for tablets at all. Apple had jobs designing, building, testing, and marketing the iPad when no one wanted tablet computers. All other tablets had been miserable failures. Apple released the iPad and tablets exploded. So Apple had the jobs BEFORE the demand.

And my theory does NOT predict that India and China would have a plethora of jobs unless they had a plethora of companies and people with money to create the jobs. Your theory on the other hand would predict that the demand generated by the enormous population there should create more jobs there than anywhere else in the world.

 

[The Rabbi]

I just told you what is fair -- equal efforts (at being as productive, as you can, I thought that goes w/o saying) -- should be rewarded equally. That is the ultimate fairness and it is unachievable because it will remove the incentives to work as productive as you can. But we should try and get as close to fair income distribution as possible w/o hurting the overall productivity.



.

That's such nonsense. It's like an A for effort. In business results count,not effort. The guy who comes up with the killer advertising slogan while in the shower should get much more than the machine operator who toils for 8 hours a day. An advertising slogan that can sell more product is far more valuable. And rare.
People are paid based on the value to the company in bringing in revenue as well as the scarcity of that talent. And that's how it should be.

You are describing how the free market should work. I am talking about the reason for living in a society, having laws and following them. And having the free market based economy in the first place. That reason is NOT to count business results. Rather, it is to have a better quality of life for everyone.

No, it's to make money for the owners. In the process everyone else benefits. This is Adam Smith's invisible hand.

 

[ilia25]

That's such nonsense. It's like an A for effort. In business results count,not effort. The guy who comes up with the killer advertising slogan while in the shower should get much more than the machine operator who toils for 8 hours a day. An advertising slogan that can sell more product is far more valuable. And rare.
People are paid based on the value to the company in bringing in revenue as well as the scarcity of that talent. And that's how it should be.

You are describing how the free market should work. I am talking about the reason for living in a society, having laws and following them. And having the free market based economy in the first place. That reason is NOT to count business results. Rather, it is to have a better quality of life for everyone.

No, it's to make money for the owners. In the process everyone else benefits. This is Adam Smith's invisible hand.

The invisible hand works for the most part, but not always. That is why the free market does not always produce perfect outcomes. Not even close -- economic depressions is one example. Excessive inequality is another. The government can successfully interfere to improve the outcome in both cases.

 

[The Rabbi]

You are describing how the free market should work. I am talking about the reason for living in a society, having laws and following them. And having the free market based economy in the first place. That reason is NOT to count business results. Rather, it is to have a better quality of life for everyone.

No, it's to make money for the owners. In the process everyone else benefits. This is Adam Smith's invisible hand.

The invisible hand works for the most part, but not always. That is why the free market does not always produce perfect outcomes. Not even close -- economic depressions is one example. Excessive inequality is another. The government can successfully interfere to improve the outcome in both cases.

Economic depressions are the market working themselves out. Usually they are made worse, much worse, by government intervening and short circuiting the market's self correcting mechanism.
As far as "perfect outcomes" go, first tell me what a perfect outcome is, then show me a system that achieves it.

 

[Dad2three]

Oh I get it then, like how there was a huge demand for tablets BEFORE Apple came out with the iPad. Oh wait, there wasn't.

If demand alone drove the market, there would never be any innovation (or at least not nearly as much.)

I will admit I was wrong to make the blanket statement that "demand doesn't create jobs." Demand can be a great motivator for companies to create jobs, but demand alone won't create anything. Someone has to step up with capital and drive to create jobs. Otherwise in YOUR theory China and India would be paradise: no other country has as much demand as them so no other country should be able to create jobs as well. Right?

So if Apple came out with the tablets and it DIDN'T have demand, would there be jobs? See Dot Com bust, LOTS of innovation right?

CONSUMER DEMAND CREATES THE JOBS, YOU ARE TRYING TO SELL 'TRICKLE DOWN' AS A TOOL FOR THE 1%ers

My theory on China and India says THOSE nations should have near zero unemployment based on YOUR premise that markets create jobs versus demand from consumers!

There was little to no demand for tablets at all. Apple had jobs designing, building, testing, and marketing the iPad when no one wanted tablet computers. All other tablets had been miserable failures. Apple released the iPad and tablets exploded. So Apple had the jobs BEFORE the demand.

And my theory does NOT predict that India and China would have a plethora of jobs unless they had a plethora of companies and people with money to create the jobs. Your theory on the other hand would predict that the demand generated by the enormous population there should create more jobs there than anywhere else in the world.

Apple created a FEW jobs, when CONSUMER DEMAND reacted, THEN they created MANY jobs (mainly overseas)



India and China are FLUSH with capital. You don't know that?

My theory says get money in the hands of CONSUMERS to create jobs in China/India, those 'job creators' in China/India have TONS of capital, WHY ISN'T THE UNEMPLOYMENT THERE UNDER 5%!!

 

[Dad2three]

No, it's to make money for the owners. In the process everyone else benefits. This is Adam Smith's invisible hand.

The invisible hand works for the most part, but not always. That is why the free market does not always produce perfect outcomes. Not even close -- economic depressions is one example. Excessive inequality is another. The government can successfully interfere to improve the outcome in both cases.

Economic depressions are the market working themselves out. Usually they are made worse, much worse, by government intervening and short circuiting the market's self correcting mechanism.
As far as "perfect outcomes" go, first tell me what a perfect outcome is, then show me a system that achieves it.

Keynes wrote "The End of Laissez Faire" in 1926. He was correct then, and his insight remains more valid than any economics that conservative Libertarians propound ad infinitum and ad nauseum. Laissez Faire is nothing more than a childish Christmas wish of no substance; just hope and myth, and smoke and mirrors. Fails every time we try even the tiniest bit.



The Vienna and Chicago schools have foisted a load of baloney on the market that, when made into policy, has led to every major recession, not to mention the Great Depression, since the establishment of economics as a field.

 

[The Rabbi]

The invisible hand works for the most part, but not always. That is why the free market does not always produce perfect outcomes. Not even close -- economic depressions is one example. Excessive inequality is another. The government can successfully interfere to improve the outcome in both cases.

Economic depressions are the market working themselves out. Usually they are made worse, much worse, by government intervening and short circuiting the market's self correcting mechanism.
As far as "perfect outcomes" go, first tell me what a perfect outcome is, then show me a system that achieves it.

Keynes wrote "The End of Laissez Faire" in 1926. He was correct then, and his insight remains more valid than any economics that conservative Libertarians propound ad infinitum and ad nauseum. Laissez Faire is nothing more than a childish Christmas wish of no substance; just hope and myth, and smoke and mirrors. Fails every time we try even the tiniest bit.



The Vienna and Chicago schools have foisted a load of baloney on the market that, when made into policy, has led to every major recession, not to mention the Great Depression, since the establishment of economics as a field.

Keynes was a ******, just like you. He was also wrong. Just like you.

 

[itfitzme]

Economic depressions are the market working themselves out. Usually they are made worse, much worse, by government intervening and short circuiting the market's self correcting mechanism.
As far as "perfect outcomes" go, first tell me what a perfect outcome is, then show me a system that achieves it.

Keynes wrote "The End of Laissez Faire" in 1926. He was correct then, and his insight remains more valid than any economics that conservative Libertarians propound ad infinitum and ad nauseum. Laissez Faire is nothing more than a childish Christmas wish of no substance; just hope and myth, and smoke and mirrors. Fails every time we try even the tiniest bit.



The Vienna and Chicago schools have foisted a load of baloney on the market that, when made into policy, has led to every major recession, not to mention the Great Depression, since the establishment of economics as a field.

Keynes was a ******, just like you. He was also wrong. Just like you.

Well there you go. When it gets down to it, all you are really thinking about is being gay. Why is it you are always thinking about dudes having sex?

 

[The Rabbi]

Keynes wrote "The End of Laissez Faire" in 1926. He was correct then, and his insight remains more valid than any economics that conservative Libertarians propound ad infinitum and ad nauseum. Laissez Faire is nothing more than a childish Christmas wish of no substance; just hope and myth, and smoke and mirrors. Fails every time we try even the tiniest bit.



The Vienna and Chicago schools have foisted a load of baloney on the market that, when made into policy, has led to every major recession, not to mention the Great Depression, since the establishment of economics as a field.

Keynes was a ******, just like you. He was also wrong. Just like you.

Well there you go. When it gets down to it, all you are really thinking about is being gay. Why is it you are always thinking about dudes having sex?

No surpirse that's all you got out of my posts. All you are interested in is gay guys. Why is that, do you suppose?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Between the end of World War II and the late 1970s, incomes in the United States were becoming more equal. In other words, incomes at the bottom were rising faster than those at the top.

It's amazing how well you can do when you're the only major economy in the world not bombed into rubble.

Since the late 1970s, this trend has reversed.

Eventually, those other nations rebuilt.

Of course we did well as "the only major economy not bombed into rubble." But at what cost to us?

I hope you're not ignoring what it cost us to fight that war -- in addition to what it cost us to help rebuild those bombed out nations -- including the two which had been our enemies and had forced us to bomb them into rubble.

Ultimately the problem lies with those corrupted politicians who, once the rebuilt nations began competing with us, surreptitiously enabled them to surpass our productivity by limiting or removing tariffs on imported goods. This, along with other devious maneuvering and legislative manipulations, has vastly benefited back-door benefactors by transforming the once most productive nation in the world into the least productive.

The removal of protective regulations has consistently served to undermine the productive potential and economic stability of this Nation. And those who are responsible for these destructive maneuvers are never held to account. Nor is the issue of our Congress being dominated by multi-millionaires ever raised.

"A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves." (Edward R. Murrow)

The problem is not the removal of tariffs on foreign goods as much as the crushing of our domestic producers under the boot of ever increasing regulation.

 

[ilia25]

No, it's to make money for the owners. In the process everyone else benefits. This is Adam Smith's invisible hand.

The invisible hand works for the most part, but not always. That is why the free market does not always produce perfect outcomes. Not even close -- economic depressions is one example. Excessive inequality is another. The government can successfully interfere to improve the outcome in both cases.

Economic depressions are the market working themselves out. Usually they are made worse, much worse, by government intervening and short circuiting the market's self correcting mechanism.
As far as "perfect outcomes" go, first tell me what a perfect outcome is, then show me a system that achieves it.

An example of a perfect outcome is 100% employment (everyone working as much as they want to, as productive as they can). It is not achievable, but usually free market gets us pretty close. Except sometimes it sends the economy into a depression, with high unemployment lingering for many years (aka jobless recovery). There is no reason for having so many people not working for so long. And the government can pull the economy out of depression much faster than the free market can do on its own -- that is what the Keynes theory is about.

The absence of inequality is another perfect outcome. It is also unachievable. We need some inequality to motivate people to work harder and smarter. But at some point rising inequality even more stops being beneficial. It does not make people work harder and smarter, it just makes most of us poorer -- i.e. the pie od the economy does not get bigger, but most people get a smaller share.

 

[ilia25]

The problem is not the removal of tariffs on foreign goods as much as the crushing of our domestic producers under the boot of ever increasing regulation.

We have much less regulation and much lower taxes than in 70s.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

"Tell me, what is your definition of "working people"?"


How about the bottom 50% of US who filed tax returns and lost almost $5,000 PER family from the piece of the pie they had in 1980-2011? Going from nearly 18% to 11% of the pie?


Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data | Tax Foundation

That's not a definition. That's an evasion of the question.
Try again.
BTW your "pie" theory plays into the existence of the Zero Sum Game.
The Keynesian Theory has been debunked.

If I 'make' a million dollars, I accumulated money from other people. I'm not actually producing cash, I'm acquiring theirs. Therefore, others have collectively lost a million dollars of purchasing power to me.

These people can't go demand new money just because I have all of their money.

They go broke, I get rich, and income inequality is a thing.





Wealth is a Zero-Sum Game

Conservative damagogues like Limbaugh have been able to convince the public that the huge incomes of the wealthiest Americans are irrelevant to those who make moderate-to-low incomes. They even suggest that the more money the wealthiest Americans make, the more wealth will trickle down to the lower classes.

If you've swallowed this line of conservative garbage, get ready to vomit. As all conservative economists know, and deny to the public that they know, wealth is a zero-sum game. That is true at both the front end—when income is divided up, and the back end—when it is spent.

The Front End of Zero-Sum: Dividing the Loot

There is only so much corporate income in a given year. The more of that income that is used to pay workers, the less profit the corporation makes. The less profit, the less the stock goes up. The less the stock goes up, the less the CEO and the investors make. It’s as simple as that. Profit equals income minus expenses. No more, no less. Subtract the right side of the equation from the left side and the answer is always zero. Hence the term, “zero-sum.”

So, to the extent a corporation can keep from sharing the wealth with workers—the ones who created the wealth to begin with—investors and executives get a bigger slice of the income pie and become richer.

To understand this aspect of the zero-sum nature of wealth, and the way many people get rich—that is, besides selling-out our workers to Third World countries—consider how Gates, Eisner, and Welch Jr. did it. It’s no mystery, and it isn’t all that hard to do.

The Zero-sum Nature of economics

If I 'make' a million dollars, I accumulated money from other people.

What did you do to accumulate it from other people?
Were you an officer of Solyndra?
Did you have a no show job at University of Chicago Medical Center?
Be a little more specific.

 

[itfitzme]

Keynes was a ******, just like you. He was also wrong. Just like you.

Well there you go. When it gets down to it, all you are really thinking about is being gay. Why is it you are always thinking about dudes having sex?

No surpirse that's all you got out of my posts. All you are interested in is gay guys. Why is that, do you suppose?

Because that was what you posted.

 

[WillowTree]

The problem is obvious to anyone capable of reading charts. Unfortunately, most right wingers aren't that bright.

You chart is bullshit because the ave size of the American family has been decreasing drastically for the last several decades.

She's not that bright. when it comes to charts.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The problem is not the removal of tariffs on foreign goods as much as the crushing of our domestic producers under the boot of ever increasing regulation.

We have much less regulation and much lower taxes than in 70s.

Over the past three years, the bound edition of the Code of Federal Regulations has increased by 11,327 pages – a 7.4 percent increase from Jan. 1, 2009 to Dec. 31, 2011. In 2009, the increase in the number of pages was the most over the last decade – 3.4 percent or 5,359 pages.

Over the past decade, the federal government has issued almost 38,000 new final rules, according to the draft of the 2011 annual report to Congress on federal regulations by the Office of Management and Budget. That brought the total at the end of 2011 to 169,301 pages.

That is more than double the number of pages needed to publish the regulations back in 1975 when the bound edition consisted of 71,244 pages.

Under Obama, 11,327 Pages of Federal Regulations Added | CNS News

 

[ilia25]

The problem is not the removal of tariffs on foreign goods as much as the crushing of our domestic producers under the boot of ever increasing regulation.

We have much less regulation and much lower taxes than in 70s.

Over the past three years, the bound edition of the Code of Federal Regulations has increased by 11,327 pages – a 7.4 percent increase from Jan. 1, 2009 to Dec. 31, 2011. In 2009, the increase in the number of pages was the most over the last decade – 3.4 percent or 5,359 pages.

Over the past decade, the federal government has issued almost 38,000 new final rules, according to the draft of the 2011 annual report to Congress on federal regulations by the Office of Management and Budget. That brought the total at the end of 2011 to 169,301 pages.

That is more than double the number of pages needed to publish the regulations back in 1975 when the bound edition consisted of 71,244 pages.

Under Obama, 11,327 Pages of Federal Regulations Added | CNS News

Ah... You mean regulations like this one are strangling American businesses:
13 U.S. Code Chapter 1, Subchapter I - GENERAL PROVISIONS | LII / Legal Information Institute

 

[dblack]

Economic freedom is even more important than religious freedom.