Raise income tax EXCEPT for the richest of the rich?

Blue state?

 

IMO anyone who is an exemplary employee, who pays attention to what is needed to achieve more, who will take actions to have more workplace value, and makes decent decisions how they manage their life, are not impacted by anything you write above. There are no conspiracies? Everything we see happening in society, industry and the economy including world markets is a natural progression. There is not a single person or business or government on Earth who controls what I do in life! It is obvious that what I achieve in life is 100% my doing. Blaming others for our failures is just an excuse...

 

The concept that many don't make an income sufficient to cover basic necessities is difficult for some to grasp.

 

Afraid so! Its just a matter of time before the old chestnuts come out like "our poor would be rich in a third world country". There's no appreciation that the damage from neo-liberalism has had terrible effects. Here, malnutrition is up. Food bank charity is through the roof. Wages are such that this generation will be poorer than the previous etc etc etc

 

Yet you seem to have no problem offering your opinion vaguely applied to what I have posted.

 

The difference is that I'm using economics to show that your opinion is wrong. We saw that, for instance, when you tried to ignore the importance of vertical equity in tax policy formation. We also saw that when you ignored how a dollar to a rich fellow is worth less than a dollar to a poor one.

 

Economics? Exactly what are you seeing, and how are you claiming I'm ignoring anything?

 

Didn't you see the rest of the quote?: We saw that, for instance, when you tried to ignore the importance of vertical equity in tax policy formation. We also saw that when you ignored how a dollar to a rich fellow is worth less than a dollar to a poor one.

 

Perhaps you'd be kind enough to elaborate more on your accusations?

 

What don't you understand?

 

What you are basing your accusations on.

 

Accusations? There is nothing so dramatic. You made the comment "vertical equity should not be something the Federal government should be trying to achieve". That is necessarily saying that they should not be concerned with a core element of 'good' tax policy formation. You then ignored, time after time, how diminishing marginal utility of income impacts on what we mean by equity. If you take a dollar from a poor man that has a greater impact on his well-being than taking it from a rich man.

 

Perhaps you should look at what I suggested more closely. While it applies a flat tax rate to EVERYONE equally in terms of dollars or an equivalent percentage of an annual years labour, the government provided benefits would be far greater to the unemployed and the lower wage earners AND most importantly fully funded.

 

No need.

What are you trying to say here? Because of the interaction of tax and benefit there will be 'effective' progressive elements? That wouldn't be enough. The tax has to be progressive, else it is inconsistent with equity (and there's also analysis to suggest its against efficiency as marginal tax rates need to be minimised on the lower deciles to minimise market distortion)

 

Then you're simply wasting my time.

That's true, there would be progressive elements.
WHY would that not be enough?
The taxation would be consistent and very much simpler to work with for both the people and the government. A vast time saving.
Equity would be accomplished as a result of social program spending.
Raising the flat tax rate would cost everyone equally, while the social program spending adjustments as a result would benefit ONLY the lower/no income earners.
If you still disagree, then there is no need to continue making assertions without showing a basis for their validity for me to respond to.

 

I believe its mutual. Anyone that says the government should ignore vertical equity isn't talking much sense.

Do I have to hold your hand? For equity to hold, the tax system has to be progressive. A flat tax isn't progressive, by definition.

Yeah, yeah, same arguments used with the negative income tax. Another example of a right wing hope that couldn't be applied because it ignored how marginal rates of tax had to be increased.

I love that optimum. Inconsistent with reality mind you, as increased regressivity has just intensified inequalities.

Flat taxes are inherently more regressive than standard options. You're on a hiding to nothing

 

I would assume, if you take 68% of 10K, as an example, that leave $3200 for them to spend on everything else those earners would need. Not very much. So the gov't income might be similar in revenues, but, there is $6800 taken from people to live on and spend directly into the economy.
While those super rich, get's to invest more into less, because there would be less overall money circulation in the economy.

This is from me, a non economist.

 

40s-60s. The greatest expansion of the middle class ever. And the greatest expansion of American wealth.
Who outside the 1% would want that? /sarcasm.

 

Except for the fact that I did NOT say that, what I said was:
"vertical equity should not be something the Federal government should be trying to achieve."

Yes, you're absolutely correct, a flat tax is not progressive.
You continue to simply make claims without any examples of how they pertain to what I had originally suggested.
There could be no marginal rate of tax to increase as any tax increase would apply to ALL equally. There would be no negative income tax as the flat tax would apply to every dollar earned through employment or investment. Inequalities will persist no matter what, but the hard working who work overtime and/or second and third jobs would not see government taking a larger bite of their efforts simply because their labours moved them to a higher progressive tax bracket.

 

I've quoted you directly. if you want to ignore what you've said, so be it.

Its your understanding that is at fault. Once diminishing marginal utility is accepted then your pinion is irrelevant.

True, but it means the closest we get is with progressive tax.

 

Did you now? My post in its entirety, #59 if you wish to confirm was:
"My numbers accomplish exactly what I set out to do, and vertical equity should not be something the Federal government should be trying to achieve.
A basic income varies depending on many things, and taxation should not be applied as the means of achieving a basic income, If a 40 hour work week does not produce a persons or a families basic income needs, perhaps a 50 hour or more work week is what is needed."

I'm beginning to wonder if YOU understand what you keep saying, like a broken record.

The above being in response to my comment "There could be no marginal rate of tax to increase as any tax increase would apply to ALL equally."
What are you trying to say by "it means the closest we get is with progressive tax."?
The closest we get to WHAT?
Perhaps a little clarity would produce a more reasoned and rational exchange.

 

Making your whole argument redundant as vertical equity is a core aim in tax design.

 

Sure, america slid from its place in the world regarding economic mobility because its people are slackasses. Half of all wage earners in america now drag home less than $30K per year in this economy because they are sub par employees and there is a direct correlation betweem productivity and wages. You might want to look into how that has changed over time in the US.

Everything we see happening in society, industry and the economy including world markets is a natural progression.

And corporate lobbying and think tank legislation played no part at all did it.

There is not a single person or business or government on Earth who controls what I do in life!

Correct, who said otherwise? The corporate state is highly organized, it took over your economic system, your political system and your media machine once Clinton deregulated the FCC. Regardless of electoral outcomes Goldman Sachs is always in your white house.

It is obvious that what I achieve in life is 100% my doing. Blaming others for our failures is just an excuse...

Both your political system and your economic system run on blaming the unsubstantial people for everything while claiming your society is exceptional. It is all rather shizophrenic. And the unsubstantial people subsidize the aristocracy via socialism and socialist bailouts.

 

Interesting that you believe the only lobbying is 'corporate'? Anything and everything lobbies government! Labor lobbies government. Manufacturing lobbies government. The wealthy lobby government. The lower and middle class lobbies government. Anti-corporation lobbies government.

The corporate state, which actually does not exist as an entity, never took over our economy or political system??

Using the word 'unsubstantial' is just sensationalism to try to express your bias...

 

And it should not be at the Federal level of government.