Death tax

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

  1. OldManOnFire

    OldManOnFire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    16,832
    Likes Received:
    229
    Trophy Points:
    63
    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...
     
  2. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    27,941
    Likes Received:
    165
    Trophy Points:
    63
    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.
     
  3. OldManOnFire

    OldManOnFire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    16,832
    Likes Received:
    229
    Trophy Points:
    63
    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...
     
  4. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    27,941
    Likes Received:
    165
    Trophy Points:
    63
    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.
     
  5. OldManOnFire

    OldManOnFire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    16,832
    Likes Received:
    229
    Trophy Points:
    63
    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...
     
  6. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    27,941
    Likes Received:
    165
    Trophy Points:
    63
    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.
     
  7. OldManOnFire

    OldManOnFire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    16,832
    Likes Received:
    229
    Trophy Points:
    63
    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...
     
  8. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    27,941
    Likes Received:
    165
    Trophy Points:
    63
    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.
     
  9. OldManOnFire

    OldManOnFire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    16,832
    Likes Received:
    229
    Trophy Points:
    63
    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...
     
  10. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    27,941
    Likes Received:
    165
    Trophy Points:
    63
    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.
     
  11. OldManOnFire

    OldManOnFire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    16,832
    Likes Received:
    229
    Trophy Points:
    63
    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...
     
  12. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    27,941
    Likes Received:
    165
    Trophy Points:
    63
    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.
     
  13. Longshot

    Longshot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2011
    Messages:
    8,411
    Likes Received:
    707
    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 at 7:58 PM
  14. Longshot

    Longshot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2011
    Messages:
    8,411
    Likes Received:
    707
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Isn't it great that the state has such power to keep people in it's lap? Statism, right?
     
  15. OldManOnFire

    OldManOnFire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    16,832
    Likes Received:
    229
    Trophy Points:
    63
    http://www.nber.org/papers/w19844
     
  16. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    27,941
    Likes Received:
    165
    Trophy Points:
    63
    That doesn't provide international comparisons. Its results also aren't particularly appealing: "because inequality has risen, the consequences of the "birth lottery" - the parents to whom a child is born - are larger today than in the past"
     
  17. OldManOnFire

    OldManOnFire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    16,832
    Likes Received:
    229
    Trophy Points:
    63
    It specifically spoke to mobility in the US. Don't care about mobility in Pakistan versus the US. There are millions of immigrant stories over the past 125 years, including today, in which people arrive in the US with almost nothing, and with hard work and determination, can eek out a life in the US, can start a business...all of them are upward mobility stories!
     
  18. crank

    crank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2013
    Messages:
    18,430
    Likes Received:
    2,348
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Only if poor course choices are made. Medicine, computer sciences, commerce, dentistry, pharmacy, engineering etc graduates get jobs, and well paid ones at that. Not so much the Bachelor of Arts.
     
  19. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    27,941
    Likes Received:
    165
    Trophy Points:
    63
    It didn't show mobility improving, nor did it show that the US has higher mobility than other Western nations.

    Then why is social mobility so low compared to other developed countries?
     
  20. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    27,941
    Likes Received:
    165
    Trophy Points:
    63
    You miss the point. Take Economists. With an increase in graduates, you then saw a significant increase in MSc investments as folk tried again to stand out. Demand-constraints for you
     

Share This Page