Progressive taxation

danielpalos · Mar 1, 2018

James972 said:
General welfare clause is in the sentence about the few enumerated powers granted to the federal govt and thus refers only the govts responsibility to use the enumerated powers to promote general welfare, according to its authors. If govt could promote general welfare in any area the Constitution would not be necessary except to say, govt is granted power to promote general welfare.

Yes, it is. Both terms are used in reference to the general welfare.

The general power to provide for the general welfare must that comprehensive, if it is to accomplish the End.

James972 · Mar 1, 2018

danielpalos said:
The general power to provide for the general welfare must that comprehensive, if it is to accomplish the End.

too bad its authors said power was clearly not comprehensive.

danielpalos · Mar 1, 2018

James972 said:
too bad its authors said power was clearly not comprehensive.

They said no such thing. It is a general power. It must be more comprehensive than any common power.

Lafayette · Mar 2, 2018

washunut said:
"There are lies,damned lies and then statistics".

Old hat, that one.

Any other toys in your playbox ... ?

Lafayette · Mar 2, 2018

danielpalos said:
Yes, it is. Both terms are used in reference to the general welfare.

The general power to provide for the general welfare must that comprehensive, if it is to accomplish the End.

Just what does this mean?

Try again, in plain-English - give an example. What general welfare?

In the US, there is none given Discretionary Spending. Fifty-four percent of which goes to the DoD. (See that here.)

So, the general welfare that exists today incarcerates 14% of Americans below the Poverty Threshold, which is a fact that has existed for a good many decades already.

Btw, 14% of Americans means 45 million people, or the states of California and Maryland combined ...

danielpalos · Mar 2, 2018

Lafayette said:
Just what does this mean?

Try again, in plain-English - give an example. What general welfare?

In the US, there is none given Discretionary Spending. Fifty-four percent of which goes to the DoD. (See that here.)

So, the general welfare that exists today incarcerates 14% of Americans below the Poverty Threshold, which is a fact that has existed for a good many decades already.

Btw, 14% of Americans means 45 million people, or the states of California and Maryland combined ...

Providing for the general welfare is a general power; otherwise, it would be, providing for the major or common welfare.

Neomalthusian · Mar 2, 2018

Lafayette said:
For the moment, and until we change radically income taxation making it more progressive, nothing will change.

Bill Gates:

I think tax structures will have to move away from taxing payroll. … Technology in general will make capital more attractive than labor over time. Software substitution — whether it’s for drivers or waiters, nurses … it’s progressing. And that’s going to force us to rethink how these tax structures work in order to maximize employment given that capitalism in general over time will create more inequality, and technology over time will reduce demand for jobs, particularly at the lower end of the skill set. We have to adjust, and these things are coming fast. Twenty years from now, labor demand for lots of skill sets will be substantially lower, and I don’t think people have that in their mental model. … Economists would have said a progressive consumption tax is a better construct at any point in history. But what I am saying is that it’s even more important as we go forward because … I want to distort in the favor of labor. …When people say we should raise the minimum wage — I know some economists disagree — but I worry about what that does to job creation. The idea that through the Earned Income Tax Credit you would end up with a certain minimum wage that you would receive, that I understand better than intentionally dampening demand in the part of the labor spectrum that I’m most worried about.

Warren Mosler, for some interesting perspective:

Taxes For Revenue Are Obsolete

James972 · Mar 2, 2018

Neomalthusian said:
Bill Gates:

I think tax structures will have to move away from taxing payroll. … Technology in general will make capital more attractive than labor over time. Software substitution — whether it’s for drivers or waiters, nurses … it’s progressing. And that’s going to force us to rethink how these tax structures work in order to maximize employment given that capitalism in general over time will create more inequality, and technology over time will reduce demand for jobs, particularly at the lower end of the skill set. We have to adjust, and these things are coming fast. Twenty years from now, labor demand for lots of skill sets will be substantially lower, and I don’t think people have that in their mental model. … Economists would have said a progressive consumption tax is a better construct at any point in history. But what I am saying is that it’s even more important as we go forward because … I want to distort in the favor of labor. …When people say we should raise the minimum wage — I know some economists disagree — but I worry about what that does to job creation. The idea that through the Earned Income Tax Credit you would end up with a certain minimum wage that you would receive, that I understand better than intentionally dampening demand in the part of the labor spectrum that I’m most worried about.

Warren Mosler, for some interesting perspective:

Taxes For Revenue Are Obsolete

Gates is stupid of course. We have had 200 years of increasingly rapid technological change and still have 96% employment. Case closed!

James972 · Mar 2, 2018

danielpalos said:
Providing for the general welfare is a general power;.

General major or common but related only to few enumerated powers given to federal govt. All other general major or common powers were reserved for states according to Constitutions authors.

danielpalos · Mar 2, 2018

James972 said:
General major or common but related only to few enumerated powers given to federal govt. All other general major or common powers were reserved for states according to Constitutions authors.

Providing the common defense and general welfare, is clear enough.

MTAtech · Mar 2, 2018

Lafayette said:
PROGRESSIVE TAXATION - NOT JUST A THEORY

For the moment, and until we change radically income taxation making it more progressive, nothing will change. The rich will continue to get richer, and the rest of us "the 90Percenters" can go to hell. America's tax-law provides the incentive to make as much as possible, and by any means possible.

The answer is in implementing progressive tax-rate. How do we get that? First, by wanting them - a volition that the US government has never ever demonstrated since the 1930s. Then by implementing tax-progressiveness.

What does that look like?

Here is the best explanation: Progressive Tax - Measuring Progressivity - from which we see this infographic demonstrating a typical progressive income tax (actually that of Germany):

Click here to expand the infographic - the black line above is the Marginal Tax Rate and the Red Line the Average Tax Rate.

Excerpt:

Furthermore:

MY POINT?

"Where there's a will there's a way." In America, there is no great desire for more equitable progressive taxation amongst the population. Besides, the Replicants would do all "that money could buy" in order to make sure it never happens ....

A good read for the OP:
https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/09/18/introducing-this-blog/

Neomalthusian · Mar 2, 2018

James972 said:
Gates is stupid of course. We have had 200 years of increasingly rapid technological change and still have 96% employment. Case closed!

We can always have 100% employment as long as we categorize everyone not working as outside of the labor force.

Why a fan of payroll taxes?

James972 · Mar 3, 2018

Neomalthusian said:
We can always have 100% employment as long as we categorize everyone not working as outside of the labor force.

Why a fan of payroll taxes?

We have 96% employment after 200 years of increasing technological change with U6(those outside of labor force)
where it has always been. Now do you understand?

Neomalthusian · Mar 3, 2018

James972 said:
We have 96% employment after 200 years of increasing technological change with U6(those outside of labor force)
where it has always been. Now do you understand?

Don’t bother quoting my post if you’re just going to ignore what I said and then repeat what you already said.

James972 · Mar 3, 2018

MTAtech said:
A good read for the OP:
https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/09/18/introducing-this-blog/

top 1% pay 44% of all federal taxes not 1% as they should. they put the bottom 50% on welfare but bottom 50% does not realize they are not pulling their weight and dragging society down like leeches. Libcommies want the bottom 50% to leech even more and thus become even more crippled.

James972 · Mar 3, 2018

Neomalthusian said:
Don’t bother quoting my post if you’re just going to ignore what I said and then repeat what you already said.

you said we have big numbers outside of labor force making unemployment numbers look good. I showed you you were wrong!! Do you understand now?

Neomalthusian · Mar 3, 2018

James972 said:
top 1% pay 44% of all federal taxes not 1% as they should.

Your argument is the top 1% should pay 1% of taxes. Really. Have you spent any time contemplating that?

James972 said:
you said we have big numbers outside of labor force making unemployment numbers look good. I showed you you were wrong!! Do you understand now?

Nothing I said can even be construed as wrong. There are millions of people outside the labor force.

Also, denial of the labor displacement of technological advances is very strange and silly.

James972 · Mar 3, 2018

Neomalthusian said:
Your argument is the top 1% should pay 1% of taxes. Really. Have you spent any time contemplating that?

yes, and???????????????????????????????

James972 · Mar 3, 2018

Neomalthusian said:
Nothing I said can even be construed as wrong. There are millions of people outside the labor force.

yes millions outside and always have been but despite 200 years of increasing technological change U3 and U6 look better than ever. Now do you understand????

James972 · Mar 3, 2018

Neomalthusian said:
Also, denial of the labor displacement of technological advances is very strange and silly.

dear we have 96% employment despite 200 years of increasingly rapid technplogical change. Do you understand now???

Neomalthusian · Mar 3, 2018

James972 said:
dear we have 96% employment despite 200 years of increasingly rapid technplogical change. Do you understand now???

Technology has been accelerating for thousands of years, not 200, and the idea that labor won’t be permanently displaced is a position of denial.

James972 · Mar 3, 2018

Neomalthusian said:
Technology has been accelerating for thousands of years, not 200, and the idea that labor won’t be permanently displaced is a position of denial.

yep for 1000's of years and still 96% employment and low u6 so what could be dumber than to worry about it now?? Imagine how fools worried when farm equipment replaced 95% of the workers in America??

iguanaman · Mar 3, 2018

ludin said:
Income inequality is only an issue when there is a closed money system. If we were still on the gold standard then income inequality would be a major issue.
however we do not have a closed money system.

The federal reserve is able to add money into the economy as needed based on the need of the economy.
So yes please take a EC101 or financing or even banking 101 course.

So you think the rich got that way by paying their employees fairly? Not in a million years. The minute they were allowed to keep most of an unlimited income is when wages were frozen.....

James972 · Mar 3, 2018

iguanaman said:
So you think the rich got that way by paying their employees fairly? .

if not fair workers would quit and work for fair wages elsewhere

ttwtt78640 · Mar 3, 2018

iguanaman said:
So you think the rich got that way by paying their employees fairly? Not in a million years. The minute they were allowed to keep most of an unlimited income is when wages were frozen.....

Is your theory that the higher the rate that a business owner (employer) is taxed then the more they will pay their labor?

Progressive taxation

Sometimes wrong