Frayed Ends: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 3.0

[Rover]

Re: Frayed Ends: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 3.0

Uh, huh. I live it every day but I'm entirely clueless on the subject.

Hey, Flaggy sees a lot of the world from his vantage point in his mom's basement!

All this tax reform talk is a lot of hooey. Instead of a radical revamp of the system, just start eliminating gimmicky BS. Oil company tax breaks for drilling for oil for example? Gone. There a a bunch of them you can come up with. I'd start there and force the special interests and whoever they paid in Congress to carry the water for them to defend the tax breaks in a public hearing.

 

[joecct]

Hey, Flaggy sees a lot of the world from his vantage point in his mom's basement!

All this tax reform talk is a lot of hooey. Instead of a radical revamp of the system, just start eliminating gimmicky BS. Oil company tax breaks for drilling for oil for example? Gone. There a a bunch of them you can come up with. I'd start there and force the special interests and whoever they paid in Congress to carry the water for them to defend the tax breaks in a public hearing.

See my point on corporate taxes. Eliminate the tax books and use the same books you show in the annual report and to the SEC. A lot of the gimmicks fall by the wayside.

 

[unofan]

Means vs ends debate again?

General question: what matters more, having a policy that actually works, or continuing to advocate for a policy that on the surface sounds appealing yet has demonstrably failed to work.


We see this with well-intentioned progressives all the time. Let's try idea x. It doesn't work. Oh, we have to do more of it. it still doesn't work. We have to try harder. it still doesn't work.

how long until it dawns on them that maybe they might need to try something different???



Sometimes I am reminded of medieval physicians. They genuinely, truly thought they were helping their patients get better by using leeches to "bleed out" the "poisonous humors" that were infecting them.



Too many conversations with progressives go like this: I agree with you that your intentions are worthy. I'm not sure that your methods will bring about your desired goals.

"How dare you question my sincerity!"

Replace progressives with dumb as fark Republicans who think cutting taxes will increase revenue (see Kansas, Louisiana, Wisconsin) and you might be right.

 

[unofan]

I may not be smarter, but here goes.

Example 1
George makes $60,000
Jane, his wife, makes $40,000.

George pays (60-45) × .15 or $2,250. His maginal rate is 3.75%
Jane pays (40 - 45) × .15 or $0.00. Her marginal rate is 0.

Example 2
Ricky makes $345,000
His wife, Lucy, makes $545,000

Ricky pays (345 - 45) × .15 = $45,000 or a marginal rate of 13.04%.
Lucy pays (545 - 45) × .15 = $75,000 or a marginal rate of 13.76%.

Neither family needs H & R Block or Beatum & Cheatum tax attornies.

The marginal rate in all cases but Jane's is 15%. That is the tax on the next dollar earned. You're referring to effective rates.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: Frayed Ends: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 3.0

Many people seem to think that I am anti-minimum wage, when I'm not. I'm on the record with saying that a minimum wage is a good idea.

The way we are implementing the concept, and the reasoning behind it, is what concerns me.

It's probably better to say that a minimum wage scale is a good idea. It's a compromise between competing imperatives that satisfies the most important concern of each side. It both acknowledges the realities of the workplace and provides some protection for the most vulnerable from being exploited.

Rather than one single "minimum wage," there is a tiered wage system.


Most of the rest of this is tl;dr for most of y'all, until the last paragraph....




-- probationary scale, for people entering the workplace for the first time or people switching to a new industry that requires re-training. There are objective standards in place so that people who make it to the end of the probationary period (180 days, 90 days) are automatically moved up into the next tier.
This might be something like the current minimum wage. Basically, your objectives are to show up on time, maintain acceptable personal hygiene and workplace decorum, pay attention to what you are doing, and follow instructions. You do that, in today's market, you are worth keeping and you've earned your promotion.
-- there are protections in place so that if probationary employees meet the objective standards, employers can't fire people merely because they reached the end of the probationary period.
-- apprentice scale for the following 2-1/2 years perhaps? Now your baseline objectives include developing some specialized skill or in some other way demonstrating how you can add value to the enterprise. It's structured to be a win-win for the employee and the employer, because at first the employer is over-paying but during the period the employee through training and observation will improve his/her productivity, so that eventually the employer receives fair value.
-- Maybe that's enough since by now people have developed enough marketable skills that they can find jobs that pay better than the minimum wage? Maybe we need one more tier?

It would be find to try. It would have to be an improvement on what we have now. You can't force an employer to pay an employee based on what the employee needs, that's just magical thinking and a total denial of reality. An employee earns his/her wage in proportion to how s/he delivers value. We want an incentive structure focused on helping both sides get a better outcome through collaboration. The current adversarial setup is lose-lose-lose, a few zealots get to feel self-righteous, but how do they really make things better where the problems really lie?


This structure forces the employer to engage with the employee as a human being and not as a cog in a machine, in a way that ultimately will benefit the employer. By establishing the objective standards to earn promotion to the next level, the employer has to engage the employee's attention toward delivering value to the enterprise, and so the employer has to say to him/herself, "why am I using human beings instead of machines in the first place? Oh, yeah, because they can observe and think and react. So what do I want them to notice, and what do I want them to think, and how do I want them to react?"

n my utopian world, business trade associations would be aggressively self-policing. Lets assume that most business people, all else being equal, would greatly prefer to be upright ethical people who cared about the well-being of their workers and their communities. At the same time, they also can monitor and evolve and enforce their standards more nimbly and more firmly than the courts. One nice thing about trade associations, it allows its members to pool their resources and have one central research bureau, one central reference library, to draw upon. Best practices could easily be assimilated and shared.







The ideal outcome for a business owner is to see his employees be successful, his suppliers grateful, his customers satisfied, and his community enriched, all as a result of his dedication and hard work and integrity. I would never begrudge a person that satisfaction merely because s/he had more money than me. Nor would I automatically assume that their success made them ethically my inferior, either.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: Frayed Ends: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 3.0

See [something else]

Generally, if one person says "those people did thing 'x'" and another person replies, "those other people did thing 'x', too" it is a tacit acknowledgement by the latter that, while he agrees with the former, he doesn't want to admit it and so tries to deflect and distract, no?

 

[FreshFish]

Re: Frayed Ends: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 3.0

I may not be smarter, but here goes.

I don't think it's a question of "smarter" or not, it might just be that you are using terms in a different way than other people use the same terms.

It sounds more like a matter of dictionary definitions....most people use the term "marginal rate" to mean the tax rate on the vary last dollar of income.

In your example, take a person who earns $45,001. His/her "marginal rate" is 15%, since 15% applies to that $1 that is above the cutoff line. Every next dollar he earns above the cutoff line is also taxed at 15%.

Now, if we had another bracket at $125,000, say, then the marginal rate for a person earning $125,001 would be the tax rate that applies to income above $125,000.


You are using the term "marginal rate" to apply to his total tax rate over all income.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Frayed Ends: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 3.0

None of which are reasons it couldn't be implemented here.

There's a big difference between implementing something and improving the overall state of things. We've shown you examples of why scope matters. This is why the PPACA is miserable failure, because you're trying to implement something on a federal level that only has a chance in hell of working at a state level. Just because it works in a smaller country like Sweden doesn't mean it's going to work in a larger country like the USA.

 

[joecct]

I don't think it's a question of "smarter" or not, it might just be that you are using terms in a different way than other people use the same terms.

It sounds more like a matter of dictionary definitions....most people use the term "marginal rate" to mean the tax rate on the vary last dollar of income.

In your example, take a person who earns $45,001. His/her "marginal rate" is 15%, since 15% applies to that $1 that is above the cutoff line. Every next dollar he earns above the cutoff line is also taxed at 15%.

Now, if we had another bracket at $125,000, say, then the marginal rate for a person earning $125,001 would be the tax rate that applies to income above $125,000.


You are using the term "marginal rate" to apply to his total tax rate over all income.

Brain fart - meant effective rate.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Frayed Ends: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 3.0

Brain fart - meant effective rate.

You're a CCT grad, we've come to expect it.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Frayed Ends: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 3.0

Hey, Flaggy sees a lot of the world from his vantage point in his mom's basement!

All this tax reform talk is a lot of hooey. Instead of a radical revamp of the system, just start eliminating gimmicky BS. Oil company tax breaks for drilling for oil for example? Gone. There a a bunch of them you can come up with. I'd start there and force the special interests and whoever they paid in Congress to carry the water for them to defend the tax breaks in a public hearing.

Tax breaks and sin taxes evolve from one thing and one thing only: Government encouraging the flow of money in certain areas. Any sort of "special interest" is entirely indirect, as you still need to show how a tax rate change benefits the economy as a whole.

One goal is to gain oil independence. How do you do that, while still fulfilling the demand for oil that exists in this country? Drill, baby, drill. How do you encourage people to do that?
Another facet of life is that a number of people judge our economy by the nominal value of the stock market. How do you encourage investment (read: investment, not day trade) there? Special rates for qualified dividends and long-term capital gains, while still realizing that many of that money is being double-whammied.
Another goal is to get people healthier by getting them to stop smoking. How do you get them to stop if you're the government? Tax the hell out of cigarettes.

You want to encourage people to live a certain way, but you don't want to give them tax breaks. You can't have your cake and eat it, too.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Frayed Ends: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 3.0

Oil companies need incentive to drill?

Bull.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Frayed Ends: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 3.0

Oil companies need incentive to drill?

Bull.

Why pay an arm and leg here, when you can pay probably much less in the Middle East? Just like how manufacturing has gone to China, the concept and resulting execution is no different.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Frayed Ends: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 3.0

Why pay an arm and leg here, when you can pay probably much less in the Middle East? Just like how manufacturing has gone to China, the concept and resulting execution is no different.

Uh, huh. I agree. That's what's happened. The most capitalistic country in the world has produced capitalists that don't care about their country. It bleeds irony. Thank God there are still some good companies out there that care about things other than just profit.

 

[trixR4kids]

Re: Frayed Ends: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 3.0

Generally, if one person says "those people did thing 'x'" and another person replies, "those other people did thing 'x', too" it is a tacit acknowledgement by the latter that, while he agrees with the former, he doesn't want to admit it and so tries to deflect and distract, no?

No that's not what that means seeing as it works fine in other countries and supply side econ has never worked anywhere.

Why pay an arm and leg here, when you can pay probably much less in the Middle East?

Gee IDK, the middle east is pretty stable and all and your workers surely wouldn't get killed or anything.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Frayed Ends: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 3.0

Uh, huh. I agree. That's what's happened. The most capitalistic country in the world has produced capitalists that don't care about their country. It bleeds irony. Thank God there are still some good companies out there that care about things other than just profit.

If you're not making money, even if your goal is to come as close as possible to breaking even, you're better off not being in business at all. Every single cost is something that has to be offset by the revenue made from the product, whether or not it is passed along to the customer. If you aim for too much profit, though, you open the door for another company to undercut you, so the highest profit is not what companies care about, as much as those nincompoops on MSNBC have spoon fed you.

Want to bring the industries back? Be competitive. Give them a reason to actually set up shop here besides 'murica, because emotion doesn't get you a disciplined investor.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Frayed Ends: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 3.0

No that's not what that means seeing as it works fine in other countries and supply side econ has never worked anywhere.

You're both still missing the point. As much as something may have worked in one location, you must take every single fundamental difference between the two locations into account.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Frayed Ends: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 3.0

If you're not making money, even if your goal is to come as close as possible to breaking even, you're better off not being in business at all. Every single cost is something that has to be offset by the revenue made from the product, whether or not it is passed along to the customer. If you aim for too much profit, though, you open the door for another company to undercut you, so the highest profit is not what companies care about, as much as those nincompoops on MSNBC have spoon fed you.

Want to bring the industries back? Be competitive. Give them a reason to actually set up shop here besides 'murica, because emotion doesn't get you a disciplined investor.

Do you even pretend to have a clue how much profit oil companies make? Any clue at all. Or, how about how much inflation CEO salaries have gathered? Any clue? Any?

And, another ruined beach in California. Good job, big oil.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Frayed Ends: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 3.0

Do you even pretend to have a clue how much profit oil companies make? Any clue at all. Or, how about how much inflation CEO salaries have gathered? Any clue? Any?

I know how much oil companies make, given I do carry investments with both harvesters and suppliers, and it's not as high as you'd think.

Hiring a CEO is labour. It's a cost. The value of any sort of labour is the quality of work they do. If someone does better with executive decisions, they're worth more, and sometimes companies will do whatever it takes to ensure they receive the services of a particular person.

Remove the emotion for five seconds and try to understand disciplined economics. Play Roller Coaster Tycoon or a similar game for a little bit. You'll learn a lot about economics.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Frayed Ends: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 3.0

I know how much oil companies make, given I do carry investments with both harvesters and suppliers, and it's not as high as you'd think.

Hiring a CEO is labour. It's a cost. The value of any sort of labour is the quality of work they do. If someone does better with executive decisions, they're worth more, and sometimes companies will do whatever it takes to ensure they receive the services of a particular person.

Remove the emotion for five seconds and try to understand disciplined economics. Play Roller Coaster Tycoon or a similar game for a little bit. You'll learn a lot about economics.

Uh, huh. While everyone watches record profits and CEO salaries and depressed middle class labor wages. Whatever, dude.