Economics, what's that?

[jonesthecurl]

FDR in 1936 raised it to 79 percent (no joke)
during the 40s-50's it appears to peak above 90 percent according to one of the tables in this pdf

Yikes!

In the UK in the 60's it was 95% - anyone heard the Beatles "Taxman"?

Here's one for you, nineteen for me....

and

If five per cent appear too small be thankful I don't take it all...

[jonesthecurl]

You cannot continually lay off folks, cut wages to appease stockholders... raise prices ... and still expect folks to have money to buy things.

In this recession and downturn and time of poor business... the divide between the wealthy and the not wealthy (I don't say poor ... we are not truly poor in the US, despite all) is the highest it has ever been.

And, the percetage taxes they pay has never been lower ... though you would never know that listening to most of the news. (the "a bit above middle class" group, to contrast pay a great deal ... the truly wealthy don't).

Err...yes, you really can. You see, you cut wages, appeasing stockholders, who have more money, and buy things. Meanwhile, if dissatisfied with their wages, the workers can go provide a service for which there is a higher demand, and hence receive a higher wage. This makes the economy more efficient. Yah?

Neil Kinnock once said "I've never understood why, to incentivise rich people we must give them more money, but to incentivise poor people we must give them less."

[suggs]

Taxes are the price you pay for living in a civilized society, to paraphrase that Republican senator whose name i have forgotten.
btw are there any sensible republicans left in the USA, or are they all religious?

[suggs]

Great quote Jonescurl. Never seen that, class. Nice one.

Also, the idea that cutting taxes increases productivity/incentive to work more just isnt backed up by economics.
It helps early on, when you havent got much money, but the richer you get the less difference it makes.
After all, if you are a millionaire, and your taxes are cut, are you gonna go back to work, or buy another swimming pool?
At some point people want to enjoy their leisure.

In short, cutting taxes doesnt increase incentives to work. Although it might help increase spending.

[Napoleon Ier]

You cannot continually lay off folks, cut wages to appease stockholders... raise prices ... and still expect folks to have money to buy things.

In this recession and downturn and time of poor business... the divide between the wealthy and the not wealthy (I don't say poor ... we are not truly poor in the US, despite all) is the highest it has ever been.

And, the percetage taxes they pay has never been lower ... though you would never know that listening to most of the news. (the "a bit above middle class" group, to contrast pay a great deal ... the truly wealthy don't).

Err...yes, you really can. You see, you cut wages, appeasing stockholders, who have more money, and buy things. Meanwhile, if dissatisfied with their wages, the workers can go provide a service for which there is a higher demand, and hence receive a higher wage. This makes the economy more efficient. Yah?

Neil Kinnock once said "I've never understood why, to incentivise rich people we must give them more money, but to incentivise poor people we must give them less."

Clearly, he was an absolute mongoloid. Who is giving who what? The Government is allowing rich people to keep money they've earned, whilst it's not letting gormless mancuan twats or lazy immigrant fucks get money they haven't earned. In other words, you incentivise everyone by making them work for their money and letting them keep it once they've earned it. Rather than pay it out to cretin bureaucrats to fill out unnecessary forms, submit endlessly re-edited and pointless documents, and drink fair-trade tea whilst reading the Guardian culture supplement all day long in a cubicle.

[Napoleon Ier]

After all, if you are a millionaire, and your taxes are cut, are you gonna go back to work, or buy another swimming pool?
At some point people want to enjoy their leisure.

Don't they have a right to enjoy leisure? And who do you think receives the money for the pool? Gonzales the recently arrived immigrant, your bestest buddy. So rather than get paid a subsidy for sitting on his pathetic arse all day, he has do some bloody work. So the capital trickles-down, yeah?

[suggs]

Sure, they have a right to enjoy leisure. I've nothing against the rich.
But my point was that cutting taxes for the rich doesnt meen the rich will work more.
They might spend more, or they might save more.

Trickle down theory simply isnt true Nap, because of the liklihhod of the rich putting their money in tax free havens, or secure investments -again, nothing wrong with that. But it doesnt trickle down the economy.

The very small amount that does is normally overcompenasted by regressive taxation anyway.

[heavycola]

You cannot continually lay off folks, cut wages to appease stockholders... raise prices ... and still expect folks to have money to buy things.

In this recession and downturn and time of poor business... the divide between the wealthy and the not wealthy (I don't say poor ... we are not truly poor in the US, despite all) is the highest it has ever been.

And, the percetage taxes they pay has never been lower ... though you would never know that listening to most of the news. (the "a bit above middle class" group, to contrast pay a great deal ... the truly wealthy don't).

Err...yes, you really can. You see, you cut wages, appeasing stockholders, who have more money, and buy things. Meanwhile, if dissatisfied with their wages, the workers can go provide a service for which there is a higher demand, and hence receive a higher wage. This makes the economy more efficient. Yah?

Neil Kinnock once said "I've never understood why, to incentivise rich people we must give them more money, but to incentivise poor people we must give them less."

Clearly, he was an absolute mongoloid. Who is giving who what? The Government is allowing rich people to keep money they've earned, whilst it's not letting gormless mancuan twats or lazy immigrant fucks get money they haven't earned. In other words, you incentivise everyone by making them work for their money and letting them keep it once they've earned it. Rather than pay it out to cretin bureaucrats to fill out unnecessary forms, submit endlessly re-edited and pointless documents, and drink fair-trade tea whilst reading the Guardian culture supplement all day long in a cubicle.

Dear red rag,

By 'Mancuan twats' i assume you mean northern working class people? Also, if i could contiune to respond to your obvious trollery for a second, why lazy immigrant fucks? Why not just lazy fucks?

I digress.
What Kinnock was talking about, clearly, was cutting taxes and cutting wages/benefits.
The 'benefit' for 'lazy fucks' is, presumably, jobseekers' allowance. I had to live on it for a few months many years ago, and it is fucking horrible. Pennies. Enough to keep body and soul together, certainly not enough for a social life.
Your problem is that it behooves you to compartmentalise everyone, because that makes it easier to throw around your lazy epithets and crass stereotypes. In Nappy's head, bureaucrats/civil servants/local authorities are all communist cretins; immigrants are bad; all bureaucracy is unnecessary; and all french people stink of garlic and BO. It is lazy thinking. The world does not work like this, as you will hopefully discover when you take your first faltering steps in it.

Cheers,
Bull

[suggs]

To clarify, its all tied up with what economiuss call the marginal propensities.
Cutting taxes for the poor WILL prob mean they work more, because they benefit more, percentage wise, than the rich. (ie, their marginal propensity to supply work is higher than the rich).
Which is why is better for the economy over all to cut taxes for the poor, and less so for the rich.

[Napoleon Ier]

Sure, they have a right to enjoy leisure. I've nothing against the rich.
But my point was that cutting taxes for the rich doesnt meen the rich will work more.
They might spend more, or they might save more.

Trickle down theory simply isnt true Nap, because of the liklihhod of the rich putting their money in tax free havens, or secure investments -again, nothing wrong with that. But it doesnt trickle down the economy.

The very small amount that does is normally overcompenasted by regressive taxation anyway.

Trickle-down isn't true as you understand it, even, since actually, the sequence of payments works in reverse of that assumed by trickle-down economics. But increased spending by the rich is a good thing, probably better than government spending.
The point though, the point you see, is this: tax cuts work. In the 1980s, 20ss and 60s, taxes in the US were cut, and revenues rose. Sure, you shouldn't deficit spend by printing money, but the fundamental truth is that tax cuts make the economy work more smoothly, with less cranky government spanners getting caught up in the works.

[got tonkaed]

Sure, they have a right to enjoy leisure. I've nothing against the rich.
But my point was that cutting taxes for the rich doesnt meen the rich will work more.
They might spend more, or they might save more.

Trickle down theory simply isnt true Nap, because of the liklihhod of the rich putting their money in tax free havens, or secure investments -again, nothing wrong with that. But it doesnt trickle down the economy.

The very small amount that does is normally overcompenasted by regressive taxation anyway.

Trickle-down isn't true as you understand it, even, since actually, the sequence of payments works in reverse of that assumed by trickle-down economics. But increased spending by the rich is a good thing, probably better than government spending.
The point though, the point you see, is this: tax cuts work. In the 1980s, 20ss and 60s, taxes in the US were cut, and revenues rose. Sure, you shouldn't deficit spend by printing money, but the fundamental truth is that tax cuts make the economy work more smoothly, with less cranky government spanners getting caught up in the works.

I think its certainly worth saying you could make a case against those 3 examples. While your bit there is pretty consistent in its approach the counterargument isnt exactly weak, but it obviously cant be made on the same ground you trying to talk about it from.

[suggs]

FOR FUCKS SAKE, TONK, GET OFF THE FENCE.

[suggs]

And Nap, look at those three decades you list.
Tell me: what happened in the decades immediately succeeding them?

[got tonkaed]

FOR FUCKS SAKE, TONK, GET OFF THE FENCE.

lol its obvious what side i am on...im just acknowledging there are elements of napoleons argument that are more true than other parts. Just because you bring up what one argument gets right in part, doesnt mean you hold with that argument.

When i make posts that are "on the fence" im probably doing better than when i make posts that dont (for reasons that i probably only understand)

[suggs]

Just say what you really think. Anything is else is just bollocks.
Which is why I currently respect Nap more than you.
Hopefully, you couldnt give a BADGERS ARSE about whether I "respect" you or not.
But, christ, tell us what you really think.

[Napoleon Ier]

And Nap, look at those three decades you list.
Tell me: what happened in the decades immediately succeeding them?

Ahh, but as the old axiom goes, correlation does not mean causation, yah? No, if anything, I'd say, look at what the mongs who were in power at the time did to end the boom, and you'll find it's always because they strayed from good monetarist an capitalist principles: Hoover's cronies at the Washington branch of the Fed refusing to keep the currency stable, Carter and his goons handling the economy without reference to any serious economic principles, let alone Capitalist ones, then Bush Sr. spending, spending and spending...

[Napoleon Ier]

f*ck sake tonky...call me an inhuman brainless capitalist pig if you want to, already. It'll be cathartic, I promise.

[got tonkaed]

f*ck sake tonky...call me an inhuman brainless capitalist pig if you want to, already. It'll be cathartic, I promise.

that would be silly. Just because you tend to like your dish the same way most days doesnt make you a pariah. Youd just get caught being too ideological, and i do the same thing myself from time to time so i probably cant begrudge you for that.

[got tonkaed]

Just say what you really think. Anything is else is just bollocks.
Which is why I currently respect Nap more than you.
Hopefully, you couldnt give a BADGERS ARSE about whether I "respect" you or not.
But, christ, tell us what you really think.

Eh intellectually for a variety of reasons i disagree with the first line. Its pretty similar to what ive stated in the past and im sure ill state it again, its not hard to know where i stand when you read my posts. I actually dont like to be ideological, and it appears i have been far too ideological for quite some time on the board, so hopefully ill move to following the stances i prefer (though they are perhaps less interesting to read) which i havent been as good at lately.

[Napoleon Ier]

Dear red rag,

By 'Mancuan twats' i assume you mean northern working class people? Also, if i could contiune to respond to your obvious trollery for a second, why lazy immigrant fucks? Why not just lazy fucks?

I digress.
What Kinnock was talking about, clearly, was cutting taxes and cutting wages/benefits.
The 'benefit' for 'lazy fucks' is, presumably, jobseekers' allowance. I had to live on it for a few months many years ago, and it is fucking horrible. Pennies. Enough to keep body and soul together, certainly not enough for a social life.
Your problem is that it behooves you to compartmentalise everyone, because that makes it easier to throw around your lazy epithets and crass stereotypes. In Nappy's head, bureaucrats/civil servants/local authorities are all communist cretins; immigrants are bad; all bureaucracy is unnecessary; and all french people stink of garlic and BO. It is lazy thinking. The world does not work like this, as you will hopefully discover when you take your first faltering steps in it.

Cheers,
Bull

Hello again, Red Robbo,

by Mancuan twats, I mean lazy, arrogant chavs who refuse to work, have the lexicon and syntax of five year olds, and leech money which some spangly-jacketed lemon-tea swilling public servant legally plundered from an honest, hard-worker.

I prefer to specify "immigrants" as being the lazy fucks in question, because it induces fair-trade-tofu eating nuu-laybor-loving Guardian readers with sticks so far up their arses they come out their mouths like you to jump from their chairs with a girlish yelp and begin whinging about latent wacism and what a blessing selling out our culture to Mohammedan savages is etc...a most amusing display for me.

I digress.
What Kinnock was talking about, clearly, was cutting taxes and cutting wages/benefits. Obviously, he's wrongto dichotomize,since both are effective disincentivizations because they involve disruptions of the market's laws of supply and demand.
The 'benefit' for 'lazy fucks' is, indeed, jobseekers' allowance. Apparently, you've had to live on it for a few months many years ago. Wasit is soooo horrible? Diddums...I suppose you had to give up your evening spliff, and could only sleep with thai-ladyboys once a week. Enough to keep body and soul together, but certainly not enough to fund the old Guardian-addiction or to get best-brand tofu...cry me a fucking river. On a serious note, do you have hard statistics and empirical evidence to back your views, or just unverifiable, subjective personal anecdote?
Your problem is that it behooves you to compartmentalise everyone, because that makes it easier to throw around your lazy epithets and crass stereotypes. In Cola's head, bankers/entrepreneurs/economists are all capitalist pigs; immigrants are lovely-jovely; all bureaucracy is necessary; and all french people are left-wing left-bank existentialists. It is lazy thinking. Economics do not work like this, as you will hopefully discover if you take your first faltering steps reading a proper fucking textbook.

[Neoteny]

You say "tofu-eating" like it's a bad thing. But it can be really good if prepared properly. Since I'm broke, I tend to toss it in to my beef ramen to add some protein, along with some mushrooms if I can afford them that week. Perhaps if I kept away from the mushrooms, I could afford some beef, but, like their hallucinogenic cousins that I keep hearing about, they are too good to resist. So I stick with the tofu.

[suggs]

That explains it.

[CoffeeCream]

I think i dont like the way these statistics present the picture. To me this seems like an approach that ends up showing something that isnt really there. First if you take the tax schedule from 2007 (the 2008 isnt published as far as i can quick search) if you take a family filing the bottom of the 6 brackets cuts off at 11,200. So we say they raise by 90 percent. Being generous (since we probably will need to be...) 90 percent of 11,200 comes out as =10080 bringing us to a total of 21,280. As that bumps us up... we should be paying 1,120 plus 15 percent of anything over 11,200 which is 1512. So it seems we are paying 2632 knocking us back under the 20k mark. The poverty line for the family of 3 in 2008 is 17,600. So i think its pretty fair to say that 90 percent increase, while incredibly helpful, isnt exactly creating fertile conditions for upward mobility.

What does a 3 percent increase in the top 10 percent look like? I cant get a reliable number unless we use 5 percent, so lets use the top 5. census data puts that at 297,405 dollars. 3 percent looks like 8922.15 putting us a little over 300,000 (306,327). Running that through the tax schedule that puts us in the second highest tax bracket giving up 41,810 plus 1/3 of anything over 178,350. Using the same gorilla math as before...70245 and change as the money being taxed. So while 70 thousand dollars out of your bank account probably hurts, theres still 236k in there to cheer you up.

Well like I said, in real dollars there's a gap but as a percentage of income the gap is closing. I would respectfully disagree with you that the person whose income rose by 90% isn't creating fertile condition for improving their upward mobility. I'm actually proud of people like that. I still don't understand why it's anyone's business if someone is making more money than someone else. We live in a society where you can choose your career path. Even the poorest among us have it far better than the poor elsewhere in the world.

At the end of the day its a far rosier picture with those statistics that it would seem to bear out, given a relatively simple calcuation that admittedly doesnt deal with a lot of the technicalities that arise, but shows i think what the difference actually looks like. The income is also somewhat skewy as it isnt really as important as the share of wealth. While your income is going to be reflective of current economic situations globally, having the larger piece of the pie is what matters. When the tide rises so to speak, you are only going to rise as much as you have a piece of the pie. Given that the share of wealth is really skewed toward the top, when things turn around, they might not really turn around enough for the people hit hardest by the recent down turn.

If you believe in static scoring I can see why you would believe that. I don't believe static scoring is accurate. I believe wealth can be created.

if it makes you feel any better, i think we should raise the minimum wage until it becomes a living wage. But im a hippie, who cant do math.

I'll take any support that I can, hippie or otherwise
I'd even settle for flower children

[heavycola]

Your problem is that it behooves you to compartmentalise everyone, because that makes it easier to throw around your lazy epithets and crass stereotypes. In Cola's head, bankers/entrepreneurs/economists are all capitalist pigs; immigrants are lovely-jovely; all bureaucracy is necessary; and all french people are left-wing left-bank existentialists. It is lazy thinking. Economics do not work like this, as you will hopefully discover if you take your first faltering steps reading a proper fucking textbook.

And this is lazy posting.
Have you really been reduced to 'I know you are, but what am I?' You disappoint me, nappyrash, at the same time as you flag up the massive superiority of my post.

[Napoleon Ier]

Yah, yah...whatever you say.

I reccomend this for a start. It's written in layman's terms, and is excellent as an introductory course:




Easily available at a good price off Amazon. I got mine for a mere £2.87 second-hand from someone in Georgia. Neoteny's Reagan-loving dad, perhaps?