In response to economic illiteracy

Roon · Jun 15, 2017

james M said: ↑

rapidly?? so when will it burst??? any idea at all or just BSing so if somethig happens in the next 20 years you can say you knew it all along?
Click to expand...

We will have another financial crisis in Trump's first term.

That close enough for you?

Ndividual · Jun 15, 2017

Econ4Every1 said: ↑

Here is a link to the historical data, the spreadsheet I took this from is the very first one on the list. I'm giving you the link because there is more there you might be interested in.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals
Click to expand...

Thanks for the link, I'll check to see what facts I can garner from it for my spread sheets.

Econ4Every1 said: ↑

As far as the amounts collected at specific rates. I see what you're asking for now and I'm not aware of anything like that, but I agree that would interesting to see.
Click to expand...

All I've found in the past searching for numerical data was how paying it was avoided, although I'm sure there must have been some, many or few? who were unable to avoid paying it.

james M · Jun 16, 2017

Econ4Every1 said: ↑

We will have another financial crisis in Trump's first term.

That close enough for you?
Click to expand...

I'm in cash expecting the same thing but at the moment the Fed is tightening cause economy is doing well.

Ndividual · Jun 17, 2017

james M said: ↑

I'm in cash expecting the same thing but at the moment the Fed is tightening cause economy is doing well.
Click to expand...

You seem to have applied post #201 by Roon to Econ4Every1. Was that intentional?

DennisTate · Mar 7, 2018

Econ4Every1 said: ↑

Cont....

I wouldn't try to apply "my argument" to any of those.

We're just going to have to agree to disagree.

I wouldn't use the term "thrive", I would use the term "operate effectively", though I freely concede that the government has a monopoly on the creation of the nation's money and that monopoly is maintained via its power to enforce the rules it creates.

This begs the question, why do I believe that government operates better when it has the power to impose punishments for non-compliance rather than allow people to freely decide to contribute?

There are experiments done that conclusively demonstrate that when people are given a choice between contributing voluntarily and compulsory contribution, that people in groups that require compulsory contribution will outperform "voluntary groups".

This is because the weakness of those that support the voluntary position make the assumption that:

1) People will have all the information they need to make rational choices.
2) That people will make rational choices with or without information.
3) That those with the resources, means, and willingness will use their wealth to manipulate information will do so to serve their own best interests. "Free" people will base their opinions on bad information that is marketed well.

We see this today in the lobbying industry. We see it on TV in "Made For TV Products" that mislead and don't deliver on their promises. People can be easily mislead, which is or course why free public education is so important, so people can make decisions based on the evidence.

People can neither be expected to have all the information they need on the daunting array of topics that one would need to be aware of in order to make good decisions on what's best for his/ her country nor can they be expected to act rationally as evidenced by the way people act today.

Compulsory systems use resources to divide up tasks and specialize, even when the value of that specialization might come into question. Because of this, all other things being equal, compulsory groups will always outperform voluntary groups (when dealing with large populations).

First off, the only people that should be paying taxes are those that can drive excess inflation though demand or people that can use the excess money to influence public policy in a way that serve their interests at the expense of others.

Evil is when we as a nation have the people and the resorces to feed, clothe, provide shelter, education, healthcare and a minimum standard of living to everyone who is a citizen of the United States and choose not to, and instead talk about the immorality of a compusory system because it "takes" your money and at the same time completely ignoring the social benefits you get from it. That's evil, and if you are a Christian (or not), who do you think Christ would side with? Me, or you? Do you think he'd consider the suffering of the poor or taxes to those who work the greater moral hazzard in a nation that could, if it chose to, see to it that every person capable of work a job so they could earn a living?

Oh, come now...Don't be coy.

Things are never that simple. If profited from the sale of water and used my wealth influence to fight against "air conditioning" (maybe I'm the chairperson of the loacal council) as harmful to the public good (for whatever reason, I just state a case). The point is, I hold that opinion because I know I'll sell more water, but can provide a plausibly deniable excuse of perceived harm, perhaps even "donating" to a scientist who writes a paper that supports my conclusions.

That is force, just plausibly deniable force, which I'd argue is a lot more dangerous.

First, I reject the idea of objective morality, and so did Christ. Stealing is wrong, but if it is the only way to feed your family, then it is not.

That is subjective.

Is making a 10-year-old child work immoral? Not if you live under such harsh conditions that the failure to make children work would cause the death of the group. Is it wrong to murder? If a nuke was about to fall on New York, but you had the ability to divert it to a sparsely populated area, would you? If you did, that would be murder, if you didn't, that would be murder.

Either way, you are a murderer, the only question is, were you justified? If your action leads to the deaths of 50k people vs 8 million, I'd say you were justified. Hence, all morality is subjective.

Look, I support lower taxes. I already told you, In our current economic climate, I'd support zero federal tax on those making less than $400k for exactly the reasons you outline. Taxing those that make less than $400k takes money out of the hands of consumers and leads to the situation you describe.

However, those that make more than $400k who are taxed aren't consuming less if they are taxed. Now having said that, here is where tax incentives come into play. If the wealthy invest their money in spending or investments that lead to jobs, then they should, IMO, be able to continue to avoid taxes. Those that shelter money in the financial markets, on the other hand, might be asked to pay a tax.

I also don't support corporate taxes as a way to generate revenue. I do however support corporate taxes to drive social incentives. A business that invests in their local communities, those that keep good environmental and worker safety records, those that invest in research and development, those that avoid manipulating their stock price through buybacks.

In other words, a company should have the opportunity to avoid 100% of the tax by doing things that are in the communities and nations best interest.

I don't accept your claim of the cause of inflation, so before we start talking about the result of inflation we need to debate the cause of inflation. I addressed this in a post above.

Subjectively that depends. Are they making weapons because they need them to defend themselves against the imminat threat? Does the creation of weapons crowd out the creation of other items needed to achieve a decent standard of living? It depends.

Yes there is an inverse relationship, but the national debt is $20 trillion...Not $13.4 trillion.

Disagree, but we'll get to that. I've already pointed out that it's not possible to get from where we started to where we are borrowing or taxing money from the private sector as a simple matter of accounting.

No idea what that means.

It doesn't. The government sells bonds and those sales finance spending. Not a penny in taxes pays for bond redemptions....

See here:

See how issues exceed redemptions?

It is the issue of new treasuries, not taxes that pay for redemptions. It's always been like this and when you understand global finance you realize that it always will be. Even if the world changed abruptly and the old paradigms changed, there still wouldn't be a need for taxes to pay for redemptions.

Prior to 2008, how much interest income was the Fed earning?

The Fed gives back 94% of the profits it makes and those that do earn interest earn a FIXED 6% dividend. It makes no difference how much the Fed makes in interest, the dividend is still the same.

No, the overwhelming majority of the interest is earned by the private and foreign sectors. Heck, even the government pays itself interest (which is the dumbest thing ever).

So no, you don't understand how the Fed operates and who gets the money and the influence. People, like me, that hold Treasuries as part of their asset portfolio, we earn most of the interest, not the Fed and certainly not the Rothchilds...lol

Patience Kenny, patience, as long as you're willing to look, I will show you. I can't promise you'll like the answers though.
Click to expand...

I bolded one particular paragraph in there because it seems that Mr. Mark Zuckerberg is considering a run in 2020..... and if he does.... it looks like a minimum income may be a significant part of his platform.

V. P. candidates to serve along with Oprah?
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...erve-along-with-oprah.527699/#post-1068786542

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/15/mark-zuckerberg-could-be-running-for-president-in-2020.html
More signs point to Mark Zuckerberg possibly running for president in 2020

The issues
He hasn't revealed any kind of political platform, but the CEO has spoken in favor of a universal basic income.

The idea, whichZuckerberg discussed in Alaska during his listening tour, would guarantee citizens a set income regardless of age, class, job status and other criteria.

Supporters of the idea, like Elon Musk, say a basic income could be especially necessary as automation could replace lower-skilled jobs. Critics, however, say it does not address larger economic issues and, regardless, would be impossible to institute on a grand scale.

Zuckerberg also raised the idea during his May 25 Harvard commencement speech. "We should have a society that measures progress not just by economic metrics like [gross domestic product], but by how many of us have a role we find meaningful," Zuckerberg told graduates. "We should explore ideas like universal basic income to give everyone a cushion to try new things."
Click to expand...

Baff · Mar 8, 2018

I think Jesus's position on tax is well documented. No need to speak on his behalf.
Pay unto Rome etc.
He wasn't keen on money lending in the temple.

Famously when it came to resources, he provided them for everyone at the parties himself. Free food and wine if you were Jesus's mate.

james M · Mar 8, 2018

Baff said: ↑

I think Jesus's position on tax is well documented. .
Click to expand...

Jesus was first libertarian /conservative. He challenged the state and said pay half to God. This created the individual and led to founding of America.

Log in or Sign up

In response to economic illiteracy

Roon Well-Known Member

Ndividual Well-Known Member

james M Banned

Ndividual Well-Known Member

DennisTate Well-Known Member Past Donor

Baff Well-Known Member

james M Banned

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

In response to economic illiteracy

Roon Well-Known Member

Ndividual Well-Known Member

james M Banned

Ndividual Well-Known Member

DennisTate Well-Known Member Past Donor

Baff Well-Known Member

james M Banned

Share This Page

Useful Searches