Economists Say We Should Tax The Rich At 90 Percent

[Back]

Economists Say We Should Tax The Rich At 90 Percent


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/22/economists-tax-rich_n_6024430.html



America has been doing income taxes wrong for more than 50 years.

All Americans, including the rich, would be better off if top tax rates went back to Eisenhower-era levels when the top federal income tax rate was 91 percent, according to a new working paper (http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fpapers.nber.org%2Ftmp%2F99111-w20601.pdf&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNH02vDYlaRVv9IcHdFRkwIRRhEcPg) by Fabian Kindermann from the University of Bonn and Dirk Krueger from the University of Pennsylvania.

The top tax rate that makes all citizens, including the highest 1 percent of earners, the best off is “somewhere between 85 and 90 percent,” Krueger told The Huffington Post. Currently, the top rate of 39.6 percent is paid on income above $406,750 for individuals and $457,600 for couples.

Fewer than 1 percent of Americans, or about 1.3 million people, reach that top bracket.

Here is the conclusion from the report, charted:
http://i.huffpost.com/gen/2192606/original.jpg

What you’re seeing is decades of a more or less strict adherence to the gospel that tax cuts for the highest income earners are good. The trend began with President Kennedy, but his cuts were hardly radical. He lowered rates when the American economy was humming along, no longer paying for World War II and, relative to today, an egalitarian dreamland. To put things in perspective, Kennedy cut rates to around 70 percent, a level we can hardly imagine raising them to today. The huge drops -- from 70 percent to 50 percent to less than 30 percent -- came with the Reagan presidency.

In comparison to decades of cuts, Presidents George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama each raised taxes at the top by a historically insignificant amount. Obama also proposed modest tax increases, raising taxes on families making more than $250,000 from 33 to 36 percent, and on individuals making more than $200,000 from 36 to 39.6 percent. These increases failed in the House.

A 90 percent top marginal tax rate doesn’t mean that if you make $450,000, you are going to pay $405,000 in federal income taxes. Americans have a well-documented trouble (http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2012/11/viva-the-dumb-rich.html) understanding the notion of marginal tax rates. The marginal tax rate is the amount you pay on your income above a certain amount. Right now, you pay the top marginal tax rate on every dollar you earn over $406,750. So if you make $450,000, you only pay the top rate on your final $43,250 in income.
A very high marginal tax rate isn’t effective if it’s riddled with loopholes, of course. Kindermann and Krueger's paper is also focused solely on income, not wealth, and returns on wealth are how the truly superrich make a living.

Despite these limitations, Kindermann and Krueger say that a top marginal tax rate in the range of 90 percent would decrease both income and wealth inequality, bring in more money for the government and increase everyone’s well-being -- even those subject to the new, much higher income tax rate.

“High marginal tax rates provide social insurance against not making it into the 1 percent,” Krueger told The Huffington Post. Here’s what he means: There’s a small chance of moving up to the top rung of the income ladder, Krueger said. If rates are high for the top earners and low for everyone else, there’s a big chance you will pay a low rate and a small chance you will pay a high rate. Given these odds, it is rational to accept high income tax rates on top earners and low rates for the rest as a form of insurance.
This insurance takes the form of low-income people paying dramatically less in taxes. “Everyone who is below four times median income” -- that’s about $210,000 for households -- “pays less,” Kruger said.

The paper assumes that tax rates won’t stop a future Bill Gates from wanting to start Microsoft. Instead, what it finds is that labor supply among the 1 percent would decline -- translation, they would work a little less -- but it “does not collapse.” That’s because of who the authors assume makes up the top income bracket: celebrities, sports stars, and entrepreneurs -- people with innate talents that are hugely rewarding, but only for a short period of time. They only have a few years to use their skills to make most of the money they will ever make. High tax rates don’t lessen their degree of desire to be productive, the authors said.

Krueger described the phenomenon like this: “How much less hard would LeBron James play basketball if he were taxed at a much higher rate? The answer is not much. “James knows he only has five years,” or so of peak earning potential, Krueger said, and so he will work to make as much as he can during that time. If high income tax rates robbed the would-be 1 percent of their stick-to-itiveness, the paper’s conclusions would change.

http://i.huffpost.com/gen/2194596/thumbs/s-LEBRON-JAMES-large640.jpg
(LeBron James responds to a 90 percent top marginal tax rate)

And so whether you agree with this paper’s conclusion comes down, to a certain extent, to what you think of the 1 percent of income earners: who they are and why they make so much money. Over the last few decades, a huge portion of the rapid growth of the very highest incomes relative to the rest of us has been driven by rising executive and financial sector pay. The question, then, is if confronted with a vastly higher tax rate, would Jamie Dimon still behave like LeBron James.


Makes sense to me.

[Tgo01]

Yeah that's great and all except all rich people would then move to another country then there would be no point for a 90% tax rate because no one would be in that bracket.

That made sense 60 years ago because it wasn't as easy back then to just up and move to another country. Now it's as easy as turning on the TV.

[Back]

Why should a person be able to own more than one house when there are people who own no house?

[Tgo01]

Why should a person be able to own more than one house when there are people who own no house?

Why should a person be able to own a computer when there are people who don't own a house?

[Back]

When did GREED become a positive trait?

[Viekn]

Why should a person be able to own more than one house when there are people who own no house?

What did the person with two houses do to get those two houses? Did he/she work their ass off? Why doesn't the other person own a house? Was he/she a lazy fuck? There are tons of reasons, some good and some bad, why this might happen. But thank god we live in a country where the government can't tell us we can't buy two homes because someone else doesn't have one.

[Methais]

Makes sense to me.

This is how to tell when something is a bad idea and stupid.

[Back]

This is how to tell when something is a bad idea and stupid.

Whats your better idea?

[Viekn]

When did GREED become a positive trait?

I am forced to live in South Florida because of family. I want to kill myself 90% of the year because of the humidity. If I work hard and save money so that I can buy a house in Colorado that I can escape to a few months out of the year to actually enjoy a bit of cold weather and humidity that's less than 99%, why does that make me greedy?

[Back]

I am forced to live in South Florida because of family. I want to kill myself 90% of the year because of the humidity. If I work hard and save money so that I can buy a house in Colorado that I can escape to a few months out of the year to actually enjoy a bit of cold weather and humidity that's less than 99%, why does that make me greedy?

Forced? You are in a different situation? Is your condo unoccupied most of the year?

[Tgo01]

Someone ask Back why he's allowed to own a computer when someone out there doesn't own a house.

[Methais]

Back, why are you allowed to own a computer when someone out there doesn't own a house?

Why do you make more money than your dishwashers?

Greedy bastard!


http://youtu.be/Wa6eC_Eg-3I

[Tgo01]

Back, why are you allowed to own a computer when someone else doesn't own a house?

<3

[Viekn]

Forced? You are in a different situation? Is your condo unoccupied most of the year?

My wife grew up here and all of her family is here. She would never move. If that weren't the case, I'd prefer to live in another state. We live in a single family home. Is it greedy for me to save money to buy another home?

[Methais]

Only if you're not a raging liberal.

[Rallorick]

Now it's as easy as turning on the TV.

we can move through our TVs now? best on demand ever.

[Tgo01]

we can move through our TVs now? best on demand ever.

That's how I do all of my traveling.

[Rallorick]

.... this is one of those 'move to a new country in your imagination' things.

I'm on to your game now.

[senorgordoburro]

Why should a person be able to own more than one house when there are people who own no house?

Why do some people work harder than others?

A question for Back: If you could pick your percentage to pay in taxes, what do you feel is appropriate?

[Warriorbird]

People had many houses when we had that 90% top marginal rate, Back.

[Astray]

That'll drive the rich away, as well as any big businesses that make a profit over X amount.

Way to ruin America!

[Warriorbird]

It didn't. The country did wonderfully well. Rich people got smart though and got people who dismantled the system into power. They're also much more organized than Back is.

[Methais]

When I think of Back being organized I picture something like this.

http://behlerblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/disorganized.jpg

[Laviticas]

Why......

Why does our government hold land hostage when there are people with no homes?

Why do people lobby against oil pipelines, exploration, refineries etc. when cheap energy helps the poor?

Why strive to be successful if the government punishes me for making more than x amount of dollars by taking 90% of it?

Why punish success because you fail?

Why do you want to hand over other peoples money to a government you don't trust?

Why don't you happily cut the government a check and pay extra taxes?

Why don't we loosen restrictions on lumber harvesting to help make housing more affordable?

Why do we steal from the tax payer to prop up home values when there are people with no homes?


Seeing a trend here Back? It's the fucked up liberal policies that make owning a home for the homeless nearly impossible. Print more food stamps, that will keep them voting.

[waywardgs]

I also like to bitch at back's stupidity while ignoring the legitimate arguments of economists. Boo back!

[Androidpk]

Whats your better idea?

Kill all the poor people. Or sell them.

[Wrathbringer]

Economists say government should steal more money from us



Makes sense to me.
http://www.mixednutsclowns.com/wpimages/wpa329ce6a.gif

[Warriorbird]

I also like to bitch at back's stupidity while ignoring the legitimate arguments of economists. Boo back!

I'm quite all right with their arguments.

"Income inequality causes terrorism!" "Many houses are evil!"

Not so okay there.

[Parkbandit]

Why should a person be able to own more than one house when there are people who own no house?

http://gifsforum.com/images/gif/dancing/grand/62202418_dancing_gif.gif

[Parkbandit]

Your political viewpoint certainly frames the way you believe is the "best" way to get the society where you believe it should be. This is no exception. It's well documented how liberals think... Rich people / companies are the problem and the best way to get them back 'in line' is to remove more of their wealth and spread it around to their core constituents.

[RichardCranium]

When I think of Back being organized I picture something like this.

http://behlerblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/disorganized.jpg

I'm calling bullshit. He isn't wearing a scarf.

[Ker_Thwap]

This entire thread seems like a money grab by Back, for Back. Let's vote Back some more money? Let's redefine "rich" as anyone with with more money than Back has. Won't someone please think of the Back?!

[Hightower]

Your political viewpoint certainly frames the way you believe is the "best" way to get the society where you believe it should be. This is no exception. It's well documented how liberals think... Rich people / companies are the problem and the best way to get them back 'in line' is to remove more of their wealth and spread it around to their core constituents.

That's one way of looking at it. But let's assume that taxes are necessary to a specific dollar amount in order to meet a budget. That money has to come from somewhere. So when you say lower taxes on one demographic or another, you're simultaneously saying that we should raise taxes elsewhere to compensate. The dollar amount required doesn't change.

Obviously, that's a simplification. We could also make cuts, for instance. But my point is that it can't be "stealing from the rich" to tax them higher if it isn't also "stealing from the middle class" to maintain the status quo. Taxes have never been static. We lower taxes for one demographic at the expense of another. The rich didn't get where they are now free of cost, on hard work alone. If it hurts them to tax them higher, then it stands to reason that it helped them to tax them lower. Is it not a fair question to ask why the middle class couldn't receive the same help? But of course it comes at a cost to someone else.

Wealth redistribution? It depends upon which bracket you happen to be in when the change comes!

~Taverkin

[Methais]

I'm calling bullshit. He isn't wearing a scarf.

I was almost going to say "...but with hipster glasses and a scarf." too.

[Back]

I also like to bitch at back's stupidity while ignoring the legitimate arguments of economists. Boo back!

S'cool, man. Sorry to get in the way.

My views really aren't all that radical either. Greed is very powerful. Its like an ouroboros that gets bigger as it eats itself. There has to be a limit on how much any one person can own or how much of a voice they have in society. Otherwise you are going to wind up with a few people running everything at their whim. We should not be beholden to greedy tyrants but to ourselves and those in need.

[Wrathbringer]

S'cool, man. Sorry to get in the way.

My views really aren't all that radical either. Greed is very powerful. Its like an ouroboros that gets bigger as it eats itself. There has to be a limit on how much any one person can own or how much of a voice they have in society. Otherwise you are going to wind up with a few people running everything at their whim. We should not be beholden to greedy tyrants but to ourselves and those in need.
http://www.mixednutsclowns.com/wpimages/wpa329ce6a.gif

[Tgo01]

I also like to bitch at back's stupidity while ignoring the legitimate arguments of economists. Boo back!

I'll admit I'm no economist but I'm willing to bet money these economists didn't even take into account the rich leaving the country and fewer rich people coming to this country if we raised the tax rates so high. Heck rich people already leave their home countries if tax rates are raised even a little, imagine raising the top tax rate to 91%?

[Androidpk]

I'll admit I'm no economist but I'm willing to bet money these economists didn't even take into account the rich leaving the country and fewer rich people coming to this country if we raised the tax rates so high. Heck rich people already leave their home countries if tax rates are raised even a little, even raising the top tax rate to 91%?

Raise the exit tax to 90%.

[Tgo01]

Raise the exit tax to 90%.

If only :(

[Kithus]

It was a good article, from a very unfortunate source.

[Parkbandit]

S'cool, man. Sorry to get in the way.

My views really aren't all that radical either. Greed is very powerful. Its like an ouroboros that gets bigger as it eats itself. There has to be a limit on how much any one person can own or how much of a voice they have in society. Otherwise you are going to wind up with a few people running everything at their whim. We should not be beholden to greedy tyrants but to ourselves and those in need.

No one called your views "radical". They were called "stupid".

[Androidpk]

As stupid as they are he does have a point that extreme wealth inequalities can be catastrophic.

[Methais]

There has to be a limit on how much any one person can own

Where do you suggest we set these limits?

[Laviticas]

As stupid as they are he does have a point that extreme wealth inequalities can be catastrophic.

And human history rolls on..........

[RichardCranium]

I was almost going to say "...but with hipster glasses and a scarf." too.

And this is why we're friends.

[Methais]

And this is why we're friends.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blxsReqIyZ4

[Androidpk]

And human history rolls on..........

For now.

[Hightower]

That's one way of looking at it. But let's assume that taxes are necessary to a specific dollar amount in order to meet a budget. That money has to come from somewhere. So when you say lower taxes on one demographic or another, you're simultaneously saying that we should raise taxes elsewhere to compensate. The dollar amount required doesn't change.

Obviously, that's a simplification. We could also make cuts, for instance. But my point is that it can't be "stealing from the rich" to tax them higher if it isn't also "stealing from the middle class" to maintain the status quo. Taxes have never been static. We lower taxes for one demographic at the expense of another. The rich didn't get where they are now free of cost, on hard work alone. If it hurts them to tax them higher, then it stands to reason that it helped them to tax them lower. Is it not a fair question to ask why the middle class couldn't receive the same help? But of course it comes at a cost to someone else.

Wealth redistribution? It depends upon which bracket you happen to be in when the change comes!

~Taverkin


I should have known better than to comment in a political thread. Neg rep to me. But to those who would reply in rep but not face a direct response from little ol' me, let me be clear that none of what I said here in any way supports Obama or the Democrats. I simply make the following assumptions:

1) That taxes are necessary to some extent.

2) That the necessity of levying taxes predicates a budget.

3) That taxes are not applied equally.

All of this is true, unless you believe we should do away with taxes entirely. If you agree that taxes are necessary at all, then you must also agree that there is a necessary amount that must be collected (we can, of course, disagree on that amount!). Obviously, we wouldn't be having this discussion at all if taxes were collected equally. And of course, they can't be collected equally because any way you slice it, somebody is paying more and somebody is paying less. The only way to avoid that scenario is if everybody can afford to pay the same amount. And no matter where you stand on this issue, we can all agree that that is not an accurate depiction of reality!

My point is that it's hypocritical to be against "wealth redistribution", when the status quo is already based on the same. Taxes are, by definition, a form of wealth redistribution.

So why am I supporting Obama and the Democrats by pointing this out? Tricky, tricky. Who has something to hide here?

~Taverkin

[Kithus]

You need to realize that "wealth redistribution" has become a catch phrase for the anti-Democrats. They are happy to suggest lowering taxes on the higher earners as a way to boost the economy without calling it "wealth redistribution" because they ignore the fact that the money still has to come from somewhere. In reality they support "wealth redistribution" just not the same distribution more moderate or liberal people might be suggesting.

[Hulkein]

Why should a person be able to own more than one house when there are people who own no house?


Man, are you serious?

[Tgo01]

Man, are you serious?

Sadly, yes. He also thinks we can "cure" terrorism if we raise tax rates.

[Wrathbringer]

I should have known better than to comment in a political thread. Neg rep to me. But to those who would reply in rep but not face a direct response from little ol' me, let me be clear that none of what I said here in any way supports Obama or the Democrats. I simply make the following assumptions:

1) That taxes are necessary to some extent.

2) That the necessity of levying taxes predicates a budget.

3) That taxes are not applied equally.

All of this is true, unless you believe we should do away with taxes entirely. If you agree that taxes are necessary at all, then you must also agree that there is a necessary amount that must be collected (we can, of course, disagree on that amount!). Obviously, we wouldn't be having this discussion at all if taxes were collected equally. And of course, they can't be collected equally because any way you slice it, somebody is paying more and somebody is paying less. The only way to avoid that scenario is if everybody can afford to pay the same amount. And no matter where you stand on this issue, we can all agree that that is not an accurate depiction of reality!

My point is that it's hypocritical to be against "wealth redistribution", when the status quo is already based on the same. Taxes are, by definition, a form of wealth redistribution.

So why am I supporting Obama and the Democrats by pointing this out? Tricky, tricky. Who has something to hide here?

~Taverkin

Of course the opposite strategy of "Just take more money! Weeee!" is "Stop spending so much money, you morons." If we'd stop spending tax dollars on things like turtle crosswalks in Florida and warmongering, we wouldn't need so much tax money. Our government does waaaaay too much, imo. I think our government should trim the fat and live within their means rather than stealing more money from their citizens to pay for their spending habit. Any increase in taxes on the 1% will just make it that much more satisfying for them when they find a way around it. We're trying to bandaid a gunshot wound at this point. We need real solutions, not enabling measures.

[Androidpk]

Of course the opposite strategy of "Just take more money! Weeee!" is "Stop spending so much money, you morons." If we'd stop spending tax dollars on things like turtle crosswalks in Florida and warmongering, we wouldn't need so much tax money. Our government does waaaaay too much, imo. I think our government should trim the fat and live within their means rather than stealing more money from their citizens to pay for their spending habit. Any increase in taxes on the 1% will just make it that much more satisfying for them when they find a way around it. We're trying to bandaid a gunshot wound at this point. We need real solutions, not enabling measures.

We wouldn't need so much taxes if everyone paid their share and we didn't have so many freeloaders.

[Tgo01]

We wouldn't need so much taxes if everyone paid their share and we didn't have so many freeloaders.

Are the freeloaders the 1% not paying 91% in taxes or the 43% who don't pay income taxes at all or get a refund?

[Androidpk]

Are the freeloaders the 1% not paying 91% in taxes or the 43% who don't pay income taxes at all or get a refund?

Yes.

[Tgo01]

Yes.

Glad we see eye to eye on this.

[Wrathbringer]

We wouldn't need so much taxes if everyone paid their share and we didn't have so many freeloaders.

Some people are willing to contribute to the problem of overspending in Washington so they can continue their murderous warmongering. Some aren't.

[Back]

We need taxes to ensure every single living person on this planet is being taken care of adequately AND to fund a program to explore and colonize the stars.

[Ker_Thwap]

I propose that no one should own more than one blue shirt! What kind of selfish asshole spends money on a blue shirt that they don't even wear half the time? If there were less blue shirts, we could distribute brown shirts to the masses.

[Methais]

We need taxes to ensure every single living person on this planet is being taken care of adequately AND to fund a program to explore and colonize the stars.

What are you doing to help accomplish this? How many pairs of shoes do you own? How many outfits do you own? What kind of food do you eat? What kind of car do you drive? How much money do you put in savings instead of giving it to people with no money?


Man, are you serious?

He is serious. And don't call him Man.

http://s2.hubimg.com/u/4261843_f496.jpg

[Wrathbringer]

What are you doing to help accomplish this? How many pairs of shoes do you own? How many outfits do you own? What kind of food do you eat? What kind of car do you drive? How much money do you put in savings instead of giving it to people with no money?



He is serious. And don't call him Man.

http://s2.hubimg.com/u/4261843_f496.jpg

Ah, but you're missing it. He's for taxes so that somebody else (government) can do things to accomplish this. He doesn't actually want to do anything to accomplish them himself. Typical liberal. Let daddy government handle it so that I don't have to. Besides, Back is too busy being greedy, continuing to work for money after he's already got a set of clothes and a room. Probably wants a second set of clothes, while there are others out there with none. How horrible.

[Methais]

Ah, but you're missing it. He's for taxes so that somebody else (government) can do things to accomplish this. He doesn't actually want to do anything to accomplish them himself. Typical liberal. Let daddy government handle it so that I don't have to. Besides, Back is too busy being greedy, continuing to work for money after he's already got a set of clothes and a room. Probably wants a second set of clothes, while there are others out there with none. How horrible.

In that case, what does Back think would be an appropriate tax rate for his own income?

[Androidpk]

Some people are willing to contribute to the problem of overspending in Washington so they can continue their murderous warmongering. Some aren't.

So if no one wants to pay taxes that's okay?

[Back]

Seems like a better alternative to killing each other over land no one really owns or gods that don't exist.

[Methais]

Seems like a better alternative to killing each other over land no one really owns or gods that don't exist.

What do you think the tax rate on your income should be?

[Wrathbringer]

So if no one wants to pay taxes that's okay?

No one WANTS to pay taxes. People do it because they're afraid of someone with a costume and a gun taking them away to jail if they don't (unless they're rich, in which case they know they can always buy their way out of such a jam in one way or another).

[Ker_Thwap]

Seems like a better alternative to killing each other over land no one really owns or gods that don't exist.

Having an existential crisis this morning are we?

[Androidpk]

No one WANTS to pay taxes. People do it because they're afraid of someone with a costume and a gun taking them away to jail if they don't (unless they're rich, in which case they know they can always buy their way out of such a jam in one way or another).

I didn't ask you if people want to pay taxes.

[Wrathbringer]

I didn't ask you if people want to pay taxes.


So if no one wants to pay taxes that's okay?

Ah, I see. You're asking my permission. You have it.

[Parkbandit]

We need taxes to ensure every single living person on this planet is being taken care of adequately AND to fund a program to explore and colonize the stars.

I'm running out of dancing clown gifs.................

1:24PM is a bit early to get stoned out of your mind.. isn't it?

[Parkbandit]

Having an existential crisis this morning are we?

:rofl:

I bet it's like that most mornings for him.

[Latrinsorm]

Yeah that's great and all except all rich people would then move to another country then there would be no point for a 90% tax rate because no one would be in that bracket.

That made sense 60 years ago because it wasn't as easy back then to just up and move to another country. Now it's as easy as turning on the TV.What makes you think it has become easier?
I'll admit I'm no economist but I'm willing to bet money these economists didn't even take into account the rich leaving the country and fewer rich people coming to this country if we raised the tax rates so high. Heck rich people already leave their home countries if tax rates are raised even a little, imagine raising the top tax rate to 91%?We could bet on it, but wouldn't it be easier if you just read the study? I'll do you a solid and give you the relevant sentence, referring to the Frisch labor supply elasticity: "Note that this choice implies, ceteris paribus, strong disincentive effects on labor supply from higher marginal tax rates at the top of the earnings distribution."
Are the freeloaders the 1% not paying 91% in taxes or the 43% who don't pay income taxes at all or get a refund?Not paying federal income tax does not indicate being a freeloader, because there are many more taxes one can pay.

[Laviticas]

I'm running out of dancing clown gifs.................

1:24PM is a bit early to get stoned out of your mind.. isn't it?

Pfft, I wake and bake on a normal basis, there must be an alternative reason for Backs....whatever you want to call it. But today I'm weedless, Back if you have weed and I don't, fucking bogart.

[Androidpk]

Ah, I see. You're asking my permission. You have it.

I'm asking if taxes are necessary.

[Tgo01]

What makes you think it has become easier?

Because it has.


"Not paying federal income tax does not indicate being a freeloader, because there are many more taxes one can pay.

Please only comment on things I specifically mention, okay? Thanks.

[Androidpk]

Pfft, I wake and bake on a normal basis, there must be an alternative reason for Backs....whatever you want to call it. But today I'm weedless, Back if you have weed and I don't, fucking bogart.

Study: Cannabis Use Not Associated With Deficits In Intelligence Quotient

http://blog.norml.org/2014/10/22/study-cannabis-use-not-associated-with-deficits-in-intelligence-quotient/

[Methais]

We need taxes to ensure every single living person on this planet is being taken care of adequately AND to fund a program to explore and colonize the stars.

We can't colonize stars, we'll burn up!

[Latrinsorm]

Because it has.What makes you think that?
Please only comment on things I specifically mention, okay? Thanks.I don't follow you. Surely we agree that 43% pay no federal income taxes (http://money.cnn.com/2013/08/29/pf/taxes/who-doesnt-pay-federal-income-taxes/)?

[RichardCranium]

Surely we agree that 43% pay no federal income taxes (http://money.cnn.com/2013/08/29/pf/taxes/who-doesnt-pay-federal-income-taxes/)?

Did you not get the memo a few posts back?

http://i1381.photobucket.com/albums/ah212/Adam_May/Mobile%20Uploads/4261843_f496_zps0ef2a9c5.jpg (http://s1381.photobucket.com/user/Adam_May/media/Mobile%20Uploads/4261843_f496_zps0ef2a9c5.jpg.html)

[Tgo01]

Surely we agree that 43% pay no federal income taxes (http://money.cnn.com/2013/08/29/pf/taxes/who-doesnt-pay-federal-income-taxes/)?

"But there are other taxes that people pay!" you are going to proclaim next. Yes. We know.

Federal revenue is made up of about 85% income taxes, a whopping 3% is made up from other taxes.

So if you're going to argue that people who don't pay federal income taxes are "paying their fair share" because they might contribute a small amount to that 3% from other taxes then...just no. NO!

And before you say it, no, social security and medicare payroll taxes don't count.

[kutter]

Two words.

FLAT TAX

[Latrinsorm]

Did you not get the memo a few posts back?A memo? What is it?
"But there are other taxes that people pay!" you are going to proclaim next. Yes. We know.

Federal revenue is made up of about 85% income taxes, a whopping 3% is made up from other taxes.

So if you're going to argue that people who don't pay federal income taxes are "paying their fair share" because they might contribute a small amount to that 3% from other taxes then...just no. NO!Surely payroll taxes...
And before you say it, no, social security and medicare payroll taxes don't count....drat! How do you feel about state and local taxes?

[Tgo01]

A memo? What is it?Surely payroll taxes......drat! How do you feel about state and local taxes?

Assuming we are talking about states that even have an income tax, are they paying more than they receieve back from their federal refund?

[Atlanteax]

We need taxes to ensure every single living person on this planet is being taken care of adequately AND to fund a program to explore and colonize the stars.

Why do you want society to provide loving homes and good health care to serial killers/rapists and other violent criminals?

[Latrinsorm]

Assuming we are talking about states that even have an income tax, are they paying more than they receieve back from their federal refund?I don't know, are they? From what I've seen only 8% of people (a) pay no fed. income tax (b) pay no payroll tax (c) aren't retirees. Clearly there's going to be some non-zero % that pay state income tax or sales tax or property tax under whatever conditions you'd like to set, and what are we down to then? 5%? 1%? 0.5%? There are three options, therefore I'm right.

[Gelston]

I don't know, are they? From what I've seen only 8% of people (a) pay no fed. income tax (b) pay no payroll tax (c) aren't retirees. Clearly there's going to be some non-zero % that pay state income tax or sales tax or property tax under whatever conditions you'd like to set, and what are we down to then? 5%? 1%? 0.5%? There are three options, therefore I'm right.

Shut up, Latrin.

[Tgo01]

I don't know, are they? From what I've seen only 8% of people (a) pay no fed. income tax (b) pay no payroll tax

Didn't I say payroll taxes don't count?

[Latrinsorm]

Didn't I say payroll taxes don't count?I thought you were joking, but okay. What percentage of the people who don't pay any federal taxes (except payroll) pay no other taxes of any kind?

[Tgo01]

I thought you were joking, but okay. What percentage of the people who don't pay any federal taxes (except payroll) pay no other taxes of any kind?

Have you ever known me to kid about not counting payroll taxes?

And didn't I already point out the federal government gets around 3% of its income from taxes that individual's pay therefore even if they pay something they are contributing very little/next to nothing?

Don't you owe me yet another apology?

[Latrinsorm]

Have you ever known me to kid about not counting payroll taxes?Yyyy... yes? No. No? No. Yes!
And didn't I already point out the federal government gets around 3% of its income from taxes that individual's pay therefore even if they pay something they are contributing very little/next to nothing?

Don't you owe me yet another apology?I mean, that's why I explicitly asked you about state income tax etc. under whatever conditions you'd like to set. You have such a strong opinion about this, I naturally assumed you had some kind of hard figure.

[Parkbandit]

Have you ever known me to kid about not counting payroll taxes?

And didn't I already point out the federal government gets around 3% of its income from taxes that individual's pay therefore even if they pay something they are contributing very little/next to nothing?

Don't you owe me yet another apology?

http://chroniclesofharriet.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/troll-5.jpeg

When the conversation drifts from federal income tax to any kind of tax.. you are just being trolled.

Stop feeding it.

[Tgo01]

Yyyy... yes? No. No? No. Yes!I mean, that's why I explicitly asked you about state income tax etc. under whatever conditions you'd like to set. You have such a strong opinion about this, I naturally assumed you had some kind of hard figure.

So states build federal highways and pay our military and pay for Obama's vacations?


http://chroniclesofharriet.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/troll-5.jpeg

When the conversation drifts from federal income tax to any kind of tax.. you are just being trolled.

Stop feeding it.

I can't help it :(

It's like trying not to look at a bad car crash on the side of the highway.

[Parkbandit]

I can't help it :(

It's like trying not to look at a bad car crash on the side of the highway.

It requires a small bit of self control.

You can do this.

[Warriorbird]

Two words.

FLAT TAX

The last time somebody totaled that up they had to rely on magic "job creation" numbers. It's a nice idea if you want to tax the poor more heavily and it doesn't work properly unless you do.

[Thondalar]

You need to realize that "wealth redistribution" has become a catch phrase for the anti-Democrats. They are happy to suggest lowering taxes on the higher earners as a way to boost the economy without calling it "wealth redistribution" because they ignore the fact that the money still has to come from somewhere. In reality they support "wealth redistribution" just not the same distribution more moderate or liberal people might be suggesting.

The basis for this belief is that rich people provide jobs for other people, thereby reducing the amount the government needs to spend supporting other people, thereby reducing the amount of tax income that needs to be provided.

The idea here is that society should support itself financially without the need of government "redistribution". A certain amount of government income is needed to support Federal infrastructure (I actually disagree with this, but for the sake of this argument I'll roll with it), as well as helping to support the actually invalid(2nd definition) members of our society (no caveat here, I totally support this).

It really boils down to whether you trust bureaucrats more with your money than business owners.

[Thondalar]

The last time somebody totaled that up they had to rely on magic "job creation" numbers. It's a nice idea if you want to tax the poor more heavily and it doesn't work properly unless you do.

Unsubstantiated propaganda based on hypotheticals.

[Wrathbringer]

Unsubstantiated propaganda based on hypotheticals.

BOOM

[Thondalar]

Flat rates work for sales tax, why not income tax? If you want to be pedantic about it, give the lowest bracket zero tax. Don't take anything out, and don't give anything back. Work up from there.

The idea here is to have a system with no loopholes that just makes sense. I'm not for hurting the poor, and I'm not (necessarily) for helping the rich. This 90% tax rate everyone talks about is missing one key point...nobody in that bracket is actually going to pay 90%. The tax code we have now is so convoluted, with so many loopholes and special circumstances...even during Eisenhower nobody actually paid 90%.

Quit chasing the rabbit.

[Hightower]

The basis for this belief is that rich people provide jobs for other people, thereby reducing the amount the government needs to spend supporting other people, thereby reducing the amount of tax income that needs to be provided.

The idea here is that society should support itself financially without the need of government "redistribution". A certain amount of government income is needed to support Federal infrastructure (I actually disagree with this, but for the sake of this argument I'll roll with it), as well as helping to support the actually invalid(2nd definition) members of our society (no caveat here, I totally support this).

It really boils down to whether you trust bureaucrats more with your money than business owners.


But again, lowering taxes on the wealthy also comes with a cost. You can't say that it benefits one group without also acknowledging that it comes at the expense of another demographic. It's reciprocal. You swing the pendulum too far in either direction and the result is a tiny segment of the population benefits at the expense of all others. For instance, "job creation". You don't need to be an economist to understand that jobs don't simply justify themselves when you throw money at rich people. Without increased demand, there can be no increase in supply, and no new jobs.

~Taverkin

[Warriorbird]

Unsubstantiated propaganda based on hypotheticals.

The bit that you're leaving out here is that these are the calculations of the flat tax people. It either works (by screwing the lower end of the spectrum) or fails to by giving them deductions for basic needs.

[Thondalar]

But again, lowering taxes on the wealthy also comes with a cost. You can't say that it benefits one group without also acknowledging that it comes at the expense of another demographic. It's reciprocal. You swing the pendulum too far in either direction and the result is a tiny segment of the population benefits at the expense of all others. For instance, "job creation". You don't need to be an economist to understand that jobs don't simply justify themselves when you throw money at rich people. Without increased demand, there can be no increase in supply, and no new jobs.

~Taverkin

The rub here is when a business wants to expand into a new market, and hire more people for more locations, but can't because they're being taxed too high to have capital to spend on expansion. That's the paradox...if they weren't taxed so much, they could expand and hire more people, who would then no longer be unemployed and need assistance that the tax money is paying for. The money goes out either way, but which route would you rather have it take?

I've found that most people who talk about things like this just assume that businesses have tons of money laying around that they're wiping their ass with. You seem to possess a higher level of intelligence than most, and I'm not necessarily putting you in this category, but...Average Joe 6-pack has no idea what it takes to open a new location for a business, especially in the bureaucratic age we're in.

Two good friends of mine were bartenders at a local pool hall for years and years...I'm 34 (Saturday!) and they've been my bartenders since I was 20(1). They worked their asses off and finally saved up enough money to start their own place...it's been a nightmare for them. This isn't exactly the same as a large chain opening a new location, but the point is, they planned on spending X amount on their own place, and it turns out, after all the red tape they had to cut through, and hoops they had to jump through, and unexpected expenses otherwise, they're now looking at a much larger investment than they originally planned. They're still planning on opening (6 months behind schedule), but the entire process has them taking second mortgages and praying.

You're assuming there's a shortage for demand, but that's not at all the case. Increased population, by itself, means increased demand in almost all categories...and our population certainly increases. It's not so much throwing money at rich people as not taking so much of their money that they can't continue to grow and employ more people.

[Thondalar]

The bit that you're leaving out here is that these are the calculations of the flat tax people. It either works (by screwing the lower end of the spectrum) or fails to by giving them deductions for basic needs.

Not that I don't trust your judgement, but do you have some citation for this I could look at?

[Hightower]

You're assuming there's a shortage for demand, but that's not at all the case. Increased population, by itself, means increased demand in almost all categories...and our population certainly increases. It's not so much throwing money at rich people as not taking so much of their money that they can't continue to grow and employ more people.

How much is "so much" of a rich person's money? And will the government not come knocking on my door to collect the difference? Is it "so much" for them, but not for me? How does that work exactly?

~Taverkin

[Thondalar]

I also find it funny that the same people who lambast a flat-tax system because it might disproportionately affect the poor have no problem supporting Obamacare which definitely disproportionately affects the poor.

[Thondalar]

How much is "so much" of a rich person's money? And will the government not come knocking on my door to collect the difference? Is it "so much" for them, but not for me? How does that work exactly?

~Taverkin

Well, that would be hard to pin down on a National level, and would depend on the individual businesses in question. As I said before...if the government didn't have to pay out so much, they wouldn't need as much tax income. There would be no "difference" to collect. You're assuming payouts would remain static. I'm assuming businesses with larger capital reserves would be able to expand and therefore reduce payouts.

Here's another angle to consider...which is more? 20% of 2 businesses making 5 million a year, or 35% of 1?

[Thondalar]

I say we put movie stars and musicians in the 90% bracket. Flat.

[Warriorbird]

Not that I don't trust your judgement, but do you have some citation for this I could look at?

Not that you'll read it, but here is the Bush era President's Advisory Panel on Tax Reform puncturing all of the flat tax propositions that have followed by pointing out the rate would have to be 34% to be revenue neutral.

http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/taxreformpanel/final-report/TaxPanel_8-9.pdf

There's lot of other studies out there but this is both from conservatives and from people who likely would've considered this if they thought it would work.

Some further looks.

http://www.factcheck.org/2007/05/unspinning-the-fairtax/


I also find it funny that the same people who lambast a flat-tax system because it might disproportionately affect the poor have no problem supporting Obamacare which definitely disproportionately affects the poor.

Right up there with people who support a system that disproportionately effects the poor (or fails to pay for itself) being against the same thing without any extra health benefits/societal costs.

EDIT:

Here's another opposing conservative viewpoint.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/08/22/why-the-fair-tax-will-fail/

[Back]

Having an existential crisis this morning are we?

LOL.

It's somewhat entertaining to read the responses to things I would think are inevitable truths that I am optimistic we will eventually achieve together as our genetic programming dictates. I understand these ideas may be a long way off for us but I am confident they will be recognized in our future.

Ironically, can resistance to our mutual survival, from within, be considered a vaccine or a cancer?

[Rallorick]

You're assuming there's a shortage for demand, but that's not at all the case. Increased population, by itself, means increased demand in almost all categories...and our population certainly increases. It's not so much throwing money at rich people as not taking so much of their money that they can't continue to grow and employ more people.

quite a bit of this whole post was not really accurate.

increased population does not drive increase demand - it can, if the population economy grows with it. but with that logic, the country with the most demand, and therefore the healthiest economy, would be India. In short, need a healthier economy = grow your population. it just isn't that simple, because increased population does not, by itself, drive more demand. demand requires an element of attainability.

And taxing the wealthy less because they could then employ more people - this is a debunked theory that went out with the 80's. they don't hire more people, they get more wealthy.

[Thondalar]

quite a bit of this whole post was not really accurate.

increased population does not drive increase demand - it can, if the population economy grows with it. but with that logic, the country with the most demand, and therefore the healthiest economy, would be India. In short, need a healthier economy = grow your population. it just isn't that simple, because increased population does not, by itself, drive more demand. demand requires an element of attainability.

More people means more goods and services being required. India is a poor example because the population growth exceeded economic growth...coupled with more societal issues than you're prepared to deal with, let's just say it's a very poor correlation to the United States on multiple levels. Even Latrin will tell you you can't compare economies between nations in this particular respect.

I'm not talking about other countries, I'm talking about the United States, and the pseudo-capitalist system we've had for the last 100 years.


And taxing the wealthy less because they could then employ more people - this is a debunked theory that went out with the 80's. they don't hire more people, they get more wealthy.

Do you have some proof of this, or are you just regurgitating things you've heard?

[Thondalar]

Not that you'll read it, but here is the Bush era President's Advisory Panel on Tax Reform puncturing all of the flat tax propositions that have followed by pointing out the rate would have to be 34% to be revenue neutral.

http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/taxreformpanel/final-report/TaxPanel_8-9.pdf

Really, WB, I thought we were better than that. I specifically asked for information, and you provide it, but automatically assume I won't read it? How could I come up with logical counterpoints if I don't at least read it?

This first link here talks at length about adding a VAT as a supplemental tax...although somewhat similar to what most people refer to as a flat tax, it's really not at all what most people are talking about when they talk about a flat tax. Also, members of this "panel" had pretty wildly disparate opinions about things...I'll quote from your link....


Some members of the Panel who supported introducing a consumption tax in general
expressed concern about the compliance and administrative burdens that would be
imposed by operating a VAT without eliminating the income tax or another major
tax. Some members were also concerned that introducing a VAT would lead to
higher total tax collections over time and facilitate the development of a larger federal
government – in other words, that the VAT would be a “money machine.” Other
Panel members suggested that studies of the international experience and domestic
political realities did not support the “money machine” argument.

I'm thinking at this point that you don't really understand at all what the flat tax argument is about, since your first inclination is to link a panel study about VAT taxes.



There's lot of other studies out there but this is both from conservatives and from people who likely would've considered this if they thought it would work.

Some further looks.

http://www.factcheck.org/2007/05/unspinning-the-fairtax/

This link here is about a specific flat sales tax option that was proposed in a House bill 7 years ago...again not at all what we're talking about when we say flat tax. I'm starting to think you're just screwing with me.



Right up there with people who support a system that disproportionately effects the poor (or fails to pay for itself) being against the same thing without any extra health benefits/societal costs.

EDIT:

Here's another opposing conservative viewpoint.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/08/22/why-the-fair-tax-will-fail/

This link is also for a flat sales tax. Ok, I get it you imagined I wouldn't actually read your links, but damn, man, I'm calling your bluff. Can you come up with what I asked for now?

[Wrathbringer]

LOL.

It's somewhat entertaining to read the responses to things I would think are inevitable truths that I am optimistic we will eventually achieve together as our genetic programming dictates. I understand these ideas may be a long way off for us but I am confident they will be recognized in our future.

Ironically, can resistance to our mutual survival, from within, be considered a vaccine or a cancer?http://www.mixednutsclowns.com/wpimages/wpa329ce6a.gif

[Hightower]

Well, that would be hard to pin down on a National level, and would depend on the individual businesses in question. As I said before...if the government didn't have to pay out so much, they wouldn't need as much tax income. There would be no "difference" to collect. You're assuming payouts would remain static. I'm assuming businesses with larger capital reserves would be able to expand and therefore reduce payouts.

Here's another angle to consider...which is more? 20% of 2 businesses making 5 million a year, or 35% of 1?


I'm sorry. I'm really not an economist, and I might have misunderstood. But I don't see where you've made any sort of case for the increasing population necessarily increasing demand. If the vast majority of the money lies in the hands of a few, and the relative wealth of the rest of the population decreases over time, why should we assume that more people necessarily equates to more buying power? Isn't it fairly obvious that isn't the case, in fact?

~Taverkin

[Latrinsorm]

So states build federal highways and pay our military and pay for Obama's vacations?They do, effectively. The federal government sends a huge amount of money to states, thus states with more of their own money require less from the federal government, which it can then spend on vacations for Obama. It's called checks and balances, Terry. Or jurisprudence. One of those.
It really boils down to whether you trust bureaucrats more with your money than business owners.Gilded age, present day. Gilded age, present day... yep, going with present day.
The idea here is to have a system with no loopholes that just makes sense. I'm not for hurting the poor, and I'm not (necessarily) for helping the rich. This 90% tax rate everyone talks about is missing one key point...nobody in that bracket is actually going to pay 90%. The tax code we have now is so convoluted, with so many loopholes and special circumstances...even during Eisenhower nobody actually paid 90%.In the year of our Obama 1954, taxpayers with >$1,000,000 income (not adjusted for inflation) paid 67% (http://ir.uiowa.edu/law_pubs/5/) (p. 927). The tax code (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_Revenue_Code#Progressivity_of_the_1954_Co de) that year works out to 88% for >$1,000,000. The ratio of the two is 67 / 88 = .76. By comparison, in 2009 taxpayers with >$1,432,890 paid 24.3% (http://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/2012/01/31/the-facts-on-tax-rates-who-pays-what/) when the code predicted 33% (http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-prior/i1040tt--2009.pdf), a ratio of .74. Thus, tax sheltering is about the same in both eras (.74 is about equal to .76) so your point about loopholes does not stand up empirically.

It's also worth pointing out that the paper cited in the OP built their model such that it reflected present day data, so it includes phenomena like tax sheltering, non-payers, etc. The only distinction I can see between the real tax system and the model is that the model has a linear rather than piecewise increase in tax.

[Tgo01]

They do, effectively. The federal government sends a huge amount of money to states, thus states with more of their own money require less from the federal government, which it can then spend on vacations for Obama. It's called checks and balances, Terry. Or jurisprudence.

If you did anymore reaching with this argument you could have literally stuffed your head up your own ass.

[Latrinsorm]

If you did anymore reaching with this argument you could have literally stuffed your head up your own ass....why would I be reaching for things with my head?

And are you ever going to answer my question? You say people who don't pay federal tax (besides payroll tax) are freeloaders, I would like to know how many of them pay state or local taxes.

[Tgo01]

You say people who don't pay federal tax (besides payroll tax) are freeloaders

I actually never said such a thing. Perhaps you should stop reaching before you manage to pull off what I said you would do :O

[Latrinsorm]

I actually never said such a thing. Perhaps you should stop reaching before you manage to pull off what I said you would do :OOkay buddy. :)

[Tgo01]

Okay buddy. :)

Who you calling buddy, friend?!

[Warriorbird]

Really, WB, I thought we were better than that. I specifically asked for information, and you provide it, but automatically assume I won't read it? How could I come up with logical counterpoints if I don't at least read it?

This first link here talks at length about adding a VAT as a supplemental tax...although somewhat similar to what most people refer to as a flat tax, it's really not at all what most people are talking about when they talk about a flat tax. Also, members of this "panel" had pretty wildly disparate opinions about things...I'll quote from your link....



I'm thinking at this point that you don't really understand at all what the flat tax argument is about, since your first inclination is to link a panel study about VAT taxes.




This link here is about a specific flat sales tax option that was proposed in a House bill 7 years ago...again not at all what we're talking about when we say flat tax. I'm starting to think you're just screwing with me.




This link is also for a flat sales tax. Ok, I get it you imagined I wouldn't actually read your links, but damn, man, I'm calling your bluff. Can you come up with what I asked for now?

Wow. I'm really convinced that this whole discussion isn't worth having at this point. You certainly did that. You got off track from the moment you failed to look at all of the first article. It's okay. It's up to you to show me numbers without the mythical "economic stimulus from a flat tax" that make the budget work. You can't do it though. The closest people get is 23% with that voodoo economics added. 34% is the consensus for everybody else.

You durp on about 2007 when Neal Boortz's stuff is ALL of the recent proposals other than Herman Cain's nonsense which fails even harder.

I'm waiting to see the unicorn flat tax proposal that actually adds up and isn't disproportionately placed on the poor/middle class.

[Atlanteax]

I'm waiting to see the unicorn flat tax proposal that actually adds up and isn't disproportionately placed on the poor/middle class.

Something like 25% after the first $30k should do the trick? Exempts a lot of poor/middle class income ... and we can end all loopholes/deductions.

[Warriorbird]

Something like 25% after the first $30k should do the trick? Exempts a lot of poor/middle class income ... and we can end all loopholes/deductions.

Only works at higher numbers if you want to exempt people.

[Atlanteax]

Was referring to exempting most of their income. Just tag it to whatever the poverty level is considered to be.

[Parkbandit]

You can make a flat tax system that addresses all the problems of the current system but the fact remains: flat tax will never happen. It reduces the power of the government / politicians / lawyers / accountants.

[Latrinsorm]

Something like 25% after the first $30k should do the trick? Exempts a lot of poor/middle class income ... and we can end all loopholes/deductions.If we look at 2012 (http://www.irs.gov/uac/SOI-Tax-Stats---Individual-Statistical-Tables-by-Size-of-Adjusted-Gross-Income), the total actual income taxes paid were $1.19 trillion. If you take $30k out of everyone above $30k's AGI, you get $5.92 trillion, and 25% of that gets you to $1.48 trillion. Voila! The only minor downside is that you've doubled taxes on people making from $30k-$100k and cut them slightly for $500k-$10m, plus you lose whatever benefits we got from introducing X deduction. The 30-100 bloc represent 53% of taxpayers and presumably a similarly high % of voters, so I think you'd have a tough time getting such a proposal implemented.
You can make a flat tax system that addresses all the problems of the current system but the fact remains: flat tax will never happen. It reduces the power of the government / politicians / lawyers / accountants.It could be A CONSPIRACY!!!, or it could be that complex problems require complex solutions.

[Jarvan]

S'cool, man. Sorry to get in the way.

My views really aren't all that radical either. Greed is very powerful. Its like an ouroboros that gets bigger as it eats itself. There has to be a limit on how much any one person can own or how much of a voice they have in society. Otherwise you are going to wind up with a few people running everything at their whim. We should not be beholden to greedy tyrants but to ourselves and those in need.

I am still wondering why you are an evil capitalistic pig that keeps the people down. You "own" a restaurant. You shouldn't be able to, 99% of the people don't "Own" a restaurant. What makes you better then them, huh Back?

Really Back, what makes you better?

Oh wait.. I know now.. you want to give OTHER people's money away.

How about YOU pay 90% taxes first, aye?

[Parkbandit]

I am still wondering why you are an evil capitalistic pig that keeps the people down. You "own" a restaurant. You shouldn't be able to, 99% of the people don't "Own" a restaurant. What makes you better then them, huh Back?



He only "leases" it.. I mean works there..

It's the same reasoning why he owns an assault weapon.

[Rallorick]

Even Latrin will tell you you can't compare economies between nations in this particular respect.

I'm not talking about other countries, I'm talking about the United States, and the pseudo-capitalist system we've had for the last 100 years.

I don't really care what 'even Latrin will tell me'. It doesn't matter what context you're talking about... population without correlative means does not drive demand. my comment of India, given the larger population, was an example of how your comment was flawed. To say you can't compare economies is semantic and misleading, you can, in fact, compare different societies in terms of the basic and fundamental laws of economics all you want.


Do you have some proof of this, or are you just regurgitating things you've heard?

pick up a text book. I don't need to do your work for you. supply side economics does not work. I love the 'are you just regurgitating things you've heard bit'. it's cute, and curiously ironic considering the source.