Rich Man, Poor Man

[heisenbern]

Continued from post above...

 

[Tsing Tao]

Voluntary taxes don't work. For example, even in the most progressive country in the world:

What? Seriously?

I said find me a party that wants to get rid of half of the things on your list. You zero in on things not on the list you gave (trash, fire department, etc).

See video below.

No. I'm sorry, I don't have the time to watch all these videos you want me to. If you want to sum up a few points, I can discuss.

 

[Tsing Tao]

Tao, what I was indirectly implying with my post stating how happy I would be to pay the top rate on most of my income, is how implicitly fair a bracketed, progressive income tax structure can be. Everyone pays exactly the same rate on the 10th dollar and the Millionth dollar of AGI. Of course the rates are different for the tenth and millionth dollar, but they are the same rates for everyone. It is just that most earners have no millionth dollar of AGI. We would all like to!

Even with a flat tax those with High AGI will pay more toward maintaining government than those with Low AGI, so both a progressive tax structure and a flat or flatter (fewer brackets, lower top rate) are similar in that respect. And both are fair, at least in the sense, that everyone pays the same rate on the tenth dollar and millioneth dollar of AGI.

The problem with too flat a tax structure, i.e., one with too few brackets and/or too low a top rate, isn't unfairness* but rather that a too flat rate structure accelerates the natural tendency for wealth disparity to grow over time. Both history and common sense tell us that too extreme a wealth disparity leads to social instability**, which we universally believe is a bad thing. Consequently, I think, our taxation debate shouldn't be limited to how much revenue is needed, but should in large part be about how much progressiveness in the tax structure is needed to maintain societal stability.

Sometimes I have seen a flat tax promoted on the basis of simplicity. But this is obviously a misconception. A bracketed progressive structure is hardly any more complex than a perfectly flat structure. As you will know, U.S. tax complexity does not come from the rate structure but from other features of the tax code.
_______________________________
*An argument can be made that any tax structure that leads to an extremely skewed wealth distribution will ultimately create unfairness, but that is another topic.
**Instability comes when opportunity is cut off no matter how hard one works or tries to get ahead, and the odds of succeeding are very low. In a capitalist society, opportunity is tied to not only initiative and diligence, but also to both access to capital and education -- there are other factors as well. There is strong correlation between growing wealth disparity and a shrinking middle class, growing household debt and deterioration of the public education system. Specific causes and effects are of course the source of endless debate.

I don't have any arguments with this.

 

[heisenbern]

I said find me a party that wants to get rid of half of the things on your list. You zero in on things not on the list you gave (trash, fire department, etc).



No. I'm sorry, I don't have the time to watch all these videos you want me to. If you want to sum up a few points, I can discuss.

I will answer your first statement soon.

As to length of video, unfortunately some of the videos I post are somewhat long and I don't expect anyone to watch them in length.

From now on, if they are long, I will point to the time index. If they are short meaning two minutes or so, I will try to remember and state that is is short. It doesn't take longer to watch those than to read what I say.

 

[fhl]

Both history and common sense tell us that too extreme a wealth disparity leads to social instability**, which we universally believe is a bad thing.

^ That's the leftist narrative and leftists are going to stick to it no matter what the facts.
Maybe antifa protesters will decide that disagreeing with this notion is the next thing that deserves a good beating.


Meanwhile, in the real world:

Chavez leaves Venezuelan economy more equal, less stable - CNN
www.cnn.com/2013/03/06/business/venezuela-chavez-oil-economy/index.html

 

[heisenbern]

^ That's the leftist narrative and leftists are going to stick to it no matter what the facts.
Maybe antifa protesters will decide that disagreeing with this notion is the next thing that deserves a good beating.


Meanwhile, in the real world:

Chavez leaves Venezuelan economy more equal, less stable - CNN
www.cnn.com/2013/03/06/business/venezuela-chavez-oil-economy/index.html

The most famous example that contradicts your thesis is the French Revolution. The facts are complicated. For example

Does Inequality Cause Crime?
New research suggests that what matters isn't disparity itself, but whether people are flaunting their riches.

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/10/does-inequality-cause-crime/381748/

On the other hand:

Income Inequality’s Strange Relationship to Violence

By Elaine Denny and Barbara F. Walter

Protesters gather in Tijuana, Mexico to denounce violence. Photo by Fronteras Desk.

"A strange pattern recently caught our eye. Numerous studies about murder rates have found that on average countries with high income inequality also have high murder rates..."


But the harm goes far beyond violence:

17 Minutes:

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

"A strange pattern recently caught our eye. Numerous studies about murder rates have found that on average countries with high income inequality also have high murder rates..."

This is statistical nonsense, drawing a conclusion regarding causation from an apparent correlation. It is literally the first thing you learn in Stat 101. Any academic making such an argument is essentially perpetrating a fraud.

 

[jem]

Why are we arguing about income taxes.
Why do have income and death taxes? The answer is to control the competition for assets and politicians. Its not to fund the US govt.

There is not one person on this board and few if any in our govt who could tell us how much inflation a no income tax policy would cause because we have no idea how many new electronic dollars the fed puts into circulation every year.

What causes inflation you say?


We have experienced massive inflation (700 percent in the last 50 years) as world demand for dollars grew. How is that possible?

Instead of inflation we should have had a massively stronger dollar. We should be buying BMWs for 1970s prices the demand for the dollar was so strong.

We should not be arguing about income taxes until we actually know how many dollars are being created every year.

2. It would be much wiser to just cap spending and eliminate income taxes. This would force our govt to make meaningful choices. We would then be voting on social programs vs military vs crony spending. It would not be people vs more income tax. Things would get real and I think they would get better.

 

[jem]

income inequality is typically a ridiculous argument.

We posted a study here showing that income taxes cause everyone to suffer and lower taxes help everyone.

Why should we cause everyone to suffer just to get every one to suffer more equally.

you want more fairness. eliminate income taxes and eliminate benefit cliffs for those getting handouts.

then you will have far less suffering and lower need for govt handouts.

Finally if you want to help the poor give them more money. No reason to raise taxes. even if it causes inflation. everyone shares in that burden equally. with income taxes... you screw the people working for the money. Then the govt mismanages it. then the poor don't even get the full benefit because they have benefit cliffs.

 

[heisenbern]

This is statistical nonsense, drawing a conclusion regarding causation from an apparent correlation. It is literally the first thing you learn in Stat 101. Any academic making such an argument is essentially perpetrating a fraud.

If you want to talk about statistical nonsense, your "Stats 101", is to deny human forced global warming repeatedly on this site. Lack of Statistical wisdom doesn't seem to stop you guys/gals.

That said, that study has every right to claim a causal relationship between income levels and crime. It is you that needs to to study theoretical statistics, not the guy that wrote that article who probably has at least a masters degree in statistics. Doesn't make him right, but you attacking a man you don't even know is a red herring.

I suggest you read the post "How to Tell if Correlation Implies Causation" and educate yourself on this thread:

https://www.elitetrader.com/et/threads/an-incomplete-education.311549/

Note Well: I do agree that statistics is abused horribly in the literature to bias a point. Even by "Experts".