MMT and Taxes

[Exquisitor]

Tax wealth not income. No corporate, no tax at all on business. Tax the owners, stock holders at a commensurate rate. No tax free investments, including pensions and muni bonds. Everything gets taxed. Uniform sales tax nationwide so online taxing can be efficient. Everyone pays some federal taxes.

Nonsense, jibberish, close loopholes, raise revenue, cut spending.

 

[Waddy]

Nonsense, jibberish, close loopholes, raise revenue, cut spending.

Historically, here's how your plan has worked out; taxes raised, cuts never materialize, extra revenue spent, borrowing continued. loopholes closed while lobbyists get others opened up.

You will NEVER, NEVER, get any kind of financial equality without taxing wealth. Can't be done with income tax alone. Without eliminating ALL loopholes, you will never keep them closed; it's like playing Whack-a-Mole.

 

[Exquisitor]

Historically, here's how your plan has worked out; taxes raised, cuts never materialize, extra revenue spent, borrowing continued. loopholes closed while lobbyists get others opened up.

You will NEVER, NEVER, get any kind of financial equality without taxing wealth. Can't be done with income tax alone. Without eliminating ALL loopholes, you will never keep them closed; it's like playing Whack-a-Mole.

Yes, this is what I want to do, eliminate all loopholes. Why should the Government tell me to get married or buy a house? Two for me and one for you, or three for me and two for you. Cover State and health care. When the debt gets paid then and we have savings, then we can talk about a lower schedule. This way if I work overtime I'm not just putting myself in a higher tax bracket.

Here's how my plan worked out and didn't: After WWII taxes were the highest and the economy grew the most. Bush's tax cuts wasted the Clinton boom and surplus and all went into the housing bubble that burst and left us with a crisis. Obama's repeal of the tax cuts kept us even. If you cut spending, lay off government workers this is money not going into economy, but I admit Congress has not done a good enough job.

 

[Waddy]

Yes, this is what I want to do, eliminate all loopholes. Why should the Government tell me to get married or buy a house? Two for me and one for you, or three for me and two for you. Cover State and health care. When the debt gets paid then and we have savings, then we can talk about a lower schedule. This way if I work overtime I'm not just putting myself in a higher tax bracket.

Here's how my plan worked out and didn't: After WWII taxes were the highest and the economy grew the most. Bush's tax cuts wasted the Clinton boom and surplus and all went into the housing bubble that burst and left us with a crisis. Obama's repeal of the tax cuts kept us even. If you cut spending, lay off government workers this is money not going into economy, but I admit Congress has not done a good enough job.

"When the debt gets paid then and we have savings, then we can talk about a lower schedule." That ain't how it works. Increased revenue won't be used to pay down debt, it will be spent. The more money you send to the government, the more they will spend. Historically, that's how it's always worked.

"After WWII taxes were the highest and the economy grew the most." Post WWII the US was the last man standing. We furnished the world with products and food. We never had our cities and factories bombed to rubble, so we enjoyed a temporary economic monopoly on the world economic stage. And while tax rates were high, because of all the loopholes actual taxes paid were not.

Today in the world we have to compete with countries that have much lower corporate rates than we do, will offer free land and subsidies for moving overseas, and allow US companies to avoid unions, worker rights, environmental regulations and insulate them from product liability. It is not a level playing field.

You talk about high tax rates after WWII. Back in the 50'S when I was a kid working class people paid just about zero income tax. Mostly because of the dependent deduction, and most families had several kids. The deduction for children hasn't risen much since then. And families are smaller. Today, with two parents working, the income brought in by working mothers just about pays the families taxes.

"If you cut spending, lay off government workers this is money not going into economy". BS.. that money goes into the economy no matter who spends it. However, if the citizen gets to keep the money, it will be spread further and on more consumer items than if the government spends it, often on wars and other non-productive uses.

 

[MrWonka]

Serious non-debate question here for the MMT'rs. I have never denied that MMT makes sense short term (just not long term and no, you cannot string a bunch of short terms together) but, I am curious as to what you self proclaimed experts think would be the best tax policy if you were president and had a supermajority in both the House and the Senate and could basically do whatever you wanted. What would your tax policy be and would it be different in down economies as well as growing economies? I'm not asking for debate purposes, I'm just genuinely curious as to your thoughts on the subject.

I am not sure there is a specific tax policy that you could classify as being specifically MMT. My preference would be a fairly progressive income tax that put the vast majority of the burden on the wealthy and large corporations. No sales taxes unless used specifically to demotivate purchase of things like guns, alchohol, drugs, and other negative substances like polutants, carbon tax.... that kind of thing. In exceptionally good economic times increased taxes particularly on the wealthy would be used to slow excessive and often reckless investment. In poor economic times lowered taxes on the middle class and lower income workers could be used as stimulus.

Overall the tax policy should be used to promote steady and reasonable growth. Not excessive growth that could lead to a bubble, but in tough economic times we should not be overly concerned about deficits. As a general rule I would say a deficit of 2% gdp is acceptable during average economic periods. A drop to 0-1% during excellent economic times, but I would be okay with up to 5-6% in bad economic times.

I would be fine with a limit preventing the overall tax burden of an individual or company to exceed 40%, but that doesn't mean a 40% top tax bracket I'm referring to a real % of income.

 

[MrWonka]

Mine would be a land value tax. Fastest direct way to tax the entire country and most difficult to dodge.

The problem that I see with this is that landlords could potentially build this into the cost of rent forcing renters to cover their tax burdens. An Income tax would make it so that if a landlord tried to increase rent to cover the tax they would just end up paying higher tax.

 

[Moderate Right]

I am not sure there is a specific tax policy that you could classify as being specifically MMT. My preference would be a fairly progressive income tax that put the vast majority of the burden on the wealthy and large corporations. No sales taxes unless used specifically to demotivate purchase of things like guns, alchohol, drugs, and other negative substances like polutants, carbon tax.... that kind of thing. In exceptionally good economic times increased taxes particularly on the wealthy would be used to slow excessive and often reckless investment. In poor economic times lowered taxes on the middle class and lower income workers could be used as stimulus.

Overall the tax policy should be used to promote steady and reasonable growth. Not excessive growth that could lead to a bubble, but in tough economic times we should not be overly concerned about deficits. As a general rule I would say a deficit of 2% gdp is acceptable during average economic periods. A drop to 0-1% during excellent economic times, but I would be okay with up to 5-6% in bad economic times.

I would be fine with a limit preventing the overall tax burden of an individual or company to exceed 40%, but that doesn't mean a 40% top tax bracket I'm referring to a real % of income.

Most of that doesn't have anything to do with MMT, which never worries about deficits or debt and in fact encourages both to be never ending until we reach full employment, roughly defined as being a 0% unemployment rate, or if we reach a period of hyperinflation.

 

[MrWonka]

Most of that doesn't have anything to do with MMT, which never worries about deficits or debt and in fact encourages both to be never ending until we reach full employment, roughly defined as being a 0% unemployment rate, or if we reach a period of hyperinflation.

Not exactly, but that is why as I stated there isn't really a specific tax policy that I would consider to be MMT. MMT would adjust tax policy accordingly to promote steady growth and low unemployment. It would be Kenyesian in that it would depend largely on the situation you're in, and where you're trying to get the economy too.

 

[Exquisitor]

"When the debt gets paid then and we have savings, then we can talk about a lower schedule." That ain't how it works. Increased revenue won't be used to pay down debt, it will be spent. The more money you send to the government, the more they will spend. Historically, that's how it's always worked.

"After WWII taxes were the highest and the economy grew the most." Post WWII the US was the last man standing. We furnished the world with products and food. We never had our cities and factories bombed to rubble, so we enjoyed a temporary economic monopoly on the world economic stage. And while tax rates were high, because of all the loopholes actual taxes paid were not.

Today in the world we have to compete with countries that have much lower corporate rates than we do, will offer free land and subsidies for moving overseas, and allow US companies to avoid unions, worker rights, environmental regulations and insulate them from product liability. It is not a level playing field.

You talk about high tax rates after WWII. Back in the 50'S when I was a kid working class people paid just about zero income tax. Mostly because of the dependent deduction, and most families had several kids. The deduction for children hasn't risen much since then. And families are smaller. Today, with two parents working, the income brought in by working mothers just about pays the families taxes.

"If you cut spending, lay off government workers this is money not going into economy". BS.. that money goes into the economy no matter who spends it. However, if the citizen gets to keep the money, it will be spread further and on more consumer items than if the government spends it, often on wars and other non-productive uses.

Here's how ****** up our political philosophies are: Conservatives, Republicans don't want to give to their neighbor because he's fallen while the Liberal Democrats think everyone is OK so they tax them.

 

[Moderate Right]

Here's how ****** up our political philosophies are: Conservatives, Republicans don't want to give to their neighbor because he's fallen while the Liberal Democrats think everyone is OK so they tax them.

Ummmmmmmmm. Many statistics show that Conservatives/Republicans give far more to charity than do Democrats. Democrats talk a big game but their game consists of them wanting Conservatives/Republicans to give even more than they do now.

 

[Absentglare]

Ummmmmmmmm. Many statistics show that Conservatives/Republicans give far more to charity than do Democrats. Democrats talk a big game but their game consists of them wanting Conservatives/Republicans to give even more than they do now.

Are you confused about the difference between a policy that covers all of those in need, and a policy that leaves them to fight for the few cake crumbs the wealthy leave for them?

 

[Moderate Right]

Are you confused about the difference between a policy that covers all of those in need, and a policy that leaves them to fight for the few cake crumbs the wealthy leave for them?

Everyone has the opportunity to become whatever they want. There are many stories out there of poor blacks raised in poverty going on to make something of themselves and becoming millionaires and even billionaires (OPrah Winfrey, for one). This is not a socialistic society where everyone is forced to be the same level of poor while those in the government live lavish lives. Everyone in America has the opportunity to make something of themselves. It is not the rich's fault if the poorer don't get there. There are always Chiefs and Indians in society and they were never meant to be equals.

 

[Absentglare]

Everyone has the opportunity to become whatever they want. There are many stories out there of poor blacks raised in poverty going on to make something of themselves and becoming millionaires and even billionaires (OPrah Winfrey, for one). This is not a socialistic society where everyone is forced to be the same level of poor while those in the government live lavish lives. Everyone in America has the opportunity to make something of themselves. It is not the rich's fault if the poorer don't get there. There are always Chiefs and Indians in society and they were never meant to be equals.

So you're happy to watch good Americans suffer for no discernible gain?

 

[Neomalthusian]

Everyone has the opportunity to become whatever they want. There are many stories out there of poor blacks raised in poverty going on to make something of themselves and becoming millionaires and even billionaires (OPrah Winfrey, for one). This is not a socialistic society where everyone is forced to be the same level of poor while those in the government live lavish lives. Everyone in America has the opportunity to make something of themselves. It is not the rich's fault if the poorer don't get there.

It isn't necessarily a rich person's fault the poor are poor (or rich people's in general), but it can be in some cases. Regulation is sometimes needed to prevent monopolistic and predatory behaviors that can do a number on people's upward mobility opportunities. Capitalism has worked well when anti-competitive, cartel and monopolistic tactics, among others, were not tolerated and people were free to offer goods or services for a better deal than the market leader.

 

[Moderate Right]

So you're happy to watch good Americans suffer for no discernible gain?

Number one, who said they were suffering? They are used to their lifestyle. Number two, it is them who do not want gain, unless it is just given to them for nothing in return.

 

[Moderate Right]

It isn't necessarily a rich person's fault the poor are poor (or rich people's in general), but it can be in some cases. Regulation is sometimes needed to prevent monopolistic and predatory behaviors that can do a number on people's upward mobility opportunities. Capitalism has worked well when anti-competitive, cartel and monopolistic tactics, among others, were not tolerated and people were free to offer goods or services for a better deal than the market leader.

We have laws against monopolies.

 

[Absentglare]

Number one, who said they were suffering? They are used to their lifestyle. Number two, it is them who do not want gain, unless it is just given to them for nothing in return.

Number one, is truly oblivious to what happens when resources are scarce; basically, "let them eat cake".

Number two, false.

 

[Neomalthusian]

We have laws against monopolies.

Not just monopolies in the pure form, but monopoly power (which is different) and monopolistic and anti-competitive tactics in general.

 

[Neomalthusian]

Not just monopolies in the pure form, but monopoly power (which is different) and monopolistic and anti-competitive tactics in general.

Of course, a couple special types of entities are granted exemption from this sort of regulation, e.g. car dealership associations, pharmaceutical companies, labor unions.

 

[Moderate Right]

Not just monopolies in the pure form, but monopoly power (which is different) and monopolistic and anti-competitive tactics in general.

Snore, snore, snore. I get it - rich bad, poor good. Screw the rich. Steal from the rich and give to the poor. Yada, yada, yada.

 

[Moderate Right]

Number one, is truly oblivious to what happens when resources are scarce; basically, "let them eat cake".

Number two, false.

What resources are scarce? Number two is not false. The poor are used to their way of life and accept it. If they didn't, they would be motivated to get out of their holes. Their only motivation is gimme, gimme, gimme, but I'm not going to do anything to earn it, other than the little I am already doing. I just read an article the other day where in 15 states you can make more money on welfare than working. Some incentive.

 

[Exquisitor]

What resources are scarce? Number two is not false. The poor are used to their way of life and accept it. If they didn't, they would be motivated to get out of their holes. Their only motivation is gimme, gimme, gimme, but I'm not going to do anything to earn it, other than the little I am already doing. I just read an article the other day where in 15 states you can make more money on welfare than working. Some incentive.

This is why we need a raise in the minimum wage.

 

[Neomalthusian]

Snore, snore, snore. I get it - rich bad, poor good. Screw the rich. Steal from the rich and give to the poor. Yada, yada, yada.

Don't descend into sarcasm and emotionalism. One thing I find that often separates conservatives from liberals is the former's ability to emphasize process over outcome. Leftists complain about unequal outcome no matter what the process that led to it. Right wingers are okay with unequal outcome as long as process is upheld. Part of upholding "process" involves regulating anti-competitive behavior and maintaining market freedom, which means the right and freedom of others to sell their goods or services in competition with other sellers. Done successfully, this keeps profit relatively low, because as soon as one seller is trying to skim too much off the price he's charging, another can step in and lure away his customers with more competitive pricing.

Conservatives value government's role in maintaining that competitive order, and the country has upheld competitiveness successfully on many occasions. But there are other cases in which government officials and the privately rich have colluded to skirt the competitive order entirely, exempt themselves from regulations that promote free markets, and further enrich themselves with behavior that should be illegal, but isn't, or it isn't enforced. Some engage in these tactics. Not all the rich in general. Some.

So therefore while it is not fair to generalize the rich as keeping people poor, some are worthy of that criticism by virtue of the unethical process by which they establish their success.

 

[Absentglare]

What resources are scarce? Number two is not false. The poor are used to their way of life and accept it. If they didn't, they would be motivated to get out of their holes. Their only motivation is gimme, gimme, gimme, but I'm not going to do anything to earn it, other than the little I am already doing. I just read an article the other day where in 15 states you can make more money on welfare than working. Some incentive.

Completely untrue. If having money eroded incentives, production would come to a screeching halt.

 

[Moderate Right]

This is why we need a raise in the minimum wage.

No, we need to lower the welfare to make work worthwhile. But, you're in luck. You can now look up to Walmart for solving the inequality problem. They can't be your scapegoat anymore.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/walmart-yes-walmart-making-changes-100102778.html