Economics for idiots

[AngryOfTuebrook]

2 hours ago, Boss said:

What have the Tories done (since they came to power) with the billions earned from taxing the highest earners 45%? Where is this better standard of living that you speak of?

What "billions earned"? They have steadfastly refused to increase the top rate of tax - matched by their steadfast refusal to invest in much-needed services and welfare - or to actually collect the taxes that rich corporations and individuals are obliged to pay.

 

[AngryOfTuebrook]

3 hours ago, Boss said:

Why would anyone want to live in a country where they pay three quarters of their income to the government?

Anybody on that rate of tax would be extremely rich on their post-tax income.  They would be able to enjoy their wealth more, because their environment would be cleaner and the country wouldn't be extremely divided between a tiny minority of the very rich and a growing number of the poor; they would be more secure.

[Boss]

I don't agree. I think higher taxation gives more money to the government to spend on causes that align with their ideological aims. I don't think you'd be happy to see 75% of your wages disappear whilst food bank dependency increases, homelessness rises and the disparity between rich and poor in our society grows wider every day. That's not because of a lack of taxation, nor a lack of money.

 

Paying more taxes doesn't mean we'll all have a better standard of living either. It simply means the government will have more control, and we'll have even less autonomy over our own lives. How would losing your disposable income help your family, exactly? when you already know the government isn't going to put food on the table for you, or keep the lights on?

 

Did you know that Americas rate of tax in 1913 was 7%?  America was built in the 1800's during the Industrial Revolution. The only income tax they had then was when the Civil War started and it was repealed afterwards. The people that built America, the Rockefellers, the Carnegies, they all made their fortune when the income tax was virtually nonexistent.

[s(k)aturation]

1 hour ago, Jose Jones said:

 

 

I have not done any reading of Laffer, and whilst having heard of the Laffer curve didn't really know what it was all about until Stronts' post.  So I will have to admit to not really commenting with a massive degree of knowledge of the topic at hand here.

 

However, there is an awful lot of economic proof - blooming loads of it from around the world and throughout history - that economies with a greater level of equality perform better.  They grow more, economic outcomes are better, education is better, social mobility is better, crime is lower.  Pretty much everything you would want.  Rampant loads of historical proof.  

 

Now, whether you think high tax rates on the highest earning individuals is the best way to achieve the lowering of inequality is a valid conversation.  Also the activities of the governments in question in what they decide to spend the tax monies on is also highly variable of course.

 

I'd imagine that old Laffer had put a fair amount of evidence behind his proposition around the top rate of tax in his curve, depending on the state of the economy under examination, as he does appear to be fairly renowned. 

But then again, Stronts does mention he is a nutcase, and not for nothing is economics called "the dismal science".

 

I couldn't agree with you more on all of the above.

 

It's the motives of the organisations in bold (in my experiences of them in life and what I've studied, read and analysed) that lets the admirable theory of equality down time and time and time again....

 

From the horrible, horrible Tories in England... to the wonderful, wonderful theory of Communism (which had its very proponents and chiefs living in palatial splendour, while the people they "believed" should all be equal, queued for bread - and many many did queue for bread, so I guess those were all equal in a way!)

 

What makes economics the dismal science is not the nutcases like Laffer, but the "caring", "upstanding", "normal" people we either choose to govern us or under whom we are subjugated. 

 

Greed and, even worse, power renders the brilliant economics of equality impotent.

 

You purely and simply - in 999 times out of a 1000 - couldn't even begin to trust these cunts... capitalists, liberals, communists, call them what you fucking will... to do the right and proper thing with three-quarters of your earnings.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[AngryOfTuebrook]

51 minutes ago, Boss said:

I don't agree. I think higher taxation gives more money to the government to spend on causes that align with their ideological aims. I don't think you'd be happy to see 75% of your wages disappear whilst food bank dependency increases, homelessness rises and the disparity between rich and poor in our society grows wider every day. That's not because of a lack of taxation, nor a lack of money.

 

Paying more taxes doesn't mean we'll all have a better standard of living either. It simply means the government will have more control, and we'll have even less autonomy over our own lives. How would losing your disposable income help your family, exactly? when you already know the government isn't going to put food on the table for you, or keep the lights on?

 

Did you know that Americas rate of tax in 1913 was 7%?  America was built in the 1800's during the Industrial Revolution. The only income tax they had then was when the Civil War started and it was repealed afterwards. The people that built America, the Rockefellers, the Carnegies, they all made their fortune when the income tax was virtually nonexistent.

Wow!

 

How many miles of railway track did Carnegie lay? None. He got thousands of desperately poor people to work in appalling and dangerous conditions for fuck all pay, while he grew massively wealthy off their sweat and blood. That type of broken society is what minimal rates of tax will get you.

 

It's a myth that low taxes give you more autonomy.  Low tax/low public spending economies just leave the vast majority of the population losing their autonomy to the private sector.  (For example, I would argue that people in countries with free healthcare and education have a lot more freedom in many important respects than people in countries where those things are not provided. )

 

As for taxes on wages, nobody is talking about 75% or anything like it.  Those rates of tax are only to be applied to unearned income. The sources of income of people who would be subject to those sort of tax rates are, primarily, the things they own (rental properties; shares; IPR; etc.) rather than any work they do. Higher tax rates on that sort of income does nothing to disincentivise productivity; on the contrary, it can be used to invest in education, infrastructure, incentives for innovation, etc.

[Jose Jones]

1 hour ago, skaro said:

 

I couldn't agree with you more on all of the above.

 

It's the motives of the organisations in bold (in my experiences of them in life and what I've studied, read and analysed) that lets the admirable theory of equality down time and time and time again....

 

From the horrible, horrible Tories in England... to the wonderful, wonderful theory of Communism (which had its very proponents and chiefs living in palatial splendour, while the people they "believed" should all be equal, queued for bread - and many many did queue for bread, so I guess those were all equal in a way!)

 

What makes economics the dismal science is not the nutcases like Laffer, but the "caring", "upstanding", "normal" people we either choose to govern us or under whom we are subjugated. 

 

Greed and, even worse, power renders the brilliant economics of equality impotent.

 

You purely and simply - in 999 times out of a 1000 - couldn't even begin to trust these cunts... capitalists, liberals, communists, call them what you fucking will... to do the right and proper thing with three-quarters of your earnings.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well, I think it’s generally proven through history also that greater inequality leads to greater opportunity for lying shyster politicians right?

 

It’s the kind of shit which makes people go for communism or fascism or whichever bollocks is being peddled.

 

What you want is strong public institutions, available to all equally. For a nice safe and stable life.

[aRdja]

1 hour ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

Wow!

 

How many miles of railway track did Carnegie lay? None. He got thousands of desperately poor people to work in appalling and dangerous conditions for fuck all pay, while he grew massively wealthy off their sweat and blood. That type of broken society is what minimal rates of tax will get you.

 

It's a myth that low taxes give you more autonomy.  Low tax/low public spending economies just leave the vast majority of the population losing their autonomy to the private sector.  (For example, I would argue that people in countries with free healthcare and education have a lot more freedom in many important respects than people in countries where those things are not provided. )

 

As for taxes on wages, nobody is talking about 75% or anything like it.  Those rates of tax are only to be applied to unearned income. The sources of income of people who would be subject to those sort of tax rates are, primarily, the things they own (rental properties; shares; IPR; etc.) rather than any work they do. Higher tax rates on that sort of income does nothing to disincentivise productivity; on the contrary, it can be used to invest in education, infrastructure, incentives for innovation, etc.

Interesting neg from A Red. I’m trying to decipher the post to see if you’ve inserted a sly dig somewhere in there. 

[Boss]

1 hour ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

Wow!

 

How many miles of railway track did Carnegie lay? None. He got thousands of desperately poor people to work in appalling and dangerous conditions for fuck all pay, while he grew massively wealthy off their sweat and blood. That type of broken society is what minimal rates of tax will get you.

 

It's a myth that low taxes give you more autonomy.  Low tax/low public spending economies just leave the vast majority of the population losing their autonomy to the private sector.  (For example, I would argue that people in countries with free healthcare and education have a lot more freedom in many important respects than people in countries where those things are not provided. )

 

As for taxes on wages, nobody is talking about 75% or anything like it.  Those rates of tax are only to be applied to unearned income. The sources of income of people who would be subject to those sort of tax rates are, primarily, the things they own (rental properties; shares; IPR; etc.) rather than any work they do. Higher tax rates on that sort of income does nothing to disincentivise productivity; on the contrary, it can be used to invest in education, infrastructure, incentives for innovation, etc.

 

That's a very bizarre and frankly absurd dissection of Carnegie's legacy right there. He built over 2000 public libraries, built institutions to fund scientific research, set up a pension fund for teachers and gave hundreds of millions to schools at a time when donating hundreds of millions was unfathomable. 

 

Are you seriously saying you'd increase Capital Gains to 75%? What would that achieve?

[Jairzinho]

20 minutes ago, viRdjil said:

Interesting neg from A Red. I’m trying to decipher the post to see if you’ve inserted a sly dig somewhere in there. 

I think you're looking too deeply. A Red is right wing.

[aRdja]

3 hours ago, Boss said:

Paying more taxes doesn't mean we'll all have a better standard of living either. It simply means the government will have more control, and we'll have even less autonomy over our own lives. How would losing your disposable income help your family, exactly? when you already know the government isn't going to put food on the table for you, or keep the lights on?

I think the idea is to vote in a government that you believe will help the less fortunates.

[Duff Man]

Can't see any issues with a system that relies on the benevolence and philanthropic machinations of billionaires. Especially given the fact it's the model they usually push, too.

[s(k)aturation]

2 hours ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

How many miles of railway track did Carnegie lay? None. He got thousands of desperately poor people to work in appalling and dangerous conditions for fuck all pay, while he grew massively wealthy off their sweat and blood. That type of broken society is what minimal rates of tax will get you.

 

And open slather free trade liberalist globalisation just makes those same names and dynasties more and more and more and more rich and powerful a 100 years later.

 

Borders aren't dismantled for poor refugees.  They're dismantled for rich financiers.

 

 

[AngryOfTuebrook]

27 minutes ago, Boss said:

 

That's a very bizarre and frankly absurd dissection of Carnegie's legacy right there. He built over 2000 public libraries, built institutions to fund scientific research, set up a pension fund for teachers and gave hundreds of millions to schools at a time when donating hundreds of millions was unfathomable. 

 

Are you seriously saying you'd increase Capital Gains to 75%? What would that achieve?

Carnegie didn't build anything.  Brutally exploited workers built the railways that made him one of the richest men in the world.  When he grew old and started thinking about his legacy, he spent some of that vast fortune on libraries and concert halls he could put his name on. That is all. Much more good could have been achieved if he had treated his workers decently and been taxed properly throughout his career.

 

As for 75% CGT - and income tax for the highest incomes - yeah, why not? Around 3 decades of those sort of levels of progressive taxation right across the Western world fuelled a prolonged period of increasing prosperity. That progress has been reversed in many countries by low tax/low spending neoliberalism, leading to increases in murderous destitution. 

[Duff Man]

It's really weird that the super rich are almost always against raising taxes, but can't wait to tell you about their new foundation. It's a real mystery.

[s(k)aturation]

8 minutes ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

Carnegie didn't build anything. 

 

He was a rich cunt.

 

Bill Gates doesn't need to earn another cent. 

Bono doesn't need to earn another cent.

Bruce Springsteen doesn't need to earn another cent.

Let alone tax relief.

And yet they do.

 

People putting their names to charities and causes, when in actual fact they don't need to earn another single cent but yet continue to put money away for themselves, are Carnegies and Rockefellers.

 

Regardless of their politics.

 

The cycle continues.

 

 

[A Red]

1 hour ago, Jairzinho said:

I think you're looking too deeply. A Red is right wing.

No, further to the right than you

[A Red]

2 hours ago, viRdjil said:

Interesting neg from A Red. I’m trying to decipher the post to see if you’ve inserted a sly dig somewhere in there. 

No he hadnt, I would have had a dig back.

 

I was in a hurry and was essentially disagreeing with a 75% tax on the income on rental homes and the classification of it as unearned income. Also a 75% tax on the income from shares seems daft to me. Thats all it was.

[SasaS]

5 hours ago, Jose Jones said:

 

 

I have not done any reading of Laffer, and whilst having heard of the Laffer curve didn't really know what it was all about until Stronts' post.  So I will have to admit to not really commenting with a massive degree of knowledge of the topic at hand here.

 

However, there is an awful lot of economic proof - blooming loads of it from around the world and throughout history - that economies with a greater level of equality perform better.  They grow more, economic outcomes are better, education is better, social mobility is better, crime is lower.  Pretty much everything you would want.  Rampant loads of historical proof.  

 

Now, whether you think high tax rates on the highest earning individuals is the best way to achieve the lowering of inequality is a valid conversation.  Also the activities of the governments in question in what they decide to spend the tax monies on is also highly variable of course.

 

I'd imagine that old Laffer had put a fair amount of evidence behind his proposition around the top rate of tax in his curve, depending on the state of the economy under examination, as he does appear to be fairly renowned. 

But then again, Stronts does mention he is a nutcase, and not for nothing is economics called "the dismal science".

You should tell that to the Eastern "New" Europe countries, where there is statistically less inequality  than in the West.
 

[Chairman Meow]

If the Billionaires paid the same rate of tax as the working man instead of less it would be a fucking start.

 

Don't kid yourself that any of these fuckers are paying their full whack, that kind of money buys you some pretty clever tax lawyers. 

[AngryOfTuebrook]

55 minutes ago, A Red said:

No he hadnt, I would have had a dig back.

 

I was in a hurry and was essentially disagreeing with a 75% tax on the income on rental homes and the classification of it as unearned income. Also a 75% tax on the income from shares seems daft to me. Thats all it was.

The higher rate of tax (75% or whatever) would only apply to the highest incomes.  We're talking about progressive taxation. 

 

I categorise income from work (especially where there's a relationship whereby the more work you do results in more pay) as earned.  If you own shares, the amount of dividend income you receive can go up or down irrespective of anything you do; it's unearned. 

[Spy Bee]

Rico chucking negs about with no comment again. Some things don't change.

[A Red]

2 minutes ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

The higher rate of tax (75% or whatever) would only apply to the highest incomes.  We're talking about progressive taxation. 

 

I categorise income from work (especially where there's a relationship whereby the more work you do results in more pay) as earned.  If you own shares, the amount of dividend income you receive can go up or down irrespective of anything you do; it's unearned. 

Where do you see the level being that is a disincentive for investing in shares or rental homes? 

[A Red]

7 minutes ago, Spy Bee said:

Rico chucking negs about with no comment again. Some things don't change.

You either think i'm Rico or youre moaning about a neg from 2 1/2 years ago

[Spy Bee]

3 minutes ago, A Red said:

You either think i'm Rico or youre moaning about a neg from 2 1/2 years ago

Or I am moaning about Rico just negging me?

[A Red]

2 minutes ago, Spy Bee said:

Or I am moaning about Rico just negging me?

In this thread?