Defending the One Percent • Hacker News Board

Re: Defending the One Percent

#41

Post by kabouseng » Mon, Aug 03, 2015, 6:49 PM UTC

paulsecwhatt wrote: post #37

kabouseng wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow lots of strawmen here. "A large number (majority?) of people who are proponents for american-style capitalism, advocating for less government intervention, are from big universities around the U.S" Source? So what? "Boiled down - can people who are part of such a skewed system really produce unbiased studies and theories about the system?" Can people who are part of the lower earning rung of society give a unbias…

"Source? So what?" Apologies for that intro, I had planned to delete it but I'll leave it so your comment makes sense. I was planning to expand a thought about how it's always the rich who casually conclude that lower taxes and less welfare will help the economy. "Can people who are part of the lower earning rung of society give a unbiased opinion of the system?" In a democracy, yes, they do. Someone who is lower dow…

I must apologize as well, starting with saying it's straw men is just a tad too passive aggressive.

We are if nothing else viewing the world through the glasses of our own experiences, and as such I must ask that you take my comment as such as such (I'll explain in just a second). There may yet be a better system than naked capitalism, but from experience socialism / welfare states can be a slippery slope, where the masses vote for ever increasing entitlements that does little to alleviate their circumstances.

The countries you have mentioned are indeed the epitomes of good governance and social responsibilty, but they have one other very important characteristic going for them. They are mostly homogeneous. I don't think the USA can say that of themselves anymore and from experience that complicates things quite a bit.

My rose tinted glasses :) . I am from South Africa, another non-homogeneous society with deep scars where we have slowly seen the expenditure of social grants (state welfare) creep up with very little to show for it [1], up to the point where the entire economy is risking collapse [2], not so much because of the expenditure of social grants per se, but because the society here have adopted an attitude of entitlement and looting [3].

So I guess my point is (and was poorly made), be very careful of the law of unintended consequences.

>>"I think it begins with education."

Maybe, who knows. I personally don't believe that anymore.

>>"merely because they represent an average citizen."

I think as in most discussions, balance between viewpoints is what must be sought. Certainly the average citizen must have at least some forms of state provided protection from the rich and powerful and poverty safety nets. But I have also seen the opposite where the poor votes for larger and larger royalties for themselves until the most industrious of society simply packs up and leaves, not willing to part with their earnings with no compensation in return. (Again my rose tinted glasses, in South Africa 2 million tax payers pay 80% of all taxes, and supports 18 million social grant receivers and 2 million salaried government workers. That is not a sustainable situation).

[1] http://www.bdlive.co.za/national/2013/10/02/growth-in-social...

[2] http://www.bdlive.co.za/national/2013/06/28/south-africa-fac...

[3] http://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2014-01-20-analysis-a...

Re: Defending the One Percent

#42

Post by jazzyk » Mon, Aug 03, 2015, 6:50 PM UTC

bargl wrote: post #24

hga wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

and the other party wants to, irrationally, keep cutting their taxes even when faced with deficits One thing we've learned is that never, ever happens. Instead, increased revenues, such as provided by Reagan's tax rate cuts, allows higher leverage AKA deficits. So "starving the beast" seems to be the best approach, until, of course, the accumulated deficits are inevitably reneged on one way or another (e.g. inflation…

It's important to note that they (republicans) tend to want to cut taxes but not services, because they can't compromise and cut both the military and medicare/Medicaid/welfare/etc. They just want to cut the latter. The lack of compromise leads to neither happening so many republicans really don't want smaller govt. Some do, don't get me wrong. But many don't.

There have been many proposals on the table.

Most republican proposals called for cutting the nominal rate, while getting rid of all the loopholes.

I like it because it introduces transparency. What good is a high nominal rate, if nobody ever pays that rate? The money is usually parked off-shore, etc.

Re: Defending the One Percent

#43

Post by jazzyk » Mon, Aug 03, 2015, 6:52 PM UTC

wtbob wrote: post #40

PythonicAlpha wrote: post #23

The trouble is not that inequality exists -- I think, that some form is necessary in our world -- but that the inequality is increasing in a rapid rate and that in the current state of our society, not achievements where the society benefits are rewarded by the system, but rather achievements where society looses (e.g. speculations, pure possession of wealth, investing -- whatever frivolous it might be, omitting taxe…

> Even Buffett spoke out, that his class wins, but it should not (for the good of society). And he said, that something is wrong, when his secretary has to pay a much higher tax-rate as himself. Did you read the article? Mankiw noted that when CBO statistics are used, taking into account all taxation, not just income taxes, the United States have a very progressive tax system.

On paper.

In reality, there are many loopholes (the more money involved, the more fully legal loopholes)

Re: Defending the One Percent

#44

Post by hga » Mon, Aug 03, 2015, 7:34 PM UTC

jazzyk wrote: post #42

bargl wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's important to note that they (republicans) tend to want to cut taxes but not services, because they can't compromise and cut both the military and medicare/Medicaid/welfare/etc. They just want to cut the latter. The lack of compromise leads to neither happening so many republicans really don't want smaller govt. Some do, don't get me wrong. But many don't.

There have been many proposals on the table. Most republican proposals called for cutting the nominal rate, while getting rid of all the loopholes. I like it because it introduces transparency. What good is a high nominal rate, if nobody ever pays that rate? The money is usually parked off-shore, etc.

While that's a good approach, it has the problem that it starts another cycle of adding loopholes for the usual considerations.

Re: Defending the One Percent

#45

Post by wtbob » Mon, Aug 03, 2015, 11:46 PM UTC

jazzyk wrote: post #43

wtbob wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Even Buffett spoke out, that his class wins, but it should not (for the good of society). And he said, that something is wrong, when his secretary has to pay a much higher tax-rate as himself. Did you read the article? Mankiw noted that when CBO statistics are used, taking into account all taxation, not just income taxes, the United States have a very progressive tax system.

On paper. In reality, there are many loopholes (the more money involved, the more fully legal loopholes)

No, the CBO study looked at the actual dollars coming from people; as Prof. Mankiw notes, while there might be invididual exceptions the overall figures are as stated.

Re: Defending the One Percent

#46

Post by jomtung » Tue, Aug 04, 2015, 12:00 AM UTC

CaptainZapp wrote: post #28

hga wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, Republicans can be quite willing to cut the military, remember Dwight "military-industrial complex" Eisenhower, under who it was cut after the Korean War wound down, and you could make a case that the current sequester is cutting the budget. It's very very hard to analyze, because you have to factor in wars, especially ones we did not exactly choose to fight (e.g. Korean), and weapons procurement. E.g. howe…

I'd argue that this was a very, very different brand of republicans you had then compared to the current breed, which seems to lack any rationality, whatsoever.

Eisenhower was a republican before the conservative military hawks entered the republican demographic (resulting after Nixon's Southern Strategy[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy]) so they were the progressive and liberal republican party. More closely linked to a libertarian ideology of the time and would be likened by most modern liberal democrats.

Re: Defending the One Percent

#47

Post by hga » Tue, Aug 04, 2015, 12:26 AM UTC

jomtung wrote: post #46

CaptainZapp wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd argue that this was a very, very different brand of republicans you had then compared to the current breed, which seems to lack any rationality, whatsoever.

Eisenhower was a republican before the conservative military hawks entered the republican demographic (resulting after Nixon's Southern Strategy[ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy] ) so they were the progressive and liberal republican party. More closely linked to a libertarian ideology of the time and would be likened by most modern liberal democrats.

It's not that simple. E.g. how would you score Teddy Roosevelt, who was both a progressive and a "conservative military hawk". Vs. William Howard Taft, who per Wikipedia had a "domestic agenda [that] emphasized trust-busting, civil service reform, strengthening the Interstate Commerce Commission, improving the performance of the postal service, and passage of the Sixteenth Amendment" (income tax) but had a less bellicose foreign policy?

I actually don't know much about that period of US history, but certainly Goldwater counts for both a "conservative" military hawk and a libertarian. And domestically Nixon was quite liberal.

Basically, there's been "liberal" and "conservative" strands in Republican party history for more than a century, continuing to this day. Things don't map out in simple ways, e.g. the first post-Snowden House vote on those issues didn't split along any recognizable patterns I could discern, party, region of the country, etc.

Re: Defending the One Percent

#48

Post by PythonicAlpha » Tue, Aug 04, 2015, 2:26 PM UTC

wtbob wrote: post #45

jazzyk wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On paper. In reality, there are many loopholes (the more money involved, the more fully legal loopholes)

No, the CBO study looked at the actual dollars coming from people; as Prof. Mankiw notes, while there might be invididual exceptions the overall figures are as stated.

So, your claim is, that Buffett does not know how much taxes he pays? If this would be true, I would wonder, how he got all his money in the first place.

>the United States have a very progressive tax system

Compared to which system? The system of Sweden or of Uruguay? You of course can find dozens of third world countries, with dysfunctional tax system.

I guess, they are similar studies as can be bought (in dozens) in the country, I live in.

Re: Defending the One Percent

#49

Post by wtbob » Wed, Aug 05, 2015, 3:21 AM UTC

PythonicAlpha wrote: post #48

wtbob wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, the CBO study looked at the actual dollars coming from people; as Prof. Mankiw notes, while there might be invididual exceptions the overall figures are as stated.

So, your claim is, that Buffett does not know how much taxes he pays? If this would be true, I would wonder, how he got all his money in the first place. >the United States have a very progressive tax system Compared to which system? The system of Sweden or of Uruguay? You of course can find dozens of third world countries, with dysfunctional tax system. I guess, they are similar studies as can be bought (in dozens)…

> So, your claim is, that Buffett does not know how much taxes he pays?

No, Prof. Mankiw's claim is that Mr. Buffett did not include all taxes in that statement.

> > the United States have a very progressive tax system

> Compared to which system?

In absolute terms, according to the CBO's figures. The CBO is the Congressional Budget Office, and is widely reputed to be honest.

Re: Defending the One Percent

#50

Post by PythonicAlpha » Wed, Aug 05, 2015, 10:40 AM UTC

wtbob wrote: post #49

PythonicAlpha wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, your claim is, that Buffett does not know how much taxes he pays? If this would be true, I would wonder, how he got all his money in the first place. >the United States have a very progressive tax system Compared to which system? The system of Sweden or of Uruguay? You of course can find dozens of third world countries, with dysfunctional tax system. I guess, they are similar studies as can be bought (in dozens)…

> So, your claim is, that Buffett does not know how much taxes he pays? No, Prof. Mankiw's claim is that Mr. Buffett did not include all taxes in that statement. > > the United States have a very progressive tax system > Compared to which system? In absolute terms, according to the CBO's figures. The CBO is the Congressional Budget Office, and is widely reputed to be honest.

"In absolute terms" -- you currently know, that there are more underdeveloped countries in the world than so called "first world" countries? And when you also count in countries like Russia than you get a feeling, what is compared to.

Once, the US prided itself to be the most developed nation, today it must compare itself with Uganda and other countries.

Compare tax rates of today with those after the 2nd WW -- the era, where the US flourished most. Today, only the banks of the US are flourishing. When you are no banker and earn below 7 figures a year, you should start to think.

The sentence about "honesty" I will not comment!