Man in France finds 100kg gold in inherited house, has to give 45% to government - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

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

"It's the economy, stupid!"

Moderator: PoFo Economics & Capitalism Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15182193
@wat0n,
I just saw this 63 page book or article in a link on another site.
The title is "The Senen Deadly Frauds of Economic Policy".
When you click on the link, you should see a blank sheet of paper. Just scroll down to see the first page. But keep scrolling down to the 7th "page" to see "page 13".
The 1st Deadly fraud starts on page 13. The stuff on pages 1 to 12, etc. is not the meat of the article.

Warrem Mossler is an MMTer who is not a professor. He was an investment banker on Wall St.

http://www.moslereconomics.com/wp-conte ... 2jcnBszQP6

.
#15182200
Steve_American wrote:See also, my reply just above this.

I'm going to guess that you meant taxable income, not income. If the rich hide some of their income overseas, it isn't taxible and isn't included. They are not going to provide anyone their real income.


I'll ignore the MMT stuff as it's unrelated and, in any event, false.

I don't see what's so hard to believe about Saez and Zucman here. The income they are using isn't simply taxable income as far as I'm aware.
#15182204
Sandzak wrote:
High taxes cripple the economy therefore France is in deindustrialisation process.



One of the early changes you have to do, in developing a capitalist economy, is improving money velocity. You start with estate taxes...

Btw, if you're going to go all Laffer on us, do you mind if we laugh?
#15182206
wat0n wrote:
Tax avoidance was rampant in the 1950s. Here's an example of Hollywood playing that game:

https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi- ... story.html

And more generally the effective rates for the rich were only somewhat higher than in the mid 2010s (42% vs 36%), this according to Saez & Zucman:

https://taxfoundation.org/taxes-on-the- ... -not-high/



For the country, big scale tax cheating started in the 80s, when Republicans made it easy and safe.

Your tax foundation has fallen under the influence of Koch kookiness. The 1950s had the highest level of income equality the country has ever seen. But you won't find an in depth analysis there. Try the Rise and Fall of American Growth.
#15182211
late wrote:MMT is limited, which happens a lot in science.

But it's not false...

Is this the result of some fantasy you enjoy?


No, it's because I actually know economics. Far more than you know history, but that's admittedly not saying much.

The idea that deficit spending never matters is nonsense, and it's as easy as seeing how that works out for another federal country: Argentina.

late wrote:For the country, big scale tax cheating started in the 80s, when Republicans made it easy and safe.

Your tax foundation has fallen under the influence of Koch kookiness. The 1950s had the highest level of income equality the country has ever seen. But you won't find an in depth analysis there. Try the Rise and Fall of American Growth.


It's actually in the original paper, on page 47 (599 in the QJE):

https://gabriel-zucman.eu/files/PSZ2018QJE.pdf

I wonder what else will you say now. Zucman was one of Elizabeth Warren's economic advisors and one of those spearheading wealth taxation, so he can't really be claimed to be related with the Koch brothers in any way whatsoever.
#15182214
late wrote:One of the early changes you have to do, in developing a capitalist economy, is improving money velocity. You start with estate taxes...

Btw, if you're going to go all Laffer on us, do you mind if we laugh?



Switzerland has low taxes and the economy is booming, nearly 45% has a tertiary education, comparable to US Universities. Low state debts...

The money laundering is history, a friend of mine did this the fucking banks reported him to the prosecutors. Switzerland is no more a Banking paradise, but a industrial and high tech powerhouse.


+ a fat welfare system even if you are too lazy to work you get a 1 chamber appartment, heatlhcare, and 800 $ to spend, about 2000 bucks all together.
#15182228
wat0n wrote:
No, it's because I actually know economics. Far more than you know history, but that's admittedly not saying much.

The idea that deficit spending never matters is nonsense, and it's as easy as seeing how that works out for another federal country: Argentina.



It's actually in the original paper, on page 47 (599 in the QJE):

https://gabriel-zucman.eu/files/PSZ2018QJE.pdf

I wonder what else will you say now. Zucman was one of Elizabeth Warren's economic advisors and one of those spearheading wealth taxation, so he can't really be claimed to be related with the Koch brothers in any way whatsoever.



You didn't defend your MMT is false statement.

Velly interesting...

Krugman addressed that point a few months ago. "while it may literally be true that a government with its own currency can’t go bankrupt, it can destroy that currency if it loses fiscal credibility."
https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/mmt-again/?searchResultPosition=1

I have NEVER said I was a MMT guy, so implying that's what I am is another mistake.

I said Tax Foundation, not Zucman, nice dodge. But there is something Zucman said: "Because top marginal tax rates, tax evasion technologies,and tax enforcement strategies have changed a lot over time, tax data may paint a biased picture of income concentration at the very top."

Meaning that if you want to argue the Reagan crowd didn't make cheating on taxes easy and safe, I could use the laugh.

I recently read a good analysis on tax rates. Back then, a CEO had a fairly modest lifestyle. That wasn't just the result of taxes. They pushed for, and got, big pay increases starting in the 1960s. Malcolm Gladwell has a good video about how that happened.

Meaning there was more going on than just taxes, but that 1950s tax rate was a big deal.

Oh, and thanks for finding that Zucman article. He's saying similar things as what Stiglitz and Krugman are saying.
#15182232
Sandzak wrote:
Switzerland has low taxes and the economy is booming




The Swiss don't have an empire... meaning our taxes (on the rich) are simply too low for financial health.

If you want to import the % of GDP spending on the military that the Swiss have... and then adopt something like the national medical system the Brits have, and institute Progressive policies that will help the economy over the long run...

Then we can talk.
#15182236
late wrote:You didn't defend your MMT is false statement.


Yes I did. Maybe you should read SA's file to understand what I'm responding to.

late wrote:Velly interesting...

Krugman addressed that point a few months ago. "while it may literally be true that a government with its own currency can’t go bankrupt, it can destroy that currency if it loses fiscal credibility."
https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/mmt-again/?searchResultPosition=1


And not just "destroy its currency", the consequences of something like that are devastating for all parties involved, including the government itself. Even mild versions like e.g. Argentina cause problems.

late wrote: I have NEVER said I was a MMT guy, so implying that's what I am is another mistake.


Okay

late wrote:I said Tax Foundation, not Zucman, nice dodge.


They are citing Zucman, and they are doing so accurately as I found the same data in the paper.

late wrote: But there is something Zucman said: "Because top marginal tax rates, tax evasion technologies,and tax enforcement strategies have changed a lot over time, tax data may paint a biased picture of income concentration at the very top."


And it would conceivably be worse for the 1950s if anything. This is from another paper from SZ:

Image

https://gabriel-zucman.eu/files/SaezZucman2020JEP.pdf

It would seem the loophole issue was worse in the 1950s than the 1980s, largely because the reforms from the 1980s were aiming to close loopholes and make the tax system easier to manage (hence the closing of the gap between the shares of the top 1% in the fiscal vs national income). Broad base + low tax rates are better than a narrow tax base with high rates from a tax collection perspective, because the latter means there are greater incentives to look for loopholes (it's also better from an efficiency point of view, simply because there is no point in changing sectors or selling particular goods to pay less taxes if they are all treated equally, or less unequally). And it' arguably fairer and more consistent with equality before the law, as there is no obvious reason why a doctor, an university professor, a high-ranked government official, a CEO and a business owner who all make $500,000/year should face different income tax rates.

late wrote: Meaning that if you want to argue the Reagan crowd didn't make cheating on taxes easy and safe, I could use the laugh.


Do you really believe that the old boy networks and lobbies did not exist in the 1950s? :eh:

late wrote:I recently read a good analysis on tax rates. Back then, a CEO had a fairly modest lifestyle. That wasn't just the result of taxes. They pushed for, and got, big pay increases starting in the 1960s. Malcolm Gladwell has a good video about how that happened.

Meaning there was more going on than just taxes, but that 1950s tax rate was a big deal.


Maybe, I'd need to look at the data. But actually the US was more egalitarian in the 1970s than the 1950s if you measure inequality using the share of the top 1% shown above. And it makes sense, simply because Jim Crow was largely in force in the 1950s (yes, it had begun to be dismantled back then but much of it remained in force) and had been mostly dismantled by the 1970s, this obviously has effects in the income distribution and furthermore signals a greater concern about inequality.

late wrote:Oh, and thanks for finding that Zucman article. He's saying similar things as what Stiglitz and Krugman are saying.


Yes, because Zucman is a progressive and advised Liz Warren's campaign in 2020 - and he's more influential than Stiglitz and Krugman in progressive circles FWIW. So I don't understand why would you just disregard his data on the income distribution, even if it quite obviously supports the idea that this strange narrative that the US was egalitarian and people somehow did not use tax loopholes to pay less taxes in the good ole 1950s is just false.

If you try to go back to 1950 levels of statutory tax rates, what will actually happen is that plenty of loopholes will start to appear, perhaps under the guise of "supporting small businesses" or "supporting the green economy". And who knows, maybe you believe the green economy should be supported - sure, indeed, loopholes often exist not as a result of lobbying but because the legislator wanted to incentivize some sectors that were regarded as being "good" for society (and having a greener a economy would probably fall into that category). But the problem with this is that those loopholes are rarely closed when they stop being necessary, make tax collection harder and are not transparent about just how much money is the government "spending" (in terms of a lower tax revenue) in doing so. Subsidies may be slower to handout/manage in practice, but they do have the merit of being fully transparent about just how much the government is spending on them.
#15182245
wat0n wrote:
1) Yes I did. Maybe you should read SA's file to understand what I'm responding to.



2) And not just "destroy its currency", the consequences of something like that are devastating for all parties involved, including the government itself. Even mild versions like e.g. Argentina cause problems.



3) They are citing Zucman, and they are doing so accurately as I found the same data in the paper.



4) And it would conceivably be worse for the 1950s if anything. This is from another paper from SZ:



5) It would seem the loophole issue was worse in the 1950s than the 1980s, largely because the reforms from the 1980s were aiming to close loopholes and make the tax system easier to manage (hence the closing of the gap between the shares of the top 1% in the fiscal vs national income). Broad base + low tax rates are better than a narrow tax base with high rates from a tax collection perspective, because the latter means there are greater incentives to look for loopholes (it's also better from an efficiency point of view, simply because there is no point in changing sectors or selling particular goods to pay less taxes if they are all treated equally, or less unequally). And it' arguably fairer and more consistent with equality before the law, as there is no obvious reason why a doctor, an university professor, a high-ranked government official, a CEO and a business owner who all make $500,000/year should face different income tax rates.







6) Maybe, I'd need to look at the data. But actually the US was more egalitarian in the 1970s than the 1950s if you measure inequality using the share of the top 1% shown above. And it makes sense, simply because Jim Crow was largely in force in the 1950s (yes, it had begun to be dismantled back then but much of it remained in force) and had been mostly dismantled by the 1970s, this obviously has effects in the income distribution and furthermore signals a greater concern about inequality.



7) Yes, because Zucman is a progressive and advised Liz Warren's campaign in 2020 - and he's more influential than Stiglitz and Krugman in progressive circles FWIW. So I don't understand why would you just disregard his data on the income distribution

8) If you try to go back to 1950 levels of statutory tax rates, what will actually happen is that plenty of loopholes will start to appear



1) Not really. Wrong is not false. Science is about being useful, esp. productive. You could easily argue MMT is on the way out, no one (but a MMTer) would disagree.

2) True, and I would add that the day the dollar loses reserve status will be a very bad day.

3) That's complicated. I was hoping not to have to go there. I'll poke around a little bit and see if I can find what I was talking about. But I can tell you, that we're also talking about different populations to a degree.

4) I'll take a look at that, but later.

5) Different reform. They cut the budget on the IRS, and a bunch of other crap. There's a whole book on just that, I've forgotten the title, but I do remember it was an absolute beast to find. It's one of those Alice down the rabbit hole books. I know about it in general terms, but it was shocking to see the full extent of it.

6) That's great, but it's a blip on the trend line. Assuming the trend line is still valid.

7) I'm not ignoring it, I haven't finished reading it, much less digesting it, much less checking it against other stuff. Just to cover the

8) I didn't say that. The Dem proposal is tolerable. It would take some work to figure out what I would actually like. Prob Warren had something like it in her campaign.
#15182253
late wrote:This is a paper on the rich cheating on their taxes. It's obviously not the book I am looking for. I may talk to a research librarian at the Uni library manana. While it's not all that relevent, it looks interesting..

https://www.nber.org/system/files/worki ... w28542.pdf


Interesting indeed. I'll check it out.

Just as a clarification: Tax evasion is a different matter, although having more loopholes can open more venues for it. Evasion is illegal regardless of the tax system in place.

Fun fact, diagnosed acute Myocarditis has a <50[…]

Giving people free income should come with condit[…]

O’Toole conceded defeat early today.

Did You Get Vaccinated?

https://twitter.com/Partisangirl/status/1440182825[…]