ACA Repeal/Replace: Progressives Face Moral Dilemma

[Eric the Green]

(09-06-2017, 11:59 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(09-06-2017, 09:53 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(09-05-2017, 06:22 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(09-05-2017, 02:53 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(09-05-2017, 01:52 PM)beechnut79 Wrote: While we all would enjoy not having to owe the IRS every year, how is that going to save a lot of money when the whole purpose of it is, supposedly, to obtain funds with which to run the government? Some have suggested replacing it with a personal consumption tax, which in effect would be like a national sales tax.

Let us just suppose that we could abolish the IRS.  There are three possible taxation methods to raise funds for the government (after of course it is shrunk down to a more managable size).

1.  Tariffs on imported goods.  Which is a fundimentally good idea.  I would strongly recommend that tariffs be very high on manufactured goods, your chinese Ishits for example or Japanese cars, and low on raw materials like oil, ore and etc.  This would would provide incentive to onshore production.
2.  Individual income flat tax.  I'd prefer to not have one at all.  Direct taxation was prohibited until 1913 for a reason, that reason is the US is not a single unified republic, rather it is a federation of sovereign states.  If direct taxation on income is necessary let the states do it.  
3.  National sales tax.  I'm not too fussed by that.

Also property taxes of various types.  Georgist land taxes, in particular, do not depress economic activity the way other taxes do.

That's more than wrong.  Taxation is taxation ... period.  Property taxes don't fall strictly on those most able to pay, since much of the land being taxed is and will be rented by others of lesser means or added to the cost of goods produced on that land, since there aren't many large estates that have no economic product of some kind.  Expect a major rise in the cost of food, for example.  Those less able to pay defer other spending to pay those taxes.  Tax spending, on the other hand, improves the economy. 

And a word on tariffs: we raise ours and others raise theirs in response.  All that does is force us to produce goods and services we are less equipped to produce, lowering productivity and shrinking the economy.  Sorry, there is no free lunch.

The math on the subject contradicts you.  Land taxes do not increase rents; they only cut the income to the land owners.  This is because, with little exception, land is not something that is produced, and thus is not something whose production can be depressed through taxes.

Property taxes are not equal to "land taxes." They are mostly about what's built (or grown?) on the land ("something produced"). The important considerations in the economy are not just "depressing production through taxes" but increasing rents and prices through taxation, and decreasing commerce through less government spending and thus too little taxes. And companies monopolizing and increasing prices and depressing wages, landlords speculating/flipping and thus increasing home values, etc.

[David Horn]

(09-06-2017, 11:59 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(09-06-2017, 09:53 AM)David Horn Wrote: ...  Property taxes don't fall strictly on those most able to pay, since much of the land being taxed is and will be rented by others of lesser means or added to the cost of goods produced on that land, since there aren't many large estates that have no economic product of some kind.  Expect a major rise in the cost of food, for example.  Those less able to pay defer other spending to pay those taxes.  Tax spending, on the other hand, improves the economy. 

And a word on tariffs: we raise ours and others raise theirs in response.  All that does is force us to produce goods and services we are less equipped to produce, lowering productivity and shrinking the economy.  Sorry, there is no free lunch.

The math on the subject contradicts you.  Land taxes do not increase rents; they only cut the income to the land owners.  This is because, with little exception, land is not something that is produced, and thus is not something whose production can be depressed through taxes.

It's odd that you folks on the right insist that costs are always passed through, except when it's inconvenient.  If land is limited and demand exceeds supply, then costs can always be passed through.  If supply exceeds demand, those land taxes will create downward pressure on the land values and taxes will decline.  If the burden is deemed to be too great, the land will be abandoned.  If the burden is light, inadequate revenues will be obtained.  More to the point, the value of almost all new assets will be exempt entirely.  Software and most services have no need of land anywhere.

I know that this contradicts the opinion of several noted economists, but so be it.  Find the error in my logic, if you can.

[Warren Dew]

(09-06-2017, 02:17 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(09-06-2017, 11:59 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(09-06-2017, 09:53 AM)David Horn Wrote: ...  Property taxes don't fall strictly on those most able to pay, since much of the land being taxed is and will be rented by others of lesser means or added to the cost of goods produced on that land, since there aren't many large estates that have no economic product of some kind.  Expect a major rise in the cost of food, for example.  Those less able to pay defer other spending to pay those taxes.  Tax spending, on the other hand, improves the economy. 

And a word on tariffs: we raise ours and others raise theirs in response.  All that does is force us to produce goods and services we are less equipped to produce, lowering productivity and shrinking the economy.  Sorry, there is no free lunch.

The math on the subject contradicts you.  Land taxes do not increase rents; they only cut the income to the land owners.  This is because, with little exception, land is not something that is produced, and thus is not something whose production can be depressed through taxes.

It's odd that you folks on the right insist that costs are always passed through, except when it's inconvenient.  If land is limited and demand exceeds supply, then costs can always be passed through.  If supply exceeds demand, those land taxes will create downward pressure on the land values and taxes will decline.  If the burden is deemed to be too great, the land will be abandoned.  If the burden is light, inadequate revenues will be obtained.  More to the point, the value of almost all new assets will be exempt entirely.  Software and most services have no need of land anywhere.

I know that this contradicts the opinion of several noted economists, but so be it.  Find the error in my logic, if you can.

The error in your logic is that, like many on the left, you incorrectly assume that supply and demand are scalars rather than functions.

[pbrower2a]

(09-06-2017, 09:53 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(09-05-2017, 06:22 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(09-05-2017, 02:53 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(09-05-2017, 01:52 PM)beechnut79 Wrote: While we all would enjoy not having to owe the IRS every year, how is that going to save a lot of money when the whole purpose of it is, supposedly, to obtain funds with which to run the government? Some have suggested replacing it with a personal consumption tax, which in effect would be like a national sales tax.

Let us just suppose that we could abolish the IRS.  There are three possible taxation methods to raise funds for the government (after of course it is shrunk down to a more managable size).

1.  Tariffs on imported goods.  Which is a fundimentally good idea.  I would strongly recommend that tariffs be very high on manufactured goods, your chinese Ishits for example or Japanese cars, and low on raw materials like oil, ore and etc.  This would would provide incentive to onshore production.
2.  Individual income flat tax.  I'd prefer to not have one at all.  Direct taxation was prohibited until 1913 for a reason, that reason is the US is not a single unified republic, rather it is a federation of sovereign states.  If direct taxation on income is necessary let the states do it.  
3.  National sales tax.  I'm not too fussed by that.

Also property taxes of various types.  Georgist land taxes, in particular, do not depress economic activity the way other taxes do.

That's more than wrong.  Taxation is taxation ... period.  Property taxes don't fall strictly on those most able to pay, since much of the land being taxed is and will be rented by others of lesser means or added to the cost of goods produced on that land, since there aren't many large estates that have no economic product of some kind.  Expect a major rise in the cost of food, for example.  Those less able to pay defer other spending to pay those taxes.  Tax spending, on the other hand, improves the economy. 

And a word on tariffs: we raise ours and others raise theirs in response.  All that does is force us to produce goods and services we are less equipped to produce, lowering productivity and shrinking the economy.  Sorry, there is no free lunch.

David George's idea is that of all the ways of making money, taking advantage of a permanent scarcity of real estate in a captive clientele, is the easiest.  Heavily taxing income that people earn with great difficulty can drive people out of a marginal activity, but heavily taxing 'easy money' isn't going to drive people out of it.

[Kinser79]

(09-06-2017, 09:28 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(09-05-2017, 02:53 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: Let us just suppose that we could abolish the IRS.  There are three possible taxation methods to raise funds for the government (after of course it is shrunk down to a more manageable size)...

Yeah, cut spending, but on what exactly?  You can't avoid debt payment, though they are historically low at the moment.  The GOP wants more for defense, so that's out.  Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid have very loud constituencies, that vote.  The rest is trivial.

If you're asking me what I want to cut from the federal budget:  Everything that isn't the military, the post office or related to other enumerated powers.  Everything else can be and probably should be turned over to the States to run.  And once most government falls to the state level it will be far easier to cut that down to size too.

[David Horn]

(09-06-2017, 07:11 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: The error in your logic is that, like many on the left, you incorrectly assume that supply and demand are scalars rather than functions.

Frankly, I'm baffled by this comment.  If there is an implication to this, please be a bit less opaque.  I agree that supply can be lacking at times, but those times are both rare and often manufactured.  Yes, we have shortages that shift pricing power to those with the remaining supplies.  I was an adult when the 1973 oil embargo showed us how that works.  But on the whole, as an advanced society we have access to more of everything than we need and even desire, so demand drives the economy not supply.

[David Horn]

(09-07-2017, 04:51 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: David George's idea is that of all the ways of making money, taking advantage of a permanent scarcity of real estate in a captive clientele, is the easiest.  Heavily taxing income that people earn with great difficulty can drive people out of a marginal activity, but heavily taxing 'easy money' isn't going to drive people out of it.

OK, but land no longer holds the intrinsic worth it once did.  Sure, every square inch of Manhattan is worth enough to offset any taxation cost, but what about the prairie?  If I'm a farmer with 5 sections of land growing row crops, I own a large percentage of the taxable assets within my taxing authority, but the utility of the land is not high.  

This was a good idea that may have seen the limit of its value.

[David Horn]

(09-07-2017, 07:48 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(09-06-2017, 09:28 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(09-05-2017, 02:53 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: Let us just suppose that we could abolish the IRS.  There are three possible taxation methods to raise funds for the government (after of course it is shrunk down to a more manageable size)...

Yeah, cut spending, but on what exactly?  You can't avoid debt payment, though they are historically low at the moment.  The GOP wants more for defense, so that's out.  Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid have very loud constituencies, that vote.  The rest is trivial.

If you're asking me what I want to cut from the federal budget:  Everything that isn't the military, the post office or related to other enumerated powers.  Everything else can be and probably should be turned over to the States to run.  And once most government falls to the state level it will be far easier to cut that down to size too.

To borrow a phrase from Paul Krugman, the US government is an insurance company with an army.  Good luck changing that, since the beneficiaries are reliable voters.  On the other hand, we have a Post Office that isn't anymore (the USPS is as much part of government today as SallieMae and FreddieMac) and the army is only a temporary part of our military, since it only exists by being funded at least once every two years.

We aren't a tiny country poised on the edge of a wilderness in the late Agricultural Age -- not anymore.  Pretending we are is both stupid and dangerous.

[Kinser79]

(09-08-2017, 09:34 AM)David Horn Wrote: We aren't a tiny country poised on the edge of a wilderness in the late Agricultural Age -- not anymore.  Pretending we are is both stupid and dangerous.

We aren't an industrial power with limitless wealth and low debt either and pretending that we are is far more stupid and far more dangerous. Turning vast swaths over to the states is not only doable but the right thing to do. The Constitution is best understood to be a compact for mutual trade and assistance rather than the formation of a unitary republic, for which even today the country is too large and too diverse to be.

The rest of your post is the usual liberal nonsense.

[pbrower2a]

(09-08-2017, 09:26 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(09-07-2017, 04:51 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: David George's idea is that of all the ways of making money, taking advantage of a permanent scarcity of real estate in a captive clientele, is the easiest.  Heavily taxing income that people earn with great difficulty can drive people out of a marginal activity, but heavily taxing 'easy money' isn't going to drive people out of it.

OK, but land no longer holds the intrinsic worth it once did.  Sure, every square inch of Manhattan is worth enough to offset any taxation cost, but what about the prairie?  If I'm a farmer with 5 sections of land growing row crops, I own a large percentage of the taxable assets within my taxing authority, but the utility of the land is not high.  

This was a good idea that may have seen the limit of its value.

A plot of land large enough to hold a farmhouse in a giant city might be worth more than five sections of farmland growing row crops or a few  square miles of range land. In the county in which I live (which has much lake property) farmland is taxed almost at a zero rate and lake properties are taxed heavily.

[David Horn]

(09-08-2017, 11:49 AM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(09-08-2017, 09:34 AM)David Horn Wrote: We aren't a tiny country poised on the edge of a wilderness in the late Agricultural Age -- not anymore.  Pretending we are is both stupid and dangerous.

We aren't an industrial power with limitless wealth and low debt either and pretending that we are is far more stupid and far more dangerous. Turning vast swaths over to the states is not only doable but the right thing to do.  The Constitution is best understood to be a compact for mutual trade and assistance rather than the formation of a unitary republic, for which even today the country is too large and too diverse to be.

The rest of your post is the usual liberal nonsense.

You fundamentally misunderstand how the economy works.  It's not a zero-sum game.  Economic activity creates more economic activity.  When the economy is slack, like it is at the moment, debt financed activity can start a righteous cycle of additional activity, but only if we actually do it.  40 years of GOP dominance in the economic sphere has created a systemic underperforming economic engine because Republicans refuse to accept the obvious: the private sector only works to its advantage.  Public sector investment is also needed and it's now critical. 

Feel free to pretend that your static view is correct, but answer this simple question: why did the US do so incredibly well for so long, when we exited WW-II with Federal debt equal to ~126% of GNP?  We're well below that now, and you are crying wolf.  

Yes, times are different.  Our population is stagnant now and it was expanding then.  This is a real issue, and more immigration will help with that, but waving the debt flag is both supercilious and flat wrong.  I notice it doesn't seem to apply to Defense spending or to huge tax breaks to the wealthy.  And handing things back to the states?  Really?  How do you think Jim Crow got going in the first place?

[David Horn]

(09-08-2017, 06:41 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(09-08-2017, 09:26 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(09-07-2017, 04:51 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: David George's idea is that of all the ways of making money, taking advantage of a permanent scarcity of real estate in a captive clientele, is the easiest.  Heavily taxing income that people earn with great difficulty can drive people out of a marginal activity, but heavily taxing 'easy money' isn't going to drive people out of it.

OK, but land no longer holds the intrinsic worth it once did.  Sure, every square inch of Manhattan is worth enough to offset any taxation cost, but what about the prairie?  If I'm a farmer with 5 sections of land growing row crops, I own a large percentage of the taxable assets within my taxing authority, but the utility of the land is not high.  

This was a good idea that may have seen the limit of its value.

A plot of land large enough to hold a farmhouse in a giant city might be worth more than five sections of farmland growing row crops or a few  square miles of range land. In the county in which I live (which has much lake property) farmland is taxed almost at a zero rate and lake properties are taxed heavily.

I'm OK with this kind of wealth tax, but it's inadequate to the needs of the country if we decide this is our standalone solution.  From the right, this is a good idea, because it will gut taxation.  Rich people won't allow the rest of us to tax away their wealth.  Unless that changes, this is an ancillary tax at best.

[Kinser79]

(09-09-2017, 08:01 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(09-08-2017, 11:49 AM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(09-08-2017, 09:34 AM)David Horn Wrote: We aren't a tiny country poised on the edge of a wilderness in the late Agricultural Age -- not anymore.  Pretending we are is both stupid and dangerous.

We aren't an industrial power with limitless wealth and low debt either and pretending that we are is far more stupid and far more dangerous. Turning vast swaths over to the states is not only doable but the right thing to do.  The Constitution is best understood to be a compact for mutual trade and assistance rather than the formation of a unitary republic, for which even today the country is too large and too diverse to be.

The rest of your post is the usual liberal nonsense.

You fundamentally misunderstand how the economy works.  It's not a zero-sum game.  Economic activity creates more economic activity.  When the economy is slack, like it is at the moment, debt financed activity can start a righteous cycle of additional activity, but only if we actually do it.  40 years of GOP dominance in the economic sphere has created a systemic underperforming economic engine because Republicans refuse to accept the obvious: the private sector only works to its advantage.  Public sector investment is also needed and it's now critical. 

Feel free to pretend that your static view is correct, but answer this simple question: why did the US do so incredibly well for so long, when we exited WW-II with Federal debt equal to ~126% of GNP?  We're well below that now, and you are crying wolf.  

Yes, times are different.  Our population is stagnant now and it was expanding then.  This is a real issue, and more immigration will help with that, but waving the debt flag is both supercilious and flat wrong.  I notice it doesn't seem to apply to Defense spending or to huge tax breaks to the wealthy.  And handing things back to the states?  Really?  How do you think Jim Crow got going in the first place?

And you fundamentally misunderstand that taxation is at its most basic level theft.  But that isn't here nor there.  The fact remains that if you want to increase economic activity you have to decrease taxes, if you really want to accelerate economic activity you decrease taxes on those who produce wealth, which largely speaking means corporations.

Short of that the only real way to accelerate economic growth by government spending is to waste huge sums on a war.  I think we've been trying to blow that bubble back up for some time now--it isn't working out to well.

The GMs and Googles and the GEs don't really pay all that much in corporate taxes because they have and can afford to have armies of lawyers and accountants to reduce their tax burdens through the byzantine mess the tax code is.  So who gets slammed with the high corporate rate?  Smaller companies which actually employs most people.

Until you can demonstrate to me that you have a modicum of economic understanding of an average High School Student then perhaps we could have a reasonable conversation about the tax rate.  Unfortunately I highly doubt you have the intellect for such an understanding.  You can get back to me about corporate taxes when you've run a business.

[Bob Butler 54]

(09-09-2017, 09:53 AM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(09-09-2017, 08:01 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(09-08-2017, 11:49 AM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(09-08-2017, 09:34 AM)David Horn Wrote: We aren't a tiny country poised on the edge of a wilderness in the late Agricultural Age -- not anymore.  Pretending we are is both stupid and dangerous.

We aren't an industrial power with limitless wealth and low debt either and pretending that we are is far more stupid and far more dangerous. Turning vast swaths over to the states is not only doable but the right thing to do.  The Constitution is best understood to be a compact for mutual trade and assistance rather than the formation of a unitary republic, for which even today the country is too large and too diverse to be.

The rest of your post is the usual liberal nonsense.

You fundamentally misunderstand how the economy works.  It's not a zero-sum game.  Economic activity creates more economic activity.  When the economy is slack, like it is at the moment, debt financed activity can start a righteous cycle of additional activity, but only if we actually do it.  40 years of GOP dominance in the economic sphere has created a systemic underperforming economic engine because Republicans refuse to accept the obvious: the private sector only works to its advantage.  Public sector investment is also needed and it's now critical. 

Feel free to pretend that your static view is correct, but answer this simple question: why did the US do so incredibly well for so long, when we exited WW-II with Federal debt equal to ~126% of GNP?  We're well below that now, and you are crying wolf.  

Yes, times are different.  Our population is stagnant now and it was expanding then.  This is a real issue, and more immigration will help with that, but waving the debt flag is both supercilious and flat wrong.  I notice it doesn't seem to apply to Defense spending or to huge tax breaks to the wealthy.  And handing things back to the states?  Really?  How do you think Jim Crow got going in the first place?

And you fundamentally misunderstand that taxation is at its most basic level theft.  But that isn't here nor there.  The fact remains that if you want to increase economic activity you have to decrease taxes, if you really want to accelerate economic activity you decrease taxes on those who produce wealth, which largely speaking means corporations.

Short of that the only real way to accelerate economic growth by government spending is to waste huge sums on a war.  I think we've been trying to blow that bubble back up for some time now--it isn't working out to well.

The GMs and Googles and the GEs don't really pay all that much in corporate taxes because they have and can afford to have armies of lawyers and accountants to reduce their tax burdens through the byzantine mess the tax code is.  So who gets slammed with the high corporate rate?  Smaller companies which actually employs most people.

Until you can demonstrate to me that you have a modicum of economic understanding of an average High School Student then perhaps we could have a reasonable conversation about the tax rate.  Unfortunately I highly doubt you have the intellect for such an understanding.  You can get back to me about corporate taxes when you've run a business.

What I'm seeing is less dummies asserting the facts 'wrong' than partisans asserting the assumptions required to get their extremes.  Look at the 'truths' being stated as assumptions.  While here it is heavily economics, in other places it is whether or not private guns assure freedom, whether the goal in health plans is to share risks and costs, or whatever the base is in a given issue.  Look twice with the premise that one's facts are assumptions, that the assumptions one makes exist at the values level, that agreement on such things is unlikely.

It is easier to assert than to prove such extreme assumptions.

One observation.  Those who have tend to be those who get as they can afford better lobbyists, lawyers, media, politicians, etc...  It doesn't have to be that way.  Drain the swamp, and maybe some trends that are assumed basic and unchanging will fade.   Note, that will not be easy.  However, that is the sort of cultural change a crisis can force.

Alas, the folks who make promises to drain the swamp tend to be alligators.

[Warren Dew]

(09-08-2017, 09:19 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(09-06-2017, 07:11 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: The error in your logic is that, like many on the left, you incorrectly assume that supply and demand are scalars rather than functions.

Frankly, I'm baffled by this comment.  If there is an implication to this, please be a bit less opaque.

If you want to understand it better, I'd suggest brushing up on your algebra and calculus, or learning them if you haven't.  While in theory I could try to teach them to you on this forum, there are far more efficient ways for you to learn them, and frankly my algebra teaching attention is fully taken up by my daughter.

[Eric the Green]

(09-09-2017, 01:46 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(09-08-2017, 09:19 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(09-06-2017, 07:11 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: The error in your logic is that, like many on the left, you incorrectly assume that supply and demand are scalars rather than functions.

Frankly, I'm baffled by this comment.  If there is an implication to this, please be a bit less opaque.

If you want to understand it better, I'd suggest brushing up on your algebra and calculus, or learning them if you haven't.  While in theory I could try to teach them to you on this forum, there are far more efficient ways for you to learn them, and frankly my algebra teaching attention is fully taken up by my daughter.

Or maybe, just speak English..... the "many of the left" do not think in terms of scalars and functions, although you say they have opinions and assumptions about supply and demand. We don't need to re-study algebra just in order to understand your post.

[Bob Butler 54]

(09-09-2017, 03:13 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(09-09-2017, 01:46 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(09-08-2017, 09:19 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(09-06-2017, 07:11 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: The error in your logic is that, like many on the left, you incorrectly assume that supply and demand are scalars rather than functions.

Frankly, I'm baffled by this comment.  If there is an implication to this, please be a bit less opaque.

If you want to understand it better, I'd suggest brushing up on your algebra and calculus, or learning them if you haven't.  While in theory I could try to teach them to you on this forum, there are far more efficient ways for you to learn them, and frankly my algebra teaching attention is fully taken up by my daughter.

Or maybe, just speak English..... the "many of the left" do not think in terms of scalars and functions, although you say they have opinions and assumptions about supply and demand. We don't need to re-study algebra just in order to understand your post.

It also depends on whether you seek a health plan for all, or an economic plan that benefits Warren Dew.

[Warren Dew]

(09-09-2017, 03:13 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(09-09-2017, 01:46 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(09-08-2017, 09:19 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(09-06-2017, 07:11 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: The error in your logic is that, like many on the left, you incorrectly assume that supply and demand are scalars rather than functions.

Frankly, I'm baffled by this comment.  If there is an implication to this, please be a bit less opaque.

If you want to understand it better, I'd suggest brushing up on your algebra and calculus, or learning them if you haven't.  While in theory I could try to teach them to you on this forum, there are far more efficient ways for you to learn them, and frankly my algebra teaching attention is fully taken up by my daughter.

Or maybe, just speak English..... the "many of the left" do not think in terms of scalars and functions, although you say they have opinions and assumptions about supply and demand. We don't need to re-study algebra just in order to understand your post.

If you're going to understand the quantitative aspects of economics and understand how the economy actually works, you have to use algebra, and in the case of understanding Georgist land taxes, an understanding of calculus is pretty necessary as well.  If you don't think of economics in mathematical terms, you're not really using economics at all; you're just making political arguments couched in misused economic terminology.  I do understand that the left is often happy to misuse economics in this way, but the truth is, economics without math is as worthless as physics without math.

[Warren Dew]

(09-09-2017, 09:53 AM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(09-09-2017, 08:01 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(09-08-2017, 11:49 AM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(09-08-2017, 09:34 AM)David Horn Wrote: We aren't a tiny country poised on the edge of a wilderness in the late Agricultural Age -- not anymore.  Pretending we are is both stupid and dangerous.

We aren't an industrial power with limitless wealth and low debt either and pretending that we are is far more stupid and far more dangerous. Turning vast swaths over to the states is not only doable but the right thing to do.  The Constitution is best understood to be a compact for mutual trade and assistance rather than the formation of a unitary republic, for which even today the country is too large and too diverse to be.

The rest of your post is the usual liberal nonsense.

You fundamentally misunderstand how the economy works.  It's not a zero-sum game.  Economic activity creates more economic activity.  When the economy is slack, like it is at the moment, debt financed activity can start a righteous cycle of additional activity, but only if we actually do it.  40 years of GOP dominance in the economic sphere has created a systemic underperforming economic engine because Republicans refuse to accept the obvious: the private sector only works to its advantage.  Public sector investment is also needed and it's now critical. 

Feel free to pretend that your static view is correct, but answer this simple question: why did the US do so incredibly well for so long, when we exited WW-II with Federal debt equal to ~126% of GNP?  We're well below that now, and you are crying wolf.  

Yes, times are different.  Our population is stagnant now and it was expanding then.  This is a real issue, and more immigration will help with that, but waving the debt flag is both supercilious and flat wrong.  I notice it doesn't seem to apply to Defense spending or to huge tax breaks to the wealthy.  And handing things back to the states?  Really?  How do you think Jim Crow got going in the first place?

And you fundamentally misunderstand that taxation is at its most basic level theft.  But that isn't here nor there.  The fact remains that if you want to increase economic activity you have to decrease taxes, if you really want to accelerate economic activity you decrease taxes on those who produce wealth, which largely speaking means corporations.

Short of that the only real way to accelerate economic growth by government spending is to waste huge sums on a war.  I think we've been trying to blow that bubble back up for some time now--it isn't working out to well.

The GMs and Googles and the GEs don't really pay all that much in corporate taxes because they have and can afford to have armies of lawyers and accountants to reduce their tax burdens through the byzantine mess the tax code is.  So who gets slammed with the high corporate rate?  Smaller companies which actually employs most people.

Until you can demonstrate to me that you have a modicum of economic understanding of an average High School Student then perhaps we could have a reasonable conversation about the tax rate.  Unfortunately I highly doubt you have the intellect for such an understanding.  You can get back to me about corporate taxes when you've run a business.

I agree with you regarding how the small businesses that actually create most jobs are currently getting slammed by the tax system - not just by actually paying the corporate tax rate, which as you point out big business don't generally pay, but also the many subchapter S corporations that pay the maximum "personal" rate, which jumped upward at the end of 2012.

I would, however, point out that workers produce wealth as well, both for themselves and for their employers - and many aspects of the current system actually seem designed to discourage work.  For example with respect to the PPACA, the employer mandate requires employers either to make jobs part time, and thus not requiring health care but limiting the amount of work that can be done in a job, or requires employers to pay for health care, thus reducing the amount the worker can receive and thus making the worker less likely to be willing to work.  The individual mandate is enforced through a tax penalty that scales with income, thus increasing the effective income tax rate and providing less incentive to work.  Less workers doing less work means less wealth creation.

With respect to helping business, I think restoring the Bush top tax rate makes sense, but some of the present ideas that involve taxing workers more so businesses are taxed less are just borrowing from Peter to pay Paul:  they aren't going to improve things overall.

[Bob Butler 54]

(09-09-2017, 09:02 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: If you're going to understand the quantitative aspects of economics and understand how the economy actually works, you have to use algebra, and in the case of understanding Georgist land taxes, an understanding of calculus is pretty necessary as well.  If you don't think of economics in mathematical terms, you're not really using economics at all; you're just making political arguments couched in misused economic terminology.  I do understand that the left is often happy to misuse economics in this way, but the truth is, economics without math is as worthless as physics without math.

Truth there. However an opposing Truth can be found in an old saw. Garbage in, garbage out.

The math starts with values based assumptions. Thus, even the pros get opposing values based results. As long as everybody keeps making contradictory values based partisan assumptions, you are going to get contradictory values based partisan results. Math can perhaps convince one of what one is already convinced of, but at an amateur level that’s about it. What are you going to do, count Nobel prizes?

I try to look at the real world end results more than the math. So long as the division of wealth favors the alligators, and likely beyond, I’ll be with the little guy. The system is currently rigged for those who can afford to buy the best lawyers, lobbyists, media and politicians. It is unfortunate that some are unable to see this. As long as Main Street is humming along, Wall Street and Easy Street can take their cut and do fine. If you forget about Main Street and optimize on how big a cut you can take, things go bad.