|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
governator
Retired Number
Joined: 28 Jan 2006
Posts: 25092
|
 Posted: Tue Dec 06, 2016 4:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ribeye wrote: | | governator wrote: | | angrypuppy wrote: | | adkindo wrote: | | governator wrote: | | angrypuppy wrote: | The problem is that spending will not be flat; that's an unrealistic assumption. The political realities are:
1. We live in a society with an eroding standard of living. As such, social programs are replacing that erosion.
2. Our society is aging; fewer in the workforce, and those outside of the workforce will be in need of increased social services.
3. Our military spending is already out-sized, yet it will likely expand due to continued military conflict and adventurism by supposedly former Cold War rivals. |
For #2, Don't we have more under 18 than over 65 in US? What if we include undocumented? |
people are living much longer, and reproducing less (Family Size has decreased), which results in an older population. |
I blame online porn. |
you guys are right, birthrate 1.88, less than 2... We'll continue the need for young immigrants to replenish the population |
Or, maybe not . . .
| Quote: | | [Amazon] has built a convenience store in downtown Seattle that deploys a gaggle of technologies similar to those used in self-driving cars to allow shoppers to come in, grab items and walk out without going through a register. |
|
Automation vs fight for $15 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 06, 2016 8:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Sadly, this is NOT fake news. 81% of the people who say the fake story about Comey putting a Trump sign in his front yard actually believed it. 23% of the respondents listed Facebook -- freaking Facebook! -- as a major news source, and 83% of them believed the fake headlines were real.
Fake News Survey |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
adkindo
Retired Number
Joined: 16 Jun 2005
Posts: 40345
Location: Dirty South
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 07, 2016 7:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Aeneas Hunter wrote: | | adkindo wrote: | maybe you feel the same, but I literally feel like I am talking to a wall. You bounce around from a topic I was discussing in one post, and relate it to a different item from another post....but the biggest issue is your going back and forth between theory/philosophy on one side, and trying to counter it with historical actuals on the other. Are we discussing Supply Side Economics as an economic theory or are we discussing actual numbers from the Reagan Administration?
You claim myself and Milton Friedman, aka the GOAT, have been conned, but your disagreeing with Milton Friedman and the foundation of countless great economists from institutions like the University of Chicago....that alone gives me great comfort in that I have not been conned.
Lets keep it simple....do you have issue with the statement that "a reduction in taxes will stimulate the national economy and increase gross tax revenue"? |
1. The fact that you refer to Milton Friedman speaks volumes. Milton Friedman rejected your argument. He favored cutting taxes because it would generate big deficits, which would in turn force cuts in government spending. Here's an excerpt from an article that he wrote before he died:
| Quote: | | Under those circumstances, how can we ever cut government down to size? I believe there is one and only one way: the way parents control spendthrift children, cutting their allowance. For government, that means cutting taxes. Resulting deficits will be an effective -- I would go so far as to say, the only effective -- restraint on the spending propensities of the executive branch and the legislature. The public reaction will make that restraint effective. |
| Quote: | | As I see the world, the situation is very different. What is predetermined is not spending but the politically tolerable deficit. Raise taxes by enough to eliminate the existing deficit and spending will go up to restore the tolerable deficit. Tax cuts may initially raise the deficit above the politically tolerable deficit, but their longer term effect will be to restrain spending. |
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB1042593796704188064
2. You say that countless economists support this theory. No, they don't. This stuff has been out of vogue for 25 years because the economic research from the 1980s disproved it.
3. So the answer to your questions at the end are "no" and "no." Here's more from Milton Friedman on this:
| Quote: | | I have long said, "I never met a tax cut I didn't like" -- though I would go on to say that I like some better than others. The reason for my flat unhedged statement is neither the Keynesian attribution of an economic stimulus to a tax cut, which I believe is generally wrong, nor the supply-side attribution of favorable incentive effects to a tax cut, which I believe is generally correct. It is, rather, the effect of tax cuts on government spending. |
By the way, I agree about the incentive effects, but that's not pertinent to this discussion. |
driving up deficits to force government spending restraint was not a central tenant of Friedman economics....he began discussing that tactic later in his life....and when your going to claim modern brilliant economists do not support Friedman's ideas and Supply Side Economics...why even have a discussion because your claims have become flat out making false claims that you know are false.
I respect that you and even other very smart people disagree or think my thoughts are incorrect....but if you cannot simply acknowledge individuals, some surely more achieved in the subject than you (or I), have a convicted belief other than yours, there is no value in discussing the topic. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 07, 2016 7:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| adkindo wrote: | driving up deficits to force government spending restraint was not a central tenant of Friedman economics....he began discussing that tactic later in his life....and when your going to claim modern brilliant economists do not support Friedman's ideas and Supply Side Economics...why even have a discussion because your claims have become flat out making false claims that you know are false.
I respect that you and even other very smart people disagree or think my thoughts are incorrect....but if you cannot simply acknowledge individuals, some surely more achieved in the subject than you (or I), have a convicted belief other than yours, there is no value in discussing the topic. |
Okay. We tried to explain this to you. Now you're calling us liars. You've been indoctrinated to believe that the economic community supports all of this stuff. I would hope that at least we have planted a seed of doubt in your mind. That's the first step. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
adkindo
Retired Number
Joined: 16 Jun 2005
Posts: 40345
Location: Dirty South
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 07, 2016 7:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Omar Little wrote: | | adkindo wrote: | | adkindo wrote: | | ribeye wrote: | | adkindo wrote: | | Aeneas Hunter wrote: | | adkindo wrote: | | Aeneas Hunter wrote: |
Nonetheless, this is a misdirection. Spending is only one component of debt. Revenues is the other. If you spend "within traditional parameters" and cut taxes, what would we expect to happen?
This is one of the places where I break from GOP fiscal policy. The GOP wants to analyze the two sides of the ledger separately, as if they are not connected to each other. |
economic expansion and an increase in Federal Revenues. |
And did that actually happen? Nope. They went DOWN. Look at Table 2.3 here. Total receipts as a percentage of GDP went from 19.1% in 1981 (which was the Carter era tax code) to 16.9% in 1983. The revenues did not recover until the end of the Clinton administration, when we finally got reached a balanced budget (at least on paper).
https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals
This is one of my frustrations with the GOP. They don't learn from past mistakes and keep pushing the same failed policies. The Laffer Curve didn't work. Cutting taxes does not raise revenues. |
I just want to be clear, are you claiming tax revenue did not increase during the Reagan administration or did not increase as a % GDP? |
Of course tax revenue increased, as it does in almost every year, at least in 7 out of his 8 years, but the revenue, as a percentage of GDP dropped from 18.8% (Carter) to 18.2%. It then increased under Clinton to 19.4%. This is BEA Total Revenue data in fiscal years. |
Right, but Supply Side Economics does not claim that receipts will increase as a % of GDP.....furthermore, why is that correlation even relevant. GDP goes up, receipts goes up.....and IF spending remains flat....the outcome is positive. Obviously revenue will decrease as a % of GDP in a tax rate decrease by its very definition.....but if those total receipts still increase, it is related to economic growth. Therefore, my claim holds true that a decrease in tax rates leads to economic growth and increased Federal tax revenue. |
btw, I am making a argument of philosophy.....I am not a "its always the right time to cut taxes guy". I think tax cuts can be a beneficial tool when used strategically. Overall, I am for a very progressive consumption tax to replace the income tax....it is the only method that I know of to truly obtain everyone's fair share while allowing everyone to choose their tax obligation. |
Consumption taxes are problematic on many levels, and tend to either be regressive or ineffective. But most places that have them would prefer an income tax... |
every liberal that I have ever spoke to about the type of consumption tax I prefer always is suspicious, but after discussing the specific measures to ensure it is progressive, have always at least acknowledged that in a vacuum would be less regressive than our current system.
First, I do not have the resources to compile an actual plan with accurate numbers, etc....but the key to it is tiered progressive rates on purchase types. For example, an automobile used for transportation (cars, trucks, Suv's, etc.) would have one tax rate for auto's under $5K, auto's under $35K, and auto's under $100K. Maybe the under $5K is 1%, and if a billionaire wants to buy his car at Wild Bill's Used Auto's, then he or she can get that low tax rate.....but if he or she prefers to enjoy their wealth by obtaining a new Italian sports supercar....the tax rate % would be significantly more. I think it is the only way to allow individuals the freedom to pay the amount of taxes they choose, while ensuring the majority is derived from those that have the most resources.
Something must change because as the country has matured, class movement has became more difficult....and most wealthy individuals were born into wealth. We can not continue to allow trust fund kids to live off of resources created by previous generations of their family. They are not working, and their passive income is taxed at a lower rate. I am of the opinion that the only fair way to ensure they are paying an amount aligned with their lifestyle is to tax their consumption which is much greater than the mass majority of individuals working 40 hours a week.
While I have my own ideas, there are multiple ways to ensure a consumption tax remains progressive. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
adkindo
Retired Number
Joined: 16 Jun 2005
Posts: 40345
Location: Dirty South
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 07, 2016 7:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Aeneas Hunter wrote: | | adkindo wrote: | driving up deficits to force government spending restraint was not a central tenant of Friedman economics....he began discussing that tactic later in his life....and when your going to claim modern brilliant economists do not support Friedman's ideas and Supply Side Economics...why even have a discussion because your claims have become flat out making false claims that you know are false.
I respect that you and even other very smart people disagree or think my thoughts are incorrect....but if you cannot simply acknowledge individuals, some surely more achieved in the subject than you (or I), have a convicted belief other than yours, there is no value in discussing the topic. |
Okay. We tried to explain this to you. Now you're calling us liars. You've been indoctrinated to believe that the economic community supports all of this stuff. I would hope that at least we have planted a seed of doubt in your mind. That's the first step. |
I did not call you a liar, I said I fully believe that you actually know there are great economic minds that support Supply Side Economics.
If having a Finance Degree with a minor in Economics, and an MBA with an emphasis in Finance & Economics while spending my career in management consulting, most of that in an advisory capacity to Fortune 500, Governmental, and large non-profit organization clients is how one becomes indoctrinated....and am not intelligent enough to understand it in the capacity that you do....then yeah, you got me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 07, 2016 8:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| adkindo wrote: | | Aeneas Hunter wrote: | | adkindo wrote: | driving up deficits to force government spending restraint was not a central tenant of Friedman economics....he began discussing that tactic later in his life....and when your going to claim modern brilliant economists do not support Friedman's ideas and Supply Side Economics...why even have a discussion because your claims have become flat out making false claims that you know are false.
I respect that you and even other very smart people disagree or think my thoughts are incorrect....but if you cannot simply acknowledge individuals, some surely more achieved in the subject than you (or I), have a convicted belief other than yours, there is no value in discussing the topic. |
Okay. We tried to explain this to you. Now you're calling us liars. You've been indoctrinated to believe that the economic community supports all of this stuff. I would hope that at least we have planted a seed of doubt in your mind. That's the first step. |
I did not call you a liar, I said I fully believe that you actually know there are great economic minds that support Supply Side Economics.
If having a Finance Degree with a minor in Economics, and an MBA with an emphasis in Finance & Economics while spending my career in management consulting, most of that in an advisory capacity to Fortune 500, Governmental, and large non-profit organization clients is how one becomes indoctrinated....and am not intelligent enough to understand it in the capacity that you do....then yeah, you got me. |
When you say that I am making false claims that I know to be false, you are crossing a line. However, I accept that you made that comment in the heat of the moment and did not really mean it as a personal attack. Let's move on from that.
I think the disconnect that we are seeing is that you are conflating "supply side economics" with specific policy positions. Yes, supply side economics in general has considerable support in the economic community. However, we are talking about specific applications of supply side economics to fiscal policy.
You say that supply side economics tells us that lowering the tax rate will increase tax revenues. That is a specific theory within the broader realm of supply side economics. It has become discredited. As Ribeye showed, it might be true on certain parts of the so-called Laffer Curve. However, the United States is not, and may never have been, on those parts of the curve. I linked the survey of leading economists, and not a single one of them believes that lowering taxes would increase revenues. I referred you to the Treasury Department survey which concluded that the Reagan era tax cuts reduced revenues.
I also have a considerable background in economics. I got a degree in economics during the heyday of the Chicago School. I was part of the Reagan Revolution, which was largely a reaction to the Keynesian focus that dominated fiscal policy from the New Deal through Carter. Even back then, Stockman's faith in the Laffer Curve was controversial and even ridiculed. What we learned from that experience is that stimulating the supply side is valuable, but only up to a certain point. If you cannot control spending -- which includes everything, not just things you dislike -- the end result is runaway budget deficits that you will never recoup through the stimulation of growth in the economy through the supply side. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Theseus
Franchise Player
Joined: 15 Dec 2007
Posts: 14228
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 07, 2016 9:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
Tracking Obama's Campaign Promises
Just a cool list to read over. I don't know that there is any precedent toward this sort of list so take it with a grain of salt. If Politifact is still around I hope that they will do the same for all future presidents.
Not to detract from the wonderful economic discussion here which I greatly appreciate.
I think history will be kind to Obama. I think the repealing of Obamacare will do more harm than good, if it happens. If it doesn't happen it will look poorly upon Trump. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LarryCoon
Site Staff
Joined: 11 Aug 2002
Posts: 11265
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 07, 2016 10:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| adkindo wrote: | | right, the CEA is a part time gig, right? I would guess less influential currently, and more of a recognition or ceremonial . The primary staff would be more influential on POTUS decision making on a day to day basis. |
Yes -- friend of mine (Dan Rosenbaum) served on the CEA for a year while still a prof at UNC. Then he was permanent staff as an economist at OMB, and had to give up his prof job for it. Then he gave up the prof job to do analytics for the Atlanta Hawks, so he's definitely on an upward trajectory.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
trmiv
Franchise Player
Joined: 19 Nov 2001
Posts: 17659
Location: Orlando
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 07, 2016 11:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
Donald Trump Picks Scott Pruitt, Ally of Fossil Fuel Industry, to Lead E.P.A.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/07/us/politics/scott-pruitt-epa-trump.html?_r=0
| Quote: | President-elect Donald J. Trump has selected Scott Pruitt, the Oklahoma attorney general and a close ally of the fossil fuel industry, to run the Environmental Protection Agency, a transition official said, signaling Mr. Trump’s determination to dismantle President Obama’s efforts to counter climate change.
Mr. Pruitt, a Republican, has been a key architect of the legal battle against Mr. Obama’s climate change policies, actions that fit with the president-elect’s comments during the campaign. Mr. Trump has criticized the established science of human-caused global warming as a hoax, vowed to “cancel” the Paris accord committing nearly every nation to taking action to fight climate change, and attacked Mr. Obama’s signature global warming policy, the Clean Power Plan, as a “war on coal.”
Mr. Pruitt, 48, who has emerged as a hero to conservative activists, is also one of a number of Republican attorneys general who have formed an alliance with some of the nation’s top energy producers to push back against the Obama regulatory agenda, a 2014 investigation by The New York Times revealed. |
So much for that whole "open mind" on climate change thing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jodeke
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 67741
Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered a great way to learn.
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 07, 2016 2:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
@CL You mentioned Trump may try to privatize Medicare and SS. I'm skittish about it because IMO they would become money making ventures. . Bernie would have been my choice had he been the Democratic candidate. I believe he would have beaten Trump.
Dems Demand Trump And Republicans Keep Their Hands Off Medicare
LINK
_________________
Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.
America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omar Little
Moderator
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90307
Location: Formerly Known As 24
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 07, 2016 3:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Aeneas Hunter wrote: | | adkindo wrote: | | Aeneas Hunter wrote: | | adkindo wrote: | driving up deficits to force government spending restraint was not a central tenant of Friedman economics....he began discussing that tactic later in his life....and when your going to claim modern brilliant economists do not support Friedman's ideas and Supply Side Economics...why even have a discussion because your claims have become flat out making false claims that you know are false.
I respect that you and even other very smart people disagree or think my thoughts are incorrect....but if you cannot simply acknowledge individuals, some surely more achieved in the subject than you (or I), have a convicted belief other than yours, there is no value in discussing the topic. |
Okay. We tried to explain this to you. Now you're calling us liars. You've been indoctrinated to believe that the economic community supports all of this stuff. I would hope that at least we have planted a seed of doubt in your mind. That's the first step. |
I did not call you a liar, I said I fully believe that you actually know there are great economic minds that support Supply Side Economics.
If having a Finance Degree with a minor in Economics, and an MBA with an emphasis in Finance & Economics while spending my career in management consulting, most of that in an advisory capacity to Fortune 500, Governmental, and large non-profit organization clients is how one becomes indoctrinated....and am not intelligent enough to understand it in the capacity that you do....then yeah, you got me. |
When you say that I am making false claims that I know to be false, you are crossing a line. However, I accept that you made that comment in the heat of the moment and did not really mean it as a personal attack. Let's move on from that.
I think the disconnect that we are seeing is that you are conflating "supply side economics" with specific policy positions. Yes, supply side economics in general has considerable support in the economic community. However, we are talking about specific applications of supply side economics to fiscal policy.
You say that supply side economics tells us that lowering the tax rate will increase tax revenues. That is a specific theory within the broader realm of supply side economics. It has become discredited. As Ribeye showed, it might be true on certain parts of the so-called Laffer Curve. However, the United States is not, and may never have been, on those parts of the curve. I linked the survey of leading economists, and not a single one of them believes that lowering taxes would increase revenues. I referred you to the Treasury Department survey which concluded that the Reagan era tax cuts reduced revenues.
I also have a considerable background in economics. I got a degree in economics during the heyday of the Chicago School. I was part of the Reagan Revolution, which was largely a reaction to the Keynesian focus that dominated fiscal policy from the New Deal through Carter. Even back then, Stockman's faith in the Laffer Curve was controversial and even ridiculed. What we learned from that experience is that stimulating the supply side is valuable, but only up to a certain point. If you cannot control spending -- which includes everything, not just things you dislike -- the end result is runaway budget deficits that you will never recoup through the stimulation of growth in the economy through the supply side. |
Yeah, one of the great fallacies of the thing that you mentioned there was the fact that if you shift tax dollars back into the private economy, you either have to replace them in federal spending (which is a huge part of the economy) with debt, or you have to reduce spending. In the former case, you shoot yourself in the foot with the rising cost of debt while you wait for revenue to catch up (which is a very long to never proposition), or you are merely replacing government spending with private use of the money, which in most cases (especially in the higher tax brackets) will not be as stimulative as the federal spending (which is often related to or actual jobs).
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omar Little
Moderator
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90307
Location: Formerly Known As 24
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 07, 2016 3:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| adkindo wrote: | | Omar Little wrote: | | adkindo wrote: | | adkindo wrote: | | ribeye wrote: | | adkindo wrote: | | Aeneas Hunter wrote: | | adkindo wrote: | | Aeneas Hunter wrote: |
Nonetheless, this is a misdirection. Spending is only one component of debt. Revenues is the other. If you spend "within traditional parameters" and cut taxes, what would we expect to happen?
This is one of the places where I break from GOP fiscal policy. The GOP wants to analyze the two sides of the ledger separately, as if they are not connected to each other. |
economic expansion and an increase in Federal Revenues. |
And did that actually happen? Nope. They went DOWN. Look at Table 2.3 here. Total receipts as a percentage of GDP went from 19.1% in 1981 (which was the Carter era tax code) to 16.9% in 1983. The revenues did not recover until the end of the Clinton administration, when we finally got reached a balanced budget (at least on paper).
https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals
This is one of my frustrations with the GOP. They don't learn from past mistakes and keep pushing the same failed policies. The Laffer Curve didn't work. Cutting taxes does not raise revenues. |
I just want to be clear, are you claiming tax revenue did not increase during the Reagan administration or did not increase as a % GDP? |
Of course tax revenue increased, as it does in almost every year, at least in 7 out of his 8 years, but the revenue, as a percentage of GDP dropped from 18.8% (Carter) to 18.2%. It then increased under Clinton to 19.4%. This is BEA Total Revenue data in fiscal years. |
Right, but Supply Side Economics does not claim that receipts will increase as a % of GDP.....furthermore, why is that correlation even relevant. GDP goes up, receipts goes up.....and IF spending remains flat....the outcome is positive. Obviously revenue will decrease as a % of GDP in a tax rate decrease by its very definition.....but if those total receipts still increase, it is related to economic growth. Therefore, my claim holds true that a decrease in tax rates leads to economic growth and increased Federal tax revenue. |
btw, I am making a argument of philosophy.....I am not a "its always the right time to cut taxes guy". I think tax cuts can be a beneficial tool when used strategically. Overall, I am for a very progressive consumption tax to replace the income tax....it is the only method that I know of to truly obtain everyone's fair share while allowing everyone to choose their tax obligation. |
Consumption taxes are problematic on many levels, and tend to either be regressive or ineffective. But most places that have them would prefer an income tax... |
every liberal that I have ever spoke to about the type of consumption tax I prefer always is suspicious, but after discussing the specific measures to ensure it is progressive, have always at least acknowledged that in a vacuum would be less regressive than our current system.
First, I do not have the resources to compile an actual plan with accurate numbers, etc....but the key to it is tiered progressive rates on purchase types. For example, an automobile used for transportation (cars, trucks, Suv's, etc.) would have one tax rate for auto's under $5K, auto's under $35K, and auto's under $100K. Maybe the under $5K is 1%, and if a billionaire wants to buy his car at Wild Bill's Used Auto's, then he or she can get that low tax rate.....but if he or she prefers to enjoy their wealth by obtaining a new Italian sports supercar....the tax rate % would be significantly more. I think it is the only way to allow individuals the freedom to pay the amount of taxes they choose, while ensuring the majority is derived from those that have the most resources.
Something must change because as the country has matured, class movement has became more difficult....and most wealthy individuals were born into wealth. We can not continue to allow trust fund kids to live off of resources created by previous generations of their family. They are not working, and their passive income is taxed at a lower rate. I am of the opinion that the only fair way to ensure they are paying an amount aligned with their lifestyle is to tax their consumption which is much greater than the mass majority of individuals working 40 hours a week.
While I have my own ideas, there are multiple ways to ensure a consumption tax remains progressive. |
That's a nice way of saying, "you won't agree with me, and I have no intention of giving you the actual explanation, but if I did, you would". And you're illustrating the basic flaw in consumption taxes that you either don't know, or do know and hope I don't:
Consumption is regressive primarily because the higher you get up the tax bracket, the less a proportion of that income is devoted to taxable consumption. Now, if you're going to go to the effort of figuring all the consumption patterns of various wealth classes, and have a way of ensuring that you match the progressiveness of the tax to their income level, you're basically just doing a lot of busy work to poorly replicate a progressive income tax. Because at the end of the day, the entire purpose of a consumption tax is to shield higher incomes from tax, just as the proposed reduction or elimination of capital gains and estate taxes are designed to do.
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 07, 2016 3:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
That's a bit unfair. I've seen some concrete proposals for progressive consumption taxes. I can see a legitimate argument for making a progressive consumption tax part of a larger tax scheme, but standing alone it strikes me as problematic.
But I've never given it a lot of thought, because it would probably be unconstitutional. I'll spare you the details of the legal problems. There has been a lot of scholarly debate on the subject. We couldn't adopt a consumption tax system and then hope that the courts find it to be constitutional. We would need a constitutional amendment to provide certainty. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omar Little
Moderator
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90307
Location: Formerly Known As 24
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 07, 2016 4:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Aeneas Hunter wrote: | That's a bit unfair. I've seen some concrete proposals for progressive consumption taxes. I can see a legitimate argument for making a progressive consumption tax part of a larger tax scheme, but standing alone it strikes me as problematic.
But I've never given it a lot of thought, because it would probably be unconstitutional. I'll spare you the details of the legal problems. There has been a lot of scholarly debate on the subject. We couldn't adopt a consumption tax system and then hope that the courts find it to be constitutional. We would need a constitutional amendment to provide certainty. |
What's unfair about it? At the end of the day, taxation is about getting a certain amount of revenue out of the tax base. Progressive taxation is about disproportionately netting more tax from the higher incomes, while regressive taxes are the opposite. Consumption is regressive, and at some point, why the gymnastics to make it basically match up to a progressive income tax?
At the end of the day, these are the issues we need to get to in a clear way. What do we want? How much does it cost? How do we split the burden? Silly things like progressivized consumption taxes don't get us closer to that clarity. And they are inherently offputting because they place the tax burden on choices (or obligations on the poorer end) over shared responsibility.
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LakerSanity
Moderator
Joined: 30 Nov 2006
Posts: 33474
Location: Long Beach, California
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 07, 2016 4:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| adkindo wrote: | | Aeneas Hunter wrote: | | adkindo wrote: | driving up deficits to force government spending restraint was not a central tenant of Friedman economics....he began discussing that tactic later in his life....and when your going to claim modern brilliant economists do not support Friedman's ideas and Supply Side Economics...why even have a discussion because your claims have become flat out making false claims that you know are false.
I respect that you and even other very smart people disagree or think my thoughts are incorrect....but if you cannot simply acknowledge individuals, some surely more achieved in the subject than you (or I), have a convicted belief other than yours, there is no value in discussing the topic. |
Okay. We tried to explain this to you. Now you're calling us liars. You've been indoctrinated to believe that the economic community supports all of this stuff. I would hope that at least we have planted a seed of doubt in your mind. That's the first step. |
I did not call you a liar, I said I fully believe that you actually know there are great economic minds that support Supply Side Economics.
If having a Finance Degree with a minor in Economics, and an MBA with an emphasis in Finance & Economics while spending my career in management consulting, most of that in an advisory capacity to Fortune 500, Governmental, and large non-profit organization clients is how one becomes indoctrinated....and am not intelligent enough to understand it in the capacity that you do....then yeah, you got me. |
You did call him a liar. And then the discussion regressed from there. That's why addressing the post, not the poster is the rule (both for you and AH, regardless of who started it). Don't do it again and do away with the snotty remarks (such as the sarcasm in this last post by you) as well while you are at it.
_________________
LakersGround's Terms of Service
Twitter: @DeleteThisPost |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aussiesuede
Franchise Player
Joined: 27 Jul 2005
Posts: 10964
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 07, 2016 4:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Omar Little wrote: | | Aeneas Hunter wrote: | That's a bit unfair. I've seen some concrete proposals for progressive consumption taxes. I can see a legitimate argument for making a progressive consumption tax part of a larger tax scheme, but standing alone it strikes me as problematic.
But I've never given it a lot of thought, because it would probably be unconstitutional. I'll spare you the details of the legal problems. There has been a lot of scholarly debate on the subject. We couldn't adopt a consumption tax system and then hope that the courts find it to be constitutional. We would need a constitutional amendment to provide certainty. |
What's unfair about it? At the end of the day, taxation is about getting a certain amount of revenue out of the tax base. Progressive taxation is about disproportionately netting more tax from the higher incomes, while regressive taxes are the opposite. Consumption is regressive, and at some point, why the gymnastics to make it basically match up to a progressive income tax?
At the end of the day, these are the issues we need to get to in a clear way. What do we want? How much does it cost? How do we split the burden? Silly things like progressivized consumption taxes don't get us closer to that clarity. And they are inherently offputting because they place the tax burden on choices (or obligations on the poorer end) over shared responsibility. |
A consumption tax which is progressive based on ones utilization of the 'commons' would quiet the Consumption Tax fans in a big hurry (ie, you pay higher taxes based on how much of the 'commons' you consume. Call the cops more than the average Joe, then the entity that consumes at that higher rate pays a higher tax. Same goes for Fire Depts, Public Works Depts, Transportation Depts, etc. Progressive consumption taxes for greater use of all manner of the 'commons.) When Ms Robinson calls the Cops once in 10 years, she pay's a $100 tax for the call. When Walmart calls the cops 100 times in a day, they'll pay a $10,000 tax per day for their overuse of the commons.
_________________
I'm On point, On task, On message, and Off drugs. A Streetwise Smart Bomb, Out of rehab and In denial. Over the Top, On the edge, Under the Radar, and In Control. Behind the 8 ball, Ahead of the Curve and I've got a Love Child who sends me Hate mail. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 07, 2016 4:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Omar Little wrote: | | Aeneas Hunter wrote: | That's a bit unfair. I've seen some concrete proposals for progressive consumption taxes. I can see a legitimate argument for making a progressive consumption tax part of a larger tax scheme, but standing alone it strikes me as problematic.
But I've never given it a lot of thought, because it would probably be unconstitutional. I'll spare you the details of the legal problems. There has been a lot of scholarly debate on the subject. We couldn't adopt a consumption tax system and then hope that the courts find it to be constitutional. We would need a constitutional amendment to provide certainty. |
What's unfair about it? At the end of the day, taxation is about getting a certain amount of revenue out of the tax base. Progressive taxation is about disproportionately netting more tax from the higher incomes, while regressive taxes are the opposite. Consumption is regressive, and at some point, why the gymnastics to make it basically match up to a progressive income tax?
At the end of the day, these are the issues we need to get to in a clear way. What do we want? How much does it cost? How do we split the burden? Silly things like progressivized consumption taxes don't get us closer to that clarity. And they are inherently offputting because they place the tax burden on choices (or obligations on the poorer end) over shared responsibility. |
That's why I think it is problematic as a stand alone system. There is an equity issue. You would need to make it part of a larger system, so that you get the benefits that Adkindo describes while reducing the penalty on saving, but also ensuring that it isn't just a giveaway to the rich. As you say, the resulting system would require a lot of gymnastics. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omar Little
Moderator
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90307
Location: Formerly Known As 24
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 07, 2016 4:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Aeneas Hunter wrote: | | Omar Little wrote: | | Aeneas Hunter wrote: | That's a bit unfair. I've seen some concrete proposals for progressive consumption taxes. I can see a legitimate argument for making a progressive consumption tax part of a larger tax scheme, but standing alone it strikes me as problematic.
But I've never given it a lot of thought, because it would probably be unconstitutional. I'll spare you the details of the legal problems. There has been a lot of scholarly debate on the subject. We couldn't adopt a consumption tax system and then hope that the courts find it to be constitutional. We would need a constitutional amendment to provide certainty. |
What's unfair about it? At the end of the day, taxation is about getting a certain amount of revenue out of the tax base. Progressive taxation is about disproportionately netting more tax from the higher incomes, while regressive taxes are the opposite. Consumption is regressive, and at some point, why the gymnastics to make it basically match up to a progressive income tax?
At the end of the day, these are the issues we need to get to in a clear way. What do we want? How much does it cost? How do we split the burden? Silly things like progressivized consumption taxes don't get us closer to that clarity. And they are inherently offputting because they place the tax burden on choices (or obligations on the poorer end) over shared responsibility. |
That's why I think it is problematic as a stand alone system. There is an equity issue. You would need to make it part of a larger system, so that you get the benefits that Adkindo describes while reducing the penalty on saving, but also ensuring that it isn't just a giveaway to the rich. As you say, the resulting system would require a lot of gymnastics. |
I don't buy the whole penalty on savings argument. If your tax is progressive enough, there's no issue. It is kind of a trojan horse for protection of the wealthy class (non wages).
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aussiesuede
Franchise Player
Joined: 27 Jul 2005
Posts: 10964
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 07, 2016 5:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | Moving to address income inequality on a local level, the City Council in Portland, Ore., voted on Wednesday to impose a surtax on companies whose chief executives earn more than 100 times the median pay of their rank-and-file workers.
The surcharge, which Portland officials said is the first in the nation linked to chief executives’ pay, would be added to the city’s business tax for those companies that exceed the pay threshold. Currently, roughly 550 companies that generate significant income on sales in Portland pay the business tax.
Under the new rule, companies must pay an additional 10 percent in taxes if their chief executives receive compensation greater than 100 times the median pay of all their employees. Companies with pay ratios greater than 250 times the median will face a 25 percent surcharge.
The tax will take effect next year, after the Securities and Exchange Commission begins to require public companies to calculate and disclose how their chief executives’ compensation compares with their workers’ |
Portland to Enact CEO Disparity Surcharge
_________________
I'm On point, On task, On message, and Off drugs. A Streetwise Smart Bomb, Out of rehab and In denial. Over the Top, On the edge, Under the Radar, and In Control. Behind the 8 ball, Ahead of the Curve and I've got a Love Child who sends me Hate mail. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omar Little
Moderator
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90307
Location: Formerly Known As 24
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 07, 2016 5:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Aussiesuede wrote: | | Quote: | Moving to address income inequality on a local level, the City Council in Portland, Ore., voted on Wednesday to impose a surtax on companies whose chief executives earn more than 100 times the median pay of their rank-and-file workers.
The surcharge, which Portland officials said is the first in the nation linked to chief executives’ pay, would be added to the city’s business tax for those companies that exceed the pay threshold. Currently, roughly 550 companies that generate significant income on sales in Portland pay the business tax.
Under the new rule, companies must pay an additional 10 percent in taxes if their chief executives receive compensation greater than 100 times the median pay of all their employees. Companies with pay ratios greater than 250 times the median will face a 25 percent surcharge.
The tax will take effect next year, after the Securities and Exchange Commission begins to require public companies to calculate and disclose how their chief executives’ compensation compares with their workers’ |
Portland to Enact CEO Disparity Surcharge |
I kind of file these under useless gestures. If the fine is small enough, it doesn't do anything. Too large and the company moves to a friendlier jurisdiction.
That said, 100 times the median income is criminal.
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
trmiv
Franchise Player
Joined: 19 Nov 2001
Posts: 17659
Location: Orlando
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
governator
Retired Number
Joined: 28 Jan 2006
Posts: 25092
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 07, 2016 6:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Aussiesuede wrote: | | Omar Little wrote: | | Aeneas Hunter wrote: | That's a bit unfair. I've seen some concrete proposals for progressive consumption taxes. I can see a legitimate argument for making a progressive consumption tax part of a larger tax scheme, but standing alone it strikes me as problematic.
But I've never given it a lot of thought, because it would probably be unconstitutional. I'll spare you the details of the legal problems. There has been a lot of scholarly debate on the subject. We couldn't adopt a consumption tax system and then hope that the courts find it to be constitutional. We would need a constitutional amendment to provide certainty. |
What's unfair about it? At the end of the day, taxation is about getting a certain amount of revenue out of the tax base. Progressive taxation is about disproportionately netting more tax from the higher incomes, while regressive taxes are the opposite. Consumption is regressive, and at some point, why the gymnastics to make it basically match up to a progressive income tax?
At the end of the day, these are the issues we need to get to in a clear way. What do we want? How much does it cost? How do we split the burden? Silly things like progressivized consumption taxes don't get us closer to that clarity. And they are inherently offputting because they place the tax burden on choices (or obligations on the poorer end) over shared responsibility. |
A consumption tax which is progressive based on ones utilization of the 'commons' would quiet the Consumption Tax fans in a big hurry (ie, you pay higher taxes based on how much of the 'commons' you consume. Call the cops more than the average Joe, then the entity that consumes at that higher rate pays a higher tax. Same goes for Fire Depts, Public Works Depts, Transportation Depts, etc. Progressive consumption taxes for greater use of all manner of the 'commons.) When Ms Robinson calls the Cops once in 10 years, she pay's a $100 tax for the call. When Walmart calls the cops 100 times in a day, they'll pay a $10,000 tax per day for their overuse of the commons. |
Sounds like fee for service... the wealthy's paradise
Last edited by governator on Thu Dec 08, 2016 7:12 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DuncanIdaho
Franchise Player
Joined: 26 Apr 2004
Posts: 17251
Location: In a no-ship
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 07, 2016 6:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | Federal judge halts Michigan election recount
After two days of ballot counting, conflicting court decisions and legal wranglings by frustrated Republican lawyers, a federal judge on Wednesday halted the hand recount of 4.8 million ballots cast for president in Michigan, concluding there's no real evidence that foul play occurred and there's no valid reason to continue the recount.
In his eight-page opinion, U.S. District Judge Mark Goldsmith said "there is no basis" for him to ignore a state court ruling that said the recount should never had started. He was referring to the Michigan Court of Appeals' 3-0 ruling, which said that Green Party Candidate Jill Stein, who requested the recount, never had a shot at winning with her fourth place finish and 1% of the vote, and therefore was not an aggrieved candidate.
Goldsmith also upheld arguments made repeatedly by the Michigan Republican Party: that there was never any evidence that hacking or fraud occurred at the polls in Michigan.
"To date, plaintiffs have not presented evidence of tampering or mistake. Instead, they present speculative claims going to the vulnerability of the voting machinery -- but not actual injury," Goldsmith wrote, adding the potential for fraud is not enough to continue to allow the recount to proceed.
http://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/detroit/2016/12/07/federal-judge-halts-michigan-election-recount/95110008/ |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ChefLinda
Moderator
Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 24166
Location: Boston
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 07, 2016 7:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | Ari Berman @AriBerman
Trump cabinet picks:
EPA against science
AG against justice
Ed against public education
Hud against fair housing
HHS against healthcare |
This is how the billionaires and the 1% remain in control. Create chaos, hurdles and burdens that mainly affect the 99% and keeps them distracted from the con. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
