Are you saying the US is the linebacker? I wonder who decided to put us in that role? Could it be the idea of the military or defence industry?Originally Posted by Daryl DeArman
Sure sounds like we are being played for suckers? Why would the great USA allow this?
Brian
I stumbled across this the other day:
Dr. Michael J. Burry at UCLA Economics Commencement 2012
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1CLhqjOzoyE
I guess the summary is we are all screwed together, but individually we can make out okay.
I think it relates to the amateur racer also.
ChrisZ
Thx John..
At some point higher marginal tax rates become a disincentive. It is totally subjective, but when the government takes home more of the incremental earnings dollar than I do, it begins to effect my attitude/behavior. At some point people begin to cheat, under report, cash pay, barter, etc: all behaviours which are probably not in the best interests of society over the long haul.
Now I am no economist (but I do play one on tv). But it seems that everyone *should* be able to agree that our tax systems have evolved to their current unsuitable state over long periods of time, and therefore to me at least in order to materially change behaviour permanently we would need a similarly long "evolution" of the tax system over time to some pre-ordained Utopian tax goal. That would take thought, direction, conviction, and long-term planning.......
And I will stop there....
best,
bt
Same old line that does not portray the true nature of 'all' our tax systems.
1) Should we expect those living at or below poverty levels to pay taxes? What resources do they have available for this?
2) In general all earned income to a certain level is taxed at 7.5/15% to fund SS, etc. no way around this for the average earner.
3) In general everyone pays sale taxes, say 5-10%. This is now generally applicable to services as well as products. So in you pay taxes on all your spending.
4) Property taxes. In general everyone pays property taxes either directly or indirectly. I am assuming property taxes are part of the calculation when determining rents.
For all you anti undocumented alien types the sales and property taxes kind of blows a hole in your argument that aliens do not pay their way while in the US. Their income is generally below the poverty level so you would not expect them to be required to pay income taxes. They can't collect SS, so no need to pay those taxes.
Brian
Our tax systems are just fine. At any point in time they generate the revenue we desire from them. Individuals unhappy with their particular tax status use fairness and complexity as complaints. Reduce outlays if you want reduced taxes.
Disincentive... Absolutely no statistical correlation between incentives and taxation. Everyone decides for themselves if it more important to not pay taxes or get richer by earning more money.
Brian
The reason the wealth of the top 1% has grown is because of the same habits they practiced that caused them to ascend to the top 1% to begin with.
Your "most obvious explanation" is just a convenient excuse used by those that share the victim mentality.
I don't believe wealth inequality is a concern. We have tremendous economic mobility in this country. If everybody in the USA suddenly earned ten times as much tomorrow as they do today without any inflation, would that be a problem? It would increase everybody's standard of living while doing absolutely nothing to the wealth gap. Clearly illustrating the wealth gap isn't the true concern. People are just upset that the Jones' have more than them.
Last edited by Daryl DeArman; 03.30.20 at 6:37 PM.
Our morals. We couldn't stand around and let other kids be bullied and do nothing.
As to being played for suckers. . . we are currently attempting to make strides towards other countries paying their fair share.
ok
You are the first person I have ever met who is pleased with the tax system. Lets just say "so many" seem to be unhappy with our system, and that way the statement does not ignore folks that are happy with it.
You are also the first person I have met that feels as though our tax systems are both "simple" and "fair".
Regarding no statistical correlation between incentives and taxation, recall in my post I said:
- I was not an economist,
- I did say that the level at which higher tax rates act as a disincenitve was purely subjective. I meant that to be read as being a very individual thing, where each person would find their own level where higher taxes became a disincentive; and
- I did not make a statistical argument at all (although that does not mean that that argument could not be made)
I am not well-read enough to state that there is "absolutely" no statistical relationship between incentive and tax rates. All I know is that knuckleheads like the dopes at Brookings are pretty comfortable at making the same claim as I did, and I suspect they rely on a fair bit of statistical analysis to arrive at their conclusions.
But, even if you find them unbelievable, would it not seem that statistical analysis on the most basic rational thought is, well, redundant?. Does it really make sense that a society would ALWAYS be equally willing to provide an hour of labour for 5% of the wage rather than 100% of the wage?
No, it doesn't.
BT
Yes, if they have income (resource) they should pay income taxes.
. . . and yet their tax burden on the USA still far exceeds the amount we attribute to them contributing in total tax dollars.
I'm not anti-immigration. I'm anti-illegal immigration. Big difference before you attempt to paint me as some '-ist' of some sort.
I'm guessing that Brian and 36,999,999 other households in the USA are quite pleased with our current system. They aren't paying any income tax and yet still feel like a victim.
Which is why I said "Federal Income Tax" instead of "all".
90 freaking reply's to this thread and STILL no one has PM'd me a stock tip.
You all disappoint me !
Stonebridge Sports & Classics ltd
15 Great Pasture Rd Danbury, CT. 06810 (203) 744-1120
www.cryosciencetechnologies.com
Cryogenic Processing · REM-ISF Processing · Race Prep & Driver Development
90 freaking reply's to this thread and STILL no one has PM'd me a stock tip.
You all disappoint me !
Well, if a tip was all you wanted ...
If you were thinking of buying Zoom because of its capabilities in the video conferencing space (useful these days), do not buy ticker ZOOM. That is Zoom Technologies, something entirely different.
Zoom Video's ticker is ZM.
ZOOM has shot up for no good reason except that folks are confusing it with Zoom Video (ZM).
John Nesbitt
ex-Swift DB-1
Doesn't being below the poverty line, by definition, mean that they don't have the recources?
It seems to me, as a middle class worker from below-poverty upbringing, that the people paying reduced Income Tax rates are those that can afford various tax deductions. Growing up, we certainly couldn't afford to donate to charity. We couldn't afford a 401k.
Brian, I have to say that your replies are very good and well thought out. I'll leave it to you as I'm not as patient....
Garey Guzman
FF #4 (Former Cal Club member, current Atlanta Region member)
https://redroadracing.com/ (includes Zink and Citation Registry)
https://www.thekentlives.com/ (includes information on the FF Kent engine, chassis and history)
Not at all. It simply means that they have income below an amount that the Department of HHS has determined makes them eligible for certain programs.
By definition the people paying reduced income tax rates are those in all but the highest income tax bracket. Everybody else is subject to a reduced rate.
As to whether one can afford to donate to charity or contribute to a 401(k), if they had one, that's a matter of personal choice and priority. Not a matter of ability. Not saying folks are making the wrong choices, just pointing out that they have choices.
I appreciate a well thought out counter-argument. I appreciate the fact that one can clearly state their perspective/ideology even though I may disagree. Feel free to join in on the conversation, or just continue to click the like button.
Brian - did you sleep through American History? You know we inherited the world's policeman from the Brits, in a gradual turnover at the end of WWI and finalized after WW!!.
Where do you think we would be right now if we hadn't taken up the defense during the cold war? Had we become isolationist again the Soviet Union would still be here and it would cover all of Europe, most of Africa, and a great deal of mainland Asia, if not all of it. The resistance of those countries would have been less than they gave the Germans in 39/40.
And by the way, an awful lot of the stuff we enjoy today came out of the Cold War competition, including the space race. It would be difficult to visualize how different today would be had we changed course in 46.
Fear? I've never seen fear at the operational end of our armed forces - just a determination to do the mission assigned to them.
I suggest you broaden your horizons with some reading that will give you more perspective and appreciation. Start with some classics: Sun Tsu and Clausewitz. Then some interesting history - The Guns of August, and anything about Midway, and for some true inspiration, The Last Stand of Fox Company, and We Were Soldiers Once, and Young, and anything about Midway and the Battle of Leyte Gulf and the heroism of Taffy3.
On this we can agree.
There's a whole lot of folks who move to states with lower income taxes, lower state sales taxes, and lower property taxes. Lower the taxes to zero in 25 states and 99% in the other 25 states. . . see if your argument holds true.
As to choosing to earn more money or not pay more taxes, again it's a value decision that we all make. Most of the time I would work 25% longer for 20% more money. I wouldn't work 100% longer for 5% more money. You can't tax the hell out of folks and not expect a revolt.
So none of the 99% have ANY of the good habits that the 1% have? That seems a little far fetched to me.
Where is the 'tremendous economic mobility' for the vast majority of the 99% who have had stagnant income growth for the last 2 decades? At first glance it would seem that upward mobility is only accomplished by the 1%. Any possibility the the 99% are some how restricted from upward mobility, not by their bad habits?
Brian
And exactly why was it necessary for the US to do 90% of the lifting? For 70 years no one did anything to correct the imbalance? Even now we talk the talk, but have only achieved very small financial improvements.
I would challenge this assessment of the cold war. There is nothing about the Soviet system that implies they were/are capable of ruling the world.
Post cold war we seem to be doing quite well technologically without cold war stimulus. Of coarse there is the issue of the nuclear waste created by the cold war.
No interest or opinion about the military other than it is too large. You get the safety the you can afford. We limit the size of our police departments, why not the military.
Brian
I said fine. Any discussion about fairness is completely pointless with out context. Every ones idea of fairness is relative to them. Aside from revenue creation all the other goals of the tax system are political and subject to compromise.
Incentives... Without a scientific statistical correlation between taxes and incentives ALL discussion of the subject is OPINION. It does not matter who or what organization is presenting. I am very certain you are not going to find this data anywhere. Good luck proving me wrong.
Brian
If you are asking for tips, you probably are out of your league with this current market. Making picks is going to take a lot of creative thinking. A lot of cause and effect correlation to be thought out. This is also an event that has never been financially modeled before and lacks a know outcome.
I would recommend someone like Blackrock that has the creative personnel to take advantage of the situation. They also have 150B$ in cash to invest at this time.
At a minimum, you do nothing until the crisis has peaked based on past history. Also, the market has never bottomed at the same time the rescue packages have been released. Always a delay of 2-3 months on average.
Brian
This is the problem with redistribution advocacy. You assume the 1% and the 99% are the same folks year to year. In fact, there IS mobility, with those at the bottom typically young and gradually rising as they age, acquire skills, and grow their incomes. I've seen it again and again. I"ve also seen 1%ers' children blow themselves most of the way back down the scale.
Caldwell D9B - Sold
Crossle' 30/32/45 Mongrel - Sold
RF94 Monoshock - here goes nothin'
Don't know where you got that from what I wrote. Many of them probably share many of the great habits, and given enough time putting those habits to use, they are much more likely to find themselves in the top 1% than the bottom 1%,
80% of the 1%'rs are first generation 1%'rs. While there is some correlation between income and wealth, don't ignore the fact that lots of "wealthy" people aren't in the top 1% of the income earners.
Please elaborate. How am I (one of the 99%) restricted from upward mobility if not by my own decisions?
There's isn't proof because people move/stay for more than one reason. I could point to the number of retirees who move to Florida and you could point to the weather. You could insist that despite the high taxes I stay in CA and I would point to family and weather. Fact is that if 25 states had ZERO income taxes and 25 states had 99% income taxes you would in fact have to concede that there is a strong correlation between high taxes and incentive. Do you need another Boston Tea Party to see what's apparent?
Actually Brian, I'm good. I was just trying to lighten the mood a bit. It was looking like we were moving towards another thread lock.
Stonebridge Sports & Classics ltd
15 Great Pasture Rd Danbury, CT. 06810 (203) 744-1120
www.cryosciencetechnologies.com
Cryogenic Processing · REM-ISF Processing · Race Prep & Driver Development
Economic mobility: What is the exact definition?
I have always thought that 'economic mobility' is a possibility that is very rarely accomplished by the vast majority of Americans. A benefit not worth preserving since it is benefits so few actually achieve it. I want features that benefit the majority. Can you provide any statistics showing just how many people benefit from 'economic mobility' each year? I think it is just a talking point that promotes false hope.
To me 'economic mobility' would be the 99% making economic progress that is greater than the 1%. Clearly this is not happening.
Brian
Take a look here and see what you think.
https://fee.org/articles/income-mobi...f-opportunity/
Fair point!
But does that include all your health care costs?
Despite the too-common misconception of people here in the states, Canada doesn't have "free" healthcare, there's plenty of costs their "free" healthcare doesn't cover. There is a lot of healthcare tourism along the border areas, as neither system offers quality, value and convenience. Pick any two they say.
https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration...care-card.html
I will jump in here with a hypothetical formula
How much you like the current tax system:
what you get out of government minus what you pay plus how much you have left after paying all your bills.
If I get lots of government assistance, pay no taxes and have some money to buy things I am happy.
If I get no government assistance, pay high taxes, but have lots of money after - I am still happy
If I get some government assistance, pay moderate taxes and have no money left over - I am not happy.
My former boss was from Germany - when he went to work for a US company, he got paid like everyone else.
He got sick and after getting out of the hospital asked me "what is a deductible?" He assumed that by paying medical insurance, like he paid taxes in Germany - that he was 100% taken care of. Now his taxes were higher in Germany, but what is the value of not having to deal with insurance companies?
My wife company changed hands. Her job did not change one iota. We have spent over 40 hours switching HSA, Pharmacies, retirement plans, etc. - and we are not done yet.
What is not factored in - and not sure how to balance it - is that while many things are better - medial care - the Internet - safer cars and much more - it seems to come with a price of stress (like student loans, being replaced with automation, and being nickel and dimed to death with cell phone and cable bills, not to mention navigating health insurance.) where people long for the past.
How many here would rather race in the 70's?
ChrisZ
Last edited by FVRacer21; 03.31.20 at 6:20 PM.
I did - and IMO, it was WAY more fun then than it is currently, given the expense and complication that now goes with it.
However, it was also much more dangerous then than it is now. Kinda mirrors what has happened to all sports.
Dave Weitzenhof
Nobody spends other peoples' money with the same care they spend their own.
While there certainly is some value to not having to deal with insurance companies, there's also a price to pay when dealing with huge government bureaucracies.
I'd much prefer rolling back the clock to the days where I could purchase catastrophic medical coverage and put those premium savings aside to meet the high deductible. Now, I'm stuck paying for all types of coverage I don't need. As a 185# non-smoker in good health, I am paying the same premiums as a 450# chain-smoker, alcoholic, with COPD and diabetes, just because we live in the same zip code and are the same age. Absolutely absurd.
A key quotation:
"When you follow the same people over time, you get very different results about the impact of the economy on the poor, the middle, and the rich. Studies that use panel data—data that is generated from following the same people over time—consistently find that the largest gains over time accrue to the poorest workers and that the richest workers get very little of the gains."
Which certainly confirms what I have observed anecdotally.
Caldwell D9B - Sold
Crossle' 30/32/45 Mongrel - Sold
RF94 Monoshock - here goes nothin'
Not to mention your maternity care..
Caldwell D9B - Sold
Crossle' 30/32/45 Mongrel - Sold
RF94 Monoshock - here goes nothin'
Like so many of us that had parents/Grandparents who lived through the Depression and/or travelled West seeking opportunity during the Dust Bowl we don't have to look too far back to realize just how much better off the vast majority of us are than our parents and Grandparents.
Many grew up poor, now have nice houses, nice cars, expensive hobbies, a few bucks in the bank and cupboards full of food, yet still have this crazy belief that there's little opportunity for upward mobility.
[
Incentives... Without a scientific statistical correlation between taxes and incentives ALL discussion of the subject is OPINION. It does not matter who or what organization is presenting. I am very certain you are not going to find this data anywhere. Good luck proving me wrong.
Brian[/QUOTE]
OK. SInce folks like the Brookings Institute is "just opinion" to you, how about this guy? (Has been up for the Nobel several times, don't think he's won it though - probably a total hack!!!!)
https://economics.mit.edu/faculty/hausman/short
Look for his work starting in 1985, it isn't hard to find. Although for a simple fellow like me, its hard to understand a lot of it - I only got a year of hard-core economics in before I fled to that easy business degree! I needed to look for the conclusions, and that's where you'll find his work disproves much of the earlier research (much of which work went back to the first and second world wars for their data). That is, that higher marginal tax rates do have a negative effect on the supply of labour, In other words, they do act as a disincentive.
So there is easily available research out there that is "heavy stats" that would indicate that perhaps a view opposite your's could be correct.
best
BT
and they pay for prostate cancer and ED treatment so maybe it evens out. ????
ChrisZ
That's clever.
However, I shouldn't be paying for coverage I will never need anymore than a female should pay for coverage they will never need.
OK. SInce folks like the Brookings Institute is "just opinion" to you, how about this guy? (Has been up for the Nobel several times, don't think he's won it though - probably a total hack!!!!)
https://economics.mit.edu/faculty/hausman/short
Look for his work starting in 1985, it isn't hard to find. Although for a simple fellow like me, its hard to understand a lot of it - I only got a year of hard-core economics in before I fled to that easy business degree! I needed to look for the conclusions, and that's where you'll find his work disproves much of the earlier research (much of which work went back to the first and second world wars for their data). That is, that higher marginal tax rates do have a negative effect on the supply of labour, In other words, they do act as a disincentive.
So there is easily available research out there that is "heavy stats" that would indicate that perhaps a view opposite your's could be correct.
best
BT[/QUOTE]
maybe we are looking at the wrong end of the equation. Maybe some people are getting paid too much. Brady might have just signed his retirement plan - he might age out before he plays again. Look at the last two baseball pitchers. The money does not come from the butts in the seats - it comes from the advertising and tv monies. Where does that come from? Look at your cable or internet bill lately? Since advertising is a component of any product’s cost - maybe you should start questioning what you buy.
at least the butts can stay home, but how do you protest the sports package on your cable bill....so you lose twice - you pay higher taxes and you have to spend more for “essentials”
ChrisZ
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
