(06-14-2015 06:50 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(06-14-2015 01:33 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The more progressive the tax system, the more unequal the dispersion of income and wealth. That may not make conceptual sense, but it does reflect reality. And I understand why.

Considering that the "reality" is an increase in income inequality as the tax system became less progressive. This is a total BS statement.

thats silly

(06-14-2015 06:55 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-14-2015 06:50 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(06-14-2015 01:33 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The more progressive the tax system, the more unequal the dispersion of income and wealth. That may not make conceptual sense, but it does reflect reality. And I understand why.

Considering that the "reality" is an increase in income inequality as the tax system became less progressive. This is a total BS statement.

That would be correct if the "rich" and corporations did nothing in response to changes in tax laws. But that's not what happens. And their reasonable and logical responses result in more unequal dispersion.

Why is the US the country with the most "progressive" tax system in the developed world at the same time that it has the most unequal dispersion of income and wealth?

You clearly don't understand the definitions of the words you are using. It's not a question of "would be" correct. It was a factual statement.

"Progressive tax rates" means tax rates that tax high income earners more than low income earners. Regressive tax rates tax low income earners more than high income earners. Proportional tax rates tax everyone at the same rate regardless of income levels. A 1% tax or a 98% tax can both technically qualify as "progressive." The US has had a progressive tax rate (1862) for nearly as long as it has had a federal income tax (1861).

There is also something called the statutory corporate tax rate. The statutory rate is the legally defined rate, but it doesn't factor in deductions/exclusions that are more common in our tax system compared to other countries. Once those deductions/exclusions are counted our effective tax rate (the amount corporations actually pay) is slightly above average, but nowhere near the highest.

Our tax as % of GDP is 26.9%. The EU is 35.7% and the OECD is 34.8%. The only countries (of note) below the US is South Korea at 26.8% and Australia at 25.8%.

But anyways you were saying???

(06-14-2015 08:31 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(06-14-2015 06:50 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(06-14-2015 01:33 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The more progressive the tax system, the more unequal the dispersion of income and wealth. That may not make conceptual sense, but it does reflect reality. And I understand why.

Considering that the "reality" is an increase in income inequality as the tax system became less progressive. This is a total BS statement.

thats silly

Conservatives don't like facts.

(06-14-2015 11:23 PM)john01992 Wrote:  You clearly don't understand the definitions of the words you are using. It's not a question of "would be" correct. It was a factual statement.

You have a superficial understanding of the issue. It is the kind of theoretical construct one would get in an economics overview course. I'm telling you what happens in the real world, based on having 30+ years of experience in the area and having written a couple of peer-reviewed journal articles about the subject. And while in theory, theory works well in practice, in practice it does not.

Quote:"Progressive tax rates" means tax rates that tax high income earners more than low income earners. Regressive tax rates tax low income earners more than high income earners. Proportional tax rates tax everyone at the same rate regardless of income levels. A 1% tax or a 98% tax can both technically qualify as "progressive." The US has had a progressive tax rate (1862) for nearly as long as it has had a federal income tax (1861).

There's nothing there that's not old news to me, if the 1992 in your handle refers to a university graduation date, then probably from before the time you were born. I'm very impressed that you have such a comprehensive knowledge of the subject.

Quote:There is also something called the statutory corporate tax rate. The statutory rate is the legally defined rate, but it doesn't factor in deductions/exclusions that are more common in our tax system compared to other countries. Once those deductions/exclusions are counted our effective tax rate (the amount corporations actually pay) is slightly above average, but nowhere near the highest.

Do you even know what those deductions/exclusions are? Take a look at the SEC EDGAR database, pick a few of your favorite multinationals, and pull their latest 10-K and check out the income tax footnote. Generally, you will probably find that two things have the largest impacts. One is the R&D credit; your friends in academia would have an absolute cow if we tried to repeal that (think impact on corporate grant funding). The other is having income taxed overseas at lower foreign rates. If income is sourced in Germany, it's subject to the German corporate rate of 30%, if Ireland to the Irish statutory rate of 12.5%, and the US rate of 35% (39% including average state taxes) does not kick in until the earnings are repatriated. So companies stash large amounts of cash offshore, or haven't you read that?

Quote:Our tax as % of GDP is 26.9%. The EU is 35.7% and the OECD is 34.8%. The only countries (of note) below the US is South Korea at 26.8% and Australia at 25.8%.

Here's where the consumption tax (VAT/GST) comes into play. The EU and the rest of the OECD get around 38-40% of total tax revenues from VAT; we get none. So those 35% (rounding for simplicity) tax bites that you are quoting are roughly 14% from VAT and 21% from other taxes. Our 27% comes entirely from taxes other than VAT.

Why that matters is that VAT is essentially disregarded as a tax cost in making investment decisions. In the domestic market, it's tacked onto the price of my goods, but it's also tacked onto all my competitors' prices at exactly the same rate, including imports from foreign competitors. In the international market, it is rebated upon export. So there is never a point where I'm at a tax disadvantage for operating in country A because country A has a VAT, whereas if I'm operating in a country with a higher income tax rate, I'm at a disadvantage versus every competitor in another country with a lower income tax rate. Actually, because of the obvious protectionist impacts, I actually prefer a country with a VAT.

So the apples-to-apples comparison is not the US's 27% bite versus EU/OECD's 35%, but rather the US's 27% versus EU/OECD 21% from comparable taxes. Note that the US does not win that comparison.

There's one other wrinkle--how rates are structured. US taxes typically have a larger differential between the highest and lowest rates (although not the case for individual income taxes in some countries, but particularly true for corporate taxes), and European rates tend to get to the higher brackets at much lower income levels. The impact of those two factors means that European income taxes are much less "progressive" than ours.

So European income tax structures (individual, and particularly corporate) are less "progressive" than here in the US, and 40% of European tax revenues come from a consumption tax that most on the left in the US regard as "regressive." So yes, their tax structures are substantially less "progressive."

Europe manages to provide both a more comprehensive welfare safety net at the same time as a friendlier climate for business. We would do well to emulate some of the things they do.

Quote:But anyways you were saying???

But anyways, you were saying?

And you didn't touch the question about how it is that the US, with the most "progressive" tax system in the developed world, also manages to have the most unequal dispersion of income.

Nor have you addressed to my knowledge my other question about how it is that those on the left complain that US companies are moving investment and jobs overseas to get lower costs, lower taxes, and less intrusive regulations, but somehow assume that higher costs, higher taxes, and still more intrusive regulations won't drive more of them offshore. How do you expect that to work?

(06-14-2015 11:24 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(06-14-2015 08:31 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(06-14-2015 06:50 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(06-14-2015 01:33 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The more progressive the tax system, the more unequal the dispersion of income and wealth. That may not make conceptual sense, but it does reflect reality. And I understand why.

Considering that the "reality" is an increase in income inequality as the tax system became less progressive. This is a total BS statement.

thats silly

Conservatives don't like facts.

Only "facts" that are not true.

(06-15-2015 02:41 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-14-2015 11:23 PM)john01992 Wrote:  You clearly don't understand the definitions of the words you are using. It's not a question of "would be" correct. It was a factual statement.

You have a superficial understanding of the issue. It is the kind of theoretical construct one would get in an economics overview course.

That pretty much sums up all of his posts.

(06-15-2015 02:47 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-14-2015 11:24 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(06-14-2015 08:31 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(06-14-2015 06:50 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(06-14-2015 01:33 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The more progressive the tax system, the more unequal the dispersion of income and wealth. That may not make conceptual sense, but it does reflect reality. And I understand why.

Considering that the "reality" is an increase in income inequality as the tax system became less progressive. This is a total BS statement.

thats silly

Conservatives don't like facts.

Only "facts" that are not true.

for example stating "The more progressive the tax system, the more unequal the dispersion of income and wealth." which I have just shown you is a 100% false statement and you refuse to admit it.

Let's face it, you are nothing more than a partisan hack who is too stubborn to admit that he is wrong. You blame me for using "economic theory" when that is exactly what you do, yet somehow it is wrong when I do it, but totally acceptable when you do it. At least when I do it it aligns with the cold hard facts. It's hilarious watching you explain the fiasco that is the Kansas budget. No matter how bad your philosophy is shown to be a failure, you will never back down.

Income inequality has risen when our tax system became less progressive. That's a fact, there is no disputing it. But then again this is the same guy who labeled Sanders as a fascist in the last page of this thread, and says the approval ratings for some of his proposed policies are not valid on the basis that they disagree with your personal philosophy.

(06-15-2015 11:10 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(06-15-2015 02:47 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-14-2015 11:24 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(06-14-2015 08:31 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(06-14-2015 06:50 PM)john01992 Wrote:  Considering that the "reality" is an increase in income inequality as the tax system became less progressive. This is a total BS statement.

thats silly

Conservatives don't like facts.

Only "facts" that are not true.

for example stating "The more progressive the tax system, the more unequal the dispersion of income and wealth." which I have just shown you is a 100% false statement and you refuse to admit it.
Let's face it, you are nothing more than a partisan hack who is too stubborn to admit that he is wrong. You blame me for using "economic theory" when that is exactly what you do, yet somehow it is wrong when I do it, but totally acceptable when you do it. At least when I do it it aligns with the cold hard facts. It's hilarious watching you explain the fiasco that is the Kansas budget. No matter how bad your philosophy is shown to be a failure, you will never back down.
Income inequality has risen when our tax system became less progressive. That's a fact, there is no disputing it. But then again this is the same guy who labeled Sanders as a fascist in the last page of this thread, and says the approval ratings for some of his proposed policies are not valid on the basis that they disagree with your personal philosophy.

You have a superficial, theoretical understanding. I have pointed out specifically where your superficial theoretical understanding breaks down in the real world. Instead of responding to my substantive points, you launch ad hominem attacks.

You haven't proved anything I wrote to be false. In fact, you haven't even addressed anything I wrote.

I would be interested in knowing where I explained the Kansas budget. Link? And I would also be interested in any support that you have for the assertion that income inequality has risen when our tax system became less progressive. Since you claim it to be indisputable, that ought to be easy.

If you want to continue this discussion, kindly address my specific points.

You have a superficial, theoretical understanding. I have pointed out specifically where your superficial theoretical understanding breaks down in the real world.

As usual, the exact opposite of what you claim is the actual reality. Your entire philosophy on this has been demonstrated time & time again that it simply doesn't work the way that you claim it does. This very comment from the Guardian popped in one of my news feeds today.

A report by five IMF economists dismissed “trickle-down” economics, and said that if governments wanted to increase the pace of growth they should concentrate on helping the poorest 20% of citizens.

Instead of responding to my substantive points, you launch ad hominem attacks.

In case you haven't noticed, I only do that after someone demonstrates a reluctance to accept facts.

And I would also be interested in any support that you have for the assertion that income inequality has risen when our tax system became less progressive. Since you claim it to be indisputable, that ought to be easy.

Considering your old age, the frequency of your commenting on taxes/economics, and the regular mention of this in the media, I am taken back that you would have to ask this.

This isn't some obscure stat or report. This is critical information to the debate and your admission that you don't know or don't understand those two things is very, very telling. It means that you are one of the following:

-incredibly lazy/stubborn because you are unwilling to look up something so easily available on Google.

-a troll who would rather bank on an argument that he knows is incorrect just for the sake of pretending that he is correct

-a partisan hack that only gets his information from extremely biased/selective sources.

heck you would have had to live under a rock for most of your life if you are as old as I think you are and not know this. I seriously can not understand how someone who engages in political discussion on such a frequent basis doesn't know this.

(06-14-2015 11:23 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(06-14-2015 06:55 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-14-2015 06:50 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(06-14-2015 01:33 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The more progressive the tax system, the more unequal the dispersion of income and wealth. That may not make conceptual sense, but it does reflect reality. And I understand why.

Considering that the "reality" is an increase in income inequality as the tax system became less progressive. This is a total BS statement.

That would be correct if the "rich" and corporations did nothing in response to changes in tax laws. But that's not what happens. And their reasonable and logical responses result in more unequal dispersion.

Why is the US the country with the most "progressive" tax system in the developed world at the same time that it has the most unequal dispersion of income and wealth?

You clearly don't understand the definitions of the words you are using. It's not a question of "would be" correct. It was a factual statement.

"Progressive tax rates" means tax rates that tax high income earners more than low income earners. Regressive tax rates tax low income earners more than high income earners. Proportional tax rates tax everyone at the same rate regardless of income levels. A 1% tax or a 98% tax can both technically qualify as "progressive." The US has had a progressive tax rate (1862) for nearly as long as it has had a federal income tax (1861).

There is also something called the statutory corporate tax rate. The statutory rate is the legally defined rate, but it doesn't factor in deductions/exclusions that are more common in our tax system compared to other countries. Once those deductions/exclusions are counted our effective tax rate (the amount corporations actually pay) is slightly above average, but nowhere near the highest.

Our tax as % of GDP is 26.9%. The EU is 35.7% and the OECD is 34.8%. The only countries (of note) below the US is South Korea at 26.8% and Australia at 25.8%.

But anyways you were saying???

You plan to cite this cut and paste?

Would love to see whatever source you stole this from.

(06-16-2015 12:16 AM)john01992 Wrote:  You have a superficial, theoretical understanding. I have pointed out specifically where your superficial theoretical understanding breaks down in the real world.

As usual, the exact opposite of what you claim is the actual reality. Your entire philosophy on this has been demonstrated time & time again that it simply doesn't work the way that you claim it does. This very comment from the Guardian popped in one of my news feeds today.

A report by five IMF economists dismissed “trickle-down” economics, and said that if governments wanted to increase the pace of growth they should concentrate on helping the poorest 20% of citizens.

Instead of responding to my substantive points, you launch ad hominem attacks.

In case you haven't noticed, I only do that after someone demonstrates a reluctance to accept facts.

And I would also be interested in any support that you have for the assertion that income inequality has risen when our tax system became less progressive. Since you claim it to be indisputable, that ought to be easy.

Considering your old age, the frequency of your commenting on taxes/economics, and the regular mention of this in the media, I am taken back that you would have to ask this.

This isn't some obscure stat or report. This is critical information to the debate and your admission that you don't know or don't understand those two things is very, very telling. It means that you are one of the following:

-incredibly lazy/stubborn because you are unwilling to look up something so easily available on Google.

-a troll who would rather bank on an argument that he knows is incorrect just for the sake of pretending that he is correct

-a partisan hack that only gets his information from extremely biased/selective sources.

heck you would have had to live under a rock for most of your life if you are as old as I think you are and not know this. I seriously can not understand how someone who engages in political discussion on such a frequent basis doesn't know this.

What a complete, typical, d!ck.

I'd report this, only I have no use for running to Mods, like so many others on here apparently do.

As a typical community college, spoon fed, know it all, you have little to no idea what you are talking about. While many about you actually do.

Your understanding of items such as "trickle down" economics (or maybe other cute phrases like "Star Wars", for SDI) should probably start at step one, the high chair version-

It's Supply side economics. Do you understand what that means? Laffer curve?
I'll bet not.

So, Jr., go do a li'l google on that then get back to those of us who have been doing this for a while.

thx.

(06-16-2015 02:53 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(06-16-2015 12:16 AM)john01992 Wrote:  You have a superficial, theoretical understanding. I have pointed out specifically where your superficial theoretical understanding breaks down in the real world.

As usual, the exact opposite of what you claim is the actual reality. Your entire philosophy on this has been demonstrated time & time again that it simply doesn't work the way that you claim it does. This very comment from the Guardian popped in one of my news feeds today.

A report by five IMF economists dismissed “trickle-down” economics, and said that if governments wanted to increase the pace of growth they should concentrate on helping the poorest 20% of citizens.

Instead of responding to my substantive points, you launch ad hominem attacks.

In case you haven't noticed, I only do that after someone demonstrates a reluctance to accept facts.

And I would also be interested in any support that you have for the assertion that income inequality has risen when our tax system became less progressive. Since you claim it to be indisputable, that ought to be easy.

Considering your old age, the frequency of your commenting on taxes/economics, and the regular mention of this in the media, I am taken back that you would have to ask this.

This isn't some obscure stat or report. This is critical information to the debate and your admission that you don't know or don't understand those two things is very, very telling. It means that you are one of the following:

-incredibly lazy/stubborn because you are unwilling to look up something so easily available on Google.

-a troll who would rather bank on an argument that he knows is incorrect just for the sake of pretending that he is correct

-a partisan hack that only gets his information from extremely biased/selective sources.

heck you would have had to live under a rock for most of your life if you are as old as I think you are and not know this. I seriously can not understand how someone who engages in political discussion on such a frequent basis doesn't know this.

What a complete, typical, d!ck.

I'd report this, only I have no use for running to Mods, like so many others on here apparently do.

As a typical community college, spoon fed, know it all, you have little to no idea what you are talking about. While many about you actually do.

Your understanding of items such as "trickle down" economics (or maybe other cute phrases like "Star Wars", for SDI) should probably start at step one, the high chair version-

It's Supply side economics. Do you understand what that means? Laffer curve?
I'll bet not.

So, Jr., go do a li'l google on that then get back to those of us who have been doing this for a while.

thx.

Well said. I think that's a good place to leave this.

(06-14-2015 09:56 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  First, it's not republicans who labeled Sanders a socialist, he calls himself a socialist.

He calls himself a democratic socialist. Which is a very specific type of socialist.

Quote:If what he really wants is social democracy, why does he call himself a socialist and not a social democrat?

Because he wants democratic socialism, like that found in Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland.

Quote:Does he favor social democratic policies as an end result, as you suggest, or merely as a way station on the road to full-blown socialism? How do we know? What has he done to differentiate between the two objectives? How can we trust him? Again, if the end result is not full-blown socialism, why does he call himself a socialist?

You'll have to ask him. Did Reagan embrace a smaller government as a station to anarchy? We'll never know.

He's differentiated between the two objectives by saying he's for Scandinavian style democratic socialism. You're free not to trust him but to my knowledge he hasn't been caught in a lie. He calls himself a socialist because democratic socialists call themselves that.

Quote:As for your definitional comments, what you are claiming that Sanders favors is private ownership of means of production, with heavy handed government regulation and taxation. That's fascism, if you are intent on labeling it as an "-ism."

I do not claim that, and that's not what fascism is. If he were to pick winners and losers for the private sector, that would be indeed fascism.

Quote:As far as your commentary that many of Sanders's ideas find high approval, that's kind of a half-truth. Because things like free this or free that always sound good as long as you don't talk about how to pay for them. And other than "sticking it to the rich," none of the ideas of how to pay for them find great favor. And you can't simply "stick it to the rich," no matter how popular, for several reasons. One, the "rich" don't have enough to pay for it, even if you took 100%. Two, the "rich" don't want to be stuck with those costs, and they have ways to avoid them. And most of those avoidance mechanisms hurt the USA, and the middle class and poor in particular, more than the value of those benefits.

Universal college costs $70B. We can raise $130 billion from Bernie's 1% tax on Wall Street transactions. So you're wrong.

I'm admittedly not a tax lawyer, but if there are loopholes, we can close them.

Quote:And here's one major point that most lefties seem to miss about European social democracies. Yes, they provide a comprehensive set of benefits. But what they don't do is make corporations and the "rich" pay for it as part of a redistributive scheme. Let's take a look the Scandinavian countries you listed, based on the OECD tax databases. Top corporate tax rates are 20% in Finland, 22% in Sweden, 23.5% in Denmark, and 27% in Norway, compared with 39% in USA. You probably didn't expect that. Top individual rates are 47.2% in Norway, 56.2% in Denmark, 56.9% in Sweden, 57.2% in Finland, compared with 48.6% in USA. So we're much higher on the corporate side, and slightly lower on the personal side (but note that if Sanders's proposed "tax the rich" things happen, we would be pretty much in line with the high end there). And most of the rest of "socialist" Europe is lower than the top Scandinavian countries. And we're not getting nearly as much for our tax dollar as they are.

Corporate taxes to some extent get passed through. I'm not talking about corporate rates. Non sequitur.

The top individual rate in the US is 39.6%, actually. And it was 70% in 1982, and 89% in 1964. I say let's raise our rate back to 70%, and if Muffy wants to play tennis in Oslo then more power to her.

Quote:So Europe manages to provide a more comprehensive safety net at the bottom while remaining more attractive to investment at the top. How do they do it? Simple, the middle pays more. One, they get roughly 40% of total government revenues from "regressive" consumption taxes. Two, their income tax structures are generally far flatter than ours are. So who actually pays more is the middle class. But the flip side for the middle is that the medical and other benefits are not "means tested" so they are available to them also. As they are for the "rich." And oh, by the way, profit is not a dirty word.

I really believe that there is a conversation that needs to be had around a more comprehensive safety net that is supported, European-style, by taxes across the board, not strictly hitting the "rich" and corporations as a redistributive effort. My own approach would be a welfare structure consisting of a combination of either Milton Friedman's negative income tax or the Boortz-Linder prefund/prebate, plus French Bismarck health care, funded by some combination of flat taxes and a consumption tax.

I do generally oppose higher consumption taxes because it's regressive.

UConn-SMU Wrote:Finland is a small country with slightly fewer people than Colorado. They also have a homogeneous, Northern European culture which includes certain values that our "salad bowl" culture does not share.

The U.S. in the 1940's may have been able to pull off duplicating Finland's success in education. The U.S. in 2015 has no chance to do it. Everyone here only cares about their own ethnic group. We're too large, selfish, and diverse.

This idea that we're more of a "Salad bowl" today than in the 1940s is asinine. The US in the 1940s had Polish, Italian, Czech, etc communities which were far less "homogenous" than their descendants are today.

blunderbuss Wrote:I knew you would bite.

http://www.businessinsider.com/why-socia...pe-2014-10

According to the The World Bank's 2014 Gini coefficient, the US (41.1) had FAR more inequality than Sweden (26.1), Norway (26.8), Finland (27.8) and Denmark (26.9).

See: http://wdi.worldbank.org/table/2.9

Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:And I would also be interested in any support that you have for the assertion that income inequality has risen when our tax system became less progressive. Since you claim it to be indisputable, that ought to be easy.

Our top tax rate was reduced from 70% to 50% in 1982 with Reaganomics. Funny enough, that's about exactly when income inequality became a real problem in this country.

Since the 1980s, Republicans have promised to grow the economy by cutting taxes, privatizing the public sphere and deregulating the economy. Democrats have mainly promised to limit the damage done by Republicans. It's unfortunate but the Democratic wing of the Democratic party has had precious little influence.

Bill Clinton raised the top tax rate from 35 to 39.6%. Okay, but he also signed NAFTA into law, repealed Glass-Steagall and enacted welfare reform. The guy was unfortunately owned by Wall Street, as his wife is, and while he was likely better than any laissez faire GOP whore, it probably wasn't by much.

Bernie's policy proposals include a jobs program to rebuild roads, bridges, airports and schools; hiking the federal minimum wage; breaking up the biggest banks; reforming the tax code and eliminating corporate loopholes; universal college and pre K; and investing heavily in renewable energy sources.

Republicans say we can't afford anything Bernie says, but they seem to have no trouble find the money (TRILLIONS!) to pay for every crazy war they dream up. The difference is Bernie actually looks for ways to pay for his proposals.

He's dangerous because he's incorruptible by the rich. Dangerous to both parties.

(06-23-2015 09:36 PM)Max Power Wrote:  He calls himself a democratic socialist. Which is a very specific type of socialist.

That's what I'd call myself if I were a socialist/communist running for election in the USA in 2016.

Quote:He's differentiated between the two objectives by saying he's for Scandinavian style democratic socialism.

There's a big difference between socialists and social democrats. Social democrats aren't nearly as big into income redistribution as socialists are. They used to be, until they figured out in the 1960s and 1970s that it didn't work. So now they're more into providing a universal safety net than in income redistribution. They're more into making the poor richer than into making the rich poorer; so am I. Bernie is clearly more into redistribution. That puts him on the socialist side of things.

Quote:You're free not to trust him

SOB is a politician. I don't. I'd suggest that you shouldn't either.

Quote:I do not claim that, and that's not what fascism is.

Sanders makes it clear that he advocates such policies. Perhaps not quite as clearly as Elizabeth Warren, although it's pretty clear that they pretty much walk in lock step. And that is precisely what fascism is.

Quote:If he were to pick winners and losers for the private sector, that would be indeed fascism.

That's precisely what his policies will amount to. Again, maybe not quite so stridently so as Warren, but that's a difference in focus, Warren's comments have been more specifically focused on these areas.

Quote:Universal college costs $70B. We can raise $130 billion from Bernie's 1% tax on Wall Street transactions. So you're wrong.

No, we can't. We could raise $130 billion if transactions remained in the US and at the same levels as before such a tax. But impose such a tax, and those things will change. Raising taxes on the "rich" or corporations never seems to produce the expected revenues--because they have options, they can change their way of doing business.

Quote:I'm admittedly not a tax lawyer,

Obviously not, and your lack of anything more than a superficial understanding is painfully obvious.

Quote:but if there are loopholes, we can close them.

Not necessarily. How do you tax a non-US source transaction entered into by a non-US entity? Where do you get nexus?

Quote:Corporate taxes to some extent get passed through. I'm not talking about corporate rates. Non sequitur.

You may not be, but I am. And you identifty the problem, apparently without realizing it. The lower the corporate rate, the less that has to be passed through. In other words, the cheaper your product can be. In a global marketplace, that means the lower your corporate taxes, the more competitive you can be. That's why corporations gravitate to lower tax rates, as is happening now.

What nobody on the left can explain to me is that you criticize corporations for moving investment and jobs overseas to get lower costs, lower taxes, and less intrusive regulations, but somehow you seem to think that higher costs, higher taxes, and more intrusive regulations are the way to get them to come back. How does that work? Do you have a clue? And that doesn't just apply to moves to third world countries, so don't even try to go there. Versus most very developed countries, we tend to have comparable wages but higher taxes and more intrusive regulations. And one point about regulations, many countries have higher substantive standards, but more straightforward processes for implementing them. And companies will pay extra for the certainty.

Quote:The top individual rate in the US is 39.6%, actually. And it was 70% in 1982, and 89% in 1964. I say let's raise our rate back to 70%, and if Muffy wants to play tennis in Oslo then more power to her.

When the top US rate was 70%, the top rate in the rest of the world was over 90%, so the lowest rates were here. Not to mention that we had far more exclusions and deductions than other countries, so nobody in the US had an effective tax rate close to 70%. For those reasons, we were a low-tax jurisdiction, and that attracts investors. Now we are a high-tax jurisdiction, so investments go elsewhere. And the top rate is more like 47-48%, because state taxes must be added on. We are in the top 1/3 of OECD for individual rates, and we have the absolute highest corporate rate. And yes, those things drive investment overseas. If our corporate rate is 39% (with state taxes) and our top individual rate goes to 77% (again, including state taxes), and there's a choice of somewhere else with a corporate rate of 20-25% and an individual rate less than 50%, you can be rest assured that a lot of wealthy people and corporations will find ways to be taxed overseas, including moving and changing citizenship if necessary.

Muffy can play tennis lots of places--Marbella, Vilamoura, Geneva, Sydney, Auckland, Tokyo, Hong Kong, Rio de Janeiro, Buenos Aires. And if it saves $20 million a year in taxes, lots of those places get very attractive.

Quote:I do generally oppose higher consumption taxes because it's regressive.

So did most social democrats until the 1960s and 1970s opened their eyes. How long will yours remain closed?

Social democrats actually tend to be very friendly to domestic businesses, which is a big contrast with our current approach. And an even bigger contrast with policies of people like Sanders and Warren. Moving in that direction will not come without significant adverse consequences.

Quote:Our top tax rate was reduced from 70% to 50% in 1982 with Reaganomics. Funny enough, that's about exactly when income inequality became a real problem in this country.

Actually, no, that's not when it happened and that's not what your graph shows. The big change came later, after the Reagan-Bradley-Gephardt 1986 tax law, and for a very specific reason. The 1986 law redefined gross income and taxable income to include substantial amounts that were previously excluded (remember the comment above about comparing our rates to other countries?), in exchange for lower tax rates. The impact was so significant that most wealthy people pretty much paid the same taxes before and after the 1986 law, despite the cut in top rate from 50% to 28%. So basically the data used to create the graph for years after 1986 are apples and oranges with the data used for years before 1986.

If you were a tax lawyer, you'd understand this, but as you noted, you are not.

I'm actually comfortable enough with Social Democrat ideas that I would accept a European style universal welfare safety net if we funded it the way they do, and not as a redistribution scheme.

Do you find it at least somewhat interesting that among developed countries, the one with the most "progressive" tax structure is also the one with the most unequal distribution of income and wealth? What does that suggest to you about cause and effect?