Redistribution of American Wealth

Outsourcing will happen whether we have an income tax or a flat tax. This is because foreign labor is a fraction of the price and they don't have the environmental, worker, and safety regulations we do.

I believe that we need to reach a balance with outsourcing. If we ban outsourcing, then we lose the global innovation. But if we outsource too much, then we risk high unemployment, low wage growth, and losing our industrial and manufacturing capabilities. So I do believe in reasonable tariffs and a goal for a perfect balance between imports and exports.

 

This is a chart of effective tax rates from all taxes:



Hard work never made anyone rich. Bob Dylan claims to have composed "Blowin' in the Wind" in twelve minutes. Even if it took longer, I doubt it took more than a day. Creativity is spontaneous. Ideas come like documents in a fax machine. Bob Dylan must have made millions of dollars from that song, not to mention many other songs that he composed without any real effort at all. What matters are rich parents, talent, and sheer, dumb luck.

A flat tax would be grotesquely unfair. Someone with a minimum wage job working at a fast food restaurant would pay the same percentage of his income as a CEO making tens of millions of dollars a year.

Nevertheless, a flat tax would be economically possible. Because it would be possible, it would also be possible to impose a high top tax rate on the rich with no loop holes. That is what I advocate. Fortunately, so do most Americans:

https://www.google.com/search?sxsrf=ALeKk00eLVgFGHXoVduzrVd2NNCE1EdHxg%3A1596943521921&source=hp&ei=oWwvX6GPNNeJytMP1Iay4AM&q=poll+%2B+tax+%2B+rich&oq=poll+%2B+tax+%2B+rich&gs_lcp=CgZwc3ktYWIQAzIGCAAQFhAeMgYIABAWEB4yBggAEBYQHjIGCAAQFhAeMgYIABAWEB4yBggAEBYQHjIGCAAQFhAeMgYIABAWEB4yBggAEBYQHjIGCAAQFhAeOgcIIxDqAhAnOgQIIxAnOgUIABCRAjoFCC4QkQI6CAgAELEDEIMBOgUIABCxAzoOCC4QsQMQgwEQxwEQowI6CAguEMcBEKMCOgsILhCxAxDHARCjAjo

KIAcQTkgEIMC4xNC4xLjKYAQCgAQGqAQdnd3Mtd2l6sAEK&sclient=psy-ab&ved=0ahUKEwjh4-Kalo3rAhXXhHIEHVSDDDwQ4dUDCAk&uact=5

 

Cows fart whether you eat them or not. Oh and they don't fart they belch

 

Yeah that's right ... kind of a colloquialism - your new word for the day -

 

By the way the Zulus, Maori and others have been raising cattle for hundreds of years, and then there are those huge herds of cape buffalo, your a little late keeping cattle out if Africa...

 

A flat tax will never happen in the US as Democrats need to take money from the wealthy to appease particular demographics and the rich need the tax loopholes to pay disproportionately lower taxes.

Only the middle class would benefit from a flat tax.

Also certainly Henry Ford and the Beatles are examples of people becoming very wealthy through very hard work. Many other examples.

 

Agreed. My cheerleading for a flat tax has more to do with forcing the mega wealthy to pay literally their fair share which they are not doing presently while still encouraging innovation and investment.

 

Cheerleading economic irrationality such as the flat tax only describes how rights wingers don't do economics! Its not even feckin consistent with their supply side economics bobbins!

 

You have not stated a single fact to support what you said. What you said was a typical mindless liberal hit and run baseless accusation for which you sought some sort of peer support and other mindless babble. This is tiresome and I won't suffer fools. We're done here.

 

Good for you. Suffering fools gladly may be biblical but a true time waster in the real world. Too many on here for the purpose of contention for it’s own sake.

It first appears that not responding to personal attacks is read as weakness but my dad taught me to never underestimate the power of silence.

 

Amusing how the liberal word is thrown out as if its genuine critique. It neatly advertises the lack of political economic underpinning.

 

Coming up with completely unproven ideas because you think they sound good, that you offer no attempt to substantiate, to solve a problem you claim doesn't exist, is not a debating position, it's nonsense. You'll pardon me if I choose to inform myself and the readers of this thread by offering expert opinions on the matter regarding what should be done. Your "original ideas" hold all the weight of Trump's opinion on the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine. They are, I'm afraid, worthless until proven otherwise. Something you refuse to do.

 

More liberal hit and run.

 

I'm not a liberal. You're proving my point. Cheers!

 

There is a wide spread notion that money is static. That it is a resource like all the water in a creek or something. This leads to the notion that if someone has more money, then other people have less.
The truth is that money is created. Huge industries like cars and computers created wealth and tons of jobs so why shouldn’t these entrepreneurs be entitled to the wealth they created? Money is not a miracle. It is the product of investments and risk.

 

What do the forces behind the size of the money supply have to do with the ethical issues surrounding obligations the wealthy may feel towards helping their fellow men and women? Feelings you clearly do not share.

The “Millionaires for Humanity” argue that charity alone can’t get us through this crisis, however. “Government leaders must take the responsibility for raising the funds we need and spending them fairly,” they claim. “We can ensure we adequately fund our health systems, schools, and security through a permanent tax increase on the wealthiest people on the planet, people like us.”

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/t...igher-taxes-for-coronavirus-relief-2020-07-13

 

Understanding your aversion to evidence based research...........I offer this link to those participating on the thread who want to read some authoritative content, not uninformed opinion.

https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/daily-deduction/flat-taxes-tax-relief-and-evidence

 

so after going down a cattle fart rabbit hole - you now suggest that I want to keep cattle out of Africa. This inference is false - and this convo has wandered into the abyss -

 

Your claims continue to be reliably false. Way back in post #95 in this thread, I stated the FACT that a number of individuals -- Geithner, Lew, Powell, Summers, Fischer, etc., remember? -- who exemplify the "usual Wall Street suspects" were appointed to key economic positions by the Obama administration. You have not even attempted to dispute the fact that those individuals were all from Wall Street/banking circles, and provided policy guidance to the Obama administration that was consistently subservient to Wall Street/banking interests at the expense of the American people. You have merely denied that I stated the facts I stated.

Despicable.

Your claims continue to be factually incorrect. I did not seek any sort of "peer support." I identified the fact that Obama appointed representatives of Wall Street/banking interests to all key economic positions.

This is tiresome and I won't suffer fools. We're done here.

 

Let's say I'm neutral on that assertion. Convince me you are correct.

 

You brought up cattle as if herds were increasing rather than decreasing. And that sir regarding cow farts us what friends that are ranchers tell me.

 

You are completely lost. The conversation is about increased consumption leading to nitrogen pollution. When you take someone from eating a bowl of rice a day - and take them to first world status - eating meat 3 times a week -it increases the demand for meat - and this leads to increased need for food for those animals - which results in an increase in nitrogen pollution.

 

Yet cattle have little to do with that so why bring it up? Almost all nitrogen pollution comes from fertilizer run off. Only about ten to fifteen percent of that world wide comes from cows.

 

I could try to help you understand mass balance - but would be far too much effort.

 

Bidding up the prices of each other's rent collection privileges contributes nothing to the economy but increased inequality of wealth. Rich people aren't interested in productive investment because production is too risky and too much effort.

Workers contribute by producing, through their labor. Duh.

When people consume, the money goes to producers, who are then in the best position to invest it productively. The ultimate purpose of all economic activity is to enable consumption, so trying to deter people from consuming in order to enable productive investment is anti-economic nonsense.

That balance would be called, "justice."

The wealthy are never satisfied.

"Ability to pay" is one of the two most fundamental and widely accepted principles of sound taxation policy.