Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Wait he received more tax credits than he paid?
Therefor he was actually paid by the American taxpayer -akak me. hey go wash my car and pronto!

Kilkrazy wrote:What is the proportion of wealth in pension funds compared to the wealth owned by the rich?

Well, the combined pension pot in the UK is apparently 55p, so...

Testify wrote:

Give a rich man $1m and he will buy a house, or invest in a business.
Give a thousand poor men $100 and they will buy goods and services with it.

Does that create new jobs/wealth though? No, it's subsidizing existing commerce. That's not new, that's staus quo and is championing mediocrity. Hence why Nancy Peolsi's Satement regarding unemployment checks and their job creating abilities is utter fantasy. It's especially bad when someone can live off the dole for 99 weeks. That = zero incentive to find work until the checks are about to run out.

Testify wrote:
One of the reasons western economies are stagnating is because we have allowed wealth to accumulate in the few, instead of being spent by the many.

More class warfare gak, there have always been poor and rich throughout history, trying to use radical egalitarainsim to make everyone's lives equal leads to hell on earth. If your sentiment were true, Europe wouldn't be on fire economically.

Stormrider wrote:

Testify wrote:

Give a rich man $1m and he will buy a house, or invest in a business.
Give a thousand poor men $100 and they will buy goods and services with it.

Does that create new jobs/wealth though? No, it's subsidizing existing commerce. That's not new, that's staus quo and is championing mediocrity. Hence why Nancy Peolsi's Satement regarding unemployment checks and their job creating abilities is utter fantasy. It's especially bad when someone can live off the dole for 99 weeks. That = zero incentive to find work until the checks are about to run out.

Except for the whole legal requirement to search for employment thing, also I can tell you right now that a family can not live of of unemployment at all, it's not like that they get more money then there previous jobs. Do you know what the average recipient of welfare is, white, suburban, lower middle class. The concept of welfare queens is false and insulting to those who wish to work but cant' and to those who are unable to work.

Unemployment is a direct stimulus to the economy as it provides a constant circulation of goods and services even in times of economic crisis.

Looked it up to provide an article for your claim.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1355/is_n21_v90/ai_18744024/

Most people who depend on welfare are White and live in suburbs or rural areas, a recent study shows. The findings are contrary to the popular belief that most welfare recipients are unemployed, inner-city minorities whose families have gotten public assistance for generations.

The study reveals that Whites make up 48 percent of the poor, followed by Blacks, 22 percent, and Hispanics, 22 percent. The information for the study was compiled from 1994 Census data, and the study was conducted by Population Reference Bureau, an independent group.

Welfare recipients was not the only "myth of poverty, challenged by the study. The study also notes:

* Not all poor people remain on public assistance for years. One out of three people living below the poverty line will rise above the line within 12 months.

* The poor are not anti-work. About 10 percent of the nation's poor are children under legal working age and 10 percent are over U.

* Fewer than half of the nation's poor receive cash benefits from the government. Most who do receive government assistance would have difficulty making ends meet with the amount of money they receive.

* Nearly 40 percent of the poor have in families headed by a single woman; 34 percent live in two-parent homes.

Ah, thanks mel

ShumaGorath wrote:And despite that we have one of the highest thruputs on tax in the western world. Tax codes, whether simple or complex, are an artifact of public effort. When compared to western European/asian/african/south american countries the lack of tax evasion and general plausibility of belief in our system is impressive. It's a bad system, but the cost to administer it is low in the totality of our government expense and it's not what is ailing the economy. It's just a bad toe. Fixing the tax system wouldn't go very far towards fixing Americas structural economic issues which are based largely in education, healthcare, and social trends that devalue work and make things like regressive payscales in untrained work (such as in landscaping) acceptable in the eyes of voters.

Actually, despite having very generous terms in the tax code for start up businesses, the US still scores very badly in ease of business reviews for its tax system because the complexity of the system and the cost of properly following it. So you suffer the loss in revenue to encourage business, but then don't generate more business because following the tax system costs new business so much money - it's a lose lose set up.

More to the point, though, the false economies set up by flawed tax legislation are a real problem though. Consider the nonsense in which government bond interest is not taxed at all, but corporate profit are taxed twice. Why invest in a company and pay tax twice, when you can just buy bonds and never get taxed at all?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

broodstar wrote:So, you're saying that both Keynes and FA Hayak were wrong?

Well Hayek was wrong, he more or less admitted that himself before he died. But in my post I wasn't commenting on their points of disagreement at all (Hayek basically argued that there was no cyclical economic cycle because, logically, every dollar earned was subsequently spent - Keynes argued that economic situations occur in which it is logical for the individual to save instead of spend, and this leads to a cycle of declining economic activity. As soon as we could measure national economic activity it became clear Keynes was right - because we could see a cycle of growing and declining economic activity).

But neither Keynes nor Hayek had anything do with the debate on trickle down economics, nor on the alternative that's come into vogue among some left wing groups (that money in the hands of the middle class produces economic growth in a way it doesn't in the hands of the wealthy).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Testify wrote:No one is suggesting that an economy without investment is healthy, but you're not honestly suggesting that the concentration of wealth into a few hundred thousand very wealthy people can possibly be better for the economy than higher wages for the average worker?

When I said trickle down economics doesn't work, I meant exactly that - concentrating wealth in the hands of the poor isn't better for the economy. But nor is a concentration of wealth among the rich particularly harmful for overall economic growth (it is bad for reasons of basic equality of course, but that's another matter).

Truth is the spread of wealth across the population, either highly equitable or highly concentrated at the top, hasn't been shown to have any realy impact on economic growth at all. It's a non-issue.

Growth comes from new business opportunities - new markets, new possible investments, that kind of stuff. It sounds so simplistic, but the truth often is.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Stormrider wrote:Does that create new jobs/wealth though? No, it's subsidizing existing commerce. That's not new, that's staus quo and is championing mediocrity. Hence why Nancy Peolsi's Satement regarding unemployment checks and their job creating abilities is utter fantasy. It's especially bad when someone can live off the dole for 99 weeks. That = zero incentive to find work until the checks are about to run out.

No. Just fething no. You don't get to talk economics when you ignore basic economic concepts.

If a person goes out and spends $100, then that's $100 of new activity that spreads through the economy. There is just no fething denying that, no matter where the $100 came from. It could be $100 given out to every person named Steve who's left handed. It doesn't matter, the $100 will flow through the economy. Don't pretend otherwise.


And your disincentive claim is inventing a hard relationship with no evidence. Here in Australia you can stay on the dole forever. You don't have to have ever been in work, if you can't get a job government will provide support. And yet our unemployment rate sits around 5%.

Meanwhile from 2007 to 2012 unemployment in the US moved from 4.5% to 8.3%. Did a few million people suddenly get lazy and figure they might as well subsist on a small amount of money if it meant they got to sleep in? Or can we just accept that the cyclical nature of the economy is a big thing, and stop making stupid personal judgements?

sebster wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

broodstar wrote:So, you're saying that both Keynes and FA Hayak were wrong?

Well Hayek was wrong, he more or less admitted that himself before he died. But in my post I wasn't commenting on their points of disagreement at all (Hayek basically argued that there was no cyclical economic cycle because, logically, every dollar earned was subsequently spent - Keynes argued that economic situations occur in which it is logical for the individual to save instead of spend, and this leads to a cycle of declining economic activity. As soon as we could measure national economic activity it became clear Keynes was right - because we could see a cycle of growing and declining economic activity).

But neither Keynes nor Hayek had anything do with the debate on trickle down economics, nor on the alternative that's come into vogue among some left wing groups (that money in the hands of the middle class produces economic growth in a way it doesn't in the hands of the wealthy).

I sappose even I got sucked in to the leftist's myth, that it's Keynesian economics to tax to rich and give it to the poor. That Keynes said, it doesn't matter who is spending as long as the money gets moving (which lead to the stimulus). But, that's like dipping your bucket in the pond, walking around the pond, dumping it back in, and saying you've grown the pond.

Actually, despite having very generous terms in the tax code for start up businesses, the US still scores very badly in ease of business reviews for its tax system because the complexity of the system and the cost of properly following it. So you suffer the loss in revenue to encourage business, but then don't generate more business because following the tax system costs new business so much money - it's a lose lose set up.

More to the point, though, the false economies set up by flawed tax legislation are a real problem though. Consider the nonsense in which government bond interest is not taxed at all, but corporate profit are taxed twice. Why invest in a company and pay tax twice, when you can just buy bonds and never get taxed at all?

My point on throughput was the lack of largescale tax avoidance, which unless you classify legal means of lowering taxes as avoidance is still true. We do not suffer the problems of nation states with actually, realistically, and damagingly bad taxation systems. I agree with you that it's a bad system with a lot of holes. I disagree that it's part of the structural failing of the American economy. We've had a gakky tax system for a long time. Despite being taxed twice people still invest in private stocks (not at the rate they once did, but then the stock market is now a tool of modern banking rather than personal finance). It's not what is sinking this boat.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

broodstar wrote:

sebster wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

broodstar wrote:So, you're saying that both Keynes and FA Hayak were wrong?

Well Hayek was wrong, he more or less admitted that himself before he died. But in my post I wasn't commenting on their points of disagreement at all (Hayek basically argued that there was no cyclical economic cycle because, logically, every dollar earned was subsequently spent - Keynes argued that economic situations occur in which it is logical for the individual to save instead of spend, and this leads to a cycle of declining economic activity. As soon as we could measure national economic activity it became clear Keynes was right - because we could see a cycle of growing and declining economic activity).

But neither Keynes nor Hayek had anything do with the debate on trickle down economics, nor on the alternative that's come into vogue among some left wing groups (that money in the hands of the middle class produces economic growth in a way it doesn't in the hands of the wealthy).

I sappose even I got sucked in to the leftist's myth, that it's Keynesian economics to tax to rich and give it to the poor. That Keynes said, it doesn't matter who is spending as long as the money gets moving (which lead to the stimulus). But, that's like dipping your bucket in the pond, walking around the pond, dumping it back in, and saying you've grown the pond.

The pond actually does grow. That's why false analogies are bad. The flow of goods and services can (and have for centuries) increase exponentially so long as the environment (logical environment, not planetary) allows for further growth. The pond can also shrink which is bad.

ShumaGorath wrote:
The pond actually does grow. That's why false analogies are bad. The flow of goods and services can (and have for centuries) increase exponentially so long as the environment (logical environment, not planetary) allows for further growth. The pond can also shrink which is bad.

But, the pond didn't grow. Here we see the GDP and yeah it did grow, until the money ran out and then it went right back down. And similiarly with the other two, we see them go up and then stagnate when the money run out.

Broodstar, this is Dakkadakka; we don't use facts! We use rhetoric and meaningless buzzwords and forged quotes from overtly idolized politicians and wikipedia articles we've editted ourselves mere moments ago!

broodstar wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:
The pond actually does grow. That's why false analogies are bad. The flow of goods and services can (and have for centuries) increase exponentially so long as the environment (logical environment, not planetary) allows for further growth. The pond can also shrink which is bad.

But, the pond didn't grow. Here we see the GDP and yeah it did grow, until the money ran out and then it went right back down. And similiarly with the other two, we see them go up and then stagnate when the money run out.

Actually, every one of those graphs shows a growth in the economy. It was then coupled with a return to previous form. Economics don't exist frozen in glass. The average of 2, 4 and 2 is 3.3. The average of 2, 2 and 2 is 2. The economy was larger under the stimulus. The pond grew. Argue about the effectiveness of that specific stimulus all you want, but that'd be you changing your argument (also, all of those graphs plainly show an acceleration in recovery that would be visible from space if i put my computer to my window).

LoneLictor wrote:Broodstar, this is Dakkadakka; we don't use facts! We use rhetoric and meaningless buzzwords and forged quotes from overtly idolized politicians and wikipedia articles we've editted ourselves mere moments ago!

Dude, I can't tell if that's sarcasm. it's hard to convey tone via text.

sebster wrote:More to the point, though, the false economies set up by flawed tax legislation are a real problem though. Consider the nonsense in which government bond interest is not taxed at all, but corporate profit are taxed twice. Why invest in a company and pay tax twice, when you can just buy bonds and never get taxed at all?

I'm sure this will get me shouted down and all that, but as long as corporations continue to be considered people without having any actual responsibilities of being people (IE corporations who commit crimes should actually be punished instead of slapped on the wrist and then refuse to admit they did anything), I really couldn't care less if corporations are taxed twice.

It helps make up for their complete and utter lack of responsibility. Oftentimes, limited liability is a nice idea... then there's the times where it is nothing more than a lie that people hide behind to justify their corruption.

sebster wrote:But nor is a concentration of wealth among the rich particularly harmful for overall economic growth

*looks at the past decade*

Really now.

Melissia wrote:

sebster wrote:More to the point, though, the false economies set up by flawed tax legislation are a real problem though. Consider the nonsense in which government bond interest is not taxed at all, but corporate profit are taxed twice. Why invest in a company and pay tax twice, when you can just buy bonds and never get taxed at all?

I'm sure this will get me shouted down and all that, but as long as corporations continue to be considered people without having any actual responsibilities of being people (IE corporations who commit crimes should actually be punished instead of slapped on the wrist and then refuse to admit they did anything), I really couldn't care less if corporations are taxed twice.

It helps make up for their complete and utter lack of responsibility. Oftentimes, limited liability is a nice idea... then there's the times where it is nothing more than a lie that people hide behind to justify their corruption.

sebster wrote:But nor is a concentration of wealth among the rich particularly harmful for overall economic growth

*looks at the past decade*

Really now.

The issue is that right now the US has one of the highest corporate tax rates, which is a tax that does actually impact new industry and development (unlike income tax). Companies are basing themselves outside of the US in order to avoid the tax.

*looks at LIBOR scandal, and the other dozens and dozens of scandals in the last ten years*

No.

That's not the biggest issue.

Melissia wrote:*looks at LIBOR scandal, and the other dozens and dozens of scandals in the last ten years*

No.

That's not the biggest issue.

Read my post again, did I say that it was the biggest issue. You were discussing corporate taxes, saying that you don't care if they are taxed twice. I then pointed out that the the corporate tax is has an actual impact on economic growth while income tax doesn't. Its really strange that every time politicians say that taxes stifle innovation and job growth they only focus on personal taxes and just don't talk about corporate tax rates at all.

youbedead wrote:I then pointed out that the the corporate tax is has an actual impact on economic growth while income tax doesn't.

Yes, I m aware of this nonsense you posted.

Melissia wrote:

youbedead wrote:I then pointed out that the the corporate tax is has an actual impact on economic growth while income tax doesn't.

Yes, I m aware of this nonsense you posted.

Businesses leave the US because of a high corporate tax rate, currently are corporate tax rate is far higher then most other western nations and businesses that have the capability to do so leave the US denying the government a revenue stream. Incentivising them to stay here increases revenue to the US government , its not like I'm suggesting that we lower to like 10% but we need to bring it in line with other western countries, hell currently are average is higher then swedens.

The effective tax rate for many businesses is less than the tax rate many middle income families pay. Effectively, many corporations pay next to nothing due to how screwed up our tax code is.

I haven't exactly seen a massive rush of corporations leaving the US.

Melissia wrote:The effective tax rate for many businesses is less than the tax rate many middle income families pay. Effectively, many corporations pay next to nothing due to how screwed up our tax code is.

I haven't exactly seen a massive rush of corporations leaving the US.

Here's a 60 minutes segment on the whole affair its a pretty good overview of the subject.

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7376848n