A graphic appreciation of America's postwar economic evolution

[bluesmoke]

Gibberish.

I gave you an honest, detailed and forthright reply to satisfy your self-professed "failure" to "see why it should be or how you could possibly make it equitable without damaging the economy and leaving everyone with less" after you acknowledged the fact of inequitability. It is now your burden to show what I recommend would, as you claim, damage "the economy and leaving everyone with less". Otherwise, you claim is unfounded and need not be debated further for lack of evidence of fact. Your reply "Gibberish" is not evidence of fact. It is your unsupported opinion not even relevant to my reply, which reply was relevant to your post.

 

[NatMorton]

You have been given evidence of fact to support a claim that you can't refute. It's up to you to counter with your own evidence. So, you're the one with the burden of proving that "federal and state subsidies" are a significant factor that would refute the claim. Otherwise, the claim stands unrefuted. Do you own homework.

Oh, I already have. You missed post #71.

 

[PeacefulWarrior]

The European evolution of post-war economic fundamentals of states/countries evolved in significantly different patterns from that of the US. It began its change radically with the demise of the Soviet Union.

The US assumed that Communism was the main threat to its democracy (and that invasion was possible). The Europeans did not believe that such a threat existed. There was a "wall" put up (that is still partially in place to be seen in Berlin), which has been demolished. But the eventual inutility of such a device did not, finally, prevent the Soviet Union from coming apart and dieing.

So, with consummate-confidence, Europe simply waited for the Red Threat to implode. Which has happened, and the European Union recuperated the vestiges - that is, those eastern-countries that opted to become members.

Europe and the US are kindred-spirits. A great, great many immigrants came from Europe in the 19th century to create the basic foundation of the country. That tie was knotted further in WW2. But they remain VERY, VERY different socio-economic entities today.

Uncle Sam has kept his original bent for freedom-of-both-thought-and-action and the "individual rewards" thereto. By which it has kept and augmented its basic National Economic Unfairness. (Whazzat?)

It looks like this from here:

The inequality is Uncle Sam's major-problem forbidding "national fairness" ...

Yes, but the USA has gnarlee FrEeDuMbZ$™, and thats something that all other countries can only dream about!

 

[PeacefulWarrior]

I've studied economics and part of economics is predicting how most people react to sudden windfalls.

Thats "part of economics"? LOL. No it isnt.

 

[NatMorton]

I gave you an honest, detailed and forthright reply to satisfy your self-professed "failure" to "see why it should be or how you could possibly make it equitable without damaging the economy and leaving everyone with less" after you acknowledged the fact of inequitability. It is now your burden to show what I recommend would, as you claim, damage "the economy and leaving everyone with less". Otherwise, you claim is unfounded and need not be debated further for lack of evidence of fact. Your reply "Gibberish" is not evidence of fact. It is your unsupported opinion not even relevant to my reply, which reply was relevant to your post.

Yes, it is my opinion that your ideas on taxation are gibberish. They seem to be based on nothing other than class warfare and the muddleheaded belief that those with income somehow haven’t earned it and those without income are owned money that is rightfully theirs. The idea that income is some stage of “pre-distribution,” as you have said, is as bizarre an economic principle as I’ve come across in some time.

 

[bluesmoke]

What are you struggling with? The flat tax would not be applied to the first $X of income earned. I am open to what “X” should be. I would aim for something just north of the poverty level. I might index by state or region given in that “X” in, say, NYC and Nebraska are very different. But the concept remains the same: you’re not taxed on earnings needed for subsistence. After that, you pay the same number of pennies on the dollar as everyone else. This is not that complex.

If not that complex, then you should be able to solve your own claim of what will work. You say a flat tax works. I say you can't show how it would work. It's your claim to prove. You're being evasive and disingenuous. You said your flat tax proposal would apply a 20% rate to that portion above "a subsistence poverty level", which by no stretch of the imagination is the $50,000 you later gave as a working figure. You can't show that your above subsistence level application would work. Somebody making$50K, which you pretentiously gave as the level above which the flat tax would apply, would actually pay 20% above $12,880, which is $37,120, in 48 states plus DC. The tax would be $7,424. So, in your opinion, would those hshlds or individuals making $50K or less have the income necessary to pay those 20% taxes? If not, what would work that the lower incomes could afford and that would bring in the revenue necessary to run the US govt/economy?

 

[NatMorton]

If not that complex, then you should be able to solve your own claim of what will work. You say a flat tax works. I say you can't show how it would work. It's your claim to prove. You're being evasive and disingenuous. You said your flat tax proposal would apply a 20% rate to that portion above "a subsistence poverty level", which by no stretch of the imagination is the $50,000 you later gave as a working figure. You can't show that your above subsistence level application would work. Somebody making$50K, which you pretentiously gave as the level above which the flat tax would apply, would actually pay 20% above $12,880, which is $37,120, in 48 states plus DC. The tax would be $7,424. So, in your opinion, would those hshlds or individuals making $50K or less have the income necessary to pay those 20% taxes? If not, what would work that the lower incomes could afford and that would bring in the revenue necessary to run the US govt/economy?

Why you’re obsessing over the line is remains a mystery. I think you may be confused that I’m not dogmatic about it and that’s more what you’re used to.

If we can agree on a flat tax then we can discuss at what point that flat tax should apply. There are pros and cons to have it apply at $10k, or $25k, or $50k. If your’e obsessed with me drawing a line, I will draw one. The federal poverty line for a family of four is something like $26k. I draw the line at $30k, and that’s how it will work. Happy now?

 

[bluesmoke]

Yes, it is my opinion that your ideas on taxation are gibberish. They seem to be based on nothing other than class warfare and the muddleheaded belief that those with income somehow haven’t earned it and those without income are owned money that is rightfully theirs. The idea that income is some stage of “pre-distribution,” as you have said, is as bizarre an economic principle as I’ve come across in some time.

It is class warfare. Like Warren Buffet said, "Guess who's winning?" Your flat tax of 20% applied to that amount of income above poverty level is impracticable. You can't prove your claim. It is your proposal that is bizarre. You should educate yourself on what is pre-distribution. I know you won't like it because it is a wealth distribution approach of increasing the wages of the lower income (what you would call "lower class") levels rather than the dominant redistribution of lowering taxes for the rich and large corps (what you would call "upper class").

 

[NatMorton]

It is class warfare. Like Warren Buffet said, "Guess who's winning?" Your flat tax of 20% applied to that amount of income above poverty level is impracticable. You can't prove your claim. It is your proposal that is bizarre. You should educate yourself on what is pre-distribution. I know you won't like it because it is a wealth distribution approach of increasing the wages of the lower income (what you would call "lower class") levels rather than the dominant redistribution of lowering taxes for the rich and large corps (what you would call "upper class").

Good for you for acknowledging the class warfare motivation. Most in your position pretend that’s not what they’re about.

Back to the point, please tell me why you think it’s “impractical,” and be specific. Government will get the money it needs and with a far simpler tax code far fewer of the nation’s resources will be applied to the low-value activity of tax preparation and certification,

In fact, if you put a simple flat rate on businesses, you could raise their effective tax rate and businesses would thank you for it. It was a while back, but the WSJ did a study on tax prep costs and for every $1 American businesses pay they also pay $0.30 in prep and certification costs. Lower those prep costs to, say, $0.10 on the dollar and you could raise the effective corporate rate by 10%; the Treasury would get more and businesses would pay less overall. Win/win.

 

[bluesmoke]

No, you are using both "distribution" and "redistribution" in the "I cannot acknowledge that wealth is created and earned" sense.

The challenge before us is not how to distribute more to lower income earners. It's how can lower income earners earn more. The solutions to these two problems are very different.

Plain and simple, you’re being argumentative. I acknowledge that wealth is created and earned within a mixed-distribution system. What is created and earned is then distributed by, in one way, taxes as govt revenue used to benefit society and fund the function of govt. Because what is earned will be distributed, it does fit a definition of pre-distribution. But your haggling over terminology is a distraction from the fact you can’t with any evidence of fact support your claim that a flat-tax system is preferrable to what we have now or what is being proposed. You’re giving the runaround. You can’t refute a single thing I said with any evidence of fact. Regardless of the fact that the terminology argument is pointless. What and how we distribute what is created and earned is the point. Maybe you would prefer diff terminology for what we distribute through our tax system, et al. But, economist use the terminology of various “distribution”. I just care what is the action and who benefits and not.

 

[Lafayette]

But your haggling over terminology is a distraction from the fact you can’t with any evidence of fact support your claim that a flat-tax system is preferrable to what we have now or what is being proposed.

A flat-tax would be honest only if we were all making the same income.

And that aint ever gonna happin ...!

 

[NatMorton]

Plain and simple, you’re being argumentative. I acknowledge that wealth is created and earned within a mixed-distribution system. What is created and earned is then distributed by, in one way, taxes as govt revenue used to benefit society and fund the function of govt. Because what is earned will be distributed, it does fit a definition of pre-distribution. But your haggling over terminology is a distraction from the fact you can’t with any evidence of fact support your claim that a flat-tax system is preferrable to what we have now or what is being proposed. You’re giving the runaround. You can’t refute a single thing I said with any evidence of fact. Regardless of the fact that the terminology argument is pointless. What and how we distribute what is created and earned is the point. Maybe you would prefer diff terminology for what we distribute through our tax system, et al. But, economist use the terminology of various “distribution”. I just care what is the action and who benefits and not.

I'm not being argumentative. You're being argumentative ...

 

[NatMorton]

A flat-tax would be honest only if we were all making the same income.

And that aint ever gonna happin ...!

And would be honest if implemented today. And fair.

 

[bluesmoke]

You can describe income as “pre-distribution” if it suits you. I do not given it’s an absurd term and implies a kind of “income bread line” where the forces that be dole out small bills to the needy along with a bowl of thin soup. It’s passive nonsense. Income is earned.

We all have an obligation to contribute to the funding of our government. Why you think some with means some should pay and some with means should not is anyone’s guess.

Everybody pays FICA (Social Security and Medicare Taxes) regardless of how little income they make. The term "pre-distribution" does not connote that income is not earned. No term of distribution does so. A tax cut still means that money you get more of than you did before is earned. All money earned is part of a distribution system. The various terms of "distribution" and their use is not absurd. They are definitional and applicable in context. You just are incapable of grasping contextual use of a term(s) economists use. Just because you refuse to acknowledge the existence, use, meaning and applicability of the various terms is your cognitive failure.

I'm not saying some with the means to do so should not pay FIT. Again, you're changing what I say to mean what favor what fits your argument. I'm saying you can't show at what income level a 20% or whatever flat tax should apply that would bring in enough revenue to run the govt without shifting more tax burden to those with less. Those who with lesser means, as you say.

 

[NatMorton]

Everybody pays FICA (Social Security and Medicare Taxes) regardless of how little income they make. The term "pre-distribution" does not connote that income is not earned. No term of distribution does so. A tax cut still means that money you get more of than you did before is earned. All money earned is part of a distribution system. The various terms of "distribution" and their use is not absurd. They are definitional and applicable in context. You just are incapable of grasping contextual use of a term(s) economists use. Just because you refuse to acknowledge the existence, use, meaning and applicability of the various terms is your cognitive failure.

I'm not saying some with the means to do so should not pay FIT. Again, you're changing what I say to mean what favor what fits your argument. I'm saying you can't show at what income level a 20% or whatever flat tax should apply that would bring in enough revenue to run the govt without shifting more tax burden to those with less. Those who with lesser means, as you say.

I’m not gong to pretend to grasp much of what you said above, but I think that has less to do with me and more to do with your lack of proof reading. If you want me to comment on the first paragraph you’ll need to try again.

Regardless, to your last point, I have no problem shifting the burden of federal taxation. Far too many (something like 50% of all filers) have either a zero or negative tax liability. Time for them to pay their fair share, too. Everyone needs to contribute within their own means.

 

[bluesmoke]

Oh, I already have. You missed post #71.

Then you already have the information you asked for in post #198. It's the information you posted in #71.

 

[NatMorton]

Then you already have the information you asked for in post #198. It's the information you posted in #71.

No, post 71 does not answer the question I posed in 198. If you think it does, you’ll need to clarify your reasoning.

 

[bluesmoke]

Yes, it is my opinion that your ideas on taxation are gibberish. They seem to be based on nothing other than class warfare and the muddleheaded belief that those with income somehow haven’t earned it and those without income are owned money that is rightfully theirs. The idea that income is some stage of “pre-distribution,” as you have said, is as bizarre an economic principle as I’ve come across in some time.

You are the one that can't prove the practicability of your claim/idea of a flat tax, as I've iterated several times. The burden to prove that claim is yours. It is not mine to disprove.

All money is earned. How it is distributed is another matter. That you're incapable of grasping that is what is bizarre.

I do believe people are owed a living wage and that the LW by region become the fed MW, adjusted annually by any change in COL. Then, people would have the means to pay FIT.

 

[NatMorton]

You are the one that can't prove the practicability of your claim/idea of a flat tax, as I've iterated several times. The burden to prove that claim is yours. It is not mine to disprove.

All money is earned. How it is distributed is another matter. That you're incapable of grasping that is what is bizarre.

I do believe people are owed a living wage and that the LW by region become the fed MW, adjusted annually by any change in COL. Then, people would have the means to pay FIT.

I think that’s where we differ. You seem to think people are “owed” a living. I do not. At most they are owed an opportunity to make a living.

 

[bluesmoke]

Why you’re obsessing over the line is remains a mystery. I think you may be confused that I’m not dogmatic about it and that’s more what you’re used to.

If we can agree on a flat tax then we can discuss at what point that flat tax should apply. There are pros and cons to have it apply at $10k, or $25k, or $50k. If your’e obsessed with me drawing a line, I will draw one. The federal poverty line for a family of four is something like $26k. I draw the line at $30k, and that’s how it will work. Happy now?

Good. That's a start. Now prove your claim of a flat tax of 20%, or whatever's fine with me, will work when applied to the incomes over $30K that will provide the revenue necessary to run the govt and not shift the burden of tax over to the lower income levels.

 

[bluesmoke]

Good for you for acknowledging the class warfare motivation. Most in your position pretend that’s not what they’re about.

Back to the point, please tell me why you think it’s “impractical,” and be specific. Government will get the money it needs and with a far simpler tax code far fewer of the nation’s resources will be applied to the low-value activity of tax preparation and certification,

In fact, if you put a simple flat rate on businesses, you could raise their effective tax rate and businesses would thank you for it. It was a while back, but the WSJ did a study on tax prep costs and for every $1 American businesses pay they also pay $0.30 in prep and certification costs. Lower those prep costs to, say, $0.10 on the dollar and you could raise the effective corporate rate by 10%; the Treasury would get more and businesses would pay less overall. Win/win.

And this is where you continue to dodge your debate responsibility of proving YOUR claim. See my post #245 and give it a try.

 

[NatMorton]

Good. That's a start. Now prove your claim of a flat tax of 20%, or whatever's fine with me, will work when applied to the incomes over $30K that will provide the revenue necessary to run the govt and not shift the burden of tax over to the lower income levels.

Not sure I can do that, as I think there will be a shift to lower income levels.

 

[NatMorton]

And this is where you continue to dodge your debate responsibility of proving YOUR claim. See my post #245 and give it a try.

Ah, no. I’ve already jumped around the thread following the post numbers per your earlier request, and your question was still not clear. You’re the one looking for an answer, so state your question fully and clearly or don’t bother.

 

[Lafayette]

TOTAL "NET WORTH" TAXATION

And this is where you continue to dodge your debate responsibility of proving YOUR claim.

Why is a flat-tax unacceptable? Here's one explanation: "Some drawbacks of a flat tax rate system include lack of wealth redistribution, the added burden on middle and lower-income families, and tax rate wars with neighboring countries."

Why should we redistribute wealth? That question is dead easy. Because without redistribution very large discrepancies between the lowest income-levels and highest become apparent. And, there appears an "Us vs Them" attitude by many. (Which I suggest could one day bring about tragic means to lower upper-income taxation in a revolutionary manner.)

There are two excesses that must be avoided in any country: Far too much redistribution of Income and far to little. From a point-of-view of social-functioning it is best to have a graduated system of taxation (from very-low to rather-high) in order for a taxation to seem "fair and equitable".

And this latter ersion we-do-not-have ever since JFK decided to reduce upper-income taxation (in order to "please daddy"). The result has been disastrous. Replicant presidents have continued the downward "bite" of marginal income-taxation to where it is today.

A higher taxation would seem appropriate and it should look like this below - except the higher limit must reach at least 85/90% taxation of the very excessive incomes!

Nobody needs to be making billions of dollars a year, so Truly Upper-income Taxation should be around 90%. For all incomes beyond, say, 5/10 megabucks of "worth" and not just "income".

Iow, total Net Worth Taxation ... !

 

[bluesmoke]

TOTAL "NET WORTH" TAXATION



Why is a flat-tax unacceptable? Here's one explanation: "Some drawbacks of a flat tax rate system include lack of wealth redistribution, the added burden on middle and lower-income families, and tax rate wars with neighboring countries."

Why should we redistribute wealth? That question is dead easy. Because without redistribution very large discrepancies between the lowest income-levels and highest become apparent. And, there appears an "Us vs Them" attitude by many. (Which I suggest could one day bring about tragic means to lower upper-income taxation in a revolutionary manner.)

There are two excesses that must be avoided in any country: Far too much redistribution of Income and far to little. From a point-of-view of social-functioning it is best to have a graduated system of taxation (from very-low to rather-high) in order for a taxation to seem "fair and equitable".

And this latter ersion we-do-not-have ever since JFK decided to reduce upper-income taxation (in order to "please daddy"). The result has been disastrous. Replicant presidents have continued the downward "bite" of marginal income-taxation to where it is today.

A higher taxation would seem appropriate and it should look like this below - except the higher limit must reach at least 85/90% taxation of the very excessive incomes!

Nobody needs to be making billions of dollars a year, so Truly Upper-income Taxation should be around 90%. For all incomes beyond, say, 5/10 megabucks of "worth" and not just "income".

Iow, total Net Worth Taxation ... !

The rich and large corps have good control over the present tax system and are doing just fine, thank you. A flat-tax system would be sold as something that would be better for the middle class, but instead would be even better than what already favors more than before the last new tax plan that favored the rich and large corps, leaving the middle class and those with less with less.