American exceptionalism is a myth brought on by lucky circumstances and political campaign rhetoric. U.S. citizens are neither more nor less capable than the citizens of the other 13 industrialized nations we compare ourselves too.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
America Needs Talent
- Thread starter nitro
- Start date
American exceptionalism is a myth brought on by lucky circumstances and political campaign rhetoric. U.S. citizens are neither more nor less capable than the citizens of the other 13 industrialized nations we compare ourselves too.
and which one of the candidates is advocating lower taxes? or for that matter which party? You're the first liberal I ever heard saying the lower brackets are too high. Oh well, maybe if your side wins and Hillary is president and Schumer is running the senate they will fight for lower taxes on the lower brackets. Or hey! I got a better idea! Why not just leave tax rates where they are for the lowest, but give them something else in benefits? That way we can control it and grease a few palms.I was referring to lower tax rates on average. Rates could be reduced in the lowest two brackets, where most taxpayers fall, if greater progressiveness was to be put back into the income tax structure.
With Reagan, tax rates were severely compressed, with the lowest rate being raised, the upper brackets being eliminated, and the rate in the remaining bracket being drastically reduced. At one time there was only about 7% difference between the rate paid by the poorest income tax payer versus the wealthiest. We were very close to a flat tax at that point with virtually all progressiveness in the tax rates having been wrung out of the tax structure. This did not produce, however, the windfall in government revenue that the supply siders in the Reagan administration had predicted, and the rates had to be readjusted. Reagan said this was the greatest disappointment of his presidency.
Today, progressiveness has been only partly restored. The upper rates are still too low, the lower bracket rates, which affect many more tax payers, still too high, and there are not nearly enough brackets. It is the compounding of the rate compression effect over 30 years, together with the compounding effect of continually taxing unearned income at much lower rates than earned, that has led to the economy-damaging income distribution in the U.S. today. [see T. Piketty, "Capital in the 21st Century"]
ok, but just remember, once you get out into the white suburbs, USA children test the highest in the world. So you can conclude that black children are just genetically inferior or the real problem is in our predominately black inner city schools. And if that is true, why?
This isn't true at all. The internet is great at spreading myths. What you seem to be saying is the best school areas in the US perform better then the worst school areas in other countries. Throw in the fact that many of those schools are private, and things don't look very rosy for American schools in reality.
Of course, if you were well educated yourself, you should know this.
you make a good case for American Exceptionalism. Just because no other country has put it all together doesn't mean we can't. After all, we are the best country God ever invented. Now about these low taxes, that's the one that got me intrigued.
Except that you aren't the "best country", you just think you are. Once one starts looking at crime rates, poverty rates, and the current momentum in the economy and industry, the US seems to be in some trouble. Your tax rates are going to go up ( if they haven't already ); all the recent mistakes you've made ( e.g. subprime mortgages, Iraq War, underfunded social programs ) must be paid for; tax payers will pay. And there goes one of the biggest advantages that the US had as a place to live compared to say, Canada. Lower taxes. Not anymore, many states are higher taxes now and trending higher.
In reality, quality of life is equal or higher then the US in numerous countries already. Impossible to quantify this kind of thing precisely, but we all make choices where we live and it's largely irrelevant to rank such things. Often the main quality of life choices revolve around a mishmash of different options and no one country is appealing on all levels. For example, the fact that so many Americans pack heat and crime rates are pretty high is not a positive. Some of us prefer a culture where diversity is embraced not fought against by so many. Not everyone lives there life to maximize their bottom line, but those that do, sure, the US might be attractive if the industry is right.
But this whole "best country God ever invented" is a bit of a joke, suggesting you don't get out of the country very much.
Last edited:
Don't almost all politicians perennially champion lower Taxes? I think Sanders is, but for the lower economic classes only. He's been very outspoken about raising taxes on multimillionaires. What refreshing forthrightness that is! The more I hear this guy the more amazed I am, and the better I like him. I can't recall ever before having encountered a politician seemingly without a duplicitous bone in his body.and which one of the candidates is advocating lower taxes? or for that matter which party? You're the first liberal I ever heard saying the lower brackets are too high. Oh well, maybe if your side wins and Hillary is president and Schumer is running the senate they will fight for lower taxes on the lower brackets. Or hey! I got a better idea! Why not just leave tax rates where they are for the lowest, but give them something else in benefits? That way we can control it and grease a few palms.
What I suggested could be done is to put more progressiveness back into the income tax structure by bringing back additional brackets and raising the rates in the upper most few brackets. I also advocate bracketing unearned income, though I did not mention it. So, for example, if you and I both had taxable income of 1 million, but mine was unearned and yours was earned, I might get a tax break on only the first 100K of unearned income. I would pay exactly the same rate on the next 900K of unearned income as you would on your first 900K of earned income. I'd still be cheating you, because you'd be paying a higher rate then me on your first 100K, but no where near as bad as I can cheat you under the current tax code.
The highest bracket might go up to as much as 50-60% once we are over say 10 million. As long as we raise the higher brackets enough we can cut the lower two brackets and be revenue neutral. Amazingly, because there are so many more payers in the lowest two brackets, the weighted average tax rate paid goes down! This is, in the truest sense, a tax reduction with no decrease in revenue! When compounded over a couple decades it undoes the mischief done to the middle class from the 1980's on.
Just as no one was the wiser then, no one will be the wiser when we undo the mess. My guess is that this is the sort of thing Sanders has in mind. It is doable, politically feasible, and would be a shot in the arm for our economy. It would move the money from where it isn't needed to where it is. It would be a gradual and stealthy move. It would be wildly popular because it could be sold as a tax decrease, which it actually is, whereas Reagan's revenue neutral tax "decrease" was actually a tax increase when expressed as a weighted average tax rate paid! If Reagan and his favorite economist, Wendy Gramm, could sell an actual rate increase as a decrease, than surely any half wit politician can sell an actual tax decrease as a tax decrease!
_______________________
I'm guessing what Sanders has in mind is the opposite of what the Reagan administration did, except when Reagan announced a tax reduction it wasn't in the true sense a reduction, because the weighted average rate went up, despite rates in the upper brackets plummeting! What outrageous deception! It was a huge tax reduction for the wealthy -- no lie there -- but it was a small tax increase for the many, because the only way Reagan's supply side economists could get Congress to go along was to promise a revenue neutral rate reduction. That of course required that the rate in the lowest, or was it the lowest two?, brackets be increased!!! It is easy to understand why Sanders, or any other sane politician, will shy away from attempting to explain how it is that a revenue neutral tax reduction can be either an actual, average tax rate increase, or decrease, depending on whether the reduction goes to the upper or lower brackets. On course you have to use a weighted average, but a non-weighted average would be ridiculous. Reagan's folks wisely shied away from mentioning what effect their dramatic tax cut had on the average tax rate paid. And our arithmetic challenged society didn't ask.
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl...HfT4M&itg=1&usg=__eFKfgnSlkLHQeBprjlY7QGG6dbc=This isn't true at all. The internet is great at spreading myths. What you seem to be saying is the best school areas in the US perform better then the worst school areas in other countries. Throw in the fact that many of those schools are private, and things don't look very rosy for American schools in reality.
Of course, if you were well educated yourself, you should know this.
Last edited:
obama and the democrats raised the highest bracket (if you want to call letting a tax cut expire a raise) but they have yet to lower any bracket. 47% pay no fed income tax so we are running out of people to lower taxes on. Beware of Sanders, he calls an increase in benefits a tax break even if your rate goes up. Listen carefully when he talks about how we can have single payer without raising taxes, because to him the money we pay for healthcare is the same as money we pay in taxes.Don't almost all politicians perennially champion lower Taxes? I think Sanders is, but for the lower economic classes only. He's been very outspoken about raising taxes on multimillionaires. What refreshing forthrightness that is! The more I hear this guy the more amazed I am, and the better I like him. I can't recall ever before having encountered a politician seemingly without a duplicitous bone in his body.
What I suggested could be done is to put more progressiveness back into the income tax structure by bringing back additional brackets and raising the rates in the upper most few brackets. I also advocate bracketing unearned income, though I did not mention it. So, for example, if you and I both had taxable income of 1 million, but mine was unearned and yours was earned, I might get a tax break on only the first 100K of unearned income. I would pay exactly the same rate on the next 900K of unearned income as you would on your first 900K of earned income. I'd still be cheating you, because you'd be paying a higher rate then me on your first 100K, but no where near as bad as I can cheat you under the current tax code.
The highest bracket might go up to as much as 50-60% once we are over say 10 million. As long as we raise the higher brackets enough we can cut the lower two brackets and be revenue neutral. Amazingly, because there are so many more payers in the lowest two brackets, the weighted average tax rate paid goes down! This is, in the truest sense, a tax reduction with no decrease in revenue! When compounded over a couple decades it undoes the mischief done to the middle class from the 1980's on.
Just as no one was the wiser then, no one will be the wiser when we undo the mess. My guess is that this is the sort of thing Sanders has in mind. It is doable, politically feasible, and would be a shot in the arm for our economy. It would move the money from where it isn't needed to where it is. It would be a gradual and stealthy move. It would be wildly popular because it could be sold as a tax decrease, which it actually is, whereas Reagan's revenue neutral tax "decrease" was actually a tax increase when expressed as a weighted average tax rate paid! If Reagan and his favorite economist, Wendy Gramm, could sell an actual rate increase as a decrease, than surely any half wit politician can sell an actual tax decrease as a tax decrease!
_______________________
I'm guessing what Sanders has in mind is the opposite of what the Reagan administration did, except when Reagan announced a tax reduction it wasn't in the true sense a reduction, because the weighted average rate went up, despite rates in the upper brackets plummeting! What outrageous deception! It was a huge tax reduction for the wealthy -- no lie there -- but it was a small tax increase for the many, because the only way Reagan's supply side economists could get Congress to go along was to promise a revenue neutral rate reduction. That of course required that the rate in the lowest, or was it the lowest two?, brackets be increased!!! It is easy to understand why Sanders, or any other sane politician, will shy away from attempting to explain how it is that a revenue neutral tax reduction can be either an actual, average tax rate increase, or decrease, depending on whether the reduction goes to the upper or lower brackets. On course you have to use a weighted average, but a non-weighted average would be ridiculous. Reagan's folks wisely shied away from mentioning what effect their dramatic tax cut had on the average tax rate paid. And our arithmetic challenged society didn't ask.
(oh and BTW, Trump wants to raise taxes on hedge fund managers because they don't do any work he understands)
Last edited:
With trump that might be true. Inequity arises from having two classes of income, earned and unearned. The wealthy have much more unearned than the middle class who have little. We tax earned at a higher rate than unearned, and unearned is not bracketed. This, in no small measure, along with a reduction in tax progressiveness from the 1980s on, when compounded over many years, has contributed to our present-day, unhealthy wealth distribution. We were returning to the wealth distribution characteristic of banana republics. This is the "normal" distribution. The distribution we saw in the mid Twentieth Century was "abnormal", but highly desirable, if social stability and a technically advanced society is desired. The abnormal distribution can be maintained indefinitely, but it requires a progressive tax structure to counter the natural tendency of money to "trickle" up. Our U.S. tax structure went from progressive to somewhat regressive, and it is now returning to a greater measure of progressiveness. The expiration of the Bush tax cuts was a helpful step in that respect, but a little more progressiveness still is needed to reverse the bad effects of our foray into too little progressiveness.obama and the democrats raised the highest bracket (if you want to call letting a tax cut expire a raise) but they have yet to lower any bracket. 47% pay no fed income tax so we are running out of people to lower taxes on. Beware of Sanders, he calls an increase in benefits a tax break even if your rate goes up. Listen carefully when he talks about how we can have single payer without raising taxes, because to him the money we pay for healthcare is the same as money we pay in taxes.
(oh and BTW, Trump wants to raise taxes on hedge fund managers because they don't do any work he understands)
What is lost on many is the absolute fairness of a progressive tax structure, because under such a structure everyone, no matter what their income, pays exactly the same rate on the same dollar earned. This is also true of a flat tax. A flat tax, however, does nothing to counter the undesirable natural tendency of money to trickle up. We want people to be monetarily rewarded for ingenuity and hard work rather than for merely existing. Taxing unearned income at lower rates is highly regressive, as it accelerates the natural trickle-up tendency of money.
Last edited:
oh thanks a lot Grinch. About once a year one of you mythbusters has to come along and try to destroy everybody's spirit with outrageous claims like there is no such thing as American Exceptionalism or Santa Clause. Yet every year you see all the smiling faces of little chidren under the tree opening their gifts from Santa. And those little children grow up to be Exceptional Americans.American exceptionalism is a myth brought on by lucky circumstances and political campaign rhetoric. U.S. citizens are neither more nor less capable than the citizens of the other 13 industrialized nations we compare ourselves too.
oh thanks a lot Grinch. About once a year one of you mythbusters has to come along and try to destroy everybody's spirit with outrageous claims like there is no such thing as American Exceptionalism or Santa Clause. Yet every year you see all the smiling faces of little chidren under the tree opening their gifts from Santa. And those little children grow up to be Exceptional Americans.
Might have to explain to them why US national debt is rapidly climbing, why their tax bills and social costs ( e.g. medical ) will be higher, why a good deal of the world ( especially the Middle East ) dislikes them, why the middle class has shrunk, etc etc.
In other words, under current US policy, if you aren't "exceptional", you're screwed. Only the top 1% of Americans can prosper under your current system.