• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Economists are agreeing with each other more

TREMENDOUS UPPER-INCOME WEALTH IN AMERICA



I think, rather, that they US must get its upper-income tax back to where it was a long, long time ago.

Have a look at the history of individual income-taxation in the US here

Note that in 1918 the tax-rate was as high as 80% in the US. That was corrected by artful work on the part of the rich to change the political-weights in Congress! Almost immediately, the rates started their decent and reached bottom around 1925 at around 25%.

Then UP GO TAXES again in 1932 and they remain constant till 1964. Who was PotUS that year? JFK who had just enough time in the presidency to bring them down - to please his father who helped fund his election-campaign!

The rest of that history shows aptly a decline in upper-income taxation that was undertaken by a series of Replicant-presidencies - all elected by "we-the-sheeple". (Obviously enamoured of the rich-'n-famous!)

So, let's stop belaboring the issue! The lower income-taxation of the rich and super-rich generating their enormous wealth is OUR MAKING. That is, successive serious reductions by Replicant-presidents we voted into office! Which has led to the gross-mistake of tremendous upper-income wealth today in the US.

WE THE SHEEPLE LET IT HAPPEN and it can become undone only by getting rid of the Electoral College that perpetuates Replicant-control of either the HofR or the Senate or both. Either one will and can block the other on taxation-matters!

Which is why Europeans refused to copy taxwise what was happening in the US as they restructured themselves after WW2 ... !
Nobody got elected by campaigning on a platform of cutting taxes for the super-rich. It was a deceit. They typically campaign on cutting taxes for the middle class, but then after elected, the super-rich get massive cuts and the middle class gets a slight cut. And the last time they did it, they made the middle class tax cut temporary, while the one for the rich is permanent.

Bernie had the right idea, and a LOT of support, but he couldn't get past one word. The S-word. Oh, he hugely took the pox off the S-word, but the hard right was unswayed. They still equate socialism with communism and think it means the government is going to 'control every aspect of their life' if they vote to tax the super-rich. Nice bit of repackaging there by the adept right, masters of propaganda.
 
...because everything in life isn't just about surviving. There's also something called ambition.

If survival was everything, then civilization itself would be irrelevant. We could just be animals in a state of nature.

Even more basic, we could wipe out the entirety of life on Earth. Matter wouldn't disappear.

Why is existence a priority?
That is relevant to something I said?

I suppose IBM not providing benchmark data on any computers I was trained on had something to do with ambition.
 
They still equate socialism with communism and think it means the government is going to 'control every aspect of their life' if they vote to tax the super-rich. Nice bit of repackaging there by the adept right, masters of propaganda.

There are 447.0 million inhabitants in the EU that would laugh at that notion. Communism has very little political footing in the EU.

And the fact that even Russia has gone capitalist proves it. Need more be said ... ?
 
Oh, I agree that the shift in consensus is toward Keynesian mechanics, and it is about time, but my point is simply that, as a profession, economists tend to get wedded to a particular viewpoint - the school they were trained in - and are loathe to deviate from that doctrine despite empirical evidence that may obviate that view. Sometimes they are downright stubborn. ;)
I don't know if stubbornness is the problem as much as people don't care to hire economists unless economists tell them what they want to hear.

Economics is the dismal science. It requires serious attitudes to be taken seriously... unlike marketing.
 
There are 447.0 million inhabitants in the EU that would laugh at that notion. Communism has very little political footing in the EU.

And the fact that even Russia has gone capitalist proves it. Need more be said ... ?
Makes so much sense. I agree.

But Republicans won't believe it. Old myths die hard in the Republican Party. They still think capitalism is responsible for the American standard of living. They refuse to acknowledge the millions who have been lifted out of poverty, particularly the elderly, by socialism in the USA in the form of Social Security, Medicare, and government assistance programs for the poor.
 
Can we agree that our public policies should be market friendly and strive for a multiplier of two (2) or above in order to help with supply-side issues?
 
Economists are a conservative lot, which explains why it has taken decades for them to come to their (con)senses. ;)
Economists are all over the map. The only way they keep their jobs is by doing studies that contradict the studied of other economists; when do a study to prove their study correct and their critics wrong. Lather, rinse, repeat.
 
FUNDAMENTAL CHANGE IS HAPPENING IN EUROPE (BUT NOT THE US)

Makes so much sense. I agree. But Republicans won't believe it. Old myths die hard in the Republican Party. They still think capitalism is responsible for the American standard of living. They refuse to acknowledge the millions who have been lifted out of poverty, particularly the elderly, by socialism in the USA in the form of Social Security, Medicare, and government assistance programs for the poor.

I am making no pledge to socialism. It's dead. But let's define it before we bury it:
Socialism is a political, social, and economic philosophy encompassing a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership of the means of production. It includes the political theories and movements associated with such systems.

I do not believe in the total social-ownership of the means of production - and given what has happened in Soviet Russia I don't think the world needs any more dumb-lessons regarding "Socialism".

In Europe it has long-since been replaced by what we call here a Social Democracy, which is defined as:
A political, social, and economic philosophy within socialism that supports political and economic democracy.

Which means that any Social Democracy governance has priority concerns for the conditions of life and lifestyle of its people. Which means what?

These fundamental government-actions primarily:
*A public healthcare system that takes care of an entire population, and it is free, gratis and for nothing.
*A very low cost post-secondary education, which in this time of a profound employment-shift from Manufacturing to Services Industries, is predominant throughout Europe today to change by enhancing generally a country's national standard-of-education to a communally higher-level.

And I am not the least bit assured that the public-mindset in the US is prepared for those profound alterations in the American way-of-living. Which is why healthcare in the US costs an "arm-and-a-leg" (pun intended) because healthcare-education is far too expensive (and the costs must be repaid by deeply indebted graduating-students).

America needs profound change because far too many parts are still "hung-up" by an attachment to an archaic economic-system far too dependent upon "private enterprise". And, frankly, given the persistent archaic-mindset that prevails in the US, I see no profound fundamental-change in the near future.

And the DoD is a prime-example of what is wholly wrong with America. Despite Putin* there is not a chance in hell of any war occuring with Russia that would be atomized back into the Ice Age.

*His daughter bought a very expensive property close to Bordeaux and I'm sure she would not want to see that confiscated from her. She spends many summers there.
 
Makes so much sense. I agree.

But Republicans won't believe it. Old myths die hard in the Republican Party. They still think capitalism is responsible for the American standard of living. They refuse to acknowledge the millions who have been lifted out of poverty, particularly the elderly, by socialism in the USA in the form of Social Security, Medicare, and government assistance programs for the poor.

Yes, but that above in blue remains true - isn't it?

Capitalism prevails as an economic-mechanism in Europe as well. But, we have a great attachment to fundamental elements being funded and provided by the national governments. Namely these:
*Healthcare services that cost nothing to the population, which is one reason Europeans live four years longer than do Americans.
*Post-secondary Education to provide the intelligence necessary to run an advanced economic-system that functions primarily on the Internet.

Manufacturing still exists in Europe. Porsche still makes its cars in Germany! We pay higher prices for our cars*, but 83% of all cars in Europe are made-in-Europe!

Uncle Sam has a LOT he could learn from Europe ... !

*American cars are far too "bulky" to have found a market-share in Europe.
 
Can we agree that our public policies should be market friendly and strive for a multiplier of two (2) or above in order to help with supply-side issues?
Is planned obsolescence market friendly?

The US has been manufacturing automobiles for more than 100 years. Steam engines were made for 100 years before that. It is half-a-century after the Moon landing. Are we supposed to believe that auto manufacturers do not know how to test, measure and specify the durability and reliability of automobiles?

How many Americans know what a bathtub curve is? Nah, reading Catcher in the Rye is more important.
 
Yes, but that above in blue remains true - isn't it?

Capitalism prevails as an economic-mechanism in Europe as well. But, we have a great attachment to fundamental elements being funded and provided by the national governments. Namely these:
*Healthcare services that cost nothing to the population, which is one reason Europeans live four years longer than do Americans.
*Post-secondary Education to provide the intelligence necessary to run an advanced economic-system that functions primarily on the Internet.

Manufacturing still exists in Europe. Porsche still makes its cars in Germany! We pay higher prices for our cars*, but 83% of all cars in Europe are made-in-Europe!

Uncle Sam has a LOT he could learn from Europe ... !

*American cars are far too "bulky" to have found a market-share in Europe.
The American standard of living is due to capitalism and socialism combined, to be precise. Those claiming it is capitalism that did that are forgetting that socialism came and taxed that capitalism to take care of the needy. It also forced workers to pay into a system which provides for them in retirement. Capitalism generated the wealth. Socialism ensured that some of it was used in a socially beneficial way.

Agreed on the cars. But to be sure, there are lots of very small cars in America as well as the big honkers. And many of them, though they may wear the label of foreign makers, are actually assembled in the USA. Very few under union contract, true. Young workers getting royally screwed, yes. Corporate profits soaring, yes.
 
FUNDAMENTAL CHANGE IS HAPPENING IN EUROPE (BUT NOT THE US)



I am making no pledge to socialism. It's dead. But let's define it before we bury it:


I do not believe in the total social-ownership of the means of production - and given what has happened in Soviet Russia I don't think the world needs any more dumb-lessons regarding "Socialism".

In Europe it has long-since been replaced by what we call here a Social Democracy, which is defined as:


Which means that any Social Democracy governance has priority concerns for the conditions of life and lifestyle of its people. Which means what?

These fundamental government-actions primarily:
*A public healthcare system that takes care of an entire population, and it is free, gratis and for nothing.
*A very low cost post-secondary education, which in this time of a profound employment-shift from Manufacturing to Services Industries, is predominant throughout Europe today to change by enhancing generally a country's national standard-of-education to a communally higher-level.

And I am not the least bit assured that the public-mindset in the US is prepared for those profound alterations in the American way-of-living. Which is why healthcare in the US costs an "arm-and-a-leg" (pun intended) because healthcare-education is far too expensive (and the costs must be repaid by deeply indebted graduating-students).

America needs profound change because far too many parts are still "hung-up" by an attachment to an archaic economic-system far too dependent upon "private enterprise". And, frankly, given the persistent archaic-mindset that prevails in the US, I see no profound fundamental-change in the near future.

And the DoD is a prime-example of what is wholly wrong with America. Despite Putin* there is not a chance in hell of any war occuring with Russia that would be atomized back into the Ice Age.

*His daughter bought a very expensive property close to Bordeaux and I'm sure she would not want to see that confiscated from her. She spends many summers there.
American Republicans, for the most part, see no difference in Socialism and Social Democracy (what Bernie calls Democratic Socialism.) It's all the same to most of them. A few will take issue when we progressives argue that we just want what Europe has. Then they say what Europe has is not socialism by definition. It's a word game with them. I don't care to play it. Whatever you want to call the way Europe is doing it, that is what we should be doing in America.

We have some Republicans claiming: "That's socialism!" While others say it's not. Who cares? It's just a word. But it's such a heavy one for the American right. They cannot get past it.
 
Is planned obsolescence market friendly?

The US has been manufacturing automobiles for more than 100 years. Steam engines were made for 100 years before that. It is half-a-century after the Moon landing. Are we supposed to believe that auto manufacturers do not know how to test, measure and specify the durability and reliability of automobiles?

How many Americans know what a bathtub curve is? Nah, reading Catcher in the Rye is more important.
I prefer the term, Objection Oriented. Our Founding Fathers resorted to object orientation when creating our federal Constitution before the tech sector invented the term.
 
I prefer the term, Objection Oriented. Our Founding Fathers resorted to object orientation when creating our federal Constitution before the tech sector invented the term.
The Laws of Physics are incapable of giving a damn about your founding fathers and neither do I. I am not aware of automobile manufacture being called the Tech Sector in the 1950s.
 
NIGHT AND DAY

American Republicans, for the most part, see no difference in Socialism and Social Democracy (what Bernie calls Democratic Socialism.) It's all the same to most of them.

Yes, well, if ignorance were bliss the Replicants would be having Field Day. The difference between Socialism and a Social Democracy is substantial and of key importance.

Base Definitions:
-Socialism - A political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated entirely by a government thus avoiding competition.
-Social Democracy - A system of governance that has similar values to socialism, but within a capitalist framework. Citizens vote governments into office and benefit from an economy where multiple companies compete to sell their products at competitive prices in a market-economy.

Social Democracy is thus based upon a Market Economy. That cannot be more different from Communism where the production/distribution of products/services were wholly owned by a central Communist government.

Some call that difference between the two systems tantamount to "night from day" ...
 
American Republicans, for the most part, see no difference in Socialism and Social Democracy ... It's all the same to most of them.

That surprises no-one. The Replicants are not blind, they just refuse to see economic-reality for what it actually is. If a country can call upon individuals to risk their lives to defend the "American way of life" then it should not be favoring upper-incomes with pathetically low tax-levels.

Because, the present US economic system results in the distribution of Income & Wealth in this manner (from here):
fig1.png


The above distribution of Income & Wealth is wholly unfair and no way to run a country - and by that I DO NOT MEAN everybody should have the same amounts of Income and Wealth ... !
 
That surprises no-one. The Replicants are not blind, they just refuse to see economic-reality for what it actually is. If a country can call upon individuals to risk their lives to defend the "American way of life" then it should not be favoring upper-incomes with pathetically low tax-levels.

Because, the present US economic system results in the distribution of Income & Wealth in this manner (from here):
fig1.png


The above distribution of Income & Wealth is wholly unfair and no way to run a country - and by that I DO NOT MEAN everybody should have the same amounts of Income and Wealth ... !
Well you can just visually see that if the entire wealth of everyone below the 80th percentile is combined it doesn't even equal the yearly income of the top 20%. Not even close. But they complain they are taxed too much. What utter greed.
 
ROGUE BILLIONAIRES OF AMERICA

Well you can just visually see that if the entire wealth of everyone below the 80th percentile is combined it doesn't even equal the yearly income of the top 20%. Not even close. But they complain they are taxed too much. What utter greed.

Moreover, if one is at the "bottom of the Wealth Pyramid" in America then they should get off their duffs and "do something about it". Which means voting into Congress the sorts of people who can attack and take down the patent unfairness of far-too-low Upper Income Taxation.

America has enough ROGUE BILLIONAIRES and death-taxation should be raised to 100% of all sums beyond one to five megabucks that is "left" to kin (or anybody else that is not an accredited institution).

America has a long history of bending to upper-income "needs & desires". That has got to stop because the accumulated wealth-unfairness taxation in America is beyond belief or acceptance ... !
 
American Republicans, for the most part, see no difference in Socialism and Social Democracy (what Bernie calls Democratic Socialism.) It's all the same to most of them. A few will take issue when we progressives argue that we just want what Europe has. Then they say what Europe has is not socialism by definition. It's a word game with them. I don't care to play it. Whatever you want to call the way Europe is doing it, that is what we should be doing in America.

We have some Republicans claiming: "That's socialism!" While others say it's not. Who cares? It's just a word. But it's such a heavy one for the American right. They cannot get past it.
Right-wingers only proclaim their love for Capitalism in socialism threads. Otherwise, bigotry and fascism is their preferred method of governance.
 
ROGUE BILLIONAIRES OF AMERICA



Moreover, if one is at the "bottom of the Wealth Pyramid" in America then they should get off their duffs and "do something about it". Which means voting into Congress the sorts of people who can attack and take down the patent unfairness of far-too-low Upper Income Taxation.

America has enough ROGUE BILLIONAIRES and death-taxation should be raised to 100% of all sums beyond one to five megabucks that is "left" to kin (or anybody else that is not an accredited institution).

America has a long history of bending to upper-income "needs & desires". That has got to stop because the accumulated wealth-unfairness taxation in America is beyond belief or acceptance ... !
Seems like simple logic.

If most of the wealth of a nation is accumulated into a few pockets, there isn't as much available to circulate. But wealth does need to circulate in order to have a robust economy. The greedy rich are killing the golden goose.

We literally must tax the rich more to have a better economy.
 
If most of the wealth of a nation is accumulated into a few pockets, there isn't as much available to circulate. But wealth does need to circulate in order to have a robust economy.
It's not dead-money. It is invested either in savings or stocks/bonds/etc.

Taxation of bequeathed funds/values is difficult to imagine, so I wont try.

The rule must be that remaining family get a small total percentage (with an upper limit) of the Taxable Wealth. Then friends or others get a maximum small percentage of the total. The remainder is simply confiscated by the government.

We literally must tax the rich more to have a better economy.

Yes and the only question that must be answered is how much of the total does the US-government get first - and I suggest 75% of the total wealth and property-value (including investments). The remaining 25% can then be divided amongst families and/or selected individuals. Or something like that.

Of course, foreseeing this breakdown, most of the rich will start the "donating" to individuals their wealth whilst they are alive - and first to close-family and then friends and then charities. But these "gifted donations" can be treated by the government as income upon which a given stipulated tax on the amount is applied.

But the level of tax depends upon the nature of the recipient:
*First to family, which is taxed at existing income-tax rates.
*Then to others who are not family at existing income-tax rates.
*Then to charities without the tax-rate below only a certain amount.
 
Back
Top Bottom