Should America Be An Aristocracy?

[Typical TBD Guy]

Then you should be for Progressive taxation, it does that

 

Not necessarily. It depends on what part of the economy you want to stimulate. Flat tax policies tend to favor capital investments, while progressive tax policies tend to favor consumption goods. Also, with progressive taxation, you know you're losing a more significant amount of wealth creation potential due to wealth redistribution (example: a wealthy owner of a widget company gets a specific size of his money taken away from the IRS, he contracts certain widget company operations as a result, the IRS redirects that sum of money to the poor, the poor use that money to buy widgets, the widget owner sees his company grow as a result of the rise in widget purchasing, but his original cash taken from the IRS as swell as the original company operations contraction still subtract from whatever newfound monetary gains he saw).

 

As I stated in my above post to Steely Dan, I can tolerate a progressive income tax provided the rates are cut by about 50% across the board. But in our current economic situation, I would prefer a flat tax policy (i.e. a less progressive tax plan) because capital investments should be the highest priority on the eve of a deep recession like this one. So I suppose I am in favor of McCain's tax plan over Obama's. The trouble, however, is that I trust Obama to balance the budget much more than I do McCain since we know neither is likely to cut federal spending. If the deficit problem lingers too much longer, we might have to face some harsh monetary policy decisions that could jeopardize the value of our dollar. It's a Giant Douche vs. Turd Sandwich economic dilemma...

 

P.S. Sorry for getting off topic, Steely Dan. Yes, I voted that American should be a meritocracy.

[molson_golden2002]

Not necessarily. It depends on what part of the economy you want to stimulate. Flat tax policies tend to favor capital investments, while progressive tax policies tend to favor consumption goods. Also, with progressive taxation, you know you're losing a more significant amount of wealth creation potential due to wealth redistribution (example: a wealthy owner of a widget company gets a specific size of his money taken away from the IRS, he contracts certain widget company operations as a result, the IRS redirects that sum of money to the poor, the poor use that money to buy widgets, the widget owner sees his company grow as a result of the rise in widget purchasing, but his original cash taken from the IRS as swell as the original company operations contraction still subtract from whatever newfound monetary gains he saw).

 

As I stated in my above post to Steely Dan, I can tolerate a progressive income tax provided the rates are cut by about 50% across the board. But in our current economic situation, I would prefer a flat tax policy (i.e. a less progressive tax plan) because capital investments should be the highest priority on the eve of a deep recession like this one. So I suppose I am in favor of McCain's tax plan over Obama's. The trouble, however, is that I trust Obama to balance the budget much more than I do McCain since we know neither is likely to cut federal spending. If the deficit problem lingers too much longer, we might have to face some harsh monetary policy decisions that could jeopardize the value of our dollar. It's a Giant Douche vs. Turd Sandwich economic dilemma...

 

P.S. Sorry for getting off topic, Steely Dan. Yes, I voted that American should be a meritocracy.

 

The current economic storm might not be half played out yet and a lack of consumer spending power is already starting to ripple through the economy.

[Steely Dan]

I'm against a federal income tax in principle, but if we must continue to have one, then I'd be content with a 0% tax rate for the poor that progresses to a cap rate of 15-20% for the very wealthy. I'd balance the budget under this tax plan, of course, by drastically reducing the size and scope of the federal government.

 

Yeah, good luck with that. I'm talking about the real world not fantasy land.

 

 

 

So are you suggesting that the U.S. was never upwardly mobile until 1913? What about the Gilded Age?! I'd also suggest trying to tell all the doctors, lawyers, scientists, engineers, and entrepreneurs in this country with a straight face that their life success in any significant way could be attributed, directly or indirectly, to progressive income tax benefits (as opposed to having worked hard in school, worked hard at their job, managed their finances, and accepted general personal responsibility).

 

The need for Federal revenue declined sharply after the war and most taxes were repealed. By 1868, the main source of Government revenue derived from liquor and tobacco taxes. The income tax was abolished in 1872. From 1868 to 1913, almost 90 percent of all revenue was collected from the remaining excises.

 

Linkage

 

No, I believe it's more upwardly mobile due to that . Also you are speaking of times without income taxes. The Gilded Age was from 1878-1889

 

You're referring to a time of no income taxes.

 

When I worked at the hospital with anesthesiologists 90% of them came from families of doctors. Yes, they work hard in school but they have a huge advantage in their stepping off point. Not having to pay for medical school is a HUGE advantage. My brother's best friend is the son of a man who owns his own company and recently sold it for 15 million. His friend has started four business' that ended up failing. He was able to afford those losses because he had the financial backing of his family. How many investors outside his family would invest in a four time loser? A large part of being able to do those things comes from a very wealthy base. Are there those who can do it from the bottom? Yes, but the progressive tax helps them in being able to do it.

 

 

 

Typical class warfare rhetoric mixed in with typical Steely Dan beliefs in conspiracy theories. The wealthy really aren't out to get you. If you're smart and hard working and fluent in PowerPoint, they may even pay you an annual salary to join them in their diabolical pursuits.

 

It's not a conspiracy theory it's fact. I put it poorly. I should have said a lot of people instead of the upper crust as a whole. Those against a progressive tax are the people I'm referring to. Have you ever heard of the old boys club and the glass ceiling?

 

 

You make it sound like private charity in America is irrelevant. I'm sorry, but that is blatantly false. Look up the stats, or just open your eyes. A classic example: New Orleans after Katrina.

 

Where did I say it was irrelevant? My point was that it doesn't come close to the necessary monies needed to solve these problems. You picked a very poor analogy because huge amounts of government subsidies were needed for that disaster. Charity fell way short of what was needed and that proves the point I was making.

 

 

 

But you can't have a totalitarian state without the law and order muscle of government. Aristocrats need to control government before they can control the citizens. Corporations need to manipulate government market intervention before they can manipulate their consumers. Also keep in mind that the corrupting influence of aristocratic money on government is directly proportional to government size. If the voting public stays politically informed on candidates and protests such things as corporate bailouts and pork barrel legislation, aristocratic political influence is rendered impotent.

 

You don't believe the government isn't controlled by the wealthy? You don't believe that industry lobbyists don't control a vast amount of legislation in our government? You're naive. The only reason it's not a totalitarian nightmare is because some of the wealthy (i.e. most Democrats) care about the middle and lower classes.

 

 

Wrong. Revolutions don't result from large financial gaps between social classes if the percentage of people in the poorest social classes happen to be comparatively low, and/or if the poorest social classes are also able to maintain an acceptable standard of living.

 

I don't understand how that refutes my point.

 

You are 100% correct when stating that the economy will grow if you give more money to poor/middle class consumers. But it grows even more if you give more money to the rich so they can invest in new business or research endeavors that create more jobs. So why not try to do both? Cut taxes on both groups, and cut frivolous government spending to make up for any lost revenue (assuming there is even any lost revenue, depending on the nation's current place on the Laffer curve).

 

Trickle down economics is a stupid economic model IMO. That's what we've had since Bush has been in office. How'd that work out? When they want to jump start the economy they give money to the middle and lower classes. Why is that? It's because consumerism drives the economy a lot more than giving the rich tax breaks. As I pointed out above the majority of the people who get help with starting business' are already wealthy. Trickle down economics was the Reagan way of doing things. It helped out in the short term but the economy was a mess when Bush 41 left office and when Clinton left office there was a budget surplus.

 

 

Estate Tax: n., ghoulish. As in seeing a fatal car wreck and walking up and rifling the pockets of the dead.

 

Why is collecting taxes on things that have never been taxed before ghoulish? Is is it ghoulish for the outstanding debts of the deceased be paid? Should those companies just let those claims go because the person died?

[StupidNation]

The current economic storm might not be half played out yet and a lack of consumer spending power is already starting to ripple through the economy.

 

So you think more spending and consumption is the problem when our issue is lack of savings and production? How can you increase spending when there isn't enough real money in liquidity and it has to be borrowed? You have the welfare mentality where you can just print up more money when times get bad. You are lucky we have the power we do, and when it's gone the printing press goes with it.

 

And we wonder why liberals get elected... ignorance

[Steely Dan]

So you think more spending and consumption is the problem when our issue is lack of savings and production? How can you increase spending when there isn't enough real money in liquidity and it has to be borrowed? You have the welfare mentality where you can just print up more money when times get bad. You are lucky we have the power we do, and when it's gone the printing press goes with it.

 

And we wonder why liberals get elected... ignorance

 

If more spending and consumption isn't critical to the economy then why have stimulation checks been handed out twice in this administration when the economy tanked?

 

And you think he's ignorant?!

[StupidNation]

If more spending and consumption isn't critical to the economy then why have stimulation checks been handed out twice in this administration when the economy tanked?

 

And you think he's ignorant?!

 

I almost thought this was satire, until I got to the point you thought I was ignorant.

 

Why don't you tell me what the stimulus checks have done. We borrowed $10 billion from China to give back $6 billion in their goods. We are $10 billion in the hole and the economy hasn't changed.

 

I'm sorry, but you have no freaking idea what you are talking about. We need to tank because we are built on expanding credit. We don't have the infrastructure economically to continue. What you are saying is to create an electronics and garbage bubble for the poor so that the economy can increase. If that's the case why work? Just have the government print money and we can watch the ships go by.

 

The reality is you can only say what you have because we got off the gold standard. Destroying the currency is worse than stimulating the economy artificially. I know that might be hard for a liberal to understand, but give it less than 10 years when our nation's credit status changes. You will see it in your lifetime, and all of your ignorant statements will come home to roost.

 

Economies are best when they are producing, exporting, and finally spending. If I was to plan a way for my family to exceed financially I would work, produce, save, and then spend. Liberal think they can rob that man of his work to get ahead because they didn't work and save, and when all else fails borrow more. Every country which has came off a standard of currency that is stable has collapsed. If a country spends without working and saving it spends on credit. Someone has to pay for it, it's not free money.

[Steely Dan]

You said.

 

So you think more spending and consumption is the problem when our issue is lack of savings and production? How can you increase spending when there isn't enough real money in liquidity and it has to be borrowed? You have the welfare mentality where you can just print up more money when times get bad. You are lucky we have the power we do, and when it's gone the printing press goes with it.

 

And we wonder why liberals get elected... ignorance

 

I said.

 

If more spending and consumption isn't critical to the economy then why have stimulation checks been handed out twice in this administration when the economy tanked?

 

And you think he's ignorant?!

 

I'll take the word of the economists who suggest the stimulus checks over you.