What Is Economic Fairness?

PROGRESSIVE TAXATION - NOT JUST A THEORY

For the moment, and until we change radically income taxation making it more progressive, nothing will change. Since tax-law provides the incentive to make as much as possible, and by any means possible.

How do we get more progressive tax-rates? First, by wanting them - a volition that the US government has never ever demonstrated. Then by implementing tax-progressiveness.

What does that look like?

Here is the best explanation: Progressive Tax - Measuring Progressivity - from which we see this infographic demonstrating a typical progressive income tax (actually that of Germany):


Click here to expand the infographic - the black line above is the Marginal Tax Rate and the Red Line the Average Tax Rate.

Excerpt:

Furthermore:

MY POINT?

"Where there's a will there's a way." In America, there is no great desire for more equitable progressive taxation amongst the population. Besides, the Replicants would do all "that money could buy" in order to make sure it never happens ....

 

Progressive tax dis-incentives working harder than anyone else.

It is a mandate for slacking. Those who profit most from it are those who do nothing at all.

 

Meanwhile, we all participate in creating poverty in order to subsidize the aristocracy.

Citigroup Drove Puerto Rico Into Debt. Now It Will Profit From Privatization on the Island.
https://theintercept.com/2018/02/21/citigroup-citi-puerto-rico-debt/

And this is happening here as well.

 

Another statement lacking credibility! The main work disincentive effects are on the lower paid, reflecting high marginal rates of tax created through the interaction of welfare and tax systems. Progressive taxes can actually increase work incentives, given the backward bending labour supply schedule.

 

Is that what you do?

 

They don't need your help. If you are offended at the rich, you don't yet know how money works. As to Puerto Rico, they had the chance to ask to be a state, turned it down. From what i see, Democrats run that island. We expect where Democrats run cities, the cities will have an abundance of poverty.

 

How money works .... tiny primer

Money we use, only has to be in sufficient supply that nobody runs out of money due to the money others have. Currency you have in your wallet is not all of the money. Checking accounts are money. Factually the typical American varies in sums on hand, but one survey done in 2014 claims the average is about $4,436 and then you factor in the savings accounts.

https://www.cheatsheet.com/money-career/average-american-bank-account.html/?a=viewall



Now $5,000 or $10,000 is hardly rich, but you are not broke either. So the conclusion? The rich do not have your money. Normally we do not measure the wealthy by cash in their banks since most will keep money working and it is being used by borrowers. So when you buy that wonderful home, thank the wealthy since they made it possible for you to live well.

 

That is the economic theory saying that the higher prices you have on new automobiles, the dealers did you a favor by improving your economy.

 

I've never accepted a state benefit in my life. I have been eligible for them most of my life and still am.

Currently I work 50 hour weeks for minimum wage and have a weekend job that pays rather better.
When I can afford to, I slack on my own bill. And I have done way more slacking than most. I took early retirement about 20 years ago, but now I want more money.

I spent the last 6 months in an Amazon style workplace. Closest thing we have to a sweatshop. I enjoyed it. At Christmas peak I was working 75 hour weeks.
When I first started my own business I typically worked 120 hour weeks and for no money for about 4 years in a row.
So this is a doss.

Pfft @immigrant labour. I am a Brexit Boy. Foreigners can't compete.



What do you do?

 

But yiu said you would profit most by doing nothing at all?

 

Good question. Just I can reply, economy couldn't help the productivity surely as you mean.

 

Finally the government should help and prevent the activity of the citizens by the policy. Thus we must consider about affection of tax rating against profits of economic activity. Everyday citizens get activity with each of wealth.

 

what is fairness? capitalism wherein you are free to engage only in transactions that you think are fair.

 

Yes.
If I do nothing at all, I will get paid for it by other peoples taxes
Which is a far better profit.

Something for nothing. 100% profit. No cost to me at all.

Why should I work harder than the next man if we all get the same money?
I should work less hard for the same money.
Or not at all.

So progressive taxes penalise those who work harder. And better reward those who work less.
The less you work the less you pay.

The maximum benefits i can claim in this country is capped at £25,000. Above the average wage. My minimum wage pays 2/5 of this.
I would get more money on benefits.
Why work? I could play Xbox all day and have more.

Why work?
Answer: because I am right wing. I will not participate in this crap.
Money and self interest isn't everything in life.

 

Shame you couldn't muster any relevance. Backward bending labour supply is a mere reference to the characteristics of income and substitution effects. Econ 101 no less. The importance of effective marginal rates of tax has been acknowledged by left and right wing analysis. See, for example, Friedman's negative income tax

 

Take the history of the welfare state. Britain's early policy didn't reflect any concerns over equity. It reflected imperialist competition with Germany.

Equity goes way beyond basic income criteria

 

KEY INGREDIENTS

No, all you have to do is add-up those countries that belong to the EU. They all have higher taxation rates than the US. Why?

Because people like you (blinded) think that "government services are a handout". So, they must be minimized. (We don't want the poor-slobs rampaging in the streets, do we?!?)

Which is the sort of pure ignorance that in the US provides (1) a Private Health Care service that is twice/three times more expensive per capita than in Europe (see here), and (2) post-secondary education at state-schools that are 2/3/4 times more expensive than in most EU countries (where it is either free or nearly free entry - see that fact here).

Now, if Americans want to live with the above then that is certainly their business. But, given the resulting outcomes economically and in terms of longevity/lifespan (see that here) then that mentality is kinda-sorta stoopid.

The prevailing-principle is simple: National Healthcare and state-provided Post-secondary Education are key-ingredients to a wholesome lifestyle with individual longevity.

 

Remember, you can repeat the above truths a thousand times here in this forum and not many will believe you.

One must hope for a societal awakening in America, but for the moment it is still as it was at the origin of the nation. That is, a Darwinian economic "survival of the fittest".

I like to place here Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, first improvised in the early 1940s, which is a pyramidic formulation of mankind's life-expectations regardless of geography or religion:

So, forum Boyz-'n-Girlz do tell me how the above is out of date in "modern America" - after all, it's more than 60 years old ... !

 

Anecdotal. This is an economics forum, and what matters most is "aggregate data".

Consider how wrong you are about who gets what in terms of sharing Wealth. First of all, more important than just Wealth is Net Worth. Which is Wealth minus debt/liabilities.

Or, from WikiPedia:

For your edification, and about who gets Wealth and how much in America (the very first step towards the Golden Globe of Net Worth, in which real riches are denominated):


And in case you don't know how to read that graphic: Nowadays, the top 0.1% of American families own only very slightly less than the other 90% of families, which is around 20% of the total.

So, if 90% of Americans own 20% and 0.1% of us own 20% of total Wealth ... then who owns the other 60%. Those remaining - that is, 10% of American families!

The rich don't have most of our net of debt money-wealth (aka Net Worth)? What planet do you live on?

Because you are a 10Percenter (and you are in orbit turning around the rest of us on earth) or a 10Percenter orbit "wannabe".

And you haven't the foggiest notion of what means Income Disparity ...

*In brackets, my entry.

 

Did you write the above post? Wealth is net worth. Holy cow. You are not talking to an economist, but you are talking to a person who for the past 51 years has used both the balance sheet and the income sheets to measure this. For clients they must complete their forms with the data and verify using the tax return. In business we always use the financial forms to not only know what the net worth is but to see about the cash flows.

Money is only one issue. For example take the fish merchant who has boats to catch fish. Fish in the ocean represent unearned wealth or income. Fish on the boat convert to on hand potential wealth. On the dock they then are processed and upon sale become money in the bank.

So wealth is pent up cash holdings in the liquid or non liquid state. Cash in the wallet is very liquid. Cash in the bank is usable but until it is cash or in hands of others, it is transitional. Given the debit card one can say that cash in the bank moves from me to you very quickly. At times even using the debit card, the vendor receives the cash in several days rather than instantly. Most Americans do not really understand money. To them the only money is currency and coin.

 

I have no idea what made you say that in red?

Do you have a point or is that a taunt?

Who told you that I don't understand income disparity? Do you realize this term has to have come from either a Democrat or perhaps a socialist or communist? It is a social term.

I do not have nor will have the worth of Bill Gates nor his cash flow. But why compare myself to him? Why not see that he had excellent programing skills and salesmanship and my field does not lend to his sort of wealth.

Does this mean the carpenter making far less is a lousy human or less worthy than Bill Gates? I don't think the carpenter is less valuable. My son builds homes in the range of 3,000 to 5,000 sq feet. But say he lives in a home of 2700 sq ft, is he less worthy than the buyer of a home he built with 5,000 sq ft?

Democrats have fatal flaws on how they look both at life and wealth.

 

I want you to read the post 121. I did not have the inclination to look up all those countries and try to collect enough to accurately compare to the USA. i see the 50 states of the USA as 50 individual governments anyway. I do not see Wyoming in the same terms as we see New York City or here in CA.

As to health care, yesterday I spoke to two Chinese who both agreed with each other. I asked the female student what the health care is in China. She told me Chinese go to doctors and pay their own bills. She said in case of hospitalization, then you can seek the government pay 90 percent. The business executive I spoke to also from China confirmed this. It is futile to speak of other systems since we don't use those systems. I tend to doubt we ever will.

I am very pragmatic. I can see life as you want me to, or i can see life in my bubble or I could try to figure out how to get into the Bill Gates bubble. But to not be in his, and speculate, I need some plans and goals and financial means to do what he did. Jeff Bezos became a billionaire quicker I think than did Gates. And Bezos probably will outperform him for years to come. But is either worse off over them having different net worths or incomes?

So many in America do not understand business. They understand being hired and collecting a check, but they do not understand business. We have some Democrats who do understand business but they do not appear to be passing it along to their fellow democrats.

Now why don't Democrats understand government since all presumably went to school and teachers taught government? Government can be a type to solve roads problems or one that can manage your life. I choose the former.

 

I suggest that every American citizen take the full year course in Business law. This title goes into much more than law. Money is explained in the course. Accounting courses are very valuable. I once took the Dunn and Bradstreet course in credit. Their course is very good and offered via mail or the internet.

Motivation to earn is a different topic and most of what I know of this is hands on experience at owing firms where I rewarded the workers per their efforts and not some rigid hourly wage. If they performed at 100 percent effort and skill, they got paid more than those at the 50 percent level. Men have different needs. Some want to be billionaires yet most do not.

 

Picketty is worthless because he doesn’t take into account the income people are given by government so they won’t be poor. Moreover most Americans rent property and consume as much as possible without trying to accumulate wealth But this does not mean they are poor or that they have a low standard of living or they have no wealth.

 

You're effectively saying that fairness in capitalism is impossible. Orthodox economics acknowledges that economic outcome reflects both exchange and conflict. The latter, referring to zero sum games rather than mutually beneficial exchange, must involve an attack on fairness by definition.