• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Who pays for government?

Ah, so you think the government is doing a bang-up job of maintaining the infrastructure, and should keep spending tax dollars on roads, bridges, dams, etc.


Got it.

Yes. The current rate of spending seems to be about right. I would actually encourage governments to take advantage of these historically low interest rates and invest in some new long term projects that pass a robust cost benefit analysis.


Okay. That, combined with your OP that we're actually possessed of the most progressive tax rates ever, and I have to ask...what's your beef with this system, again?


Because you seem to be making the case that the tax rates are just fine, the spending is just about right, and we're doing well as a result. If these are all good things, then why not a bit more?
 
Yes. The current rate of spending seems to be about right. I would actually encourage governments to take advantage of these historically low interest rates and invest in some new long term projects that pass a robust cost benefit analysis.

Rate of spending means absolutely nothing.

What matters is how much of that spending is actually going towards fixing infrastructure and how much is going into the pocket of some corporate manager and major stockholder.

It is going to fixing it just fine. Hence the significant improvement over the last 20 years. Once again, I ask, do you have any facts to present to support your "crumbling" statement?
 
Rate of spending means absolutely nothing.

What matters is how much of that spending is actually going towards fixing infrastructure and how much is going into the pocket of some corporate manager and major stockholder.

It is going to fixing it just fine. Hence the significant improvement over the last 20 years. Once again, I ask, do you have any facts to present to support your "crumbling" statement?

Our so-called improvements are really a way to reduce choice and force more oil consumption. They are a program to feed the oligarchy.

We should have more electric trains and trolly systems, but the oligarchy is presently interested in maximizing oil consumption.
 
~60% getting more direct transfers than they are paying taxes sounds unhealthy to me.

I suspect that's counting public education--and counting the whole per-student budget even though a good chunk of that actually goes to special ed.

- - - Updated - - -

We currently have one of the most progressive tax systems in place in the history of the United States.


Historically speaking, the tax rates on the wealthy are much lower today than they were in the middle of the 20th Century - basically from FDR through Reagan.

Do you have a similar chart for, say, the same figures in 1955?

The figures for 1955 simply do not exist--while the official tax rate was much higher there were gobs and gobs of loopholes. Since most of that "income" simply didn't show up in the first place we don't have any way to figure the real tax take back then.
 
The tax system is far from as progressive as the wealth gap.

There is no reason inheritance shouldn't be highly taxed. That is a check on oligarchy.

There is no reason income in the form of capital gains shouldn't be highly taxed.

The rich have eliminated many taxes that mostly effected them over the past 30 years.

And our schools and infrastructure crumbles as a result.

Before the exemption amount was raised the inheritance tax could be very bad news for a family business.

I wouldn't mind lowering the exemption amount but I would like to see the rules changed--when the inheritance tax ends up applied to an asset that isn't totally divisible it should be treated as a lien on that asset rather than collected up front. It would be a percentage, not a flat dollar amount. The lien is only called when the asset is transferred to a non-heir. If an asset ends up with two liens only the higher is kept.

(The sort of assets I'm thinking of are things like property and substantial voting blocks of a stock which are actively managed. The stock only remains exempt if the heir(s) also manage (or at least work at) the company.)
 

I think what's happening is we are more aware of the failures, not that there are more failures.

It's like the panic about kids walking to school--it's actually safer now than it used to be.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes. The current rate of spending seems to be about right. I would actually encourage governments to take advantage of these historically low interest rates and invest in some new long term projects that pass a robust cost benefit analysis.

Rate of spending means absolutely nothing.

What matters is how much of that spending is actually going towards fixing infrastructure and how much is going into the pocket of some corporate manager and major stockholder.

And what makes you think that rate is higher now than it used to be?
 
CBOtable2.jpg


More detail: https://www.cbo.gov/publication/49440

We currently have one of the most progressive tax systems in place in the history of the United States. Is that because that's how the oligarchy wants it?
On what empirical basis do you make the claim that we currently have one of the most progressive tax systems in place in the history of the United States?

As a matter of fact, on page 28 of the report on which that summary is taken (https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/49440-Distribution-of-Income-and-Taxes.pdf, the Gini coefficient for after-tax income is higher now that in was in the 1980s, suggesting that the tax system is less progressive than it was 35 years ago.
 
I suspect that's counting public education--and counting the whole per-student budget even though a good chunk of that actually goes to special ed.
I don't think so. From the report:

Government transfers are cash payments and in-kind benefits from social insurance and other government assistance programs. Those transfers include payments and benefits from federal, state, and local governments.

I don't think that general education would be classified as "government assistance program". Some special education might be, but that's probably not relevant... the point of the table is that after you count taxes and transfers, most people are net recipients.
 
The Myth of the Falling Bridge

How much does the U.S. spend on infrastructure compared to the rest of the world?

It's in the middle of the pack. Between 2001 and 2011, annual public investment averaged 3.3 percent of gross domestic product, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. The average OECD nation spent 3 percent of GDP over the same period.

A 2011 study by Marco Percoco, a professor at Bocconi University in Italy, shows that U.S. public investment has tracked the OECD average since at least 1970. Developed nations invest between 2 percent and 3.5 percent of GDP. The U.S. is about where it should be -- close to peer nations such as Canada, Germany and Australia. Nations that spend substantially more tend to be in a phase of catch-up growth, such as South Korea and Poland.

Is the U.S. reducing its infrastructure spending?

It's been pretty steady. Total public construction spending has varied between 1.7 percent and 2.3 percent of GDP for the last 20 years, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. By the Congressional Budget Office's slightly different measure, infrastructure spending has been between 2.3 percent and 3.1 percent of GDP since 1956.

Is the quality of infrastructure worsening?

Just the opposite. Believe it or not, infrastructure has improved significantly over the last two decades. In its report for 2010, the Federal Highway Administration said that 57 percent of all vehicle-miles were traveled on federal highways with ratings of "good" or higher -- according to a measure of road quality pleasingly known as the International Roughness Index. That was up from 48 percent in 2000. The percentage of roads in bad condition has also declined: In 1989 6.6 percent of rural and urban interstates were rated "poor"; now only 1.9 percent of rural interstates and 5.4 percent of urban ones earn that grade.
Wasn't there a President that signed a huge transportation bill? Some guy from Arkansas or something? The Federal Government has failed to pass a new transportation bill since '04.

Despite warnings from President Barack Obama, America's bridges have never been safer.
Sure. We had that one bridge that collapsed in Minnesota. The major bridge in Cleveland was in danger of collapsing.
The highway administration rated 21.9 percent of its bridges "deficient" in 2009, as compared to 37.8 percent in 1989. And contrary to Obama's implication, the word "deficient" does not mean unsafe, at least as the highway administration uses it. A bridge is "deficient" when it would benefit from expansion and renovation in line with usage.
So when "deficient" doesn't mean a danger to use, then why is it being used here to show that infrastructure is safe?

Traffic congestion has diminished. In 1989, 52.6 percent of urban interstates were rated "congested" according to a comparison of peak volume to planned capacity. In 2009, the figure was 26.3 percent.
This is my favorite part. Many major bridges are well past their design load and are eating into their factors of safety.

Now, advocates for more infrastructure spending might believe that no road should have a pothole or ever be congested.
Strawman.
But there’s a big pothole in that reasoning, called trade-offs. Timing aside, America seems to be spending about the right amount on infrastructure, just as it always has, just like most other developed nations.
The people who died in Minnesota would indicate otherwise.
 
CBOtable2.jpg


More detail: https://www.cbo.gov/publication/49440

We currently have one of the most progressive tax systems in place in the history of the United States. Is that because that's how the oligarchy wants it?
On what empirical basis do you make the claim that we currently have one of the most progressive tax systems in place in the history of the United States?

As a matter of fact, on page 28 of the report on which that summary is taken (https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/49440-Distribution-of-Income-and-Taxes.pdf, the Gini coefficient for after-tax income is higher now that in was in the 1980s, suggesting that the tax system is less progressive than it was 35 years ago.
Figure 15 shows that since 2009 the percentage reduction to gini coefficient from taxation and government transfers has been at all time high. By this measure taxation is more progressive than ever, but it's debatable whether that's a good measure of progressivity.
 
I suspect that's counting public education--and counting the whole per-student budget even though a good chunk of that actually goes to special ed.
I don't think so. From the report:

Government transfers are cash payments and in-kind benefits from social insurance and other government assistance programs. Those transfers include payments and benefits from federal, state, and local governments.

I don't think that general education would be classified as "government assistance program". Some special education might be, but that's probably not relevant... the point of the table is that after you count taxes and transfers, most people are net recipients.

Yes, the point here is that the bottom three quintiles of people don't even pay enough taxes to cover the cash they themselves directly receive from the Feds and the fourth barely does. Let alone pay for the awesome bridges, the army that protects our oil from Canada, etc.

All of that, plus a lot of the money being paid to individuals in the bottom 60% is paid for by taxing the top 20%. Well, plus printing money and borrowing from China.
 
We currently have one of the most progressive tax systems in place in the history of the United States.

You need more than one chart to back that claim up. You're arguing that the US federel income tax system is at one of its most progressive points in US history? More progressive than when we had much higher marginal rates?

The US federal income tax system may be one of the most progressive in the world but it is getting less and less progressive as the drumbeat for tax cuts has been banging for the last 35 years.

Is that because that's how the oligarchy wants it?

I think the oligarchy does want a federal income tax system that is continually lowering their rates which is what they've been getting with couple of hiccups along the way. But try to touch their main source of income, capital gains, and watch them start to howl.
 
The Myth of the Falling Bridge

How much does the U.S. spend on infrastructure compared to the rest of the world?

It's in the middle of the pack. Between 2001 and 2011, annual public investment averaged 3.3 percent of gross domestic product, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. The average OECD nation spent 3 percent of GDP over the same period.

A 2011 study by Marco Percoco, a professor at Bocconi University in Italy, shows that U.S. public investment has tracked the OECD average since at least 1970. Developed nations invest between 2 percent and 3.5 percent of GDP. The U.S. is about where it should be -- close to peer nations such as Canada, Germany and Australia. Nations that spend substantially more tend to be in a phase of catch-up growth, such as South Korea and Poland.

Is the U.S. reducing its infrastructure spending?

It's been pretty steady. Total public construction spending has varied between 1.7 percent and 2.3 percent of GDP for the last 20 years, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. By the Congressional Budget Office's slightly different measure, infrastructure spending has been between 2.3 percent and 3.1 percent of GDP since 1956.

Is the quality of infrastructure worsening?

Just the opposite. Believe it or not, infrastructure has improved significantly over the last two decades. In its report for 2010, the Federal Highway Administration said that 57 percent of all vehicle-miles were traveled on federal highways with ratings of "good" or higher -- according to a measure of road quality pleasingly known as the International Roughness Index. That was up from 48 percent in 2000. The percentage of roads in bad condition has also declined: In 1989 6.6 percent of rural and urban interstates were rated "poor"; now only 1.9 percent of rural interstates and 5.4 percent of urban ones earn that grade.

Despite warnings from President Barack Obama, America's bridges have never been safer. The highway administration rated 21.9 percent of its bridges "deficient" in 2009, as compared to 37.8 percent in 1989. And contrary to Obama's implication, the word "deficient" does not mean unsafe, at least as the highway administration uses it. A bridge is "deficient" when it would benefit from expansion and renovation in line with usage.

Traffic congestion has diminished. In 1989, 52.6 percent of urban interstates were rated "congested" according to a comparison of peak volume to planned capacity. In 2009, the figure was 26.3 percent.

Now, advocates for more infrastructure spending might believe that no road should have a pothole or ever be congested. But there’s a big pothole in that reasoning, called trade-offs. Timing aside, America seems to be spending about the right amount on infrastructure, just as it always has, just like most other developed nations.

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2013-04-08/the-myth-of-the-falling-bridge

Let's not forget that we are slightly above average as a percent of GDP, but our GDP per capita is much higher than most of Europe. 30% higher than France, for example.

Actually, public education is getting better, not worse

Have America’s public schools gotten worse over time?

Americans seem to think so. Every time I write about why attending college is so crucial for moving up the income ladder — or, these days, for landing any job at all — I’m inundated with e-mails blaming the country’s K-12 system. Today’s workers have to go to college, readers argue, because our increasingly broken public schools have ceded responsibility for educating them.

Data from the annual Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup poll, a survey about education, reflect similar views. Over the past four decades, respondents have become increasingly likely to say that today’s students receive a “worse education” than they themselves did.

But it’s not clear that any of this is true, at least at the national level.

Few consistent tools are available to measure the quality of U.S. education over time; the best we have is probably the National Assessment of Educational Progress test, first administered in 1971. And believe it or not, NAEP scores have been steadily improving, with most national measures now at or around all-time highs. The biggest gains have generally gone to nonwhite students, helping narrow — though not eliminate — the achievement gap. Other metrics, too, suggest that schools are improving. Dropout rates are at record lows, and the share of high school students who take higher-level courses such as calculus has risen.

On some level, parents seem to know this. At least, they appear happy with the schools their own children attend.

In the most recent Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup poll, about 67 percent of public school parents said they would give their oldest child’s school a grade of “A” or “B.” But just 17 percent of the respondents would give “public schools nationally” the same score. This grading gap has widened in recent decades.

It’s a bit like “Fenno’s paradox,” named for political scientist Richard Fenno Jr.: Americans hate Congress but like their own congressman; they hate the public school system but like the school they actually interact with.

It’s hard to pinpoint why perceptions of national school quality, and especially changes in school quality, seem to depart from reality.

It could be the heavy media attention paid to the nation’s most troubled schools. Rising expectations might play a role, too, says Dana Goldstein, the author of “The Teacher Wars.” Decades ago, policymakers and education advocates pledged to close the achievement gap, and though it has narrowed, its persistence leads to disappointment.

Schools are also expected to make more students college-ready today than in the past. “The ’30s, ’40s and ’50s are often talked about as a golden age of public schools. Well, only 10 percent of students were going to college back then,” Goldstein says. “If our goal today is that only 10 percent get to college, then we’re doing awesome.”

Misplaced nostalgia may also weigh on public opinion. Just as old fogies like to claim they once walked 15 miles in the snow to school, uphill both ways, perhaps they misremember how rigorous their own educations were.

“Going back to at least 1880, the business community has never said a nice word about public schools. Every generation of graduates is supposedly stupider than the last,” says David C. Berliner, a professor emeritus of education at Arizona State University. “The demonization of youth is a national pastime in the U.S.”

Diane Ravitch, a research professor of education at New York University, argues that the schools themselves are also being demonized, thanks to clear-eyed ideology rather than rose-colored nostalgia. “U.S. public education is the victim of a propaganda campaign to discredit it and promote privatization,” she says. She traces this back to the 1983 “A Nation at Risk” report from President Ronald Reagan’s education commission and argues that business leaders and politicians have increasingly used public schools since then as scapegoats for other societal ills.

I suspect other, less nefarious factors affect perceptions more. With college becoming the norm, the types of workers with no more than a high school diploma are more likely to be in the lower part of the talent distribution today than they were a generation ago. Employers might conflate this shifting composition of high-school-educated workers with a diminishing quality of high school education itself.

The truth is, today’s young people do need more, or at least different, kinds of training and education to succeed in the global marketplace for talent. And plenty of policy changes — like making the most challenging school districts more attractive places to work — could help improve outcomes for our most disadvantaged students. But in the meantime, let’s stop denying the measurable, if modest, progress that U.S. schools have made in the last half-century.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...23b020-3f6a-11e4-9587-5dafd96295f0_story.html

And here I have been told that the GDP isn't a reliable enough measure to be used as a comparison measure between countries or within a single country from year to year.

And yes, public education in the US has gotten quite a bit better over the last decades, especially for the students whose parents and grandparents we intentionally so shamefully disadvantaged in the 1950's and before. The idea that it has gotten worse is based primarily on the mistaken belief that the US had the best public schools in the 1950's and before* and that our students today rank only 7th or 5th or 15th or whatever in the world on standardized tests.

* a belief that can only be held by ignoring the victims of separate but equal yet again.

In both cases these falsehoods are primarily repeated by conservatives and libertarians. To escape from the reality of facts in the case of GDP (and inflation) and in the case of public education as an attack on the teachers unions, as an attack on liberal education vs. trade school training for a job education and as a wedge to permit for profit education companies and religious schools to claim a portion of public education funds.

As for infrastructure do you believe that ours is being improved? Or at least adequately maintained?

Look at a globe, at the relative size of the US compared to France or Germany. Does that tell you anything about who would have to spend more money on infrastructure?

Are these conditional arguments that you are presenting only to try to support your belief that the wealthy still pay too much in taxes or are these ones that you are willing to apply consistently?
 
As for your main hypothesis that the wealthy pay too much in taxes compared to everyone else, I will agree with you.

But I think that they do because they earn too much of the nation's income. And everyone else earns too little of the nation's income. The bottom 50% of the earners in the US earned a total of one trillion dollars of AGI in 2009, the last year that the IRS has released data for. The top 10% of earners made more than 2.5 trillion dollars in AGI, which is computed deducting 401k’s for example. A decrease of 10% in the incomes of the top 10% of earners redistributed the lower 50% of earners would raise their incomes by about 20,000 dollars a household. Remarkable.

We are paying the wealthy too much and everyone else too little.

And this is not because of some mysterious, unknown and unknowable economic factors that have elevated the unknown and unknowable so-called "true value" of the work that the wealthy do. It is because we have consistently applied economic policies to intentionally shift income from the lower 90% of earners to the wealthy. And these policies have worked.

Since 1970's the % of GDP that has gone to corporate profits has doubled to 11% in 2007, the last year before the Bush deregulation derangement financial crisis and recession temporarily suppressed them. And the % of the GDP that is paid out in wages has dropped by 6% of GDP. About the same amount that the corporate profits increased. Increased wages lower profits. Decreased wages increase profits. Even in the mainly fantasy world of mainstream neoclassical economics.
 
These numbers are out of date.
I don't think so. From the report:

Government transfers are cash payments and in-kind benefits from social insurance and other government assistance programs. Those transfers include payments and benefits from federal, state, and local governments.

I don't think that general education would be classified as "government assistance program". Some special education might be, but that's probably not relevant... the point of the table is that after you count taxes and transfers, most people are net recipients.
Yes, the point here is that the bottom three quintiles of people don't even pay enough taxes to cover the cash they themselves directly receive from the Feds and the fourth barely does.
Prior to the crash, the top 1% made nearly 20 cents on every dollar of income in the US.

In 2009, the top quintile made 51% of all the available income and paid about 68% of the taxes (which turned out to be an effective tax rate of 23.2%). The Top 1% paid a tax rate of 28.9%, though they did earn 13.4% of all the available income.

And people complain there is a wealth distribution problem. Looks like the wealth is staying comfortably at the top.

Let alone pay for the awesome bridges, the army that protects our oil from Canada, etc.

All of that, plus a lot of the money being paid to individuals in the bottom 60% is paid for by taxing the top 20%. Well, plus printing money and borrowing from China.
Technically we are an undertaxed nation. Sadly the Republicans brainwashed Americans in to thinking all this stuff doesn't need to actually be paid for.
 
As for your main hypothesis that the wealthy pay too much in taxes compared to everyone else, I will agree with you.

But I think that they do because they earn too much of the nation's income. And everyone else earns too little of the nation's income. The bottom 50% of the earners in the US earned a total of one trillion dollars of AGI in 2009, the last year that the IRS has released data for. The top 10% of earners made more than 2.5 trillion dollars in AGI, which is computed deducting 401k’s for example. A decrease of 10% in the incomes of the top 10% of earners redistributed the lower 50% of earners would raise their incomes by about 20,000 dollars a household. Remarkable.

We are paying the wealthy too much and everyone else too little.

And this is not because of some mysterious, unknown and unknowable economic factors that have elevated the unknown and unknowable so-called "true value" of the work that the wealthy do. It is because we have consistently applied economic policies to intentionally shift income from the lower 90% of earners to the wealthy. And these policies have worked.

Since 1970's the % of GDP that has gone to corporate profits has doubled to 11% in 2007, the last year before the Bush deregulation derangement financial crisis and recession temporarily suppressed them. And the % of the GDP that is paid out in wages has dropped by 6% of GDP. About the same amount that the corporate profits increased. Increased wages lower profits. Decreased wages increase profits. Even in the mainly fantasy world of mainstream neoclassical economics.
You are making the case that those with the wealth should be paying taxes in proportion to the wealth they control, and I agree. By that yardstick the wealthy are extremely undertaxed in the U.S. And of course they know it and they like it, which is why they keep crying that they are overtaxed. Pretty good scheme.
 
But I think that they do because they earn too much of the nation's income.

They don't earn it.

They steal it from workers who create wealth. Gains in productivity mainly go to the people at the top in the form of dividends on stock owned.

Capital does not create wealth, labor does.

When capital assumes a superior position through the force of law and government reality is turned on its head.
 
As for your main hypothesis that the wealthy pay too much in taxes compared to everyone else, I will agree with you.

But I think that they do because they earn too much of the nation's income. And everyone else earns too little of the nation's income. The bottom 50% of the earners in the US earned a total of one trillion dollars of AGI in 2009, the last year that the IRS has released data for. The top 10% of earners made more than 2.5 trillion dollars in AGI, which is computed deducting 401k’s for example. A decrease of 10% in the incomes of the top 10% of earners redistributed the lower 50% of earners would raise their incomes by about 20,000 dollars a household. Remarkable.

We are paying the wealthy too much and everyone else too little.

And this is not because of some mysterious, unknown and unknowable economic factors that have elevated the unknown and unknowable so-called "true value" of the work that the wealthy do. It is because we have consistently applied economic policies to intentionally shift income from the lower 90% of earners to the wealthy. And these policies have worked.

Since 1970's the % of GDP that has gone to corporate profits has doubled to 11% in 2007, the last year before the Bush deregulation derangement financial crisis and recession temporarily suppressed them. And the % of the GDP that is paid out in wages has dropped by 6% of GDP. About the same amount that the corporate profits increased. Increased wages lower profits. Decreased wages increase profits. Even in the mainly fantasy world of mainstream neoclassical economics.
You are making the case that those with the wealth should be paying taxes in proportion to the wealth they control, and I agree. By that yardstick the wealthy are extremely undertaxed in the U.S. And of course they know it and they like it, which is why they keep crying that they are overtaxed. Pretty good scheme.
All of America is undertaxed. Sure, the last quintile can't really contribute, but the rest probably can.

What confuses me is that according to this, I don't pay taxes, barely (almost in the next quintile). Last time I checked, I do pay Federal taxes and don't get any "government transfer".
 
Harm reduction morality says that those most able to pay taxes should pay the most and those least able should pay the least.

Especially since the amount a person earns is pure luck. The intelligence a person is born with is pure luck. The internal motivation a person has to excel is pure luck. The circumstances of life are pure luck.

When we favor the acquisition of personal wealth over taking care of the basic needs of all people within a society we favor pure luck over reduction of human hardship and suffering.
 
Back
Top Bottom