Death tax

Discussion in 'Budget & Taxes' started by trickyricky, Nov 6, 2017.

  1. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That wasn't my point. If there is a high risk of poverty then it deters, in particular families, from taking risks. Social democracy get around that problem by ensuring greater equality (creating opportunity to save, rather than being over-reliant on unsecured debt) and a more generous safety net. Risk taking then becomes more natural.

    I agree. Minimum wages, for example, are mere correction of market failure in capitalism. They cannot be used as an effective anti-poverty policy. That's why more radical economic change is required. You have to change the very nature of the capitalist system (via social democracy), or replace it (via socialism).

    I can't agree. My yank family, for example, typically voted Trump or refused to vote. The Trump voters weren't supportive of Trump's jingoism at all. They were gagging to vote for Bernie. They voted Trump because Hillary losing would at least be a kick in the elite's crotch.
     
  2. OldManOnFire

    OldManOnFire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    19,980
    Likes Received:
    1,177
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If risk exists then it's because of the decisions we make. There may be root reasons for our decisions, but nonetheless, they are OUR decisions and if we find too much risk then make different decisions. Regarding saving, all people can save something...but in order to do so they must have the discipline to do so.

    I think minimum wages only serve to keep the .01% employers from taking advantage of workers. MW is more political than anything tangible to address issues. Socialism IMO is a sign of failure...we have a long way to go before socialism can be an option.

    Well...Trump appears to continue to have 40-50 million voters in his base no matter that Bernie and Hillary are long gone. This base is supportive of Trump's lies and in no way do I see Trump as a true patriot. I continue to believe all the reasons someone voted for Trump was rooted in ignorance...
     
  3. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That doesn't account for the differences in self-employment rates across countries. When you have responsibilities it is quite natural to be risk averse. Finding means to minimise it is also quite appropriate. A distinction between actual and desired self employment rates ensure potential economic activity is effectively eliminated.

    Minimum wage has little to do with socialism. It also impacts on a lot more workers than you say, given there are knock-on effects further up the wage distribution.

    And I continue to argue otherwise. Of course there are core supporters that will vote Trump no matter what. He's cemented the right wing nut vote with some of his more ludicrous antics. However, there is also a significant vote that voted for him because of Hillary. Don't forget Bernie was well above Trump in the polls.
     
  4. OldManOnFire

    OldManOnFire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    19,980
    Likes Received:
    1,177
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Everything you mention here is based on people's decisions. Most people are unaware of the fact that their lives are 100% controlled by the decisions they make each day. I prefer not to stereotype groups or cultures or economies, etc. when talking about people since each person is in charge of their future.

    I didn't say MW had anything to do with socialism? Sure MW bumps have a slight effect on others.

    People who voted for Trump because they disliked Hillary are idiots. A more rational choice for them would have been a write-in vote or no vote.
     
  5. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Everything was based on evidence, be it time series or cross sectional analysis. Self employment suffers when poverty risk is coupled with ineffective welfare state. In those circumstances you get alternative reactions like use of home ownership as a self insurance mechanism (which then encourages 'normal employment' further and can harm overall well-being, given the negative impact on labour mobility)

    Its more than a slight effect. Minimum wages are crucial in capitalism. They're less relevant in socialism, but still have a place (given SMEs)

    Again, I can't agree. You do not change the status quo by doing so little. You change it by helping to defeat the elite's candidate.
     
  6. CourtJester

    CourtJester Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2013
    Messages:
    27,769
    Likes Received:
    4,921
    Trophy Points:
    113
    How do you define " elite" in relation to voting for Trump as opposed to Hillary?
     
    Last edited: Jan 5, 2018
  7. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You want me to define the elite? Bit obvious really. Trump isn't anti-elite, but his innate stupidity will threaten reproduction of elite profit/rent
     
  8. CourtJester

    CourtJester Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2013
    Messages:
    27,769
    Likes Received:
    4,921
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Sorry your statement was your family voted for Trump to kick the elites in the crotch . So are you saying your family voted for a moron in order somehow to get even with the intelligent?

    And what does reproduction of elite profit/ rent mean. Those who qualify as elite, at least as measured by wealth, seem to be doing very well with the Trump presidency.
     
  9. OldManOnFire

    OldManOnFire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    19,980
    Likes Received:
    1,177
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I would think self-employment will increase as poverty risk increases because it is an option to employment. Don't know about other nations but in the US welfare is bare-bones...nothing that will keep anyone out of poverty.

    I don't agree on MW being critical in capitalism. Very few workers actually receive MW. Most all urban and high employment centers have MW much high that federal rates. It's simply supply and demand of labor coupled with cost of living issues.

    I will always vote for the person whom I believe is best suited for the job no matter the color of their political stripes. If no one is suitable I will do a no vote...
     
  10. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Nope! Countries with higher poverty risk have lower self-employment rates. You can expect short term effects. Thatcher, provoking negative deindustrialisation through the stupidity of monetarism, forced people into self-employment. However, that was only by destroying productive jobs. The effect also tended to tail off as 'normal employment' opportunities returned and new firms died.

    As I previously said, you haven't factored in how wage differentials are partially restored by the minimum wage (ensuring that the impact also impacts on non-minimum wage workers). This is crucial as we know that monopsonistic market failure generates wages that are inefficiently low.

    So would I. But a lot of folk did vote for 'change'. Although sickened by the choice between Clinton and Trump, voting for the elite's hawkish candidate raised the bile levels too high.
     
  11. OldManOnFire

    OldManOnFire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    19,980
    Likes Received:
    1,177
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There are only so many options to keep busy and/or earn an income; normal employment, self-employment, welfare, armed services, volunteer...live with the parents. Seems that removing normal employment as an option will encourage more to consider self-employment. But it might also push more to welfare, armed services, and living with the parents...which would lower self-employment rates.

    I don't see how anything can effect wages more than supply and demand of labor. And when we have far more people wanting to work than we have jobs, the wages will be lower...no conspiracy...no market failure.

    Like I said, each person should vote for a candidate that will be in the best interest of the nation...we failed to do that in 2016...
     
  12. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That wouldn't lower self-employment rates though. It would simply shift workers from employment to less-productive activity. As I said, the evidence points to a positive relationship between welfare generosity and self-employment rates. That's amusing, given the rabid right wing types that spit at welfare dependency while trying to lord entrepreneurial spirit.

    Monopsonistic market failure is merely a reference to labour supply. The firm has wage making power (i.e. if it reduces its wages it does not lose all of its workers). That is sufficient to conclude that minimum wages are efficiency enhancing.

    The failure was ultimately the Democrats who allowed Hillary to go forward.
     
  13. OldManOnFire

    OldManOnFire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    19,980
    Likes Received:
    1,177
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Except for entrepreneurial types, healthy normal employment should reduce self-employment. Given a choice between poverty and self-employment, no matter the welfare state, it's pathetic more do not look to self-employment...and crime is not self-employment.

    Even in monopsonistic scenarios, it is the worker who accepts or rejects the wage. Business is required to pay compensation rates that allow them to hire and sustain their required labor. Sure some company in an area can try to force wages below market values but this is rare in the grand scheme. Who can a worker blame if their only option is to take what others give them?

    I won't discuss politics but the failure of Democrats is not Hillary...it's the Democrats...
     
  14. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    But it isn't about 'healthy normal employment'. We know that there is a significant difference between desired and actual self-employment rates in neo-liberal countries like the UK and the US. That illustrates the lack of choice imposed by economic inequalities and social immobility.

    A parent that risks their family through the risks of self-employment? They exist, but most won't.

    They have to accept. Having naff all isn't particularly attractive.

    Wrong I'm afraid (and I wish I wasn't). Once we have those monopsonistic scenarios, most workers will be paid below market values.

    Democrats who went for Hillary. The perfect candidate for an oaf like Trump.
     
  15. OldManOnFire

    OldManOnFire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    19,980
    Likes Received:
    1,177
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The difference between 'desired and actual' self-employment starts with the person's desire and/or perseverance in such ventures.

    Self-employment, on some scale, can be an option.

    Why does a worker place themselves in a situation in which their entire work life, including compensation, is controlled by others? Once again, each person makes 100% of the decisions in their lives...if they don't like something then they need to change something.

    Monopsony, although it exists, is rare. At the end of the day people make 100% of their decisions...
     
  16. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    We don't need to over-complicate it. They want to be self-employed but they can't. Evidence, as already mentioned, points to protecting family well-being.

    Choice is largely an illusion. We saw that with education. The supply-siders said "its your fault that you're poor, you haven't invested in human capital". So what happened when folk did invest more in education? We saw rapid growth in underemployment, as graduates were forced into non-graduate employment.

    I don't think my dad liked working 12 hour shifts until his joints gave up and he 'welcomed' permanent pain. Of course he got on with it as, without that sacrifice, the family would have suffered absolute poverty. A class ridden society presents little real choice as there is no equality of opportunity. That's what has always amused me about the US. All that effort to break free from the Limeys? End result? Just as class ridden.

    The economics shows that monopsonistic power is the norm. The worker's decision is straight-forward: accept a wage below their worth or accept unemployment.
     
  17. OldManOnFire

    OldManOnFire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    19,980
    Likes Received:
    1,177
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Plenty of self-employed people come from poverty, come from the lower classes. Yes it's difficult to achieve but this is the case for most anyone starting from scratch. One nasty expectation in the US is people think they can make unlimited money being self-employed so when they fail to achieve this quickly they give up. It's hard to achieve, it takes baby steps, it takes patience, many times it takes failure, but those who persevere do have a chance.

    Education is absolutely necessary to differentiate from others in the work place! Just because someone received a college degree does not guarantee them perfect employment. Even with the education credentials job seekers must compete for jobs.

    Ref. your father, not immediately but over time he could have found something else to do. All of us must do whatever is needed in the short term due to circumstances beyond our control, but we do control the long term. Yes there can be little choice but the key is there is always choice...
     
  18. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    A lucky few do. There are many more in countries with generous welfare states. Countries like the US exhibit low social mobility. That isn't a supply-side phenomenon. We can't simply say Americans are, on average, somehow more cretinous than their European counterparts.

    New firms will often go to the wall. That happens everywhere. The difference is that the risks in the US are higher. The negative consequences for well-being are significant.

    The point with education is that it has demonstrated how supply-side economics fails. It ignores that structural flaws are typically demand orientated. The days of 'blame the poor' should be long gone.

    There are on-the-job search elements, but that is typically more of the same. Choice was virtually nil. He works until he drops, or his family lose their house.

    Keynes got it right- in the long run we are all dead. That's when equality does finally kicks in. Worm food doesn't need much land.
     
  19. OldManOnFire

    OldManOnFire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    19,980
    Likes Received:
    1,177
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I can understand the difficulties that life presents to us...after all I have expended most of my life now and have experienced these and other challenges. I've made mistakes, I've made good decisions, and I've been lucky. All along my path it was me making the decisions and I paid dearly when I was lazy and stupid...but at these junctures I did not blame others or society for my failures. I had choices at every step and it was those choices that took me to where I am today. I cannot imagine that other people do not go through the identical process. Welfare is a temporary band-aid. I've worked in three US locations in order to apply my craft to reach higher potential and better compensation, etc. It would have been great if I could have remained in my first home but if I wanted a change, wanted more in life, my choice was to relocate. The writing was on the wall for me...either accept less, or nothing, or go for the brass ring. It's not about 'blaming' something, like blaming the individual or society or karma, etc. It's about managing our lives to achieve what it is 'we' wish to achieve. I didn't place those auto-signature comments on my posts to be cute...they very much relate to life. Another credo I have always lived by since reading the comment from a futurist when I was in my 20's says; If WE do not CONTROL our lives...someone else surely will! Whether it's choosing welfare, obtaining education, or skills, or relocating, or learning how to break-dance, or seeking self-employment, etc. etc. it is up to each of us to pursue...
     
  20. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yep. We all have to factor in luck and decision error. However, for a lot of people it doesn't matter. It certainly matters less for both ends of the distribution. And let's not forget that the US is one of the few countries where there is a well documented underclass problem (where there is effectively zero social mobility).

    I can agree that we shouldn't adopt the blame game. I don't blame the employer, for example, for failing to suitable invest in the workforce. They're typically just reacting to market conditions after all. Indeed, as we reject supply-side economics, we necessarily shift away from the blame game. America's low social mobility rate isn't due to some fecklessness, some innate cultural flaw negatively impacting on the individual American. It is demand-led. It is a structural flaw in the economy (and all economic agents are simply having to deal with the consequences)

    It isn't about control. It is about the illusion of choice.
     
  21. OldManOnFire

    OldManOnFire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    19,980
    Likes Received:
    1,177
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There's no such thing as 'zero social mobility' unless a person has zero potential. And this does not apply only to an underclass...it applies to all people. Again, it's not easy to simply make decisions and take actions to force paradigm shifts in people's lives. But it's always an option!

    Social mobility can be measured in many ways; just getting a job is mobility. The root issue is that the private sector can never provide everything that every worker desires...there will be winners and losers. Just the location of a person, assuming they refuse to relocate, relegates them to whatever is available in their local area. Since the private sector cannot provide everything for everyone...there is strong competition in the workplace and economy.

    Choice is not an illusion...
     
  22. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Income distributions shows a lot of volatility. By definition, an underclass does not. This isn't opinion. This is an empirical finding.

    Refer me to one economic definition of mobility that shows the US in a good light.

    I've seen many people work themselves into their graves. They chose to do that did they? Take the low skilled equilibrium that neo-liberal countries tend to suffer from. That has nothing to do with supply-side 'choices'. It is demand led.
     
  23. Longshot

    Longshot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2011
    Messages:
    18,068
    Likes Received:
    2,644
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You make a good point. Here's another: Factory worker takes some of his money and buys his child a Diary Queen sunday. Should the child pay taxes on this "income"?

    Here's another story: Factory worker dies and in his will he buys his child a Dairy Queen sunday. Should the child pay taxes on his "income"?
     
    Last edited: Jan 14, 2018
  24. Longshot

    Longshot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2011
    Messages:
    18,068
    Likes Received:
    2,644
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Isn't it great that the state has such power to keep people in it's lap? Statism, right?
     
  25. OldManOnFire

    OldManOnFire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    19,980
    Likes Received:
    1,177
    Trophy Points:
    113
    http://www.nber.org/papers/w19844
     

Share This Page