American Politics during the Obama Presidency

[QUOTE=Argento; 414506]See the sense in a Value Added Tax yet? Everybody pays the tax. Everybody has skin in the game. And the polemic between left and right wing positions on social engineering by variable taxation rates ceases. I guess it is so simple and so easy you don't want to take it seriously.

Argento[/QUOTE]It's a great idea. You could make it progressive by, for example, having a 0% tax rate on food and a much higher rate on Mercedes. You might want to substitute a sales tax for a VAT, so people would know exactly what they're paying in taxes, instead of having them hidden. Also, administration and compliance would be easier with a sales tax, expecially if you could get the states to piggyback the feds. That is, if the states eliminated their income taxes too and used the same method to calculate sales tax as the federal government, it would be a very simple system.

The only problem, as someone else mentioned, is getting the politicians to adopt it, and to replace the income tax with the VAT instead of just adding a VAT. The current income tax system is extremely complex and burdensome to comply with. It's inefficient. The special interests have molded it to suit their ends. But it's a source of power and campaign contributions for politicians. So they're not going to change it in a way that really makes sense, like what you're suggesting.

The biggest plus is that you'd be replacing a tax on investment with a tax on consumption. Americans, both the people and the government, are among the biggest spendthrifts in the world. We consume a lot more than we produce. China, Saudi Arabia, and other countries with current account surpluses take up the slack, and are coming to control more of our savings, industry, etc. Anyway, your idea would encourage investment and discourage consumption. Maybe that's not exactly what we need right now given the state of the economy, but in the long run it would be a big plus.

A second plus, you'd likely refund the VAT or sales tax for exporters. Or at least this is what most other countries with VAT's do, and it's one of the reasons why they're kicking our ass in world market -- they have lower income taxes on business than we do, and since the exporters pay no VAT, their after tax costs are lower than ours are.

[QUOTE=Esten;414504]That's fair because of the huge proportion of income wealth they already receive.[/quote]Esten, your choice of words belies our philosophical differences.

Here's how I would have written the same sentence: "[i]That's fair because of the huge proportion of income wealth they [strike]already receive[/strike] have earned for themselves and deserve to keep. [/i]

And followed with more liberal drivel.

[quote=Esten]The unemployed, underemployed and underpaid who may benefit from government programs are all painted to be freeloaders. Kick them to the curb financially, strip their voting rights and insult them. And then proclaim how great our country is.[/QUOTE]First, they [u]are[/u] freeloaders because they are net recipients of the system.

Second, only in Liberalspeak would anyone who chooses to keep what they've earned instead of giving it to a stranger be portrayed as "kicking" that stranger to the curb and "insult[ing]" them.

Thanks,

Jackson

[QUOTE=Tiny12; 414509]It's a great idea. You could make it progressive by, for example, having a 0% tax rate on food and a much higher rate on Mercedes. You might want to substitute a sales tax for a VAT, so people would know exactly what they're paying in taxes, instead of having them hidden. Also, administration and compliance would be easier with a sales tax, expecially if you could get the states to piggyback the feds. That is, if the states eliminated their income taxes too and used the same method to calculate sales tax as the federal government, it would be a very simple system.

The only problem, as someone else mentioned, is getting the politicians to adopt it, and to replace the income tax with the VAT instead of just adding a VAT. The current income tax system is extremely complex and burdensome to comply with. It's inefficient. The special interests have molded it to suit their ends. But it's a source of power and campaign contributions for politicians. So they're not going to change it in a way that really makes sense, like what you're suggesting.

The biggest plus is that you'd be replacing a tax on investment with a tax on consumption. Americans, both the people and the government, are among the biggest spendthrifts in the world. We consume a lot more than we produce. China, Saudi Arabia, and other countries with current account surpluses take up the slack, and are coming to control more of our savings, industry, etc. Anyway, your idea would encourage investment and discourage consumption. Maybe that's not exactly what we need right now given the state of the economy, but in the long run it would be a big plus.

A second plus, you'd likely refund the VAT or sales tax for exporters. Or at least this is what most other countries with VAT's do, and it's one of the reasons why they're kicking our ass in world market. They have lower income taxes on business than we do, and since the exporters pay no VAT, their after tax costs are lower than ours are. [/QUOTE]Bad move to have variable VAT rates especially zero rates for food and punitive ones for designated "luxury" items. Australia put a zero rate on fresh food and it is a classic case of things slipping between the lines of the legislation. No tax on fresh whole or filletted fish but tax on cooked fish. Meat is a nightmare, Animals and the raising of them are taxed but the meat isn't. Tax everything and if the disadvantaged struggle, fund them directly on a basis per head. Won't be as many of them as there are of better-off people. Naturally all goods exported do not have tax included.

Argento

Conservatives have a mantra that people earn their money and deserve to keep it. While there is truth here, the main purpose of this slogan is to fool voters into protecting systems that benefit the rich. It distracts voters from considering whether some are overpaid or underpaid, and fails to mention that taxes are needed to pay for essential or valued government services and programs. In other words, it's a crock of shit.

The rich have devised and expanded all manner of legal schemes and practices to keep huge amounts of the wealth in this country flowing their way. On the tax front, one way they do this is by lumping themselves in with the poor and middle class and saying 'let people keep the money they earn'. But in truth the rich are really most concerned about themselves. They will lay off millions without hesitation to ensure those at the top keep their inflated salaries and bonuses, which have been awarded to them by the BOD, who are all rewarded by Wall Street when the stock goes up in response to share buybacks, dividend hikes and other actions which invariably transfer more wealth to the rich.

These folks are [i]earning[/i] all their wealth? LMAO!! Tell that to the blue collar worker busting his ass to bring home a paycheck that barely covers living expenses. Or the other worker who got laid off because some Wall Street analyst said the company wasn't cutting costs enough.

While the rich have and continue to prosper, trickle-down economics has been a big failure for the poor and middle class.

[QUOTE=El Alamo; 414505]Esten,

I understand that you are frightened that you might lose your right to vote under my new, improved voting rights bill.

I will talk to my co sponsors and try to arrange an Esten exception. For Esten and Esten alone, we will allocate one tenth of one vote, even if you don't qualify to vote.

I think this gesture should eliminate any suspicion that we are mean spirited[/QUOTE]Actually I would have many votes under your proposed bill. No exception needed.

But I have a better idea. Why don't you come and work for me. Most of our profits are committed to executive compensation and programs to reward investors, so we have just a small bucket remaining for workers. Unfortunately this means I could only offer you minimum wage. But the good news is that my company and our lobbyists have fought to ensure your taxes won't go up, which means the government won't be taking more of your hard earned money.

Argento - could you sketch out how a VAT would reduce wealth inequality, compared to where we are now in the US. Thanks

I am not sure why anyone would emphasize the elimination of wealth inequality. Every broken economic system in the world uses this jargon. Think Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea where poverty/suffering increases for all except their leaders. Do you think Castro, Chavez or Kim Jong are sharing the suffering that their egomaniacal / birdbrain policies have caused.

In the real world the elimination of wealth inequality subjects everyone to abject poverty except the despots who are in power.

We do not want the elimination of wealth inequality, we want the creation of wealth or more correctly, the opportunity to create wealth.

[QUOTE=Esten;414535]Argento - could you sketch out how a VAT would reduce wealth inequality, compared to where we are now in the US. Thanks[/QUOTE]Just so you know for sure, I have never believed in wealth equality. Nor have I believed that everyone should be an Olympic class athlete or a Superbowl champion. Some people are good or gifted at certain activities. The difference with wealth earning, is that it's product (money) , unlike a gold medal, can be taken by other people who are envious of the gift. Sporting prowess, artistic talent et al, can't be taken away from envious others but money can. Are we clear? VAT tax takes away all notions of social engineering that you obviously appear to support, irregardless of their failure to achieve even limited success in Northern Europe and at the extreme, in ex-Communist countries. They are now hell bent on a capitalist system, throwing over their failed social engineering, even Cuba. What the VAT system does is to fund the state's expenditure so the financial costs of policy are transparent to all; unemployed, illegals, bleeding hearts and the hopelessly naive. They all pay and my experience is that when people have some skin in the game, the dynamics change drastically.

Argento

[QUOTE=Esten;414532]It distracts voters from considering whether some are overpaid or underpaid.[/quote]Shocking as this will be to you, but what a person earns for their economic contributions (overpaid vs underpaid) is something that is (or should be) decided by the free marketplace, i.e. the citizens in their capacity as consumers, not in their capacity as voters.

[QUOTE=Esten;414532]But in truth the rich are really most concerned about themselves.[/QUOTE]That statement is completely meaningless as it may be applied to ANY demographic group, to wit:

[i]But in truth the Democrats are really most concerned about themselves.[/i]

[i]But in truth the liberals are really most concerned about themselves.[/i]

[i]But in truth the poor are really most concerned about themselves.[/i]

If it's not [u]YOU[/u] who is really most concerned about [u]YOU[/u], then WHO? (Liberal answer: [i]The government will take care of you.[/i])

Get it?

Thanks,

Jackson

The concept of absolute equality between individuals is an anathema to the reality of human nature. It neither exists in reality nor is it desirable. It is an objective that if ever achieved would spell the end of mankind.

As for the objective of eliminating wealth inequality. There are only two kinds of people that would ever utter such an ridiculous statement: despotic tyrants and the useful idiots that enable and embolden them.

The elimination of wealth inequality cannot occur within a free society.

Any society that tries to implement such a notion cannot be free.

There is not a single example, chronicled within the recorded history of mankind (spanning the last 5-6K years, or so) where this foolish notion has been successfully implemented within a free society. Conversely, history is rife with examples of leftist zealots destroying the freedom of individuals under the guise of such rhetoric.

This notion is perhaps one of the most unamerican things I have ever heard. It was a similar socialist construct of equality that nearly doomed the early American settlers to starvation and death. If you know your history, Thanksgiving was originally the celebration of deliverance from the dire straits caused by man-imposed equality, forcing the settlers to behave in a manner contrary to the preservation of self interest which exacerbated the hard life of the frontier for all and nearly spelled disaster. At the heart of Thanksgiving are thanks to God and for Him empowering the pursuit of personal self interest which resulted in them surviving and ultimately thriving. The current portrayal of the history of events far overstates the role played by the Wapanoag and completely secularizes its history by eliminating the subject of the celebration (giving thanks to God).

If Esten was grand Pooba of Plymouth Plantation back in 1621, the Plymouth colony would have died out and so too would have much of the ardor of European nations to continue to try to settle the New World.

I am sure many leftists would embrace the concept of the white settlers having died out without giving any thought at all to what the implications of that would be to hundreds of millions of lives (including their own).

[QUOTE=Jackson;414547]Shocking as this will be to you, but what a person earns for their economic contributions (overpaid vs underpaid) is something that is (or should be) decided by the free marketplace, i.e. the citizens in their capacity as consumers, not in their capacity as voters.[/QUOTE]There is a good (though not perfect) argument that consumers influence the price of goods and services. For compensation, I think the argument is weaker. At least in big business where arguably most of the overpaid are. Compensation is influenced by many variables, of which consumer-driven top line performance is only one. By and large, compensation is generally determined by the top earners in a company or BOD. Citizens as consumers have some influence on those decisions, but mainly on pay increases / bonuses and not on whether someone is overpaid or underpaid to begin with.

[QUOTE]That statement is completely meaningless as it may be applied to ANY demographic group, to wit:[/QUOTE]I agree, it is normal and logical that any given group would look out for themselves. You are confirming my argument, which I may not have articulated fully. Conservatives have a story to support their tax philosophy, and it goes something like this: people deserve to keep the money they earn, including the rich, because when the rich invest their money everyone benefits. But this is theoretical, and the reality is that the rich will do whatever they want with their money. There is no guarantee they will invest their money, or invest it in a way which benefits other Americans.

[QUOTE](Liberal answer: [i]The government will take care of you.[/i]) [/QUOTE]Conservative answer: [i]The rich (AKA 'job creators') will take care of you. [/i]

Folks, I did not say anything about eliminating wealth inequality. In fact I have said many times that I support wealth inequality, just not [i]extreme[/i] wealth inequality. In my post yesterday I said REDUCE, not ELIMINATE. But that didn't stop three posters, count em three, immediately responding with arguments against eliminating wealth inequality (shaking my head....). Surely you all believe there is [i]some[/i] point at which wealth inequality becomes extreme and unacceptable.

Ala Jackson, this discussion segues perfectly into me posing a question for conservatives:

The top 1% wealthy in the USA hold 34% of all wealth.

The top 10% wealthy in the USA hold 72% of all wealth.

The top 50% wealthy in the USA hold 97.5% of all wealth.

The bottom 50% wealthy in the USA hold 2.5% of all wealth.

So here's my question to conservatives: What percentage of all wealth do you believe should be held by the top 10%? In other words, what do you believe is a fair proportion?

[QUOTE=Esten;414556]So here's my question to conservatives: What percentage of all wealth do you believe should be held by the top 10%? In other words, what do you believe is a fair proportion?[/QUOTE]The marketplace should decide what group accumulates what percentage of the wealth, but to answer your first question: The top 10% (and everybody else) should hold whatever wealth they can accumulate by legitimate means.

Esten, the focus should be on increasing the wealth of the bottom 50% (and everybody else) by enabling them to be more productive and otherwise increase their accumulation of wealth by legitimate means.

In other words, let's increase the size of the "Wealth Pie" so that we can all be "rich", whatever that may mean to each individual.

Two additional thoughts about your perspective on wealth:

1. Bill Gates created software that empowered billions of people to be more productive in their business and personal endeavors, and thus increased their own ability to accumulate wealth for themselves, and in the process he accumulated a personal net worth of 50 billion dollars. Now, are you any poorer because Bill Gates is a multi-billionaire? No, which leads to...

2. If you created a product or service that empowered billions of people (or even just a few) to be more productive in their business and personal endeavors, and thus increased their own ability to accumulate wealth for themselves, then you too would by justifiably entitled to whatever wealth you might have accumulated in that process.

Thanks,

Jackson

[QUOTE=Esten;414556]Folks, I did not say anything about eliminating wealth inequality. In fact I have said many times that I support wealth inequality, just not [i]extreme[/i] wealth inequality. In my post yesterday I said REDUCE, not ELIMINATE. But that didn't stop three posters, count em three, immediately responding with arguments against eliminating wealth inequality (shaking my head....). [/quote]Apologies for not prefacing my remarks with "Esten's dressing of 'reduce' is the beginning of the slippery slope"

So once you start reducing, where do you stop? Do you stop? Who will make sure it will stop? Who determines what is fair?

A society that tries to implement wealth redistribution on the scale that you desire cannot be free.

[quote=]Surely you all believe there is [i]some[/i] point at which wealth inequality becomes extreme and unacceptable.[/quote]Yes and no. In many places, it is extreme. So long as that occurs within a free society where everyone can participate in the free market, so be it. I don't know that concentration of wealth within a free society can be unacceptable, so long as the previous statement is true. Conversely, I believe wealth concentration within societies that are not free, where peoples are oppressed or subjugated as part of the accumulation or preservation of ill-gotten wealth is unacceptable.

[quote=]Ala Jackson, this discussion segues perfectly into me posing a question for conservatives:

The top 1% wealthy in the USA hold 34% of all wealth.

The top 10% wealthy in the USA hold 72% of all wealth.

The top 50% wealthy in the USA hold 97. 5% of all wealth.

The bottom 50% wealthy in the USA hold 2. 5% of all wealth.

So here's my question to conservatives: What percentage of all wealth do you believe should be held by the top 10% In other words, what do you believe is a fair proportion? [/QUOTE]I know you asked Jackson, but I'd like to add my response. I think it should probably be around 72% or perhaps higher (if we were to eliminate the current redistribution of wealth that takes place in the US).

None of my opinions is mutually exclusive with the moral and ethical responsibilities that a fair and just society must bear to care for those amongst them who truly cannot care for themselves. To that point, private charity in the US is truly outstanding. We are an incredibly giving, reasonably moral society. What portion of US charitable giving comes form the bottom 50%

Esten, the Declaration of Independence proudly proclaims 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. '

The point I believe all liberals are missing is while we hold all men are CREATED equal and have the same rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, no where does it proclaim from the starting point of being CREATED EQUAL that all men must REMAIN EQUAL.

The liberal mentality perverts the admirable traits of charity and good will via envy and greed of those who succeed into a means of unjustly appropriating and redistributing the fruits of the successful's labor ie 'Social Justice'.

Mongers-

I don't think anyone with half a brain and / or half an education thinks it is a good thing to have a high Gini Coefficient in any particular nation-state. High Gini Coefficients lead to large socioeconomically immobile underclasses that turn to violent crime and / or rebellion out of pure desperation for survival. Take Brasil or Colombia for example; both states are resource rich, have (relatively) pro-business governments and some of the highest Gini Coefficients on the planet. The minimum (and most commonly earned) wage is a measly $300 USD per month at current (and overvalued) exchange rates. With only the rarest exception, people born poor in either Brasil or Colombia will live in poverty their entire lives. Until the economic inequality is narrowed, these otherwise promising states will be roiled in social conflict indefinitely. Venezuela is another case of what can happen when all the national wealth is concentrated in the hands of a very few, the rich govern with little regard for implementing reforms that benefit the lower classes and socioeconomic mobility is non-existent; the rich and upper middle class Venezuelans unfortunately got what was coming to them in form of soon to be dictator for life Hugo Chavez. A situation within a democracy where 1% live like kings and the rest barely can fill their bellies is not sustainable and is certainly not desirable.

Take a look at the current economic situation in the US; the Gini Coefficient is certainly rising, the middle classes are being decimated, and the rich get richer. This is certainly not desirable for the future economic health and domestic safety / stability of the country. Big corporations do everything they can to cut costs by laying off decent (in terms of amount of compensation) salary and wage earning employees while the upper management continues to earn massive salaries and bonuses. There is nothing illegal about what is going on but in my opinion it is creating a situation where the the executives make six or seven figure incomes and the workers are making barely more than minimum wage. It is in the interests of the rich and upper middle classes to keep the middle and working classes gainfully and (reasonably) happily employed in jobs that pay and offer enough benefits that they can live a dignified and reasonable lifestyle. People with dignified jobs that pay enough to live comfortably on do not vote for extremist politicians promising to shake up and "change" the current system.

Suerte,

Rock Harders