Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

[Jimjamesak]

Theoretically. In practice, would you rather be poor in the US or in {socialist country of your choice}. If the former, then how exactly are we supposed to believe that movement toward "leftist populist economics" would necessarily be progress?

I will say, I'd much rather have been born in Canada, Sweden or Norway at this point.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

Theoretically. In practice, would you rather be poor in the US or in {socialist country of your choice}. If the former, then how exactly are we supposed to believe that movement toward "leftist populist economics" would necessarily be progress?

First of all, there is no "necessarily." However, one would certainly be better off being poor in many more "socialized" western European country: Sweden, Norway, Germany, Netherlands, Switzerland are all much better places to live if you're poor than America. That in itself isn't a critical test, however, if the future were brighter in America. The problem is American policy is now wholly owned by both forces and individuals who will only make poverty both increasingly common and increasingly onerous. That was the "Great Betrayal" of America -- our prosperity was supposed to be shared, but with the atomization of modern life the Haves stopped giving a crap about the Have Nots. Not just that, but they felt proud of themselves for not giving a crap. They invented an entire fictional economic religion around it.

Rich guilt.

That's certainly part of it. But of course, guilt is often warranted.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

Today in well duh.

(30,000th post, and all I get is this lousy sense of wasted time...)

 

[FreshFish]

Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

If only. Paradoxically, leftist economic populists like Sanders and, to a lesser extent, Warren haven't had deep lower income grassroots since WW2. The very people who stand most to gain have the least enthusiasm.

it is not at all clear that lower income people stand to "gain the most." We've had a record stimulus package and incomes have stagnated. Every piece of empirical evidence that indicates government spending doesn't help the poor is always explained away by saying "we didn't spend enough" without any regard for where that money is supposed to come from in the first place.

Empirical evidence indicates that leftist economic populism places a ceiling on opportunity for low income people by making it too expensive for them to escape from poverty (the poor face the highest marginal income tax rates by far of anyone if they try to increase their income).

Maybe there is a real good practical reason why the people you think have the most to gain are actually suspicious. "fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me" is an excellent hypothesis that completely explains their so-called "lack of enthusiasm" entirely.

It is not because they are poor, it is because they aspire to be something more than that, and leftist populists don't care about helping people obtain upward mobility. they are solely focused on the "safety net" without even noticing that a net strangles sea creatures who want to swim.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

it is not at all clear that lower income people stand to "gain the most." We've had a record stimulus package and incomes have stagnated. Every piece of empirical evidence that indicates government spending doesn't help the poor is always explained away by saying "we didn't spend enough" without any regard for where that money is supposed to come from in the first place.

Empirical evidence indicates that leftist economic populism places a ceiling on opportunity for low income people by making it too expensive for them to escape from poverty (the poor face the highest marginal income tax rates by far of anyone if they try to increase their income).

Maybe there is a real good practical reason why the people you think have the most to gain are actually suspicious. "fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me" is an excellent hypothesis that completely explains their so-called "lack of enthusiasm" entirely.

It is not because they are poor, it is because they aspire to be something more than that, and leftist populists don't care about helping people obtain upward mobility. they are solely focused on the "safety net" without even noticing that a net strangles sea creatures who want to swim.

You've got quite a stand up routine going on here.

 

[trixR4kids]

Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

*******http://i61.tinypic.com/anhh7p.png********

edit: This shows the correlation between mobility and education but it's really not all the surprising that the countries with better social programs have greater economic mobility.

 

[Patman]

Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

it is not at all clear that lower income people stand to "gain the most." We've had a record stimulus package and incomes have stagnated. Every piece of empirical evidence that indicates government spending doesn't help the poor is always explained away by saying "we didn't spend enough" without any regard for where that money is supposed to come from in the first place.

Empirical evidence indicates that leftist economic populism places a ceiling on opportunity for low income people by making it too expensive for them to escape from poverty (the poor face the highest marginal income tax rates by far of anyone if they try to increase their income).

Maybe there is a real good practical reason why the people you think have the most to gain are actually suspicious. "fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me" is an excellent hypothesis that completely explains their so-called "lack of enthusiasm" entirely.

It is not because they are poor, it is because they aspire to be something more than that, and leftist populists don't care about helping people obtain upward mobility. they are solely focused on the "safety net" without even noticing that a net strangles sea creatures who want to swim.

All this is because you get two types who get gov't money... the top and the bottom. The bottom usually has a myriad of personal issues that'll have them not move beyond their state with the help they get. The top, well they already have a lot of money, don't they. Rarely does the money actually go to the middle class when more is spent. The middle class already have as much as they're likely to get from any level of government.

Its the middle class that, generally, are more likely to be able to act on things which can propel themselves to the top... the upper middle class and the lower high class much more so, natch, but the ideas to up-end the inefficient dinosaurs come from that pool, usually. Entrenched types don't want to let others in... its those ambitious in the middle which drives societal, and thus, economic efficiency. Its the catalyst to get rid of the deadweight.

So, in the end, gov't action suppresses those who could have the capacity to thin out the dinosaurs who are by their nature, inefficient. Because theyre only sending money to the top and the bottom and don't know how to hand to the middle because the middle is so vast. This is why hands off policies are the best... the government doesn't have the capability of the granular knowledge to increase efficiencies in those zones. Its those who have a desire and those who have the better way who have that capability. The truth reveals itself.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

So, I've been thinking about the issue of welfare, and here's an idea for a solution:

FLAGDUDE08's WELFARE ACT

1. A review of the expense of standard necessities for each county shall be performed within two months of the submission of the budget to the legislature. Standard necessities shall be limited to payment for living quarters (i.e. rent, mortgage, property tax), food, water, electric, gas, heat, sewage, refuse, medical, hygiene, dependent care, public services, and any expenses related to receipt of the same within the county of residence, and shall not exceed competitive rates for the same within the county of residence.

2. Any government payment of benefits, with proof of past employment, shall be limited to thirty days of benefits from the time of claim. The claim shall be made within ten days of termination of previous employment for any reason other than day of incarceration. The claim shall include an itemized budget of expenses, to be prepared by the claimant, and not to exceed standard necessities for the household within the time period, and any expenses related to obtaining employment within the time period at any location within the country. No extension or re-application without proof of additional prior employment between the two dates of file shall be granted, with the exception of proof of any time from termination date attributed to medical leave, any time from termination date attributed to disability, and any sixty months, in any combination of month blocks, after honorable discharge from military service.

3. Any government payment of benefits, with proof of qualified employment of at least twenty hours for each household member able to work a total of at least fifty hours each week, or proof of self-employment with monthly recurring net profits of at least two-fifths of expenses described in this clause, may be paid following a claim, including an itemized budget of revenue from employment and expenses, to be prepared by the claimant each month, and limited to standard necessities for the household, and any expenses, monthly or one-time, related to maintaining employment.

4. All benefit claims and calculations shall be exercised by computer system, entered by computer interface either by internet or at a conspicuous public location, and may be subject to audit at any time with ten days notice. All benefit payments shall be made by product-specific payment means (i.e. food stamps, automated bill payment, etc.), or direct deposit to bank account or pre-paid card if product-specific payment means is not easily feasible.

5. The proposed budget for benefit payments, as prepared by legislature, shall be limited to the actual surplus amount of budget, minus benefit payments, of either of the past two fiscal years. All surplus monies attributed to benefit payments at the end of a fiscal year shall be contributed to reduce the state, then national, public debt.

6. No tax shall be levied on the income, up to the expense of competitive standard necessities of a household within the county of residence, of any citizen.

7. Qualified employers shall pay, including tips, a wage not to fall below one-fiftieth the standard expenses for the household of the employee for each hour worked, divided by the number of household members able to work a total of at least fifty hours each week, and shall not deny or abridge employment for any prospective employee on account of reasonable household size. Reasonable household size shall be defined as a maximum of two dependents for each household member able to work a total of at least fifty hours each week.

8. Legislature shall have the power to enforce this act by appropriate legislation.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

Interesting.

The paper assumes that tax rates won’t stop a future Bill Gates from wanting to start Microsoft. Instead, what it finds is that labor supply among the 1 percent would decline -- translation, they would work a little less -- but it “does not collapse.” That’s because of who the authors assume makes up the top income bracket: celebrities, sports stars, and entrepreneurs -- people with innate talents that are hugely rewarding, but only for a short period of time. They only have a few years to use their skills to make most of the money they will ever make. High tax rates don’t lessen their degree of desire to be productive, the authors said.

Krueger described the phenomenon like this: “How much less hard would LeBron James play basketball if he were taxed at a much higher rate? The answer is not much. “James knows he only has five years,” or so of peak earning potential, Krueger said, and so he will work to make as much as he can during that time. If high income tax rates robbed the would-be 1 percent of their stick-to-itiveness, the paper’s conclusions would change.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

more evidence that Progressives who want to use the power of government to improve people's lives MUST rein in public-sector pension costs:

Illinois today is already spending more of its general fund on pensions than on K-12 education. One in four tax dollars pays for its retired workers’ benefits. Last year the state had to defer paying $7 billion owed to contractors. All this after [they] raised income taxes and corporate taxes by 67% and 30% [in 2011], respectively.

25% of current tax revenues used to pay benefits to people who don't even work for the state any more! How many classrooms could you wire for internet access with that money instead?

 

[Rover]

Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

Patman, Flaggy, Fishy, etc...

Any thoughts as to why the poorest states in the nation are the conservative ones with the least amount of government while the wealthies ones are the liberal states with more govt?

Who's up for living in conservative paradise of Mississippi? Kansas? Kentucky? West Virginia? South Carolina?

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

Patman, Flaggy, Fishy, etc...

Any thoughts as to why the poorest states in the nation are the conservative ones with the least amount of government while the wealthies ones are the liberal states with more govt?

Who's up for living in conservative paradise of Mississippi? Kansas? Kentucky? West Virginia? South Carolina?

Kansas was ok until Brownback got in. Now it's a cesspool of debt and education cuts.

 

[trixR4kids]

Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

Patman, Flaggy, Fishy, etc...

Any thoughts as to why the poorest states in the nation are the conservative ones with the least amount of government while the wealthies ones are the liberal states with more govt?

Who's up for living in conservative paradise of Mississippi? Kansas? Kentucky? West Virginia? South Carolina?

Or better yet, Wisconsin

 

[Kepler]

Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

The Beeb alluded to a recent study that the widening income inequality in the United States since 1980 has cost us 9% GDP growth. I haven't been able to track it down, but somebody will eventually. So to all the other crimes of Supply Side add that in the end it even failed net. Talk about a disaster.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

Any thoughts as to why the poorest states in the nation are the conservative ones with the least amount of government while the wealthies ones are the liberal states with more govt?

Who taught you accounting?

net worth = assets minus liabilities.

your math is way off, the "wealthies" are not wealthy at all when you factor in public sector debt.

 

[unofan]

Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

Who taught you accounting?

net worth = assets minus liabilities.

your math is way off, the "wealthies" are not wealthy at all when you factor in public sector debt.

So you're planning on moving from CT to KS, right? They've implemented pretty much everything you're seeking.

 

[Rover]

Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

Who taught you accounting?

net worth = assets minus liabilities.

your math is way off, the "wealthies" are not wealthy at all when you factor in public sector debt.

I noticed you didn't answer the question, so lets try again! If conservative polices work so well, why are the conservative states of Mississippi, Alabama, South Carolina, Kansas, etc the poorest in the nation? Its a pretty simple question, and you're a pretty simple guy, so lets hear it.

 

[joecct]

I noticed you didn't answer the question, so lets try again! If conservative polices work so well, why are the conservative states of Mississippi, Alabama, South Carolina, Kansas, etc the poorest in the nation? Its a pretty simple question, and you're a pretty simple guy, so lets hear it.

Been that way since the industrial revolution, hasn't it? The north was the industrial heartland of the fledgling USA while the South was primarily agriculture. The growth was/is in the factories. Land is great, but there is only so much you can do with it.

And, come to think of it, the world's is pretty much the same way. The rich north and the poor south.

 

[Rover]

Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

Been that way since the industrial revolution, hasn't it? The north was the industrial heartland of the fledgling USA while the South was primarily agriculture. The growth was/is in the factories. Land is great, but there is only so much you can do with it.

And, come to think of it, the world's is pretty much the same way. The rich north and the poor south.

I was always taught rock-ribbed conservatism was a cure for all that though.

 

[joecct]

I was always taught rock-ribbed conservatism was a cure for all that though.

The "protestant work ethic"?