Time to tax wealth - Covid cost Solution

FVP3

And since people dont click to links with all the big text and stuff it shows that the US was in surplus for 3 years since 1969. The parentheses means negative deficit ( i.e. a surplus).


1998 ($69) $113 (0.8%) LTCM crisis, recession
1999 ($126) $130 (1.3%) Glass-Steagall repealed
2000 ($236) $18 (2.3%) Surplus
2001 ($128) $133 (1.2%) 9/11 attacks, EGTRRA


The rest were deficits. Before 1969 there were 5 years of surplus as far as I can see post WWII.

here by contrast is 2009

2009 $1,413 $1,632 9.8% Stimulus Act. Bank bailout cost $250B, ARRA added $253B

The figures are in billions so that is $1.4 trillion. A trillion here, a trillion there, and pretty soon you are talking about real money. All to regulate the self regulating system that is the glorious free market which must never be interfered with.

and The Trump era:


2017 $665 $672 3.4% Trump Tax Act
2018 $779 $1,217 3.8% Deficit spending
2019 $984 $1,314 4.6% Government shutdown
2020 $1,083 $1,281 4.8% Military spending increase

As you can see the Tax cut fueled the deficit in 2018 which was back to above a trillion. Which kind of makes the point of the thread - the rich should be taxed if you don't like deficits.

Vote for left wing parties in the US and get the deficit down, is the message here. Not that America's huge deficits have caused any run on the dollar ( quite the opposite) or massively increased the cost of borrowing.

markodaly

KyussB wrote: »

Here are the questions and my answers, up to the point I decided you're posting in bad faith:
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=113298157#post113298157
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=113298381#post113298381
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=113298611#post113298611
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=113298742#post113298742

I'm not debating further with someone who I believe posts in bad faith.

Yes, and not once did to reference any research, any economic journal, any peer-reviewed articles on the matter.

So at the moment, it all amounts to pub talk that sounds a little clever.

Junkyard Tom

markodaly wrote: »

Humans have traded with each other for tens of thousands of years.

Trading =/= Capitalism. People swapping glass beads for gold a couple of thousand years ago isn't Capitalism and certainly not as we know it. East Germany swapping bikes for Cuban Rum is hardly Capitalism.

Your understanding of these concepts seems to be very rigid.

markodaly

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Trading =/= Capitalism. People swapping glass beads for gold a couple of thousand years ago isn't Capitalism and certainly not as we know it. East Germany swapping bikes for Cuban Rum is hardly Capitalism.

Your understanding of these concepts seems to be very rigid.

Wow, hold on there. I didn't mention capitalism in my post at all.

I was merely talking about trading as a concept, much to the dismay of some left-wingers, that trading between peoples is an innate human condition, thus the evolution of the term, free markets.

And yes, East Germany and Cuba were 'Capitalists' except that the state-controlled all production and money.

They still used money as a means of exchange in their society but the state determined what you got, not your level of experience/education/skills/value in the labor market.

Perhaps you are the person with a rigid understanding of things.

Paulownia

Are people aware that capital transfer tax is a third of the amount? To say that wealthy people don’t pay tax ignores that fact if you inherit a million you pay a quarter to the revenue

FVP3

markodaly wrote: »

Wow, hold on there. I didn't mention capitalism in my post at all.

I was merely talking about trading as a concept, much to the dismay of some left-wingers, that trading between peoples is an innate human condition, thus the evolution of the term, free markets.

You've created a obvious straw man there, since you are been beaten on the facts there are apparently a group of people posting here who have denied that trading between people's is an innate human condition.

And yes, East Germany and Cuba were 'Capitalists' except that the state-controlled all production and money.

They still used money as a means of exchange in their society but the state determined what you got, not your level of experience/education/skills/value in the labor market.

Perhaps you are the person with a rigid understanding of things.

Another straw man, not a Marxist to be seen here, and here you are arguing against the marxists who have apparently claiming on this thread that there was no money under communism.

Lyan

FVP3 wrote: »

I too read that book by Hayek. Unlike you I thought it was weak cheese.

If the free market is so good at self regulating and equilibrium how come it needs bailouts? It seems that every so often, in your analogy, the governing body of the computer network need to shut down the network because it doesn't in fact self regulate but in fact goes into positive reinforcement loops which crashes the network.

What if we legislated for circuit breakers to stop this ( they do actually do this in financial trading for actual real computers), something like keeping the Glass-Steagall Act intact. And of course to continue the analogy, this network of computers is networked by some governance body which all the computers vote for, without which it couldn't trade at all.

And you seem to posit an idea of millions of computers of equal power. In fact there would be nodes of extremely powerful computers sucking up the "wealth" or bandwidth of the network, and these powerful computers would be the ones responsible for the network collapse. The governing body would occasionally go in an fix the network at a cost, and also help the powerful computers survive, at a financial cost to the other computers.

I think it might be time for the governing body to tax the powerful computers more, back to the thread.

Bailouts aren't free market. "Circuit breakers" interrupt the Darwinism process. An optimal free market allows them to collapse.

Even the oil barons and mustache twirling railway tycoons of old did positive economic good for the majority of people. You can't suck up wealth in such a way without generating a lot of it.

Geuze

Instead of "coronabonds", this article proposes coronataxes:

"coronataxes could be collected by raising overall taxes temporarily for 5–10 years, the objective being to repay the extra 10–30% of public debt incurred as a result of the corona crisis. The increase would apply to all forms of taxation. Income taxes should be increased by 1–5 percentage points for all wage-earners. Corporate taxes should be increased by 1–5 percentage points for all tax-paying businesses. Value added taxes should be increased by 1–5 percentage points across the board. The simplest and easiest solution would be to increase all forms of taxes by an annual 3-percentage point coronatax for the next 5–10 years."

https://voxeu.org/article/coronataxes-solution

KyussB

Higher taxes when struggling to avoid deflation (cites the discredited Reinhart & Rogoff study, as well) - sounds like the standard austerity narrative, which is becoming more and more prevalent.
https://voxeu.org/article/there-deflation-or-inflation-our-future

ELM327

Geuze wrote: »

Instead of "coronabonds", this article proposes coronataxes:

"coronataxes could be collected by raising overall taxes temporarily for 5–10 years, the objective being to repay the extra 10–30% of public debt incurred as a result of the corona crisis. The increase would apply to all forms of taxation. Income taxes should be increased by 1–5 percentage points for all wage-earners. Corporate taxes should be increased by 1–5 percentage points for all tax-paying businesses. Value added taxes should be increased by 1–5 percentage points across the board. The simplest and easiest solution would be to increase all forms of taxes by an annual 3-percentage point coronatax for the next 5–10 years."

https://voxeu.org/article/coronataxes-solution

Tax increases are never temporary, just like taxation itself

Cordell

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Trading =/= Capitalism. People swapping glass beads for gold a couple of thousand years ago isn't Capitalism and certainly not as we know it. East Germany swapping bikes for Cuban Rum is hardly Capitalism.

Your understanding of these concepts seems to be very rigid.

Actually it's a perfect example of a free unregulated market: a bottle of rum goes for 2 bikes, and this exchange rate is being settled by the balance of supply of rum bottles, demand of rum bottles and bikes in circulation.

blanch152

Paulownia wrote: »

Are people aware that capital transfer tax is a third of the amount? To say that wealthy people don’t pay tax ignores that fact if you inherit a million you pay a quarter to the revenue

In theory, that is correct, but there are massive exceptions to CAT and CGT.

Reducing the level of those exceptions would be a good start.

blanch152

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

The idea that so-called 'free markets' are 'natural' is ridiculous, reductive, and the notion tends to be used to try to justify practices that don't need to be how they are.

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Trading =/= Capitalism. People swapping glass beads for gold a couple of thousand years ago isn't Capitalism and certainly not as we know it. East Germany swapping bikes for Cuban Rum is hardly Capitalism.

Your understanding of these concepts seems to be very rigid.

These two posts are contradictory.

On the one had you argue that free markets being natural is ridiculous. On the other you point out that these free markets have been operating for thousands of years.

All systems for exchanging goods rely on markets. What is unnatural is when one external force e.g. the state, controls the markets to such an extent that they become distorted, driven underground or fail to reflect reality. Such was the situation behind the Iron Curtain back in the day or in Venezuela today.

KyussB

I don't know why people are holding on to the idea of free markets - philosphically (in terms of e.g. public/private/commons property) and institutionally (in terms of markets/government/banking/law), 'true' free markets have never existed - and 'natural' free markets is a meaningless concept.

People traded in the past with debt, not barter. Tally sticks, accounts of specific goods written in clay/stone even (before papyrus/paper), were the method used to record debts of exchanged goods, to be settled later - with this being supplemented with using a medium of exchange (commodity money).

Don't read Austrian economics, it spouts all sorts of misleading nonsense about economic history, and macroeconomics.

Junkyard Tom

blanch152 wrote: »

On the one had you argue that free markets being natural is ridiculous.

I put 'free market' in inverted commas for a reason

On the other you point out that these free markets have been operating for thousands of years.

No. I said trade has been happening for a long time. Tell me, was the slave trade the 'free market'?

FVP3

blanch152 wrote: »

These two posts are contradictory.

On the one had you argue that free markets being natural is ridiculous. On the other you point out that these free markets have been operating for thousands of years.

All systems for exchanging goods rely on markets. What is unnatural is when one external force e.g. the state, controls the markets to such an extent that they become distorted, driven underground or fail to reflect reality. Such was the situation behind the Iron Curtain back in the day or in Venezuela today.

The term free market does not equal market. Capitalism is not just an economy with a market either, but one where capitalists dominate and capital accumulates largely amongst businessmen rather than Lords and Landowners. Feudalism had markets, the Roman Empire had markets, the Chinese empire had markets. None of these were free market economies.

What the free market is is ".. an economic system based on supply and demand with little or no government control."

So, given that definition of little or no it's not just Venezuela that is not a free market economy. Most of the world isn't. Ireland has fairly low government spending though, maybe we should bump it up.

https://data.oecd.org/gga/general-government-spending.htm


Anyway this is all off topic. There needs to be a Godwin's type law that any argument about taxing the rich, or any minor change to the system, ends up with Stalin or Venezuela.

FVP3

ELM327 wrote: »

Tax increases are never temporary, just like taxation itself

Wrong. Even a tiny cursory understanding of the country you actually live in would prove this untrue. The top rate was 65%

upandcumming

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Tell me, was the slave trade the 'free market'?

Yes.

Mr. teddywinkles

upandcumming wrote: »

Yes.

Can someone tell me this. If it is a free market and the arse fell outa the oil market recently. Why were we still paying nearly the same price at the pump. Honest question.

FVP3

Lyan wrote: »

Bailouts aren't free market. "Circuit breakers" interrupt the Darwinism process. An optimal free market allows them to collapse.

You admit that the network would have collapsed without the bailouts. This is a defeat for your position: you originally claimed that all of these "distributed computers" would do the best job all by themselves and without regulation. It was the free market that collapsed in 2008. It was the absence of "circuit breakers" ( i.e. Glass Steagall), that caused or exacerbated the crisis. Yet you want fewer circuit breaker. If you are going to use an analogy like distributed computers, or networks and compare to the economy you may first want to understand how either works. Networks aren't left to their own devices in electrical systems or on the internet, or any such systemt. Traffic is managed.

Even the oil barons and mustache twirling railway tycoons of old did positive economic good for the majority of people. You can't suck up wealth in such a way without generating a lot of it.

Yeh they did positive economic good, they built railroads.

They were far more useful than the rentier class that runs most capitalist
economies today.

I guess the distinction between rentier capitalism and more productive capitalists is beyond the scope of this group.

FVP3

Mr. teddywinkles wrote: »

Can someone tell me this. If it is a free market and the arse fell outa the oil market recently. Why were we still paying nearly the same price at the pump. Honest question.

Competitive free market, innit. They will tell you they bought the petrol a month or so back, and thus cant pass on the savings but that doesn't work the other way.

But.. competitive free market.. Distributed networks. Highly competitive businesses reducing prices in a highly competitive market. Derp Darwinism. Derp free market.

Its probably the governments fault though.

ELM327

FVP3 wrote: »

Wrong. Even a tiny cursory understanding of the country you actually live in would prove this untrue. The top rate was 65%

Yes but no "specific purpose" taxation, which is what was referred to, has ever been cancelled.


Look at USC for instance.

Yellow_Fern

Mr. teddywinkles wrote: »

Can someone tell me this. If it is a free market and the arse fell outa the oil market recently. Why were we still paying nearly the same price at the pump. Honest question.

Oil hasnt gone to 0. It has only halved in price and the majority view is that it will soon enough go back up but if it doesn't I am sure price at the pumps will decrease but not much because the price of oil is only 1/3 of the price. Petrol is one of the most taxed things in Ireland.

Eric Cartman

Geuze wrote: »

Instead of "coronabonds", this article proposes coronataxes:

"coronataxes could be collected by raising overall taxes temporarily for 5–10 years, the objective being to repay the extra 10–30% of public debt incurred as a result of the corona crisis. The increase would apply to all forms of taxation. Income taxes should be increased by 1–5 percentage points for all wage-earners. Corporate taxes should be increased by 1–5 percentage points for all tax-paying businesses. Value added taxes should be increased by 1–5 percentage points across the board. The simplest and easiest solution would be to increase all forms of taxes by an annual 3-percentage point coronatax for the next 5–10 years."

https://voxeu.org/article/coronataxes-solution

Well I suppose nobody will get the corona virus if everyone with skills leaves Ireland to avoid that and those who remain starve to death because theres no money left for welfare and nobody to buy anything.

That has to be the dumbest thing I've ever seen.

LuasSimon

Is it time to tax people like Larry Goodman and others who live here but route their large profits and income through Luxembourg etc to pay minimal tax and give Ireland nothing??
Would he survive on 3 Billion as opposed to 4 Billion?

Junkyard Tom

Mr. teddywinkles wrote: »

Can someone tell me this. If it is a free market and the arse fell outa the oil market recently. Why were we still paying nearly the same price at the pump. Honest question.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGDQzORZ4NM

gary550

LuasSimon wrote: »

Is it time to tax people like Larry Goodman and others who live here but route their large profits and income through Luxembourg etc to pay minimal tax and give Ireland nothing??
Would he survive on 3 Billion as opposed to 4 Billion?

How far would a billion go in the publics pocket?

I'll give you a hint, not very.

GreeBo

LuasSimon wrote: »

Is it time to tax people like Larry Goodman and others who live here but route their large profits and income through Luxembourg etc to pay minimal tax and give Ireland nothing??
Would he survive on 3 Billion as opposed to 4 Billion?

Do you know how he makes his money?
It would appear that you dont, since you think that he gives "Ireland nothing".

Where do you think the billions come from?

ELM327

LuasSimon wrote: »

Is it time to tax people like Larry Goodman and others who live here but route their large profits and income through Luxembourg etc to pay minimal tax and give Ireland nothing??
Would he survive on 3 Billion as opposed to 4 Billion?

Where do you draw the line?
Would he survive on 3 Million as opposed to 4 Million?
Would he survive on 300k as opposed to 400k?

FVP3

ELM327 wrote: »

Yes but no "specific purpose" taxation, which is what was referred to, has ever been cancelled.

Look at USC for instance.

I'm not sure how you were expecting me to get the idea that you were referring to specific purpose taxation from this phrase

Tax increases are never temporary, just like taxation itself

Anyway even USC has been reduced so the moving of goalposts didnt even work.