Who pays for government?

[untermensche]

Untermensche: If we don't start "climbing" soon and quit arguing with the world bosses, Loren will simply go into conniptions. The truth is the world bosses could give a shit what any of us think. Loren should wake up to that fact too and quit trying to convince us the great Market Pumpkin will solve all problems and punish the evil communists...probably including you and me!

I think there are many who see wanting more than you need as a defect of character.

Capitalism is where the most defective can soon dominate the sane.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Yup, it's true that it has been repeatedly shown that Marx is wrong.

You're one of those who doesn't even need to read an author to know they are wrong.

You couldn't tell me one thing Marx said off the top of your head.

Marx made two fundamental mistakes:

1) He ignored the value of organization.

2) He ignored the need to produce new means of production.

His ideas work in a static low-tech society. They don't work in the real world.

The last time someone presented data it was about a 10% of going from the bottom quintile to the top. Perfect mobility only yields 20%. It certainly seems to me that you can climb. Climbing to the very top is another matter--everything has to go right to get there, people with a poor start don't have much of a chance. This is inevitable, though.

You are living in some fantasy world.

The world has dramatically changed in the last 30 years.

Today inherited wealth dominates. Very soon, if we keep moving in our present direction, it will totally dominate.

Look at the Forbes list.

Plenty of wealth to go around but because a few control so much, great poverty exists.

Except your world spends that wealth. There's no money to build the new factories. Even if there are new ideas they will be implemented very slowly. You also can't have much population growth.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Marx made two fundamental mistakes:

1) He ignored the value of organization.

2) He ignored the need to produce new means of production.

His ideas work in a static low-tech society. They don't work in the real world.

I don't think Marx was completely right or completely wrong. I've worked for quite a few employers and all of them save one were shitholes of the variety that no doubt inspired Marx.

 

[untermensche]

You're one of those who doesn't even need to read an author to know they are wrong.

You couldn't tell me one thing Marx said off the top of your head.

Marx made two fundamental mistakes:

1) He ignored the value of organization.

2) He ignored the need to produce new means of production.

His ideas work in a static low-tech society. They don't work in the real world.

You display the fact you have never read a word he wrote.

Look at the Forbes list.

Fine.

6 out of the top 10 inherited great wealth.

Of the other 4, 3 are over 70. 1 is over 80.

That is how the top looks. Very soon it will be almost entirely inherited wealth.

Plenty of wealth to go around but because a few control so much, great poverty exists.

Except your world spends that wealth. There's no money to build the new factories. Even if there are new ideas they will be implemented very slowly. You also can't have much population growth.

What are you talking about?

Labor creates the wealth. Ownership steals the wealth.

Labor creates plenty of wealth to go around. When some claim the right to hoard this wealth to themselves poverty ensues.

Great wealth creates great poverty.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Marx made two fundamental mistakes:

1) He ignored the value of organization.

2) He ignored the need to produce new means of production.

His ideas work in a static low-tech society. They don't work in the real world.

You display the fact you have never read a word he wrote.

You're just assuming he's right, not addressing the problems.

Look at the Forbes list.

Fine.

6 out of the top 10 inherited great wealth.

Of the other 4, 3 are over 70. 1 is over 80.

That is how the top looks. Very soon it will be almost entirely inherited wealth.

1) I was thinking of more than the top 10.

2) You're simply assuming that people can't make money. Of course the people who made their riches and are at the top of the list are mostly old--it takes time to make that kind of money. What you are missing is that there are more chasing them and as the great wealth is diluted by inheritance (rarely is it inherited by only one person) they'll fall back and the chasers will end up at the top.

Plenty of wealth to go around but because a few control so much, great poverty exists.

Except your world spends that wealth. There's no money to build the new factories. Even if there are new ideas they will be implemented very slowly. You also can't have much population growth.

What are you talking about?

Labor creates the wealth. Ownership steals the wealth.

Labor creates plenty of wealth to go around. When some claim the right to hoard this wealth to themselves poverty ensues.

Great wealth creates great poverty.

I'm talking about reality, not Marxian fantasy. Your side has never come up with a workable approach for the creation and growth of new companies in capital-intensive industries.

 

[untermensche]

You're just assuming he's right, not addressing the problems.

You've never read the man. It's clear.

All you have are the prejudices you inherited and had no means to escape them, like reading.

1) I was thinking of more than the top 10.

2) You're simply assuming that people can't make money. Of course the people who made their riches and are at the top of the list are mostly old--it takes time to make that kind of money. What you are missing is that there are more chasing them and as the great wealth is diluted by inheritance (rarely is it inherited by only one person) they'll fall back and the chasers will end up at the top.

Childish delusion that ignores reality.

The entire list is filled with either inherited wealth or very old people soon to leave their wealth to others, and one guy, Gates, who says he wants to give it all away.

There is no amount of evidence of oligarchy that will convince some.

I'm talking about reality, not Marxian fantasy. Your side has never come up with a workable approach for the creation and growth of new companies in capital-intensive industries.

You've never read Marx, you don't know what he said, and I doubt you could understand much of what he said.

You should stop throwing his name around.

It simply makes you look like a fool.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I'm talking about reality, not Marxian fantasy. Your side has never come up with a workable approach for the creation and growth of new companies in capital-intensive industries.

The capitalist approach is fine. It's merely a matter of degree. Someone said, "with great wealth comes great poverty." That certainly needn't be the case.

 

[maxparrish]

In the pictures are worth a thousand words category:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/09/19/other-countries-dont-have-a-47/

 

[untermensche]

The capitalist approach is fine. It's merely a matter of degree. Someone said, "with great wealth comes great poverty." That certainly needn't be the case.

It has always been the case and it is a cause and effect situation.

The accumulation of great wealth is always at the cost of others.

Nobody makes wealth on their own. It is usually done by stealing from a lot of people.

That is capitalism, institutional theft. The massive taking of the fruits of labor from labor.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

In the pictures are worth a thousand words category:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/09/19/other-countries-dont-have-a-47/

And as you are well aware those charts are horseshit. But I give you an "A" for propaganda.

 

[Togo]

I'd be interested in a reference as to what the authors mean by 'Progressivity', and how they're measuring it. I couldn't find one in the link, because the article is behind a paywall.

I note however, that you're still desperately trying to find a measure that doesn't include income. Since Income taxes are based on income, this seems like quite a strange omission.

 

[Jayjay]

I'd be interested in a reference as to what the authors mean by 'Progressivity', and how they're measuring it. I couldn't find one in the link, because the article is behind a paywall.

I note however, that you're still desperately trying to find a measure that doesn't include income. Since Income taxes are based on income, this seems like quite a strange omission.

 Kakwani_index:

The Kakwani index uses the Gini framework to measure how progressive a social intervention is. It is equal to the difference between the Gini index for the social intervention, and the Gini index for incomes before imposition of the policy intervention. Theoretically, the Kakwani index can vary between −1 to 1; the larger the index is, the more progressive is the social intervention.

Not sure what the "weighted" part means, but in principle the measure does factor in income because it's based on Gini index of income inequality. Or did you mean something else?

 

[untermensche]

I'd be interested in a reference as to what the authors mean by 'Progressivity', and how they're measuring it. I couldn't find one in the link, because the article is behind a paywall.

I note however, that you're still desperately trying to find a measure that doesn't include income. Since Income taxes are based on income, this seems like quite a strange omission.

 Kakwani_index:

The Kakwani index uses the Gini framework to measure how progressive a social intervention is. It is equal to the difference between the Gini index for the social intervention, and the Gini index for incomes before imposition of the policy intervention. Theoretically, the Kakwani index can vary between −1 to 1; the larger the index is, the more progressive is the social intervention.

Not sure what the "weighted" part means, but in principle the measure does factor in income because it's based on Gini index of income inequality. Or did you mean something else?

You can't measure the progressiveness of a tax system without also looking at money given directly to taxpayers from the government.

Your tax is actually the amount you give the government minus the amount the government gives you.

People that own a lot of stock or work in defense corporations get a whole lot directly from the government.

 

[Jayjay]

 Kakwani_index:

The Kakwani index uses the Gini framework to measure how progressive a social intervention is. It is equal to the difference between the Gini index for the social intervention, and the Gini index for incomes before imposition of the policy intervention. Theoretically, the Kakwani index can vary between −1 to 1; the larger the index is, the more progressive is the social intervention.

Not sure what the "weighted" part means, but in principle the measure does factor in income because it's based on Gini index of income inequality. Or did you mean something else?

You can't measure the progressiveness of a tax system without also looking at money given directly to taxpayers from the government.

Your tax is actually the amount you give the government minus the amount the government gives you.

I agree. Which is why the study in the opening post offers a more sensible view. In that, US is nowhere near the most progressive in terms of direct taxes and transfers, though it doesn't factor in indirect taxes and transfers.

People that own a lot of stock or work in defense corporations get a whole lot directly from the government.

As do people who work for government or government contractors: teachers, soldiers, postmen, ...

But that kind of indirect transfers are difficult to quantify.

 

[maxparrish]

I'd be interested in a reference as to what the authors mean by 'Progressivity', and how they're measuring it. I couldn't find one in the link, because the article is behind a paywall.

I note however, that you're still desperately trying to find a measure that doesn't include income. Since Income taxes are based on income, this seems like quite a strange omission.

Perhaps you mean the paper the article is reviewing is behind a paywall (I can access the article link without a paywall)? For a more detailed explanation, take a look at this link: http://themonkeycage.org/2012/02/16/the-facts-about-tax-progressivity/

 

[Togo]

I'd be interested in a reference as to what the authors mean by 'Progressivity', and how they're measuring it. I couldn't find one in the link, because the article is behind a paywall.

I note however, that you're still desperately trying to find a measure that doesn't include income. Since Income taxes are based on income, this seems like quite a strange omission.

 Kakwani_index:

The Kakwani index uses the Gini framework to measure how progressive a social intervention is. It is equal to the difference between the Gini index for the social intervention, and the Gini index for incomes before imposition of the policy intervention. Theoretically, the Kakwani index can vary between −1 to 1; the larger the index is, the more progressive is the social intervention.

Not sure what the "weighted" part means, but in principle the measure does factor in income because it's based on Gini index of income inequality. Or did you mean something else?

Something else. The graph shows 'progressivity' as measured by the Kakwani index, which is the extent to the which the tax system redistributes income. However, the reason why the US does so well on this measure is because they have a level of income disparity more typical of a third world country than a Western one. (see the map on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient) So when they say that the US tax system is 'more progressive' than the one in the UK, they ignore the fact that incomes were much more unequal to begin with. The effect of applying taxation still results in a less equal income distribution in the US compared to the other countries (same link).

Or to put it more simply, Max is desperately trying to ignore income. He wants to present tax figures in a vacuum, rather than showing tax compared to income, because he knows that any comparison that includes income will show the US as a society with a vastly more unequal wealth distribution, both before and after tax, than other Western countries.

 

[maxparrish]

You can't measure the progressiveness of a tax system without also looking at money given directly to taxpayers from the government.

Your tax is actually the amount you give the government minus the amount the government gives you.

I agree. Which is why the study in the opening post offers a more sensible view. In that, US is nowhere near the most progressive in terms of direct taxes and transfers, though it doesn't factor in indirect taxes and transfers.

People that own a lot of stock or work in defense corporations get a whole lot directly from the government.

As do people who work for government or government contractors: teachers, soldiers, postmen, ...

But that kind of indirect transfers are difficult to quantify.

The link I provided in the previous post should clarify the confusion of the posters:

However, the question of how progressive the system is an empirical question. In fact, the system of taxation in the United States is relatively progressive. What makes this fact surprising is that tax progressivity and fiscal redistribution (the reduction of inequality by government action) are often conflated, and it remains true that redistribution in the US is low, due mainly to the relatively small size of the US government. The American case typifies one pole of a robust negative relationship between tax progressivity and overall redistribution, the cause of which remains a contested question in the literature on comparative political economy.

In other words, one ought to note these are different empirical questions. How progressive is the tax system and how fiscally redistributive is the government (both in total quantity and proportional effect). The overall impression from the CBO data and the studies suggest it is highly progressive, strongly redistributive, but the total amount of redistribution is relatively low compared to Europe.

As far as the question of progressivity is concerned, there really isn't a debate. The US depends on income taxes while Europe depends on income and VAT taxes. VAT taxes are considered to be the most economically efficient, but are highly regressive.

Another chart from the same study illustrates:

Of course, one "solution" is to create a nation-wide VAT on top of the Income Tax and then, using the extra revenues, "redistribute it" to the same folks you taxed with VAT. Then US 'progressivity' would drop to European levels.

 

[Togo]

Another chart from the same study illustrates:

Of course, one "solution" is to create a nation-wide VAT on top of the Income Tax and then, using the extra revenues, "redistribute it" to the same folks you taxed with VAT. Then US 'progressivity' would drop to European levels.

How are you reaching this conclusion while citing a graph showing the opposite? US taxes have a larger progressivity (change in GINI) effect because there is more GINI (inequality) to work with.

 

[ksen]

itt we learn how fractions work

 

[untermensche]

You can't measure the progressiveness of a tax system without also looking at money given directly to taxpayers from the government.

Your tax is actually the amount you give the government minus the amount the government gives you.

I agree. Which is why the study in the opening post offers a more sensible view. In that, US is nowhere near the most progressive in terms of direct taxes and transfers, though it doesn't factor in indirect taxes and transfers.

People that own a lot of stock or work in defense corporations get a whole lot directly from the government.

As do people who work for government or government contractors: teachers, soldiers, postmen, ...

But that kind of indirect transfers are difficult to quantify.

I'm talking about people who get something and do no work for it.

Yes government is the agency that pays teachers, but they must perform labor.

It is not a reduction of their taxes when they are paid for their labor.

But when somebody owns a lot of stock in some defense contractor then drives the nation to one useless war after another, that is the government just giving people money.

At the expense of the majority.