MMT Has No Clothes[W:26]

[mmi]

Re: MMT Has No Clothes

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

I accept yer pathetic surrender.

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

What was the top marginal rate in 1980? Trot that one out.

The government doesn't "spend" money, it OVERSPENDS.

Worthless rhetoric. How can it overspend if it doesn't spend?

>>Until the government cuts out the waste, fraud, and abuse, I will place no trust in it.

I'm sure it will be able to get along just fine without yer faith and confidence. The US gubmint's credibility has been secured through tremendous amounts of work and incredible levels of sacrifice. Yer whining will not measurably diminish that.

>>Why are you perfectly fine with wasteful spending?

Why do you assume I am?

>>Oh, that's right, it's not "wasteful spending", it's, "MMT".

I'm not much of an MMTer.

>>gimme a break already.

I figure it's yer responsibility to outgrow yer simple-minded reactionary confusion.

Actually, MMT is unlimited deficit spending.

Who told you that?

I'm not going to look it up, but what is the poverty level?

More of yer knowledge-based opining, eh? Federal poverty guidelines.

>>There are different poverty levels based on each tax payer's unique situations.

You mean the number of dependents?

>>I said that everyone over the poverty level should be paying some amount of federal income tax.

Yes, and thanks for repeating that.

>>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

Examples? I provided one, a single person with no dependents earning fifteen grand. The poverty level for an individual last year was $11,770. So yer suspicion turns out to be unfounded. As I noted, $473 owed in FIT.

>>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.

I didn't use the expression "fair share." And I don't much care who's "saying" what.

>>We need to collect more tax revenues (mostly from the rich)

I agree.

>>and spend less

What do you want to cut?

>>and EVERYONE over the poverty level needs to pay their fair share, not zero.

So you want to eliminate the exemption deductions for dependents?

>>billionaires who try writing off enough to pay zero taxes.

Like Frumpy the Clown.

YOU and others here want to separate taxing from spending.

And YOU advance the bizzare idea that they're the same thing.

>>"tax more" you say.

Well, some, yeah.

>>As if taxing me more directly helps. but it doesn't.

How can we fund gubmint spending if we don't collect taxes?

>>We currently have an extremely progressive federal income tax system.

Less than most comparable nations.



>>More progressive than in the past.

Not even close.



>>AND we currently are taxing at about our historical norm relative to GDP.

So I suppose it wouldn't hurt to squeeze a little more from the fat cats who are paying so much less than they used to.

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

And I don't want more from them.

>>So we ARE ALREADY taxing to fund spending.

Yes, and we will continue to do so.

>>The issue is not taxing.. its SPENDING.

Completely unsupported rhetoric.

>>you are an MMT supporter.

Not really. The general arguments seem to make sense to me. I'm also a heliocentrist.

>>Since you advocate increase DEFICIT spending.

Not at this time. I was happy to see Obummer reduce the deficit from ten percent of GDP down to less than 2.5%. I figure we could benefit from another two hundred billion or so in spending (education, infrastructure, R & D), but I expect we could find enough additional revenue to cover it.

you state that we should take in ALL taxes into account.

Yeah sure, why not?

>>You only seem to focus on increasing FEDERAL INCOME taxes on the rich.

Nah, I'll go after 'em on other taxes as well.

>>YOU are the one that's focused narrowly on income taxes

Incorrect.

>>the federal income tax is very progressive.

Nope, at least not as much I think it should be. ☺

 

[jaeger19]

Re: MMT Has No Clothes

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

Wait.. a tax cut is a giveaway...

but a tax credit to someone that pays in NO federal income tax? That doesn't seem to get called a give away now does it?

HMMMM a double standard? NAwww..

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Re: MMT Has No Clothes

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.

Don't start ironically talking about my aversion to "facts", I just presented you with specific counterfactual evidence of how US federal rates have become LESS progressive, and all you can do is to divert away from not only it, but your original point that I focused on. You ALWAYS do this. It is as if the point you made does not exist, therefore you do not have to address the counterpoint....because it suddenly is not a counterpoint....you never made the original point..."poof"...all gone...it gives you licence to tangent off.

The fact remains, the US federal tax system is LESS progressive. Accept your error, no diversion will change it....it only makes it WORSE.

 

[mmi]

Re: MMT Has No Clothes

Wait.. a tax cut is a giveaway

When it's a very big pile of money going to a wealthy household, yeah, I'd say so.

>>but a tax credit to someone that pays in NO federal income tax? That doesn't seem to get called a give away now does it?

That depends. Is this "someone that pays in NO federal income tax" a corporate pig like Frumpy the Clown? The big tax cuts those creeps have received, those are giveaways. The single mom allowed to deduct eight grand to help her raise her two kids, no, not a giveaway in my book.

>>a double standard? NAwww

Sure, it's a double standard. Like women and children first.

 

[jaeger19]

Re: MMT Has No Clothes

And YOU advance the bizzare idea that they're the same thing.

Yeah wrong. I understand that taxing me more does NOTHING to help my employees.

Spending wisely does.

How can we fund gubmint spending if we don't collect taxes?

We already collect a lot of government taxes.

Less than most comparable nations.

No..at least as or more than most comparable nations.

By the way.. your graph actually is not based on just federal income taxes.. but all taxes AND transfers. and that is a spending issue, since we spend so much more of our tax revenue on our military than the other countries on your graph.

Take that out.. go to federal taxes alone and we are more progressive.

So I suppose it wouldn't hurt to squeeze a little more from the fat cats who are paying so much less than they used to.

but they aren't. Its a simple fact.

We are taxing at about historical levels. and yet federal taxes on the poor and middle class are at historic lows.

that means that the burden has shifted more toward the "fat cats".

that's simple a fact.

And I don't want more from them.

Of course not. But you then admit that they are paying less than before. Admit that we are taxing at normal levels. and then seem to think that the fat cats are paying less.

Your premise simply doesn't add up.

Completely unsupported rhetoric.

Completely supported. HECK you supported it. Everything that you mentioned that would help the poor and middle class had to deal with HOW we spend our money. Not on taxes.

 

[jaeger19]

Re: MMT Has No Clothes

When it's a very big pile of money going to a wealthy household, yeah, I'd say so.

>>but a tax credit to someone that pays in NO federal income tax? That doesn't seem to get called a give away now does it?

That depends. Is this "someone that pays in NO federal income tax" a corporate pig like Frumpy the Clown? The big tax cuts those creeps have received, those are giveaways. The single mom allowed to deduct eight grand to help her raise her two kids, no, not a giveaway in my book.

>>a double standard? NAwww

Sure, it's a double standard. Like women and children first.

Its not "going".. its money that's been earned that's being kept.

that's not a giveaway.

That depends. Is this "someone that pays in NO federal income tax" a corporate pig like Frumpy the Clown? The big tax cuts those creeps have received, those are giveaways. The single mom allowed to deduct eight grand to help her raise her two kids, no, not a giveaway in my book.

Exactly a double standard.

 

[Moderate Right]

Re: MMT Has No Clothes

I accept yer pathetic surrender.



What was the top marginal rate in 1980? Trot that one out.



Worthless rhetoric. How can it overspend if it doesn't spend?

>>Until the government cuts out the waste, fraud, and abuse, I will place no trust in it.

I'm sure it will be able to get along just fine without yer faith and confidence. The US gubmint's credibility has been secured through tremendous amounts of work and incredible levels of sacrifice. Yer whining will not measurably diminish that.

>>Why are you perfectly fine with wasteful spending?

Why do you assume I am?

>>Oh, that's right, it's not "wasteful spending", it's, "MMT".

I'm not much of an MMTer.

>>gimme a break already.

I figure it's yer responsibility to outgrow yer simple-minded reactionary confusion.



Who told you that?



More of yer knowledge-based opining, eh? Federal poverty guidelines.

>>There are different poverty levels based on each tax payer's unique situations.

You mean the number of dependents?

>>I said that everyone over the poverty level should be paying some amount of federal income tax.

Yes, and thanks for repeating that.

>>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

Examples? I provided one, a single person with no dependents earning fifteen grand. The poverty level for an individual last year was $11,770. So yer suspicion turns out to be unfounded. As I noted, $473 owed in FIT.

>>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.

I didn't use the expression "fair share." And I don't much care who's "saying" what.

>>We need to collect more tax revenues (mostly from the rich)

I agree.

>>and spend less

What do you want to cut?

>>and EVERYONE over the poverty level needs to pay their fair share, not zero.

So you want to eliminate the exemption deductions for dependents?

>>billionaires who try writing off enough to pay zero taxes.

Like Frumpy the Clown.



And YOU advance the bizzare idea that they're the same thing.

>>"tax more" you say.

Well, some, yeah.

>>As if taxing me more directly helps. but it doesn't.

How can we fund gubmint spending if we don't collect taxes?

>>We currently have an extremely progressive federal income tax system.

Less than most comparable nations.

View attachment 67201826

>>More progressive than in the past.

Not even close.

View attachment 67201827

>>AND we currently are taxing at about our historical norm relative to GDP.

So I suppose it wouldn't hurt to squeeze a little more from the fat cats who are paying so much less than they used to.

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

And I don't want more from them.

>>So we ARE ALREADY taxing to fund spending.

Yes, and we will continue to do so.

>>The issue is not taxing.. its SPENDING.

Completely unsupported rhetoric.

>>you are an MMT supporter.

Not really. The general arguments seem to make sense to me. I'm also a heliocentrist.

>>Since you advocate increase DEFICIT spending.

Not at this time. I was happy to see Obummer reduce the deficit from ten percent of GDP down to less than 2.5%. I figure we could benefit from another two hundred billion or so in spending (education, infrastructure, R & D), but I expect we could find enough additional revenue to cover it.



Yeah sure, why not?

>>You only seem to focus on increasing FEDERAL INCOME taxes on the rich.

Nah, I'll go after 'em on other taxes as well.

>>YOU are the one that's focused narrowly on income taxes

Incorrect.

>>the federal income tax is very progressive.

Nope, at least not as much I think it should be. ☺

So, I was right. Your examples were in the poverty level so therefore, they would pay no federal income taxes under what I said. Don't blame me because you gave examples that show exactly what I said. I never said that I favored the current system. I said that anyone under the poverty level shouldn't have to pay federal income taxes and those over the poverty level should all pay something, not zero. It is unfair for those in your example to pay while 47%, some who earn even more, pay zero. I want fairness.

 

[mmi]

Re: MMT Has No Clothes

So, I was right. Your examples were in the poverty level

Oy. as I said, I gave one example. And that household had an income ($15K) above the poverty level for an individual ($11,700).

So you were wrong, as I noted.

 

[KLATTU]

Re: MMT Has No Clothes

Wait.. a tax cut is a giveaway...

but a tax credit to someone that pays in NO federal income tax? That doesn't seem to get called a give away now does it?

HMMMM a double standard? NAwww..

I think you like to argue for the sake of arguing. A tax credit is a giveaway if a check is cut to the individual.

Allowing somebody to pay less to the Gov't is not a giveaway, unless you buy into the left wing bizzaroworld ( I know, redundant) notion that all earnings rightfully belong to the Government and it through their benificenc that they allow ou to keep some.

 

[Moderate Right]

Re: MMT Has No Clothes

Oy. as I said, I gave one example. And that household had an income ($15K) above the poverty level for an individual ($11,700).

So you were wrong, as I noted.

I also said that I'm not against tweaking the current system so that the person in your example would not have to pay $473. I just said that everyone over the poverty level should pay something. You keep on trying to pin me down to the current system and I keep on saying that I don't like the current system and that I would change it. My main gripe is that there are a lot of people out there over the poverty level who pay zero. That's not fair to the person in your example that they have to pay $473 dollars while others who make more pay zero. It's also not fair that some of the rich are able to write enough stuff off that they pay close to zero. Multimillionaires and billionaires should be paying millions in taxes and everyone over the poverty level should pay something more than zero and in case I have to say it yet again, I'm talking about federal income taxes.

 

[jaeger19]

Re: MMT Has No Clothes

Don't start ironically talking about my aversion to "facts", I just presented you with specific counterfactual evidence of how US federal rates have become LESS progressive, and all you can do is to divert away from not only it, but your original point that I focused on. You ALWAYS do this. It is as if the point you made does not exist, therefore you do not have to address the counterpoint....because it suddenly is not a counterpoint....you never made the original point..."poof"...all gone...it gives you licence to tangent off.

The fact remains, the US federal tax system is LESS progressive. Accept your error, no diversion will change it....it only makes it WORSE.

Again.. facts disturb you.

I pointed out why your looking at "rates" is not valid since our current rates capture more people than a top rate of 70% that would capture the equivalent of 3.5 million dollars of income today.

Today our top rate is on 415,000 for individuals.

So no diversion from me. Here.. you explain it to me then if you think that the us federal tax system has become less progress. We are currently taxing at about historical norms as a percentage of GDP. Meanwhile.. the middle class and poor are at historically LOW taxation.

So.. please explain how we are taxing at about the same as before.. except now.. less of that tax is coming from poor and middle class.. and thus according to you.. we have become less progressive.

 

[jaeger19]

Re: MMT Has No Clothes

I think you like to argue for the sake of arguing. A tax credit is a giveaway if a check is cut to the individual.

Allowing somebody to pay less to the Gov't is not a giveaway, unless you buy into the left wing bizzaroworld ( I know, redundant) notion that all earnings rightfully belong to the Government and it through their benificenc that they allow ou to keep some.

I think you like to argue for the sake of arguing. I wasn't arguing with you.. I was agreeing with you.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Re: MMT Has No Clothes

Again.. facts disturb you.

I pointed out why your looking at "rates" is not valid

FFS, I am looking at YOUR comments on RATES:

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

YOUR comment is not VALID.....BECAUSE IT IS ENTIRELY FALSE.

Just once in your posting efforts here in this forum, just once, try to stay on the topic YOU AND I are debating, you position that rates now are more progressive than in "the past". Accept the fact that you are WRONG.

 

[jaeger19]

Re: MMT Has No Clothes

FFS, I am looking at YOUR comments on RATES:




YOUR comment is not VALID.....BECAUSE IT IS ENTIRELY FALSE.

Just once in your posting efforts here in this forum, just once, try to stay on the topic YOU AND I are debating, you position that rates now are more progressive than in "the past". Accept the fact that you are WRONG.

Again... we are taxing at about the same amount historically. In addition.. the poor and middle class are paying less taxes historically.

If we are paying about the same amount as before, and the middle class and poor are paying LESS, then how have we become less progressive.

Please explain given the above facts.

 

[KLATTU]

Re: MMT Has No Clothes

FFS,


YOUR comment is not VALID.....BECAUSE IT IS ENTIRELY FALSE.

Just once in your posting efforts here in this forum, just once, try to stay on the topic YOU AND I are debating, you position that rates now are more progressive than in "the past". Accept the fact that you are WRONG.

I haven't seen anything on this, but off the top of my head-45 % paying nothing? That's pretty progressive.I know the highets rate was higher in the past but that's not the whole story.

 

[DA60]

Re: MMT Has No Clothes

FFS, I am looking at YOUR comments on RATES:




YOUR comment is not VALID.....BECAUSE IT IS ENTIRELY FALSE.

Just once in your posting efforts here in this forum, just once, try to stay on the topic YOU AND I are debating, you position that rates now are more progressive than in "the past". Accept the fact that you are WRONG.

And just once, try and not act to like someone who is not old enough to legally drive a car in America.


Have a nice day.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Re: MMT Has No Clothes

Again... we are taxing at about the same amount historically.

If you don't understand the difference between revenue and rates, why in the hell would you bring up "progressiveness" and its changes? Or is this you, once again, making a statement that cannot be defended.....and then shifting the topic when your falsehood is exposed? Yeah, it is that. You make really ignorant comments about rates, and then say my response to your comments about rates is "invalid" because I focused on rates.....the subject you brought up. And now, your just going to completely ignore your error...by moving the goal post, the topic of our debate. You have never admitted to an error, even to something as obvious as this. I'll never give any of your arguments the slightest bit of respect because they have zero integrity.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Re: MMT Has No Clothes

And just once, try and not act to like someone who is not old enough to legally drive a car in America.


Have a nice day.

You've got mail.

 

[KLATTU]

Re: MMT Has No Clothes

If you don't understand the difference between revenue and rates, why in the hell would you bring up "progressiveness" and its changes? Or is this you, once again, making a statement that cannot be defended.....and then shifting the topic when your falsehood is exposed? Yeah, it is that. You make really ignorant comments about rates, and then say my response to your comments about rates is "invalid" because I focused on rates.....the subject you brought up. And now, your just going to completely ignore your error...by moving the goal post, the topic of our debate. You have never admitted to an error, even to something as obvious as this. I'll never give any of your arguments the slightest bit of respect because they have zero integrity.

He's right. what difference does it make what the rates are. Actual collections is where the rubber meets the road. Ex A the rate for the top 1% was 90 and the top 1% pays 30 % of total taxes Ex B. the top rate is 37 % but the top 1% pay almost half the taxes. Theoretically , which is a more progressive system?

 

[mmi]

Re: MMT Has No Clothes

If we are paying about the same amount as before, and the middle class and poor are paying LESS, then how have we become less progressive.

Simple — a dramatic increase in income inequality.

Real household income for the vast majority of Americans has been more or less flat for the past thirty-five years. For those at the top of the income scale, it has doubled, quadrupled, and even more as you narrow down the focus. Betweem 1980 and 2008, the average income of the top .001% grew by around 800%, from about five million dollars to forty million.

(source)

This allows the super-wealthy to pay more in income taxes while paying a lower effective rate.

(source)

what difference does it make what the rates are. Actual collections is where the rubber meets the road.

That depends on what road yer on. Progressivity can be measured in a variety of ways. The best definition is arguably the percentage effect on after-tax income.

>>Ex A the rate for the top 1% was 90 and the top 1% pays 30 % of total taxes Ex B. the top rate is 37 % but the top 1% pay almost half the taxes. Theoretically , which is a more progressive system?

I'm thinking that depends on the income distribution.

 

[Critter7r]

Re: MMT Has No Clothes

He's right. what difference does it make what the rates are. Actual collections is where the rubber meets the road. Ex A the rate for the top 1% was 90 and the top 1% pays 30 % of total taxes Ex B. the top rate is 37 % but the top 1% pay almost half the taxes. Theoretically , which is a more progressive system?

That's impossible to answer because your example doesn't say how much of the income your top 1% is receiving in each instance.

 

[jaeger19]

Re: MMT Has No Clothes

If you don't understand the difference between revenue and rates, why in the hell would you bring up "progressiveness" and its changes? Or is this you, once again, making a statement that cannot be defended.....and then shifting the topic when your falsehood is exposed? Yeah, it is that. You make really ignorant comments about rates, and then say my response to your comments about rates is "invalid" because I focused on rates.....the subject you brought up. And now, your just going to completely ignore your error...by moving the goal post, the topic of our debate. You have never admitted to an error, even to something as obvious as this. I'll never give any of your arguments the slightest bit of respect because they have zero integrity.

Blah blah blah with the personal comments.

Again.. we are taxing at about historical amounts as a percentage of GDP.
the middle class and poor are paying among the lowest rates in history.

HOW if we are paying the same amount in taxes as a percentage of GDP..and the burden on the middle class and poor are LOWER than they were before...

HOW can you claim our tax system has become more regressive?

Please explain.

 

[mmi]

Re: MMT Has No Clothes

Please explain.

I already did.

 

[DA60]

Re: MMT Has No Clothes

If you don't understand the difference between revenue and rates, why in the hell would you bring up "progressiveness" and its changes? Or is this you, once again, making a statement that cannot be defended.....and then shifting the topic when your falsehood is exposed? Yeah, it is that. You make really ignorant comments about rates, and then say my response to your comments about rates is "invalid" because I focused on rates.....the subject you brought up. And now, your just going to completely ignore your error...by moving the goal post, the topic of our debate. You have never admitted to an error, even to something as obvious as this. I'll never give any of your arguments the slightest bit of respect because they have zero integrity.

Suuuure he doesn't.

That's why you keep engaging him in discussion over and over again...because he has 'zero credibility.'

:roll:


Now I rarely (if ever) engage in discussion with you (to my knowledge). Sure, I occasionally see your posts (when they are not ignored) and I read them, roll my eyes and make a comment.

But I almost NEVER read your replies to me (like I ignored the one above) because I believe you are a complete and total waste of time except as a diversion to boredom (I am bored right now).

You appear to have little knowledge of this subject, you insult anyone who disagrees with you (a sure sign of insecurity) and you are basically just a useless poster to me EXCEPT for a laugh.

And the really funny thing to me is that you seem to always reply to my posts to you even though I have told you time and again that I do not even read your replies to me.

LOL...what an ego.


Oh...have a nice day.


Okay mods...I will get back to the topic.

 

[DA60]

Re: MMT Has No Clothes

From the OP article:

'5. MMT has no model, is blind to the targets and instrument problem, and is policy
naïve'

Sounds about right to me.