Liberal View on Taxes and Economics ? - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Modern liberalism. Civil rights and liberties, State responsibility to the people (welfare).
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14700840
Hello my question is it ever ok lower taxes on the the wealthy or on
large corporations what I mean is during the American Civil War and in 1935 and
during World War Two the US Government raised taxes on the Rich a Progressive
Income Tax to pay for the War or because the Economy was bad my question is when
times are bad is it ever ok to have higher tax rates like 90% on the Rich for a
temporary time and than lower the rates when times are good like when the
Economy is good well still have Progressive Taxes but not as high like FDR
raised Taxes to 90% on the Wealthy than JFK lowered the rates to 70% also
Clinton said he would raise Taxes on the Rich he did 39.6% and said he would cut
taxes for the Middle Class did FDR or JFK ever lower or make Taxes lower cut
taxes for the lower income people does Keynesian Economics say Taxes should be
raised in bad times and can be lowered in good times thank you for your time ?
#14700852
Our wealthy pay absurdly low taxes as it is. That said.

One problem is that in a global market it is too easy to move offshore to protect oneself from higher taxes. Look at how many UK folks moved to the US when their taxes were raised.

Controlling access to US markets (the largest in the world) is an important part of any scheme to tax the wealthy or corporations higher. This gets up the noses of the free-trade types.

The direct answer is that it is fine to raise taxes. And don't ask for a liberal view. The republicans have been calling for a balanced budget forever. They are simply unwilling to do what it takes to get a balanced budget because it cannot be done without higher taxes on the wealthy.
#14700929
Drlee wrote:Our wealthy pay absurdly low taxes as it is.

Because we are TAXING THE WRONG THINGS.

But you -- not just Doc Lee, but you, the reader -- have decided to ignore all objective facts that prove what the right things are.
One problem is that in a global market it is too easy to move offshore to protect oneself from higher taxes.

But you refuse to know the fact that LAND CAN'T MOVE OFFSHORE, and its owner consequently CANNOT escape higher taxes on it.
Look at how many UK folks moved to the US when their taxes were raised.

Their taxes weren't raised. Taxes on wages and consumption were raised. Taxes on wealth, especially land, were reduced. So they OWN LAND HERE, and POCKET THE PUBLICLY CREATED VALUE THEREOF, but live elsewhere, and thus PAY LITTLE OR NO TAX in return.

You just choose not to know such facts.
Controlling access to US markets (the largest in the world) is an important part of any scheme to tax the wealthy or corporations higher.

False. ANY jurisdiction can choose to tax land value, and thus recover the wealth that they are currently giving away to rich, greedy parasites.
This gets up the noses of the free-trade types.

The "free trade types" are not actually interested in free trade. Their real agenda is extraterritoriality for privilege -- i.e, legally entitling the privileged to steal from the productive not only in their own country, but in every other country.
The direct answer is that it is fine to raise taxes.

See? "Taxes." The typical know-nothing viewpoint. You don't know that some taxes burden the rich but undeserving, while others burden the poor but deserving, and you don't want to know. You indiscriminately favor unjust and harmful taxes like income tax, VAT, etc., and oppose all taxes that are based on justice. But above all you must reject the one tax that has been known for centuries to be the fairest, most efficient, and most economically beneficial: the tax on the unimproved value of land.
And don't ask for a liberal view. The republicans have been calling for a balanced budget forever. They are simply unwilling to do what it takes to get a balanced budget because it cannot be done without higher taxes on the wealthy.

True. It cannot be done without recovering the value given to the privileged (and effectively all the wealthy got that way through privilege), because they will just take for themselves everything government spends on desirable services and infrastructure.
#14700964
Because we are TAXING THE WRONG THINGS.

But you -- not just Doc Lee, but you, the reader -- have decided to ignore all objective facts that prove what the right things are.


What wrong things? Any tax is a tax on people because we are the consumers of any good. The tax burder can touch certain parts of the population if they are targeted to do that. Currently all American higher classes(Lets make it really broad, top 5%) pay a lot less then the middle class(80%) or even lower taxes then the lower class(15%).

So the tax system in america is severely unfair to the middle and lower classes. There is no perfect solution to balance a budget without either increasing taxes or hatchetting a significant portion of state expenditure. ( Lets say chop off all military spending and medicare etc etc )

But you refuse to know the fact that LAND CAN'T MOVE OFFSHORE, and its owner consequently CANNOT escape higher taxes on it.


The land doesn't need to move offshore to escape taxes. There are plenty of ways to dodge taxes in the US. Most people who deal in this field know about them long-long ago but only make a show about. In reality the Double Irish Sandwich is still good along with the Dutch double Irish sandwitch. The laughable thing about it is that it has been going on for so long that nobody seems to care anymore. Technically it won't be possible to do after 2020 but who gives a shit right when Ireland basically opened a new Double Irish sandwich straight away.

False. ANY jurisdiction can choose to tax land value, and thus recover the wealth that they are currently giving away to rich, greedy parasites.


Why is it false? Tax avoidance schemes rely on using domestic consumption/manufacturing potential of large countries while using the legislative/tax rules of tax havens. You are saying that it is possible to tax the land but in reality that is impossible to do because if you heavily tax the land then regular people that are not corporations will not be able to pay that tax to start new businesses or pay individual land taxes. If you are planning to tax just very large corporations and exclude all small/middle businesses and private individuals then it is not that different compared to the corporate tax.

The "free trade types" are not actually interested in free trade. Their real agenda is extraterritoriality for privilege -- i.e, legally entitling the privileged to steal from the productive not only in their own country, but in every other country.


That is one way you can put it. The other way is that reduction of trade barriers makes business easier which creates jobs and increases the competitiveness of the given market with all the effects and affects that come out of it.

See? "Taxes." The typical know-nothing viewpoint. You don't know that some taxes burden the rich but undeserving, while others burden the poor but deserving, and you don't want to know. You indiscriminately favor unjust and harmful taxes like income tax, VAT, etc., and oppose all taxes that are based on justice. But above all you must reject the one tax that has been known for centuries to be the fairest, most efficient, and most economically beneficial: the tax on the unimproved value of land.


This is your opinion. There are actually many philosophical research on the meaning or principals of justice. You approach justice as a utilitarian which means that as long as it produces the most merit then it is just. There are more modern theories of justice because the general critique of utilitarianism is that maximum utility/maximum profit is not always the most benefitial outcome because you need to subtract the damages it might do which most of the time do not have a material/monetary value.

A simple example would be that under utilitarianism slavery should be adopted if it is more profitable to the land owner than the labour system while fully disregarding the human rights aspect/moral aspect of this decision. (Which it is by the way)

True. It cannot be done without recovering the value given to the privileged (and effectively all the wealthy got that way through privilege), because they will just take for themselves everything government spends on desirable services and infrastructure.


You can not simply take away the money for the higher classes without suffering the consequences of that decision aka Communism. Also the government spends on the middle class via the educational, health, etc programs.
#14701200
JohnRawls wrote:What wrong things?

Economic activity.
Any tax is a tax on people because we are the consumers of any good.

No. Any tax is a tax on people -- SOME people -- because people are ultimately the only entities that can have anything to pay a tax with, not because we are the consumers of any good. Being the consumers of a good only incurs a tax liability when consumption of that good incurs a direct or indirect tax liability. You just refuse to know the fact that not all taxes impose such burdens on consumption.
The tax burder can touch certain parts of the population if they are targeted to do that.
No. All taxes burden certain sectors of the population more than others, but this (putatively at least) has little to do with conscious targeting.
Currently all American higher classes(Lets make it really broad, top 5%) pay a lot less then the middle class(80%) or even lower taxes then the lower class(15%).

Top 5% in what? Income? You're already wrong.

Pay less measured how? As a fraction of income? You're already wrong.
So the tax system in america is severely unfair to the middle and lower classes.

It is indeed. But not for the reasons you imagine.
There is no perfect solution to balance a budget

Sure there is: justice.
without either increasing taxes or hatchetting a significant portion of state expenditure. ( Lets say chop off all military spending and medicare etc etc )

Wrong again. The budget could easily be balanced if government were not required to give away all the value it creates through expenditures on desirable services and infrastructure to rich, greedy, privileged parasites. Google "Henry George Theorem" and start reading.
The land doesn't need to move offshore to escape taxes.

Yes, it does, and it can't.
There are plenty of ways to dodge taxes in the US.

But not a tax on the unimproved value of land. That's why the rich, greedy, and privileged will not permit it.
Most people who deal in this field know about them long-long ago but only make a show about.

Only if they can change the tax to not be a tax on the unimproved value of land.
In reality the Double Irish Sandwich is still good along with the Dutch double Irish sandwitch.

Nope. You are just objectively wrong as a matter of objective physical fact. Such maneuvers are absolutely ineffective against a tax on the unimproved value of land.
The laughable thing about it is that it has been going on for so long that nobody seems to care anymore. Technically it won't be possible to do after 2020 but who gives a shit right when Ireland basically opened a new Double Irish sandwich straight away.

No, the laughable thing about it is that you incorrectly imagine the Double Irish maneuver to be relevant to a tax on the unimproved value of land.
Why is it false?

Because controlling access to US markets is absolutely irrelevant to a land value tax.
Tax avoidance schemes rely on using domestic consumption/manufacturing potential of large countries while using the legislative/tax rules of tax havens.

All very well if you are talking about a tax on profits, consumption, wages, sales, value added, etc., but completely irrelevant to a tax on the unimproved value of land, because it's not a tax on a transaction.
You are saying that it is possible to tax the land

Yes, and I am objectively correct about that.
but in reality that is impossible to do

No, you are objectively incorrect as a matter of objective physical fact.
because if you heavily tax the land then regular people that are not corporations will not be able to pay that tax to start new businesses or pay individual land taxes.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Uh, yes, they will, actually, because THEY ARE ALREADY PAYING IT. They are just paying it to rich, greedy, privileged parasites, instead of to the public and community that make the land desirable enough to make them willing -- and able -- to pay private landowners for it.
If you are planning to tax just very large corporations and exclude all small/middle businesses and private individuals then it is not that different compared to the corporate tax.

That's not what I'm planning, but the effect of what I'm planning would be very much more like that than the current tax system.
That is one way you can put it.

And I do, because it is true.
The other way is that reduction of trade barriers makes business easier which creates jobs and increases the competitiveness of the given market with all the effects and affects that come out of it.

Nope. Free trade -- real free trade, not the current and planned system of institutionalized extraterritorial privilege that neoclassical liars call "free trade" -- makes business harder because it increases the competitiveness of markets.
This is your opinion.

No, it is a fact of objective physical reality.
There are actually many philosophical research on the meaning or principals of justice.

There is certainly a lot of BS on the subject, not least from your namesake.
You approach justice as a utilitarian

Nope.
which means that as long as it produces the most merit then it is just.

Nope.
There are more modern theories of justice because the general critique of utilitarianism is that maximum utility/maximum profit is not always the most benefitial outcome because you need to subtract the damages it might do which most of the time do not have a material/monetary value.

The more modern theories, especially Rawls's, are nothing but confused garbage.
A simple example would be that under utilitarianism slavery should be adopted if it is more profitable to the land owner than the labour system while fully disregarding the human rights aspect/moral aspect of this decision. (Which it is by the way)

I'm not a utilitarian, but that grossly misrepresents utilitarianism.
You can not simply take away the money for the higher classes without suffering the consequences of that decision aka Communism.

Garbage with no basis in fact. You could with equal "logic" claim that the consequences would be alcoholism, Mormonism, or astigmatism.
Also the government spends on the middle class via the educational, health, etc programs.

And landowners take every cent of that spending through increased rents, thanks to the Henry George Theorem. That's why the working people who are the putative beneficiaries of that spending stay poor despite toiling their lives away, while the idle landowner gets rich without lifting a finger.

I'm curious: how do you prevent yourself from knowing that fact?
#14701227
First off, if like to say hello to y'all. Second I'd like to say WOW, complex shit we have here! I would like to present what I believe would be a possible fix to the problem of overtaxation. I can't honestly say that I have all the answers as to how to make it work but here it goes.


Shift the power back to the states by first limiting the federal government to its original constitutional role. Military, boarders, foreign affairs, the Supreme Court and making sure the states play well together including a federal road system. The cost of federal roads would be incurred by the states. The fed giv would simply tell the states where roads would be needed for military installations and such. The federal government should have no ability to tax the individual. The IRS, as with most federal programs, need not exist. The states power is to be used to protect its citizens from the federal govs attempted overreaches. A federal budget should be established, after which the fed goes to the states to collect the taxes necessary to meet that budget. Each state would have the ability to question/challenge the tax on behalf of its citizens. If the federal gov isn't spending the money wisely the court system would then decide wether the state had a legit grievance. Oh,and no more federal lands. States own their own land. The fed has no right to state land. All federal programs not mentioned would cease. States would be responsible for its citizens. This would then give the average person the ability to vote with their feet.

The federal gov would no longer appoint judges. That would be done by either popular vote or by the vote of congress. This would be done to keep the fed from assuming power through the court system as it has in the past. All judges including the Supreme Court would be subject to recall only through a popular vote. 2/3 in the affirmative to recall. All amendments to the constitution which give power to the federal gov would be revoked. The parts of the amendments that deal with individual liberties would be retained in leu of a rewrite to remove power grabs taken by the fed gov.

I'm sure there are a lot of people who will rip me a new doughnut hole but it's just an idea to get us started back to a country that has limited central government. Obviously I've missed a lot but if you have any ideas, put em out there.
#14701386
Redneck wrote:Oh,and no more federal lands. States own their own land. The fed has no right to state land.

Land can't rightly be owned by a government any more than a private individual, but what would make any land state land? The federal government conquered, bought, or annexed it, not the states.

When Black lives matter to Democrats, and when th[…]

Election 2020

Most of Biden's supporters take pride in their vi[…]

Nope, as I just mentioned the more accurate term […]

I already went over the Dixiecrat thing with you.[…]