Morality of Wealth Redistribution

[Dad2three]

WOW, I DON'T KNOW IF I SHOULD ATTRIBUTE THAT COMMENT TO IGNORANCE OR JUST PLAIN STUPIDITY. The jobs lost during the great recession which came about in 2006 WERE NOT TAX POLICY PROBLEMS. They were totally, woo% caused by the housing crash. What caused the housing crash? Bad federal monetary and fiscal policies, starting off when Carter's administration passed the CRA, which incidentally was not enforced until Clinton's administration. Though CRA was not the main culprit, it had a part. The most important failure was the attempts to make housing available to many people who were not credit worthy and subsidizing EVERYONE with low interest rates and the pushing of ARM loans. Between the speculators trying to make a killing and got caught with their pants down at the first interest adjustment, and all the people who were pushed into the market because of the low interest, no down payments, and lax credit standards heated up the price to value ration starting in 1997, and wen the price to value started to stabilize in 2006 the housing bubble burst. That was the whole of the cause of the recession which ballooned from there causing many to lose their jobs, and houses. At least try to learn some facts before making stupid statements.Bush's tax cuts were across the board with the bottom brackets getting the most advantageous tax cuts. I do agree that the top brackets were cut too much, but you need to recognize IT WAS NOT THE TAX CUT WHICH CAUSED THE RECESSION.In fact neither was correct. The tax cuts were relatively neutral to the economy and the recession was caused by the housing balloon/crash, not the tax cuts.Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. It depends on the business cycle. The JFK tax cuts worked miracles. The Bush tax cuts did very little of anything. As bad as Bush was, the tax cuts were not the major issue.

Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis.

Are you really that ignorant? Why do you believe the private sector loans had anything to do with it? Did they control the interest? Did they guarantee the loans? Of course the lenders were private. The government does not make home loans, but the control the interest and they use Fannie and Freddie to guarantee the loans and effectively force private lenders to follow their policies.

Why don't you really study what happened instead of blowing propagandist gas into the wind?

"Are you really that ignorant? Why do you believe the private sector loans had anything to do with it?"



Private lenders not subject to congressional regulations collapsed lending standards. Taking up that extra share were nonbanks selling mortgages elsewhere, not to the GSEs. Conforming mortgages had rules that were less profitable than the newfangled loans. Private securitizers — competitors of Fannie and Freddie — grew from 10 percent of the market in 2002 to nearly 40 percent in 2006. As a percentage of all mortgage-backed securities, private securitization grew from 23 percent in 2003 to 56 percent in 2006


...A 2008 analysis found that the nonbank underwriters made more than 12 million subprime mortgages with a value of nearly $2 trillion. The lenders who made these were exempt from federal regulations.


Examining the big lie: How the facts of the economic crisis stack up | The Big Picture


It is clear to anyone who has studied the financial crisis of 2008 that the private sector’s drive for short-term profit was behind it.


Lest We Forget: Why We Had A Financial Crisis - Forbes


Allen Greenspan:

"I made a mistake in presuming that the self-interests of organisations, specifically banks and others, were such that they were best capable of protecting their own shareholders and their equity in the firms," said Greenspan.

Greenspan - I was wrong about the economy. Sort of | Business | The Guardian

 

[dnsmith35]

In 2010 Exxon Mobil paid a domestic federal income tax rate of just 17%,

hate to rock your world but effective rate was 0% since taxes are like any other cost and so are passed on to consumers. We have the tax only to pander to the pure ignorance of liberals who lack the IQ to understand.

Imagine that!!!! Liberal Marxists are so proud of the corporate tax to punish business without knowing they are paying the tax in higher prices. It is very very unbelievable isn't it?

Watch it big boy, I am a liberal, but I AM NOT A LEFT WINGER. I have never known a left winger who understands Tax Incidence.

Definition of 'Tax Incidence'

An economic term for the division of a tax burden between buyers and sellers. Tax incidence is related to the price elasticity of supply and demand. When supply is more elastic than demand, the tax burden falls on the buyers. If demand is more elastic than supply, producers will bear the cost of the tax.

Tax Incidence Definition | Investopedia

Or:



Abstract

We introduce imperfect labor mobility into the corporate tax incidence analysis and demonstrate that for smaller values of the elasticity of labor mobility parameter the corporate income tax could reduce the relative income of corporate labor even when the taxed sector was capital intensive.​

In other words when you look at the first definition where it says, "If demand is more elastic than supply, producers will bear the cost of the tax;" You then have to consider Capital Mobility. That is true because when the tax is imposed on the producer (capital)
then the ease of that capital moving must be considered.

We have seen this over the last 60 years. Two primary costs to Capital are Labor and Tax. At a certain point it is sometimes more profitable to move to reduce both of those expenses.

Left wingers don't want to here this economic truism.

 

[Dad2three]

That is such a bogus argument.

We've had 60 years of inflation eroding incomes since the 1950s. The high tax rates in that era were offset by more deductions. We didn't have the AMT. And most importantly of all, most of the developed world was reduced to rubble in WWII, with the exception of the U.S. We had very little competition in the world economy, which fueled a great deal of economic growth...benefiting those who wished to work.

90% of the world was rebuilt by 1955 and 100% by 1960. WHY ALL THOSE GOOD YEARS UNTIL CONSERVATIVE POLICIES?

I hate to give a Republican credit, but Eisenhower was a great president for economics. How else could we have helped rebuild the destroyed continent of Europe?

Every dollar spent by the government must be paid for either by taxes or by more borrowing with greater debt. The only way to make more tax cuts now is to have bigger and bigger deficits and to borrow more and more money. Either we or our children will have to bear the burden of this debt. This is one kind of chicken that always comes home to roost. An unwise tax cutter, my fellow citizens, is no real friend of the taxpayer."
- Dwight D. Eisenhower

 

[dnsmith35]

In 2010 Exxon Mobil paid a domestic federal income tax rate of just 17%, based on their U.S. pre-tax income of $7.5 billion.

They're in a very capital intensive business.

These royalties are not taxes

Substantively, how are they different?

They are part of the cost of doing business and are bona fide deductions.

CORRECT, BUT not a deductible TAX which is what the problem is!!!!

It doesn't matter if it is a tax or a royalty. It is a cost factor, ALL of which are bona fide deductions.

 

[dnsmith35]

"This is because they took advantage of the federal subsidy that allows them to take foreign tax credits on royalties disguised as income taxes. These royalties are not taxes but are in exchange for the right to produce oil."

The Joint Committee on Taxation found that the second-largest deduction was for “modifications of foreign tax credit rules applicable to major integrated oil companies which are dual capacity taxpayers.” This provision is worth $7.5 billion over 10 years. Seth Hanlon, former Director of Fiscal Reform at the Center for American Progress, best describes why this tax break is unwarranted:

Our tax system allows companies that do business abroad to reduce from their tax bill any income taxes paid to other governments. The rules are supposed to prevent oil companies from claiming credit for royalty payments to foreign governments. Royalties are not taxes; they are fees for the privilege of extracting natural resources.

… oil companies have been permitted to claim credits for certain payments to foreign governments, even in countries that generally impose low or no business tax (suggesting that these payments, or levies, are in fact a form of royalty). Dual capacity taxpayer rules, therefore, are a subsidy for foreign production by U.S. oil companies.


With Only $93 Billion in Profits, the Big Five Oil Companies Demand to Keep Tax Breaks | Center for American Progress


HONESTY, TRY IT BUBBA!


Foreign Governments have changed the term “Royalty” to “Income Tax.ALL COSTS OF DOING BUSINESS SHOULD BE DEDUCABLE. I DON'T CARE WHAT THEY CALL IT, HONESTLY!

THEY WRITE IT OFF NOT AS AN EXPENSE, BUT A TAX, WHICH LOWERS THEIR US TAX BURDEN. Willful ignorant?[/QUOTE]It does not matter stupid. It is a cost of operation. Both are deductible at 100% ABOVE THE LINE. Do you understand what that means?

 

[Dad2three]

In 2010 Exxon Mobil paid a domestic federal income tax rate of just 17%,

hate to rock your world but effective rate was 0% since taxes are like any other cost and so are passed on to consumers. We have the tax only to pander to the pure ignorance of liberals who lack the IQ to understand.

Imagine that!!!! Liberal Marxists are so proud of the corporate tax to punish business without knowing they are paying the tax in higher prices. It is very very unbelievable isn't it?

Watch it big boy, I am a liberal, but I AM NOT A LEFT WINGER. I have never known a left winger who understands Tax Incidence.

Definition of 'Tax Incidence'

An economic term for the division of a tax burden between buyers and sellers. Tax incidence is related to the price elasticity of supply and demand. When supply is more elastic than demand, the tax burden falls on the buyers. If demand is more elastic than supply, producers will bear the cost of the tax.

Tax Incidence Definition | Investopedia

Or:



Abstract

We introduce imperfect labor mobility into the corporate tax incidence analysis and demonstrate that for smaller values of the elasticity of labor mobility parameter the corporate income tax could reduce the relative income of corporate labor even when the taxed sector was capital intensive.​

In other words when you look at the first definition where it says, "If demand is more elastic than supply, producers will bear the cost of the tax;" You then have to consider Capital Mobility. That is true because when the tax is imposed on the producer (capital)
then the ease of that capital moving must be considered.

We have seen this over the last 60 years. Two primary costs to Capital are Labor and Tax. At a certain point it is sometimes more profitable to move to reduce both of those expenses.

Left wingers don't want to here this economic truism.

"If "

But yes, Exxon is going to stop pumping oil if they have to pay taxes *shaking head*

 

[Dad2three]

THEY WRITE IT OFF NOT AS AN EXPENSE, BUT A TAX, WHICH LOWERS THEIR US TAX BURDEN. Willful ignorant?

It does not matter stupid. It is a cost of operation. Both are deductible at 100% ABOVE THE LINE. Do you understand what that means?

NO THEY ARE NOT. One is above the line the other is a CREDIT on the tax burden!!!

 

[dnsmith35]

You can say "tax cuts create jobs" but that's just blather. Show me when it has worked and then we'll talk

I have given you a positive example several times now. JFK's TAX CUTS OF 21% OFF THE TOP BRACKET, 5% OFF THE BOTTOM BRACKET AND REDUCTION IN CORPORATE TAXES. Can you read?

NOW LINK TO THOSE 'JOBS' CREATED? By DEMAND SIDE tax cuts!

There were zero jobs created by demand side tax cuts inaugurated by JFK.

 

[Dad2three]

They are part of the cost of doing business and are bona fide deductions.

CORRECT, BUT not a deductible TAX which is what the problem is!!!!

It doesn't matter if it is a tax or a royalty. It is a cost factor, ALL of which are bona fide deductions.

Gaaawwwwwdddd

Grow a brain

Tax deductions reduce taxable income

Tax credits directly reduce tax liability

 

[Dad2three]

I have given you a positive example several times now. JFK's TAX CUTS OF 21% OFF THE TOP BRACKET, 5% OFF THE BOTTOM BRACKET AND REDUCTION IN CORPORATE TAXES. Can you read?

NOW LINK TO THOSE 'JOBS' CREATED? By DEMAND SIDE tax cuts!

There were zero jobs created by demand side tax cuts inaugurated by JFK.

Proof either way? lol

 

[dnsmith35]

]“The reduction in the top tax rates appears to be uncorrelated with saving, investment and productivity growth. The top tax rates appear to have little or no relation to the size of the economic pie"

You quoted it. It is correct. Because the reduction in the top tax rates are supply side economics. Nice of your to prove my point in a post to someone else.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

[MENTION=29220]Wiseacre[/MENTION]

What's your opinion on the morality of taking money from those who earned it and giving it to people who haven't? Not talking about people who cannot earn their own money but rather those who choose not to. And can you recommend any books or writings on the subject?

Seems to me basic self worth is at least in part a reflection on your independence. Or at least contributing something, your own labor or time to your family or community. This country does not like freeloaders, and while there is a certain amount of leeway in tough times like we're in now, at some point opinions change.

So are we morally right to redistribute somebody else's wealth or deny people support in an effort to incentivize them to be more productive members of society?

"are we morally right to redistribute somebody else's wealth?" The earned income tax credit and other things like it throughout the history of what we call 'capitalism' has been an acknowledgement that we live in a society as a group of individuals. Nothing exists in the vacuum libertarians and other kooks think it can or does.

To "deny people" some sort of social welfare "support in an effort to incentivize them to be more productive members of society" does not rule out the kinds of support like earned income tax credits.

see?

 

[Dad2three]

]“The reduction in the top tax rates appears to be uncorrelated with saving, investment and productivity growth. The top tax rates appear to have little or no relation to the size of the economic pie"

You quoted it. It is correct. Because the reduction in the top tax rates are supply side economics. Nice of your to prove my point in a post to someone else.

You mean supply side tax cuts don't grow the pie? ANYONE with half a brain knows that Bubba!

 

[dnsmith35]

If you really believe that you have been effectively brainwashed by the millionaire propagandists who serve the interests of the One Percent.

Nope! As a business consultant with an MBA with a major in economics I came to that conclusion on my own. In researching the issue with other economists and their studies it was determined that my conclusion was correct.Wealth is not a zero sum issue as increased production increases total wealth.

Real wealth is finite. It represents the material, administrative, and the human (citizen) resources of this Nation. To suggest these resources are limitless is plainly ignorant.

The wealth in one second of time can be deemed finite. In the next instant in time it may grow or decrease, depending on the business cycle. I have not suggested our physical resources are infinite, but their VALUE DEFINITELY INCREASES DEPENDING ON HOW WE EXPLOIT THOSE PHYSICAL RESOURCES. In so far as human resources are concerned, that is based on the total production of those human resources plus the improved production of automation. It is ignorant to believe otherwise or listen to the left wing extremist propaganda which tries to convince the sheeple that the rich are taking away part of the wealth they are due.

Got it, AGAIN you'll not argue the posit, but instead go off on a tangent

Wealth is a Zero-Sum Game

No it is not. so long as production can be increased wealth can be increased. I have never read or listened to the RW kook Rush Limbaugh. He is irrelevant drivel. But wealth is not a zero sum game and is not finite. Study a little economics instead of repeating left wing extremist bullshit.

 

[Dad2three]

Nope! As a business consultant with an MBA with a major in economics I came to that conclusion on my own. In researching the issue with other economists and their studies it was determined that my conclusion was correct.Wealth is not a zero sum issue as increased production increases total wealth.The wealth in one second of time can be deemed finite. In the next instant in time it may grow or decrease, depending on the business cycle. I have not suggested our physical resources are infinite, but their VALUE DEFINITELY INCREASES DEPENDING ON HOW WE EXPLOIT THOSE PHYSICAL RESOURCES. In so far as human resources are concerned, that is based on the total production of those human resources plus the improved production of automation. It is ignorant to believe otherwise or listen to the left wing extremist propaganda which tries to convince the sheeple that the rich are taking away part of the wealth they are due.

Got it, AGAIN you'll not argue the posit, but instead go off on a tangent

Wealth is a Zero-Sum Game

No it is not. so long as production can be increased wealth can be increased. I have never read or listened to the RW kook Rush Limbaugh. He is irrelevant drivel. But wealth is not a zero sum game and is not finite. Study a little economics instead of repeating left wing extremist bullshit.

Got it, TYPICAL conservative, read the title and run off at the moth from there *shaking head*

Wealth is a Zero-Sum Game

"There is only so much corporate income in a given year. The more of that income that is used to pay workers, the less profit the corporation makes. The less profit, the less the stock goes up. The less the stock goes up, the less the CEO and the investors make. It’s as simple as that

The Zero-sum Nature of economics

 

[dnsmith35]

]“The reduction in the top tax rates appears to be uncorrelated with saving, investment and productivity growth. The top tax rates appear to have little or no relation to the size of the economic pie"

You quoted it. It is correct. Because the reduction in the top tax rates are supply side economics. Nice of your to prove my point in a post to someone else.

You mean supply side tax cuts don't grow the pie? ANYONE with half a brain knows that Bubba!

Well then, maybe you are finally learning something. Now all you have to do is recognize that the definitions I submitted to you with links, proves that reducing corporate tax rates and top brackets more than lower brackets is a supply side tax cut, JUST LIKE THE TAX CUT OF 1964 ORIGINALLY PROPOSED BY JFK WAS A SUPPLY SIDE TAX CUT.

I grow tired of trying to educate you because you are simply can not be educated, you are as dumb as a post about economics. That is what listening to left wing extremist propaganda will do to you.

 

[Dad2three]

You quoted it. It is correct. Because the reduction in the top tax rates are supply side economics. Nice of your to prove my point in a post to someone else.

You mean supply side tax cuts don't grow the pie? ANYONE with half a brain knows that Bubba!

Well then, maybe you are finally learning something. Now all you have to do is recognize that the definitions I submitted to you with links, proves that reducing corporate tax rates and top brackets more than lower brackets is a supply side tax cut, JUST LIKE THE TAX CUT OF 1964 ORIGINALLY PROPOSED BY JFK WAS A SUPPLY SIDE TAX CUT.

I grow tired of trying to educate you because you are simply can not be educated, you are as dumb as a post about economics. That is what listening to left wing extremist propaganda will do to you.

Ignorant tool. NOPE

it was a demand-side cut. "The Revenue Act of 1964 was aimed at the demand, rather than the supply, side of the economy," said Arthur Okun, one of Kennedy's economic advisers.

This distinction, taught in Economics 101, seldom makes it into the Washington sound-bite wars. A demand-side cut rests on the Keynesian theory that public consumption spurs economic activity. Government puts money in people's hands, as a temporary measure, so that they'll spend it. A supply-side cut sees business investment as the key to growth. Government gives money to businesses and wealthy individuals to invest, ultimately benefiting all Americans. Back in the early 1960s, tax cutting was as contentious as it is today, but it was liberal demand-siders who were calling for the cuts and generating the controversy.

JFK, the demand-side tax cutter.

 

[bripat9643]

[MENTION=29220]Wiseacre[/MENTION]

What's your opinion on the morality of taking money from those who earned it and giving it to people who haven't? Not talking about people who cannot earn their own money but rather those who choose not to. And can you recommend any books or writings on the subject?

Seems to me basic self worth is at least in part a reflection on your independence. Or at least contributing something, your own labor or time to your family or community. This country does not like freeloaders, and while there is a certain amount of leeway in tough times like we're in now, at some point opinions change.

So are we morally right to redistribute somebody else's wealth or deny people support in an effort to incentivize them to be more productive members of society?

"are we morally right to redistribute somebody else's wealth?" The earned income tax credit and other things like it throughout the history of what we call 'capitalism' has been an acknowledgement that we live in a society as a group of individuals. Nothing exists in the vacuum libertarians and other kooks think it can or does.

To "deny people" some sort of social welfare "support in an effort to incentivize them to be more productive members of society" does not rule out the kinds of support like earned income tax credits.

see?

How does living in the same geographical area as someone else entitle them to anything I have earned? I didn't agree to the EITC, so when did I "acknowledge" it? That's just your weasel attempt to claim I agreed to it. "Living in a vacuum" is a non sequitur. Is that your way of claiming you're entitled to rob me?

I can't imagine any rationalizations lamer than yours.

 

[bripat9643]

No it is not. so long as production can be increased wealth can be increased. I have never read or listened to the RW kook Rush Limbaugh. He is irrelevant drivel. But wealth is not a zero sum game and is not finite. Study a little economics instead of repeating left wing extremist bullshit.

Got it, TYPICAL conservative, read the title and run off at the moth from there *shaking head*

Wealth is a Zero-Sum Game

"There is only so much corporate income in a given year. The more of that income that is used to pay workers, the less profit the corporation makes. The less profit, the less the stock goes up. The less the stock goes up, the less the CEO and the investors make. It’s as simple as that.[/SIZE]

The Zero-sum Nature of economics

RIght, so that's why we have the same amount of wealth now that we had 100 years ago . . . . . er, wait.

 

[Dad2three]

Got it, TYPICAL conservative, read the title and run off at the moth from there *shaking head*

Wealth is a Zero-Sum Game

"There is only so much corporate income in a given year. The more of that income that is used to pay workers, the less profit the corporation makes. The less profit, the less the stock goes up. The less the stock goes up, the less the CEO and the investors make. It’s as simple as that.[/SIZE]

The Zero-sum Nature of economics

RIght, so that's why we have the same amount of wealth now that we had 100 years ago . . . . . er, wait.

Keep being willfully ignorant of the context of the article wing nutter!