patrick.net

edvard2 says

If history is proven a good teacher then there is indeed a tie between taxation and the health of various classes.

It makes me wonder: is there a politically viable way to redistribute wealth? One would think that in a democracy it should be relatively easy. However, will it take another economic crisis on par with the Great Depression? A crisis in which the super rich lose control of the financial markets?

You can't help the poor by destroying the rich.

edvard2 says

I think a simple means to compare the way thing are versus now is to look at what the tax rates used to be in the 50's. Back then tax rates for the upper crust of society was markedly higher. As in 1950, the upper end of the earning populace paid 90% income tax on their earnings. Yet there wasn't any running for the doors to other countries. At that same time, the middle class flourished in perhaps the most robust period for the middle class.

Although the marginal rates were high wealthy people didn't actually pay them and comedians joked about tax shelters like earthworm farms.

In 1977 we had a 70% tax rate which applied to incomes in excess of $203,200; although most of the wealthy's income was things which had lower taxes like capital gains which were taxed at 39.875%. Even that wasn't paid - in 1977 $45,338,000,000 was realized in capital gains but just $8,232,000,000 paid in capital gains for an effective tax rate of 18.2%.

Following Reagan's reforms which dropped the capital gains rate to 20% in 1982 $90,153,000,000 were realized in capital gains on which $12,900,000,000 were paid in taxes which is essentially identical in real dollars to what the government got at nearly 40%. Subsequent years have similar numbers.

High rates only apply to the moderately well off. As a middle class guy saving for my retirement I'm likely to incur the 35% death tax, but can't do anything about it because I need my principal to live off in old age. The Obamas are wealthy enough not to need all of their money which allows them to move about $9M out tax free via their gift tax exemption (before that money has appreciated). Mark Zuckerberg with even more money and tax tools at his disposal gave $37M tax free to his unconceived children.

This is as one would expect. Politicians aren't going to act too contrary to the interests of the people paying to elect them. That means PACs and the 0.4% of us who make campaign contributions large enough to require FEC reporting. With the majority of many candidates donations at the $10K/couple limit for primary + general elections that in turn implies wealthy patrons.

Policies which both benefit those people and don't screw us too badly are the best we can hope for.

JH says

It makes me wonder: is there a politically viable way to redistribute wealth? One would think that in a democracy it should be relatively easy. However, will it take another economic crisis on par with the Great Depression? A crisis in which the super rich lose control of the financial markets?

No there isn't. What needs to be taken out of the discussion though is the emotional side and instead discuss the mathematical side. This is a money problem. You can't expect to have an economy based on a model where the majority of the money is concentrated at the top. But yet the issue has itself become so politicized that any mention of any idea in which to switch that model is fiercely resisted or made into some sort of grossly emotional discussion about "Fairness"

What really needs to happen is a recognition of the need for reactive economics. The way that capitalism works is that it basically feeds off itself until it collapses. The goal for all is to capture the windfall profits it generates between inevitable collapses. The idea is to win more than you lose and in the end come out ahead. But the thing is that booms and crashes have become far more severe in the last few decades. Its because there is less and less willingness on either side of the isle to react to an ever-changing market. Its impossible to come up with a taxation model that is static. Instead we need a system that automatically reacts to the markets. Raise taxes when times are good, lower them when they are bad. If the lower and middle classes aren't getting what they need from the taxes they pay, then seek other means to tax others- such as the upper percentile wealthy- to compensate until the middle and lower classes can catch up. Its an ever-changing model.

Either way, a balance has to be struck.

Assholes left me off the list.

freak80 says

Right, most people spending their whole lives working can expect to be billionaires someday. If they don't get filthy rich, it's because they were just lazy.

The far-right delusion in a nutshell.

Move west young man, take the risk and look for new opportunities..
my great grandfather did ! yours were still stuck in New York...

JH says

It makes me wonder: is there a politically viable way to redistribute wealth? One would think that in a democracy it should be relatively easy. However, will it take another economic crisis on par with the Great Depression? A crisis in which the super rich lose control of the financial markets?

Bill Gates tied his wealth to Fighting medical disease.. billions to employ a few narrow defined medical professions. There is no economic benefit for many here.

On the other hand, Howard Hughes spent (or invested) millions/billions into many different business, Aerospace, Film/Entertainment, Casinos/Hotel, Oil Drilling, airline, Medical Research and other investments..

Clearly HH employed many people across all levels of economic classes and provided good incomes. The results speak for itself over the past decades.

We need more Howard Hughes types able to invest and reinvest into the economy and allow people to benefit with a good standard of living.

thomaswong.1986 says

We need more Howard Hughes types able to invest and reinvest into the economy and allow people to benefit with a good standard of living.

Well, for once I agree with you. The important part of your statement is HOW employers treat their employees. The fact of the matter is that doing so is good business sense. Pay your employees well, give them decent benefits, and chances are they'll be loyal to you and stay for a long time, all the while working to improve your business. This is a model that has proven successful over time.

Yet many businesses today- and in particular some in the service industry- do not treat their employees well where they pay their workers poorly and give them nary any benefits. This in turn makes for high turnover, less loyalty, and less innovation. While this seems to have worked for some companies whom make windfall profits despite this and because of the money they are saving from not paying their employees well, this model is not really that sustainable and it would behoove the companies who treat their employees in such a manner to change their course.

edvard2 says

No there isn't.

Sure there is. Let failed companies fail, don't blow freshly printed fiat money up their asses. Might not be all that's needed, but it surely is the most important thing, more important than taxes.

edvard2 says

But the thing is that booms and crashes have become far more severe in the last few decades. Its because there is less and less willingness on either side of the isle to react to an ever-changing market. Its impossible to come up with a taxation model that is static. Instead we need a system that automatically reacts to the markets.

No, it's because on every crisis we shove freshly printed fiat money up the failed sectors and TBTFs, anybody wonders why the crisis become more severe? You don't need anything except for getting out of the way when bad bets blow up, The tail risk assures that bubbles, if at all, will be very small. Simple.

Tie tax deductions to job creation.
It really is that simple.

SoftShell says

Tie tax deductions to job creation.

It really is that simple.

That's a good suggestion.

Honest Abe says

You can't help the poor by destroying the rich.

Worked in the French revolution.

More like:
Those that spend their lives working instead of smoking weed cannot expect to be a billionaire, but the vast majority of them can expect to live a comfortable life without having to suck off the taxpayer's tit.

freak80 says

thomaswong.1986 says

so they are wealthy.. big deal.. they spent their lives working.. not smoking weed!

Right, most people spending their whole lives working can expect to be billionaires someday. If they don't get filthy rich, it's because they were just lazy.

The far-right delusion in a nutshell.

Dan8267 says

Honest Abe says

You can't help the poor by destroying the rich.

Worked in the French revolution.

The means to offshore large amounts of money/assets were very limited back then though ;)

edvard2 says

But the thing is that booms and crashes have become far more severe in the last few decades. Its because there is less and less willingness on either side of the isle to react to an ever-changing market. Its impossible to come up with a taxation model that is static. Instead we need a system that automatically reacts to the markets. Raise taxes when times are good, lower them when they are bad.

So you are suggesting that government control of markets has weakened (purposely) in the past few decades, and the result has been a more "free" market? The problem of course is that...

The goal for all is to capture the windfall profits it generates between inevitable collapses.

...so rather than, say, raising taxes to mitigate the gains and distribute the wealth during a boom, those in charge would rather keep the boom going to stuff their pocketbooks. (My issue with that of course is that during the bust, the TAXPAYERS make sure the bust doesn't hurt those who profited from the boom...)

It's an interesting idea. But how do you reconcile it with the bailout and QE infinity? It seems to me that these stimuli are unprecedented. As if the government is actually meddling more than ever...

mell says

No, it's because on every crisis we shove freshly printed fiat money up the failed sectors and TBTFs, anybody wonders why the crisis become more severe? You don't need anything except for getting out of the way when bad bets blow up, The tail risk assures that bubbles, if at all, will be very small. Simple

That might be a point if not for what causes recessions to start with. When you have a smaller chunk of the population commanding the bulk of the money, then they are in turn going to be making most of the investments and when they do so, the bigger their investments, the larger the bubble grows, and it grows faster. When that pops you get appropriately sized recessions as a result. JH says

...so rather than, say, raising taxes to mitigate the gains and distribute the wealth during a boom, those in charge would rather keep the boom going to stuff their pocketbooks.

All I'm saying here is that like it or not, the US government is heavily involved in our economic system and it does so with tax policy. As of the last number of decades the tax policy we use has been utterly static. Perhaps an analogy would be if you owned a sprocket factory. If you sold every single one you could make then that indicates you should make more to keep up with demand. But if they started selling poorly, well of course it would then make sense to reduce production to adjust to the new amount of demand.

We don't do that here in the US with our tax system. Instead there is a very strong resistance to any sort of change in the tax policy which at this juncture grossly favors the upper classes and was done so because we were all told this would lead to more jobs and higher wages for everyone else. That has not happened and we've given it 30+ years to work. If that isn't working then its time to try something else.

edvard2 says

When you have a smaller chunk of the population commanding the bulk of the
money, then they are in turn going to be making most of the investments and when
they do so, the bigger their investments, the larger the bubble grows, and it
grows faster. When that pops you get appropriately sized recessions as a result.

That is a good point - one of the reasons why things were bubbly in 1920's was specifically because tax policy allowed the super wealthy to keep most benjamins and they heavily speculated. Although to be fair the bubble grew even more because even regular people kept investing on margin due to promise of easy money and perhaps to keep up with the joneses in the roaring 20s.

edvard2 says

That has not happened and we've given it 30+ years to work. If that isn't working then its time to try something else.

Yes, I agree. That is the period of one generation. Once the boomers who voted for these tax policies are gone, hopefully we move on to the type of system you are suggesting.

dublin hillz says

the bigger their investments, the larger the bubble grows, and it

grows faster. When that pops you get appropriately sized recessions as a result.

And you get inappropriately huge stimulus to soften the blow for the rich...

http://www.examiner.com/article/dollar-no-longer-primary-oil-currency-as-china-begins-to-sell-oil-using-yuan

oops.

edvard2 says

Yet many businesses today- and in particular some in the service industry- do not treat their employees well where they pay their workers poorly and give them nary any benefits. This in turn makes for high turnover, less loyalty, and less innovation.

service industry has never been great unless your a sole proprietorship. but we wrongly still have written off the mfg sector which we need to recapture it.

dublin hillz says

hat is a good point - one of the reasons why things were bubbly in 1920's was specifically because tax policy allowed the super wealthy to keep most benjamins and they heavily speculated. Although to be fair the bubble grew even more because even regular people kept investing on margin due to promise of easy money and perhaps to keep up with the joneses in the roaring 20s.

everyone was specutling without visablity to what they were actually speculating on...

there was no visibility and standardization on quarterly and yearly financial statements until the SEC act of 1933/34. People threw money blindly into stock
they had no idea of revenues and earnings.

Dan8267 says

Honest Abe says

You can't help the poor by destroying the rich.

Worked in the French revolution.

did you forget what the French Revolution resulted in.. a blood bath, torture, dictatorship and wars.. Hey.. arent you against all that anyway ?

Did you have a change of heart...

freak80 says

For example, destruction of domestic industrial infrastructure in the name of short-term profit doesn't make the country wealthier as a whole, it only benefits the very top.

Buying up competing businesses and shutting them down in order to raise prices benefits the top vs. regular consumers.

Don't you see the contradiction between these two examples? Shutting out imports would have the same effect on the consumers of low price goods as shutting down a low price producer.

$2T divided by 150 million (half of Americans) is only a little over $13000 per person! not income but total networth! The deliberately misleading statistic is not talking about half of the entire networth of all Americans here, but the combined networth of mostly zero-networth and negative-networth segment of the population.

The real question is why the average net worth of nearly half of Americans is so low?! Perhaps the tax and welfare state promoting zero-networth and negative-networth living have a lot to do with it?!

Reality says

Shutting out imports would have the same effect on the consumers of low price goods as shutting down a low price producer.

With one *very* important difference: shutting out imports allows consumers to keep their jobs and *keep consuming*. Consumers can't buy very much if they have to work for almost nothing to compete with slave-labor policies overseas.

The "supply side" voodoo economics crowd loves to ignore the demand side of the equation.

The unemployed/underemployed person is stuck in the following catch-22: he can't work, so he can't buy anything, so he can't increase the demand for goods and services, so he can't cause the creation of a new job opening.

Sure, you're always going to have your deadbeats and low-lifes that don't want to work. But that's not our biggest problem right now. Right now, our problem is massive unemployment (and under-employment) of people who *want* to work and *want* to buy goods and services.

It's a viscious cycle that must be broken. Even more outsourcing and automation is obviously *not* going to fix the problem. The problem right now is lack of demand.

thomaswong.1986 says

service industry has never been great unless your a sole proprietorship. but we wrongly still have written off the mfg sector which we need to recapture it.

The Service industry is now the largest employer in the country. This wasn't the case in the past. As such, its one of the major contributing reasons why wages have fallen and standards are lower. If things were not great in the service industry in the past, then they need to become better for the present. I worked in the service industry for a number of years myself and few of these jobs are really viable as actual family-supporting careers.

freak80 says

With one *very* important difference: shutting out imports allows consumers to keep their jobs and *keep consuming*. Consumers can't buy very much if they have to work for almost nothing to compete with slave-labor policies overseas.

We tried shutting out imports during the 30's depression by raising Tarifs. Few people know that that single act was what caused the depression to become as severe as it was because as soon as we did that, all of the other countries did the same to us and so we lost a great deal of our exporting ability at a time when manufacturing was very strong.

Furthermore, it would be virtually impossible to do this today. It doesn't matter what you buy today, whether its a cell phone, car, TV, or even a house: Those items are all made from internationally-sourced parts. Manufacturing is now one of the most globally-dependent industries and requires international cooperation. If we were to shut out imports our own manufactures would lose the ability to actually "manufacture" much of anything.

edvard2 says

Furthermore, it would be virtually impossible to do this today. It doesn't matter what you buy today, whether its a cell phone, car, TV, or even a house:
Those items are all made from internationally-sourced parts. Manufacturing is now one of the most globally-dependent industries and requires international cooperation. If we were to shut out imports our own manufactures would lose the
ability to actually "manufacture" much of anything.

You're right. The cat is already out of the bag. We bought the "globalization is good for you" propaganda and now we suffer the (probably irreversible) consequences.

So what can be done? It looks like the average American is pretty much screwed. There's no way he can compete with slave labor and automation.

Globalism in manufacturing is nothing new. Even in the 20's and 30's many manufactured goods we made also used imported components. Either that or some of the machinery used to make what we made was imported too.

edvard2 says

Globalism in manufacturing is nothing new

the added wrinkle of the 1980s and 90s was persistent trade deficits.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/NETEXP

We got Japan to move off their weak yen in the mid-80s, but China took and ran with that ball.

The end result is that we've gotten a lot of stuff for less money, at the cost of millions of lost mfg jobs.

Plus the money we've saved with the cheaper goods has been taken by FIRE and health sector.

It's no accident that the more we saved buying Chinese-made stuff, the higher our medical costs got.

thomaswong.1986 says

Dan8267 says

Honest Abe says

You can't help the poor by destroying the rich.

Worked in the French revolution.

did you forget what the French Revolution resulted in.. a blood bath, torture, dictatorship and wars.. Hey.. arent you against all that anyway ?

Did you have a change of heart...

No and no. And neither contradicts my point.

Bellingham Bill says

It's no accident that the more we saved buying Chinese-made stuff, the higher our medical costs got.

That connection is not obvious and warrants explanation. Please elaborate.

Dan8267 says

Bellingham Bill says

It's no accident that the more we saved buying Chinese-made stuff, the higher our medical costs got.

That connection is not obvious and warrants explanation. Please elaborate.

He's probably saying that as our purchase power relative to consumer goods increased that medical sector came in to take the populace to the cleaners. But then we can say the same thing about colleges and landlords if we follow down that path.

dublin hillz says

He's probably saying that as our purchase power relative to consumer goods increased that medical sector came in to take the populace to the cleaners. But then we can say the same thing about colleges and landlords if we follow down that path.

It is certainly true that health care, housing, and college are consuming way too much of the typical American's income and thereby starving all other industries. And it is true that this is a prime reason the economy is bad.

It is also true that America has sold off much of its infrastructure to China and India, thereby decreasing our ability to produce wealth and export goods to other nations. And it is true that this is another prime reason the economy is bad.

But what I'm not seeing is how the two are intrinsically related. They seem like independent problems to me.

Dan8267 says

But what I'm not seeing is how the two are intrinsically related. They seem like independent problems to me.

Agree.

Dan8267 says

It is also true that America has sold off much of its infrastructure to China and India, thereby decreasing our ability to produce wealth and export goods to other nations. And it is true that this is another prime reason the economy is bad.

That's the thing. Earlier generations realized that industry was part of the national infrastructure like roads, railroads, canals, power plants, and military bases.

Then the boomers came along and realized they could sell off our industry to China and India for short-term profit and totally fucked over the next generation(s). And where the industry goes, so goes the technology.

freak80 says

Even more outsourcing and automation is obviously *not* going to fix the problem.

LOL, you are quite correct in relating outsourcing with automation. Your objection to both however is due to the Luddite in you peeking out.

The problem right now is lack of demand.

Supply creates its own demand. As outsourcing and automation drive down prices, more and more human wants become qualified demand.

dublin hillz says

He's probably saying that as our purchase power relative to consumer goods increased that medical sector came in to take the populace to the cleaners. But then we can say the same thing about colleges and landlords if we follow down that path.

ayup

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=mC8

weeks of work required to pay annual per-capita health care costs

Cheap chinese imports gave everyone another $200 or more per month to spend.

Did we buy more stuff (or put the money in the bank) with that, or did other prices -- gasoline, health care, housing -- rise to take that extra spending power?

Same thing with the Bush tax cuts -- the extra spending power went right into higher costs of high-rent necessities: housing, energy, health care.

freak80 says

Then the boomers came along and realized they could sell off our industry to China and India for short-term profit and totally fucked over the next generation(s). And where the industry goes, so goes the technology

No.. it was the Japanese who dumped products below production costs on the world market which prompted NOT only US manufactures but also Europeans to move factories to Tiger nations like Singapore Taiwan HK and So Korea... else they would have gone bankrupt. This was long long before India and China.

You do recall how the Japanese grew their economy so rapidly ?

so today.. India is accusing China of dumping below cost on Indian markets killing their economy...

India accuses China of dumping silk | China Economic Review
www.chinaeconomicreview.com/node/30065‎
Indian trade officials ruled in March that China was dumping low-cost silk in India and a final order.

U.S. rivals accuse China of dumping solar panels | Reuters
www.reuters.com/article/.../us-solar-imports-idUSTRE80O2AB20120125‎
Jan 25, 2012 - (Reuters) - Chinese solar panel makers flooded the U.S. market with their products at the ... U.S. rivals accuse China of dumping solar panels ...

China slaps anti dumping probe on an Indian chemical's imports ...
articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com › Collections › Indian Companies‎
Aug 23, 2013 - BEIJING: China has launched an anti-dumping investigation into imports of ... TBHQ producers, accusing Indian manufacturers of dumping the ...

India initiates anti-dumping investigation against China and the US ...
www.pv-tech.org/.../india_initiates_anti_dumping_investigation_against...‎
Nov 28, 2012 - India initiates anti-dumping investigation against China and the US. The CSE accused
US manufacturers of taking advantage of a loop hole in ...

China investigates Indian TBHQ dumping - Xinhua | English.news.cn
news.xinhuanet.com › Home › China‎
Aug 22, 2013 - MOC has received requests from domestic TBHQ producers, accusing Indian manufacturers of dumping the product on the Chinese market and ...

China Accused of 'Dumping' Solar Panels in U.S. - WSJ.com
online.wsj.com/.../SB1000142405297020448530457664129200589932...‎
Oct 20, 2011 - Solar Firms Seek Duties in China Dumping Case ... SolarWorld accused Chinese manufacturers of selling solar panels at less than half of what ...

Reality says

Supply creates its own demand. As outsourcing and automation drive down prices, more and more human wants become qualified demand.

Automation does not drive down prices.. why do autos costs more..

capital equipment is very costly to maintain and very complex to produce...