Greeks Bearing Gifts....

[j_b]

you clearly can't read. I didn't say it was the liberals' fault. I said it was the fault of the pols who betrayed them. You sound retarded dude, let's leave it at that.

 

That's not an adequate retort.

 

plenty good for you.

[Jim]

and this plot factors in taxes, transfer payments, and credits?

 

Well it's not like the upper income brackets have been starving lately with reduction in the marginal tax level and the reduction in long-term investment/dividend taxes - so I would argue that it's not even a wash, the upper income brackets have won on both ends - stuffing it to workers who are responsible for the increase in productivity, pocketing the profits, and bribing the pols to reduce their taxes.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Well it's not like the upper income brackets have been starving lately with reduction in the marginal tax level and the reduction in long-term investment/dividend taxes - so I would argue that it's not even a wash, the upper income brackets have won on both ends - stuffing it to workers who are responsible for the increase in productivity, pocketing the profits, and bribing the pols to reduce their taxes.

 

Taxes include federal, state, local, real-estate, etc. All these plots are slanted for maximum effect.

 

And like I asked before, your "solution" is what exactly? Or are you just like j-bot - lots of things to worry about and recycle and rehash?

[Jim]

And assuming you are correct, Jim, your solution is what exactly in a free society? Government-mandated profit-sharing? Wage-controls?

 

Fair question. Part of it - I don't know - how do you encourage responsible corporate governance? I'm open to suggestions. The tax part - eliminate all the Bush tax cuts (including middle class ones), bump up the long-term investment/dividend tax, remove the cap on the upper limit for Social Security tax.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

And assuming you are correct, Jim, your solution is what exactly in a free society? Government-mandated profit-sharing? Wage-controls?

 

Fair question. Part of it - I don't know - how do you encourage responsible corporate governance? I'm open to suggestions. The tax part - eliminate all the Bush tax cuts (including middle class ones), bump up the long-term investment/dividend tax, remove the cap on the upper limit for Social Security tax.

 

1) those plots show the lowest and highest earners only. Rolling back all the tax cuts fucks over the middle class - you know, the ones with two-income families, child-care expenses, etc. You seem pretty eager to do that without considering its impact.

 

2) ditto for cap on Social Security tax. And this tax affects the disparity in wealth how exactly, BTW?

 

3) if you were to simply rollback the taxes in the uppermost bracket and apply higher investment/divedend tax to just them, how exactly would that affect j_bot's plot? Wanna bet the effect is neglible, because I'd wager it amounts to naught.

 

I smell something rotten in your proposal - an empty gesture to feel "good" and do "something".

 

 

 

 

 

[Jim]

 

1) those plots show the lowest and highest earners only. Rolling back all the tax cuts fucks over the middle class - you know, the ones with two-income families, child-care expenses, etc. You seem pretty eager to do that without considering its impact.

---I'd disagree, the tax cuts for the middle class were relatively modest per family but in aggreate are significantly adding to the deficit

 

2) ditto for cap on Social Security tax. And this tax affects the disparity in wealth how exactly, BTW?

 

Indirectly - social security benefits are needed most at the bottom end of the bracket - those disabled and those with low retierment buffer. In budget talks (current example is appropriate) SS always seems to lead the discussion out of proportion to say more usless programs - pick almost any military one. Thus ensuring its stability by taxing the upper income brackets - seriously - why is income that is taxed capped at $106,800? WTF?

 

3) if you were to simply rollback the taxes in the uppermost bracket and apply higher investment/divedend tax to just them, how exactly would that affect j_bot's plot? Wanna bet the effect is neglible, because I'd wager it amounts to naught.

 

In general, I would agree that it would not move the productivity/wage curve. But I didn't say it would. But I think it would move us closer to a more equitible society - or at least a more fair one. Yea - and that is a bias of mine.

 

I smell something rotten in your proposal - an empty gesture to feel "good" and do "something".

 

c'mon - just being straight with you.

 

 

 

[KaskadskyjKozak]

1) those plots show the lowest and highest earners only. Rolling back all the tax cuts fucks over the middle class - you know, the ones with two-income families, child-care expenses, etc. You seem pretty eager to do that without considering its impact.

---I'd disagree, the tax cuts for the middle class were relatively modest per family but in aggreate are significantly adding to the deficit

 

2) ditto for cap on Social Security tax. And this tax affects the disparity in wealth how exactly, BTW?

 

Indirectly - social security benefits are needed most at the bottom end of the bracket - those disabled and those with low retierment buffer. In budget talks (current example is appropriate) SS always seems to lead the discussion out of proportion to say more usless programs - pick almost any military one. Thus ensuring its stability by taxing the upper income brackets - seriously - why is income that is taxed capped at $106,800? WTF?

 

3) if you were to simply rollback the taxes in the uppermost bracket and apply higher investment/divedend tax to just them, how exactly would that affect j_bot's plot? Wanna bet the effect is neglible, because I'd wager it amounts to naught.

 

In general, I would agree that it would not move the productivity/wage curve. But I didn't say it would. But I think it would move us closer to a more equitible society - or at least a more fair one. Yea - and that is a bias of mine.

 

I smell something rotten in your proposal - an empty gesture to feel "good" and do "something".

 

c'mon - just being straight with you.

 

 

 

 

You are arguing about different things here.

 

Let's stick to the wealthy are getting wealthier and poor are stagnating. How exactly do we affect that? I'd like to see quantifiable results behind any proposal, showing the before and after "plots", not just proposals thrown at the wall and the endless rhetorical games and name-calling (that last part would be j_bot, prole, etc)

 

And I completely disagree with you about the effect of eliminating Bush-era cuts on the 28%-ile bracket. That effect on many in the middle class is huge. As for the deficit both Bush and Barry have contributed to that far more with spendthrift budgets than tax cuts or extensions thereof. With Bush we got wars, with Barry, we keep spending on wars and add to it with a few 100 billions here,there and everywhere.

 

 

 

[JayB]

Productivity and Real Income

 

Labor productivity and income of the median worker

 

 

Source: Bureau if Economic Analysis and U.S. Census Bureau

 

This is a key issue. Productivity being driven by the workers but profit being held by the minority. That is not a productive model. Well, unless you are lucky enough to be in the upper echelons.

 

Let's assume that there's a robot that amplifies a single worker's productivity 10-fold.

 

Same guy working with his hands cranks out 10X less stuff.

 

His employer invests in the robot and trains the employee how to use it.

 

Employee owns his new robot-operating skill set. Employer owns the robot.

 

How should the returns from the increase in productivity be divided?

 

Not an entirely trivial question when the employer is the one who identifies the opportunity to increase output by investing, takes the business risk by sinking the money into the investment, assumes all costs of maintaining it, training the employees to operate it, etc.

 

IMO the returns that the employee are entitled to are those that they arise from increasing skill, knowledge, etc.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

 

why is income that is taxed capped at $106,800? WTF?

 

I don't want to put one more $.01 into SS. It is supposedly a "safety net" for retirement, and I'll take care of that myself, thanks very much.

 

But I would ask why the tax brackets stop at $300K or whatever the top bracket currently is. You could have several bracket above that for say $500K, $1million, etc. I'd love for liberal Hollywood types and ball players to pay 50, 60, or 70% marginal rates. :-)

 

 

[Jim]

1) And I completely disagree with you about the effect of eliminating Bush-era cuts on the 28%-ile bracket. That effect on many in the middle class is huge. As for the deficit both Bush and Barry have contributed to that far more with spendthrift budgets than tax cuts or extensions thereof. With Bush we got wars, with Barry, we keep spending on wars and add to it with a few 100 billions here,there and everywhere

 

I guess it depends on how you define huge:

 

Even families making only $20,000 to $30,000 a year are getting an average cut this year of $638. And 98.4% of that group -- "middle-class" by almost anybody's standards -- so around 2.5%

 

And for those farther up in the middle-class hierarchy -- making $75,000 to $100,000 a year -- the Bush tax cuts are worth an average of $2,543 this year -- More than 20 million American families earn $75,000 a year or more.

 

I'd say the long-term effect on the country sucked - HTF do you manage such a tax give-away when getting us into two wars? Income - output, it ain't rocket science.

 

 

[KaskadskyjKozak]

1) And I completely disagree with you about the effect of eliminating Bush-era cuts on the 28%-ile bracket. That effect on many in the middle class is huge. As for the deficit both Bush and Barry have contributed to that far more with spendthrift budgets than tax cuts or extensions thereof. With Bush we got wars, with Barry, we keep spending on wars and add to it with a few 100 billions here,there and everywhere

 

I guess it depends on how you define huge:

 

Even families making only $20,000 to $30,000 a year are getting an average cut this year of $638. And 98.4% of that group -- "middle-class" by almost anybody's standards -- so around 2.5%

 

And for those farther up in the middle-class hierarchy -- making $75,000 to $100,000 a year -- the Bush tax cuts are worth an average of $2,543 this year -- More than 20 million American families earn $75,000 a year or more.

 

I'd say the long-term effect on the country sucked - HTF do you manage such a tax give-away when getting us into two wars? Income - output, it ain't rocket science.

 

 

$2543 helps for a fuck of a lot when you have two-parents working, childcare expenses, rising health-care costs, etc.

 

Wars + Barry's and Bush's profligate spend thrift budgets. Cut the fucking budgets.

 

 

 

 

[Jim]

why is income that is taxed capped at $106,800? WTF?

 

I don't want to put one more $.01 into SS. It is supposedly a "safety net" for retirement, and I'll take care of that myself, thanks very much.

 

But I would ask why the tax brackets stop at $300K or whatever the top bracket currently is. You could have several bracket above that for say $500K, $1million, etc. I'd love for liberal Hollywood types and ball players to pay 50, 60, or 70% marginal rates. :-)

 

 

Sorry if my sarcasm meter is not precise enough - but even I would have some issues with a 70% marginal rate and it's effect on innovation and investment. Regarding SS - we likely have a different philosophy. I have no pension and I don't think taxpayers should be paying for such for public employees. However, I strongly believe that a society is judged on how it treats its less fortunate. Yea - there is some small proportion that takes advantage of the system on the lower rungs of society. In comparision that pales to the upper income robber barons - seriously - see the film "An Inside Job"

 

While I feel confident that I can take care of my own retitement I have no problem with my current obligation and a little more to SS to help out. Yea, I understand you opposition to taxes that don't benefit you directly - but quite frankly the issues involve what we want as a society as a whole. I don't like the present trend. OK to flush billions on the pentagon, but the cumbs for social programs are a threat. Get real.

[j_b]

Let's assume that there's a robot that amplifies a single worker's productivity 10-fold.

 

Same guy working with his hands cranks out 10X less stuff.

 

His employer invests in the robot and trains the employee how to use it.

 

Employee owns his new robot-operating skill set. Employer owns the robot.

 

How should the returns from the increase in productivity be divided?

 

Not an entirely trivial question when the employer is the one who identifies the opportunity to increase output by investing, takes the business risk by sinking the money into the investment, assumes all costs of maintaining it, training the employees to operate it, etc.

 

IMO the returns that the employee are entitled to are those that they arise from increasing skill, knowledge, etc.

 

 

You only "forgot" the part where the public educated the workforce, financed the R&D necessary to build the bots, built telecoms, roads, rails, airports, and mass transit necessary to operate a company, etc None of which would exist without well paid employees who represent the tax base necessary for the improvements needed to operate a business. If you don't believe me try to find how many technology companies decided to settle in Somalia.

 

[Jim]

IMO the returns that the employee are entitled to are those that they arise from increasing skill, knowledge, etc.

 

And there lies the rub, eh? Who the f*** is going to implement the innovations? It's a matter of proportionality and it has just been tilted in one direction lately.

[j_b]

Don't think that's inconsistent with the data in the table.

 

you'll just have to demonstrate it. BTW you still have to provide a source and a link for your data

 

Thank-goodness for transfer payments and the value of benefits that they get in lieu of money wages!

 

Transfer payments and benefits existed in 1979 as well. Moreover, benefits are on average smaller now than in 1979.

 

crickets ...

[KaskadskyjKozak]

why is income that is taxed capped at $106,800? WTF?

 

I don't want to put one more $.01 into SS. It is supposedly a "safety net" for retirement, and I'll take care of that myself, thanks very much.

 

But I would ask why the tax brackets stop at $300K or whatever the top bracket currently is. You could have several bracket above that for say $500K, $1million, etc. I'd love for liberal Hollywood types and ball players to pay 50, 60, or 70% marginal rates. :-)

 

 

Sorry if my sarcasm meter is not precise enough - but even I would have some issues with a 70% marginal rate and it's effect on innovation and investment. Regarding SS - we likely have a different philosophy. I have no pension and I don't think taxpayers should be paying for such for public employees. However, I strongly believe that a society is judged on how it treats its less fortunate. Yea - there is some small proportion that takes advantage of the system on the lower rungs of society. In comparision that pales to the upper income robber barons - seriously - see the film "An Inside Job"

 

While I feel confident that I can take care of my own retitement I have no problem with my current obligation and a little more to SS to help out. Yea, I understand you opposition to taxes that don't benefit you directly - but quite frankly the issues involve what we want as a society as a whole. I don't like the present trend. OK to flush billions on the pentagon, but the cumbs for social programs

are a threat. Get real.

 

SS was never supposed to amount to a transfer payment - each person puts in $ and gets it back at retirement. You don't change the rules after they have been set.

 

You are confusing SS with medicare/medicaid. Those payroll deductions do amount to transfer payments and are not capped at $106K. They benefit the lower income folks.

 

 

[j_b]

name-calling (that last part would be j_bot, prole, etc)

 

You continual attempts at demonization are laughable, especially when you accuse others of doing what you practice routinely.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Yea, I understand you opposition to taxes that don't benefit you directly - but quite frankly the issues involve what we want as a society as a whole.

 

Buzz. I don't oppose taxes that don't benefit me directly. But the money needs to be managed properly and the benefit to be worth the cost.

 

OK to flush billions on the pentagon, but the cumbs for social programs are a threat. Get real.

 

Go look at your 1040 booklet and you'll see federal outlays all in black and white. Social programs hardly amount to a "crumb" -even compared to military outlays. And I never said I supported the profligate military/war spending. Cut the budget - it's bloated everywhere.

 

 

 

[JayB]

"Indirectly - social security benefits are needed most at the bottom end of the bracket - those disabled and those with low retierment buffer. In budget talks (current example is appropriate) SS always seems to lead the discussion out of proportion to say more usless programs - pick almost any military one. Thus ensuring its stability by taxing the upper income brackets - seriously - why is income that is taxed capped at $106,800? WTF"

 

-SS was/is marketed as a means of sequestering personal savings to provide a self-funded safety net in old age. AFAIK the thinking was that taxing up to a particular threshold would provide a sufficient safety net.

 

 

 

 

 

[KaskadskyjKozak]

name-calling (that last part would be j_bot, prole, etc)

 

You continual attempts at demonization are laughable, especially when you accuse others of doing what you practice routinely.

 

Service goon! Regressive! Troll! Attila! Knuckledragger!

 

*yawn*

 

 

[JayB]

Don't think that's inconsistent with the data in the table.

 

you'll just have to demonstrate it. BTW you still have to provide a source and a link for your data

 

Thank-goodness for transfer payments and the value of benefits that they get in lieu of money wages!

 

Transfer payments and benefits existed in 1979 as well. Moreover, benefits are on average smaller now than in 1979.

 

crickets ...

 

Mark Perry (economist). Blog is "Carpe Diem."

[j_b]

name-calling (that last part would be j_bot, prole, etc)

 

You continual attempts at demonization are laughable, especially when you accuse others of doing what you practice routinely.

 

Service goon! Regressive! Troll! Attila! Knuckledragger!

 

*yawn*

 

 

Indeed, every one of these epithets describe perfectly your behavior on this board.

[prole]

Let's assume that there's a robot that amplifies a single worker's productivity 10-fold.

 

Same guy working with his hands cranks out 10X less stuff.

 

His employer invests in the robot and trains the employee how to use it.

 

Employee owns his new robot-operating skill set. Employer owns the robot.

 

How should the returns from the increase in productivity be divided?

 

Not an entirely trivial question when the employer is the one who identifies the opportunity to increase output by investing, takes the business risk by sinking the money into the investment, assumes all costs of maintaining it, training the employees to operate it, etc.

 

IMO the returns that the employee are entitled to are those that they arise from increasing skill, knowledge, etc.

 

You got it ass-backwards. Most labor saving technology is geared toward dumbing down the operator, diminishing the skill set, and cheapening the cost of labor not skilling up.

[JayB]

IMO the returns that the employee are entitled to are those that they arise from increasing skill, knowledge, etc.

 

And there lies the rub, eh? Who the f*** is going to implement the innovations? It's a matter of proportionality and it has just been tilted in one direction lately.

 

You mean who is going to operate the robots? Anyone who is willing to accept the wages the owner is offering in exchange for doing so.

 

Normally the more complicated and expensive the machine, the more the operator makes - but the ratio of wages to capital investment decreases as the stuff they're using gets more expensive.

 

747 Pilots make ~5X more than bus drivers despite the fact that they are operating something that's ~100X as expensive. (guestimates).

[JayB]

Let's assume that there's a robot that amplifies a single worker's productivity 10-fold.

 

Same guy working with his hands cranks out 10X less stuff.

 

His employer invests in the robot and trains the employee how to use it.

 

Employee owns his new robot-operating skill set. Employer owns the robot.

 

How should the returns from the increase in productivity be divided?

 

Not an entirely trivial question when the employer is the one who identifies the opportunity to increase output by investing, takes the business risk by sinking the money into the investment, assumes all costs of maintaining it, training the employees to operate it, etc.

 

IMO the returns that the employee are entitled to are those that they arise from increasing skill, knowledge, etc.

 

You got it ass-backwards. Most labor saving technology is geared toward dumbing down the operator, diminishing the skill set, and cheapening the cost of labor not skilling up.

 

If the owner is the operator what happens to the cost, and value of his labor in the above scenario?