Are You A One Percenter

[lektrode]

Re: Are You A One Percenter

Right back at you.
....
Like I said, you can slice and dice the numbers six ways to Sunday....
...
No matter how you cut it, it's arithmetically impossible for everyone in the US to be in the global 1%.

oh YES, dc - you CAN slice em and dice em (and metalman's comment a few weeks ago was absolutely right-on-the-money about both u2 = The Best)

but on sunday ?
;)

[DSpencer]

Re: Are You A One Percenter

Spencer, I am still flummoxed by your writings, you seem to be on a crusade.

I pointed out a hypocritical stance of Ayn Rand who advocated complete withdrawal of government out of "capitalism" and people's lives except to protect citizens from foreign invaders etc.

(A) Advocating that SS be ended does not equal (B) advocating that people turn down benefits from programs they are forced to support with taxes. If she did not do the opposite of what she advocated then she is not being hypocritical. That is my only point.

At some point the logic is irreducible. If you don't agree that A ≠ B then there isn't any point in discussing further.

The simple fact remains: there is only self interest, hers included.

She simply acted in her self interest to accept medicaid and SS, right? It would be ludicrous not to accept those benefits with which she paid into, right?

So she acted in her own self interest.

I don't disagree that she acted in her self interest. Does that prove she's being a hypocrite? If anything, given her philosophy, I would think the opposite.

[DSpencer]

Re: Are You A One Percenter

FWIW, you have an argument for SS, but not so much for Medicare/Medicaid. She made all her money before those programs even existed - they were what? '65 LBJ? She stumped for Goldwater and against those programs in the mid sixties as part of her last real political actions before becoming somewhat ill, insofar as I recall. She died in what? 82? She was diagnosed with cancer and took benefits starting when? mid 70s? There's no way she didn't get considerably more than whatever she paid in on that one.

There might be several ways of defending the specifics of her case, but I don't care to do it. I know very little about the specifics of her earnings, tax bills, medical issues etc and I have no interest in learning it now. That may sound silly given the above posts, but for me she was just the example of a bigger question.

I think it is philosophically important that someone be able to advocate for the end of a social program without being forced to endure additional hardships by only being allowed to partake in the downsides of the program in the meantime. The general concept applies to being able to criticize the military, TSA, Homeland Security, or local police without being accused of hypocrisy since your taxes support them. You shouldn't have to be put in jail or be punished financially for disagreeing with systems beyond your control. The specifics of Ayn Rand's case are not particularly interesting to me.

[ProdigyofZen]

Re: Are You A One Percenter

(A) Advocating that SS be ended does not equal (B) advocating that people turn down benefits from programs they are forced to support with taxes. If she did not do the opposite of what she advocated then she is not being hypocritical. That is my only point.

At some point the logic is irreducible. If you don't agree that A ≠ B then there isn't any point in discussing further.




I don't disagree that she acted in her self interest. Does that prove she's being a hypocrite? If anything, given her philosophy, I would think the opposite.

I have never said that you can't criticize SS or the Military etc and not be able to also partake in them.

But in the case of Rand she went to the extreme. I am pointing out her extreme nature of ideas, "virtually no government involvement" coupled with her then accepting SS and medicaid.

That is all.

[dcarrigg]

Re: Are You A One Percenter

The general concept applies to being able to criticize the military, TSA, Homeland Security, or local police without being accused of hypocrisy since your taxes support them. You shouldn't have to be put in jail or be punished financially for disagreeing with systems beyond your control. The specifics of Ayn Rand's case are not particularly interesting to me.

Nobody said you "have to be put in jail or punished financially."

But it does make one obviously a hypocrite.

And that's something wannabe saviors / religious leaders probably should consider.

[DSpencer]

Re: Are You A One Percenter

Could you explain why increasing inequality beyond the current point makes sense, in terms of providing additional motivation for people to succeed? Alternatively, could you explain how the level of inequality that is currently present motivates economic activity better than the (lesser) inequality that was seen in this nation twenty years ago? Are people really more motivated today?

I don't claim that it does make sense to increase inequality or that current inequality motivates better than in past years.

I don't think that inequality should be an objective of government policy. Although I can understand that if we are to have different tax brackets then we must decide on the rates somehow.

An alternative metric to GDP is not so hard to find, Gross National Happiness is one example. There is even one nation that has already embraced this as its official metric for evaluating performance.

True although I'm fairly suspect of the ability to measure GNH in a consistent manner. Furthermore, I don't think that it is the job of the government to decide whether its citizens should try to be rich or happy or how the two relate. That is not the proper role of government.

One may reasonably answer (a) if one believes that all taxes and regulations must be (a priori) inherently and irreparably flawed, to an unacceptable extent. The only solution would then be to shrink all taxes and regulation.

One may reasonably answer (b) if one believes that there is a better way to implement taxes and regulations, and that we just haven't implemented that yet here. One solution is to improve the quality of governance, rather than focussing on the amount of governance.

Personally, I think the quality and amount of taxes and regulations are inherently linked. There are several reasons: Our taxes and regulations are so complex that they are impossible to manage. It is also impossible for the public to trust they are fair because there is no hope of knowing what they really say. This also opens the door for different interpretations for different people which leads to corruption of varying degrees. It also benefits those who can afford the best lawyers and accountants.

There is also just no good way of regulating some of what the government wants to regulate. There's no good way of licensing a child's lemonade stand. It's just ludicrous from the start and a waste of time and money.

The only answer is for voters to resist the facile simplification. Don't demand less regulation, but better regulation (which may require too much detailed knowledge for the average voter, but not, I think, the average iTulip'er). Don't demand lower taxes, demand fairer taxes. Again, specific knowledge of what this entails for a given bill will be required, but I certainly don't think this is beyond the present reader's grasp.
In short, I think there is a better way. And I think that giving up on that is exactly what those who create corruption want us to do.

That's how they win.

I disagree that it does not require too much knowledge for the average ituliper. How can we expect to understand that which we cannot read? The bills are so long that even the people voting on them do not read them.

I agree they want us to give up. And there is a big difference between "lower taxes", "fairer taxes" and "fewer taxes". Maybe I'm talking past your points.

Does anyone on itulip honestly claim to fully understand the PPACA? Does anyone claim to have read the bill and it's accompanying regulations?

"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler"

[lektrode]

Re: Are You A One Percenter

....I disagree that it does not require too much knowledge for the average ituliper. How can we expect to understand that which we cannot read? The bills are so long that even the people voting on them do not read them.

I agree they want us to give up. And there is a big difference between "lower taxes", "fairer taxes" and "fewer taxes". Maybe I'm talking past your points.

Does anyone on itulip honestly claim to fully understand the PPACA? Does anyone claim to have read the bill and it's accompanying regulations?

+1
but we already heard the political class' answer to that one: 'we have to pass it to find out whats in it'

kinda like the 3500pages of the frank-in-dodd 'reform' of the finance whirld

IMHO - THE PROBLEM is the mentality - prevalent in certain circles - that 'complex' problems REQUIRE 'complex solutions' - like the repeal of the '30 pages' of the glass-steagall act was somehow 'fixed' by what some seem to think will end up being 6or7 THOUSAND pages of the 'solution' ???

and just whom does THIS 'benefit' ? (sides the political class, made up now of mostly lawyers and/or political 'science' types and and just never mind/ignore their string-pulling/benefactors)

[DSpencer]

Re: Are You A One Percenter

Nobody said you "have to be put in jail or punished financially."

But it does make one obviously a hypocrite.

And that's something wannabe saviors / religious leaders probably should consider.

Fine. I guess we all have a choice to make:

1. Believe in every single thing the government does with our taxes whether it's bailing out banks, bombing foreign countries, conducting syphilis experiments in Tuskegee etc.

2. Live as outlaws who refuse to participate in a system that is not completely of our own design by refusing to pay taxes or use any form of government service or protection and accept the consequences.

3. Accept that we are hypocrites who sacrifice our moral code every time we buy a product with sales tax or earn a paycheck minus withholding.

[lektrode]

Re: Are You A One Percenter

Fine. I guess we all have a choice to make:

1. Believe in every single thing the government does with our taxes whether it's bailing out banks, bombing foreign countries, conducting syphilis experiments in Tuskegee etc.

2. Live as outlaws who refuse to participate in a system that is not completely of our own design by refusing to pay taxes or use any form of government service or protection and accept the consequences.

3. Accept that we are hypocrites who sacrifice our moral code every time we buy a product with sales tax or earn a paycheck minus withholding.

no - or rather BUT - there's a FOURTH OPTION
which is STILL - after nearly FOUR HUNDRED YEARS of 'experiments' tween the states and the feds - IMHO
The Gold Standard of how The US should be run
working out the details of that would be a bitch tho (seeing as how screwed up - by design - the political 'science' and lawyer types have made things in most states and the beltway)

[dcarrigg]

Re: Are You A One Percenter

Fine. I guess we all have a choice to make:

1. Believe in every single thing the government does with our taxes whether it's bailing out banks, bombing foreign countries, conducting syphilis experiments in Tuskegee etc.

2. Live as outlaws who refuse to participate in a system that is not completely of our own design by refusing to pay taxes or use any form of government service or protection and accept the consequences.

3. Accept that we are hypocrites who sacrifice our moral code every time we buy a product with sales tax or earn a paycheck minus withholding.

There's a difference between paying sales taxes and starting a cult based on hating people who accept government services, then taking Medicare you never really paid into (because it didn't exist) and using the government dole to cover years of cancer bills because you couldn't put down the smokes and didn't save enough money to cover your lung cancer.

But I suppose that's not what you're talking about. And I already said that your argument vis-a-vis believing in abolishing Social Security but paying in your whole life then taking the service you paid into seems like a valid position to me.

[astonas]

Re: Are You A One Percenter

I don't claim that it does make sense to increase inequality or that current inequality motivates better than in past years.

It appears that we are reaching the point of the conversation where meaningful common ground is more plentiful! I would say that it follows from the above statements that we also agree that IF government must have an impact on inequality, then all else being equal, it should at this point be favoring lower inequality, rather than higher inequality. Do we agree on that?

I don't think that inequality should be an objective of government policy. Although I can understand that if we are to have different tax brackets then we must decide on the rates somehow.

This is now the separate question of WHETHER government can and should have an impact on inequality. And I think you've also answered this one more or less the way I would: Whether we like it or not, it is hard to argue with the fact that government policies WILL always affect it:

As you've indicated, if a progressive tax system is retained, that will always require government to assess rates in SOME manner, and thus intrinsically influence the degree of inequality correction that occurs.

If a non-progressive (flat-tax) system is enacted instead, that inherently favors increasing inequality, which I believe we have just agreed is not beneficial going forward from this point.

True although I'm fairly suspect of the ability to measure GNH in a consistent manner.

I am less concerned with promoting specifically GNH as a metric. I am instead pointing out that total economic activity is pretty far from being a decent metric of national well-being, and demonstrating that it is entirely possible to think outside that extraordinarily restrictive box. GNH is merely one alternative example that has been implemented elsewhere. I'd be just as ready to consider another standard, which you might prefer more. I too, favor objectivity, where possible.

And remember, this isn't the government telling the people to try to be rich, or telling its people to choose to be happy instead. This is how the government is measuring the success or failure of its own policies. Under any metric, people can still be free to choose their desires and goals. This is important, because your next objection is:

Furthermore, I don't think that it is the job of the government to decide whether its citizens should try to be rich or happy or how the two relate. That is not the proper role of government.

The current use of GDP to measure national progress inherently assumes that the MAIN thing (if not the ONLY thing) that people want from government is economic growth. Frankly, I think that's pretty far down on the list of what most people really need and want.

Instead, they usually want a lot of other things first (based, for example, on Maslow's hierarchy of needs). Safety, both of their person (police & military), and of their food and medicine (FDA). Breathable air, and drinkable water (EPA). A way to define property, and recourse for settling grievances (laws and courts). And so on. Until the most basic needs are met, the higher-order goals can't even be reasonable targets. Job creation isn't much help to you if you can't work due to diseases caused by toxins in your drinking water. And the current debates, for example, on the safety of fracking, proves that we are far from the point where the more basic needs may be treated as universally guaranteed.

I should mention that I certainly don't know anyone who thinks the government should be responsible for the whole pyramid (it would be a more totalitarian state than even the most dystopian of novels), but it is clearly also hard to imagine a world where NONE of the elements at the base of the pyramid are dealt with collectively, through government, but instead left to the individual. It's hard to keep your family's air breathable if your upwind neighbor does not value that. Including the quality of these things in a governmental performance metric makes sense to me. Assuming that these will always roll up linearly into GDP, does not.

So again, while ANY metric will necessarily (if unfortunately) contain some value judgements about what people want from their government, I don't think that "how easy it is for rentiers to make money off their capital" is a good starting point. And that's more or less what the current focus on GDP growth (and perhaps also interest rates) emphasizes.

Personally, I think the quality and amount of taxes and regulations are inherently linked.

This appears to me to be leaning toward, to at least some extent, (a) in the dichotomy I presented you with earlier:

3) Which of the following is more responsible for the abuses you cite?:
(a) the existence of taxes and regulations whose initial purpose was to fund basic services and create a fair playing field.
(b) the corruption of those same taxes and regulations by lobbying efforts of interested parties to provide market advantages for themselves.

But again, this is a FALSE dichotomy. The only way to not be cheated is to deny the dichotomy itself. Some taxes must exist, to fund activities that only government can perform. Some regulations must exist, to prevent the crassest of might-is-right exploitation. But at the same time, it cannot be assumed [as (b) does] that the intent of the legislation is noble. Given this, the challenge is to find out how to force government to act WITHOUT corruption. Saying corruption will always be there, so we can't regulate or tax simply isn't one of the choices. Not really.

So let's take your specific concerns point by point:

There are several reasons: Our taxes and regulations are so complex that they are impossible to manage.

Right, so the challenge is to apply pressure for simpler legislation or better legislation, not necessarily less or more legislation.

It is also impossible for the public to trust they are fair because there is no hope of knowing what they really say.

Again, this is an argument for simpler and clearer legislation, but not an argument for fewer pieces of legislation. And while the laws themselves are often hard to read, there is at least some investigative journalism that goes on, that gives us a range of secondary opinions to evaluate. Imperfect, yes, but hardly nonexistent. And I certainly agree that much legislation today is NOT fair. The answer is not to pass no legislation, but to shine light on it, and demand it be more fair. In a word, transparency.

This also opens the door for different interpretations for different people which leads to corruption of varying degrees.

While there will always be different interpretations, that hardly means there should be no laws. Again, this is an argument for simpler, clearer laws, but not less laws.

It also benefits those who can afford the best lawyers and accountants.

I'll just say "ditto". Your concerns and arguments above are all valid. But none point to a need to REDUCE legislation, taxes, or regulations, so much as a need to CLARIFY these governmental functions, which are in fact necessary ones. It is in the (heavily obfuscated) details that the devil lies. So remove the obfuscation.

But giving up and demanding reduced regulation (without prejudice to quality) is throwing the baby out with the bath water. Do you really want to live in a world where medicine requires less data for FDA approval, and there must be additional, unnecessary, risk every time you get sick? And in a world where that sickness happens more frequently because emission regulations, and the safety of drinking water is relaxed, and food safety is less stringently monitored?

Beware the general demand for "less" (or, for that matter "more") of anything. I can't think of a time it hasn't been a red herring. Can you? My experience of the world just hasn't shown very many issues to be as black and white as that.

There is also just no good way of regulating some of what the government wants to regulate. There's no good way of licensing a child's lemonade stand. It's just ludicrous from the start and a waste of time and money.

I don't know anyone who thinks lemonade stands are a dire threat, and need regulation. I do vaguely remember an article about an overly enthusiastic cop who tried to do so, but he was later chastised for his error. Similarly the overzealous employee of a fast-food restaurant that insisted a baby be wearing shoes to be in the food-service area. Are you sure you're not (unintentionally, I'm sure) inserting a straw man here? Does any serious group claim this needs regulation?

I disagree that it does not require too much knowledge for the average ituliper. How can we expect to understand that which we cannot read? The bills are so long that even the people voting on them do not read them.

It isn't always so dramatic:

One doesn't need to read every line of the Volker rule to know that it has been corrupted. It was proposed by Volker as one paragraph, and became 1000 pages. Volker himself denounced it as no longer meeting his intentions, well before it was ever voted on. When that was being debated in congress, every reader of iTulip had enough information to write their congressperson with their opinion. Just the reading we already do here on a regular basis is enough to do SOME good.

It isn't always that clear, of course. But if there is coordinated action whenever it IS clear, there is room for hope. And we do see a broad-spectrum collection of investigative journalism links on this site, which tends to clarify things more for us than the average citizen, most of whom have more isolated (and partisan) information streams.

I agree they want us to give up. And there is a big difference between "lower taxes", "fairer taxes" and "fewer taxes".

Then I think there is not much difference between our starting axioms.

Not giving up on reforming to a different and better system for forging legislation is hard with all the rhetoric flying around, but I really see no other choice.

Maybe I'm talking past your points.

No, you seem to be addressing my points as I intend them. (Thank you for that, by the way. It is a pleasure to converse with people who don't look for ways to twist one's meaning, but honestly try to understand and address the point being made, on its merits. You're being great!)

Like I said at the beginning, I think we're finding some common ground. I think a simplified tax code makes a great deal of sense (so, fewer taxes). I think fairer taxes could be arranged at the same time by including dcarrigg's suggestion of adding tax tiers above the present level. And one would probably wind up with somewhat reduced nominal tax rates as well, if one eliminated the concept of deductions from the tax code, or even reduced its impact, and kept total revenue constant.

(One thing interesting to me is that all of these improvements can be evaluated for merit, independently of the question of whether total revenue is to decrease, or increase. That's another red herring, frequently dragged out to incite fear in voters, and prevent reform.)

As another aside, I also think one could go a step further by using a formula to calculate taxes that doesn't have tiers at all, but a simple algebraic expression that provides smooth and monotonic (rather than stepwise) tax bill from 0 at $0 to (upper limit)% at $infinity, asymptotically approached. Every dollar of income, no matter where it falls, gets taxed at an infinitesimally higher rate than the previous one. You'd have a one-step tax form (plug income into equation, get tax due as the result), and nearly no ability to tweak it to give preference to anyone, without everyone being immediately aware of it. It might have a handful of constants that define its shape and inflection points, but they would all be understandable with no more than basic algebra.

But this is really tangential to the original discussion, which I believe may be coming to a consensus. Pressing on:

Does anyone on itulip honestly claim to fully understand the PPACA? Does anyone claim to have read the bill and it's accompanying regulations?

Is that really needed to declare an unwillingness to follow the simplistic party line, on either side? Yes, it was a bad bill, based on the metric of simplicity, which we agree should be more important than it is. But that was the only way to get it passed. In fairness, it did also do some good for those who were previously not able to get insurance.

The bigger problem isn't any one bill, from any one party, but the process that requires any bill from either side to be similarly corrupted in order to pass. Complaining about a bill that's already passed may be entirely valid, but still not productive. Fixing the process might yet be productive. I'm encouraging a focus on that. And I think we agree:

"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler"

Indeed!

[dcarrigg]

Re: Are You A One Percenter

I gave you a sold reason why you're oversimplifying to A = B several posts ago vis-a-vis Medicare, but you've just chosen to ignore it to defend Rand, for what reasons I can only speculate.

This wasn't like SS. She didn't pay in her whole life. She was 55 and fighting against the program being implemented. Then she was 65 and taking the program.

Very different.

[vt]

Re: Are You A One Percenter

Here's how they rob banks:

The morality of dishonesty. Robbers entered a bank in a small town. One of them shouted: "Don't move! The money belongs to the bank. Your lives belong to you.” Immediately all the people in the bank laid on the floor quietly and without panic. This is an example of how the correct wording of a sentence can make everyone change their view of the world. One woman laid on the floor in a provocative manner. The robber approached her saying, " Ma'am, this is a robbery not a rape. Please behave accordingly." This is an example of how to behave professionally, and focus on the goal. While running from the bank the youngest robber (who had a college degree) said to the oldest robber (who had barely finished elementary school): "Hey, maybe we should count how much we stole." ? The older man replied: "Don’t be stupid. It's a lot of money so let's wait for the news on TV to find out how much money was taken from the bank." This is an example of how life experience is more important than a degree. After the robbery, the manager of the bank said to his accountant: "Let's call the cops and tell them how much has been stolen." "Wait”, said the Accountant, "before we do that, let's add the $800,000 we took for ourselves a few months ago and just say that it was stolen as part of today’s robbery." This is an example of taking advantage of an opportunity. The following day it was reported in the news that the bank was robbed of $3 million. The robbers then counted the money, but they found only $1 million so they started to grumble. "We risked our lives for $1 million, while the bank's management robbed two million dollars without blinking? Maybe its better to learn how to work the system, instead of being a simple robber." This is an example of how knowledge can be more useful than power. Moral :Give a person a gun, and he can rob a bank . Give a person a bank, and he can rob everyone.

[lektrode]

Re: Are You A One Percenter

Moral :Give a person a gun, and he can rob a bank . Give a person a bank, and he can rob everyone.

heheheheh.... GOOD ONE!

[lektrode]

Re: Are You A One Percenter

I gave you a sold reason why you're oversimplifying to A = B several posts ago vis-a-vis Medicare, but you've just chosen to ignore it to defend Rand, for what reasons I can only speculate.

This wasn't like SS. She didn't pay in her whole life. She was 55 and fighting against the program being implemented. Then she was 65 and taking the program.

Very different.

quite unlike 'queen nancy' ?

(sorry dc, couldnt resist ;)