Economic News

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 3K
  • Views: 157K
  • Politics 
Callatoroy said:
Spoken like a true republican who's spouse is likely to be in one of the higher brackets at some point in the future.
Click to expand...
Hey now! I like to think I pull more than my fair share of weight in getting to those top brackets! :)

In all seriousness, though, I do think the way that we tax earned income in this country is irritating. It’s not that I’m opposed to paying my fair share or anything, but rather that the people who get squeezed the absolute most proportionately are the dual-household income earners in the higher brackets. Even though I do vote Democratic at the national level these days, I’m definitely a policy mutt in that there are plenty of classical conservative policies with which I still find common ground- taxation being a primary one.
 
CFordUNC said:
Hey now! I like to think I pull more than my fair share of weight in getting to those top brackets! :)

In all seriousness, though, I do think the way that we tax earned income in this country is irritating. It’s not that I’m opposed to paying my fair share or anything, but rather that the people who get squeezed the absolute most proportionately are the dual-household income earners in the higher brackets. Even though I do vote Democratic at the national level these days, I’m definitely a policy mutt in that there are plenty of classical conservative policies with which I still find common ground- taxation being a primary one.
Click to expand...
That baffles me because the core of the political divide in this country is rooted in money and how people want to spend other people's money. The term "fair share" that the left likes to throw around (its a top 10. Right behind bigot) has always rubbed me the wrong way. Who are people paying less than me to determine what my "fair share" is?

Going off on a tangent, I have been thinking a lot lately about the useful life of capitalism as it relates to the widening wealth gap in the country. How do you preserve it but slow down the increasing gap without tanking the economy? The most readily identifiable ways are taxation, revolution, and g'ment regulation. I'm thinking it may be possible to do it with some form of g'ment regulation tied to education. In any case, it can't go on indefinitely without dire consequences.
 
Callatoroy said:
That baffles me because the core of the political divide in this country is rooted in money and how people want to spend other people's money. The term "fair share" that the left likes to throw around (its a top 10. Right behind bigot) has always rubbed me the wrong way. Who are people paying less than me to determine what my "fair share" is?

Going off on a tangent, I have been thinking a lot lately about the useful life of capitalism as it relates to the widening wealth gap in the country. How do you preserve it but slow down the increasing gap without tanking the economy? The most readily identifiable ways are taxation, revolution, and g'ment regulation. I'm thinking it may be possible to do it with some form of g'ment regulation tied to education. In any case, it can't go on indefinitely without dire consequences.
Click to expand...
I also cringe at the “fair share” term.

Somewhere there is a formula for the amount of taxes people and corporations should pay (most likely there will be levels where higher earner pay a higher percentage) to meet the government’s obligations. That’s what the tax rates should be.
I don’t think it has anything to do with what is fair. It has to do with what is optimal.
 
ChileG said:
I also cringe at the “fair share” term.

Somewhere there is a formula for the amount of taxes people and corporations should pay (most likely there will be levels where higher earner pay a higher percentage) to meet the government’s obligations. That’s what the tax rates should be.
I don’t think it has anything to do with what is fair. It has to do with what is optimal.
Click to expand...
In other words, economic efficiency. I'm not sure that should be the sole factor in tax policy, but it should certainly be the main driver.
 
"Fair share" means too many things to too many people. I live in s state that gets less from the feds than we provide, live in a county that gets way less back than what the state provides, and am in one of the higher tax brackets. I don't mind any of that as long as the government provides a stable currency, stable business investment environment (incremental regulation and stable interest rates) and stays out of my personal space. If they do that, i can figure out the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness part of the deal.

What I want as an individual from my tax system is something that's easy to administer, easy to calculate, and easy to pay. Fewer deductions would be a great start - over the years, I've taken advantage of tax breaks on mortgages, education savings and retirement savings on financial decisions I would have made had the tax breaks not been available. That seems inefficient to me. I'd trade all of those for abolishing the AMT in a heartbeat.
 
ChileG said:
I also cringe at the “fair share” term.

Somewhere there is a formula for the amount of taxes people and corporations should pay (most likely there will be levels where higher earner pay a higher percentage) to meet the government’s obligations. That’s what the tax rates should be.
I don’t think it has anything to do with what is fair. It has to do with what is optimal.
Click to expand...
If you add "the declining marginal utility of money" to "optimal" you get progressive taxation and something that comports with the common sense notion of fair.

If there's a famine, and there's a guy in town hoarding 100 loaves of bread, and everyone else is hungry, I don't think anyone would dispute that it would be fair to take bread from the rich guy to distribute to the hungry. That's because we intuit the declining marginal utility of money (or in this case, assets more generally). Right?

I don't think it's all that difficult to define "fair" to a first approximation.
 
At what point does an average person care more about power than money? Where do the two cross on a line graph? If we could improve education to a level of 50% above our current level of functional education how many generations would it take to reduce poverty by 50%?
 
superrific said:
If you add "the declining marginal utility of money" to "optimal" you get progressive taxation and something that comports with the common sense notion of fair.

If there's a famine, and there's a guy in town hoarding 100 loaves of bread, and everyone else is hungry, I don't think anyone would dispute that it would be fair to take bread from the rich guy to distribute to the hungry. That's because we intuit the declining marginal utility of money (or in this case, assets more generally). Right?

I don't think it's all that difficult to define "fair" to a first approximation.
Click to expand...
Sure, but you understand that terminology turns a lot of people off and puts them on the defensive.
Democrats can stick to their messaging if they want, but changing “fair share” to “optimal” is easier for a lot more people to accept, I think.
 
apnews.com

Intel's stock tumbles after Trump says its CEO must resign

Intel’s shares slumped Thursday as President Donald Trump said in a social media post that the chipmaker’s CEO must resign immediately.
apnews.com apnews.com

What kind of government tells businesses how to run their companies? I think it starts with "comm" and ends with "unism", but I can’t quite remember. Maybe our board conservatives can help me out, because I remember this used to be very important to them.
 
Huh? said:
Consumption tax proponents maintain that it promotes savings and investment. The main drawback is the regressivity - the poor have to pay a higher portion of their income on consumption than the rich do. The traditional methods to combat that are to exclude essentials from taxation - food, drugs, etc. and to increase the progressivity of the income tax.

It's important to remember economists are better expounding on theory than practical solutions. In real life, the VAT, which is a consumption tax, is probably the most universally despised tax around today.
Click to expand...

You left out the biggest problem. We are a consumption economy and taxes on consumption discouraged the one thing that keeps our economy afloat.

Everyone saving at the same time is terrible for the economy. Look at Japan. Or look at the Great Depression when people stopped consuming.

I seriously doubt economists have the view of consumption tax you think they do.

And if I seem a little harsh, well my son just shit his pants for the second time tonight so I am in that kind of mood. But I think your theory on consumption tax is complete bunk.
 
Callatoroy said:
That baffles me because the core of the political divide in this country is rooted in money and how people want to spend other people's money. The term "fair share" that the left likes to throw around (its a top 10. Right behind bigot) has always rubbed me the wrong way. Who are people paying less than me to determine what my "fair share" is?

Going off on a tangent, I have been thinking a lot lately about the useful life of capitalism as it relates to the widening wealth gap in the country. How do you preserve it but slow down the increasing gap without tanking the economy? The most readily identifiable ways are taxation, revolution, and g'ment regulation. I'm thinking it may be possible to do it with some form of g'ment regulation tied to education. In any case, it can't go on indefinitely without dire consequences.
Click to expand...
Most of the people I know who state what you said in the first paragraph are lower middle income or lower. They all think their taxes go to someone else yet that is far from the truth.

As for my opinion on your overall message, from someone who paid taxes for 15 years then had a severely autistic child who would put a financial burden on just about any middle class family, f’ you. Sometimes people do all the right things, save, pay taxes, and then get screwed over because life threw them a huge curveball. And it’s the ones who never got that curveball thrown their way complaining about paying their taxes. (Well them and the dumbasses who are on disability who think they are the ones getting screwed.)

Sorry my kid required one on one care at school. It is expensive. If he doesn’t get that then I am out of a job and our entire family is an even bigger burden on society. So f’ you with your fairness bullshit.
 
BillOfRights said:
apnews.com

Intel's stock tumbles after Trump says its CEO must resign

Intel’s shares slumped Thursday as President Donald Trump said in a social media post that the chipmaker’s CEO must resign immediately.
apnews.com apnews.com

What kind of government tells businesses how to run their companies? I think it starts with "comm" and ends with "unism", but I can’t quite remember. Maybe our board conservatives can help me out, because I remember this used to be very important to them.
Click to expand...
No private companies under communism.

You’re thinking of fascism.
 
ChapelHillSooner said:
Most of the people I know who state what you said in the first paragraph are lower middle income or lower. They all think their taxes go to someone else yet that is far from the truth.

As for my opinion on your overall message, from someone who paid taxes for 15 years then had a severely autistic child who would put a financial burden on just about any middle class family, f’ you. Sometimes people do all the right things, save, pay taxes, and then get screwed over because life threw them a huge curveball. And it’s the ones who never got that curveball thrown their way complaining about paying their taxes. (Well them and the dumbasses who are on disability who think they are the ones getting screwed.)

Sorry my kid required one on one care at school. It is expensive. If he doesn’t get that then I am out of a job and our entire family is an even bigger burden on society. So f’ you with your fairness bullshit.
Click to expand...
💯
 
Zoo_View said:
No private companies under communism.

You’re thinking of fascism.
Click to expand...
China has private companies with their version of communism, but fascism works better. Thanks.

I'm shocked that no board conservatives or Republicans have condemned this. I'm not shocked that board trumpsters think it's fine.
 
Last edited:
ChapelHillSooner said:
You left out the biggest problem. We are a consumption economy and taxes on consumption discouraged the one thing that keeps our economy afloat.

Everyone saving at the same time is terrible for the economy. Look at Japan. Or look at the Great Depression when people stopped consuming.

I seriously doubt economists have the view of consumption tax you think they do.

And if I seem a little harsh, well my son just shit his pants for the second time tonight so I am in that kind of mood. But I think your theory on consumption tax is complete bunk.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry for what you're dealing with - that would put me in the same mood as well.

Please allow me to make three points:

First, it's economic orthodoxy that consumption taxes are more efficient, even with acknowledged drawbacks. That doesn't mean that the orthodoxy is unchallenged by any means.

Second, nations can't spend (consume) their way to prosperity any more than individuals can. Savings and investment - which can fund health care and education systems as well as buildings and R&D - is a key health metric for any country. Admittedly, we have had a savings glut over the past couple of decades due to wealth inequality and low interest rates, but the savings rate of our population outside of the top 5% remains low. I would argue that wealth inequality, which is exacerbated by our consumption economy, is a bigger problem than income inequality.

Third, consumption taxes work best in tandem with anti-regressive policies - e.g. exempting food and drugs, providing a tax credit for the first $xx of annual purchases - to mitigate their inherent regressivity. I also advocate reducing the regressivity of payroll taxes by removing the income cap. You can also increase the progressivity of the income tax system - you can either lower all marginal rates to account for the increase in consumption taxes or apply the additional revenue to deficit reduction. My general point is that there is a sound economic basis for tariffs, if applied carefully, reluctantly and consistently.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top