|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On April 20 2015 05:42 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2015 05:29 Leporello wrote:On April 20 2015 05:07 Introvert wrote:
Nye and Tyson are some of the most obnoxious science "popularizers" out there. Their strange devotees are annoying as well.
Nevermind that they wouldn't know jack all about running government. The biggest problem with politics is the amount of rhetoric. In contrast, here you have a profession, scientist, that is trained to ignore its own preconceptions and biases (let alone anyone else's) in light of observational evidence. Sounds like fucking heaven coming to politics. If Louis Gohmert and Al Franken can run the government, then I believe Bill Nye can do it too. There's no reason to think their scientific training will apply to politics. That's not the nature of the beast. Scientists are people too, and they have their own ideas and opinions. Nye and Tyson like to talk about things that they know nothing about. Their background doesn't help them there. I'm not sure why people hold scientists in such high esteem- they're just people. They have a unique skillset, but so does anyone who has a specialized profession. They aren't any more noble or honest than anyone else.
I'm not sure it's scientists per se, but science itself.
I'm guessing it's that people would like their policies to be based on sound argumentation, thorough evidence, and rigorous analysis.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On April 20 2015 07:47 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2015 04:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 20 2015 04:37 wei2coolman wrote:On April 20 2015 04:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 20 2015 04:28 farvacola wrote:
That ticket sucks so thank goodness it could never happen. why does it suck? because scientists aren't politicians. What's good about a politician? While I very much understand skepticism towards politicians, especially when you live somewhere they're commonly portrayed (and sometimes portray themselves) as conniving bastards who care more about winning reelection than creating societal betterment, being a good politician is incredibly demanding, and the (Norwegian) politicians I've known myself are overall incredibly knowledgeable people, with a near-academic understanding of many different subjects. I think American politicians are not necessarily less competent or knowledgeable overall. (Someone like Ted Cruz, whose political beliefs I have nearly nothing in common with and whose statements I frequently consider absurd, is still obviously very intelligent. He did such a great job for Princeton's debate team that they named a championship after him. ) However, there are vast differences in the public's trust in politicians. (from this we can see that when asked "In your country, how would you rate the ethical standards of politicians?" 1 = extremely low; 7 = extremely high we can see that Norway scores a 5.9, whereas the US scores a 3.4. ) Which goes in line with yours seemingly having reelection as the highest priority. ;p But like, many politicians are very competent and ethically conscious..
lawyers receive no special policy training and whatever legal competency required to actually write legislation can be acquired rather quickly
|
On April 20 2015 07:47 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2015 04:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 20 2015 04:37 wei2coolman wrote:On April 20 2015 04:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 20 2015 04:28 farvacola wrote:
That ticket sucks so thank goodness it could never happen. why does it suck? because scientists aren't politicians. What's good about a politician? While I very much understand skepticism towards politicians, especially when you live somewhere they're commonly portrayed (and sometimes portray themselves) as conniving bastards who care more about winning reelection than creating societal betterment, being a good politician is incredibly demanding, and the (Norwegian) politicians I've known myself are overall incredibly knowledgeable people, with a near-academic understanding of many different subjects. I think American politicians are not necessarily less competent or knowledgeable overall. (Someone like Ted Cruz, whose political beliefs I have nearly nothing in common with and whose statements I frequently consider absurd, is still obviously very intelligent. He did such a great job for Princeton's debate team that they named a championship after him. ) However, there are vast differences in the public's trust in politicians. (from this we can see that when asked "In your country, how would you rate the ethical standards of politicians?" 1 = extremely low; 7 = extremely high we can see that Norway scores a 5.9, whereas the US scores a 3.4. ) Which goes in line with yours seemingly having reelection as the highest priority. ;p But like, many politicians are very competent and ethically conscious..
Americans don't trust government in general. But, it has to be granted that at this point in time, Americans really don't like their politicians. More than usual.
On April 20 2015 07:48 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2015 05:42 Introvert wrote:On April 20 2015 05:29 Leporello wrote:On April 20 2015 05:07 Introvert wrote:
Nye and Tyson are some of the most obnoxious science "popularizers" out there. Their strange devotees are annoying as well.
Nevermind that they wouldn't know jack all about running government. The biggest problem with politics is the amount of rhetoric. In contrast, here you have a profession, scientist, that is trained to ignore its own preconceptions and biases (let alone anyone else's) in light of observational evidence. Sounds like fucking heaven coming to politics. If Louis Gohmert and Al Franken can run the government, then I believe Bill Nye can do it too. There's no reason to think their scientific training will apply to politics. That's not the nature of the beast. Scientists are people too, and they have their own ideas and opinions. Nye and Tyson like to talk about things that they know nothing about. Their background doesn't help them there. I'm not sure why people hold scientists in such high esteem- they're just people. They have a unique skillset, but so does anyone who has a specialized profession. They aren't any more noble or honest than anyone else. I'm not sure it's scientists per se, but science itself. I'm guessing it's that people would like their policies to be based on sound argumentation, thorough evidence, and rigorous analysis.
Yeah, but science isn't some magical force. My point is that there is nothing about science or scientists that would make anyone a better person or more honest politician. Everyone wants to be right and reasonable, but a scientist politician doesn't care about those things anymore than a lawyer politician.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On April 20 2015 07:54 Introvert wrote:
Yeah, but science isn't some magical force. My point is that there is nothing about science or scientists that would make anyone a better person or more honest politician. Everyone wants to be right and reasonable, but a scientist politician doesn't care about those things anymore than a lawyer politician.
besides being smarter certain scientists are also committed to some version of 'truth' that is an admirable political virtue. of course i'd recommend philosopher to stand in place of 'scientist'.
|
re: intro
scientists may not be better but Science itself is designed to find things that are right and reasonable, and it works at that. So using it would have some value in policy-making.
|
On April 20 2015 07:57 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2015 07:54 Introvert wrote:
Yeah, but science isn't some magical force. My point is that there is nothing about science or scientists that would make anyone a better person or more honest politician. Everyone wants to be right and reasonable, but a scientist politician doesn't care about those things anymore than a lawyer politician. besides being smarter certain scientists are also committed to some version of 'truth' that is an admirable political virtue. of course i'd recommend philosopher to stand in place of 'scientist'.
Smarter in what way? Different things require different skill sets. Just because you're a specialist on the chemistry of silicon doesn't mean you know anything about being in government, nor does it guarantee that you could become good at it.
Again, scientists are regular people, I see no reason to think the average scientist values truth anymore than the regular person. People still try to lie and fake in science. Honesty is imposed because otherwise the system doesn't work, and the price and possibility of discovery means cheating is not as worth it. Remove the carrot and the stick and they will act like everyone else.
smarter in many ways, but it's mostly about values.
That's been one of my points. There is no difference.
|
On April 20 2015 07:44 puerk wrote:
so an ultra cheap commuter car for 5-10k is taxed at a much higher rate as your bottle of 2000$ champagne
and a middle class home at 100-200k is taxed the same as a full spec s-class mercedes
in your mind this makes the taxcode more progressive....
No, I explained this already. Those are different kinds of product. The only classification is to decide what type of product it is, not if it's a luxury item or a cheap item.
So for instance, cars are taxed on a different scale than food. So a cheap car, percentage wise, is taxed equally to a cheap house. So for example, a beat up used car might have 5% tax, and so does a beat up trailer. It doesn't matter that the car is $1,000 but the trailer is $10,000. They're different types of product, and so are not taxed on the same scale.
On April 20 2015 07:45 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2015 07:36 Millitron wrote:On April 20 2015 04:24 Acrofales wrote:On April 20 2015 02:13 Millitron wrote:On April 20 2015 02:04 zlefin wrote:On April 20 2015 01:46 Millitron wrote:On April 20 2015 01:31 Gorsameth wrote:
Sigh thinking rich people will invest more if there were less taxes is an utter fallacy.
I would also bet that it would result in a major tax income loss because the difference in how much is spend on luxury items just isn't big enough. It is yet another measure that will not grow the economy, will hurt the middle class and will benefit the rich.
How will it benefit the rich? They'll pay higher taxes on all the stuff they buy. If you heavily tax stuff rich people want, there is no net loss of tax income. I'm talking 15-20% taxes on new mansions, high-end sports cars, private jets, things like that. And like I said, there's no tax loopholes to cheat with in a sales tax, because it happens at check-out, and has no exemptions. Keeping money in off-shore accounts will do no good, because the sale happens in the US. You CAN curb investment with taxes. If you tax too much, there simply is no money left to invest. You want to tax money that is obviously not going to investment, i.e. money that's spent on stuff. There's quite a bit of research on the effect of various tax types. I'm not sure of the effects if the sales tax on luxuries is significantly higher than the regular sales tax. Sales taxes in general tend to be somewhat regressive (affecting the poor more than the rich). as to loopholes, sales tax is just as vulnerable to having loopholes as income tax, or at least that's my impression, do you have citations to the contrary? obviously a no exceptions sales tax might not, but the same would apply to a no exceptions income tax. A sales tax doesn't have to be a flat tax though. You can charge much higher taxes on things rich people buy, so as to prevent it from being regressive. Poor people aren't buying private jets, mansions, or Kobe beef. So you heavily tax the high end stuff, and it is effectively the same as variable income tax. Instead of "make more money, pay higher taxes" it's "buy more expensive stuff, pay higher taxes". There are no loopholes if the taxes are done like they are in Europe. Sales taxes are figured in to the total price of the item. Unlike in the US, where an 8% sales tax on an item with a sticker price of $100 means you actually pay $108, in Europe the sticker price includes the sales tax and in this case would be $108. The only loophole I can see is importing stuff. Unless you pay tariffs, any purchase outside the country wouldn't be taxed I guess. Other than that though, I can't see any loopholes because there's no paperwork to cheat on. Poor people buy regular beef, though. So if I want cheep Kobe beef I will find a lawyer to somehow classify my Kobe beef as regular beef, and thereby avoid paying "luxury" sales tax. And the same goes for sports cars, private jets and pretty much everything else you can come up with: somebody is buying something similar for a legitimate business or livelihood purpose. No, see there's no luxury classification. I don't tax stuff more heavily because some committee found the item to be a luxury, I tax it more heavily because it's more expensive. You want Kobe beef with low tax? You gotta find some that doesn't cost much before the tax. An example might be this. A cheap $10 steak might have say, 5% tax. But a nice $80 Kobe might have 15% tax. And this isn't because it's a Kobe, it's because it was priced at $80. The taxes are basically set by the market. A business indirectly decides how much tax it's customers will pay for its products, because they decide the price of the product to begin with. And now the restaurants that buy their beef in bulk and in huge slabs get screwed because they bought cuts that are over $100, even if the price for pound is the same as the guy who got a 2 ounce steak.
Really? That's your argument against it?
The obvious solution is to have food, or other divisibles taxed by price per dimension. In the case of food, it could be price per pound. Beverages could be price per fluid ounce. So could detergent. Lumber could be price per chord, or perhaps board-foot.
|
On April 20 2015 07:59 zlefin wrote:
re: intro
scientists may not be better but Science itself is designed to find things that are right and reasonable, and it works at that. So using it would have some value in policy-making.
I would add the idea that scientists and a politicians generally have very different relationships with 'truths'.
On April 20 2015 08:03 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2015 07:44 puerk wrote:
so an ultra cheap commuter car for 5-10k is taxed at a much higher rate as your bottle of 2000$ champagne
and a middle class home at 100-200k is taxed the same as a full spec s-class mercedes
in your mind this makes the taxcode more progressive.... No, I explained this already. Those are different kinds of product. The only classification is to decide what type of product it is, not if it's a luxury item or a cheap item. So for instance, cars are taxed on a different scale than food. So a cheap car, percentage wise, is taxed equally to a cheap house. So for example, a beat up used car might have 5% tax, and so does a beat up trailer. It doesn't matter that the car is $1,000 but the trailer is $10,000. They're different types of product, and so are not taxed on the same scale.
So does this tax idea mean getting rid of deductions too? Or would it still make a difference if it's a work truck vs a mudding truck?
|
On April 20 2015 07:57 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2015 07:54 Introvert wrote:
Yeah, but science isn't some magical force. My point is that there is nothing about science or scientists that would make anyone a better person or more honest politician. Everyone wants to be right and reasonable, but a scientist politician doesn't care about those things anymore than a lawyer politician. besides being smarter certain scientists are also committed to some version of 'truth' that is an admirable political virtue. of course i'd recommend philosopher to stand in place of 'scientist'.
Make me your gracious philosopher king and all will go well.
Honestly, politicans becoming philosophers seems like a good idea. Philosophers becoming politicans not so much.
|
On April 20 2015 07:47 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2015 04:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 20 2015 04:37 wei2coolman wrote:On April 20 2015 04:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 20 2015 04:28 farvacola wrote:
That ticket sucks so thank goodness it could never happen. why does it suck? because scientists aren't politicians. What's good about a politician? While I very much understand skepticism towards politicians, especially when you live somewhere they're commonly portrayed (and sometimes portray themselves) as conniving bastards who care more about winning reelection than creating societal betterment, being a good politician is incredibly demanding, and the (Norwegian) politicians I've known myself are overall incredibly knowledgeable people, with a near-academic understanding of many different subjects. I think American politicians are not necessarily less competent or knowledgeable overall. (Someone like Ted Cruz, whose political beliefs I have nearly nothing in common with and whose statements I frequently consider absurd, is still obviously very intelligent. He did such a great job for Princeton's debate team that they named a championship after him. ) However, there are vast differences in the public's trust in politicians. (from this we can see that when asked "In your country, how would you rate the ethical standards of politicians?" 1 = extremely low; 7 = extremely high we can see that Norway scores a 5.9, whereas the US scores a 3.4. ) Which goes in line with yours seemingly having reelection as the highest priority. ;p But like, many politicians are very competent and ethically conscious..
the most suprising thing to me was how abyssmal czech rate their government, when it is doing a better job than some of the governments with double the rating or more.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On April 20 2015 08:03 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2015 07:57 oneofthem wrote:On April 20 2015 07:54 Introvert wrote:
Yeah, but science isn't some magical force. My point is that there is nothing about science or scientists that would make anyone a better person or more honest politician. Everyone wants to be right and reasonable, but a scientist politician doesn't care about those things anymore than a lawyer politician. besides being smarter certain scientists are also committed to some version of 'truth' that is an admirable political virtue. of course i'd recommend philosopher to stand in place of 'scientist'. Smarter in what way? Different things require different skill sets. Just because you're a specialist on the chemistry of silicon doesn't mean you know anything about being in government, nor does it guarantee that you could become good at it. Again, scientists are regular people, I see no reason think they the average scientist values truth anymore than the regular person. People still try to lie and fake in science. Honesty is imposed because otherwise the system doesn't work, and the price and possibility of discovery means cheating is not as worth it. Remove the carrot and the stick and they will act like everyone else.
smarter in many ways, but it's mostly about values.
On April 20 2015 08:04 Paljas wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2015 07:57 oneofthem wrote:On April 20 2015 07:54 Introvert wrote:
Yeah, but science isn't some magical force. My point is that there is nothing about science or scientists that would make anyone a better person or more honest politician. Everyone wants to be right and reasonable, but a scientist politician doesn't care about those things anymore than a lawyer politician. besides being smarter certain scientists are also committed to some version of 'truth' that is an admirable political virtue. of course i'd recommend philosopher to stand in place of 'scientist'. Make me your gracious philosopher king and all will go well. Honestly, politicans becoming philosophers seems like a good idea. Philosophers becoming politicans not so much.
nah i dont think you are cut out for it. you can be an officer at the propaganda ministry or something.
|
Norway28675 Posts
On April 20 2015 07:50 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2015 07:47 Liquid`Drone wrote:On April 20 2015 04:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 20 2015 04:37 wei2coolman wrote:On April 20 2015 04:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 20 2015 04:28 farvacola wrote:
That ticket sucks so thank goodness it could never happen. why does it suck? because scientists aren't politicians. What's good about a politician? While I very much understand skepticism towards politicians, especially when you live somewhere they're commonly portrayed (and sometimes portray themselves) as conniving bastards who care more about winning reelection than creating societal betterment, being a good politician is incredibly demanding, and the (Norwegian) politicians I've known myself are overall incredibly knowledgeable people, with a near-academic understanding of many different subjects. I think American politicians are not necessarily less competent or knowledgeable overall. (Someone like Ted Cruz, whose political beliefs I have nearly nothing in common with and whose statements I frequently consider absurd, is still obviously very intelligent. He did such a great job for Princeton's debate team that they named a championship after him. ) However, there are vast differences in the public's trust in politicians. (from this we can see that when asked "In your country, how would you rate the ethical standards of politicians?" 1 = extremely low; 7 = extremely high we can see that Norway scores a 5.9, whereas the US scores a 3.4. ) Which goes in line with yours seemingly having reelection as the highest priority. ;p But like, many politicians are very competent and ethically conscious.. lawyers receive no special policy training and whatever legal competency required to actually write legislation can be acquired rather quickly
I'm not really talking about legal competency to write legislation, but about understanding of how different societal issues correlate with each other. I think in the US, politics is more of a band-aid type, where it's supposed to fix a problem that somehow arose, whereas in Norway there's been more focus on implementing policies that remove the need for political band-aids. This to me correlates with the competitiveness of the first past the post system rather than representative democracy, which inspires unachievable campaign promises, less room for future political cooperation, and ultimately less public trust.
|
On April 20 2015 08:04 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2015 07:59 zlefin wrote:
re: intro
scientists may not be better but Science itself is designed to find things that are right and reasonable, and it works at that. So using it would have some value in policy-making. I would add the idea that scientists and a politicians generally have very different relationships with 'truths'. Show nested quote +On April 20 2015 08:03 Millitron wrote:On April 20 2015 07:44 puerk wrote:
so an ultra cheap commuter car for 5-10k is taxed at a much higher rate as your bottle of 2000$ champagne
and a middle class home at 100-200k is taxed the same as a full spec s-class mercedes
in your mind this makes the taxcode more progressive.... No, I explained this already. Those are different kinds of product. The only classification is to decide what type of product it is, not if it's a luxury item or a cheap item. So for instance, cars are taxed on a different scale than food. So a cheap car, percentage wise, is taxed equally to a cheap house. So for example, a beat up used car might have 5% tax, and so does a beat up trailer. It doesn't matter that the car is $1,000 but the trailer is $10,000. They're different types of product, and so are not taxed on the same scale. So does this tax idea mean getting rid of deductions too? Or would it still make a difference if it's a work truck vs a mudding truck?
That's a good question. I'm leaning towards getting rid of deductions, as you don't really need a brand new current Ford F150 for a work truck. You can probably get by on a used, cheaper model.
But I see your point, and I think its worth looking into.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On April 20 2015 08:15 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2015 07:50 oneofthem wrote:On April 20 2015 07:47 Liquid`Drone wrote:On April 20 2015 04:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 20 2015 04:37 wei2coolman wrote:On April 20 2015 04:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 20 2015 04:28 farvacola wrote:
That ticket sucks so thank goodness it could never happen. why does it suck? because scientists aren't politicians. What's good about a politician? While I very much understand skepticism towards politicians, especially when you live somewhere they're commonly portrayed (and sometimes portray themselves) as conniving bastards who care more about winning reelection than creating societal betterment, being a good politician is incredibly demanding, and the (Norwegian) politicians I've known myself are overall incredibly knowledgeable people, with a near-academic understanding of many different subjects. I think American politicians are not necessarily less competent or knowledgeable overall. (Someone like Ted Cruz, whose political beliefs I have nearly nothing in common with and whose statements I frequently consider absurd, is still obviously very intelligent. He did such a great job for Princeton's debate team that they named a championship after him. ) However, there are vast differences in the public's trust in politicians. (from this we can see that when asked "In your country, how would you rate the ethical standards of politicians?" 1 = extremely low; 7 = extremely high we can see that Norway scores a 5.9, whereas the US scores a 3.4. ) Which goes in line with yours seemingly having reelection as the highest priority. ;p But like, many politicians are very competent and ethically conscious.. lawyers receive no special policy training and whatever legal competency required to actually write legislation can be acquired rather quickly I'm not really talking about legal competency to write legislation, but about understanding of how different societal issues correlate with each other. I think in the US, politics is more of a band-aid type, where it's supposed to fix a problem that somehow arose, whereas in Norway there's been more focus on implementing policies that remove the need for political band-aids. This to me correlates with the competitiveness of the first past the post system rather than representative democracy, which inspires unachievable campaign promises, less room for future political cooperation, and ultimately less public trust.
well to be more direct about your comment, the issue of ted cruz's intelligence.
competitive debating is not necessarily indicative of one's ability to think deeply and arrive at good solutions. the alethic heuristic and goal in debate is rather different from the type of truth-searching that is required to balance competing and ideologically charged perspectives. the slavish adherence to ideology happens to be a clear and great flaw in ted cruz and would mark down his intelligence in the relevant aspects for political leadership.
so to answer the question of 'what's good(or not good) about a politician' one really has to examine the type of thinking that politicians typically are asked to do and whether a competing set of values and practices can improve the situation.
let me be more specific about the sort of values/habits that would add to the political process in a unique way,
1. requirement for equal moral concern, within a certain sphere.
2. argumentative practice focused on open ended inquiry rather than defense of preexisting assumption.
3. attention to quality of data/strength of policy guiding theories, so that the process of policymaking is not purely about winning.
|
|
|
On April 20 2015 05:20 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2015 04:54 Leporello wrote:On April 20 2015 04:47 cLutZ wrote:On April 20 2015 04:32 Leporello wrote:
Regardless of "classifying" various items, a sales tax in lieu of an income tax is a blatant, huge, disgusting way to shift the tax-burdens to the poor -- to such a degree that it isn't even feasible. There's no way to get around it, and I have no idea why we should even try.
If anything we should eliminate all sales taxes altogether.
Progressive income tax is kind of the lesser of all evils. Although to call our current system progressive is a bit of a stretch. It technically is bracketed so the rich pay a higher percentage, but, it's only a couple of points. It needs to be more progressive, i.e., we need to start taxing rich people again, like we used to.
edit: It's such a wonder, with the "leftist socialist" Obama, we have the same tax brackets that George W. gave us... Most progressive tax scheme in the OECD is not progressive enough? Except, it's nowhere near the most progressive tax scheme in the OECD? Just picking one country at random, you'll likely find bigger increases between income tax brackets than you will in the U.S.'s... So... Where do you get the crazy idea that we have the most progressive income tax system in the OECD (basically, the world)? Most countries in the OECD tax more overall, but also use a lot more regressive taxes, like high rate VATs. ![[image loading]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-4QJRukHrJ5c/TYhks_W3tFI/AAAAAAAABOU/tpmi4_tRNIQ/s1600/taxburden.jpg) Article on this here. Overall our tax system is highly progressive, but we tax less overall and fund a smaller welfare state. Longer explaination: + Show Spoiler +I am the person who wrote the chapter in the OECD report that is the basis of these figures. It is part of a report on the distribution of income to households, so it doesn’t include taxes that are not directly paid by households, since these are not included in income surveys....[T]he table also calculates the distribution of taxes for the household as whole after adjusting for the number of people in the household, so it will differ from data calculated on income tax returns which are not adjusted for household size.
As others have pointed out this measure includes all direct taxes on individuals so it includes income taxes and employee social security contributions, but not employer payroll taxes. It also doesn’t include sales taxes, but these are much heavier in most other OECD countries, and not as progressive as direct taxes, so if you added indirect taxes in through some sort of modelling it is almost certain that the USA would still have the most progressive overall tax system.
However, as the OECD report points out, progressivity is not the same as redistribution. Progressivity measures how the distribution of the tax burden is shared, while redistribution measures how much the tax system reduces inequality. Redistribution is influenced both by the progressivity of taxes and the level of taxes collected.
In fact, the US system of direct taxes actually reduces inequality more than any other country as well. But overall, the USA reduces inequality a lot less than most other countries, because the other thing that you need to take into account is what taxes get spent on.
Now the US system of social security and cash benefits reduces inequality by less than any other OECD country except Korea. The US social security system is marginally less progressive then the OECD average, but the level of spending is very low – only Mexico and Korea spend less in the OECD.
So while the US tax system is progressive and reduces inequality, the US welfare state is much less effective at reducing inequality. And because the US has a very unequal distribution of income from capital and a much wider wage distribution than many other OECD countries, it ends up as a relatively unequal country after taxes and benefits.
If you look at Nordic countries, they all have much less progressive tax systems than the USA, but they collect a lot more in taxes (including in VAT). They then spend this much higher tax revenue on social security and services, and it is this side of the equation that is most important in reducing inequality.
So the implication is not that the USA either needs to increase or reduce the progressivity of the tax system. If you want to reduce inequality, you need to increase the level of taxes collected and spend it more effectively.
Sounds about right, given the amount of talk in the House Ways and Means committee recently about estate taxes, or "death taxes", as the Republicans who are pushing it's abolition are calling it.
Additionally, I'm generally in agreement in regards to taxation policy; progressivity and redistribution is not the primary goal of taxation (it should be to ensure that we efficiently and effectively collect taxes), and redistribution should be focused on our, currently sorely inefficient, welfare system and safety net (blaming Reagan and Clinton for that, so very much).
Another point in this area is our justice policy and prison systems, but last I checked, both Republicans and Democrats have adopted planks promoting prison reform, against the harshness of 80s/90s sentencing and incarceration policies. It would be nice if we could work to integrate former inmates back into larger society, as opposed to having our current revolving door.
Part of the issue with taxation is simply having the rich leave the country and become citizens in others, like what happened in France when Hollande tried to jack up the marginal tax rate for the highest bracket up to 90%.
Also, does this video amuse anyone else?
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On April 20 2015 14:31 Lord Tolkien wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2015 05:20 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 20 2015 04:54 Leporello wrote:On April 20 2015 04:47 cLutZ wrote:On April 20 2015 04:32 Leporello wrote:
Regardless of "classifying" various items, a sales tax in lieu of an income tax is a blatant, huge, disgusting way to shift the tax-burdens to the poor -- to such a degree that it isn't even feasible. There's no way to get around it, and I have no idea why we should even try.
If anything we should eliminate all sales taxes altogether.
Progressive income tax is kind of the lesser of all evils. Although to call our current system progressive is a bit of a stretch. It technically is bracketed so the rich pay a higher percentage, but, it's only a couple of points. It needs to be more progressive, i.e., we need to start taxing rich people again, like we used to.
edit: It's such a wonder, with the "leftist socialist" Obama, we have the same tax brackets that George W. gave us... Most progressive tax scheme in the OECD is not progressive enough? Except, it's nowhere near the most progressive tax scheme in the OECD? Just picking one country at random, you'll likely find bigger increases between income tax brackets than you will in the U.S.'s... So... Where do you get the crazy idea that we have the most progressive income tax system in the OECD (basically, the world)? Most countries in the OECD tax more overall, but also use a lot more regressive taxes, like high rate VATs. Article on this here. Overall our tax system is highly progressive, but we tax less overall and fund a smaller welfare state. Longer explaination: + Show Spoiler +I am the person who wrote the chapter in the OECD report that is the basis of these figures. It is part of a report on the distribution of income to households, so it doesn’t include taxes that are not directly paid by households, since these are not included in income surveys....[T]he table also calculates the distribution of taxes for the household as whole after adjusting for the number of people in the household, so it will differ from data calculated on income tax returns which are not adjusted for household size.
As others have pointed out this measure includes all direct taxes on individuals so it includes income taxes and employee social security contributions, but not employer payroll taxes. It also doesn’t include sales taxes, but these are much heavier in most other OECD countries, and not as progressive as direct taxes, so if you added indirect taxes in through some sort of modelling it is almost certain that the USA would still have the most progressive overall tax system.
However, as the OECD report points out, progressivity is not the same as redistribution. Progressivity measures how the distribution of the tax burden is shared, while redistribution measures how much the tax system reduces inequality. Redistribution is influenced both by the progressivity of taxes and the level of taxes collected.
In fact, the US system of direct taxes actually reduces inequality more than any other country as well. But overall, the USA reduces inequality a lot less than most other countries, because the other thing that you need to take into account is what taxes get spent on.
Now the US system of social security and cash benefits reduces inequality by less than any other OECD country except Korea. The US social security system is marginally less progressive then the OECD average, but the level of spending is very low – only Mexico and Korea spend less in the OECD.
So while the US tax system is progressive and reduces inequality, the US welfare state is much less effective at reducing inequality. And because the US has a very unequal distribution of income from capital and a much wider wage distribution than many other OECD countries, it ends up as a relatively unequal country after taxes and benefits.
If you look at Nordic countries, they all have much less progressive tax systems than the USA, but they collect a lot more in taxes (including in VAT). They then spend this much higher tax revenue on social security and services, and it is this side of the equation that is most important in reducing inequality.
So the implication is not that the USA either needs to increase or reduce the progressivity of the tax system. If you want to reduce inequality, you need to increase the level of taxes collected and spend it more effectively. Sounds about right, given the amount of talk in the House Ways and Means committee recently about estate taxes, or "death taxes", as the Republicans who are pushing it's abolition are calling it. Additionally, I'm generally in agreement in regards to taxation policy; progressivity and redistribution is not the primary goal of taxation (it should be to ensure that we efficiently and effectively collect taxes), and redistribution should be focused on our, currently sorely inefficient, welfare system and safety net (blaming Reagan and Clinton for that, so very much). Another point in this area is our justice policy and prison systems, but last I checked, both Republicans and Democrats have adopted planks promoting prison reform, against the harshness of 80s/90s sentencing and incarceration policies. It would be nice if we could work to integrate former inmates back into larger society, as opposed to having our current revolving door. Part of the issue with taxation is simply having the rich leave the country and become citizens in others, like what happened in France when Hollande tried to jack up the marginal tax rate for the highest bracket up to 90%. Also, does this video amuse anyone else? + Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KcUkgR4Op00
I think the goal of taxation should be to pay for services(I might just be old fashioned and simplistic though). Progressiveness, redistribution and economic behavior are what platforms should revolve around.
|
On April 20 2015 15:33 Wolfstan wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2015 14:31 Lord Tolkien wrote:On April 20 2015 05:20 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 20 2015 04:54 Leporello wrote:On April 20 2015 04:47 cLutZ wrote:On April 20 2015 04:32 Leporello wrote:
Regardless of "classifying" various items, a sales tax in lieu of an income tax is a blatant, huge, disgusting way to shift the tax-burdens to the poor -- to such a degree that it isn't even feasible. There's no way to get around it, and I have no idea why we should even try.
If anything we should eliminate all sales taxes altogether.
Progressive income tax is kind of the lesser of all evils. Although to call our current system progressive is a bit of a stretch. It technically is bracketed so the rich pay a higher percentage, but, it's only a couple of points. It needs to be more progressive, i.e., we need to start taxing rich people again, like we used to.
edit: It's such a wonder, with the "leftist socialist" Obama, we have the same tax brackets that George W. gave us... Most progressive tax scheme in the OECD is not progressive enough? Except, it's nowhere near the most progressive tax scheme in the OECD? Just picking one country at random, you'll likely find bigger increases between income tax brackets than you will in the U.S.'s... So... Where do you get the crazy idea that we have the most progressive income tax system in the OECD (basically, the world)? Most countries in the OECD tax more overall, but also use a lot more regressive taxes, like high rate VATs. Article on this here. Overall our tax system is highly progressive, but we tax less overall and fund a smaller welfare state. Longer explaination: + Show Spoiler +I am the person who wrote the chapter in the OECD report that is the basis of these figures. It is part of a report on the distribution of income to households, so it doesn’t include taxes that are not directly paid by households, since these are not included in income surveys....[T]he table also calculates the distribution of taxes for the household as whole after adjusting for the number of people in the household, so it will differ from data calculated on income tax returns which are not adjusted for household size.
As others have pointed out this measure includes all direct taxes on individuals so it includes income taxes and employee social security contributions, but not employer payroll taxes. It also doesn’t include sales taxes, but these are much heavier in most other OECD countries, and not as progressive as direct taxes, so if you added indirect taxes in through some sort of modelling it is almost certain that the USA would still have the most progressive overall tax system.
However, as the OECD report points out, progressivity is not the same as redistribution. Progressivity measures how the distribution of the tax burden is shared, while redistribution measures how much the tax system reduces inequality. Redistribution is influenced both by the progressivity of taxes and the level of taxes collected.
In fact, the US system of direct taxes actually reduces inequality more than any other country as well. But overall, the USA reduces inequality a lot less than most other countries, because the other thing that you need to take into account is what taxes get spent on.
Now the US system of social security and cash benefits reduces inequality by less than any other OECD country except Korea. The US social security system is marginally less progressive then the OECD average, but the level of spending is very low – only Mexico and Korea spend less in the OECD.
So while the US tax system is progressive and reduces inequality, the US welfare state is much less effective at reducing inequality. And because the US has a very unequal distribution of income from capital and a much wider wage distribution than many other OECD countries, it ends up as a relatively unequal country after taxes and benefits.
If you look at Nordic countries, they all have much less progressive tax systems than the USA, but they collect a lot more in taxes (including in VAT). They then spend this much higher tax revenue on social security and services, and it is this side of the equation that is most important in reducing inequality.
So the implication is not that the USA either needs to increase or reduce the progressivity of the tax system. If you want to reduce inequality, you need to increase the level of taxes collected and spend it more effectively. Sounds about right, given the amount of talk in the House Ways and Means committee recently about estate taxes, or "death taxes", as the Republicans who are pushing it's abolition are calling it. Additionally, I'm generally in agreement in regards to taxation policy; progressivity and redistribution is not the primary goal of taxation (it should be to ensure that we efficiently and effectively collect taxes), and redistribution should be focused on our, currently sorely inefficient, welfare system and safety net (blaming Reagan and Clinton for that, so very much). Another point in this area is our justice policy and prison systems, but last I checked, both Republicans and Democrats have adopted planks promoting prison reform, against the harshness of 80s/90s sentencing and incarceration policies. It would be nice if we could work to integrate former inmates back into larger society, as opposed to having our current revolving door. Part of the issue with taxation is simply having the rich leave the country and become citizens in others, like what happened in France when Hollande tried to jack up the marginal tax rate for the highest bracket up to 90%. Also, does this video amuse anyone else? + Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KcUkgR4Op00 I think the goal of taxation should be to pay for services(I might just be old fashioned and simplistic though). Progressiveness, redistribution and economic behavior are what platforms should revolve around.
Generally what I hear most economists say about taxation.
Government services should be the main factor in closing income or opportunity gaps.
|
On April 20 2015 14:31 Lord Tolkien wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2015 05:20 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 20 2015 04:54 Leporello wrote:On April 20 2015 04:47 cLutZ wrote:On April 20 2015 04:32 Leporello wrote:
Regardless of "classifying" various items, a sales tax in lieu of an income tax is a blatant, huge, disgusting way to shift the tax-burdens to the poor -- to such a degree that it isn't even feasible. There's no way to get around it, and I have no idea why we should even try.
If anything we should eliminate all sales taxes altogether.
Progressive income tax is kind of the lesser of all evils. Although to call our current system progressive is a bit of a stretch. It technically is bracketed so the rich pay a higher percentage, but, it's only a couple of points. It needs to be more progressive, i.e., we need to start taxing rich people again, like we used to.
edit: It's such a wonder, with the "leftist socialist" Obama, we have the same tax brackets that George W. gave us... Most progressive tax scheme in the OECD is not progressive enough? Except, it's nowhere near the most progressive tax scheme in the OECD? Just picking one country at random, you'll likely find bigger increases between income tax brackets than you will in the U.S.'s... So... Where do you get the crazy idea that we have the most progressive income tax system in the OECD (basically, the world)? Most countries in the OECD tax more overall, but also use a lot more regressive taxes, like high rate VATs. Article on this here. Overall our tax system is highly progressive, but we tax less overall and fund a smaller welfare state. Longer explaination: + Show Spoiler +I am the person who wrote the chapter in the OECD report that is the basis of these figures. It is part of a report on the distribution of income to households, so it doesn’t include taxes that are not directly paid by households, since these are not included in income surveys....[T]he table also calculates the distribution of taxes for the household as whole after adjusting for the number of people in the household, so it will differ from data calculated on income tax returns which are not adjusted for household size.
As others have pointed out this measure includes all direct taxes on individuals so it includes income taxes and employee social security contributions, but not employer payroll taxes. It also doesn’t include sales taxes, but these are much heavier in most other OECD countries, and not as progressive as direct taxes, so if you added indirect taxes in through some sort of modelling it is almost certain that the USA would still have the most progressive overall tax system.
However, as the OECD report points out, progressivity is not the same as redistribution. Progressivity measures how the distribution of the tax burden is shared, while redistribution measures how much the tax system reduces inequality. Redistribution is influenced both by the progressivity of taxes and the level of taxes collected.
In fact, the US system of direct taxes actually reduces inequality more than any other country as well. But overall, the USA reduces inequality a lot less than most other countries, because the other thing that you need to take into account is what taxes get spent on.
Now the US system of social security and cash benefits reduces inequality by less than any other OECD country except Korea. The US social security system is marginally less progressive then the OECD average, but the level of spending is very low – only Mexico and Korea spend less in the OECD.
So while the US tax system is progressive and reduces inequality, the US welfare state is much less effective at reducing inequality. And because the US has a very unequal distribution of income from capital and a much wider wage distribution than many other OECD countries, it ends up as a relatively unequal country after taxes and benefits.
If you look at Nordic countries, they all have much less progressive tax systems than the USA, but they collect a lot more in taxes (including in VAT). They then spend this much higher tax revenue on social security and services, and it is this side of the equation that is most important in reducing inequality.
So the implication is not that the USA either needs to increase or reduce the progressivity of the tax system. If you want to reduce inequality, you need to increase the level of taxes collected and spend it more effectively. Also, does this video amuse anyone else? + Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KcUkgR4Op00
Yeah a bit. There is some similarity between how people treat money and 'likes' It also reminded me of this quote.
Pride and Vanity have built more Hospitals than all the Virtues together. -Bernard Mandeville
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
progressivity without distributive motive is just a formula for burden sharing. right now we are not even at that. amount of tax avoidance and evasive action is high enough to place tax burden on the most stressed rather than on those with major wealth.
https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R40623.pdf
profit shifting and cap gains avoidance vehicles in particular
redistributive tax rates havent been seen for half a century and wont evr work given globalization of capital
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
