Obama's get rich quick scheme: Adopting a VAT Tax.

[kuronosan]

Must be a trolling attempt. It has to be an troll.

[Kohan]

You didn't read his post correctly. Kohan, this is what happens when you reply too fast.

In case this was a serious reply (and if it wasn't, you have fooled me), I was sarcastically arguing against his stating that we must stop thinking the United States is the best.

Though I believe I made that evident enough. Now it won't be funny, though.

WHY DID YOU KILL MY HUMOR KUYA

[Kuya]

In case this was a serious reply (and if it wasn't, you have fooled me), I was sarcastically arguing against his stating that we must stop thinking the United States is the best.

Though I believe I made that evident enough. Now it won't be funny, though.

WHY DID YOU KILL MY HUMOR KUYA

Kohan, this is not a good way to troll. You can't troll others by repeating what someon else said in angrier words and then replying to that same person antagonistically. People won't get trolled, they will think you are dumb. If you wanted to use sarcasm effectively, you would have argued the opposite of what he was saying in an angry tone (more effective still, a condescending tone!), and that would have been better since this forum leans to the left and thus you would have liberals here hyperventilating.

I am dissappoint

[BerenTebogo]

SAD

[Kohan]

Kohan, this is not a good way to troll. You can't troll others by repeating what someon else said in angrier words and then replying to that same person antagonistically. People won't get trolled, they will think you are dumb. If you wanted to use sarcasm effectively, you would have argued the opposite of what he was saying in an angry tone (more effective still, a condescending tone!), and that would have been better since this forum leans to the left and thus you would have liberals here hyperventilating.

I just wanted to be sarcastic. A douche, if you will. I'd wager to say I'm far better at that than I am at trolling. In fact, I doubt I'm anywhere near mastering the latter art.

Regardless, I'll now bow out of this discussion, as I'm off in search of delicious, delicious food. Continue, gentlemen.

[Yabby]

That's just nonsense. What other country enjoys reports to its media about further oppressing minorities (whether they're the religious or ethnic sort) despite our supposed progressiveness? Who else believes that things which were unjustly outlawed (e.g., marijuana) should never be legalized because they're irrationally scared of correcting a mistake? Are there any other nations, countries, what have you, who spend so much on their military so well, when so many of those millions could have done much more for actually fortifying what's within the country itself, including potentially employing its people by doing so? Do other places have people in their highest corporate positions of power complaining about things their social circle loves to, like how our country is being overrun by immigrants, while hypocritically and happily outsourcing jobs to entirely different countries (thereby denying more jobs from people living in the United States)? What about how hard the people who do live in this country work, mostly while thinking it's completely normal to virtually be servants?

This country is the fucking shit and you should shut your filthy fucking mouth.

For some reason while reading this, it was in this guys voice.

http://image3.examiner.com/images/bl...t_religion.jpg

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Before I type a full response, is the idea simply to eliminate the gap as much as possible, i.e. narrow the difference in actual dollars b/w a poor person and a rich person, or is simply increasing the wealthy person's income by say 10% and the poor person's by say 60% tolerable?

And you can go read the last post by the moderators in our previous threads aurik.

[Cadsuane]

Before I type a full response, is the idea simply to eliminate the gap as much as possible, i.e. narrow the difference in actual dollars b/w a poor person and a rich person, or is simply increasing the wealthy person's income by say 10% and the poor person's by say 60% tolerable?

And you can go read the last post by the moderators in our previous threads aurik.

Have some math sensibility. Contextless percentages result in meaningless sentences. If the gap between rich and poor grows (which may be the case with your figures) but everyone gets richer well we suppose it's nice that there was growth in average real income but this trend is going to be a problem if it continues for a few decades.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Hmm, I didn't think there was a problem if everyone was getting richer. I thought it was just if people were moving in opposite directions. And yes I realized to late that was kind of a dumb question but it was to late.

[Kuya]

Basically what Cadsuane said. You don't have to get too rigorous for me, but your proposals should have context and precisely lower that gap and proportion of income obtained. For example, in Puerto Rico, the bottom 20% own 1.7% of the income. That is some third world shit.

A decreasing of the gap does not necessarily mean that people get poorer, but it does mean that all new income would be distributed in less extreme ways. That is, take for a hypothetical example that, in one year, as in the previous year, productivity produces 10 billion in income (in total/general). If in the previous year the top 1% received 30% of that income, then in order to say there is progress, the top 1% have to receive less of that share, and the other percentiles need to see either a respective increase or decrease in in proportion of income received. It's a bit more complicated than this, but it's a start.

[Psion]

Fun fact: in other parts of the world the top paid worker makes about 40 times-100 times more than the lowest paid worker in a company.

In the US? I believe it varies anywhere between 400 times to -3000 times more+.

And that's just using the legal worker's figures if I remember right.

When Obama suggested a while back putting limits to executive payrolls to bring it more in line with the rest of the world, there was bloody murder being screamed from CEOs how they wouldn't be able to pay their bills and the like, despite making around 1-2 million dollars + a year.

I don't know about you, but if I could be making a tenth as much, I'd be living a pretty damned happy life. And this isn't even the highest ratio, so they almost certainly wouldn't be affected unless their lowest paid worker gets 7.00 an hour and they get about 1.5mil or more a year. Want a pay raise past that? Then DON'T PAY FUCKING MINIMUM WAGE. Will it increase costs? Not really, it would just redistribute the wealth to something more logical, and beneficial, to a greater amount of people. This includes the CEOs at the top, since more money to the middle class = more spending = more buisness = more profits, which translates to higher demand and jobs, etc.

[aurik]

If I recall, the screaming was mostly from top execs about how artificial limits on executive pay would mean companies wouldn't be able to retain top executive talent without paying them 8 figure salary+benefits and 9 figure severance.

In principle, I agree with them. However, these are generally the same companies that are being driven into the ground by top-heavy management and terrible cost control which then end up shuttering factories, slashing net-positive jobs, and committing outright accounting fraud so they can meet financial performance thresholds required for their bonuses.

Also Swampy re: Fairtax, I guess we've flogged that horse plenty anyway.

[Ferion]

In principle, I agree with them. However, these are generally the same companies that are being driven into the ground by top-heavy management and terrible cost control which then end up shuttering factories, slashing net-positive jobs, and committing outright accounting fraud so they can meet financial performance thresholds required for their bonuses.

This. The only thing I feel that the government should be allowed to limit are bonuses paid out in a public company that is in the red.

[Yabby]

I never understood how a company in the red could even give those types of bonuses. If someone could explain how/why that would be amazing. If i'm paying someone 10 million a year to help my company grow, and we are in the red 50 million on a quarter, why the fuck would i give that same person a 2 million bonus. He's a top lvl executive? Shit i could pay someone 10 dollars an hour to lose me 50 million, and in that case i would save money......

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Going back through your links Kuya, the only substantive argument I could find was the political power argument. That's the only thing I see to address specifically.

So wealth equaling more political power. First, as long as wealthy people are created, and the number of people to be influenced remains the same, wealthy people will always have the ability to interest the political class when their interests are at stake. Therefore, we would need to repeal the law that limits the members of the house to 435. But we need not even do that if we don't give the federal govt. the power in the first place. For example, McDonalds getting an exemption under the new health care law, while a mom and pop operation probably couldn't. This is probably b/c McDonalds has the funds and influence to do so. If the federal govt. didn't have the power in the first place, the wealth gap wouldn't even matter or be a problem. The same would be true for individuals.

More generally though, creating jobs and allowing business's to be created has to be the number one goal. Given current circumstances, it seems to me that encouraging people to invest in gold, art, etc, and not business has to be the biggest waste of money ever. Investing in gold isn't going to create jobs like investing in business would. Although, maybe it allows rich people to have more money when the future looks more prosperous.

[aurik]

Investing in gold is a pretty bad idea right now anyway!

[Kuya]

Going back through your links Kuya, the only substantive argument I could find was the political power argument. That's the only thing I see to address specifically.

So wealth equaling more political power. First, as long as wealthy people are created, and the number of people to be influenced remains the same, wealthy people will always have the ability to interest the political class when their interests are at stake. Therefore, we would need to repeal the law that limits the members of the house to 435. But we need not even do that if we don't give the federal govt. the power in the first place. For example, McDonalds getting an exemption under the new health care law, while a mom and pop operation probably couldn't. This is probably b/c McDonalds has the funds and influence to do so. If the federal govt. didn't have the power in the first place, the wealth gap wouldn't even matter or be a problem. The same would be true for individuals.

More generally though, creating jobs and allowing business's to be created has to be the number one goal. Given current circumstances, it seems to me that encouraging people to invest in gold, art, etc, and not business has to be the biggest waste of money ever. Investing in gold isn't going to create jobs like investing in business would. Although, maybe it allows rich people to have more money when the future looks more prosperous.

1. In regards to raising the number of representatives: What about the Senate and the Executive and local/state governments? Also, how do you handle the logistics of having thousands of representatives?

2. What powers do you want to cut from the Federal government and in what practical matter would you go about doing this? How would would this help with wealth/income polarization? Be specific.

Note that you haven't actually addressed lowering wealth/income gap at all. You still need to propose a way to to lower this gap/polarization.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

1. In regards to raising the number of representatives: What about the Senate and the Executive and local/state governments? Also, how do you handle the logistics of having thousands of representatives?

2. What powers do you want to cut from the Federal government and in what practical matter would you go about doing this? How would would this help with wealth/income polarization? Be specific.

Note that you haven't actually addressed lowering wealth/income gap at all. You still need to propose a way to to lower this gap/polarization.

1. I was referring to the Federal govt. so I'll address those. I don't know that you simply repeal the law b/c then we'd instantly have 7600+, so maybe you repeal it and change the formula slightly. But I don't see why a bigger building can't be built, or given the current state of technology why everyone has to be in Washington. Also, I was simply referring to the House, not the Senate, the Senate can stay the same, only one house needs to change.

2. For example, I've always wondered why the FAA has to be the one to inspect airplanes. Why not pass a law that all in order to fly an airplane you need insurance. This would be no different than needing car insurance. No insurance company would insure a shitty airline corp., and they would perform all the duties of the FAA obviously, and at much less cost than the govt. currently does this. So, essentially eliminate agencies like that, and allow insurance companies to perform the tasks. How would it help income polarization? Creating jobs would at least lower the gap from X to 0, to X to their salary. Not only that, the taxes that otherwise would been sent to the govt. can be used for productive purposes. Anecdotal story. Uncle is a brick mason, EPA promulgates a rule that says brick suppliers can ship bricks further than 50 miles from where they make their bricks, 1 of his 3 suppliers goes out of business. Stupid shit like that prevents income mobility, i.e. how many people were not given a better paying job b/c of that rule?

I really don't think you can set out to lower the gap in a way that benefits everyone unless there's income mobility. When the economy isn't growing, and jobs aren't being created, there is no such thing as income mobility. Creating a cumbersome regulatory state forces dollars to be spent for unproductive purposes. For example, the money spent complying with the tax code.

Another thing I've always wondered, is if were going to have an income tax, why even level it on anyone that makes say, under a million anyway. All it does is slow people down from becoming rich.

[aurik]

(2) Doesn't really address why this would reduce income polarization--all you're doing is moving public-sector jobs to private sector jobs, and you haven't made any compelling argument that public-sector jobs are a cause of income polarization. (I would suspect the opposite is true, actually)


As for income tax, it's a way of generating revenue that seeks to burden those most able to pay, as opposed to regressive taxes such as consumption taxes that tend to burden those least able to pay.

[Kuya]

1. I was referring to the Federal govt. so I'll address those. I don't know that you simply repeal the law b/c then we'd instantly have 7600+, so maybe you repeal it and change the formula slightly. But I don't see why a bigger building can't be built, or given the current state of technology why everyone has to be in Washington. Also, I was simply referring to the House, not the Senate, the Senate can stay the same, only one house needs to change.

2. For example, I've always wondered why the FAA has to be the one to inspect airplanes. Why not pass a law that all in order to fly an airplane you need insurance. This would be no different than needing car insurance. No insurance company would insure a shitty airline corp., and they would perform all the duties of the FAA obviously, and at much less cost than the govt. currently does this. So, essentially eliminate agencies like that, and allow insurance companies to perform the tasks. How would it help income polarization? Creating jobs would at least lower the gap from X to 0, to X to their salary. Not only that, the taxes that otherwise would been sent to the govt. can be used for productive purposes. Anecdotal story. Uncle is a brick mason, EPA promulgates a rule that says brick suppliers can ship bricks further than 50 miles from where they make their bricks, 1 of his 3 suppliers goes out of business. Stupid shit like that prevents income mobility, i.e. how many people were not given a better paying job b/c of that rule?

I really don't think you can set out to lower the gap in a way that benefits everyone unless there's income mobility. When the economy isn't growing, and jobs aren't being created, there is no such thing as income mobility. Creating a cumbersome regulatory state forces dollars to be spent for unproductive purposes. For example, the money spent complying with the tax code.

Another thing I've always wondered, is if were going to have an income tax, why even level it on anyone that makes say, under a million anyway. All it does is slow people down from becoming rich.

1. Okay, increasing the number of representatives will make it much more expensive to lobby and influence campaigns, or rather, more complicated, since you'd have to further divide your contributions. This is your attempt to answer the effects of income/wealth polarization on political influence. Unfortunately, what i see your proposal doing is not decreasing the effect of income/wealth polarization on party politics but rather making it more prohibitive and costly to engage in lobbying and private campaign funding. In other words, people with the most money can afford to spread their contributions and influence, but those with less will have to, by necessity, focus on a smaller number of representatives. I see your suggestion addressing the question poorly.

Furthermore, why not the Senate also? The Senate is also influenced by lobbying and private campaign finance, and i would argue that income/wealth polarization has its best effects on the Senate.

2. There are a lot of problems here, first of all, your intention is to privatize certain government functions, because the private sector is more efficient and it would cost less money and therefore less taxes, which means more money for people, but:

A- If a public service were to be privatized, there is no reason to believe that the employees would receive more pay or that more employees would be employed. In fact, when one usually speaks of efficiency in the private sector, particularly with labour, one is usually talking about decreasing the amount of employees/decreasing employee pay, because to a private company labour is cost that needs to be reduced as much as possible. This is also why the government is called inefficient: because public employee salaries are inflated/there are too many public employees for services that could be done by fewer people, hence ineffiency. But then this means that privatizing a public service, making it more efficient, means, in the worst case, less employees or a lower salary, and in the best case scenario, no change at all. A change that might occur is that the service might cost less to maintain because the private sector is so efficient, which leads me to:

B- It doesn't necessarily mean that people might pay less. Certainly, for the people who don't need/use the service, they are no longer taxed for it, so they save more money, but: people who do need/want the services have to pay more because there are less people paying into the service. It's more complicated than this, but from a consumer perspective, it does not cost less to privatize, but it may be more efficient. But you are right, less people are taxed, and this might mean more money for more people and therefore less income polarization but: The people who benefit from taxes and the social services that are provided are precisely the same people who are at the bottom half of the income/wealth divide. The richer population does not need these services provided by government because they can afford to buy them at the private sector, but people with far less money cannot. If the sevice is provided by the government, then they can afford it, because via taxes they pay for the services far a much smaller amount than they would otherwise pay, because people who do not need/use the service are also paying for the social services.

In that sense, taxes used for social services are precisely a redistribution of wealth towards the bottom, because the top pays for services that they could pay for anyway, but the bottom receives services for a lesser pay than they would otherwise not be able to pay.

Another issue is that, in theory, if there are less taxes, people spend more, and companies can employ more, and this means more jobs because of supply and demand, etc. But: when people receive more money, the tendency is not to spend that money, for the poorer population, extra money has a tendency to go into paying off debt which does not raise economic activity, and for the richer population who spends a smaller amount of their income, the tendency with extra money is to save or invest, and the problem with investing is that they might not invest it inside of the the US.

Furthermore, it is not exactly clear that unemployment is the most important reason for wealth/income polarization (in fact, i'm pretty sure it isn't). More so than unemployment, higher pay might help decrease the gap, but the higher pay must be relatively limited to the bottom half of the income/wealth scale, otherwise, if everyone gains more money, you still have the same polarization, but with just more money involved. If employers feel they can hire much more, or pay much more, because it means they an make a larger profit, this means that ultimately, the everyone is making more money, the employers via profit, and the employees via higher pay and more jobs. This is well and good, but it does not address income/wealth polarization.

C- The problem i have with privatization is that the same people who want less regulation suggest it. Privatization by itself is not bad. The private sector certainly can take over some public functions as long as the public sector makes sure that the general welfare of the public is being served, but this is not possible if there is no appropriate oversight over this privatization. Oversight needs to be efficient and it needs to guard against undue influence from things other than the general welfare. But the whole thing falls to pieces of the very same private company that took over the public service is allowed to influence, directly or indirectly, its regulators so it can cut corners at the expense of the general public. It is also bad when, during the process of privatization, fair competition over that service cannot be assured because of, precisely, that same private sector influence in the public sector. It doesn't make any sense to privatize and lower regulation. The purpose of public goods and services is to provide that service to the general public, that is, as many citizens as possible. This means that the emphasis is on quantity and not necessarily on quality, but the argument used for privatization is efficiency, meaning quality. We must not forget that the point of efficiency in the private sector is producing as much profit, and profit is not the point of public services.

People tend to think of effiency, hence quality, as services and products costing less to the consumer, but things only cost less, when there is lots of competition and the prices are elastic, as is the demand, or when they are subsidized.

It is not currently a tendency of capitalism for companies to want to compete, but rather either to merge or manipulate the rules that affect profit.

Certainly, unproductive public services should be made productive, but productive here does not mean profit. In the public sector, productive means solving the problems and needs afflicting the polity. Services should be made better either via privatization with proper regulation, or via proper planning, crafting, and implementation of public policy. In this way, tax money is not being spent needlessly. The logic behind the public sector is not the same logic that the private sector uses, and while methods of one or the other can be exchanged, we should not forget that the goals and motivations are different.

Your last sentence made it sound as if you believe that everyone is on the progressive path towards becoming rich if they work.