<p>It doesn’t really matter what I want. I’m not the one advocating sweeping changes to the tax system.</p>
<p>For people who haven’t read this before:</p>
<p>[The</a> Classic Example Of Barstool Economics](<a href=“http://www2.tbo.com/content/2008/feb/18/na-the-classic-example-of-barstool-economics/]The”>http://www2.tbo.com/content/2008/feb/18/na-the-classic-example-of-barstool-economics/)</p>
<h2>I definitely agree with you that the rich bear the tax burden. But this is not because of the tax code: they simply earn a ****-ton. ~ justtotalk</h2>
<p>And I don’t disagree with you, however - I posted that chart because ABR1190 said that taxes were burdened on the lower and middle class, which is stupid.</p>
<p>But this goes back to the earlier discussion on redistribution of wealth. We already have a system in which the rich pay the most in taxes that in turn gives the most funding for public services - so if that isn’t enough, what do they want?</p>
<p>If the tax burden were opposite, with the bottom 50% were paying 85% of the taxes (or whatever), and the rich were paying under 5% - sure, I’d see their point. But that isn’t the case, so what exactly are they calling for when they say that the wealth should be redistributed?</p>
<p>The only thing I can think of is that they just want to take the riches money - and pass it over to people who didn’t earn it (theft via government).</p>
<p>Or, they want to place such an unreasonable tax burden (with top 1.8% paying 75% of income taxes) that any person with common sense would know that the rich will simply take themselves out of the system. Shutting down their businesses and the jobs that go with it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yeah because that chart had a full rundown of all taxes. Speaking of stupid…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You’re the one talking about wealth redistribution, moron. You’re the one that wants a sweeping change to the tax code.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You have a remarkably inflexible mind.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes. I think the argument is simply to continue the progressive tax rate beyond where it stands. So that 500k+ pays 40%, etc., and maybe to raise the percentages of taxes on the upper level tax brackets as they stand. </p>
<p>It’s simply a matter if you believe that taxing a middle class person at “only” 10% less than an upper class person is fair. Each person’s share of the tax revenue is irrelevant–that says more about income disparity than tax code.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>For private businesses, sure. But public companies won’t shut down just because upper level managers pay more taxes–they’re irrelevant. As long as capital gains tax isn’t too high, stockholders will continue to invest and the business should thrive. To argue otherwise would imply that good managers can’t be found if their upper earnings are taxed heavily…it depends, if the tax system owns you then you can simply offer the manager a higher salary to compensate for the taxes–and companies would then raise their prices to offset higher expenses. It would simply create a higher salaries expense and a higher sales revenue for many companies. The consumer loses, not the rich.</p>
<p>For private businesses, sure. But public companies won’t shut down just because upper level managers pay more taxes–they’re irrelevant. As long as capital gains tax isn’t too high, stockholders will continue to invest and the business should thrive. To argue otherwise would imply that good managers can’t be found if their upper earnings are taxed heavily…it depends, if the tax system owns you then you can simply offer the manager a higher salary to compensate for the taxes–and companies would then raise their prices to compensate. It would simply create a higher salaries expense and a higher sales revenue. ~ Justtotalk</p>
<hr>
<p>I was being general I know, but I was implying corporate taxes. Saying if we skyrocket corporate taxes, eventually those companies will just close up shop.</p>
<p>** Saying if we skyrocket corporate taxes, eventually those companies will just close up shop. **</p>
<p>Very important point–those who wish to jack up corporate taxes don’t understand anything.</p>
<p>But I think your chart (and the following discussion) was about individual taxation of the wealthy.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It was actually just <em>income</em> tax, so it didn’t mention any of the other ways the wealthy make money or ways the poor pay taxes.</p>
<p>I won’t deny that, as Mankiw put it, taxes ‘distort incentives.’ However, can we completely discount taxation on economic grounds? No, because, in the end, businesses still operate as an integrated part of the society in which they’re situated. ~ The Ascendancy</p>
<hr>
<p>How can you say that with a str8 face?</p>
<p>How many major companies have we seen close operations in the US to move them to Mexico, or some other foreign country?</p>
<p>How many major companies have laid-off workers to outsource to India?</p>
<p>A companies loyalty to a society is as strong as their bottom line.</p>
<p>It was actually just <em>income</em> tax, so it didn’t mention any of the other ways the wealthy make money or ways the poor pay taxes. ~ Thiscouldbeheaven</p>
<hr>
<p>Well, what is it you want? “Rich” people to start paying more for a gallon of milk than everyone else?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>How many times do I have to write that I’m not the one advocating sweeping change. I mean this seriously. If you can give me an actual number I would gladly copy and paste it so that it can finally sink into your thick, illiterate skull.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, this means it didn’t include estate taxes (which I believe exempts estates less than ~1.4M, which means only the fairly rich pay it), property taxes, taxes on accumulated assets, capital gains (upper class invests the most), etc., Adding all these together would show that even a greater proportion of tax revenue comes from the upper class.</p>
<p>This is to be expected–they don’t only earn more, they accumulate more. Under US tax code, you pay for accumulating assets. </p>
<p>There are very few taxes that would even out this distribution. Even sales tax, which would shrink the disparity, is based on how much you spend–if the rich spend more, they pay more sales tax. Even VAT taxes in Europe are equitable; they don’t tax the poor more than the rich. </p>
<p>That’s not to say that higher income earners shouldn’t be paying more taxes. I’m just saying that “other taxes” won’t even out the distribution of tax revenues.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Do you think the US is in a fiscally viable situation? If you don’t advocate sweeping change, then you seem to think we can teeter totter on borrowing to cover our budget deficits forever. Eventually the debt ratings of the US government will plummet. </p>
<p>If you don’t believe in increasing taxes to supposedly fund the government, you don’t believe in decreasing taxes to increase economic efficiency and cash flows, and you don’t believe in slashing social benefits, then what do you believe in? Bankruptcy?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Admittedly, the field is still in its developmental stages, however, economics, at least at this point, is the science of case studies. Economists RELY on historical examples to support their assertions. Yes, it’s fickle because rarely do historical situations and the status quo match perfectly, but it’s the best they have.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No one is arguing for over-taxation. Moreover, there are perks to operating within the US not included in the budget reports: (relatively) stable political climate, highly developed infrastructure, (relatively) well-educated work force, and so forth. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Of course there’s dead weight loss – that’s commonly accepted. However, you have to look past the numbers to understand a complete picture of wealth redistribution (see the discussion on the necessity for a certain Gini coefficient).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Morally, it IS fair (see Rawls). </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As was already discussed on multiple accounts, the White House is NOT seeking to ‘take over’ any industry or buy out the private sector, the circumstances were simply a matter of necessity given the volatile economic climate.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No one argues that it’s not inefficient (could it be MORE efficient? probably), but it’s more EQUITABLE, which is the purpose of wealth redistribution.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This doesn’t seem to be the case in just about every other developed nation in the world. Moreover, you act as though the taxes the rich pay funnel down the drain to the poor, when, in reality, there are societal benefits funded by such revenues so that, in the end, even the rich benefit.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I can say it with a “str8” face because it’s true. I’m not talking about any sort of company loyalty – I’m talking about the infrastructure and political landscape with respect to which private businesses are not independent. </p>
<p>However, you do raise the point of outsourcing behind which many fiscal conservatives rally as an attack on taxation. Yes, it would be problematic if all such jobs were transported overseas, but that’s not the relevant issue at hand. Quite frankly, the US still has one of the most well-educated work forces and, as I mentioned above, a stable infrastructure. What’s more, the export of low-income jobs such as customer service can allow US workers to specialize and develop important career skills that can’t be replaced.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If we were attempting a balanced budget or attempting to pay off our debt, both sides would lose. We’d have to both cut welfare benefits and government services AND raise taxes.</p>
<p>I can say it with a “str8” face because it’s true. I’m not talking about any sort of company loyalty – I’m talking about the infrastructure and political landscape with respect to which private businesses are not independent. ~ The Ascdenancy</p>
<hr>
<p>Well, companies that move to Mexico are making huge profits dispite their political landscape, so what’s the deal?</p>
<p>A company is not integrated into a single society - not enough for it to prevent itself from picking up and moving if it’s profitable, which is the argument you made in your earlier post (that companies will remain in society because they are integrated within them).</p>
<p>The company my father worked for (15 years) recently closed operations and setup a plant in Mexico, laying off 300 people. They were a locally founded and owned company for over 55 years. They knew that entire neighborhoods depended on the company for livelyhoods. Our local baseball park was named after the owning family, as were several roads.</p>
<p>If you ask me - that’s integrated pretty damn well into society, wouldn’t ya think? But the cost of business became to high and they closed down regardless of their “integration.”</p>
<p>This same example has been repeated thousands of times across America in the last 20 years.</p>
<p>If we were attempting a balanced budget or attempting to pay off our debt, both sides would lose. We’d have to both cut welfare benefits and government services AND raise taxes ~ The Ascendancy</p>
<hr>
<p>I’m for it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As I addressed in my last post, that’s NOT what I’m arguing. Even if a company were to move to Mexico, it would still need to consider Mexico’s infrastructure development and political landscape – THAT’S what I’m arguing, that a business is not a completely independent entity, that it is an inevitable part of society. Of course it can relocate, but then it just becomes part of ANOTHER society.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is mostly relevant to small businesses. A large company will simply incorporate in a different state/country rather than completely move their headquarters and operations. To leave a country, a company must think that it’s wages and transportation costs are too high, they won’t leave for tax purposes.</p>
<p>This can be seen best with insurance companies that incorporate in Bermuda. They just set up a tiny office for tax purposes. The business is still run in America.</p>
<p>Obviously, this is still a major problem because the government lost some if its tax revenue. But that shouldn’t directly cause job losses or economic stagnation. It’ll just make the government’s fiscal situation even worse.</p>
<p>However, you do raise the point of outsourcing behind which many fiscal conservatives rally as an attack on taxation. Yes, it would be problematic if all such jobs were transported overseas, but that’s not the relevant issue at hand. Quite frankly, the US still has one of the most well-educated work force and, as I mentioned above, a stable infrastructure. What’s more, the export of low-income jobs such as customer service can allow US workers to specialize and develop important career skills that can’t be replaced. ~ The Ascendancy</p>
<hr>
<p>You are an odd mixture or a social champion and an elitist.</p>
<p>Stable economies aren’t merely based on populations who have “specialized” workforces. </p>
<p>To keep a community thriving, you need ample low level jobs to keep lower class citizens paying their bills, keeping food on the table and staying off government services.</p>
<p>While it may sound nice in theory that a lack of “basic” jobs like costumer service allows people to educate and train themselves in specialized work, in reality it doesn’t play out like that. Low level, even low paying jobs are essential to an economy. Not to mention, it allows employees to build equity in a company (vacation time, raises, benefits, promotions).</p>
<p>The “poor” uneducated class will only find stability with an income, even if it is minimal.</p>
<p>We see how beneficial low level jobs can be is several micro-economies (college towns, HS students, eldery).</p>
<p>Besides, a low paying job is better for the economy than a NO PAYING JOB.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I am for this, too.</p>
<p>As I addressed in my last post, that’s NOT what I’m arguing. Even if a company were to move to Mexico, it would still need to consider Mexico’s infrastructure development and political landscape – THAT’S what I’m arguing, that a business is not a completely independent entity, that it is an inevitable part of society. Of course it can relocate, but then it just becomes part of ANOTHER society. ~ The Asendancy</p>
<hr>
<p>Right, and the old society just lost X amount of jobs - so how is that a good thing?</p>
<p>You said a company would remain in society because it’s “integrated” into society - which is foolish.</p>
<p>A company can very easily move operations, take jobs with it, ect.</p>
<p>go back and read the post I’m referring to.</p>