Democrats, Republicans and the Crisis of Legitimacy

Bugeye

Bugeye

Well-Known Member
ttystikk said:
I'm not advocating for the collection of that much tax. I'm suggesting we tax the rich more than the poor and working classes. It's called Progressive taxation and our country worked far better when we did it than it has since Reagan dismantled it.

The notion that the rich got that way all by themselves could only be believed by those who have no idea how people accumulate wealth; they actually do it by leveraging the work of others, either directly in the company they own or by building the companies whose stock is owned by rich people. No one accumulates great wealth alone.
Click to expand...
Yes, tax code has been progressive my entire life.
 
Bugeye

Bugeye

Well-Known Member
ttystikk said:
Yes and it conveniently neglects to mention that most types of investment income are taxed at vastly lower rates than wages. Wealthy people don't make most of their income via wages, they make it through sales of stock, dividends, capital gains, etc.
Click to expand...
It shows that across all federal taxes collected, a progressive tax structure clearly exists.
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
Bugeye said:
It shows that across all federal taxes collected, a progressive tax structure clearly exists.
Click to expand...
If that was the case, wouldn't people like Warren Buffet be paying a higher percentage in taxes than his secretary? I remember Mitt Romney getting owned over the tax percentage he pays, something like 13%, during the 2012 election, while most working class Americans are paying much higher percentages than that. Not to mention the federal tax burden, in the 1950s corporations were putting up something like 32%, the last time I checked that number a year or two ago, corporations these days account for 9% of the federal tax burden. So more than 20% of the tax burden has been shifted from corporations to the working class over the course of 6 decades. That can't be by accident
 
Bugeye

Bugeye

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
If that was the case, wouldn't people like Warren Buffet be paying a higher percentage in taxes than his secretary? I remember Mitt Romney getting owned over the tax percentage he pays, something like 13%, during the 2012 election, while most working class Americans are paying much higher percentages than that. Not to mention the federal tax burden, in the 1950s corporations were putting up something like 32%, the last time I checked that number a year or two ago, corporations these days account for 9% of the federal tax burden. So more than 20% of the tax burden has been shifted from corporations to the working class over the course of 6 decades. That can't be by accident
Click to expand...
The plural of anecdote is not data. Federal tax receipts are progressive in nature when viewed in total. There are regressive taxes but on balance it is progressive. You can argue it should be more progressive but only ttystikk can argue it isn't.

Corporate taxes strike me as regressive in nature since all of their revenue comes from consumers. Then again, I see corporations as far more beneficial than evil, so that's my bias. I don't fall in with the corporations are bad crowd.
 
since1991

since1991

Well-Known Member
Bugeye said:
I like Bernie, but I never got the feeling he was for smaller government. How are progressives for cutting size of government?
Click to expand...
"Smaller government" is was and shall continue to be one of the buzz words to get a certain voter to get onboard. Its a myth. And can be construed in a myriad of ways. Whatever you think "smaller government" means to you..it will never happen because it can't. All that matters is you buy into the idea of "smaller government" and take it to the voting booth. "They" throw words like that around...hoping for a bite. Its bullshit.
 
since1991

since1991

Well-Known Member
How did Obama or any other President in the last 40 years actually "shrink the size of the federal government" specifically? Iam telling you all....the whole idea of it is complete bullshit. And they know it...hoping you dont but vote for them because it sounds good.
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
Bugeye said:
The plural of anecdote is not data. Federal tax receipts are progressive in nature when viewed in total. There are regressive taxes but on balance it is progressive. You can argue it should be more progressive but only ttystikk can argue it isn't.

Corporate taxes strike me as regressive in nature since all of their revenue comes from consumers. Then again, I see corporations as far more beneficial than evil, so that's my bias. I don't fall in with the corporations are bad crowd.
Click to expand...
I have a few questions to get a better idea of where you're coming from, I hope you don't mind

-What do you define as a "progressive system of taxation"?
-What do you mean by "There are regressive taxes but on balance it is progressive."?
-Corporate taxes, meaning the taxes a corporation pays, strikes you as regressive because all of their revenue comes from consumers. All of my revenue comes from consumers, too, right, working a standard American job. Someone buys the product of my labor, that's why I earn money. Doesn't all the revenue accrued by working people come from consumers?
-I'm not trying to paint with a broad brush and say that all corporations are bad because I don't believe that. Costco is a good corporation that I wholeheartedly support. The idea is that some, usually very large corporations, use their position and power to influence the politicians who write the rules specifically because they want said rules to favor them, more often than not, against said politicians constituency. That's the entire issue I take with corporations; influencing public policy against the interests of the people. There's something to be said about CEO earnings and shareholder cuts at the expense of the workers, as well as the undemocratic process of business in America today. But as far as corporate influence goes, that's a gigantic problem all of us face the consequences of every day living in America. That's something I think we can all agree, non controversially, that needs to change.
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
since1991 said:
How did Obama or any other President in the last 40 years actually "shrink the size of the federal government" specifically? Iam telling you all....the whole idea of it is complete bullshit. And they know it...hoping you dont but vote for them because it sounds good.
Click to expand...
Why is the idea of shrinking the government so appealing to some people to begin with?

Because of government inefficiency. Some people believe the government is wasting our tax dollars on pointless, ineffective things

So how does the logic follow that accruing less tax revenue and spending less on government programs ensure the government will run more effectively?


It's a scam. Those within the Republican ranks want to eliminate the tax burden for their wealthiest donors, because those at the top stand to gain a significant amount on even a small percentage decrease on their taxes.
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
Why is the idea of shrinking the government so appealing to some people to begin with?

Because of government inefficiency. Some people believe the government is wasting our tax dollars on pointless, ineffective things

So how does the logic follow that accruing less tax revenue and spending less on government programs ensure the government will run more effectively?


It's a scam. Those within the Republican ranks want to eliminate the tax burden for their wealthiest donors, because those at the top stand to gain a significant amount on even a small percentage decrease on their taxes.
Click to expand...
Careful, man. You're dangerously close to making sense here.
:bigjoint:
 
since1991

since1991

Well-Known Member
The best times for the working class in America was right after ww2 and the Korean War. When the Great Depression hit hard in the early 30's FDR told the rich corporate types that if they want to live comfortably like they always have..they are going to have to pay. What was the corporate tax rate for some of the big shot callers? Like 80 or 90% For a long time too. And every one prospered. But the corporate class and thier descendents resented FDR (still do) and his programs to get us out of the Derpression and made a vow to roll back that chunk of money tax every since. And they largely succeeded. They got a good portion of dumb gullible voters to get on board by brainwashing them with media like FOX News and the like. And it's all been a ruse. A concerted effort so they can pay less in taxes. State of the Nation and working person be damned.
 
Bugeye

Bugeye

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
I have a few questions to get a better idea of where you're coming from, I hope you don't mind
-Corporate taxes, meaning the taxes a corporation pays, strikes you as regressive because all of their revenue comes from consumers. All of my revenue comes from consumers, too, right, working a standard American job. Someone buys the product of my labor, that's why I earn money. Doesn't all the revenue accrued by working people come from consumers?
-I'm not trying to paint with a broad brush and say that all corporations are bad because I don't believe that. Costco is a good corporation that I wholeheartedly support. The idea is that some, usually very large corporations, use their position and power to influence the politicians who write the rules specifically because they want said rules to favor them, more often than not, against said politicians constituency. That's the entire issue I take with corporations; influencing public policy against the interests of the people. There's something to be said about CEO earnings and shareholder cuts at the expense of the workers, as well as the undemocratic process of business in America today. But as far as corporate influence goes, that's a gigantic problem all of us face the consequences of every day living in America. That's something I think we can all agree, non controversially, that needs to change.
Click to expand...
-What do you define as a "progressive system of taxation"?
Regressive, flat and progressive tax structures are all based on the same calculation, amount paid in taxes divided by income (the effective tax rate). Typically this will be done by income bracket (quartiles or quintiles, etc.). So you take the entire amount of tax paid by a quintile (lets say the bottom 20% of earners) and divide that by the sum of that brackets income. If the lower income brackets show the lowest effective tax rate and the upper brackets show the highest effective tax rate, that is a progressive tax structure. If each bracket has the same effective tax rate, that is a flat tax structure, and if the lowest income brackets have higher effective tax rates than the upper tax brackets, that is a regressive tax structure.

-What do you mean by "There are regressive taxes but on balance it is progressive."?
The link I provided: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/are-federal-taxes-progressive
shows that at the total tax level, taxes are progressive in nature because the effective tax rate goes up as you move up income brackets. However, when you look at the component taxes that make up the total, some of them are regressive, see excise taxes.

Corporate taxes strike me as being a little regressive, but the complexity is enough for me to say I could be wrong. A simple example, Let's say you make $1M per year and I make $10K per year. We both go to McDonalds and order a happy meal. After the expense of the food and the box are deducted, the expense of the labor, the expense of all the other overhead, there is probably some small profit on each of the happy meals, and it is the same amount for each happy meal. Some amount of this profit will go to the government in the form of corporate income tax, and it will be the same amount on each of our happy meals. So if you take that amount of tax and divide it by our incomes, I will be paying a higher effective tax rate because my income is smaller than yours, basic math. So this example is regressive in nature.

I see corporations as net positives and here is an example. Let's say you gave me all the raw mateirals needed for me to create an iPhone, glass, metal, plastic, etc. How much do you think it would cost me to convert those raw materials into an iPhone? Given the amount of specialized processing required and the machinery needed to do that, it could be a very expensive thing to make as a one off, surely far more than $1000. So the economies of scale present in large corporations allows us to purchase things we could never afford to make for ourselves. This is a HUGE benefit to society that I think overshadows the down side that you are concerned with. I will not try to convince you that you are wrong, just that you and I will likely look at the same thing and see it differently.

I'm in favor of a progressive tax code as it is vital to maximizing revenue, which I think is the number one goal when you are running a deficit. I like the Trump tax cuts on a purely selfish level, because I like paying less. However, as a matter of public policy I could only support these tax cuts if the federal government was also cut down to a level that matched expected revenue. I do not believe that a government can run large deficits in perpetuity, eventually it will fail as history has demonstrated. That which cannot go on forever, will not. Governments that go above 100% of GDP in debt are historically in a dangerous territory. The only time the US has previously been here is from WWII where we had the primary undestroyed manufacturing left in the world to pull ourselves back from a dangerous debt level. I don't know how we do it this time around.

I see zero difference between the two elected parties currently serving. Repubs TALK about fiscal responsibility, but do not govern that way.
 
Bugeye

Bugeye

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
Why is the idea of shrinking the government so appealing to some people to begin with?

Because of government inefficiency. Some people believe the government is wasting our tax dollars on pointless, ineffective things

So how does the logic follow that accruing less tax revenue and spending less on government programs ensure the government will run more effectively?


It's a scam. Those within the Republican ranks want to eliminate the tax burden for their wealthiest donors, because those at the top stand to gain a significant amount on even a small percentage decrease on their taxes.
Click to expand...
Or some of us believe that maintaining responsible debt limits is necessary to maintaining sovereignty.
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
Bugeye said:
-What do you define as a "progressive system of taxation"?
Regressive, flat and progressive tax structures are all based on the same calculation, amount paid in taxes divided by income (the effective tax rate). Typically this will be done by income bracket (quartiles or quintiles, etc.). So you take the entire amount of tax paid by a quintile (lets say the bottom 20% of earners) and divide that by the sum of that brackets income. If the lower income brackets show the lowest effective tax rate and the upper brackets show the highest effective tax rate, that is a progressive tax structure. If each bracket has the same effective tax rate, that is a flat tax structure, and if the lowest income brackets have higher effective tax rates than the upper tax brackets, that is a regressive tax structure.

-What do you mean by "There are regressive taxes but on balance it is progressive."?
The link I provided: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/are-federal-taxes-progressive
shows that at the total tax level, taxes are progressive in nature because the effective tax rate goes up as you move up income brackets. However, when you look at the component taxes that make up the total, some of them are regressive, see excise taxes.

Corporate taxes strike me as being a little regressive, but the complexity is enough for me to say I could be wrong. A simple example, Let's say you make $1M per year and I make $10K per year. We both go to McDonalds and order a happy meal. After the expense of the food and the box are deducted, the expense of the labor, the expense of all the other overhead, there is probably some small profit on each of the happy meals, and it is the same amount for each happy meal. Some amount of this profit will go to the government in the form of corporate income tax, and it will be the same amount on each of our happy meals. So if you take that amount of tax and divide it by our incomes, I will be paying a higher effective tax rate because my income is smaller than yours, basic math. So this example is regressive in nature.

I see corporations as net positives and here is an example. Let's say you gave me all the raw mateirals needed for me to create an iPhone, glass, metal, plastic, etc. How much do you think it would cost me to convert those raw materials into an iPhone? Given the amount of specialized processing required and the machinery needed to do that, it could be a very expensive thing to make as a one off, surely far more than $1000. So the economies of scale present in large corporations allows us to purchase things we could never afford to make for ourselves. This is a HUGE benefit to society that I think overshadows the down side that you are concerned with. I will not try to convince you that you are wrong, just that you and I will likely look at the same thing and see it differently.

I'm in favor of a progressive tax code as it is vital to maximizing revenue, which I think is the number one goal when you are running a deficit. I like the Trump tax cuts on a purely selfish level, because I like paying less. However, as a matter of public policy I could only support these tax cuts if the federal government was also cut down to a level that matched expected revenue. I do not believe that a government can run large deficits in perpetuity, eventually it will fail as history has demonstrated. That which cannot go on forever, will not. Governments that go above 100% of GDP in debt are historically in a dangerous territory. The only time the US has previously been here is from WWII where we had the primary undestroyed manufacturing left in the world to pull ourselves back from a dangerous debt level. I don't know how we do it this time around.

I see zero difference between the two elected parties currently serving. Repubs TALK about fiscal responsibility, but do not govern that way.
Click to expand...
Wealthy people do not earn their money through wages, which are taxed at far higher rates than income from sales of assets, stock, dividends and other capital gains. Hence, regressive taxation. This becomes even more true when you realize that tax deductions for expenses don't apply to wage income like they do for other forms of income.

I applaud your interest in economics. The more we have the rank and file studying economics, the more people will come to understand just how badly the system in America is skewed towards the wealthy and will insist on electing politicians who will address this problem.

The FIRST thing to fix is the utterly corrupt scheme of legalized bribery in our political system, made possible by Citizens United and similar rulings. This is far from the only thing that needs fixing, but nothing else will change until the current scheme of financial incentives/imperatives for our political class is dealt with.
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
Bugeye said:
Or some of us believe that maintaining responsible debt limits is necessary to maintaining sovereignty.
Click to expand...
Politicians from as far back as Benjamin Franklin understood that foreign Nations owning our debt was and remains an excellent way to encourage them to work with the United States to ensure our mutual prosperity, if for no other reason than to protect their investment.
This is no less true today than it was 250 years ago.

I agree that running massive yearly deficits to finance historically low rates of taxation for corporations and the wealthy is a poor use of resources and it must end.
 
Bugeye

Bugeye

Well-Known Member
ttystikk said:
Wealthy people do not earn their money through wages, which are taxed at far higher rates than income from sales of assets, stock, dividends and other capital gains. Hence, regressive taxation. This becomes even more true when you realize that tax deductions for expenses don't apply to wage income like they do for other forms of income.

I applaud your interest in economics. The more we have the rank and file studying economics, the more people will come to understand just how badly the system in America is skewed towards the wealthy and will insist on electing politicians who will address this problem.

The FIRST thing to fix is the utterly corrupt scheme of legalized bribery in our political system, made possible by Citizens United and similar rulings. This is far from the only thing that needs fixing, but nothing else will change until the current scheme of financial incentives/imperatives for our political class is dealt with.
Click to expand...
I have demonstrated that our federal tax system is progressive. You should concede the point and apologize, or disprove me.

Dividends and cap gains are taxed at lower rates to drive capital formation, which drives growth. You are welcome to argue for higher taxation here but it will slow growth, no free lunch.

I think I'm done with your dismissive attitude for today. Best wishes to you.
 
londonfog

londonfog

Well-Known Member
ttystikk said:
Wealthy people do not earn their money through wages, which are taxed at far higher rates than income from sales of assets, stock, dividends and other capital gains. Hence, regressive taxation. This becomes even more true when you realize that tax deductions for expenses don't apply to wage income like they do for other forms of income.

I applaud your interest in economics. The more we have the rank and file studying economics, the more people will come to understand just how badly the system in America is skewed towards the wealthy and will insist on electing politicians who will address this problem.

The FIRST thing to fix is the utterly corrupt scheme of legalized bribery in our political system, made possible by Citizens United and similar rulings. This is far from the only thing that needs fixing, but nothing else will change until the current scheme of financial incentives/imperatives for our political class is dealt with.
Click to expand...
Why are you not running for office ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top