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

[FreshFish]

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

Plutocracy [is where we are now].

Hence proposals to increase the number of representatives with voting rights. Make the plutocrats spend more and spend it more broadly.

Your complaint goes back to Tammany Hall and the concept of "honest graft." Politicians have been for sale since time immemorial. that's human nature. since we cannot rewire human nature, we try to set interest groups in competition with each other. Even Galbraith talked about "countervailing power."

The problem we face today is more like: "it used to be, once you bought a politician, they stayed 'bought.' Today, the best you can manage is to rent them for a few months."

If you look at Russia for example, totalitarian regimes are even more of a plutocracy than ours. The people who run the government become the plutocrats since absolute power corrupts absolutely. No matter how much of a "plutocracy" we have here, I prefer it to totalitarianism. Progressives are just fooling themselves if they think that a powerful central government cares about them; people who run the government will always put their own personal interests ahead of any so-called "common good," and they will even find a way to fool themselves into thinking that their interests are the "common good." that's human nature too.

Even here, look how many Senators and Congressional representatives became wealthy after they took office. Look at the triangular trade among government agencies, businesses regulated by those agencies, and lobbying firms. People move freely from one to the other all the time.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

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

Hence proposals to increase the number of representatives with voting rights. Make the plutocrats spend more and spend it more broadly.

Your complaint goes back to Tammany Hall and the concept of "honest graft." Politicians have been for sale since time immemorial. that's human nature. since we cannot rewire human nature, we try to set interest groups in competition with each other. Even Galbraith talked about "countervailing power."

The problem we face today is more like: "it used to be, once you bought a politician, they stayed 'bought.' Today, the best you can manage is to rent them for a few months."

If you look at Russia for example, totalitarian regimes are even more of a plutocracy than ours. The people who run the government become the plutocrats since absolute power corrupts absolutely. No matter how much of a "plutocracy" we have here, I prefer it to totalitarianism. Progressives are just fooling themselves if they think that a powerful central government cares about them; people who run the government will always put their own personal interests ahead of any so-called "common good," and they will even find a way to fool themselves into thinking that their interests are the "common good." that's human nature too.

Even here, look how many Senators and Congressional representatives became wealthy after they took office. Look at the triangular trade among government agencies, businesses regulated by those agencies, and lobbying firms. People move freely from one to the other all the time.

There's one other thing that needs to come into the argument, and that is that the people truly running the country from an executive standpoint are not elected. They are appointed. The biggest piece of evidence with this is the Kennedy assassination. Was it done single-handedly by an ex-military soldier? Heck no. In fact, when he was arrested, he wasn't even accused of shooting the President, but rather a different officer. Take a look at what was being discussed by Kennedy a couple of days before the assassination: Ending the Federal Reserve. Also take a look at people, such as Frank Olson, Dorothy Kilgallen, and Andrew Breitbart, who had an "overdose" or a "heart attack" (any doctor really knowing what to look for would tell you it wasn't that but rather murder by poison and then covering it up). These people aren't elected. They're appointed, sometimes just as "assistants", and not referenced for "plausible deniability".

Sure, you might be able to help things legislatively by expanding the Congress, but until you start looking at the absolute power wielded in the executive departments, you're not going to get anywhere. If you're going to support anyone, support the whistleblowers, such as Snowden. Given the punishment for "getting caught", they aren't crying wolf.

 

[5mn_Major]

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

So seeing a lot of sentiment that the US is a plutocracy. I think that's a perspective that misleads what's going on.

One could argue that the US is in fact ruled by the wealthy. But is that really the outcome? While the rich get write offs...US tax rates are progressive better supporting the poor as they should be. We have a decent welfare and support system for the poor. I'm progressive, but all of this is not far from what it should be. While there are many who are seeing a plutocratic outcome, its not really what's happening.

Really we are governed waay too much by special interests. There are financial special interests, there are military special interests, there are big oil, there are religious special interests, and even environmental or education special interests. When money impacts legislation in more damaging ways, it's not due to impact the on rich/poor spectrum but rather undue impact to bias legislation regarding special interests. That's where our problem lies.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

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

So seeing a lot of sentiment that the US is a plutocracy. I think that's a perspective that misleads what's going on.

One could argue that the US is in fact ruled by the wealthy. But is that really the outcome? While the rich get write offs...US tax rates are progressive better supporting the poor as they should be. We have a decent welfare and support system for the poor. I'm progressive, but all of this is not far from what it should be. While there are many who are seeing a plutocratic outcome, its not really what's happening.

Really we are governed waay too much by special interests. There are financial special interests, there are military special interests, there are big oil, there are religious special interests, and even environmental or education special interests. When money impacts legislation in more damaging ways, it's not due to impact the on rich/poor spectrum but rather undue impact to bias legislation regarding special interests. That's where our problem lies.

Meh. The Poor are blight to the rich. Thus the safety net. It's the middle class that is systematically being destroyed. The rich don't care about having someone to sell stuff to here anymore cause they have a global marketplace for their goods, and most of them don't need to sell any goods to make money anyway, cause their money makes more money and it's taxed at a much lower rate.

So, I'm not buying your progressive tax structure argument.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

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

There are a few things that people forget when they whine about taxes:

First off, when they whine about tax cuts for the rich, well guess what: EVERY tax cut affects the rich! We use a progressive structure, not one that looks like a sawtooth. A certain amount is taxed at a particular percent, then another amount after that at another percent, and so on and so forth.

Secondly, they think that certain loopholes only apply to certain people. Not true; they apply to everyone. In fact, if you made your entire income off of qualified dividends and long-term capital gains, and you would normally have your top dollar be taxed in the 15% bracket, do you know what percentage of your income goes towards federal taxes? Bupkis. Ever wonder why the nominal value of the stock market indexes didn't start shooting up again until after 2010? It's not because of quantitative easing. It's actually because of the renewal of the qualified dividend and long-term capital gains rates.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

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

There are a few things that people forget when they whine about taxes:

First off, when they whine about tax cuts for the rich, well guess what: EVERY tax cut affects the rich! We use a progressive structure, not one that looks like a sawtooth. A certain amount is taxed at a particular percent, then another amount after that at another percent, and so on and so forth.

Secondly, they think that certain loopholes only apply to certain people. Not true; they apply to everyone. In fact, if you made your entire income off of qualified dividends and long-term capital gains, and you would normally have your top dollar be taxed in the 15% bracket, do you know what percentage of your income goes towards federal taxes? Bupkis. Ever wonder why the nominal value of the stock market indexes didn't start shooting up again until after 2010? It's not because of quantitative easing. It's actually because of the renewal of the qualified dividend and long-term capital gains rates.

No, we DO NOT use a progressive tax structure. We use many tax structures and some of them just happen to be progressive. All taxes are interconnected. State, local, Federal. Even at the Federal level which we talk about the most around here all the taxes are not progressive. Income taxes are, yes, but that's not the full boat.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

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

No, we DO NOT use a progressive tax structure. We use many tax structures and some of them just happen to be progressive. All taxes are interconnected. State, local, Federal. Even at the Federal level which we talk about the most around here all the taxes are not progressive. Income taxes are, yes, but that's not the full boat.

Every tax cut still affects the rich, because it either on the first $x amount of income, or is in proportion to population.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

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

Every tax cut still affects the rich, because it either on the first $x amount of income, or is in proportion to population.

Yeah, whatever. Skip over the part where you lied and said we have a progressive tax system when you know we don't.

 

[5mn_Major]

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

Meh. The Poor are blight to the rich. Thus the safety net. It's the middle class that is systematically being destroyed. The rich don't care about having someone to sell stuff to here anymore cause they have a global marketplace for their goods, and most of them don't need to sell any goods to make money anyway, cause their money makes more money and it's taxed at a much lower rate.

So, I'm not buying your progressive tax structure argument.

Its not specifically the rich that undermine support structures for the poor. An example of this is that eight of the ten richest counties in the country voted Obama in 2012...and against Romney. Whatever you want to call them, conservatives, Republicans...that is the group that moves against the poor. I would bet rural votes (which come from below middle class) have done more damage to the poor than votes from the rich.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

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

Its not specifically the rich that undermine support structures for the poor. An example of this is that eight of the ten richest counties in the country voted Obama in 2012...and against Romney. Whatever you want to call them, conservatives, Republicans...that is the group that moves against the poor. I would bet rural votes (which come from below middle class) have done more damage to the poor than votes from the rich.

We're not moving against the poor. We're destroying the middle class. Which in effect does effect the poor because there's no ladder to go up anymore.

 

[Rover]

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

IMHO we're destroying the working class. Middle class professionals (lets call it <100K a year in annual income) can make a go of it provided they have the education/technical skills to keep up. Working class professionals are getting squeezed into poverty.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

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

IMHO we're destroying the working class. Middle class professionals (lets call it <100K a year in annual income) can make a go of it provided they have the education/technical skills to keep up. Working class professionals are getting squeezed into poverty.

Even Middle Class professionals are getting squeezed.

 

[Rover]

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

Even Middle Class professionals are getting squeezed.

I'm sure they are, but I look at it this way. A professional has probably been working for the same salary for the last several years while the cost of living goes up. Working class people are either taking massive pay cuts or losing their jobs altogether with little hope of replacing them.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

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

I'm sure they are, but I look at it this way. A professional has probably been working for the same salary for the last several years while the cost of living goes up. Working class people are either taking massive pay cuts or losing their jobs altogether with little hope of replacing them.

I didn't say they were worse off. Just pointing out that the system isn't working for either of them. And with global hiring and global marketplaces the 1% doesn't have to care. The only ones that should care is the Government of the United States cause it's in her best interest to have a robust middle class. Unfortunately the global billionaire's are running things here in the US.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

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

Yeah, whatever. Skip over the part where you lied and said we have a progressive tax system when you know we don't.

Even you admitted we have one for income taxes. Nice try.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

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

Even you admitted we have one for income taxes. Nice try.

That's one leg on a many legged stool. You said we did without clarifying. It's misleading and wrong.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

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

Disappointed that the government isn't holding a larger zero-percent-interest loan on your money? Now I've read it all. https://generationopportunity.org/a...=social&utm_content=5_13NC&utm_campaign=Taxes

 

[FlagDUDE08]

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

That's one leg on a many legged stool. You said we did without clarifying. It's misleading and wrong.

Nowhere did I mention the entire system; the only misleading being done is your blanket assumptions.

 

[FreshFish]

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

So seeing a lot of sentiment that the US is a plutocracy. I think that's a perspective that misleads what's going on.

One could argue that the US is in fact ruled by the wealthy. But is that really the outcome? While the rich get write offs...US tax rates are progressive better supporting the poor as they should be. We have a decent welfare and support system for the poor. I'm progressive, but all of this is not far from what it should be. While there are many who are seeing a plutocratic outcome, its not really what's happening.

Really we are governed waay too much by special interests. There are financial special interests, there are military special interests, there are big oil, there are religious special interests, and even environmental or education special interests. When money impacts legislation in more damaging ways, it's not due to impact the on rich/poor spectrum but rather undue impact to bias legislation regarding special interests. That's where our problem lies.

There have always been special interests, and in fact, "special interests" are enshrined in the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law ... abridging ... the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

The Founders expected there to be special interests, and planned for them, by dispersing power through a variety of channels, so that no one channel could become too dominant. Our problem has been that we allowed (if not actively encouraged) their vibrant competitive structure to atrophy: now the federal government is too muscular relative to the states, for example, and the Executive branch is too muscular relative to the Legislature and the Supreme Court.

If Robert Byrd (D-WV) had been Senate President instead of Harry Reid, for example, he'd never have stood back and allowed any President to ignore the Senate, no matter who s/he was or what party s/he was from; Byrd was a Senator first and a Democrat second.


My own concern is less whether we have a "plutocracy" or not, and more over who the plutocrats are and how they came to be that way. John D. Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie, Steve Jobs, all created enormous value for the rest of society; their wealth, while enormous, is a mere fraction of the overall wealth they created for everyone else.

Bill Clinton is also a plutocrat by any measure, but the way he accumulated his wealth is quite a bit different.

 

[FreshFish]

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

Its not specifically the rich that undermine support structures for the poor. An example of this is that eight of the ten richest counties in the country voted Obama in 2012...and against Romney. Whatever you want to call them, conservatives, Republicans...that is the group that moves against the poor. I would bet rural votes (which come from below middle class) have done more damage to the poor than votes from the rich.

It seems to me it is not the "support structure" for the poor that is a problem, it is the way incentives in the support structure operate: if you think of the situation from the perspective of the person being supported, do you want someone else to take care of you indefinitely, or do you want to learn how to become self-reliant? The marginal cost of moving from "support structure" to "self-reliant" is amazingly high, the incentives are perverse.

Most college students can probably qualify for SNAP if they want, and then move on to a decent job. But if you have to work your way up from low-wage jobs to earn enough respect and credibility to be promoted into management, it's a really different story.