Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I thought liberals were about EQUALITY and anti-discimination
the FAIREST and most EQUAL would be a consumption tax...EVERYONE pays...the rich since they buy more, and bigger items would pay the most
think of the tax on that nice new Lexus the rich guy buys
Depends on the consumption tax and how it is structured in a progressive manner. If they taxed assets and not food and clothing then I might be ok with a consumption tax.
No, I'm not. That's the very definition of a flat tax.
No, it's not. Can you read for comprehension? I was explaining why the top 5% of income earners by so much income taxes under a progressive income tax system is because they make so much of the income.
Glad to hear you support a flat tax. Pay in exact proportion to what you earn.
The top 1% earns less than 17% of the income but pays more than 36% of the federal income tax. The share of the federal income tax they pay should be reduced to less than 17% to match their income.
The top 5% earns just about 32% of the income but pays almost 59% of the federal income tax. The share of the federal income tax they pay should be reduced to 32% to match their income.
The dip to 17% took place in 2009. It has since rebounded to about 25% in last figures available.
The rich have also consumed almost every bit of income growth over the past decade.
The government, military and courts work for the protection, benefit and preservation of the wealth. It is fair that they pay a progressive income tax to maintain same.
It doesn't. Besides, if you make "so much" and I make "so much" doesn't mean we make the same.
Instead...
"The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."
- Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations
Clearly, Adam Smith didn't preach that a flat tax would be reasonable but the opposite. Sounds like he believed in progressive taxation to me.
So, if you reduce taxes on the top 1% from 36% to 17%, that means that taxes on the bottom earners would have to be raised astronomically
No. That's not how percentages work. Math is hard, huh?
Earn very little; pay very little federal income tax. Earn A LOT; pay A LOT in federal income tax.
Absolute fairness would be a capitation tax (head tax), in which the costs are divided equally and everyone pays the same amount. Would you rather be nondiscriminatory and absolutely fair? Or do you want to continue to discriminate against certain groups of people?
No. That's not how percentages work. Math is hard, huh?
Earn very little; pay very little federal income tax. Earn A LOT; pay A LOT in federal income tax.
Absolute fairness would be a capitation tax (head tax), in which the costs are divided equally and everyone pays the same amount. Would you rather be nondiscriminatory and absolutely fair? Or do you want to continue to discriminate against certain groups of people?
Discrimination based on economic status is not a protected class, so no problems applying the tax code differently. Never has been, never will be. Try again.
But while we're being imaginative, and you're going to go THAT far, then we'll have to factor in a way to equalize and make fair the COSTS of doing business:
For example, when a business spews pollution from its factory into the air, that pollution is a COST of business that is borne by EVERYONE in the country. So in effect, we have socialization of business costs.... but dare we suggest that those who most benefit from same pay a bit extra?
I agree; they have pschological impact on a populace that is completely ignorant of economics.
Quote:
I am not worried about US national debt per se, but I don't think you can have just huge runaway budget deficits year after year.
But we can have run away bank credit it seems. The reason why we have deficits now is because banks created 27 trillion dollars between 2001-2008 in what was largely a speculative real estate bubble. We are now being sucked into the void it created. If that is the idea behind private bank credit then I would prefer no bank credit and much larger deficits. That is to say I would rather have a full reserve money system scrapping fractional reserves completely. That would require much bigger deficits.
Quote:
I think you are right concerning taxes though, Stop taxing wages and investments and start taxing assets. I could agree with that if it were done correctly.
I don't believe the US government is printing too much money right now.
Ok but that is what a deficit is. It is printing money. All the Fed does is swap interest bearing and non interest bearing securities with respect to QE. It does not do squat except for the first time since even assets with equity could not draw a loan at that time. After that all assets that could draw credit did. So now all it does is suck money out of the economy.
I don't know what you mean by banks need to loosen credit though? Are you talking about banks issuing more loans?
That has been the plan. Where else is the money supposed to come from? Unless new money enters the system from more loans or deficits how do you pay the principle plus interest? This money system is designed to inflate by 3% a year at least.
I don't believe in "morality" when it comes to money that saving is necessarily better than spending. Obviously as a consumer driven economy if everyone stops spending then we are screwed.
The problem is doing it with debt based financing which is inherently unstable. Effective demand is spending + the change in debt. If you spend wages + 10% debt then it implies wages - 10% - interest down the road. An economy adapted to wages + 10 debt is going to tank when deleveraging occurs.
Quote:
I do think that US policy towards homeownership does need to be revisited. Although creating affordable homes or living is something I think the US government will be involved in and has to be.
We did visit it back in the 1870s to the turn of the century when land speculation and currency appreciation was determined to be a bad thing where Henry George and Silvio Gesell tried to take the rent seeking out of real estate and money respectively. Both land and finance have for thousands of years extracted economic rent with no actual product. It is an easy way to lay claim to wealth while at the same time destroying it. That is why we had the progressive era reforms. We have slowly reversed it only to arrive right back where they were, to repeat the same dismal history. We have absurdly classified the income of the first and second estates as capital and reduced their taxes. Back to feudalism...
Quote:
Housing prices increase when you have a growing population, who are making good wages, and housing policy that favors owners over renters.
Actually two reasons. A slave's demand for nice housing has no impact on supply. Either does a poor person who purchases with his own buying power. However with ponzi financing the effective demand on housing soars which made bankers very wealthy.
Demand is about the want and the means, among other things that is. I am not one to adheres to over simplistic supply and demand models since they don't even remotely reflect reality.
Government granted monopolies = theft in the private sector.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
