Top income brackets should be taxed at 99%.

Discussion in 'Budget & Taxes' started by Bic_Cherry, Oct 8, 2019.

  1. a better world

    a better world Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2016
    Messages:
    5,000
    Likes Received:
    718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    While I respect your concerns re poverty and its relation to privilege (especially landowning privilege), I think you might be running out of time to press the argument from a purely geoist perspective:

    https://www.smh.com.au/politics/fed...nomy-from-climate-change-20200120-p53szi.html

    The Bank for International Settlements (BIS), which acts as the central bank to the world's central banks, overnight told its members they had to start incorporating climate change into their thinking about the stability of the economy.


    RBA told to 'mobilise all forces' to save the economy from climate change

    As Australian business leaders grow increasingly worried climate change will hit their bottom lines and the International Monetary Fund warns global warming is now a major financial risk, a new warning issued by the world's top central bank (BIS) says the RBA could be forced into rescuing the economy and the environment.


    As expected, the treasurer said: "I can't see it happening"....he knows nothing of MMT, nor the policy capacity of currency-issuing sovereign governments (via treasury and central bank operations).
     
  2. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,394
    Likes Received:
    3,008
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The geoist perspective holds that we all have equal rights to the earth. If global warming caused by CO2 emissions were a problem (it's not), the geoist perspective would show how to fix it.
     
  3. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,394
    Likes Received:
    3,008
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, anything that happened in just a single person's mind is not an objective fact.
     
  4. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,394
    Likes Received:
    3,008
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes, poverty is certainly real in HK and China because they've only got one condition for liberty, justice and prosperity in place, one out of many. Landholding is still heavily subsidized in both places, and people are still forcibly stripped of their rights to liberty without just compensation in both places.
    Markets can't do everything because of market failure conditions in substantial sectors of the economy and society.
    I agree, classical economics did not reckon with statistical distributions or the importance of marginal analysis.
    I don't think it's fruitful to second-guess people's desires. In some cases we can discern societal costs, and take appropriate steps to limit or prohibit consensual exchanges that we deem contrary to the community's interests. But that's a matter for accountable democratic institutions, which are somewhat beyond the purview of economics.
     
  5. a better world

    a better world Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2016
    Messages:
    5,000
    Likes Received:
    718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don't think we should regard politics and economics as separate fields, eg regardless of the causes of poverty, MMT shows there is no economic barrier to implementing an above poverty JG, to eradicate poverty quickly.

    Rather the barrier is political.... which boils down to the fact that people (even Krugman, Rogoff and Summers and the rest of the various schools of the mainstream) don't understand economics, ie don't understand that resource constraint, not money constraint, is the issue.

    (In the 3rd world, existing populations in some states may be too high to implement an-above poverty JG immediately; in those cases external assistance would be required).
     
  6. squidward

    squidward Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2009
    Messages:
    37,112
    Likes Received:
    9,515
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That's called a thought, FYI
     
  7. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,394
    Likes Received:
    3,008
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes, and it's subjective, not objective.
     
  8. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,394
    Likes Received:
    3,008
    Trophy Points:
    113
    False. Private landowning combined with the Law of Rent and the Henry George Theorem are the causes of poverty, and explain why a JG cannot eradicate poverty. The economic barrier is the fact that the least productive workers cannot compete for access to economic opportunity with more productive ones.
    Neither resource constraint nor money constraint is the issue because privilege is the issue.
     
  9. squidward

    squidward Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2009
    Messages:
    37,112
    Likes Received:
    9,515
    Trophy Points:
    113
    A thought is not a transaction.
    A transaction that took place was indeed objective
     
    Longshot likes this.
  10. a better world

    a better world Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2016
    Messages:
    5,000
    Likes Received:
    718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    "least productive"..... according to whom?

    You accuse Crank of being a conservative, while she claims to be liberal.

    I will accuse you of the same....to you, the market is supreme, and so you see no role for a non market based public sector, hence you come out with the "least productive" slur.


    Yes.. and how will geoism solve that problem?

    False; remove privilege, and you still have to deal with different natural abilities and aptitudes of individuals, and the need for a non-market public sector to manage "productivity" as currently measured only by private sector personal-profit-seeking markets.
    (And btw the cleaners at Amazon are as necessary as Bezos, obviously; remove them and see what happens....)

    In any case the issue, ultimately, is management of available resources, regardless of whether land is privately owned or not. eg, guaranteed above poverty participation in the economy CAN be implemented in China, or the US; it's a political choice with no economic barrier.

    Explain how, if you like.

    OTOH, what's not to like about free* clean energy, regardless of the CO2 issue?

    *once the infrastructure is built, funded by central bank money creation.
    (Note: the recent BIS statement warning central banks may have to buy the fossil industry, to deal with climate related financial losses (which you deny) is one thing; I'm more interested in closing the filthy fossil industry and ushering in a "third industrial revolution" (Rifkin) based on global free clean energy....

    Jeremy Rifkin explores the possibilities in his new book Green New Deal. The only constraint is the required infrastructure (ie the resources to build the wind/solar backed by pumped hydro, and further research into other large scale (and small-scale individual home) battery technologies.
     
  11. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,394
    Likes Received:
    3,008
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The market.
    I don't think I have accused her of conservatism. I have identified the fact that she opposes liberty, justice and prosperity.
    Humanity is supreme. The market is just the most effective tool for accomplishing a lot of what humanity needs done.
    That's just baldly false.
    It's just a fact. There is a statistical distribution of productivity. Some are on the low end. They are the least productive. I don't understand how you imagine objecting to identification of that fact can alter it.
    I didn't say it was a panacea. It solves certain problems with the justice and economic efficiency of taxation and land tenure arrangements. These are very important problems and their solution has far-reaching implications, but it doesn't solve everything.
    But that's a much smaller problem than privilege, and unlike privilege, doesn't abrogate people's rights.
    I don't see any such need. The public sector has enough to do to measure its own productivity.
    More cleaners are available; more Bezoses are not.
    They can't be managed justly and efficiently if land is privately owned.
    False. Some people can't produce enough to warrant their participation in production.
    By recognizing that the individual liberty right to use the earth is not validly removed merely by its legal abrogation.
    It's not free, and probably not clean.
    Resource constraints aren't removed by printing more money.
    I see no credible prospect of any such thing.
    Rifkin has never had anything sensible to say AFAIK.
    Which would have to be diverted from other production.
     
  12. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,394
    Likes Received:
    3,008
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes, but you said everything, not just transactions.
     
  13. a better world

    a better world Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2016
    Messages:
    5,000
    Likes Received:
    718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    (An abridged reply)

    Well.. I see you are the Geoist, and I am the MMT'er...at least we are not part of the mainstream which is demonstrably failing the world, even if Comfortable Conservatives like Trump claim we have never had it so good (while mocking Thunberg during the climate change debate at Davos).

    However, once the infrastructure is built (and a recycling industry is created), green energy is both clean and free

    True - and MMT acknowledges that fact. But OTOH resources which are available can be employed to enable universal above poverty participation in the economy.

    Note: while "there might only be one Bezos and many cleaners" available, they are all necessary cogs in a prosperous economy, and therefore all deserve to be rewarded at above poverty level, however you measure "productivity" (flawed, in your case).

    Is your 'vision' compromised? (I can see why you dismiss Rifkin)...

    Method: start building the pumped hydro to store green energy from solar/wind, and keep going until you can shut the filthy fossil industry. The suitable sites all around the globe have already been identified.

    http://re100.eng.anu.edu.au/global/

    [QUOTEWhich would have to be diverted from other production.[/QUOTE]

    You mean we might have to divert resources from the grog, tobacco, sugar drinks, confectionary, processed food industries, etc etc, all of which themselves are responsible for huge diversion of resources required to manage the ill health resulting from their consumption?

    Not to mention the poverty management industry and prison industries resulting from lack of guaranteed participation in the economy.

    And toss in the associated transport and advertising industries, and you release the equivalent of many $trillions of resources.

    And then there are $trillions of resources (transferable, recyclable) to be released as the fossil industry itself is closed down.
     
  14. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,394
    Likes Received:
    3,008
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Depends how you define poverty. I agree that a free (of privilege) and just economy would be capable of supporting everyone who isn't catastrophically ill at a comfortable level, but disagree that everyone can expect to participate in production. That is going to become less and less possible as well as less and less relevant with the relentless advance of AI.
    No, only production above the poverty level deserves to be rewarded above the poverty level.
    I've seen no persuasive evidence that it is.
    Clean energy is a bit like space exploration: the lead times are so long, it's better to wait until the technology makes it easier.
    I agree that there is a lot of harmful consumption. But I don't think it's fruitful to second-guess people's desires, so where harm is demonstrable, I'd internalize it with Pigovian taxes.
    I agree the penal system -- especially the private prison industry -- in the USA is an atrocity.
    I agree advertising increasingly resembles an arms race, which is certainly wasteful. But I don't know how to make it less dysfunctional while respecting the right to free speech. I would suggest that removing rent collection privileges would make brand development less profitable.
    CO2 is good for the earth.
     
  15. a better world

    a better world Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2016
    Messages:
    5,000
    Likes Received:
    718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    When I say participate (in the economy at above poverty level), I mean: contribute to the nation's well-being, which is much broader than your "participation in production". Life is much more than a market, don't you know?

    Deserves?
    See above: by this statement you contradict your statement "I agree that a free (of privilege) and just economy would be capable of supporting everyone who isn't catastrophically ill at a comfortable level". Unless you think geoism indeed achieves that outcome.

    There is no engineering or materials or knowhow barrier that would prevent transition from filthy fossil to clean (and ultimately. zero marginal cost) green energy.

    What's hard about building some connected dams...the Babylonians were doing it 4000 years ago.

    OK.

    Maybe...you seem awfully confident climate science relating to CO2 is wrong.

    In any case, getting rid of the filthy fossil industry, with its long-term harmful carcinogenic particulates and poisonous gas emissions would be even better for long suffering consumers forced to pay high prices for energy and fuel, when green energy can be harnessed at (eventually) zero marginal cost.

    Footnote: I think nearly everyone agrees the climate is changing ie GW is real, if not AGW...

    So a globe running on free (zero marginal cost) clean energy (see Rifkin's 'Third Industrial Revolution') will certainly enable us to better deal with the necessary adaption to this changing climate, eg, entire cities and certain environments (bush-fire prone areas) may have to be abandoned, while Siberia becomes habitable.

    And if the CO2 science is correct? Then it's win-win, obviously.
     
  16. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,394
    Likes Received:
    3,008
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Not all production is market production. But maybe drawing the line between contribution and production is beyond the scope of this discussion.
    I do.
    It would just be stupidendlessly wasteful.
    Nothing -- unless you have to give their value away to landowners in return for nothing.
    Propaganda is not science, and yes, I am extremely confident that I am right: CO2 is not the principal -- maybe not even a significant -- determinant of temperature.
    That's so far in the future, it's on the other side of the Singularity.
    Obviously climate has always changed and will continue to change, and the world has warmed substantially since the Little Ice Age. And yes, CO2 is a greenhouse gas. But IMO there is no credible empirical evidence that the world is now warmer than it was in the Medieval Warm Period or other Holocene warm periods, or will imminently become warmer.
    Siberia is already habitable. Just not very pleasant.
    Actual CO2 science, which predicts ~1C of warming per doubling of CO2, is probably close to correct.
     
  17. a better world

    a better world Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2016
    Messages:
    5,000
    Likes Received:
    718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Why? I think it is the very kernel of this discussion. Is it that Geoism doesn't fit with the basic MMT proposition that sovereign governments can buy whatever is available for sale in their own currency including labour?

    And hence offer an above poverty job to anyone who wants work, not employed in the private sector, that can be defined as "contributing to the nation's wellbeing".

    (Ultimately, because there are sufficient resources in the world to achieve that basic universal right).

    Well perhaps you can explain in simple terms (as I have above) how geoism will eliminate poverty?

    All based on your proposition that burning of fossil fuels is not a problem, I note you ignored my statement:
    In any case, getting rid of the filthy fossil industry, with its long-term harmful carcinogenic particulates and poisonous gas emissions.... which is not "so far in the future", it is here now.

    Indeed that's why VW is abandoning development of ICE vehicles altogether in 8 years time (google it)...and while the diesel emissions scandal was significant for VW, the reality of poisonous and injurious pollution from ICE vehicles is causing governments to issue ever more strict regulations re this (non - CO2) pollution.

    OK so you like the fossil industry I get that. No doubt you are invested in it. But it takes a huge part of ordinary consumers' wages.

    Meanwhile governments are increasingly confronting pollution problems, whether CO2 related or not, as noted above.
     
  18. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,394
    Likes Received:
    3,008
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I disagree. It just gets into where the line should be drawn.
    No, it's that the Law of Rent and the Henry George Theorem explain why that won't solve the problem: landowners will just pocket the benefit putatively offered to low-productivity workers.
    Landowners will just charge full market value for access to any such benefit.
    It's not a right. We only have rights to the things we would have if others did not deprive us of them: mainly life, liberty, and property in the fruits of our labor. As above-poverty wages are not something we would otherwise have, they are not a right.
    Enlightened geoism restores the equal individual liberty rights of all to access economic opportunity via a universal individual exemption (UIE) from location subsidy repayment (LSR). By also relieving the productive sector of the burden of taxation, requiring productive use of all privately held advantageous land in order to avoid losing money, and enabling government to fund all economically viable public services and infrastructure by recovering the value they create to pay for them, geoism transforms the economy to a condition of permanent and intense labor shortage. Because of the UIE, even the eventual obsolescence of human labor through SAI would not consign people to poverty: they would just have free access to ever-cheaper AI-produced goods and services.
    It's true that burning fossil fuels is generally polluting. But that pollution can be cleaned up fairly easily at large power plants, and doesn't apply to burning of methane (natural gas).
    I like cheap, clean energy.
    I'm not at the moment, but I certainly have been in the past, and have worked for oil companies, too.
    Not if they are the least bit frugal. I spend very little of my wages on fossil fuel.
    I'm all for confronting pollution. But CO2 is not a pollutant.
     
  19. liberalminority

    liberalminority Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Messages:
    25,273
    Likes Received:
    1,633
    Trophy Points:
    113
    they earned their privilege through the hard work of their forefathers, the community is not legally entitled to the product of someone else's labor.
     
    Last edited: Feb 5, 2020
    squidward likes this.
  20. squidward

    squidward Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2009
    Messages:
    37,112
    Likes Received:
    9,515
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Tell me about my "privilege" and why I should pay higher tax rates than you based on this "privelege".
     
  21. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,394
    Likes Received:
    3,008
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I obviously don't know about your personal privilege. How could I? So you're just talking disingenuous nonsense. Do you own any land titles, bank licenses, IP monopolies, broadcast spectrum allocations, oil and mineral rights, etc., or shares of companies that own such things? If so, then to that extent you are privileged, and should be taxed commensurately because the value of your privileges measures how much more you can expect to take from society by owning those things than you will ever repay in taxes on them.
     
  22. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,394
    Likes Received:
    3,008
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, that's false: labor earns its product, and privilege is the product of political influence, not labor. So it can never be earned through hard work or anything else. It can only be acquired unjustly, like a slave deed.
    Privilege is not the product of anyone's labor. Land is not the product of anyone's labor. You know this. Why pretend you do not?
     
  23. Longshot

    Longshot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2011
    Messages:
    18,068
    Likes Received:
    2,644
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Labor's political influence is privilege.
     
  24. liberalminority

    liberalminority Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Messages:
    25,273
    Likes Received:
    1,633
    Trophy Points:
    113
    they are legally entitled to their land because their forefathers defeated the english and native Americans in lawful battle

    war is labor and land is the product of that labor.

    most privilege lawfully belongs to White Anglo Saxon Protestants who can trace their ancestors back to revolutionary soldiers
     
  25. squidward

    squidward Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2009
    Messages:
    37,112
    Likes Received:
    9,515
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yet you want me to pay higher rates than you.
     

Share This Page