1. Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?
    Dismiss Notice

The Ryan Tax Brackets

Discussion in 'Economics, Business, and Taxes' started by Bluedog, Jun 13, 2012.

  1. degsme

    degsme Council Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2011
    Messages:
    19,820
    Likes Received:
    72
    WOW So many lthings that are eithe definitional claims, unsubstantiated beliefs or simply wrong

    First off, without government regulation there is no "free market". Because without government protection of private property, or the enforcement of contracts or the prosectuion of fraud, so called "free markets"devolve almost instantly into "might makes right". And since you cannot point to a single regulation that currently exists in the marketplace tht is NOT based in either of the three things I listed, your notion that somehow there is some sort of involuntary coerceion is silly.

    As for wealth-transfer. "Wealth transfer" is just that. Transfering weatlh from one person to another. Nothing more, nothing less. Whether it is voluntary or not is irrelevant.

    • If I voluntarily enter into a contract, then change my mind, and you sue me for damages, my payment of those damages is clearly coerced and involuntary. And THAT IS WEALTH REDISTRIBUTION
    • If I voluntarily enter into a contract that is more profitable for you than for me. that TOO is wealth transfer, regardless of how voluntary it is. THAT IS WEALTH REDISTRIBUTION
    • If you have more private property than I do, and we both pay the same amount of taxes to the Government, sicne you get more benefit than I do in property protection. THAT IS WEALTH REDISTRIBUTION
    • If someone comes and steals your property, and you cannot prove that it was your property so they get to keep it. THAT IS WEALTH REDISTRIBUTION
    • If someone saves money on dump fees and unloads their crap in your yard while you are at work, damaging the value of your property, THAT IS WEALTH REDISTRIBUTION
    • If a corporation externalizes the cost of building its product by pollunting your property and you have no recourse, THAT IS WEALTH REDISTRIBUTION

    That's simply a basic economic analysis of what "wealth redistribution" is: changing the balance of wealth before and after the transaction. See you want to change "wealth redistribution" to mean "taxes to pay for things you don't want to pay for"... but you know that such a complaint sounds like whining. So you try and disguise it by using the term "Wealth Redistribution ". Except that "wealth redistribution" ALSO includes much of how the so called "free market" works.

    As for usurping your labor - your definition here is straight out of Marx. So the Marxist here is you - not me. (that's the irony - most so called "capitalists" who are anti-tax are making the Marxist "fair pay for labor" arguement).

    Now since you have no prohibition on moving out of the USA and into any other nation that will have you,, and sine there are clearly nations without the kind of government and regulations that we have in the USA - YOUR PRESENCE HERE, means you are tacitly in voluntary agreement to pay those taxes. Thus there is no "involuntary wealth transfer" going on at all. There may be "wealth transfer" you personally do not think should take place - but that's hardly "involuntary", since you can VOLUNTARILY CHOOSE TO OPT OUT.

    The problem of course is that every nation that has the kind of government you advocate - is frankly a sh!thole. And it is a sh!thole mainly because without most of the policies you complain so bitterly about,

    • The economic growth slows
    • Private property protections are at best lip service
    • the "economic friction" costs of protecting your property overwhelms most profit
    • the economic friction of corruption runs rampant
    • the cost of enforcing contracts is massive
    • The safety of individuals is low

    And yet that's what you advocate.

    Now whether or not we ran on taxes on Commerce exclusively (we did not BTW, the USA sold land, borrowed money, printed money, taxed voting, and collected all manner of fees) is irrelevant. Nothing in ARticle 1 Section 8 precludes taxation of Income. Income taxation preceded Wilson by some 110 years. THE FIRST INCOME TAX WAS PROPOSED BY THE FOUNDING FATHERS as a way to pay for the War of 1812. The first income tax was put into law 50 years later in 1861 fifty two years before Woodrow Wilson.

    So even your American History is made up.

    First off its not a "belief"... we hav DATA that yse in some cases The Government is more capable of spending an individual's money BETTER than the individual themselves.

    That is a matter of FACTUAL RECORD. It has nothing to do with belief. And since it is a DEMONSTRABLE FACT, the "ignoramous" here is the one of us that is ignorant OF THAT FACT.


    WOW talk about Ignorant. This simply is not true First off,

    • A "budget" HAS NO FORCE OF LAW... Budget Bills are POLICY PROPOSALS NOT SPENDING AUTHORIZATIONS
    • All spending authorizations/Appropriations BEGIN IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES as required by the Constitution (Article I Section 7 Paragraph 1).
    • The American Jobs Recovery Act (AJRA) aka "The stimulus" was a spending APPROPRIATION - and as such It was a one time deal
      that is why the deficit has gone down every year after 2009

    Where you got the whole notion that you just put forth is rather beyond. me. Anyone who told you that -or who wrote that - is either completely ignorant of how The Constitution works - OR LYING TO YOU.

    But Budgets HAVE NO MEANINGFUL EFFECT ON SPENDING.

    no there are not the DEFINITION OF SOCIALISM in political and economic theory is very simple. It is Governmental ownership or DIRECT control of the means of production. Nothing More, Nothing Less. Marxism is WORKER ownership of the Means of Production nothing more, nothing less.

    Well you clearly have not been to Europe. Hint, its where they build and drive Ferraris, Porches, Buggatti's and all manner of SuperCars, which can ONLY be afforded if the fruits of production go into capitalistic pockets.

    You really are demonstrating a huge amount of ignorance.

    What about Whittaker Chambers has to do with Obama? Chambers was dead by the time Obama was born. Yes the CPUSA supported US Unions... so what?

    Name a major fiscal policy (other than the stimulus and the GM bailouts) that is in force today that Obama passed.





    So your claim that
     
  2. degsme

    degsme Council Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2011
    Messages:
    19,820
    Likes Received:
    72
    So how come those don't exist in Germany? France? Italy? Spain? Switzerland? Austria? Sweden? Belgium? Norway? Monaco? Poland? Lithuania? Latvia?

    You really seem to be unable to look at the preponderance of evidence and draw logical conclusions. All you see is the one cherry picked datapoint that kinda/sorta/not really agrees with your beliefs.

    HINT - a combination of three things killed Greece

    1. TOO LOW A TAX RATE (sure their theoretical tax rate was adequate but ACTUAL taxation was 60% BELOW that)
    2. An inability to control their own currency - so they had to do what the EuroZone Central Bank demands - and could not defalate their currency
    3. The catastrophic notion that a Government can cut its way to a balanced budget
     
  3. degsme

    degsme Council Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2011
    Messages:
    19,820
    Likes Received:
    72
    What are you gibbering about. Are you suggesting that magically, economics works differntly when you have $10 than when you have $1?
     
  4. Lukey

    Lukey Senator

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2011
    Messages:
    21,771
    Likes Received:
    1,932
    Wouldn't that be EXACTLY what you are suggesting with your "marginal utility of money?"
     
  5. Woolleybugger

    Woolleybugger Mayor

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2011
    Messages:
    4,586
    Likes Received:
    477
    If you have 100 million dollars, the next million means much less to you than it would for a poor person to somehow get a windfall of 1 million dollars. That in essence explains the marginal utility of money. This concept also leads to risk aversion strategies which is our point about feeding fabulously wealthy people with more tax advantages. No one with 100 million dollars risks the entire amount to start a business or hire people because they know that getting that 100 million was extremely hard to do and the marginal utility of the next million cannot offset the risk of losing the 100 million to get it. So all wealthy people practice an investment strategy that protects the amount of their wealth that can sustain their desired lifestyle and avoid undue stress worrying about losing it. This is summed up as follows:

    “Debt used to be my biggest source of money stress. Then it became an obsession with frugality, which led me to cross the line to cheap bastard. Now my biggest problem seems to be an obsession with income: I want more money all the time. I’m beginning to see, however, that if I relax on my drive for a higher income, I can have more of other stuff, like time with friends — and travel.”

    By locking up vast stores of potentially liquid assets in a small number of people, we are encouraging risk averse strategies with the bulk of these locked up assets. I use this argument with my local friends who work at a local winery owned by Wrigley heirs. The Wrigley fortune is immense and at least 100 years old. It is not at risk nor will the heirs and the trustees ever let it be at risk lest they lose it all. What they do is live with play money and hobbies like wineries, horses or boats. Giving them more money to play with is not conducive to increasing aggregate demand efficiently. It is far better to give 1000 people 100,000 bucks for the economy than to let one person have 100 million dollars. This is a key aspect of tax policy as well since taxes redistribute wealth to increase demand and thereby provide an economy which generates more wealth for more people.
     
  6. degsme

    degsme Council Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2011
    Messages:
    19,820
    Likes Received:
    72
    Nope. because MUoM applies whether you have $1, $10, $10,000 or $1,000,000,000.... its just not necessarily LINEAR.

    What DO claims is that just because we have seen stimulus spending work at all historic levels of the US Economy, and acrosss all foreign economies, that somehow, magically, it stops working TODAY because of the size of the US Economy.

    It is possible that non-linearities overcome the known economic functions.. but then that is DO's onus to demonstrate.

    Hmm just figured out why the conversation isn't being disrupted.... apparently DO has been suspended
     

Share This Page