On Federal Taxation in the United States

Sept 20, 2014 21:31:24 GMT pjohns1873 said:

Whereas it is certainly possible that this reduction in average income is not entirely tied to the ravages of inflation, I would imagine that a rather large portion of it is.

Your assertion that voluntary contributions to charity do not change "the actual [financial] burden" simply sidesteps my major point, viz.:  Those who contribute to charity do not usually feel "burden[ed]" by the need to make those contributions.  In fact, most of us feel a rather warm, glowing feeling upon being able to help others. 

Since it would be superfluous for both individuals in a two-person household to pay the rent (or mortgage), pay the cable (or satellite) bill, pay for electricity, pay for natural gas, pay for water, pay for a landline phone...and on and on...it makes perfect sense that the official poverty level for a household of two is far less than double the amount of the official poverty level for a household of one. 

Oh, and I certainly do not believe that the only alternative to your littany of horrors (people "living on the streets," "starv[ing]," and "d[ying] from a lack of medical services") is The Welfare State (which you have described--ever so benignly--as the very apotheosis of "a modern civilization and society").     

To claim that the American economy "has recovered from the 'Great Recession' of 2008" (after six full years!) is to overlook the fact that it has been a very shallow recovery.  And a largely jobless recovery (principally due, I believe, to employers' reluctance to hire many individuals--especially low-skill individuals--in such a high-regulation environment as we have today). 

And no, "the economy" is really not doing "fairly well."  Wall Street is doing quite well--currently, at least; a cyclical correction is probably just around the corner--but Main Street, well, not so much...  
 

The people would not donate to charities if they didn't believe a financial burden existed to mitigate the effects of poverty. While it obviously gives them a 'warm-and-fuzzy' feeling of self-rightousness it is the financial burden of mitigating the effects of poverty that is what motivates them intially.

While you don't believe government welfare assistance is the only means of mitigating the effects of poverty you oppose the effects of poverty and yet make no proposals that would mitigate the effects. Private charities don't and cannot logically meet the financial burden placed upon society by poverty especially considering that fewer and fewer people are acquiring the wealth required to mitigate the effects of poverty. You cannot claim that private charities will prevent hunger, provide housing assistance, medical services, or other necessities that exist because of poverty. Private charities have never been able to do this at any point in history.

When you can present a logical proposal that will mitigate the effects of poverty that meets the full financial burden to ensure that every American has enough food to eat, a roof over their heads, proper medical treatment, and the other necessities then get back to me because we know historically that private charities can't do this.

Yes, two single person households create a greater financial burden than a single two-person household typically when it comes to poverty. As I noted if the household demographics are changing to smaller households then it increases the financial burden imposed by poverty.

As noted the GDP increased by 16% between 2008 and 2012 (a five year timeframe) which reflects an average increase in the GDP of 3.2% which historically represented a good, if not very good, economy considering that it was going down in 2009 so the "recovery" based upon GDP is really quite exceptional. As of the most recent quarter from 2014 the GDP growth rate is actually 4.2% which is an exceptionally good growth rate.

ycharts.com/indicators/real_gdp_growth

As you also correctly note this hasn't turned out to be a recovery for the American People because virtually all of the wealth creation is going to the very wealthy based upon economic principles that the Republican Party supports. The economy grows, the rich get richer, and the American people become more impoverished and that is what Republican economic proposals and principles support.

Of note here is a good article on how the American Middle Class dug it's own grave.

wallstcheatsheet.com/business/how-americas-middle-class-dug-its-own-grave.html/?a=viewall   

Sept 22, 2014 0:12:39 GMT pjohns1873 said:

Your chart, showing a 4.2 percent growth rate for the latest quarter, does not square with any data that I have seen. The US Bureau of Economic Analysis, for instance, shows the latest GDP growth rate as just 2.43 percent--which is not very heartening: www.multpl.com/us-real-gdp-growth-rate

What I have "correctly note[d]" is not that the "economic principles that the Republican Party supports" have led to "the rich get[ting] richer, and the American people becom[ing] more impoverished." Rather, I have noted that President Obama's economic recovery has not been especially congenial to middle-class Americans (even though Wall Street has certainly prospered). 

I'm not sure why there's a difference between the charts but the overall GDP growth since 2008 doesn't appear to be challenged and that is what's important.

The Republican Party highly supports corporations over sole propietorships and investors over workers and has for decades. Who's president really doesn't matter because the laws on the books haven't fundamentally changed enough to make any difference. Presidents have very little impact on the economy because the laws are all stacked against the workers in America and Republicans have been primarily responsible for that.

Let's just take one example. Republicans are very much anti-union but only unions can fight against the market forces that corporations use as a form of coercion to keep wages artifically low. Unions are about "workers" and Republican oppose the workers in America based upon their anti-union political agenda.

I will paraphase your position (correct me if I'm wrong) in stating that you believe that the enterprise matters more than the worker(s) or consumer(s) in America. Is that correct?

Personally I believe that no one should be allowed exploit anyone. In today's economy the "employers" are holding all of the cards while the workers are often getting screwed. In some cases the customers are getting screwed such as the case of the price fixing by the oil traders. As I've previously stated there needs to be an equally beneficial relationship between the enterprise, the worker(s) and the customers. No one should be getting screwed by either of the other two parties involved.

Republicans have always been pro-Wall Street as opposed to pro-Main Street and I believe even you will acknowledge that as being a fact.

Sept 22, 2014 20:47:59 GMT pjohns1873 said:

The specific type of Republicans that I most admire are not mere lackeys of Big Business types; hence, not especially "pro-Wall Street." 

I am not sure what you mean, exactly, by the proposition that I must believe that "the enterprise matters more than the worker(s) or consumer(s) in America." How have you arrived at that conclusion?

And how do you imagine that American workers are "getting screwed" by their employers?  If they do not consider their compensation adequate (including both salary/wages and benefits), they can always request more; and if that fails, they can go elsewhere.  (If their talents and/or skills are insufficient to make them attractive to others, well, then that is their own fault.) 

How can you assert that the chart I have provided does not fundamentally change anything?  It seems to indicate that our quarterly rate of growth has never--never--approached anything close to four percent; and that is the terminus a quo for what is needed, on a regular basis, coming out of a recession. 

By the way, I am not a very big fan of unions.  They once were very useful, I believe; but that was then and this is now, as the old saying goes.  But I am also not much of a fan of Big Business.  Both Big Business and Big Unions tend to do whatever they can get away with.  (As Lord Acton once put it, "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.) 

Please name the Republican you support that openly opposes the Capital Gains Tax. The Capital Gains Tax is exclusively about Wall Street as opposed to Main Street.

Over 20% of American workers are forced to work at jobs that don't provide enough income to live on. No matter how we "shuffle the cards" it still results in over 20% of American workers being unable to live on the compensation that they recieve from working.

I would suggest you refer to another chart as opposed to simply looking at one month's GDP growth.

"The United States economy advanced an annualized 4.2 percent in the second quarter of 2014, according to the second estimate released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis. The new figure comes better than an advance estimate of 4 percent, as business investment and exports contributed more to the growth."

www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp-growth

If we really wanted to gauge the recovery from the Recession we'd actually start with statistics from 2009 that reflected the bottom of the Recession as opposed to 2008 where the GDP continued to grow during the early days of the recession. While Wall Street has recovered from 2009 the workers on Main Street have seen wages continue to decline since 2009.

There needs to be a balance of power between the workers and the enterprise but Republican economic policies implemented through the law have stripped the power of unions thereby increasing the powers of the enterprise. It has created an imbalance where enterprise can and does take advantage of the workers.

Sept 24, 2014 21:36:22 GMT pjohns1873 said:

Why should it be considered the proper function of government to ensure a certain number of "middle income jobs in America today"?

Your observation that the good fortune of one worker must necessarily be at the expense of another worker is the sort of zero-sum thinking that is (sadly) typical of the American left.  You simply cannot imagine an expanding economic pie.  (But perhaps that is because, under President Obama, the American economy has not expanded very much.) 

Your assertion that Republicans "want to expand the Capital Gains Tax Loophole" flies in the face of everything that I have read--including the Washington Post article to which I linked. 

Oh, one other thing:  It is certainly not the responsibility of employers to "provide enough compensation to live on." It is, instead, the responsibility of potential employees to either upgrade their skillsets or, alternatively, downgrade their expectations and live a no-frills existence.

And it is my understanding that most minimum-wage workers are either very young (many are in adolescence or their early twenties) or are married, and are not the households' principal breadwinners.   

The Capital Gains tax is already 1/2 of the Earned Income Tax rate. Lowering it merely increases the disparity between the taxation on "unearned" and "earned" income in America. The tax codes that are already unfavorable for the workers become more unfavorable if the Capital Gains tax rates are reduced and if the Capital Gains taxes are eliminate then the tax rate is infinately greater on even the lowest paid worker when compared to the richest man in the United States. The Republicans don't want "fair" taxation but instead seek to eliminate any tax obligation for the wealthiest people in America by eliminating the Capital Gains Tax.

I'm not a "zero-sum" advocate and the pie is growing based upon the GDP. The problem is that the "slices" are not growing equally. As I documented between 2009 and 2012 the top 1% received 95% of the growth in the economy leaving virtually nothing for anyone else. Literally all of the economic growth and more went to the top 10% while the bottom 90% have literally lost part of their slice of the economic pie. The top 1% are eating 40% of the "economic pie" if memory serves me correctly. The wealthy investors don't create the pie as all of the GDP is based upon the labor of the workers but they do "eat 40% the pie" created by the workers.

The US Government has to be concerned about ALL of the people in America and not just the wealthy Americans.

In truth there is already more than enough "economic pie" in the United States but the problem is that the slices cut for over 20% aren't big enough for them to live on. Working from memory if we divide the gross personal income in the United States by the number of households the median income would be over well over $80,000/yr but that is not to claim that every household should receive $80,000/yr. What it establishes is that there is "more than enough economic pie" so that every household could earn $30,000/yr and there would still be "lot's of pie" left over for people to earn many times that amount. There would be almost $8 trillion in extra "economc pie" left over for others to benefit from. Isn't an extra $8 trillion/yr enough "economic pie" for the wealthy to share?  Does one person earning $100 million/yr really need to do that based upon thousands of people earning $15,000/yr?

Bottom line is that there is more than enough "economic pie" and the problem is that the pie is not being sliced very well. The wealthy top 1% have so much pie that they can literally throw it in the garbage while the poor bottom 20% plus receive a slice so small that they would starve to death trying to live on it. The bottom 20% can certainly receive a larger slice of the economic pie than they do today without significantly cutting into the slices of the top 1%.  

I would on a final note state that Republicans do advocate increasing the size of the "economic pie" but believe that this should result in the top 1% "eating more pie" while the workers that create the pie should "eat less pie."   

Sept 26, 2014 0:10:56 GMT pjohns1873 said:

Your assertion that the economic pie is just not divided equitably begs the question: Who would you prefer to be in charge of making that division?  In a social-welfare state, the government makes that decision.  In a capitalist economy, individuals make that decision--some of whom have boatloads of money, others of whom have very little money, and still others of whom are somewhere in between.  Again, who do you want to decide how the economic pie should be divided?

I am definitely in favor of eliminating, entirely, the capital-gains tax.

And it is probably a bit misleading to assert that "the workers...create the [economic] pie."  In one sense, that is literally true.  But it should probably be remembered that, absent the funding (which is a risk-taking endeavor) for any company, that company would simply not exist; and there would, therefore, be no "workers" for it. 

My basic is an assertion is that there needs to be a "minimum slice of the pie" for those that work for a living. That leaves the majority of the pie to be divided up based upon a free market. Based upon the Rights of Property as addressed by John Locke a person's labor entitles them to "survival and comfort" but not necessarily luxury. Everyone has a Right to Survival and Comfort based upon their physical labor. People can still earn "Luxury" based upon something more than just their physical labor because there is more than enough "pie" to go around.   

When you state you're in favor of eliminating the Capital Gains tax completely is this an endorsement of taxing all income, regardless of source, under the identical tax rules? Or do you just want multi-millionaires to not pay any taxes at all on their investment incomes?

I did not advocate only the top 1% paying all of the taxes but I don't endorse the top 1% not paying any taxes either.

The vast majority of investment in enterprise is funded by the enterprise itself based upon the profits created by the workers. External investments in enterprise are insignificant and don't even warrant any real consideration. The US economy would not actually suffer if "corporations" didn't exist at all.

Sept 26, 2014 22:32:19 GMT pjohns1873 said:

Well, some individuals (including me) would certainly "suffer" if corporations suddenly ceased to exist.  I get most of my groceries, for instance, at Walmart, where they are much less expensive than elsewhere.  The remaining few groceries I purchase come, almost exclusively, from Kroger--another corporation.  So yes, I would indeed "suffer" if I were forced to pay the necessarily higher prices (due to economies of scale) that are attendant to mom-and-pop operations. 

John Locke aside--I do not march in lockstep with anyone--I simply have no reason to imagine that anyone has a "right" to "survival and comfort." Those who cannot make enough money at one establishment to provide for their "survival and comfort" are certainly free to apply elsewhere. But they should be guaranteed nothing. 

The reference to "multi-millionaires" appears to be an appeal to the politics of envy.  I certainly do not resent the fact that the very wealthy are able to hire good tax accountants, who will find ways to avoid (legally) taxation to the greatest extent possible. 

As for whether I would favor our taxing all income under the "identical" rules, I am not especially enthusiastic about the concept of the taxation of any income.  In fact, the US did pretty well, as a nation, without an income tax for a very long time.  It was only about 100 years ago that the income tax became a permanent fixture of American life. 

Walmart and Kroger do not need to be corporations. They could have expanded to what they are today as privately held enterprises. They could have been partnerships as opposed to publically traded corporations or they could have obtained capital investment funding by borrowing instead of incorporating. I'm not stating that incorporation doesn't provide some benefits but instead I'm stating that an economy can still thrive without publically traded corporations.

Did you intentionally leave out the caveat that a person has a right to survivial and comfort based upon their labor? It isn't "free" as they have to work for it. There is no "hand-out" but instead the person, by the sweat of their brow, is has a right to survival and comfort.

I dislike injustice and the tax codes are very unjust as they tax investors (not high income workers) at less than 1/2 the tax rates of workers. As I mentioned before my federal tax burden relative to income was twice that of Mitt Romney's in 2011 and he had well over 200 times my income. When you're willing to address that fact and rationalize how it is in anyway a "just" tax code then get back to me.

We're back to cutting the US military expenditures to about $8 billion/yr which, adjusted for inflation, because is what we spent on the US military 100 years ago (if my memory serves me correctly). I thought you opposed cutting the military budget by that much. The typical Republican position on taxation is that they want the spending but are unwilling to tax enough to fund it. The US military budget alone is the elephant in the living room when it comes to the necessity for personal income taxes.