PDA

View Full Version : taxes


mike16m
August 23rd, 2016, 07:09 PM
what do you all think the federal income tax rates should be in the us? should the rich pay a higher percentage or should everyone pay the same percentage

Flapjack
August 24th, 2016, 03:40 AM
The rich should pay a muchhhh higher percentage.

devotionnel
August 24th, 2016, 04:00 AM
Well if everyone paid the same percentage the rich would end up having more taxed compared to the poor anyway. It makes sense.

Vlerchan
August 24th, 2016, 05:11 AM
Flat rate.

It's less distortion-inducing to discriminate elsewhere.

---

N.B.: It's better to have a higher tax rate than run a deficit hoping to lower it.

Reise
August 24th, 2016, 06:19 AM
Are you guys talking about having the same tax rate for everyone?

PlasmaHam
August 24th, 2016, 07:05 AM
Same percentage across the board. We shouldn't punish the rich for being rich. Anyways, a standardized tax rate would still have the rich paying significantly more than the average person. It isn't like a standardized tax rate means everyone pays the same. Also, higher tax rates on the rich can be seen as discrimination, unfairly targeting a specific group. A standardized tax rate is the fairest system.

I have actually heard of some people and companies refusing to earn over a specific amount of money to avoid higher tax percentages. That ultimately hurts the economy, when a supplier or skilled worker restricts themselves.
Reise Yes, I believe the OP wants to debate whether there should be a standard tax rate, or a progressive tax rate.

Vlerchan
August 24th, 2016, 07:09 AM
Are you guys talking about having the same tax rate for everyone?
I believe the questions related to how progressive the optimal tax schedule should be.

Reise
August 24th, 2016, 07:33 AM
I believe the questions related to how progressive the optimal tax schedule should be.
Oh, yeah that's already more clear.

I'm quite disturbed by the idea of a single tax rate but I will argue on that once I go home as I'm gonna need some maths.
"Some", haha.

Flapjack
August 24th, 2016, 08:11 AM
Same percentage across the board. We shouldn't punish the rich for being rich. Anyways, a standardized tax rate would still have the rich paying significantly more than the average person. It isn't like a standardized tax rate means everyone pays the same. Also, higher tax rates on the rich can be seen as discrimination, unfairly targeting a specific group. A standardized tax rate is the fairest system.

I have actually heard of some people and companies refusing to earn over a specific amount of money to avoid higher tax percentages. That ultimately hurts the economy, when a supplier or skilled worker restricts themselves.
@Reise (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/member.php?u=117175) Yes, I believe the OP wants to debate whether there should be a standard tax rate, or a progressive tax rate.
Do you think it is fair to tax the richest the same the poorest that struggle to afford food?

devotionnel
August 24th, 2016, 08:19 AM
Do you think it is fair to tax the richest the same the poorest that struggle to afford food?

Unfortunately it is a pay-to-live system and it would be equally unfair to tax some people and not others. Furthermore it would take a long time to organise which people would be taxed and which people shouldn't.

Flapjack
August 24th, 2016, 08:27 AM
Unfortunately it is a pay-to-live system and it would be equally unfair to tax some people and not others. Furthermore it would take a long time to organise which people would be taxed and which people shouldn't.
We shouldn't be taking money from those that can't afford to give it because it is a pay to live system. The poor are already disadvantaged enough.

The rich also have the first 11k tax free and then the nest 33k at 20% etc ect so I think it is fair.

It won't take a long time to figure out who should be taxed and who shouldn't. The current bands system works well, I would just increase the percentage taxed on the higher bands and reduce it on the lower bands :)

Vlerchan
August 24th, 2016, 08:34 AM
Do you think it is fair to tax the richest the same the poorest that struggle to afford food?
The poor get welfare and higher levels of tax subsidies (EITC etc.).

The fact that the income tax schedule is flat does not mean that the poor are subject to the same level of overall taxation nonetheless.

---

Though - the central point - is that even if a specific tax proposal seems 'unfair' it can encourage a net positive distribution of recourses in the grander scheme of things.

PlasmaHam
August 24th, 2016, 10:25 AM
Do you think it is fair to tax the richest the same the poorest that struggle to afford food?

I think it is fair to tax them the same percentage, yes.

Flapjack
August 24th, 2016, 02:07 PM
I think it is fair to tax them the same percentage, yes.

The rich also have the first 11k tax free and then the nest 33k at 20% etc ect so I think it is fair.

Even if you think it is unfair, socially it is more fair. It will make the poor less disadvantaged.

Though - the central point - is that even if a specific tax proposal seems 'unfair' it can encourage a net positive distribution of recourses in the grander scheme of things.
How would it? Surely taxing the rich more and poor more will reduce income inequality more? I think a flat rate would increase the income inequality which is why it is so popular with the right wing.

Drewboyy
August 24th, 2016, 02:14 PM
How would it? Surely taxing the rich more and poor more will reduce income inequality more? I think a flat rate would increase the income inequality which is why it is so popular with the right wing.

Everyone should totally pay the same tax. It's already crazy there is such a high tax on the lottery. But why should people who worked hard for their money have to be punished?

Flapjack
August 24th, 2016, 02:39 PM
Everyone should totally pay the same tax. It's already crazy there is such a high tax on the lottery. But why should people who worked hard for their money have to be punished?
They're not being punished, they're paying a fair share and it is hardly difficult for them. There are hard working mothers that can't feed their children. They need the money more.

Vlerchan
August 24th, 2016, 02:42 PM
How would it?
Because the options available to government when it comes to taxation and redistribution consist of more than just the income tax. Flattening the taxation schedule spurs on wealth creation. There are other options available to government to then tax and redistribute this wealth which - on net - aren't going to undermine the wealth creation process to the same extent as progressive taxation.

PlasmaHam
August 24th, 2016, 02:48 PM
The rich also have the first 11k tax free and then the nest 33k at 20% etc ect so I think it is fair.
I am not familiar with British taxation laws and rates. I don't think that is the point here anyways. I agree that the rich shouldn't get tax breaks, but I think the best way to do that is equalizing tax rates.
They're not being punished, they're paying a fair share and it is hardly difficult for them. There are hard working mothers that can't feed their children. They need the money more.

By your logic, you should share your house with a poor family. It wouldn't be too difficult to let them have a few rooms, and it works towards the greater good of the community. They would need that extra room more than you.

Flapjack
August 24th, 2016, 03:11 PM
Because the options available to government when it comes to taxation and redistribution consist of more than just the income tax. Flattening the taxation schedule spurs on wealth creation. There are other options available to government to then tax and redistribute this wealth which - on net - aren't going to undermine the wealth creation process to the same extent as progressive taxation.
How does progressive tax undermine wealth creation?

How would a government get money away from the rich if there is a flat tax?

By your logic, you should share your house with a poor family. It wouldn't be too difficult to let them have a few rooms, and it works towards the greater good of the community. They would need that extra room more than you.
No that is not by my logic at all. I would personally be fine with it if a poor family asked me but I think a line has been crossed between taking more of the riches vast amount of money to give to those disadvantaged and starving and putting strangers in people's homes.

________________________________

This is to @PlasmaHam (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/member.php?u=122733) @Vlerchan (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/member.php?u=89715) @twentyonehorizons (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/member.php?u=119622) @Drewboyy (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/member.php?u=117455) and anyone else that is interested.

I am all for reducing tax on everyone, this can be done by increasing corporation tax and the capital gains tax.

I know there are cons to the progressive tax like bracket creeping but I support it because:



It shifts the tax burden to those most able to pay
Protects the tax payer at hard times as when your income goes down, so does your tax.
Governments can get more revenue from a progressive tax system (this is contested)

Vlerchan
August 24th, 2016, 04:09 PM
How does progressive tax undermine wealth creation?
There's a wealth of literature I can link to on this topic if you want.

But in the simplest terms, progressive taxation disincentivises the taking an extra hour of work. This effect - most importantly - increases as income rises, as the average tax rate increases with each hour worked*. The added problem here, is that the most productive workers are the harshest affected, because the most productive workers have the highest scaling average tax rate.

Wealth-production is constrained as a result.

---

* The average taxation rate is different to the marginal rate. The marginal rate is the headline rate paid on the next euro of income - so, in Ireland, those earning over 33,000 are taxed at a rate of 42% before PRSI and USC are tagged on. The average rate though, is what, over average, is paid on each euro of the 33,000.

How would a government get money away from the rich if there is a flat tax?
I prefer Land-value taxation and a progressive tax on consumption.

[...] increasing corporation tax [...]
I discussed the opposition I had with this in the Who do you support thread (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showpost.php?p=3411358&postcount=265), if you missed it. Other than [1] being regressive, insofar as bigger firms are much more capable of avoiding it, [2] acting as a disincentive to capital investment, which hurts output and wage growth, [3]: the incidence of taxation being levied on labour, or:

Our central estimate is that the long run elasticity of the wage bill with respect to taxation is -0.093. Evaluated at the mean, this implies that an exogenous rise of $1 in tax would reduce the wage bill by 49 cents. We find only weak evidence of a difference for multinational companies.

Arulampalam, Devereux and Maffini (2010) (http://ftp.iza.org/dp5293.pdf)

Using cross-country data I estimate that a ten percentage point increase in the corporate tax rate of high-income countries reduces mean annual gross wages by seven percent. The results do not support the common belief that the burden of corporate taxes falls most heavily on skilled labor; corporate taxation appears to reduce the wages of low-skill and high-skill workers to the same degree.

Felix (2007) (https://www.kansascityfed.org/Publicat/RegionalRWP/RRWP07-01.pdf)

Controlling for observable worker characteristics, a one percent lower state tax rate is associated with a 0.36 percent higher union wage premium, suggesting that workers in a fully unionized firm capture roughly 54 percent of the benefits of low tax rates.

Felix and Hines (2009) (http://www.nber.org/papers/w15263)

Consistent with our theoretical model, we find a negative effect of corporate taxation on wages: a 1 euro increase in tax liabilities yields a 77 cent decrease in the wage bill [...] ge effect through reduced investment is empirically small due to regional labor mobility. High and medium-skilled workers, who arguably extract higher rents in collective agreements [this is a German-thing, inapplicable to the U.S.], bear a larger share of the corporate tax burden.

Faust, Peichl and Siegloch (2013) (http://ftp.iza.org/dp7390.pdf)

Here's a non-technical piece that discusses the issue with considerable clarity.

Between 1977 and 1991, a one-percentage-point increase in the state corporate tax rate reduced wages 0.27 percent, on average. In comparison, from 1992 to 2005, a one-percentage-point increase in the state corporate tax rate decreased wages 0.52 percent, on average. This jump may be due in part to increasing global competition.

Felix (2009) (https://www.kansascityfed.org/publicat/econrev/pdf/09q2felix.pdf)

I am also not claiming that the empirical work is airtight. But if we are going to decide on policy, I am sure you would agree, it should be done along lines of the academic literature.

capital gains tax
Undermines investment, which in turn undermines output and wage growth.

There's more intelligent ways to tax, frankly.

Porpoise101
August 24th, 2016, 04:54 PM
Vlerchan , this is a little unrelated, but what do you think of carbon taxes? I think that adding monetary value to the environment is a good thing and encourages sustainable practices. In this case, it would discourage poor practices.

Vlerchan
August 24th, 2016, 05:05 PM
Vlerchan , this is a little unrelated, but what do you think of carbon taxes? I think that adding monetary value to the environment is a good thing and encourages sustainable practices. In this case, it would discourage poor practices.
I agree, and so would Pigou (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigovian_tax). Because the price of carbon doesn't internalise the full costs - in otherwords, the costs of production and social costs don't align - carbon is overdemanded. I think carbon taxes are a good means of correcting this (taxation is also almost always better than regulation, imo, too).

Though, I am more supportive of cap-and-trade practices: it allows for a more efficient distribution of carbon usage inside a socially-optimal bounds. The issue, however, seems to be with the initial issuance of carbon-vouchers - or whatever the technical term is - being the product of intense lobbying-efforts, and thus the socially-optimal limit being overshot.

mattsmith48
August 24th, 2016, 07:38 PM
The richer you are the more you should pay in taxes, also known as common sense.

For all the anti tax and hating on poor people who are for everyone paying the same pourcentage of tax, how are you planning to pay for those tax cuts to rich people?

Also while where talking about taxes should churches pay taxes? They are basically a bussiness who make alot of money and don't pay taxes on it. There is no reason why they dont pay any taxes, Scientology is a huge fraud Donald Trump could only dream of where they makes money from literally brainwashing people Christians worship a guy who is against wealth, and catholics would still be able to pay their lawyers.

Vlerchan
August 24th, 2016, 07:48 PM
The richer you are the more you should pay in taxes, also known as common sense.
The rich do pay more taxes under both a flat and progressive taxation system.

If you mean, that a higher marginal rate should be paid on higher incomes, you'll have to do better than insult our intelligence.

For all the anti tax and hating on poor people who are for everyone paying the same pourcentage of tax, how are you planning to pay for those tax cuts to rich people?
Progressive expenditure taxation, Land-value taxation, Welfare-reform, End farm-subsidies, Cut food-subsidies (better off targeting poor-people with tax subsidies), etc.

I'm not in favour of cutting taxation rates where it means running a fiscal-deficit, though.

Also while where talking about taxes should churches pay taxes?
Non-profits shouldn't pay taxes.

mattsmith48
August 24th, 2016, 08:01 PM
The rich do pay more taxes under both a flat and progressive taxation system.

If you mean, that a higher marginal rate should be paid on higher incomes, you'll have to do better than insult our intelligence.

With a flat tax rich people do lose more money in taxes but the pourcentage of their income that is paid in taxes is much lower than poorer people who actually need money

Progressive expenditure taxation, Land-value taxation, Welfare-reform, End farm-subsidies, Cut food-subsidies (better off targeting poor-people), etc.

You know hating on poor people was suppose to be sarcastic you didn't had to prove me right. Targeting weak people who can't defend them self is never the right thing to do.

I'm not in favour of cutting taxation rates where it means running a fiscal-deficit, though.

But its exacly what any tax cuts to rich people do and even with all the cuts you could possibly do it would never pay for the change to a flat tax

Non-profits shouldn't pay taxes.

Non-Profit should also not make a profit like most churches do

Vlerchan
August 24th, 2016, 08:06 PM
With a flat tax rich people do lose more money in taxes but the pourcentage of their income that is paid in taxes is much lower than poorer people who actually need money
No, the percentage is, by definition, exactly the same.

You know hating on poor people was suppose to be sarcastic you didn't had to prove me right. Targeting weak people who can't defend them self is never the right thing to do.
This is an ad hominem.

I would appreciate an argument.

---

Lol. I see where you misunderstood me. I mean we should target poor people with specific tax-subsidies.

But its exacly what any tax cuts to rich people do and even with all the cuts you could possibly do it would never pay for the change to a flat tax

This isn't true.

Non-Profit should also not make a profit like most churches do
So long as operating profits are donated to charitable endeavours, or reinvested in the operations of the church, I have no issue.

mattsmith48
August 24th, 2016, 08:50 PM
No, the percentage is, by definition, exactly the same.

I meant when comparing with lower income people.

Lol. I see where you misunderstood me. I mean we should target poor people with specific tax-subsidies.

They way you say targeting poor people like its a choice to be poor

Vlerchan
August 24th, 2016, 08:56 PM
I meant when comparing with lower income people.
Yes, and I mean, by definition, rich and poor, and all the people in between, pay the same percentage of tax on their income.

They way you say targeting poor people like its a choice to be poor
Of course I don't believe these people choose to be poor.

But, for whatever reason, people are poor, and we should grant them specific aid.

Bull
August 24th, 2016, 08:57 PM
Because I enjoy exercises in futility I offer the following: A flat tax on income from any and all sources is ok, however, the devil is in the loopholes that creep in. IMO every person that has income should pay a flat rate on the first say $5000. Personal and family exemptions should be indexed for lower and middle income. No exemptions for income above 1 million. All income should be taxed for social security.

Porpoise101
August 24th, 2016, 09:01 PM
Also while where talking about taxes should churches pay taxes? They are basically a bussiness who make alot of money and don't pay taxes on it. There is no reason why they dont pay any taxes, Scientology is a huge fraud Donald Trump could only dream of where they makes money from literally brainwashing people Christians worship a guy who is against wealth, and catholics would still be able to pay their lawyers.
As said above, nonprofits should not pay taxes. Furthermore, this only creates tensions between the state and the church. This is a struggle that has existed throughout time, and it is one we have avoided in the US because the government does not meddle in their business. There is no need for it to change.

That being said, there are some sketchy religious institutions (think televangelist types) but I am not sure that it would be a good move to ban or tax them. There would be too much fallout politically and it would set a dangerous precedent for the government. The only big complaint I have with nonprofits in the US is that sports leagues (NFL, NBA, etc) are tax exempt for technically being a trade league. To me this is a stretch, as they also have a business side to them.

mattsmith48
August 24th, 2016, 09:05 PM
Yes, and I mean, by definition, rich and poor, and all the people in between, pay the same percentage of tax on their income.


Of course I don't believe these people choose to be poor.

But, for whatever reason, people are poor, and we should grant them specific aid.

So you want to help poor people but you also want to cut social programs and take away money they need to live to pay for massive tax cuts to rich people who don't really need that extra money anyway

Uniquemind
August 24th, 2016, 09:07 PM
Because I enjoy exercises in futility I offer the following: A flat tax on income from any and all sources is ok, however, the devil is in the loopholes that creep in. IMO every person that has income should pay a flat rate on the first say $5000. Personal and family exemptions should be indexed for lower and middle income. No exemptions for income above 1 million. All income should be taxed for social security.

I'm not sure they're are enough millionaires for that to be a cost-neutral system with what the government spends.

You are also forgetting about medicare costs.

mattsmith48
August 24th, 2016, 09:16 PM
As said above, nonprofits should not pay taxes. Furthermore, this only creates tensions between the state and the church. This is a struggle that has existed throughout time, and it is one we have avoided in the US because the government does not meddle in their business. There is no need for it to change.

That being said, there are some sketchy religious institutions (think televangelist types) but I am not sure that it would be a good move to ban or tax them. There would be too much fallout politically and it would set a dangerous precedent for the government. The only big complaint I have with nonprofits in the US is that sports leagues (NFL, NBA, etc) are tax exempt for technically being a trade league. To me this is a stretch, as they also have a business side to them.

Really religion constantly get into US goverment and policies. Your right that sports leagues should pay taxes but also should other bussineses who pay no taxes or very little taxes. Religion is as much of a business as the NFL and they both should pay taxes. Televangelist are assholes who will take advantage of stupid people and get them to give them money tax free, but how is that different from scientology or any other religion.

DriveAlive
August 24th, 2016, 10:34 PM
I like a flat tax system, as long as it is extremely simple so as to avoid abusing loopholes. I would also prefer to see taxes get cut across the board. Government spending should be reduced, as well. I am pretty sure Gary Johnson has called for a 50% decrease in all government spending.

Flapjack
August 24th, 2016, 10:41 PM
Government spending should be reduced, as well. I am pretty sure Gary Johnson has called for a 50% decrease in all government spending.
What would you cut buddy? I think spending on the US military needs to be cut drastically, they're terrible with money, a large amount of money could be saved just by managing the American military better.

Drewboyy
August 24th, 2016, 11:49 PM
What would you cut buddy? I think spending on the US military needs to be cut drastically, they're terrible with money, a large amount of money could be saved just by managing the American military better.


Eh, our military is the best thing we have going for us. And the rest of the free world at that.

Flapjack
August 25th, 2016, 12:01 AM
Eh, our military is the best thing we have going for us. And the rest of the free world at that.
I have so many things wrong with that statement but most of that isn't relevant to the thread. The US military is billions around like it is nothing. With better management billions could easily be saved without cutting the military strength. I personally think the military in the US is excessive but baby steps.

Drewboyy
August 25th, 2016, 12:18 AM
I have so many things wrong with that statement but most of that isn't relevant to the thread. The US military is billions around like it is nothing. With better management billions could easily be saved without cutting the military strength. I personally think the military in the US is excessive but baby steps.

Most of the military funding goes towards operating everything that we have. You know, since we have a dominant presence all over the world. Shaving billions off definitely will cut the military strength, but not by so much where it'll make a difference about how strong we are.

Personally, I think being excessive is the only reason our enemies are supposed to be afraid of doing anything to piss us off.

Flapjack
August 25th, 2016, 12:28 AM
Most of the military funding goes towards operating everything that we have. You know, since we have a dominant presence all over the world. Shaving billions off definitely will cut the military strength, but not by so much where it'll make a difference about how strong we are.

Personally, I think being excessive is the only reason our enemies are supposed to be afraid of doing anything to piss us off.
Forget the number one talk for a bit buddy because it is unrelated! What the USA is really no.1 in is creating their own bloody enemies and slaughtering civilians.

With stuff like this:
spgBWtV5nCk
iVr8nS3MxpU
4yV7I7V_jFI
HkcHT9FZohA
KTF_a1DuIyE
I think it is very clear the US can save billions without reducing strength. Remember the trillions spent on that jet that will never fly? (http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-trillion-dollar-stealth-jet-the-government-cant-seem-to-finish)

Vlerchan
August 25th, 2016, 04:36 AM
[...] but you also want to cut social programs and take away money they need to live [....]
You're reading this into the posts I've made, because it's not something I've claimed. Throughout this thread I have more than implied I think that we should aim to keep the current levels of inequality roughly constant.

I'd appreciate if you read my previous posts - in particular those on the first page of this thread - if they've been missed.

for massive tax cuts to rich people who don't really need that extra money anyway
Please read the previous posts I made where I encouraged the redistribution of the extra wealth that such policies create. The biggest problem I have is that the arguments being made here is that it's just focused on distributional outcomes in the present - which is no sort of time-frame to considered the successes and failures of tax policies, and neither should the distribution be out prime criterion for analysing specific tax policies.

Its also worth noting that so far I haven't claimed at all that we should engage in 'massive tax cuts to rich people' despite your continued insistence otherwise. I have let it slide - but since its quickly becoming the central theme of the argument being made (flat taxes be damned, at this stage) - I should add that you are putting words into my mouth and have been doing it for a while. That I have claimed to support progressive taxation in other spheres, and LV-taxation is de facto progressive, I'd have thought it was more than clear I am not out to create a good time for the rich.

Really religion constantly get into US goverment and policies.
So do Trade Unions and international development organisations such as Concern.

The rest of that post is built on prejudices surrounding religion as opposed to an actual argument concerning their non-profit statues.

phuckphace
August 25th, 2016, 07:53 AM
Really religion constantly get into US goverment and policies. Your right that sports leagues should pay taxes but also should other bussineses who pay no taxes or very little taxes. Religion is as much of a business as the NFL and they both should pay taxes. Televangelist are assholes who will take advantage of stupid people and get them to give them money tax free, but how is that different from scientology or any other religion.

lol at conflating televangelists with religion in general

good thing we don't tax bad posts or you'd be in the red big time

PlasmaHam
August 25th, 2016, 09:11 AM
The richer you are the more you should pay in taxes, also known as common sense.

As Vlerchan said, they do! A flat rate doesn't mean everyone pays the exact same value. For example, lets say there is a ten percent tax rate. I own 100,000 dollars, you own 100 dollars, we both have to pay taxes. I would pay 10,000 dollars, as that is ten percent of my income. You would only pay 10 dollars, as that is ten percent of your income. That is a flat rate tax, yet I pay significantly more because I own significantly more. I hope you understand.


For all the anti tax and hating on poor people who are for everyone paying the same pourcentage of tax, how are you planning to pay for those tax cuts to rich people?
No one with any common sense is anti-tax completely. And no one here is hating on poor people. Tax cuts for rich people shouldn't exist, they wouldn't exist if there was a flat rate tax.
Also while where talking about taxes should churches pay taxes? They are basically a bussiness who make alot of money and don't pay taxes on it. There is no reason why they dont pay any taxes, Scientology is a huge fraud Donald Trump could only dream of where they makes money from literally brainwashing people Christians worship a guy who is against wealth, and catholics would still be able to pay their lawyers.
Churches are nonprofits, which are typically tax free. That also falls into separation of church and state. You are basically saying that government has the right to interfere in religion, yet religion has no right to interfere in government, which is unconstitutional. As for the rest of your post, you really should stop with rants and prejudices. Lets talk about where Clinton is getting her money if you want to talk about Trump.

Drewboyy
August 25th, 2016, 09:52 AM
Forget the number one talk for a bit buddy because it is unrelated! What the USA is really no.1 in is creating their own bloody enemies and slaughtering civilians.

I think it is very clear the US can save billions without reducing strength. Remember the trillions spent on that jet that will never fly? (http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-trillion-dollar-stealth-jet-the-government-cant-seem-to-finish)

Having such a large amount of enemies who hide in civilian cities naturally leads to civilians getting killed. That's what war is.

And a failed technology advancement? Funded projects fail all around the world, imagine if it will work/worked. It seems like it would be the best stealth tool for the allies.

mattsmith48
August 25th, 2016, 10:22 AM
Please read the previous posts I made where I encouraged the redistribution of the extra wealth that such policies create. The biggest problem I have is that the arguments being made here is that it's just focused on distributional outcomes in the present - which is no sort of time-frame to considered the successes and failures of tax policies, and neither should the distribution be out prime criterion for analysing specific tax policies.

Its also worth noting that so far I haven't claimed at all that we should engage in 'massive tax cuts to rich people' despite your continued insistence otherwise. I have let it slide - but since its quickly becoming the central theme of the argument being made (flat taxes be damned, at this stage) - I should add that you are putting words into my mouth and have been doing it for a while. That I have claimed to support progressive taxation in other spheres, and LV-taxation is de facto progressive, I'd have thought it was more than clear I am not out to create a good time for the rich.

How are you planning to redistrubate the wealth to help poor people if rich people don't pay taxes?

Unless the flat tax is 35% changing to a flat tax is a massive tax cut for the rich. You might not support tax cuts for the rich but thats what a flat tax is.


lol at conflating televangelists with religion in general

good thing we don't tax bad posts or you'd be in the red big time

Tell me what's the difference between televangelist and scientology?

As Vlerchan said, they do! A flat rate doesn't mean everyone pays the exact same value. For example, lets say there is a ten percent tax rate. I own 100,000 dollars, you own 100 dollars, we both have to pay taxes. I would pay 10,000 dollars, as that is ten percent of my income. You would only pay 10 dollars, as that is ten percent of your income. That is a flat rate tax, yet I pay significantly more because I own significantly more. I hope you understand.

A flat tax does mean you pay the same thing in terms of pourcentage, yes you spend more money on taxes but $10,000 for someone who make a $100,000 its not that much money and you can live without that extra $100,000, but someone who makes $100 that $10 he pays in taxes as way higher value to him than the $10,000 the other person pays in taxes, and that he needs that money to survive

No one with any common sense is anti-tax completely. And no one here is hating on poor people. Tax cuts for rich people shouldn't exist, they wouldn't exist if there was a flat rate tax.

Like I said earlier unless your flat tax is 35% a flat tax is a tax cut for rich people. In your example earlier you make $100,000 and you pay 10% of tax thats a pretty big cut from 26%.

Churches are nonprofits, which are typically tax free. That also falls into separation of church and state. You are basically saying that government has the right to interfere in religion, yet religion has no right to interfere in government, which is unconstitutional. As for the rest of your post, you really should stop with rants and prejudices. Lets talk about where Clinton is getting her money if you want to talk about Trump.[/QUOTE]

Religion already interfere in government by having their own political party and since they do so they should pay taxes.

Clinton gets her money in a legal way, it shouldn't be legal and I don't agree with this system because its legal bribes, but it is legal and she as every right to it if she wishes to. Trump keep saying he bankrupt his businesses to take advantage of the law to make money out of his poor businessman skills. What they both do was wrong but legal.

Trump gets his money from scams and frauds and that is illegal and he should be prosecuted for it

Vlerchan
August 25th, 2016, 10:36 AM
How are you planning to redistrubate the wealth to help poor people if rich people don't pay taxes?
The wealth that has been created can be taxed through a progressive expenditure (consumption) tax. It can then be redistributed through a minimum basic income and the EITC.

Unless the flat tax is 35% changing to a flat tax is a massive tax cut for the rich. You might not support tax cuts for the rich but thats what a flat tax is.
The effective tax rate for the 1% in the US is ~25%.

I'd be in favour of something closer to 15% - 20% and then progressive consumption taxation which would eliminate the gains.

---

Edit: I - in fact - would prefer a smaller state and a lower average taxation rate.

Nonetheless - I'm just hoping to convince people that progressive income taxation is a poor tool for engaging with poverty.

PlasmaHam
August 25th, 2016, 10:45 AM
mattsmith48 I advise you to just keep your mouth shut when it comes to religion. I am really bordering on dismissing all your claims as senseless rants, they make no logical sense whatsoever.

I also don't understand anything you are saying about tax rates. Its like you still don't understand the concept of a flat tax rate. Sure that 10 percent is more important to the poor than rich, but the rich did earn that money through being innovative and smart. And it isn't like they hoard all that money in a giant vault, many charitable foundations are funded or ran by the rich. Bill and Melinda Gates foundation for example has donated billions upon billions to charitable causes. The government is not so gracious. That extra money gained from a higher tax on the rich would probably go to other endeavors besides welfare and the poor.

DriveAlive
August 25th, 2016, 10:56 AM
What would you cut buddy? I think spending on the US military needs to be cut drastically, they're terrible with money, a large amount of money could be saved just by managing the American military better.

I would most certainly cut military spending. All government agencies and groups would have to justify every cent of their budget and all other spending would be cut. That way, money could be better used for where it is most effective, while reducing taxes.

Reise
August 25th, 2016, 12:22 PM
Okay as no one has been able to properly answer a simple fucking question I won't be able to present what I wanted to, and this is really complicating things.

Anyway the major problem to a flat tax rate is indeed the negative evolution of the progressive relation between income and tax revenues.
To be clear the integral on [0;+∞[ of the differential equation* f(x)= x*g(x) - as x being the annual before-tax income and g(x) the actual tax rate for this income - is greater than the integral on [0:+∞[ of the function h(x) = x*r - as x still being the annual before-tax income and r being a fixed tax rate.
In order for this to be true g(x) has to be concave progressive in such a way that its integral on [0;+∞[ is superior to the one (on the same interval) of the function i(x) = r.

To be (more) clear a - reasonable - flat tax rate is very likely to (drastically) reduce the tax revenues.
Thus in order to be viable you have to add something else, I assume Vlerchan's idea is based on the Keynesian consumption function. (am i correct?)

I'll need to dig up a bit for the idea of such a consumption tax.
If anybody has another idea to counteract the problem I mentioned in this post, feel free to express yourself, no need to talk maths but I'd personally always appreciate this kind of effort.

PS: I use both quad dashes and parenthesis in the same phrase regardless of the context, I know.

*representative function of the equation (the function is still bi-dimensional btw)

Porpoise101
August 25th, 2016, 03:40 PM
Forget the number one talk for a bit buddy because it is unrelated! What the USA is really no.1 in is creating their own bloody enemies and slaughtering civilians.
This was in one of the videos you linked, so I am not sure if this represents your view buuuut:

I hope you understand that most of the money of the government goes to social security and health care. Not saying that this is necessarily bad, but this is what it is. It is misleading to say that the majority goes to the military. The majority of the 'budget' goes, but healthcare and social security are already earmarked for spending. The budget does not include them in it because Congress has no control over how that money is spent.

The military has a good reason for being high up there though (it is about 25% ish last I checked). The military has a lot of bases to upkeep and the US military is the backbone of NATO. It is what ensures our geopolitical situation in the world. The issue I have with military spending isn't the military itself, but rather the fact that the aerospace and weapons industry can lobby to get the gov to buy more weapons than necessary. This is an issue because we end up having to buy really expensive weapons at the cost of taxpayers, leaving them to collect dust. It is really a 'money in politics' issue.

I think one of the big issues in taxation is that the government keeps creating programs that rely on certain funds. These funds are funded by a certain tax. But recently, the Republicans have let these taxes expire and have not found alternative sources of revenue. Two big programs that have been left to die are the Superfund program and the Highway System. They are really important because one cleans up toxic waste (which causes more costs in health care long term) and the other repairs roads and bridges (which are in dire straits atm). Both are getting short changed because the Superfund tax on chemical goods was stalled out as was the Federal Highway Gas Tax. It is real shame because with all of the low gas prices of the last few years (now going away it seems), it would have been a good time to tax gasoline in particular. Of course, democracy is not that reactive but one can hope.

Vlerchan
August 26th, 2016, 04:19 PM
[0:+∞[
You'll need to be clear as to what this means.

I'm taking it to mean as some Y approaches infinity but it doesn't appear as formatted above in any of the English-language mathematics texts that I have read.

I'm also not going to use much maths in the following, just because I don't have the time to sit down and figure out Lagrangians.

To be (more) clear a - reasonable - flat tax rate is very likely to (drastically) reduce the tax revenues.
Correct me if I'm wrong but is the central claim being made here just that:

as global-income (some Y) approaches ∞,
revenue (rY) will rise under progressive taxation, where the tax-rate (t) is a function of Y and rising (this is sort of a weird imagining of it, but it works),
at a faster rate than under flat taxation, where t is constant.
This seems beholden to a number of issues. The first is that it ignores the fact of changing taxation bands in accordance with income-inflation - the relationship breaks down entirely on back of this.

The second issue, is that it fails to account for a work-consumption trade-off, where individuals maximise some function u(w, c) and as taxation rises and returns on w fall, individuals swap into c. Under a progressive schedule, average taxation increases with each extra dollar earned and the preference for consumption increases. Thus, overall income is reduced under a progressive taxation system, relative to a fixed taxation system.

The third issue, is that it presumes homogeneity in the productivity of expenditure along the lines of rich and poor. To be frank, rich people engage in more productive use of their incomes - save and invest a greater proportion of it: create output growth, wage growth, jobs - than poorer people. Thus, through taxing the rich at a higher rate, income growth is also constrained.

I assume @Vlerchan's idea is based on the Keynesian consumption function. (am i correct?)

The Keynesian consumption function has severe limitations - the most obvious one being the lack of expectations-accounting. Whatever function we decide on, though, would neccisarily require integrating demand-elasticities and the likes. It'd be complicated well beyond the time I have - or possess the patience for.

Bleid
August 26th, 2016, 05:35 PM
You'll need to be clear as to what this means.

I'm taking it to mean as some Y approaches infinity but it doesn't appear as formatted above in any of the English-language mathematics texts that I have read.

It would appear to be,

https://s14.postimg.io/hanp1nodt/img.png

"as x being the annual before-tax income and g(x) the actual tax rate for this income"

"as x still being the annual before-tax income and r being a fixed tax rate."

Simply put, tax average across all income is greater with the actual tax rate than with fixed-rate, if we go (only) by these equations/inequalities.

Reise
August 26th, 2016, 06:13 PM
You'll need to be clear as to what this means.

I'm taking it to mean as some Y approaches infinity but it doesn't appear as formatted above in any of the English-language mathematics texts that I have read.
This is just to represent this issue. This interval just means taking all possible income from 0 to whatever the higher income can be, theoretically infinity.
If you want something more rigorous this will take much more time.


Correct me if I'm wrong but is the central claim being made here just that:

as global-income (some Y) approaches ∞,
revenue (rY) will rise under progressive taxation, where the tax-rate (t) is a function of Y and rising (this is sort of a weird imagining of it, but it works),
at a faster rate than under flat taxation, where t is constant.
This seems beholden to a number of issues. The first is that it ignores the fact of changing taxation bands in accordance with income-inflation - the relationship breaks down entirely on back of this.
I'd rather see x the income and y its image as y in this case being the tax revenues.
Indeed the general picture here is that a flax tax rate will generate less tax revenues, please note though that I didn't specify the function giving the relation between the income and its associated income, there are no issue.
If you want something more accurate you have to define g(x) and any additional parameters that could be necessary, I'm not aiming to demonstrate anything precise here as well.


The second issue, is that it fails to account for a work-consumption trade-off, where individuals maximise some function u(w, c) and as taxation rises and returns on w fall, individuals swap into c. Under a progressive schedule, average taxation increases with each extra dollar earned and the preference for consumption increases. Thus, overall income is reduced under a progressive taxation system, relative to a fixed taxation system.
I didn't get into the issue of consumption, you probably noticed that.
I am not denying the idea that under a flat tax rate parameter households' behavior will tend to favor consumption as net of taxation income increases due to a fiscal policy from which the tax rate parameter is constant and thus equal to the average marginal tax rate.
However I don't get your utility function, are you talking about consumption tax being favored over income tax? I can conceive an utility function on the relation between savings and consumption for a "budget" that would depend on a parameter x-H(x;r) with x being the gross income and H(x;r) the fiscal policy with r being the tax rate.
But, otherwise, you gonna need to teach me what you're thinking about.


The third issue, is that it presumes homogeneity in the productivity of expenditure along the lines of rich and poor. To be frank, rich people engage in more productive use of their incomes - save and invest a greater proportion of it: create output growth, wage growth, jobs - than poorer people. Thus, through taxing the rich at a higher rate, income growth is also constrained.
You're not refuting my post actually, rather arguing on why progressive taxation isn't ideal (I didn't promote it though, I rarely directly promote things) but I'm fine with it.
This precise quote reminds me Sanders' idea to tax markets' transactions if I remember correctly.
I don't especially disagree with this but as I said earlier, I'll need to search into this more.


The Keynesian consumption function has severe limitations - the most obvious one being the lack of expectations-accounting. Whatever function we decide on, though, would neccisarily require integrating demand-elasticities and the likes. It'd be complicated well beyond the time I have - or possess the patience for.
Fair enough. I was just thinking about the autonomous consumption and what fiscal policy should be made taking it into account.

Vlerchan
August 26th, 2016, 06:13 PM
Simply put, tax average across all income is greater with the actual tax rate than with fixed-rate, if we go (only) by these equations/inequalities.
I'd figured integrals but then I just don't see it making sense,

There's an essential issue there insofar as, where the average rate of taxation within a progressive schedule is 10% and the average rate of taxation within a fixed schedule is 10%, I see no reason as to, on an individual level, twice the income would be accrued.

I'm more inclined to take the view, that in both cases, the tax rate is, [0;+∞[ v(x) = x*a dx, where a refers to the average tax rate. This average tax rate is exogenous.

I'd rather see x the income and y its image as y in this case being the tax revenues.
I don't understand what you mean here, sorry.

Would you mind rephrasing?

I didn't get into the issue of consumption, you probably noticed that.
You didn't, which is fair enough.

under a flat tax rate parameter households' behavior will tend to favor consumptio
I'd argue it increases labour-supply levels, as their is a greater return on increased labour-effort (as average tax rates remain constant as opposed to rising).

due to a fiscal policy from which the tax rate parameter is constant and thus equal to the average marginal tax rate.
I should have said, I am presuming that the shift from flat taxation to progressive taxation is revenue-neutral, just so we can exclude considerations of fiscal policy.

Though, even if we presume that tax revenue falls, and so does government expenditure, I wouldn't be in support of the view that national-income would fall (in fact, if we agree that the private-sector is generally more productive than the public-sector, it would rise).

You're not refuting my post actually, rather arguing on why progressive taxation isn't ideal (I didn't promote it though, I rarely directly promote things) but I'm fine with it.
I was taking the view that, if we decide to define x as global income, then we should take into account what the substance of the tax schedule has on global income, before we make claims about what impact tax regimes have on government revenue.

Reise
August 26th, 2016, 06:21 PM
I'd figured integrals but then I just don't see it making sense,

There's an essential issue there insofar as, where the average rate of taxation within a progressive schedule is 10% and the average rate of taxation within a fixed schedule is 10%, I see no reason as to, on an individual level, twice the income would be accrued.

I'm more inclined to take the view, that in both cases, the tax rate is, [0;+∞[ v(x) = x*a dx, where a refers to the average tax rate. This average tax rate is exogenous.
Apologies then.
I often take the first thing that permits me to picture what I'm currently thinking.
This has always be tricky both for me and my professors.

.. The point here was to picture an increasing tax revenues through the expansion of the integral, thus the area the function covers.


I don't understand what you mean here, sorry.

Would you mind rephrasing?
This is basically what you said except that I'd rather see a parameter x as gross income and y the tax revenues generated for this income. The image y is then given by the relation of x and the tax rate (which I represented as a function g(x) to describe its evolution). Those are, i believe, more conventional terms.
Frankly I've been through a lot of maths especially in labor economics and finance and one disturbing thing is that it looks sometimes that everyone has its way to name variables, which sometimes makes the comprehension difficult between one source and another that's why when talking about function (in this case) I'd usually prefer to use the simple x for the antecedent and y for the image. As well as for naming functions always starting from f, then g then h etc.
You know I can get picky sometimes and very sensitive when it comes to this kind of things.



I'd argue it increases labour-supply levels, as their is a greater return on increased labour-effort (as average tax rates remain constant as opposed to rising).
Do you assume then that an increase of income subsequently follows an increase in supply of labor ("is in this case preceded by" if I messed up with the English) in such a way that behaviors are significantly affected? Not necessarily that I am skeptical about it but this presume a general increase of wages, right?


I should have said, I am presuming that the shift from flat taxation to progressive taxation is revenue-neutral, just so we can exclude considerations of fiscal policy.
This does imply consumption taxation ability to perfectly balance any potential loss from any shift discussed here.


Though, even if we presume that tax revenue falls, and so does government expenditure, I wouldn't be in support of the view that national-income would fall (in fact, if we agree that the private-sector is generally more productive than the public-sector, it would rise).
I don't especially see any significant correlation at first sight either. But I can be wrong.



I was taking the view that, if we decide to define x as global income, then we should take into account what the substance of the tax schedule has on global income, before we make claims about what impact tax regimes have on government revenue.
Pretty sure I've only seen "substance" used in English haha.
That's one issue, you can still build something and make it more accurate over time, this is not a problem ; the taxation and its potential outcome is the basis on which you add derivative concepts like behaviors. It doesn't mean there is any specific order though.

Vlerchan
August 26th, 2016, 06:28 PM
.. The point here was to picture an increasing tax revenues through the expansion of the integral, thus the area the function covers.
Oh right, so, to clarify, it was more of a metaphor? Or am I just more confused.

You also know I can't picture things at all (http://www.bbc.com/news/health-34039054)* :P. It never actually occurred to me the idea that an expanding integral related to an expanding space.

---

* Link for the newbies.

---

Do you assume then that an increase of income subsequently follows an increase in supply of labor ("is in this case preceded by" if I messed up with the English) in such a way that behaviors are significantly affected? Not necessarily that I am skeptical about it but this presume a general increase of wages, right?
I believe that an increase in the supply of labour follows an increase in income (which, occurs, with a lowering of the tax burden)*.

I believe this, encourages increased production, and expansion in the national output and the national income.

---

* workers don't have the amount of control over their hours that this is realistically 1 : 1, but I do believe the Frisch elasticity is still documented at about 0.5

I don't especially see any significant correlation at first sight either. But I can be wrong.
I'm just thinking, whether the government spends it, or individuals spend it, someone is spending it, and most of them time individuals spend it better.

---

I also agree with your statement about what algebraic variables to default to with writing this stuff. It's irritating to go from one paper to the next and find them using a totally different scheme.

Bleid
August 26th, 2016, 06:51 PM
I'd figured integrals but then I just don't see it making sense,

There's an essential issue there insofar as, where the average rate of taxation within a progressive schedule is 10% and the average rate of taxation within a fixed schedule is 10%, I see no reason as to, on an individual level, twice the income would be accrued.

I'm more inclined to take the view, that in both cases, the tax rate is, [0;+∞[ v(x) = x*a dx, where a refers to the average tax rate. This average tax rate is exogenous.

Understood. That seems accurate.

Reise
August 26th, 2016, 08:13 PM
Oh right, so, to clarify, it was more of a metaphor? Or am I just more confused.
Not really, I basically used Riemann's definition.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f2/Integral_as_region_under_curve.svg/744px-Integral_as_region_under_curve.svg.png

In this case the integral represents the total tax output and thus the total revenue from income taxation. By showing the fundamental differences from one tax rate/evolution from another you can easily show the evolution of tax revenues in function of the tax rate.
But as you pointed out, this is really fundamental and does not take into account other parameters that may influence the final total output, this one above only concerns income tax though.


I believe that an increase in the supply of labour follows an increase in income (which, occurs, with a lowering of the tax burden)*.

I believe this, encourages increased production, and expansion in the national output and the national income.

---

* workers don't have the amount of control over their hours that this is realistically 1 : 1, but I do believe the Frisch elasticity is still documented at about 0.5
0.5 for all the working population combined you mean?


I'm just thinking, whether the government spends it, or individuals spend it, someone is spending it, and most of them time individuals spend it better.
What do you mean by "better"?

PS: I'll also add that my own way to write things can look strange. I use Lagrange notation for derivatives and Leibniz's one for partial derivatives, which can be confusing especially as I noticed English-speaking people tend to fully use the Leibniz notation.

Vlerchan
August 29th, 2016, 03:39 PM
0.5 for all the working population combined you mean?
I believe so.

I will need to dig up the research I was reading. It was mentioned more-or-less in passing during a debate on Prescott's RBC contributions, where he presumes Frisch elasticity to be something ridiculous like 2.

What do you mean by "better"?
Make more productive use of it, on average. Most government funds are funnelled into consumption.

I use Lagrange notation for derivatives and Leibniz's one for partial derivatives, which can be confusing especially as I noticed English-speaking people tend to fully use the Leibniz notation.
I don't think I'm odd as an English-speaking person when I say that I didn't even know there was another sort of notation.

The manner in which I write it is the only way I have ever seen it written.

---

I also feel we've academicised this discussion and frightened everyone else away :P.

Reise
August 30th, 2016, 11:20 AM
I believe so.

I will need to dig up the research I was reading. It was mentioned more-or-less in passing during a debate on Prescott's RBC contributions, where he presumes Frisch elasticity to be something ridiculous like 2.
0.4 in 2012 according to the CBO (https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/10-25-2012-Frisch_Elasticity_of_Labor_Supply.pdf).


Make more productive use of it, on average. Most government funds are funnelled into consumption.
More productive, perhaps.


I don't think I'm odd as an English-speaking person when I say that I didn't even know there was another sort of notation.

The manner in which I write it is the only way I have ever seen it written.
That's probably the case for everyone else here, unless you have a special interest into it or you're confronted to another notation you won't bother wonder.

jamie_n5
August 31st, 2016, 11:25 AM
I think that they should have a straight percentage tax rate period. Like say 12% for everyone. Most people pay over 30% of their income in taxes now. If they did away with all the tax loopholes for the rich and corporations we all would be better off in the long run. The government would make more money than they do now and the lower and middle class wouldn't be bearing the brunt of paying the most. I guess it's too simple. Also by doing this the government could do away with the IRS and thus save billions of dollars paying them and all the bureaucracy that goes with that.

Paraxiom
September 1st, 2016, 06:26 PM
what do you all think the federal income tax rates should be in the us? should the rich pay a higher percentage or should everyone pay the same percentage

As I don't know that much about the US fed tax system I don't feel justified in talking much about it, but I'm not confident I'm okay with it anyway. I'm for the better off having a higher tax rate than the less well-off. As for some specific numbers I don't know, as I am neither an economist nor someone in the know with US economics.

I'm also specifically against any tax system which has a lower income bound below which no tax is paid, such that anyone marginally above the minimum income bound is worse off than the highest-earning who are marginally below the bound. If there's a way for avoiding that issue but with still having a lower income bound (maybe a range where the tax goes from zero to whatever %?), then I'm more open to the idea.


We shouldn't punish the rich for being rich.

I wouldn't see tax as punishment in that sort of way; for me it's literally having a higher rate for the rich as it will have much less of an impact on them.

- - - - - - - -

Eh, our military is the best thing we have going for us. And the rest of the free world at that.

Best in sheer magnitude? maybe :\


The US military is billions around like it is nothing.

Trillions, not billions. In 2001 there was some reports on how 2 trillion USD was 'unaccounted for'. (off-topic perhaps, but saying anyway as a side note)


Most of the military funding goes towards operating everything that we have. You know, since we have a dominant presence all over the world.

I agree with that, yes.



Personally, I think being excessive is the only reason our enemies are supposed to be afraid of doing anything to piss us off.

Not the best route to take perhaps though, since there are now multiple countries with tens-hundreds of nuclear missiles on standby. It's like a positive feedback loop where some countries over-defend in anticipation of other countries' actions, with each country in this group doing so in a persistent progressive trend.

- - - - - - - -

I would most certainly cut military spending. All government agencies and groups would have to justify every cent of their budget and all other spending would be cut. That way, money could be better used for where it is most effective, while reducing taxes.

Agreed!


(the function is still bi-dimensional btw)

Your functions intrigue my taste for a little mathematics :P
(bi-dimensional? do you mean two-dimensional?)

Drewboyy
September 1st, 2016, 06:34 PM
Best in sheer magnitude? maybe :\

Not the best route to take perhaps though, since there are now multiple countries with tens-hundreds of nuclear missiles on standby. It's like a positive feedback loop where some countries over-defend in anticipation of other countries' actions, with each country in this group doing so in a persistent progressive trend.


China and Russia's military can compete with the US in terms of sheer magnitude. The US' strength is dominance in technological advancement, training, and the amount of money spent on defense.

The United States has more nuclear power than every other country combined, except for Russia. Our missile defense system is the most advanced in the world (not to mention there is eyes on every country that could possibly shoot one), so if a country actually wanted to play nuclear chicken then they'd lose horribly.

Paraxiom
September 1st, 2016, 07:00 PM
China and Russia's military can compete with the US in terms of sheer magnitude. The US' strength is dominance in technological advancement, training, and the amount of money spent on defense.

The United States has more nuclear power than every other country combined, except for Russia. Our missile defense system is the most advanced in the world (not to mention there is eyes on every country that could possibly shoot one), so if a country actually wanted to play nuclear chicken then they'd lose horribly.

I agree with it all, I just highly dislike it, and how the US at least appears very dangerously highly paranoid and/or boisterous when its military force is greater than any other country's.

Reise
September 1st, 2016, 07:11 PM
Your functions intrigue my taste for a little mathematics :P
(bi-dimensional? do you mean two-dimensional?)

Yeah, is it like that tat you say in English?

Anyway to be accurate you still have to consider x as the result of another function, but that's not the point here.
With this kind of things you work on more than two variables, you just need a two-dimensional plan in the end to have a picture of the thing.
You'd prefer use a tri-dimensional plan if you want to describe the evolution over time as well.

For example you can use a log-normal distribution for the repartition of the income and a stair function for the tax rate (stair is the first guess though, I haven't been into the precise description of the evolution of US tax brackets).
The point here is to represent the difference of "volume" of tax revenues depending on the tax rate function applied.

Paraxiom
September 1st, 2016, 07:23 PM
Yeah, is it like that tat you say in English?

Generally yes :D , 'bi-dimensional' reminded me of that 'bi-winning' meme. No issue of course.



Anyway to be accurate you still have to consider x as the result of another function, but that's not the point here.
With this kind of things you work on more than two variables, you just need a two-dimensional plan in the end to have a picture of the thing.
You'd prefer use a tri-dimensional plan if you want to describe the evolution over time as well.

For example you can use a log-normal distribution for the repartition of the income and a stair function for the tax rate (stair is the first guess though, I haven't been into the precise description of the evolution of US tax brackets).
The point here is to represent the difference of "volume" of tax revenues depending on the tax rate function applied.

I didn't specifically respond to anything you did with the maths because I've honestly not looked properly at it yet at all, but I will. I'm setting time aside from my general ROTW responses to have a better look at it. I will respond when I've looked!

Vlerchan
September 4th, 2016, 07:23 AM
0.4 in 2012 according to the CBO
If you were curious, Chetty (2011) is what I was recalling.

Based on our reading of the micro evidence,
we recommend calibrating macro
models to match Hicksian elasticities of 0.3
on the intensive and 0.25 on the extensive
margin and Frisch elasticities of 0.5 on the
intensive and 0.25 on the extensive margin.

http://www.rajchetty.com/chettyfiles/micro_macro_aerpp.pdf

On intensive, extensive, margin definitions:

The total actual hours can be decomposed into an extensive and intensive component:

Hit = pit hit

We define the extensive margin of labour as the fraction pit of the reference period when the individual is employed or self-employed [...] From (1), it follows that the intensive margin of labour, hit, is defined as the total number of hours of work worked in the reference period Hit divided by the fraction of the reference period in employment, i.e. by the measure of the extensive margin, pit.

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~uctp39a/BBLwp1101.pdf

The bolded refers to variables and the italics refers to notation.

Taryn98
September 8th, 2016, 10:51 AM
Flat tax, one rate. If we're all "equal" then we should all pay the same rate.

Periphery
September 8th, 2016, 10:59 AM
Flat tax, one rate. If we're all "equal" then we should all pay the same rate.

Meaning the poor have to pay just as much as the rich guys, I don't see how that would work.

Taryn98
September 8th, 2016, 11:12 AM
Meaning the poor have to pay just as much as the rich guys, I don't see how that would work.

Same rate, not amount.
If everyone pays 10% for example, someone making $10000 would pay $1000, and someone making $100000 would pay $10000.
The rich still ultimately pay more but everyone is treated equally by paying the same percentage of taxes.

Vlerchan
September 8th, 2016, 11:12 AM
Meaning the poor have to pay just as much as the rich guys, I don't see how that would work.
The poor are taxed at the same average rate. Its not a lump-sum tax.

---

It's also treating people as equal to tax them at income dependent rates - the tax is levied on their activities (i.e. work) as opposed to themselves. Nonetheless - there's a host of better reasons to support flat taxation.

Jthompson
September 15th, 2016, 06:26 AM
Even if the rate for everyone was the same, it's true the rich would pay a higher percentage anyway. But someone making 20,000 a year paying 10% and someone making 10milliom a year paying 10% is very different. That 10% off of the $20,000 a year person, can impede his literal ability to survive. Where if a guy making 10million has to only pay 1million in taxes, his life isn't any less comfortable with making ONLY 9million a year, the rich should pay more.

PlasmaHam
September 15th, 2016, 09:06 AM
Even if the rate for everyone was the same, it's true the rich would pay a higher percentage anyway. But someone making 20,000 a year paying 10% and someone making 10milliom a year paying 10% is very different. That 10% off of the $20,000 a year person, can impede his literal ability to survive. Where if a guy making 10million has to only pay 1million in taxes, his life isn't any less comfortable with making ONLY 9million a year, the rich should pay more.

Did the rich guy not earn all that cash by being smart, innovative, and ultimately helpful to society? Take Andrew Carnegie for example. He invented a new way to refine steel and while making himself rich off it, he ultimately ushered in new innovations in the American Industrial Revolution. Without him, it would have been doubtful that America would have progressed as fast as it did. Do you think Carnegie would have been so motivated to produce better steel if the tax rates would have increased as he got wealthier? Why work harder if ultimately you make minimal gains? The guy helped thousands of people gain jobs, and helped America, he deserves a nice paycheck.

Also, I don't think you realize that a considerable portion of the ultra rich don't just go swimming around in money, buying everything and anything. Looking back at Carnegie. He coined the famous phrase,"He who died rich, died disgraced. And he lived up to that, donating the modern equivalent of over 250 billion dollars to establish libraries, schools, and universities across the USA. Do you honestly think the government would have been so generous if they had that money?

Jthompson
September 15th, 2016, 09:09 AM
Did the rich guy not earn all that cash by being smart, innovative, and ultimately helpful to society? Take Andrew Carnegie for example. He invented a new way to refine steel and while making himself rich off it, he ultimately ushered in new innovations in the American Industrial Revolution. Without him, it would have been doubtful that America would have progressed as fast as it did. Do you think Carnegie would have been so motivated to produce better steel if the tax rates would have increased as he got wealthier? Why work harder if ultimately you make minimal gains? The guy helped thousands of people gain jobs, and helped America, he deserves a nice paycheck.

Also, I don't think you realize that a considerable portion of the ultra rich don't just go swimming around in money, buying everything and anything. Looking back at Carnegie. He coined the famous phrase,"He who died rich, died disgraced. And he lived up to that, donating the modern equivalent of over 250 billion dollars to establish libraries, schools, and universities across the USA. Do you honestly think the government would have been so generous if they had that money?



He deserves a nice paycheck. Is 9millipn not nice enough? It need to be NICER?

PlasmaHam
September 15th, 2016, 09:16 AM
He deserves a nice paycheck. Is 9millipn not nice enough? It need to be NICER?

If he earned 10 million, and the standard tax rate is 10%, then 9 million is fine. I'm not sure where you are going with this.

Jthompson
September 15th, 2016, 09:18 AM
If he earned 10 million, and the standard tax rate is 10%, then 9 million is fine. I'm not sure where you are going with this.



Sorry! Confused myself. I mean even if his tax rate is at 40%, it's hard to argue that a 6million annual income is somehow depriving that individual of luxury.

Vlerchan
September 15th, 2016, 02:02 PM
But someone making 20,000 a year paying 10% and someone making 10milliom a year paying 10% is very different. That 10% off of the $20,000 a year person, can impede his literal ability to survive. Where if a guy making 10million has to only pay 1million in taxes, his life isn't any less comfortable with making ONLY 9million a year, the rich should pay more.
Is there a reason that income taxation is the preferable means to extract the 'excess richness' from the rich?