MMT Has No Clothes[W:26]

[Gina]

Re: MMT Has No Clothes

Moderator's Warning:

Moderation has occurred. Either discuss the content of the OP and leave the poster out of it, or thread bans (at the least) are forthcoming. Also, report problems with the thread, do not discuss it. Playing Mod is baiting.

 

[KLATTU]

Re: MMT Has No Clothes

Fine. End of discussion … that never started, or at least was never worth anything.



And that's exactly what's happening. Last year, the bottom four quintiles paid more than 35.3% of the taxes while collecting 39.3% of the income. Not even much progressivity for you to complain about.

View attachment 67201782

Even a left wing site like " Citizens for ax Justice' can't hide the fact the federal income tax system is massively progessive.They're trying , by misleadingly burying payroll taxes in with income taxes,( even then ,still progressive) but anybody with half a brain can see the true picture.

 

[mmi]

Re: MMT Has No Clothes

misleadingly burying payroll taxes in with income taxes

How is that misleading? Taxes are taxes. You don't like it because it destroys the false, right-wing narrative you parrot from liars like HandJob, LimbBlow, Blech, and all the unprofessional, lying turds on Fuhhhx Nooooyse.

>>anybody with half a brain can see the true picture.

I agree, and that may explain yer lack of perception.

 

[MrWonka]

Re: MMT Has No Clothes

That's it. Belittle me because you can't belittle the experts.

See what I think is hilarious here is that Palley who you are referring to as an expert is a self-described Keynesian. So how is it that a Conservative like yourself can admit to the superior knowledge of a Keynesian economist, but only when they aren't picking apart your supply side trickle down nonsense?

 

[KLATTU]

Re: MMT Has No Clothes

How is that misleading? Taxes are taxes. You don't like it because it destroys the false, right-wing narrative you parrot from liars like HandJob, LimbBlow, Blech, and all the unprofessional, lying turds on Fuhhhx Nooooyse.

>>anybody with half a brain can see the true picture.

I agree, and that may explain yer lack of perception.

What's the false narrative? The federal income tax system is progressive.
Each system should be viewed separately. It makes absolutely no sense to look at them in aggregate. Should the Federal gov't change the whole system because a state or City has a high sales tax or high property taxes.? DUMMMM

 

[mmi]

Re: MMT Has No Clothes

What's the false narrative?

As stated here by MR, that the big majority of Americans "above the poverty line" are not "contributing something to our government," that only "the rich" pay taxes.

If yer not aware, that is a dramatically FALSE assertion.

>>The federal income tax system is progressive. Each system should be viewed separately. It makes absolutely no sense to look at them in aggregate.

And why is that? I'd say it's just the opposite — they can be viewed properly only when aggregated. Fifty years ago, the top 0.01% paid about 70% of its income in federal taxes; that's now down to around 35%. This change has driven up debt and increased income and wealth inequality, outcomes we don't want.

>>Should the Federal gov't change the whole system because a state or City has a high sales tax or high property taxes.?

I dunno. But why bother asking — relatively high sales and property taxes in a state or locality have very little effect on the distribution of tax burden at the top end. The big money benefits accumulated by high-income households are associated with corporate taxes, estate and gift taxes, and taxes on capital gains, which comprise about seventeen percent of federal revenues. Payroll taxes account for a third, but you want them to be ignored … because they're highly regressive. Last year, Uncle Sam got 47% of his dough through income taxes, so whatever progressivity exists in that category, it's less than half the picture.

>>DUMMMM

Yeah, focusing narrowly on income taxes is that.

 

[KLATTU]

Re: MMT Has No Clothes

As st

Yeah, focusing narrowly on income taxes is that.

So you are saying that the federal government should do what ? Adjust the federal rates to ensure the entire tax system is progressive?

 

[mmi]

Re: MMT Has No Clothes

So you are saying that the federal government should do what? Adjust the federal rates to ensure the entire tax system is progressive?

Increase taxes collected at the top end of the income scale. Those have twice been lowered dramatically over the past thirty-five years, and the results have been markedly negative. Seems entirely straightforward to me.

We implemented two rounds of SSE policies, ignoring the lessons of the Great Depression, and what did we get? In Round One, a severe recession for sixteen months, July 1981 – Nov 1982, that saw GDP fall by 2.7% and unemployment above ten percent for ten months, above nine percent for nineteen months, above eight percent for twenty-seven months, and above seven percent for until Oct 1986. The national debt as a percentage of GDP more than doubled, from 30% to 62%.

Clinton cleaned up the mess and got us $600B in budget surpluses. So what the heck, let's try SSE again. Another severe recession, this one lasting eighteen months, GDP down 4.2%, with more crippling unemployment and debt increasing to more than 100% of GDP.

In light of this history, it looks to me like big tax cut giveaways to upper-income households are not in our national interest. I suppose you see things differently.

 

[jaeger19]

Re: MMT Has No Clothes

Increase taxes collected at the top end of the income scale. Those have twice been lowered dramatically over the past thirty-five years, and the results have been markedly negative. Seems entirely straightforward to me.

We implemented two rounds of SSE policies, ignoring the lessons of the Great Depression, and what did we get? In Round One, a severe recession for sixteen months, July 1981 – Nov 1982, that saw GDP fall by 2.7% and unemployment above ten percent for ten months, above nine percent for nineteen months, above eight percent for twenty-seven months, and above seven percent for until Oct 1986. The national debt as a percentage of GDP more than doubled, from 30% to 62%.

Clinton cleaned up the mess and got us $600B in budget surpluses. So what the heck, let's try SSE again. Another severe recession, this one lasting eighteen months, GDP down 4.2%, with more crippling unemployment and debt increasing to more than 100% of GDP.

In light of this history, it looks to me like big tax cut giveaways to upper-income households are not in our national interest. I suppose you see things differently.

Please explain how taxing me more directly helps the economy and helps my employees.

 

[mmi]

Re: MMT Has No Clothes

Please explain how taxing me more directly helps the economy and helps my employees.

Hasn't this been discussed already? As I recall, you want to separate taxing from spending, and argue that taxing, considered in isolation, doesn't help anyone. I think this makes no sense.

We must collect taxes to fund spending. So to answer yer question (perhaps again), taxing you (and everyone else) helps the economy and helps yer employees in that it makes available those financial resources required to pay for things like Social Security and Medicare benefits, national defence, regulatory agencies that help keep us alive and healthy, etc.

 

[Moderate Right]

Re: MMT Has No Clothes

See what I think is hilarious here is that Palley who you are referring to as an expert is a self-described Keynesian. So how is it that a Conservative like yourself can admit to the superior knowledge of a Keynesian economist, but only when they aren't picking apart your supply side trickle down nonsense?

I don't believe in SSE and I don't believe in MMT.

 

[Moderate Right]

Re: MMT Has No Clothes

As stated here by MR, that the big majority of Americans "above the poverty line" are not "contributing something to our government," that only "the rich" pay taxes.

If yer not aware, that is a dramatically FALSE assertion.

>>The federal income tax system is progressive. Each system should be viewed separately. It makes absolutely no sense to look at them in aggregate.

And why is that? I'd say it's just the opposite — they can be viewed properly only when aggregated. Fifty years ago, the top 0.01% paid about 70% of its income in federal taxes; that's now down to around 35%. This change has driven up debt and increased income and wealth inequality, outcomes we don't want.

>>Should the Federal gov't change the whole system because a state or City has a high sales tax or high property taxes.?

I dunno. But why bother asking — relatively high sales and property taxes in a state or locality have very little effect on the distribution of tax burden at the top end. The big money benefits accumulated by high-income households are associated with corporate taxes, estate and gift taxes, and taxes on capital gains, which comprise about seventeen percent of federal revenues. Payroll taxes account for a third, but you want them to be ignored … because they're highly regressive. Last year, Uncle Sam got 47% of his dough through income taxes, so whatever progressivity exists in that category, it's less than half the picture.

>>DUMMMM

Yeah, focusing narrowly on income taxes is that.

To clarify, and most of you already know, I meant that anyone over the poverty line should contribute to FEDERAL INCOME TAXES.

 

[mmi]

Re: MMT Has No Clothes

I meant that anyone over the poverty line should contribute to FEDERAL INCOME TAXES.

Let's say yer a single renter working full-time at the federal minimum wage. You earn about fifteen grand. Yer personal exemption is four grand and yer standard deduction is $6300. That leaves $4700 of taxable income. You don't qualify for the EITC. You pay $473 in federal income taxes.

Now if you have dependents, that's different. Notice that you'll have a very difficult time supporting them on that income. If yer paying mortgage interest, you can write that off. But a person making fifteen grand likely can't afford to pay on a mortgage. Big medical expenses that can be written off? Again, lots of trouble paying those bills.

I work part-time and don't have much of an income. I didn't itemize this year because it wouldn't have lowered my tax burden, And I paid federal income tax, certainly more than I wanted to, as I have every year of my life since I was fifteen years old.

 

[KLATTU]

Re: MMT Has No Clothes

Increase taxes collected at the top end of the income scale. Those have twice been lowered dramatically over the past thirty-five years, and the results have been markedly negative. Seems entirely straightforward to me.

We implemented two rounds of SSE policies, ignoring the lessons of the Great Depression, and what did we get? In Round One, a severe recession for sixteen months, July 1981 – Nov 1982, that saw GDP fall by 2.7% and unemployment above ten percent for ten months, above nine percent for nineteen months, above eight percent for twenty-seven months, and above seven percent for until Oct 1986. The national debt as a percentage of GDP more than doubled, from 30% to 62%.

Clinton cleaned up the mess and got us $600B in budget surpluses. So what the heck, let's try SSE again. Another severe recession, this one lasting eighteen months, GDP down 4.2%, with more crippling unemployment and debt increasing to more than 100% of GDP.

In light of this history, it looks to me like big tax cut giveaways to upper-income households are not in our national interest. I suppose you see things differently.

So much dumb Sh$t in that post but I 've found through experience, once a liberal calls a tax cut a 'giveaway' you know the debate is over. LOL

 

[countryboy]

Re: MMT Has No Clothes

As stated here by MR, that the big majority of Americans "above the poverty line" are not "contributing something to our government," that only "the rich" pay taxes.

If yer not aware, that is a dramatically FALSE assertion.

>>The federal income tax system is progressive. Each system should be viewed separately. It makes absolutely no sense to look at them in aggregate.

And why is that? I'd say it's just the opposite — they can be viewed properly only when aggregated. Fifty years ago, the top 0.01% paid about 70% of its income in federal taxes; that's now down to around 35%. This change has driven up debt and increased income and wealth inequality, outcomes we don't want.

>>Should the Federal gov't change the whole system because a state or City has a high sales tax or high property taxes.?

I dunno. But why bother asking — relatively high sales and property taxes in a state or locality have very little effect on the distribution of tax burden at the top end. The big money benefits accumulated by high-income households are associated with corporate taxes, estate and gift taxes, and taxes on capital gains, which comprise about seventeen percent of federal revenues. Payroll taxes account for a third, but you want them to be ignored … because they're highly regressive. Last year, Uncle Sam got 47% of his dough through income taxes, so whatever progressivity exists in that category, it's less than half the picture.

>>DUMMMM

Yeah, focusing narrowly on income taxes is that.

Lol, you accuse someone else of making false assertions, then you trot out the ole "70% tax rate" chestnut in the same post.

 

[countryboy]

Re: MMT Has No Clothes

Hasn't this been discussed already? As I recall, you want to separate taxing from spending, and argue that taxing, considered in isolation, doesn't help anyone. I think this makes no sense.

We must collect taxes to fund spending. So to answer yer question (perhaps again), taxing you (and everyone else) helps the economy and helps yer employees in that it makes available those financial resources required to pay for things like Social Security and Medicare benefits, national defence, regulatory agencies that help keep us alive and healthy, etc.

Ridiculous nonsense. The government doesn't "spend" money, it OVERSPENDS. Until the government cuts out the waste, fraud, and abuse, I will place no trust in it. And neither should you. Why are you perfectly fine with wasteful spending? Oh, that's right, it's not "wasteful spending", it's, "MMT". Yeah, gimme a break already.

 

[Moderate Right]

Re: MMT Has No Clothes

Let's say yer a single renter working full-time at the federal minimum wage. You earn about fifteen grand. Yer personal exemption is four grand and yer standard deduction is $6300. That leaves $4700 of taxable income. You don't qualify for the EITC. You pay $473 in federal income taxes.

Now if you have dependents, that's different. Notice that you'll have a very difficult time supporting them on that income. If yer paying mortgage interest, you can write that off. But a person making fifteen grand likely can't afford to pay on a mortgage. Big medical expenses that can be written off? Again, lots of trouble paying those bills.

I work part-time and don't have much of an income. I didn't itemize this year because it wouldn't have lowered my tax burden, And I paid federal income tax, certainly more than I wanted to, as I have every year of my life since I was fifteen years old.

I'm not going to look it up, but what is the poverty level? There are different poverty levels based on each tax payer's unique situations. I said that everyone over the poverty level should be paying some amount of federal income tax. With your examples I suspect that none of them are over the poverty level so therefore, in my scenario, they would pay zero federal income taxes and I'm not against tweaking how much earners just over the poverty level pay in tax. It doesn't have to be what the current system would charge if your examples are over the poverty level. I'm just saying that it is ridiculous to say that someone who is already paying millions of dollars in federal income taxes should be paying their "fair share" while the person (47%) saying that is paying zero. We need to collect more tax revenues (mostly from the rich) and spend less and EVERYONE over the poverty level needs to pay their fair share, not zero. If it's $10 then it is $10. As I've said before, maybe the best solution is to come up with a minimum tax for income levels over the poverty line, no matter how many exemptions, deductions, or credits you have. This would include both those just over the poverty level up to billionaires who try writing off enough to pay zero taxes.

 

[jaeger19]

Re: MMT Has No Clothes

Hasn't this been discussed already? As I recall, you want to separate taxing from spending, and argue that taxing, considered in isolation, doesn't help anyone. I think this makes no sense.

We must collect taxes to fund spending. So to answer yer question (perhaps again), taxing you (and everyone else) helps the economy and helps yer employees in that it makes available those financial resources required to pay for things like Social Security and Medicare benefits, national defence, regulatory agencies that help keep us alive and healthy, etc.

The irony here is funny,. YOU and others here want to separate taxing from spending. "tax more" you say. As if taxing me more directly helps. but it doesn't.

We currently have an extremely progressive federal income tax system. More progressive than in the past. AND we currently are taxing at about our historical norm relative to GDP.

The poor and middle class are paying the lowest federal tax in decades.

So we ARE ALREADY taxing to fund spending. The issue is not taxing.. its SPENDING.

And the irony is not lost on any of us that this is an MMT thread. and you are an MMT supporter.

Since you advocate increase DEFICIT spending.

 

[countryboy]

Re: MMT Has No Clothes

The irony here is funny,. YOU and others here want to separate taxing from spending. "tax more" you say. As if taxing me more directly helps. but it doesn't.

We currently have an extremely progressive federal income tax system. More progressive than in the past. AND we currently are taxing at about our historical norm relative to GDP.

The poor and middle class are paying the lowest federal tax in decades.

So we ARE ALREADY taxing to fund spending. The issue is not taxing.. its SPENDING.

And the irony is not lost on any of us that this is an MMT thread. and you are an MMT supporter.

Since you advocate increase DEFICIT spending.

Actually, MMT is unlimited deficit spending.

 

[jaeger19]

Re: MMT Has No Clothes

As stated here by MR, that the big majority of Americans "above the poverty line" are not "contributing something to our government," that only "the rich" pay taxes.

If yer not aware, that is a dramatically FALSE assertion.

>>The federal income tax system is progressive. Each system should be viewed separately. It makes absolutely no sense to look at them in aggregate.

And why is that? I'd say it's just the opposite — they can be viewed properly only when aggregated. Fifty years ago, the top 0.01% paid about 70% of its income in federal taxes; that's now down to around 35%. This change has driven up debt and increased income and wealth inequality, outcomes we don't want.

>>Should the Federal gov't change the whole system because a state or City has a high sales tax or high property taxes.?

I dunno. But why bother asking — relatively high sales and property taxes in a state or locality have very little effect on the distribution of tax burden at the top end. The big money benefits accumulated by high-income households are associated with corporate taxes, estate and gift taxes, and taxes on capital gains, which comprise about seventeen percent of federal revenues. Payroll taxes account for a third, but you want them to be ignored … because they're highly regressive. Last year, Uncle Sam got 47% of his dough through income taxes, so whatever progressivity exists in that category, it's less than half the picture.

>>DUMMMM

Yeah, focusing narrowly on income taxes is that.

Actually the poor and middle class pay lower federal taxes than they have in decades.

Federal taxes on middle-income Americans are near historic lows,[1] according to the latest available data. That’s true both for federal income taxes and total federal taxes.
[2]•Income taxes: A family of four in the exact middle of the income spectrum filing its taxes for 2013 this filing season paid only 5.3 percent of its 2013 income in federal income taxes, according to estimates from the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center (TPC).[3] Average income tax rates for these typical families have been lower during the Bush and Obama Administrations than at any time since the 1950s. (See Figure 1.) As discussed below, 2009 and 2010 were particularly low because of the temporary Making Work Pay Tax Credit.
•Overall federal taxes: Overall federal taxes — which include income, payroll, and excise taxes, and imputed corporate taxes — on middle-income households in 2009 were at their lowest levels in decades, according to the latest data from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).

Second point.

Now while you state that we should take in ALL taxes into account. You only seem to focus on increasing FEDERAL INCOME taxes on the rich.

YOU are the one that's focused narrowly on income taxes.. while fully recognizing that the federal income tax is very progressive.

 

[jaeger19]

Re: MMT Has No Clothes

Actually, MMT is unlimited deficit spending.

Oh no.. hold their feet to the fire and they will admit that its not unlimited spending.

They will adamantly deny that its unlimited spending and castigate you for even saying that.

Until you question them about where exactly that limit to spending is... and then they will hem and haw and prevaricate.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Re: MMT Has No Clothes

We currently have an extremely progressive federal income tax system. More progressive than in the past.

First, the progressivity of the U.S. federal tax system at the top of the income
distribution has declined dramatically since the 1960s. For example, the top
0.01 percent of earners paid over 70 percent of their income in federal taxes in
1960, while they paid only about 35 percent of their income in 2005. Average
federal tax rates for the middle class have remained roughly constant over time.
This dramatic drop in progressivity at the upper end of the income distribution is
due primarily to a drop in corporate taxes and to a lesser extent estate and gift
taxes, both of which fall on capital income, combined with a sharp change in the
composition of top incomes away from capital income and toward labor income.
The reduction in top marginal individual income tax rates has contributed only
marginally to the decline of progressivity of the federal tax system, because with
various deductions and exemptions, along with favored treatment for capital gains,
the average tax rate paid by those with very high income levels has changed much
less over time than the top marginal rates. Large reductions in tax progressivity
since the 1960s took place primarily during two periods: the Reagan presidency in
the 1980s and the Bush administration in the early 2000s. The only significant
increase in tax progressivity since 1960 took place in the early 1990s during the first
Clinton administration

https://eml.berkeley.edu/~saez/piketty-saezJEP07taxprog.pdf

 

[jaeger19]

Re: MMT Has No Clothes

First, the progressivity of the U.S. federal tax system at the top of the income
distribution has declined dramatically since the 1960s. For example, the top
0.01 percent of earners paid over 70 percent of their income in federal taxes in
1960, while they paid only about 35 percent of their income in 2005. Average
federal tax rates for the middle class have remained roughly constant over time.
This dramatic drop in progressivity at the upper end of the income distribution is
due primarily to a drop in corporate taxes and to a lesser extent estate and gift
taxes, both of which fall on capital income, combined with a sharp change in the
composition of top incomes away from capital income and toward labor income.
The reduction in top marginal individual income tax rates has contributed only
marginally to the decline of progressivity of the federal tax system, because with
various deductions and exemptions, along with favored treatment for capital gains,
the average tax rate paid by those with very high income levels has changed much
less over time than the top marginal rates. Large reductions in tax progressivity
since the 1960s took place primarily during two periods: the Reagan presidency in
the 1980s and the Bush administration in the early 2000s. The only significant
increase in tax progressivity since 1960 took place in the early 1990s during the first
Clinton administration

https://eml.berkeley.edu/~saez/piketty-saezJEP07taxprog.pdf

Yeah..no.

While the "top .01%" paid 70%. Those that fell in that were extremely small.

Meanwhile, currently the top tier captures a lot more "wealthy" than it did.
In the meantime.., we have lowered taxes on the poor and middle class to historic lows.

Still, that analysis confirms that, after all federal taxes are factored in, the U.S. tax system as a whole is progressive. The top 0.1% of families pay the equivalent of 39.2% and the bottom 20% have negative tax rates (that is, they get more money back from the government in the form of refundable tax credits than they pay in taxes).

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Re: MMT Has No Clothes

Yeah..no.

While the "top .01%" paid 70%. Those that fell in that were extremely small.

Meanwhile, currently the top tier captures a lot more "wealthy" than it did.
In the meantime.., we have lowered taxes on the poor and middle class to historic lows.

I'm not sure which is more pathetic, a poster claiming to be a doctor who can't form grammatically correct sentences, or a poster that was discussing the supposed "extreme" level of progressiveness in US federal RATES (greater NOW it says) who now wants to divert to the numbers of TAXPAYERS....while also falling back to the previous argument about lower taxes on lower quintiles and simultaneously ignoring (once again!) the nearly 50% cut in rates for the top earners.

This again is why I dislike your posts, the deceit, the lies and outright diversions from the focus I bring to bear on specific points you state are nothing more than weak hand-waving. It is so automatic, so consistent and so obvious.

 

[jaeger19]

Re: MMT Has No Clothes

I'm not sure which is more pathetic, a poster claiming to be a doctor who can't form grammatically correct sentences, or a poster that was discussing the supposed "extreme" level of progressiveness in US federal RATES (greater NOW it says) who now wants to divert to the numbers of TAXPAYERS....while also falling back to the previous argument about lower taxes on lower quintiles and simultaneously ignoring (once again!) the nearly 50% cut in rates for the top earners.

This again is why I dislike your posts, the deceit, the lies and outright diversions from the focus I bring to bear on specific points you state are nothing more than weak hand-waving. It is so automatic, so consistent and so obvious.

Facts seem to bother you quite a bit don't they?

I suppose that's why every time you get proven wrong, you resort to personal attacks.