-
Features
Who pays for government?
- Thread starter Axulus
- Start date
Canard DuJour
Veteran Member
True. The gains have mostly gone to rentiers and banksters who've invested in changing the rules to their advantage.
Yeah they are. The table is per household and the average household has had to provide an extra breadwinner just to stay still. The shocking thing the table reveals is that they'd still be worse off except their wages have been substituted by welfare.
Is that how the plutocracy wants it? For sure. They have all the bargaining power, make out like bandits and look like benefactors. Good as it gets.
This.
Canard DuJour
Veteran Member
Well, no. The vast majority of them work for a living - moreso since others gained so disproportionately while they gained nothing. That doesn't fit any definition of "moochers"
"Suckers" more like.
It fits Uttermenche's definition of moocher perfectly. Sometimes it helps to read the thread...
No it doesn't. None of the individuals in that group get millions, and his definition was per capita. See bold above.
Why try and nitpick rather than addressing the substantive issues?
The substantive issue is that people in the bottom 3 quintiles take a lot more money out of government than they put in.
I am not the one who labeled such activity "mooching".
Jason Harvestdancer
Contributor
Lots of people are advocates for greater public transit systems. They envision everyone else using those systems, reducing the crowding on the roads for those advocating for those systems.
No, the substantive issue is the top quintile earning a 1000% more than the bottom quintile. The amounts they get back in transfers are peanuts in comparison, as are the differences in taxes paid.
No, go back and look at the OP. It is about who is paying (and not paying) for government. You can tell by the title.
Tristan Scott
Senior Member
Well, as has been pointed out several times your statement that we currently have one of the most progressive tax systems in history is not accurate. It's important to understand what a progressive tax system is and more importantly why it is necessary. The purpose of progressive taxation, as it was initially used starting in the early twentieth c., was to redistribute the wealth, which by then had been concentrated among a relatively few families. A tax system was devised in which the rates grew progressively higher proportional to income.
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?
Now, the propaganda that was used in the seventies and eighties, by the wealthy and their stooges in congress, against this system was the "loopholes". I see that Loren is parroting that propaganda on this very thread. These so-called "loopholes" are absolutely essential for a progressive tax system to work. They are actually targeted loopholes that require the earner to reinvest earnings back into the economy, rather than simply accumulating it. These targeted loopholes were easy targets because business lunches and trips could be written off (ironically they still can), I believe the soundbite used was the "three martini lunch".
Another thing that I see that is being argued about a lot on this thread that is born of propaganda is how the government spends its money to help so called "free-loaders". Welfare actually helps the economy, in fact it helps the economy much more than military spending. When the government pays a half a billion dollars for an airplane a large percentage of that money goes into the wealth accumulation of the executives of the manufacturer and is never seen by the economy.
The greedy are blinded by their pursuit of wealth, and to them having a prosperous country requires them to share their wealth with others, yet they have always needed the masses on their side to help fulfill that pursuit. This has always been the case. As the American sociologist Gerhard Lenski wrote in his Power and Privilege: A Theory of Social Stratification, "[Throughout history] The great majority of the political elite sought to use the energies of the peasantry to the full, while depriving them of all but the basic necessities of life."
ronburgundy
Contributor
They're are not expecting much recovered taxes because there is clear evidence that the criminal tax evaders have already withdrawn their funds due to the law changes and put those funds elsewhere, including foreign banks in countries with no interest in cooperating with FATCA. Back in 2009 when the Swiss agreed to give account info to the US in cases where there was provided evidence of criminality, deposits to Swiss Banks dropped 30% in the 10 months leading up to that policy change. There are similar finding of massive drops in Swiss Bank holdings caused by other policy changes in the EU and elsewhere. Nothing in my argument presumes that FATCA will be effective in generating tax revenue in the short term, and its effectiveness at catching tax evaders isn't relevant to the thread. It is the mere existence of FATCA and other recent changes to account secrecy policies combined with clear evidence of their causal impact on the transfer of funds to other countries retaining strict secrecy that shows there are likely many many billions in unpaid taxes by the rich due to secret foreign accounts, which is just one of the ways the rich hide their true income.
I envision myself using public transit if we got it upgraded. I'd sell my car in a heartbeat. But I got to experience decent public transit while living in Europe for 2 years so I know how effective it can be.
Jason Harvestdancer
Contributor
To me, what would make those CBO charts even more useful is if government employees could be separated out. Their income is not counted as receiving money from the government, even though it is.
It isn't perfect, because does anyone think there are any Lockheed employees (for example) not working directly or indirectly on government projects, but it would definitely be a step on the right direction.
It isn't perfect, because does anyone think there are any Lockheed employees (for example) not working directly or indirectly on government projects, but it would definitely be a step on the right direction.
With that criteria shouldn't we also include the wages and salaries of all government contractors since they are being paid by the government?
Jason Harvestdancer
Contributor
Yes, it should. Like when I mentioned Lockheed. It would make the calculations a little messier, but it would be worth it in the long run.
lol, I skimmed right over your lockheed comment.
Sorry about that buddy! :hug:
I'm an advocate for public transport systems. I don't own a car.
ronburgundy
Contributor
I posted this in response to maxparrish's dismissal of the importance in methodological details behind the CBO data. But those of you who are not maxparrish may have missed it, and no supporter of the OP has yet to try to address it, so I will summarize the point again here. (besides repetition of ideas in slightly different phrasing aids comprehension).
The OP and all supporting arguments presented here constitute the very softest and most unreliable methods of social science that are ironically usually dismissed by those making such arguments now. The actual objective variable of most central interest is actual true income. That variable is not measured anywhere in the presented data. The variable measured as a highly indirect proxy is self-reported income, self-report being among the weakest social science methods often attacked here when they result in conclusions that conservatives do not like. Not only is the key variable self-report, but it is self-report about something (income) that more people have stronger motive to lie about than almost any self-report variable you can find in the social sciences. Unlike most self-reported variables where people may or may not experience some level of embarrassment, etc., accurate reporting of income has a very direct causal impact on something much more important, namely one's wealth and resources and everything those buy from material goods to social and political power. The most clear cut established facts of basic human psychology predict people will lie about their income, and that the greater one's income the more likely one is to lie and the bigger the lie will be. The greater lying of the rich about their income is because the number of dollars one stands to lose by telling the truth is greater, the greater one's income. Also, the rich can buy the ability to hide their true income and avoid getting caught, pay people to help them hide it, which also gives them more confidence is getting away with it, all of which are predicted by every relevant psychological fact to increase their probability of lying and the size of the lies they tell about their income. In contrast, many poor people have real incomes already below the 0 tax bracket, so they have no motive to lie.
IOW, self-reported income is not a valid measure of actual income, and is the most invalid at the highest levels of true income. This is beyond any reasonable dispute, moreso than virtually every claimed fact in the most accepted economic theory. Thus, every chart and argument here needs to cross out "income" and replace it with the actual variable measured, which is "the income people are willing to honestly self-report, knowing that they will lose a portion of every dollar they report". From this we conclude that every stat indicating greater % of income paid in taxes is significantly inflated and overestimates such differences. Exactly by how much is unknown, so we are just left with data that falls well short of establishing any reliable facts about how the true tax burden is distributed.
The tax burden in progressive to some degree, but to what true degree compared to the past and to other countries cannot be validly inferred from such poor methods of measurement, since the nature of the errors in income measurement are unlikely to be constant across either time or nation. Finally, the burden of proof fall 100% upon the OP and those making arguments that presume the validity of the CBO and other data as reliable and valid measures of actual income, which is actually not directly measured anywhere in those data. The burden is upon them to show that their self-report method is reliable enough and that the errors are stable over time and nation enough to make the comparisons they are making valid. This burden is quite high given the mountain of evidence in psychology suggesting that these far from reasonable assumptions.
The OP and all supporting arguments presented here constitute the very softest and most unreliable methods of social science that are ironically usually dismissed by those making such arguments now. The actual objective variable of most central interest is actual true income. That variable is not measured anywhere in the presented data. The variable measured as a highly indirect proxy is self-reported income, self-report being among the weakest social science methods often attacked here when they result in conclusions that conservatives do not like. Not only is the key variable self-report, but it is self-report about something (income) that more people have stronger motive to lie about than almost any self-report variable you can find in the social sciences. Unlike most self-reported variables where people may or may not experience some level of embarrassment, etc., accurate reporting of income has a very direct causal impact on something much more important, namely one's wealth and resources and everything those buy from material goods to social and political power. The most clear cut established facts of basic human psychology predict people will lie about their income, and that the greater one's income the more likely one is to lie and the bigger the lie will be. The greater lying of the rich about their income is because the number of dollars one stands to lose by telling the truth is greater, the greater one's income. Also, the rich can buy the ability to hide their true income and avoid getting caught, pay people to help them hide it, which also gives them more confidence is getting away with it, all of which are predicted by every relevant psychological fact to increase their probability of lying and the size of the lies they tell about their income. In contrast, many poor people have real incomes already below the 0 tax bracket, so they have no motive to lie.
IOW, self-reported income is not a valid measure of actual income, and is the most invalid at the highest levels of true income. This is beyond any reasonable dispute, moreso than virtually every claimed fact in the most accepted economic theory. Thus, every chart and argument here needs to cross out "income" and replace it with the actual variable measured, which is "the income people are willing to honestly self-report, knowing that they will lose a portion of every dollar they report". From this we conclude that every stat indicating greater % of income paid in taxes is significantly inflated and overestimates such differences. Exactly by how much is unknown, so we are just left with data that falls well short of establishing any reliable facts about how the true tax burden is distributed.
The tax burden in progressive to some degree, but to what true degree compared to the past and to other countries cannot be validly inferred from such poor methods of measurement, since the nature of the errors in income measurement are unlikely to be constant across either time or nation. Finally, the burden of proof fall 100% upon the OP and those making arguments that presume the validity of the CBO and other data as reliable and valid measures of actual income, which is actually not directly measured anywhere in those data. The burden is upon them to show that their self-report method is reliable enough and that the errors are stable over time and nation enough to make the comparisons they are making valid. This burden is quite high given the mountain of evidence in psychology suggesting that these far from reasonable assumptions.
Jason Harvestdancer
Contributor
Although "self reported" is generally very weak, this is "self reported on the 1040 to the IRS" which is a whole different level of self report.