Taxation

Amen. go in peace.

Which Bernoulli? None of the several great Bernoulli mathematicians were alive in 1956. They were all dead by more than a century in 1956. I also doubt that they wrote that opinion in English.

I ask because the enigmatic concept intrigues me. I'd like to get closer to the original to unwrap the riddle.

The third paragraph tells you it was Daniel.

Yes, looks like the italicized portion of #6 may be it. Now I'll have to dig out my boxed copy of the World of Mathematics and compare the sources.

This sounds like decreasing marginal utility. No matter how general the principle is, different persons could assign different evaluations. This would result in person-by-person variations of the $60,000 estimate.

Colleges being the next bubble to burst is already happening.

But easy money and cheap money or two flip different things. But education it is going down the path of the housing market. With that being cheap money, (4.5 to 6%) as well as easy money.

The problem is, the recent classes I took, allot of the student are taking classes where due to the easy money and getting there 4 year degree at a cost of $100,000.00 are taken class's where the ROI is approx. $28,000.00 to (if your lucky) $38,000.00 a year. And that is if you can get a job. Being basically in social workers.????

There was talk of subsidizing these programs with a form of a excise tax from programs such as engineering programs, where the prospect are better.

One down fall this easy and cheap money created was allot of for profit schools. (Phoenix U., ITT Technical, Globe U., Rassmessen, ect.). I my city of 100,000 people, there where 3 colleges the were established here in the last 10 years. Not including the existing colleges already here and the outlaying areas from the neighboring towns and city's.

Eliminating the mortgage deduction will have short and medium term side-effect of making current mortgages more difficult to pay for low and middle income families since the income tax "rebate" will disappear. Eliminating that deduction at this time will result in another smaller bubble bursting in the housing market just as housing is getting its feet back under itself. Unless existing mortgages are grandfathered in, which I will believe when I see the legislation signed, this will happen. Governments (federal and all the smaller taxing bodies) needing as much money as they can take to pay for existing promises (programs and bonds), they probably can't afford to grandfather these mortgages without a sunset date.

I know that I have had a difficult time last three or four years due to the economy. Personally, I will probably wind up having to move (short sell or worse) if that happens before my finances recover if this deduction goes away.

In the abstract, specific deductions (aka loopholes) do distort prices SIGNIFICANTLY -- as has been pointed out, sellers and their agents aren't stupid, they will build that sort of thing into the selling price to get what they can. In addition, the complexity they introduce keeps as many tax attorneys and IRS investigators employed as we have. And before anyone gets worried about those unemployment numbers going up, remember that now that AHCA (aka ObamaCare) is going to kick in, they can keep all those people employed by closing individual and corporate loopholes because the Health Care laws and regulations are changing so fast and substantially.

You are exactly right about the expansion of money supply being incompletely descibed by 'printing of currency'. While there has been a troublesome, very rapid increase in the amount of cash and checkable deposits (M1), it is dwarfed by the increase in other noncheckable accounts (M2). I should have been more rigorous in wording my statement, as my concern is not simply about the number of pieces of paper out there.

.

It would be better to view (or perhaps if I a had done a better job wording) my statement about 'running printing presses as fast a they can' as an analogy for increasing the money supply exponentially, while lacking any similar exponential increase in (non-derivative based) collateral.

.

I am curious what you state are the reasons currency is being printed constantly.....

.

-Cocaine? Why? Is it being collected and sold to generate revenue? .....or is someone concerned about the bills accumulating some non-negligible inherent material value?

I realize traces of cocaine can be detected on a considerable portion of bills that have been in circulation a while. Are you saying that this goes far beyond minimum detetable levels of contamination? Is the cocaine supply outpacing demand so significantly that cocaine users are spending powdery bills?

.

- Counterfeiting? Printing doesn't reduce counterfeiting. Eventually new improved design can have an effect. Saying that timelines to remove most of previous design would be a cause for high printing rates, but this is not the same as counterfeiting rates driving printing rates.

.

We can agree that printing functions to replace worn out bills and bills of outdated design.

maybe the "poor ones" and the " victims " were given "free" land every where west of the Mississippi not so long ago.

GA Ace. I'm not going to entertain any equations that don't include completely out of control government spending. The rich can't fix that.

The rich can't fix that.
Nor do they want to.

#5 is clear and to the point. Now if we could only draw a useful conclusion from these facts.

excellent comment Passingtongreen.

Most of the points are close to what I was saying in comment #6, but you have done a far better job and convey your points in a clear concise way.

"One actual avenue to reduced medical costs in the US: ask your doctor or dentist if they provide for paying cash upfront instead of utilizing insurance."

If that option even still exist; if so, it will be short lived. That very thing is literally 'outlawed' in Obamacare. A doctor who takes cash under this system will be fined, or even go to jail, because that evil thing called 'capitalism' must be stamped out! You can have your doctor kill your baby (in, or out of the womb), on the public dole, but don't dare ask him to take a nickle for it, because 'that is evil'! Not that I am the type to even think that abortion should be couched under the term 'women's health care'. I was just presenting the facts, to serve as a contrast of ideas, for those who have eyes to see it.

In the original post, the word 'moral' was brought up in the disscusion on extracting my tax dollars from me in the first place. In a court of law, that would open up the line-of-questioning/discussion to the 'moral' use of those funds. That would then lead to a discussion of what defines the 'Morality Scale' to be applied, and that would lead to a wholesale discussion of Religion. But, this isn't a court of law, and people in general don't even want to know how their hotdog is made, let alone where it came from!

I have personal knowledge of several doctors offices and couple dentist offices that have long had this practice and as of a very recent conversation with one physician, this has not changed.

.

My personal experience is limited in number and geographical area (only two cities in the same state albiet several hours apart). My belief that this is likely more pervasive than you suggest is that EVERY private dentist or doctor office I have asked has had this discount for cash up front... and with one exception, the discount every office is the same 50%.

.

You can choose to believe the sky is falling, or that the sample size of my experience is not meaningfully large, or you might choose to think I am crazy......and it still costs you nothing to simply inquire next time you are in a private doctors office.

.

No reason to fly off the rail. I am, after all, not offering you a discount.

This is merely another opportunity to learn from, and possibly benefit financially from something other than experience in first person perspective. I am told that skill is not a universal trait of humans. As such, the value of this comment is unlikely to be consistent from reader to reader.

Having family in the healthcare field and having seen my own bills, it's common practice that doctors put on paper like $4k for an MRI if you have insurance, but the insurance company pays significantly less. I don't know why they do that, but it seems to be done all the time. Yeah, it is deceiving that paying cash allows you to pay less but the insurance company pays less as well. The cash discount also has to do with doing less paperwork and being paid instantly instead of waiting for a check from the insurance company.

But Obamacare is quite capitalistic in some ways as well: it forces walls between states down so that capitalism will allow the private health insurance market to be an even more free market. Doesn't sound like socialism to me.

'....the word 'moral' was brought up .......

....... In a court of law, that would open up the line-of-questioning/discussion to the 'moral' use .....

....a discussion of what defines the 'Morality Scale' ...

....and ... a wholesale discussion of Religion.....

....But, this isn't a court of law, and people in general don't even want to know how their hotdog is made, let alone where it came from!....'

.

Seems pretty clear you haven't logged many hours 'in a court of law', and that the 'experience' you draw upon to conjure your assertions is probably something akin to watching Judge Judy or Nightcourt reruns.

.

Enough about 'courts of law'.

.

Lets move on to a subject you seem more passionate about;

a discussion that historically isn't so critical about claims devoid of proof;

centered on pervasive groups advocating assigning a quality of absolute truth to ideas for which admittedly there is no proof. You guessed it.

...religion or Faith.! yea!

.

I don't really want to get into a discussion about invisible voyeurs in the sky. I just want to extricate those innocent bystanders, 'Moral' and 'Morality Scale', from the character smear of being made of, or coming from, religion.

.

Sure, there are discussions about morality in religion, but there almost certainly have been discussions about religion in the minds of people suffeering psychotic episodes, but I doubt you aren't ready to admit religion was created by the dillusional, right?

.

Sure, a number of religious thinkers have put a lot into the likes of 'morality' and 'moral scale' but this does not mean Morality comes from religion.... A number of Catholic Priests have put a lot into boys under their care, yet I doubt the parents would agree that those boys are created from or owned by the priests.

.

.

Just for the record, inside a court of law or out, I know not only from where my moral hot dog comes, but also of what it is made.

Just to be clear, this knowledge is the kind for which evidence is a prerequisite, as I reject as fantasy anything masquerading as knowledge yet devoid of support.

Ha. Typical response. Calling Nazi Germany a Socialist party. YOU should read YOUR history. The "National Socialist Party of Germany" name was a misnomer to help fool the people: it wasn't "Socialist." It was VERY CONSERVATIVE. Nazis were Fascists like Mussolini. They were fearful and intolerant of all people who were unlike themselves (I wonder why Romney had only white folk voting for him?). Fascists believed big industry and corporate wealth would bring up the nation instead of personal wealth distributed throughout the ENTIRE population (not just the rich). So note the difference there: Conservatism breeds exactly what Fascism did (massive corporate wealth) while typical Liberalism does not. Fascism does not use resources in the same way Socialism does: it uses resources for financial gain instead of giving to the people as in Socialism. But still, Germany is far from Socialist. And even if we are talking about extremes (which we are not) just by proper definition alone I'd take a Socialist to a Fascist any day hahaha.

But hey, if we're judging a nation based on what happened 70 years ago, maybe we should judge the USA based on what happened 60-70 years ago as well when the economy was booming. The highest tax rate was up to 92% and the economy soared after the war. I believe the maximum tax bracket from 1940 to the mid 1960's was above 70% and the highest was in the 1950's. You can't deny the economic booms that occurred in the time period after the war. Giving money to the middle class makes for a stronger economy and a stronger country.

I'd suggest that you reevaluate your knowledge of history because you apparently don't understand why we beat up Germany.

It was not because they were liberal socialists, it was because they were conservative fascists. Then the USA rebuilt Germany and Austria and had a pivotal role in installing a new government. And you can't tell me that the US had nothing to do with setting up the new government. But despite the massive setbacks, they still ended up with an economic powerhouse with a stable economy and a safe and just society.

But Germany does have some things that we should aspire to (well, the Autobahn for one lol). Austria as well. I lived in Austria for two years after living in Germany and their healthcare costs are quite low. As a percent of their GDP, it is a bit more than half of what the USA spends. They don't have death panels and the wait times are reasonable. I was able to go to any family doctor with no appointment and expect to see him in less than 20 minutes. Even with an appointment in the USA I often waited for at least an hour. The difference is they don't allow waste so they can keep costs lower. They have LOTS of checks and balances to make sure the system is lean and efficient without sacrificing the quality of care.

The majority of Americans who voted...

How can you say you don't need to read up on anything? I'm sorry, but if you think that modern day liberals are closer to Nazis you are completely wrong. You were implying that we are headed towards what Nazi Germany was like by asking me why we nearly wiped Germany off the face of the earth. Nazis were ultra conservative. Obama by definition cannot be both socialist and radical conservative. Just not possible. Those are opposites in so many ways lol.

I'm American. That's why I'm on a US forum lol. It just so happens that I found some good opportunities in Europe for my Master's (just finished it) and my PhD (just starting it in Sweden). Don't get me wrong, lots of things make me angry in Europe. They ALSO have a lot to learn from what the US does right. But we can also learn a lot about what is done in the EU.

Yeah, there are many many good and bad aspects to the military. I'm just saying though that we spend a massive amount of money blowing crap up compared to rebuilding our own country. Our country has a multitude of problems that either don't exist or exist at a MUCH smaller scale in EU countries. We need to reevaluate what we spend our money on.

Just because people like my opinions means that it explains what about everything? I try to use well thought out opinions with easily backed up information. The whole country isn't out to get you.

Re: #93 (and#89).

It is vexing, when people flaunt opinions based on present day sensibilities embraced by some, about events of well a century in the past. Especially, when it is evident, that they did not read upon it.

I am referring to Woodrow Wilson, the (most?) progressive president. Even, when you read the mild Wikipedia, he comes across arrogant, intolerant, vastly expanding his office's power. Throwing opponents into the iail for opinion, not action, etc. He was even a segregationist, in accordance with his time. Most present day followers would dearly love forget those, and ascribe them to their opposition.

The Sage said: "You are entitled to your opinions, but not to your separate facts."

I spoke repeatedly about the "leading" fair haired boys not being any smarter, than we here on this thread. For details, look at my previous notes. Before somebody gets some notions, I am simply noting recent events, as they come. Nor do I take any delight in the events.

European dissolution in progress, not stopped by Brussel's fair haired boys.

http://www.france24.com/en/20121118-eu-fresh-trouble-budget-summit-faces-collapse

Our own fair haired boys are not any better. On Bloomberg, Al Hunt program, our fair haired Treasury Secretary said: simply lift the Congress's debt ceiling to infinity! What? Giving to this bunch an open credit card for money we do not have?!? Because they are too lazy to start with to do some heavy lifting?

I go back to the original many times repeated ground rule: When the outgo is larger that the income, something got to give. It is equally true for you, for a company, or for an organization of any size. If you dream of carving out a few cents from a dollar, remember, smart people before you did already carve out 101 cents from all dollars they could grab. You are merely a latecomer.

If you care to argue with this, you do not know, what you are talking about. Or are on gov't payroll, where economy's rules do not quite apply.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

By now you may have noticed, that I do not give a fig about your beliefs, nor give mines. They are not germane to the discussion.

I was not the one who started the comparison of current events to Nazi Germany. And you are absolutely right that using some past events isn't a good measure to today's issues but it can clearly be used as an example. If someone starts a conversation like that I'll play their game especially if they are clearly wrong.

Yes, the majority of the EU's problems are derived from the fact that many of the nations are not equally equipped culturally or systemically. Comparing Greece to Germany is really stupid. Using the bad examples of Europe to explain why the EU is failing is pretty obvious but why don't we look at the excellent examples of a better managed society: Sweden, Norway, Germany, France if you'd like. No country is perfect but each one does certain things really well. For example, the Swiss healthcare system is probably one of the best in the world yet they spend only a fraction of what we do per person. Greece is a good example of poorly managed conservative states like Mississippi which spends $2 for ever $1 that it makes. Actually of the 32 states which receive more than they contribute in the federal budget, 84% are republican. Of the 18 states which contribute more than they receive, 78% are democratic. Plain and simple, modern day conservatives are not the fiscally responsible spenders they claim to be. Both sides are often equally as guilty though.

And when did I say we should lift the debt ceiling? Why would I argue against that? Don't put words and opinions in my mouth. I never said that. You don't need to teach grade school economics to us. Historically, Democrats were the smaller spenders (in terms of percent increase of federal spending) than republicans. And here is some interesting information:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/may/23/facebook-posts/viral-facebook-post-says-barack-obama-has-lowest-s/
I think that politifact is a reputable source. I'm not sure if it was your intention to state that the current administration is spending more than it makes, sure that's true. But once Bush started his massive budgets it's difficult to just take that away without the possibility of devastating consequences to the economy.

Please see #106 as I tried to explain that. Someone gave a response to my claim that there are good things in Germany with a seemingly rhetorical question stating along the lines of "Excuse me. 60 years ago we came very close to wiping Germany off the face of the earth. Do you remember why?" in #37
I had no prior mention of that. I generally try to avoid making nazi comparisons because it's pretty much pointless.

Definitely implied...in 37

Byron, I did not publicly support hitler lol. You're putting words in my mouth and I don't like that. The political party was called "Socialist" as it was just a name. It does not mean they were entirely socialist. They are more fascist than anything. Read that section:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Germany#State_ideology

Every textbook will state that the purpose of his political party was to create a fascist dictatorship which is by definition alone NOT socialist. At the same time I DO NOT SUPPORT SOCIALISM but some things are "socialist" by definition like schools, police, the highway system etc. If you hate socialism so much, maybe you should stop relying on government subsidized things like your public umm... everything. Clean water supplies, police and don't even think about using your car. All those government regulations made cars safer and cleaner than they were 50 years ago. And don't tell me you honestly think the free market would have made those decisions in the same time period. Every company is in the business of making a profit. That's not the purpose of the government. The car companies have fought tooth and nail to lobby against stronger emissions and safety standards. These points were only to make the point that some things are inherently "socialist" whether you like it or not and capitalism doesn't necessarily make the right decisions.

Oh, so there! One example of some boats that may or may not be true with no evidence to support it. See my post #106. Here is a partial summary below with some important links. Obama has not spent any more money than your republican friends and politifact showed that's true!!! So there! All while giving tax breaks to the middle class which is PROVEN to help the economy.

Obama has the lowest spending increase in 60 years:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/may/23/facebook-posts/viral-facebook-post-says-barack-obama-has-lowest-s/

Debt per capita by president:
http://www.skymachines.com/US-National-Debt-Per-Capita-Percent-of-GDP-and-by-Presidental-Term.htm

Clearly both parties are guilty but the republicans are CLEARLY more guilty. And as someone elegantly pointed out "my poop smells less bad than your poop."

Don't tell me you're still on about tax breaks for the job creators because no credible evidence shows that's true:
http://www.ctmirror.org/story/17498/nonpartisan-congressional-study-tax-breaks-rich-dont-grow-jobs

Ok, now I have to go to work lol. This took away part of my breakfast time. And this is a RIDICULOUS argument. I can't believe how many people still compare socialists to hitler.

Kudos to you!!!!!

You have successfully posted your entire manifesto on a thread about taxes.

There are leftist morons everywhere, but there is an equal if not greater number of closed minded right wingnuts out there as well, especially in the US.

I'd suggest that you "get a clue" because there is clearly a trend to the more liberal left societies and a higher quality of living, lower crime, higher life expectancy and higher education attainment rates.

You can't disprove the effectiveness of liberal ideas based on the very corrupt and often lazy countries in europe.

Ha. Typical response. Calling Nazi Germany a Socialist party. YOU should read YOUR history. The "National Socialist Party of Germany" name was a misnomer to help fool the people: it wasn't "Socialist." It was VERY CONSERVATIVE. Nazis were Fascists like Mussolini. They were fearful and intolerant of all people who were unlike themselves (I wonder why Romney had only white folk voting for him?). Fascists believed big industry and corporate wealth would bring up the nation instead of personal wealth distributed throughout the ENTIRE population (not just the rich). So note the difference there: Conservatism breeds exactly what Fascism did (massive corporate wealth) while typical Liberalism does not. Fascism does not use resources in the same way Socialism does: it uses resources for financial gain instead of giving to the people as in Socialism. But still, Germany is far from Socialist. And even if we are talking about extremes (which we are not) just by proper definition alone I'd take a Socialist to a Fascist any day hahaha.

Thank you! Yes, the typical conservative mantra seems to have something to do with getting rid of everything that they don't understand, agree with or believe in even if it's beneficial to other people.

Nazis were ultra conservative. Obama by definition cannot be both socialist and radical conservative. Just not possible. Those are opposites in so many ways lol.

Greece is a good example of poorly managed conservative states like Mississippi which spends $2 for ever $1 that it makes. Actually of the 32 states which receive more than they contribute in the federal budget, 84% are republican. Of the 18 states which contribute more than they receive, 78% are democratic. Plain and simple, modern day conservatives are not the fiscally responsible spenders they claim to be.

It's just that the "we hate everything liberal/european" thing often spewed out on Fox News is getting old.

Historically, Democrats were the smaller spenders (in terms of percent increase of federal spending) than republicans.

I'd like to find a more up to date image as that one is fairly old now. But there are lots of correlations that you can find: Obama supporters seemed to be much better educated.

And expanding role and scope of the government? Republicans are experts at that. Look at the republican increases in the national debt. Clearly BOTH SIDES are guilty. But republicans are MORE guilty.

My thought is that the republican party tries to claim they are the party of fiscal responsibility and small government lol. It's such a farce and so not true. At least the democrats don't have to lie about their fundamentals.

I think one noteable problem is there is substantial recurring breakdown in your communication.

There are things that your write, that seem very clear and straight forward, but only later do I realize the meaning you intended must not be the common straight forward interpretation.....

...a few examples from several of your different posts in this blog.

.

'I'm outta here''

.

'Ive lingered too long in this blog'

.

'That's it I'm removing myself from this blog' (or words to that effect).

.

'I'm not going down that path'

.

And yet here you are.... down the path.....

Wish I could be outta here! but someone might, maybe, perhaps, eventually answer the question I originally asked.

Despite the fun of all of the tangential topics you've spawned here (and they have been fun), you are correct that nobody here has really attempted to answer your question. I'll make a layman's attempt to answering your question.

Your original dual question, "But what is the income at which moral and physical income is the same--where does an actual dollar equal a dollar of worth?" I suspect these questions cannot be answered. The first part should be obvious why because these two merits must be weighted by an impossible to define transformation identity. Finding this transformation identity is precisely your first question. As Daniel Bernoulli pointed out though this identity will change from individual to individual and likely from time to time with the same individual. This is not a constant fixed in time, perspective or any other dimension like millimeters to an inch. Additionally the values on either side of the operator have completely different metrics. Physical income is a counted quantity while moral income is more of an uncountable heuristic feeling. Never the less, as Bernoulli pointed out, people constantly balance this equation in their risk/reward decision making.

Your second question follows a similar path of fuzziness. So I will not belabor my point.

I suspect this fluid relationship is precisely the point of your question.

Thanks for your comments, and thanks for digging out that Daniel Bernoulli paper. (Your link went to paragraph 6, which is all I needed, but the paper goes on to paragraph 19 I think it was.) Yes, the number I was asking for is quite fuzzy and varies all over the place, but I'll have to pick something and run with it to evaluate the constants. Guess I really ought to do it 2 or 3 times to see how that guesstimate affects the results.

'...As an American, I'll admit that my feathers get ruffled, when someone suggests that we look to any European model to solve our ....'

.

Kramarat, I am also an American, and I'll admit that when a sentence begins:

'...As an American ...',

purporting to herald something (trait, or experience, or viewpoint) common to most Americans, I wince momentarily, before reading the rest to see what exactly has been attributed (rightly or wrongly) to me via my American-ness .

(OK, I know that last sentence is grammatically and aesthetically depraved. Sorry about that, I've got some sort of super flu right now and that the best it is going to be. The sentence is comprehensible, correct?)

.

Many times my wince is needless as what follows describes some true commonality among (at least) a majority of Americans....

'know the pledge of allegiance',

'can name several people who signed the Declaration of Independence',

'enjoy a fairly unrestricted freedom of verbal speech'

'whose main steam choices in toilette-paper, comprises many more competitors (with far greater differences in qualities and attributes between any two), than their available main stream choices for President of the Unit... .......'.

.

More often what follows is the other type, to which your comment belongs.

.

Being too noble, or to good, or too proud, or too smart, or in any other way to self righteous to any model regardless of origin to solve a problem ...

has never been an accepted common American value. It is not part of our national identity, not part of our heritage, nor part of our traditions.

In fact, valuing an idea based on where it is believed to have originated instead of its actual merits is exactly antithetical to key aspects of our national identity, heritage and traditions.

.

We have have used ideas from all over the world becoming arguably among the very most ingenuitive and entrepreneurial cultures that exist. Since the time this country was founded to even the present day, we have done a far better job of ignoring origin to understand and leverage true strengths, with Ideas than with People.

.

.

So, I am a bit vicariously ashamed, but more personally offended, by your 'as an American' remark, claiming to take offense at looking to a European model to solve a problem.

I find your remark highly Un-American.

.

.

.

also, I think the value implied in your last few words ('...Saves a lot of reading. ...') makes understanding how you possibly arrived at your point less of an enigma.

'....Adolf Hitler and his National Socialist party........

Socialism has screwed up every nation that has tried it ......'

.

? Wait.... Seriously? That passes for substanciation, in your head? You consider the chosen name sufficient to determine the ultimate de facto operations?

.

You must think we get some really helpful bills through congress too, based soley on the titles.

.

you probably don't think democracy or democratic republics work all that well...considering what goes on in the DEMOCRATIC PEOPLES REPUBLIC OF NORTH KOREA.

....That has to be a democracy by your logic... it says so right in the name.

Do you support democracy?

Post 57 another example of Godwin's Law. And with such conviction!

Ok, I have to retype everything I just wrote because chrome crashed for some reason.... But you were the one who seemed to insinuate that there was a valid comparison there. In response to my clearly liberal stance defending aspects of Europe you wrote: "Excuse me. 60 years ago we came very close to wiping Germany off the face of the earth. Do you remember why?" as if it was the reason for invading Germany.
You asked that question as if it was a rhetorical response to my claim that what Germans do in PRESENT day is good. And you can't blame the current generation based on what their grandparents did *70-80* years ago.

The Austrian government makes it favorable for international students to go there. They look at education as something which is more of a right instead of a privilege. Granted, their universities are often not as good as in the US but it gives opportunities to people who would otherwise not have them. I like that principle. The government does this because if there's a chance someone will stay in the country and work, they pay taxes. I paid a lot of taxes living there but I didn't mind because I was getting a very inexpensive education.
In Sweden, my paycheck comes from a large corporation. They pay for my education. It's like in the US (and Swedish schools are VERY good). If you have issues with these systems, I really wouldn't understand why.

Of course every country has their own problems. I never said they are perfect. It's just that the "we hate everything liberal/european" thing often spewed out on Fox News is getting old. It seems like you have a similar opinion because you seem to have a dislike of the notion that something could be good over there. There are SOME things that they do well. Just because it's something European people do doesn't make it bad. For example: to receive welfare money in Germany, you are required to have a job. If you don't have a job, you have to do a so called "one euro job" in order to continue getting welfare checks. This way people can still get assistance if they need it and the government gets jobs done that no one else wants to do (like cleaning public bathrooms or picking up trash etc). It's just an example. But just because I'm saying that they do some things well doesn't mean that I'm saying we have to be exactly like them!!!

I believe we can learn from other countries in the same way we could learn from them.

The whole idea is to make the top earners pay for their fair share in tax. Why should income derived from investments be treated as anything different from normal income? The tax rates should be the same. Loopholes should be closed so people like Romney can't avoid paying taxes!!!. So the loophole was closed, but he can apparently continue using it. There are probably other things as well. Giving the same amount of money in tax breaks to the middle class will immediately give some kind of economic growth.

If tax breaks for the rich gave a stronger economy, we'd be seeing the results of quite a few years of Bush's tax cuts. But instead, we see a bigger divide between rich and poor like we've never seen. Some of that is due to other factors, but still it is definitely a strong point to make.
If you give the same amount of money to a large number of middle class people compared to a small number of very wealthy people, a MUCH larger percentage of that money will be used to invest in a new car or fixing up their home thus spurring the economy more.

Giving tax breaks to the richest rich does not work.

And expanding role and scope of the government? Republicans are experts at that. Look at the republican increases in the national debt. Clearly BOTH SIDES are guilty. But republicans are MORE guilty. And Obama has actually had the lowest spending increase in a long long time.
I like numbers. And going by those numbers, I think it says a lot.

The whole idea is to make the top earners pay for their fair share in tax. Why should income derived from investments be treated as anything different from normal income? The tax rates should be the same.

This is what I have felt to be the best. A flat tax. I do not know what to do with all the accountants and financial tax attorney's that are put out of work, But then, I could care less about them. I believe it will diffidently increase our efficiency.

And expanding role and scope of the government? Republicans are experts at that. Look at the republican increases in the national debt. Clearly BOTH SIDES are guilty. But republicans are MORE guilty.

Thats like saying your poop smells better. Christ, Guilty is guilty, be done with that.

Why would the disproportionatly largest share of income not be the largest source of revenue?

Here is what it looks like from the perspective of the tax tables.

My health care plan costs over $14,000 a year and is common plan.

The median household income in the US is about $50,233.00. For a self employed small business owner earning the median income such a health care plan would represent about 28 percent of total income. The tax rate for this person is 25% for Federal Income and about 15% Social Security making the total earned income tax load about 40%; considerably higher than any one making more that $106,800. Add the cost of a common health insurance policy and this person pays about 68 percent of total income in Federal, Social Security, and Health Insurance.

The highest income rate in the US is 35 %. To minimize tax burden the best income is long term capital gains taxed at 15%. (AND -No SS tax on that.)

The next best is interest and other unearned income which also avoids both tiers of the Social Security tax.

The highest earned income tax bracket when including Social Security is the self employed single person making between $82,251 and $106,800 dollars which brings the total tax burden to about 43 percent.

I believe that if matching contributions paid by employers and the self employed were eliminated, and the tier one and two taxes were applied to all US income, it would generate more than 20 Billion dollars additional Social Security revenue while generating free capital for the self employed and those employers who employ workers who make less than $106,800 equal to about 1/2 of current Social Security revenue. Perhaps this free capital could be used for re-investment or used to offset the cost of health insurance. That is an example of how much income escapes Social Security Taxes.

The numbers are what they are. "Arithmetic is not opinion."

In order to maintain current levels of health care cost growth while maintaining the current profitability of the corporate health care system; some method of generating additional revenue needed to be invented. I believe this to be the actual agenda of the lobbyists who run our country. Our rulers may be in denial; but they will continue to serve those who insure their position of power. Sometimes it appears that our government is an extension of big business, regardless of the colors of the pompoms being shaken. If this is indeed the case, until that changes, we can expect the continued trend in health care costs to continue; as well as the gross inequity of the tax system.

Great post.

Eliminating the employer portion of the payroll tax would be of huge benefit.

Taxes act as a disincentive to the thing to which they are attached. This country desperately needs more people on payrolls, so removing disincentives to hiring and paying employees makes perfect sense.

In fact shifting our tax base away from income would be a good idea. This country is a consumer society, China desperately needs the US to buy all that crap, just as much as we apparently must have all that crap to buy.

You work with your strengths, and the US has the most voracious consumer population in the world. Companies everywhere rely on that consumption, and yet pay nothing to assist with the costs of maintaining the infrastructure, health costs, or social security. If the tax base were to be shifted from Income to revenue, then every company that benefits from access to this goldmine of consumption, would also help to support it.

.

Large organizations of government and corporations have developed strong rewarding symbiotic relationships, rewarding to the corporations and government but not to the people.

Citizens United was a huge setback for this country, effectively making corporation 1st class citizens and real people a subjugated class.

It isn't the only problem, but it is a big one about which something can be done..

check out Move to Amend.org

Citizens United was a huge setback for this country, effectively making corporation 1st class citizens and real people a subjugated class. ************************************************************************ I must disagree with this. If Citizens United was so damaging then why didn't the most well funded candidates win? All CU did was allow a counterbalance to the large labor unions but the individual voter still wins out.

'.....If Citizens United was so damaging then why didn't the most well funded candidates win?.....'

That sounds about as logical as if you had said,.......

'....Eating lead is bad for you? I have to disagree. If eating lead is bad for you, why hasn't anything bad happened to me yet. I've been eating lead daily for almost a year now.....'

.

Compare it to this. Do you believe it is a good idea for a country to set up two different legal classes, one with restricted rights, one with expanded rights, to which people are assigned based on some arbitrary condition of their birth or ancestry?

.

If your answer to the preceding is yes, then I probably can't help you. Would it make a difference if you and your family were to be assigned to the slave class?

.

If your answer is no, then you shouldn't see Citizens United as benign.

.

In fact since you were born a natural person, you are a second class citizen. The first class citizens have freedoms you do not have. And the courts show remarkable bias and leniency towards the first class citizens.

First class citizens (corporations) have limited liability. Second class citizens do not.

First class citizens can make unlimited political contributions. Second class citizens do not.

First class citizens have many more options available concerning taxes.

No first class citizen has ever been sentenced to be terminated or remain inactive for the remainder of their existence, for any crime. Second class citizens have.

First class citizens already enjoy longevity granted by the state far in excess of the average second class citizen.

.

Large organizations have individual characteristics, some that are not actively decided by those at the helm. Large organization compete for resources and typically the most aggressive and effective organizations squeeze out the weaker organizations. This is in large part an evolutionary process not necessarily as purposefully decided as it might first appear.

Before you dismiss this as the rant of a lunatic, read about optimization programs that use genetic algorithms. That such a program is isomorphic to an ecology of large organizations is blatantly apparent.

Ignore, or deny, your subjugation at your own peril.

'....If Citizens United was so damaging then why didn't the most well funded candidates win?...'

Upon further consideration, the question is faulty, flawed premise.

Corporations don't bet on one candidate, all the candidates are bought.

Doesn't that support my point? If they contribute large sums to both candidates then more information becomes available to the ordinary voter. The large sums do not buy votes they buy advertising which is information disemination. The more information out there the better.

Starting #171 Gavilan and on, this thread degenerated into private theories of economics. Now, I am a big supporter of my fellows thinking, and expressing it. That's good. What is not so good is the rewriting of the basic laws of economics on an ad-hoc basis, as it happens most frequently. Some hard markers need to be highlighted.

1,. Economically, treasures under the ground are simply unrealized in any shape or form, until economically meaningful activity takes place.

2,. You may try, but you cannot squeeze blood out of of a rock. It ain't there, even if you raise the particular taxrate 1000%.

3,. Economically meaningful activity occurs only by you and me.

4,. Inbetween lays a very simple Laffer Curve. It is a fairly simple, but correct depiction of economic activities vs. taxes possible and impossible.

4.1,. It basically shows, that at low taxation everything is naturally stable. At 5-15% everybody pays, and goes, and does, whatever.

4.2,. At the 20-25% effective rate things turn hairy. No matter, how hard they try, there is no more to squeeze. All kind of shenanigans start to try one's advantage.

4.3,. Above is a land of mass instability. When the rates are increased, the intake drops. Every control works in reverse. Usually time lag effects exacerbate.

4.4,. Why do the politicians like to operate in this region? That is a smart question you have to answer for yourself.

5,. You mentioned corporations, matching contributions, etc. Fellows, corporations are structures, as many others. They, in themselves do not produce anything. They are a funnel, period. They collect taxes from you, and forward them up.

5.1,. Your "matching contribution" is built into your pay structure at the order of congress. But you pay both half. More exactly, you never see one half, at the order of these viseguys. So, when you speak about eliminating this, you have fallen for the 3 card monte game of the shysters.

Sorry friends. And that is not the only idea falling into the same trap.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

It is time to put engineering sanity into what goes for "economic" talk nowadays.

I like the first half of your post. It contains things that everyone should be reminded of periodically.

The second half of your post stray a bit. You seem to be both advocating low tax rates AND denigrating the suggestion of eliminating taxes. I;m probably misunderstanding what you wrote.

.

When you write about tax rates, are you including all taxes or just some?

.

Do you believe taxes usually act as a disincentive to further similar transactions?

.

Are you open to considering alternatives to the income tax?

Anything, that is extracted from the economy is a tax, by any other name. Economic transactions are done voluntarily (if it is work, finding a mate, etc), extraction is involuntary from you. Its necessity might be acknowledged, but not its economics(for you).

With 'tax' defined as 'anything extracted from the economy', I find your estimate of effective tax levels at which 'things turn hairy', of 20-25% to be exceedingly low.

.

Just totaling obvious things that are actually labeled as taxes, the taxes paid in the US (and most other 1st world countries) per tax filer have been well in excess of 20-25% for as long as anyone reading this has been alive.

Considering just Federal income tax, FICA, Payroll taxes, State Taxes, Sales Tax, and Gasoline Tax, it has likely been double that number for several decades.

Realizing that certain taxes (like Gasoline tax, and Sales tax) are paid with after-taxed (taxed already by FICA, Federal Income tax, etc) money, 20-25% could be reached with only FICA, Sales tax and Gas tax for most tax filers.

.

So i looked up this Laffer curve to which you make reference. I find that most figures for optimal tax revenue average around an effective rate of 65-70%. The lowest published calculation of maximum revenue effective rate was just under 40%.

What information have you based your numbers on?

I'm mildly surprised that it took this long in this rambling debate for the mythical Laffer curve to be brought up. If one carefully reads the Wikipedia article on the Laffer curve you'll see early in the article this sentence:

The actual existence and shape of the curve is uncertain and disputed.^[1]

So any claim for a numeric percentage to give a peak revenue return or to cripple the economy is just posturing and unproven propaganda. Now as the Wikipedia article also states, the concept that taxing a higher percentage can (not will) lead to less revenue is an old concept that has been reiterated by David Hume and Adam Smith in the 18^th century.

Re: #180-182

I am not here to engage in content-free polemics, about the existence of a curve I can draw and substantiate. The "old ideas are somehow invalid" polemics would globally invalidate Newton and Euclid too. Or is it only the author's selective dislike of some? Similarly, one's dependence on taxes might, iust might color one's view. Never mind, that I support taxes for national R&D, and always did.

1,. You can set up a simple conceptual model of the economics on the tabletop. It will do.

1.1,. Put in a simple serially wound AC/DC motor. Measure its voltage and current. Connect it to a bigger motor as a load. Load that with a resistor big enough to be able to stall it. Measure that too. That's it.

1.2,. When you crank up the driving voltage, first everything is approximately linear. At 0 input = 0 output, then mostly linear up to 20-25% energy taken out the system, and burned up in the load. It might get a bit more in %, but it is not relevant.

1.3,. At some point the max. load bearing capacity is reached. You fiddle with the controls, and no more can be taken out.

1.4,. Then you force the issue. You really crank it up, and the motor stalls.

1.5,. Stalled motor. 100% input, (or so), 0% output.

In economic terms:

Re 1.1,. Economic measurements are set up.

Re 1.2,. Everything is humming along, fine in the 0 - 15 (20%) total taxation rate. This area is unconditionally stable. Now, if some external force - as expansion - forces the total flow to double, the amount of taxes will double too. Similarly, it it is a contraction by half, taxes will shrink by the same amount (maintaining the same share).

Re 1.3,. At some point maximum extraction is reached. You do not believe in unlimited extraction in any system, do you now?!? I peg it at 25%. No matter. When the system is perturbed by anything at all, It will fall off the peak, on the stable side or on the unstable side. Equal chance, no chance to influence it. If the load exceeds the input, this falloff will occur.

Re 1,4,. The area over the attempted, say 25% is the area of chaos. When in the beginning (1.2,.) you raise input, output is increased, more or less proportionately. When you are in the last segment (1.4,.), all controls are reversed, all results are reversed. You really crank it up, and the economy stalls.

Re 1.5,. Stalled economy: 100% rates, 0% output. Your share of 0% is 0%, even if your share is nominally 100%.

Anybody, who made it in electrical and control systems of any kind at any level is familiar with the concepts of linear, maximum, and stalling motor conditions. I learned, and experimented with them, when I was 15 or 16. They did not change since then. Nor do the same conditions for other systems, including economics.

The curve I described IS called the Laffer Curve in economics, like or loathe it.

Ok, I get it. The verbose, chaotic, devoid of reference explanation that tries to draw a parallel between economics and poorly understood motion control should trump a concise, referenced source on economic theory.

Later.

I agree that the Laffler backward bending supply curve applies to this case. But just to put it in simpler terms; Both republicans and democrats agree that the lower 98% of taxpayers cannot afford a tax increase therefore we must logically conclude that 98% of the taxpayers cannot afford the size and scope of the government as it is now. This means that spending must be cut. They may want all the stuff they get from the government now but they cannot afford it. They must learn to live in the house they can afford, not the one they want.

When the intake and outgo do not agree, something got to give.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

The so-called Laffer Curve is not bending anywhere. It is showing the relationship between the economic function and extraction possible from it. It also not dependent on anybodies voting preferences. It is.

Many times people like or dislike that, and try to bend it. Well, temperature will not change by the amount of effort put into bending it. Nor does economics.

Be careful not to mix apples with oranges, unless you are willing to end up with an awful mess. Present day debate typifies the latter, IMHO.

The Laffler backwards bending supply curve is the actual proper name for the plot of the curve which continues to increase until a maximum point is reached and then the curve turns backwards and each incremental increase along the Y axis produces a lower value along the X axis. In other words it is S-shaped ( without the top of the S). Taxes definitly follow that curve. At low rates the revenue increases as the rates increase but then the max point is reached and increases in the rates produce less and less revenue.

Nick,

You are correct that I have made no argument in this thread whatsoever, only observations. Feel free to differ, they are my observations and I would never demand that you must agree with me.

Ace

Ace, of course you are entitled to your opinions. I don't mind people stating their case but I just don't like being insulted especially if you don't try to contribute to what is going on. It makes me think of the uninvolved guy standing on the sidelines throwing a half full bottle of beer at a football player. I appreciate your reasonable comment though.

But hey, if we're judging a nation based on what happened 70 years ago, maybe we should judge the USA based on what happened 60-70 years ago as well when the economy was booming. The highest tax rate was up to 92% and the economy soared after the war. I believe the maximum tax bracket from 1940 to the mid 1960's was above 70% and the highest was in the 1950's. You can't deny the economic booms that occurred in the time *************************************************************** Just to keep things in proper persective, During FDR's term the top tax bracket was indeed 79% but the equivalent annual income for that bracket was $76,000,000. and there was only one man in that bracket-John Rockefeller. Now the dimwits are talking about taxing everyone above $250,000 at the top rate.

Yeah the good old days of a progressive tax. When there were so many small tax brackets the percentage increase to the next bracket didn't seem so painful. Now we have two brackets but so many complicated possible deductions and exceptions that few are sure if they filed correctly but their certain others are cheating. I miss the days that a tax return could be completed by reading the booklet provided.

It's interesting what a high tax bracket can do.

My girlfriend is a Monty Python fan. And was saying that some of their work were financed from other high profile and successful performers such as Pink Floyd, Jethro Tull and Led Zeppelin. I believe John Lennon also had something to do with it.

They did this not only because they were fans, but mostly to do with the high tax rate in England.

So if enormous and outrageous taxes are done correctly, it can be beneficial..... Thats the best spin I can put on it.

Just as long as it doesn't turn into this fable. And this is what the feeling of apprehension and trepidation is about.

Your fable rings very true. The only way extreme socialism does work is when the social group is an altruistic elite group that can choose their base. This is why the pure socialism of most monasteries does work but politically imposed socialism (like your fabled teacher) often fails.

As for the Beatles involvement with Monty Python, George Harrison was the main contributer. This lead to MP recordings on the Apple label.

This is why the pure socialism of most monasteries does work but politically imposed socialism (like your fabled teacher) often fails.

Even thought the bases of socialism is solid, and where it works in monasteries.

Because of the human nature of things, coruption soon follows.

I do like that story of the professor, and it is a good story, I wish it would have happened at one of our most liberal colleges..

Harrison, yes, that was the one. I should have checked with Sheila first, she'd would have corrected me.

'....Because of the human nature of things, coruption soon follows.....'

.

Actually, because of the human nature of things, corruption doesn't follow...it is sure to be already there; always at least a couple steps ahead. It is only the public discovery of such which gives the appearance of lagging behind.

.

I think capitalism when coupled with a few important regulations but overall minimal intervention, and a bare minimum of social safety nets; is a model that has been and probably continues to be among the best system for wealth creation and distribution.

.

I do wonder when that will change.

Assuming well established trends continue, capitalism should eventually change from the among the best of options to a very bad option.....

.

That assertion isn't based on anything complicated or even anything uncertain. It is enough to consider:

- technological improvements in productivity per worker;

- finite limit on the usably satisfiable needs of an individual in their lifetime, coupled with environmental and resource constraints on production and services;

- the relationship between maximum possible demand, productivity per worker, and total emploment hours available.

.

Eventually there comes a point when technology allows sufficiently high production per worker that all demand can be met with significantly less than full employment. The resulting underemployment and unemployment further reduces demand ....even the asset owners , the owners of the technology, eat each other's faces in that end game.

.

.

This is not a call to arms for the ludites. I am curious what others think, any suggestions, and any well conceived and well articulated disagreements (I'm sure there will be plenty of the latter).

As far as corruption, it doesn't matter what type of government really, this happens at varing extend.

I think capitalism when coupled with a few important regulations but overall minimal intervention, and a bare minimum of social safety nets; is a model that has been and probably continues to be among the best system for wealth creation and distribution.

This I agree with

You and I are in agreement with the first sentence in your comment as well... That was exactly my point....no form of government holds a monopoly on corruption...

Well said but I suspect mostly onto deaf ears. (blind eyes?)

I still find it baffling the way many in this thread loudly proclaim the wasting of tax dollars without any reference, citation, definition, explanation or iota of data identifying the specific wasted taxes. Taxes spent on something you disagree with or that does not immediately benefit you is not necessarily wasteful. Taxes spent to obtain something never realized for a foreseeable reason can be considered wasteful. It really seems that the "tax waste" complainers believe that if enough people loudly say "tax waste" then it must be true.

They also seem to forget that any system (fiscal, mechanical, electronic, political, etc.) with multiple checks and balances (feedback) will always be inefficient. The inefficiency will be exaggerated when the feedbacks and measurement systems have chaotic and/or long time constants.

It isn't difficult to find documented areas of outright waste in every single bureaucracy. There are whole bureaucracy departments that we could do without quite nicely! Are we to lie down, and submit to EVERY single tax, that the government foists upon us? Are we to lie down and turn over like a dog expecting a belly rub even when it destroys our personal, as well as national economy? Are we to say there is nothing that can be done, and just tolerate every level of inefficiency, because all taxation is sacred to those who want to lord over us? Is there NO unjust tax? The revolutionary war was fought over less provocation, than we are forced to swallow as business as usual!

So far, we seem to be tolerating taxation rather well.

Is there waste? Of course. Is it fair? Ask Exxon Mobile and the rest of the oil producers. They will tell you they would have to raise prices if we take them off the dole. Do you believe that?

What is your proposed solution?