US economy doing great, on account of everybody else being kind of fucked
-
@HardwareGeek OK, now you get where I was going with that. We're making progress.
-
@HardwareGeek said in US economy doing great, on account of everybody else being kind of fucked:
While it may not be achievable, there is, at least conceptually, a spot in the middle that is neither progressive nor regressive.
I must be missing something, because I thought that progressive/regressive thing we're talking about is just a simple "effective tax rate goes up the more you earn" vs. "effective tax rate goes down the more you earn", with the middle point intuitively defined as "effective tax rate doesn't depend on how much you earn", e.g. linear tax - something not only definitely achievable, but actually used in real world throughout history and also currently in many countries.
Edit:
@dkf said in US economy doing great, on account of everybody else being kind of fucked:
people do disagree quite a bit over where that point is
Further evidence I was right that I was wrong. That, or Americans don't know what 1 is.
-
@HardwareGeek said in US economy doing great, on account of everybody else being kind of fucked:
While it may not be achievable, there is, at least conceptually, a spot in the middle that is neither progressive nor regressive
I could be completely wrong (OK, I'm probably wrong), but I thought that's how Pennsylvania's state income tax worked: "Did you make over $minimum? If yes, hand over 3%. Otherwise, have a nice day."
-
@NedFodder said in US economy doing great, on account of everybody else being kind of fucked:
I could be completely wrong (OK, I'm probably wrong), but I thought that's how Pennsylvania's state income tax worked: "Did you make over $minimum? If yes, hand over 3%. Otherwise, have a nice day."
The main problem with such simple approaches is that spending patterns vary between different groups. Low earners have a higher proportion of their spending dictated by mandatory items, and that's a very large proportion (sometimes even in excess of 100%) of their income. High earners have relatively more discretionary spending, and more of their income available for use on such things.
-
@Gąska said in US economy doing great, on account of everybody else being kind of fucked:
linear tax
Indeed. However, tax law is complicated, and there are many exceptions that cause the real tax rate to deviate from the nominal linear (often called "flat") rate. Even in the absence of those exceptions, the linear tax is seen by many as unfair, since it affects the poor disproportionately to the rich. That is, in their reasoning, it takes from the poor some percentage of an income that barely meets (or fails to meet) their basic necessities of life, while from the rich, it only takes a little from the wealth that vastly exceeds their basic necessities.
-
@NedFodder said in US economy doing great, on account of everybody else being kind of fucked:
"Did you make over $minimum? If yes, hand over 3%. Otherwise, have a nice day."
And the "Did you make over $minimum?" part of that makes it, strictly speaking, not a truly linear tax. ("$rate * ($income - $minimum)" would be mathematically linear, but only if the government paid you if your income is less than the minimum. Yes, one may qualify for government benefits if one has a low income, but I've never seen anything to suggest that these maintain anything close to a linear relationship.)
-
@HardwareGeek said in US economy doing great, on account of everybody else being kind of fucked:
However, tax law is complicated
But unlike physics law, it was made entirely by humans, and can be changed in any way we want (or rather: any way they want).
Also note that it wasn't talking about fairness of taxes at all - I just said that progressive and regressive aren't synonyms of good and bad, fair and unfair, or any other pair of adjectives and they mean whether effective tax rate grows or drops with income.
-
@Gąska said in US economy doing great, on account of everybody else being kind of fucked:
can be changed in any way we want (or rather: any way they want).
The only way they actually change, however, is to become ever more complex. Even simplifying stuff has to add, "After $date, $complex_stuff doesn't apply any more." Because it's unconstitutional to make retroactive laws (at least in the US), the $complicated_stuff still applies to taxes due/income earned/whatever before the law went into effect.
Another problem is that we use taxation for more than simply raising revenue. We use it to promote public policy. Owning one's own home is a Good Thing; therefore, encourage it by exempting certain expenses of home ownership from taxation. Marriage is a Good Thing; encourage it by taxing married people at a lower rate. Creating jobs is a Good Thing; encourage it by giving tax credits for doing so. A lot of people think using tax policy to encourage these things is a bad idea, but these policies already exist, and a lot of people benefit from them. Although most people agree tax law should be simplified, any specific simplification you suggest is strongly opposed by those who benefit from that specific complexity. Therefore, nothing ever gets simplified.
-
@HardwareGeek said in US economy doing great, on account of everybody else being kind of fucked:
The only way they actually change, however, is to become ever more complex.
It has nothing to do with what's good or correct and everything to do with what's beneficial for politicians and their sponsors.
Just sayin'.
-
@HardwareGeek said in US economy doing great, on account of everybody else being kind of fucked:
Although most people agree tax law should be simplified, any specific simplification you suggest is strongly opposed by those who benefit from that specific complexity.
I'm pretty sure murderers didn't benefit from outlawing murders and would strongly oppose it if they could. But I don't think it's good to consider murderers' feelings when deciding whether to ban murder or not.
-
@Gąska Yes, well, it goes back to your previous post. People who benefit from tax policy tend to fall into two categories:
- Modest means (maybe), but numerous: Tax breaks for homeowners, married people, etc. They vote against politicians who raise their taxes, and there are enough of them that politicians pay attention.
- Not numerous, but wealthy: Tax breaks for businesses, capital gains, etc. They finance campaigns of politicians who support keeping their tax breaks. Politicians pay attention to people who give them money.
So, whether it's good or not, politicians do consider the feelings of those who benefit from tax complexity.
-
@HardwareGeek said in US economy doing great, on account of everybody else being kind of fucked:
Modest means (maybe), but numerous: Tax breaks for homeowners, married people, etc. They vote against politicians who raise their taxes, and there are enough of them that politicians pay attention.
Not true (in Poland at least). PO (previous ruling party) raised VAT from 22% to 23%, excise tax went up 33%, and there were several other tax raises (I was too young to remember or care), restricted income tax exemptions related to raising children, and people still voted them into second term. PiS is in power for not even one year, and they already raised electricity tax, introduced bank tax, and are about to introduce shop tax (on top of VAT) and raise water tax. And I'm sure people will still vote for them next time.
-
@HardwareGeek said in US economy doing great, on account of everybody else being kind of fucked:
While it may not be achievable, there is, at least conceptually, a spot in the middle that is neither progressive nor regressive.
And regardless, if one could assign a utility / objective function, it should be possible to find a global minimum on that continuum.
@dkf said in US economy doing great, on account of everybody else being kind of fucked:
While you're not wrong, people do disagree quite a bit over where that point is.
Yep. But then you can compare the functions that different people / points of view come up with. OR you could take the approach of this thread and try to misrepresent what other people are saying.
-
@boomzilla said in US economy doing great, on account of everybody else being kind of fucked:
OR you could take the approach of this thread and try to misrepresent what other people are saying.
Much easier. Make it so.
-
@Gąska said in US economy doing great, on account of everybody else being kind of fucked:
Also note that it wasn't talking about fairness of taxes at all - I just said that progressive and regressive aren't synonyms of good and bad, fair and unfair, or any other pair of adjectives and they mean whether effective tax rate grows or drops with income.
Yes. Progressive is generally understood to mean that higher income individuals pay a larger % of their income (or possibly wealth, depending on the tax...like anything tax related, the details get complicated) while a regressive tax means that someone earning less ends up paying a higher % of their income.
@NedFodder's flat tax description is only slightly progressive. There are just two brackets. The reality is almost certainly more complicated, but I'm basing that on his descriptions.
-
@Gąska said in US economy doing great, on account of everybody else being kind of fucked:
Not true (in Poland at least). [Narrative of politicians who raised taxes being elected and reelected]
Sure, people often see the policies they agree with of $politician outweighing the policies they disagree with, or of $politician1 who raises taxes being better than $politician2 who would raise taxes even more. However, in general, the more a politician wants to raise taxes, the less likely people affected by those increases are to vote for it*.
*Using the impersonal neuter pronoun for a politician of unspecified gender is completely appropriate, because it's a politician, not a person.)
-
@HardwareGeek said in US economy doing great, on account of everybody else being kind of fucked:
although ISTM this is more common from the Left than the Right
It's amazing how many people are convinced that those who disagree with them are fundamentally stupid/corrupt/evil/etc.
-
@Jaloopa In other words, you believe that it is equally common or more common for Right people to come up with new definitions for words, insult you if you don't use their new meaning, and then call you sexist/racist to everyone else, whether or not you change that?
Because I seriously doubt it.
-
@Gąska said in US economy doing great, on account of everybody else being kind of fucked:
@HardwareGeek said in US economy doing great, on account of everybody else being kind of fucked:
Although most people agree tax law should be simplified, any specific simplification you suggest is strongly opposed by those who benefit from that specific complexity.
I'm pretty sure murderers didn't benefit from outlawing murders and would strongly oppose it if they could. But I don't think it's good to consider murderers' feelings when deciding whether to ban murder or not.
Yes, but you only say that because you're not a murderer. If murderers were a significant demographic, there would be laws or policies to benefit them.
-
@Magus no, I think it's equally common for both sides to twist facts ti match their narrative, and to start to believe those facts. What you said is an obvious strawman, a lot of that is left-specific tactics
-
@Jaloopa said in US economy doing great, on account of everybody else being kind of fucked:
I think it's equally common for both sides to twist facts ti match their narrative, and to start to believe those facts.
I was just reading some research about that:
-
@NedFodder the psychology is very interesting. The more you prove people wrong, the more entrenched they become
-
@Jaloopa said in US economy doing great, on account of everybody else being kind of fucked:
What you said is an obvious strawman
It is, in fact, fact. Or you wouldn't have finished it like this:
@Jaloopa said in US economy doing great, on account of everybody else being kind of fucked:
a lot of that is left-specific tactics
Exactly. Which is what was said.
Seriously, what did you think I was saying? We're talking about specifically redefining a term, which was called 'more usually a Left tactic' - which you've now agreed with, despite disagreeing?
-
@Magus said in US economy doing great, on account of everybody else being kind of fucked:
We're talking about specifically redefining a term, which was called 'more usually a Left tactic'
That's what we started talking about, then you brought in the strawman equating it with calling your opponents racist. That part is seen more on the left but redefining terms happens across the board.
-
@Jaloopa said in US economy doing great, on account of everybody else being kind of fucked:
That's what we started talking about, then you brought in
No, in response you said that everyone twists things equally.
@Jaloopa said in US economy doing great, on account of everybody else being kind of fucked:
the strawman equating it with calling your opponents racist.
Which is, along with calling them sexist, exactly how fox uses this tactic, making it not a strawman. I didn't build one, it's standing right over there!
@Jaloopa said in US economy doing great, on account of everybody else being kind of fucked:
That part is seen more on the left but redefining terms happens across the board.
I disagree. Conservatives, in my experience, like things to keep meaning the same thing and are more likely to cling to a definition when someone else tries to change it. You seem to have experienced the often, frequently enough to call it equally/more common? I have no idea how.
-
@Magus said in US economy doing great, on account of everybody else being kind of fucked:
Which is, along with calling them sexist, exactly how fox uses this tactic, making it not a strawman. I didn't build one, it's standing right over there!
The strawman is trying to make out that when I said everyone twists facts that I mean everyone uses the particular tactics used by some people on the left.
@Magus said in US economy doing great, on account of everybody else being kind of fucked:
You seem to have experienced the often, frequently enough to call it equally/more common?
- this is exactly my original point. People see more of what they don't like in the other side, whether or not there is more
- maybe it's also a left pond/right pond thing.
-
@Magus said in US economy doing great, on account of everybody else being kind of fucked:
No, in response you said that everyone twists things equally
I say:
@Jaloopa said in US economy doing great, on account of everybody else being kind of fucked:
It's amazing how many people are convinced that those who disagree with them are fundamentally stupid/corrupt/evil/etc
You respond immediately with:
@Magus said in US economy doing great, on account of everybody else being kind of fucked:
In other words, you believe that it is equally common or more common for Right people to come up with new definitions for words, insult you if you don't use their new meaning, and then call you sexist/racist to everyone else, whether or not you change that?
Before I mentioned twisting things equally. So how was it me changing the subject?
-
@Jaloopa Heh, weird, must have gotten something wrong, then.
-
@Jaloopa said in US economy doing great, on account of everybody else being kind of fucked:
The more you prove people wrong, the more entrenched they become
Utter bullshit.
-
@flabdablet I'm not sure if you're being ironic or not, but it is frequently true that being proven wrong about issues that make us emotional tend to reinforce the feelings that lead to that position in the first place.
LALALALALALALALALA
-
@Captain said in US economy doing great, on account of everybody else being kind of fucked:
I'm not sure if you're being ironic or not
My work is finished here.
-
-
@boomzilla said in US economy doing great, on account of everybody else being kind of fucked:
I don't think most immigrants are paying much in the way of taxes. Certainly not the illegal Mexicans and Central Americans who come here and end up working odd jobs or mowing lawns.
Horseshit.
There are two ways that this works, at least if they are employees of someone (which has to be most of them). One is that they basically work and pay taxes under identity theft situations. This is the one that I was most exposed to. They buy an identity of someone who is not using it for any number of reasons. They pay in those taxes, but they cannot file a return. So they overpay in taxes as compared to most other people.
They also pay taxes as though they earn $X, 52 weeks of the year. But due to them typically working seasonal jobs for 9 months of the year.
These people work for employers that assume they are legal workers. Those who employ illegal immigrants and know it, just pay them in cash. This means that the employer is paying those taxes for them, due to the lack of a tax exemption to attribute those wages to. So those taxes are paid at a higher rate. The illegal immigrants that work under these conditions also work for much lower wages. The employer usually works in a much lower margin line of work and should take it to account the fact that they have to pay the taxes at their top marginal tax rate and not the lower rate that the employee would.
Yes, there are some immigrants that do cash work for homeowners who cannot claim that deduction on their taxes. In those cases, no taxes are paid on that income. But lots of people do such work. Not just immigrants. Hell, every time I go to Texas and drive past a big box home improvement store and see a line of Hispanic guys hanging out in the parking lot looking for work...I am jealous. I wish I could swing past Home Depot and get everything I need in one stop, including labor.
-
@Polygeekery said in US economy doing great, on account of everybody else being kind of fucked:
Horseshit.
Nope. Even all the stuff you went through, they're not paying all that much (of the total taxes being paid by everyone, that is). Especially after you take into account the various government benefits they typically receive.
@Polygeekery said in US economy doing great, on account of everybody else being kind of fucked:
I wish I could swing past Home Depot and get everything I need in one stop, including labor.
Our day labor pick up spot is at 7-11, so you still need two stops around here.
-
@Fox said in US economy doing great, on account of everybody else being kind of fucked:
@boomzilla said in US economy doing great, on account of everybody else being kind of fucked:
I'd prefer colder coffee, but I'm leery of cold coffee.
Ah, so doesn't like hot coffee and is unsure about cold coffee.FTFY
Goddamn, you are retarded. Your logic is fucked.
-
@Fox said in US economy doing great, on account of everybody else being kind of fucked:
even a champion of capitalism says that progressive taxes are fair because rich people can spare more than poor people.
I am a champion of capitalism and I say no such thing. At least not that absolutely. You're a goddamn Communist.
-
@HardwareGeek said in US economy doing great, on account of everybody else being kind of fucked:
but it doesn't take a genius to realize that's what he seems to be arguing in favor of.
Is "genius" a relative term? What we might consider normal could easily be super-genius levels of intelligence to @Fox.
-
@HardwareGeek said in US economy doing great, on account of everybody else being kind of fucked:
Most anything that @Fox defines to suit his own purposes, where the definition does not correspond with the general usage of the term. (This is not limited to @Fox, but includes people of all political persuasions who redefine words to suit their own agenda, although ISTM this is more common from the Left than the Right.)
Yes, but he does it so much that we had to coin the term "foxfinition".
-
@HardwareGeek said in US economy doing great, on account of everybody else being kind of fucked:
Make it so.
Memed that for you.
-
@Polygeekery said in US economy doing great, on account of everybody else being kind of fucked:
Memed that for you.MTFYATFY
-
@mods can we get a in the subject? ...unless it died out--I'm not going to read 90 posts to find out.
-
@pydsigner said in US economy doing great, on account of everybody else being kind of fucked:
If murderers were a significant demographic, there would be laws or policies to benefit them.
Counter-example: transgender people and toilet debate.
-
@Gąska said in US economy doing great, on account of everybody else being kind of fucked:
@pydsigner said in US economy doing great, on account of everybody else being kind of fucked:
If murderers were a significant demographic, there would be laws or policies to benefit them.
Counter-example: transgender people and toilet debate.
There wouldn't be state laws banning city laws requiring businesses to accomodate bi/trans people in their restrooms if there weren't the city laws in the first place.
- OR -
Maybe they aren't as large a demographic as you assume.
-
@Gąska said in US economy doing great, on account of everybody else being kind of fucked:
Counter-example: transgender people and toilet debate.
World War G was pretty much won so the left had to move on to World War T.
-
@boomzilla said in US economy doing great, on account of everybody else being kind of fucked:
HOW HAVE YOU NOT FAILED OUT OF SCHOOL?
-
Speaking of Brexit, should I buy a bunch of GBP and cash them back to real money in a year? Or did the crumpet economy bounce back already?
-
@flabdablet I just figured out who your avatar reminds me of.
Filed under: fight!, Where Are They Now? WTDWTF Edition
-
@boomzilla said in US economy doing great, on account of everybody else being kind of fucked:
World War T
Worst Brad Pitt movie ever.
Filed under: He does not look good in a dress.
-
@Polygeekery said in US economy doing great, on account of everybody else being kind of fucked:
@Fox said in US economy doing great, on account of everybody else being kind of fucked:
even a champion of capitalism says that progressive taxes are fair because rich people can spare more than poor people.
I am a champion of capitalism and I say no such thing. At least not that absolutely. You're a goddamn Communist.
#notallchampions
-
@error said in US economy doing great, on account of everybody else being kind of fucked:
@boomzilla said in US economy doing great, on account of everybody else being kind of fucked:
World War T
Worst
Brad PittMr T movie ever.