Taxation and Public Policy - oh just pay your damn taxes and quit whining

They can also figure out how not to. There are always loopholes
How about the government just spend less.

 

I love how republicans act like taxing the rich is useless, they would just find another way not to pay the tax, so why even try

 

The 80s reforms did many things, some of the more important individual changes and loophole closing include: streamlined brackets and lowered brackets, restricted passive losses against active gains (removing 90% of very popular tax shelters utilized by everyone from middle income on up), put teeth in the alternative minimum tax removing the "mountains of deductions" tactic that everyone used to avoid the top brackets, limited many commonly utilized deductions drastically including non mortgage interest and fraudulent dependents (you could write off credit card interest and make up any number of "dependents" without much chance of scrutiny). ALL of these primary changes are still in effect, making your claim that the loopholes have "all been added back (and then some)" false. Moreover, your distortion of what I actually posted into "one kind of loophole" is dishonest. That's not what I posted and what I did post was crystal clear.

I recommend that if you are going to "recommend" a source containing claims about tax law or policy to an attorney who has practiced tax law (significantly, not as a specialty) for almost 20 years, a) it not be a WAPO/PBS/NPR -reporter- or any other Complex MSM shill source who is not a practicing tax attorney or accountant, b) that you summarize and develop whatever you are claiming in your own words, c) else you are just posting hot air.

That's not what you claimed, you claimed that the loopholes have all been added back and then some, which is patently false. The IRC is not and never has been "simple," and this is by design, not the design of "the rich," but of the gov-edu-union-contractor-grantee-trial lawyer-MSM Complex and the GRAFT that it sells via tax policy.

Yes, every business entity formed under state law has a chief executive officer(s) regardless of whatever title or term of art is used to describe them. They, or they via an agent/attorney, are directly accountable to the state where the entity is formed.

Sure, when people say they own a Toyota, that means they don't also own a car. "CEO" is a function that is not title-specific. Every business has one. Deeper and deeper out of your depth, and a ridiculous quibbling piece of minutiae for you to stick on.

1. No contradiction. 2. Yes, if the plumber is an employee of the company and not just an independent contractor, their pay would be included in the ratio. I capitalize words for emphasis, if you don't like that, TOUGH!

Moronic, also fallacious. It doesn't take pros to have a basketball game, they could pull five people off the street and play. No one would buy tickets or watch on TV, but there -is- a basketball game. People pay more to see the game played well, MILLIONS more for results. Same with business, not one iota different. Just because you have an 8th grade understanding of large business operation doesn't mean everyone else does.

What happens when a public company's board installs a CEO off the street, someone like you for example? a) the stock price crashes, destroying millions or billions instantaneously, and it will stay down for years due to flagrant poor judgment. Part of the reason that institutional investors and others bought the stock to begin with was faith in the management, disproportionally faith in the CEO, their reputation and results over time, also faith in the board not being stupid enough to put someone like you in charge; b) the phone rings, it's your banks instantly cancelling and calling your $3 billion of credit lines for breach of this or that catchall provision in your credit agreements; c) the phone rings some more, process servers in the lobby needing to serve the company with 100 shareholder derivative and other lawsuits; d) more phones, any unions in your company have walked off and gone on strike because their collective bargaining position and concessions were hinged to the sitting CEO they approved. There's more, that's enough.

No one here wrote any "absurd hagiographies" of anyone, and more talking out of your ass and out of your depth.

No, what I posted was that real economic factors such as WW2 (and tech boom) are necessary context, among many pieces of such context, ALWAYS omitted by Complex lie narrators, who plop down loosely correlated graphs and charts, other conclusory half-statements equating to advertising, as part of resentment based, identitarian, self-enriching lie narratives.

Wrong again, omits the necessary "in extremis" and "mania over time" parts of a "bubble." Not surprised at all you attempt to slant the actual definition. Nothing in a company's buying its own stock out of the market is remotely like the type of mass mania accurately described by the term "bubble."

The most common choice is whether to a) pay excess, unexpected earnings out to shareholders as stock buybacks that -may- -modestly- increase the share price, allowing shareholders to choose when to incur a taxable event and take a more favorably taxed capital gain, or b) to pay dividends, thus forcing a higher taxed income event on shareholders. Generally, it really is that simple, and won't be explaining it again.

YOU YOURSELF did the above right here in the thread when you posted the error, now repeated, that stock buybacks equate to or cause "bubbles," which is absurd. It's tax -decreases- you mean to say above, and they DO lead to wage and corporate spending increases, but within established preexisting and ongoing operational and financial planning. When unexpected earnings due to tax policy or whatever emerge, as stated, the most common choice is whether to pay them out as dividends or buy back stock.

In fact, the primary RATIONAL objection to buybacks comes from disappointed bears who make noise that such buybacks are manipulation against their interests. The ignorant public union and other Complex propagandists, as they often do, have tried to piggyback on with their IRRATIONAL self-serving "hurts investors" "causes bubbles" hokum as part of their "evil corporation... we must tax them and regulate them more... it's only a coincidence that's how we enrich ourselves" narratives. And the latter are not only erroneous, but show a fundamental lack of awareness of corporate operations and finance.

https://upfina.com/are-stock-buybacks-good-or-bad/

The point/claim that POTUS Administrations don't affect the debt as much as the public erroneously perceives was crystal clear when posted, crystal clear when repeated. If that's beyond your grasp, then that's unfortunate.

 

Whatever, you deliberately set out to wreck the thread with a childish exhibition of petulance with another poster. People who conduct themselves this way on forums are a dime a dozen and generally cannot carry on discussion without devolving into the kind personalizations and ad hominims you are already showing.
Generally a waste of time. At least garyd who disagrees with me can have an adult discussion.

Again with the emotive language. Most of this is nothing more than your own attempt to introduce toxic, inaccurate, self-serving nonsense into the discussion before it even begins. The same petulance and you exhibited before with another poster.

I am not sure why you think you have debunked anything as I have not been in discussion with you but likely other posters did not realize how hollow your arguments are and your lack of knowledge on the subject. Or perhaps they just found the petulance and toxicity tiresome and threw up their hands not wishing to waste time.

Either way, you have not debunked anything just thrown out a bunch on ad hominim and personalizations.

What disease? More toxic emotive language with no substance. I took Lincoln's quote and posted it straight without any comment on my part. You are the one who is trying to put your own bias and spin on the quote. Whatever. Just more petulance on your part.

Most of this paragraph is laughably incoherent and hardly worth responding to and you again display a profound ignorance on history, economics and civics. But I do sense a question in there among the overheated hyperbole.

The business dictionary defines a nations wealth as:

Total monetary value of the capital, goods and services, including net foreign balance and tangible assets, owned by a nation at a particular period of time. Used in a nation's overall economic analysis and planning. Net worth or net wealth given by gross assets minus liabilities. Also called national net worth.

So the question becomes how is the nations net worth and assets distributed and what is good governance. People have been wrestling with this question since the time of the Greeks. Even in your republic, the founders, though profoundly undemocratic, struggled with these types of questions. Probably the most insightful were people like Thomas Paine or de Tocqeville who wrote of the threats to the American republic and democracy. Paine especially wrote of his disappointment in the lot of the American citizen's living conditions in the years after his seminal work on how the Republic should be run, "Common Sense."

But you are probably functionally illiterate on these subjects judging from the heated rhetoric you like to use so I'll leave a discussion of the subjects authors like these bring up for another time. Throughout history nations that allowed systems of great inequality to exist are unstable ones. This was true in France. It was true in Rome and it is true in America today where an Oxfam study found that the richest 1% of Americans own 40% of the nations wealth and globally 42 people own half the world's wealth. A quarter of American workers earn less than 10 dollars an hour. While worker productivity has increased by 13% a year but wages have remained generally flat. Most of the growth in jobs since the turn of the century has been in in low-paying service sector with no benefits or insurance. Black families earn a tenth of what white families earn. Inequality has been increasing dramatically in the US as noted by the world inequality report:



The vast majority of new wealth created goes to the top earners and Trump's tax cuts will acerbate this problem. If this is good governance for a stable democracy, you are living an illusion. People like you would try to convince us that this is the natural order of things but it is not. People living in democracies should have the right to governance that acts in their interests and a reasonable share of the nations wealth.

Complete fallacy as I have shown. Nobody is denying that wealth has been created not only in the US but around the world. The question is how has this wealth been allocated and how have the vast majority of workers benefited from the increased productivity they have been responsible for?

I repeat, almost all increases in worker productivity have gone to the wealthiest 1% and the income share of bottom earners has decreased from about 20% to 13% according to the income equality report. The richest 1% take home more income than at any time since the war ended. According to the Global Wealth Report, the US ranks among developing nations in inequality and ranks 23 out of 30 developed nations. The Harvard school of business has released a study showing current levels of inequality are unsustainable.

The U.S. joins Brazil, Ireland, Japan, Mexico, Nigeria, and South Africa as countries with inclusive-development rankings that fall below their GDP per capita rankings, a sign that their economic growth is not being shared, the report says. The U.S. had the largest gap between the two measures.

The Atlantic’s Year in Review

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/01/wef-davos-inequality/513185/

Your rough estimate and a dollar won't buy a cup of coffee. Again, you have no idea of what institutional inequality is or how it is affecting prosperity and stability in the US and undermining democracy as a whole. I can only conclude that you are functionally illiterate on the subject.

Nevertheless, I won't. I will end with a brief mention of the Libertarian fallacy you are living. Libertarians decry government intervention in the economy as against their rights of freedom. But all people should have those same rights and freedoms. But what it really comes down to are land and property rights. Sovereign nations proclaim land and resources through military force. This has been true throughout history. It was true throughout all the European wars. It was true through the colonial era and it was true through the various uprisings and revolutions that freed nations from colonial rule. It was true in the American republic where land was acquired through force and bought from other empires who likewise used military force to proclaim land resources as under sovereign rule.

So at the core, Libertarians need government to secure their nations hold on land and resources and police enforcement to secure their property rights from others who theoretically should have the same freedoms and rights that the Libertarians say they should enjoy without government interference.

They just don't want to pay for it.

 

Very Interesting and lucid treatise. But in addition to Sanskrit valid criticisms in post #2 I'd point out another misleading factor: the income brackets for the highest tax rates. For instance the top income bracket for the 79% rate in 1936 was $81 million (2013 dollars) while the bracket for the 70% rate in 1980 was only $600K. The equivalent so-called Reagan cuts dropped the rate from70% to 28% over a few years but the top income bracket fell from $600,000 to $57,000. As I have argued in another thread the politicians and do-gooders say they will only tax the rich, but they define rich way down so they can tax middle class tax payers heavily but (hopefully, hopefully, hopefully) won't get blamed for it.

Another factor to consider: Hoover's top rate increase from 25% to 63% in 1932 probably did a lot to bring on the depression, and the drop from 73% to 25% from 1920 to 1925 probably did a lot to bring on the roaring twenties. That 20s rate drop gave a tremendous benefit for middle income people, too.

 

Interesting reply. I'd have to look into the tax info you've posted especially on Hoover before commenting. I would suggest that the depression was brought on by a deregulated banking bubble and oversupply along with plunging consumption but I appreciate your opinion and anything further you add.

Thank you for calling the op interesting and lucid. the main point was that progressive marginal tax rates did not stop a booming economy after the war. Seems to be getting lost a bit but.

 

Spare the pearl-clutching BS. That poster, one of many LW posters here who rarely post anything meaningful or substantial in the way of adult discussion to this forum, posted a trolling lie about my direct response to the OP post, easily distinguished by anyone as a lie, here in the written record, then persistently and repeatedly reposted it in a typically idiotic LW nonresponsive, trolling way. You don't like my reasonable response to that? Of course you don't. Tough.

I suspect what I am going to find below is a bunch of typical deflective, projecting Complex gobbledygook, almost none of which will be directly responsive to the many facts, data, analogies, reasoning, anecdotes I have posted to this thread, and none of which will answer the simple, reasonable questions I have posed to you.

Namely, in your claim (not some "business dictionary" you googled up but in the claim you posted) that a disproportionate amount of the "nation's wealth" has been "transferred" to a few rich, HOW is wealth defined, WHAT is included, WHAT is excluded and WHY? Moreover, HOW exactly is your claim that "prosperity has declined" in the U.S. grounded?

Oh, and to repeat, as a matter of irrefutable legal and governmental fact, in the U.S. there is no such thing as "nation's wealth." Individuals and private entities own -all- wealth, not any "nation." Anything the U.S. "owns" it holds as custodian for the citizenry. Google up as much error-ridden stuff as you like, won't change those facts.

Once again, and for the last time, WHAT categories of "wealth" are included in absurdities such as the above WHAT categories are excluded, and WHY? I already know the answers, not my first rodeo, which is why I took the time to post a clear, numbered discussion of what "wealth" really means to people, the types of it, the differences between abstract and concrete types of it, and exactly how voluntary exchanges increase the "wealth" of all parties involved in them. Now, are you going to answer the questions and address all that, or are you going to continue muttering out inanities, posturing and deflecting?

My rough estimate was a reasonable extrapolation of government data collected in the Cato report I cited and you ignored, and included page numbers, finding ~$41 trillion in household assets at the turn of the century. My estimate of $50-70 trillion today in 2019 is reasonable. Moreover, all the many indicia of real measures of prosperity I cited by page number in that report (collected conveniently on page 6 of the Cato report for any literate adults reading) thoroughly and totally refutes any union label resentment narratives on "decreasing prosperity in the U.S." of the type you parrot in the thread. No wonder you are ignoring and deflecting that.

And as expected, not even remotely responsive to my prior numbered posts.

Drives the point further home that self-enriching Complex lie narratives on "wealth inequality" and "decreasing U.S. prosperity" are specifically tailored to foment irrational identitarian resentment in weak-minded, mostly non taxpaying, Complex voting blocs, pure empty propaganda, not any kind of reasoned, coherent adult argument based on facts and evidence.

And just to be -real- clear

Namely, in your claim that a disproportionate amount of the "nation's wealth" has been "transferred" to a few rich, HOW is wealth defined, WHAT is included, WHAT is excluded and WHY? Moreover, HOW exactly is your claim that "prosperity has declined" in the U.S. grounded?

Again, as stated, I already know that the defin

 

It's not just Republicans it's Democrats to. Democrats and Republicans build in loopholes to tax code to exempt their billionaire friends. I would love an equal tax on every one day above a certain income, but it's a pipe dream.

 

it's republicans.... dems may agree to a republican demand for loophole to get something that benefits the middle class though

 

No it's both. They all have to bend a knee to wealthy people if they want their money.

 

Did it hurt?

 

The Left can't meme. Thanks for demonstrating that yet again.

 

Just wanted you to know I was one of those that @EarthSky was talking about that ignores your gibberish.

 

... yet you don't.

and just like that, yet another LW Irony Universe BANGS into existence.

 

Oh, but I do. For all I know you may have had a valid argument in there --somewhere. But you make it very difficult to find.

 

I'm not the one responsible for your difficulty in parsing out something that takes 30-45 seconds to read.

 

You need a translator for your gibberish that somehow inserts a fact or 2 every few paragraphs.

 

Were you going to make a topical post to this thread, or just stalking me because I humiliated you in some other thread I've forgotten by now?

 

Hmmmm, this would appear to be your normal posting style and not you having a bad day and throwing your teddy out the pram. How old are you anyway?

The other poster merely stated that you had not refuted any of the points I made in the op which is absolutely true and then you went off on him like a two year old as you have done with several others on this thread.

I think it is pretty obvious who is doing the trolling here and my policy is not to feed em so when I move on to more interesting posters don't be surprised.

You have not posted any facts, data, analogies, reasoning or enecdotes on this thread that I have seen. Mostly unsubstantiated ranting and ad hominem blathering about other posters. Most of it is barely coherant, illogical ranting and unworthy of response.

I've already defined it for you. I can explain it but I can't make you understand or accept it nor am I going to try. I think the business dictionary is a more informed source than you. Business students use it as course reference.

In two rather lengly posts, the op and my last one to you I exained my position exactly and answered any of the points in the your last paragraph that were coherent enough to understand and more.

Other more reasonable posters lurking are free to draw their own conclusions but if you think I'm going to indulge you in what is clearly not a discussion but trolling you can forget it.

Of course there is such a thing as a nations wealth. I just defined it for you. I even tried to give you a historical perspective and give you authors so you could educate yourself. Why do you think AS called it the Wealth of Nations? Repeating the same stupid thing over and over again does not mean you are right as another poster tried to point out to you.

This is the last time? Good. There are no inanities, posturing or deflecting except on your part. I've explained wealth to you several times. What you posyef was not a clear explanation of wealth. You posted a bunch of barely intelligable talking points and demanded that I try to make sense of it and answer poorly articulated questions attached. I answered what I could make sense of but I can't force you to understand. The rest is just incoherent nonesense that I'm not going to waste my time with.

First of all, the Cato Institute is a libertarian think tank that supports among other things climate change denial from folks like Lord Monckton among others. They do do publish some genuine research on occasion but I would not base anything as fact on a extreme right wing think tank with a laughably transparent agenda and bias.

Second, I've repeated over and over that I know household wealth has increased but you are lumping them all into one category with no reference to which houses are receiving the largest slices of that wealth which is the point you are either ignoring or willfully ignorant of.

And there is no union resentment narratives on this thread. The only narratives are the ones you are flailing around with.

Your first post on this thread was so poorly written to be largely incoherent. I'm not going back to read that dirge and try to sus out what you are on about.

If you would like to go back and condense it into a few main points and then present in a more sedate and less hysterical manner and edit it so the reader can understand what you are asking, I may address it but I'm not going to indulge more trolling nor am I obliged to provide you free lessons in economics, civics or history - especially when you act like a ten year old.

Lol, This is just repeating the same hysterical nonsense. Is this the best you can do as an argument? You'd be far less laughable and more effective if you left the idiotic rhetoric out and took a more adult approach to a discussion in my opinion but it's your life.

And just to be -real- clear

Yes, you've asked that three times already and it's no more intelligent a question now than the first two times you asked. I'll repeat, I've already explained it to you. If your comprehension skills or reading ability are lacking it's not my problem.




Again, as stated, I already know that the defin[/QUOTE]

 

Lol. Looks painful to me.

 

Ran out of time to come back and edit. I hate doing these long posts on a phone.

 

"Once again, and for the last time, WHAT categories of "wealth" are included in absurdities such as the above, WHAT categories are excluded, and WHY? I already know the answers, not my first rodeo, which is why I took the time to post a clear, numbered discussion of what "wealth" really means to people, the types of it, the differences between abstract and concrete types of it, and exactly how voluntary exchanges increase the "wealth" of all parties involved in them. Now, are you going to answer the questions and address all that, or are you going to continue muttering out inanities, posturing and deflecting?"

And it becomes apparent that the answer to that last question is "no" as to answering the questions, and "yes" as to the continued posturing and deflection. You are never going to ground your claims about wealth inequality because you know full well those claims are based on distorted definitions of wealth that exclude certain real categories of it while overemphasizing other more abstract categories. Not surprised, you lot never back your claims. You plop down empty LW Complex self-serving placard slogans, charts and graphs with no foundation accompanying and can't defend them. Same story different day.

You have steadfastly refused to evidence your claims about "wealth inequality" and to offer the definition of wealth that grounds THOSE CLAIMS, not a general definition of wealth from an internet dictionary, the definition that was used in forming the claims you posted. That would involve something called "methodology" that is inevitably ABSENT in the kinds of gov-edu-union-contractor-grantee-MSM Complex propaganda posted here and broadcast out through the media. You have also refused to evidence your claims of "decreasing prosperity in the U.S." You have dishonestly characterized my posts as incoherent when they are anything but, laughably transparent and fools no one, and have ignored mountains of -government- data compiled in the Cato report because that data proves conclusively that prosperity in the U.S. has increased and surpassed anything in the human past.

And remember folks, ALWAYS have a WRITTEN RECORD of ANY discussion attempted with a Leftist.

 

Actually the wealthy paid an effective tax of 42% in the 50s compared to 36% today. In the late 90s taxes on the top 1% reached 41%. These taxes include other state local, and federal taxes. The actual effective income tax rate for the top 1% in the 1950s was only 17%, while today they pay about 21%.
https://taxfoundation.org/summary-federal-income-tax-data-2017/
https://taxfoundation.org/taxes-rich-1950-not-high/

So why were their taxes so how when rates are so high? Because that 91% tax bracket was only for families making $2,000,000 dollars in today's money, $200,000 in the 50s. And that was when inflation adjusted GDP per capita was only $17,000 in 1955 compared to $57,000 today. So in today's economy its like having that tax bracket at $7,000,000. Only 10,000 families earned $200,000 per year, and many who did paid lower rates for money below that. Also, there was a lot of tax avoidance and income under-reporting to avoid the high taxes.

 

People have to decide; you want services, it comes with a price tag attached to it.

 

Thanks another poster pointed out Greenburg's study to me up thread. Interesting. I posted commentary that pointed out some conceptual errors in reply but I'm not going to go look for it tonight. If I remember correctly it had to do with share of household income but I'll have to go back and look at it.

I think Picketty was involved in the original study too which was interesting.