Spending is the problem...

[Gawdzilla Sama]

It is clear from real world examples that nations are not impoverished nor wealth accumulation by wealthy people impeded by them paying higher taxes than in nations where the wealthy make the tax rules.

You lost me there.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

If the h.i.t. pays 2% of their income in taxes and that 2% is equal to 5% tax on each of 25 low income tax payers is there a problem?

I guess not?

 

[Seattle]

Yep. And usually the opposite is true - towns/states often REDUCE taxes on large corporations they want to attract. Their thinking is that if they attract more business, they get more taxes overall even if the rate they charge is reduced.

This often leads to a "tragedy of the commons" situation where the largest users of services pay the least (on a per-person basis) for the services the government provides them.

Tragedy of the commons refers to overusing a resource to its detriment because there is no incentive not to. Not being charged for water so you build golf courses when there is limited water for crops or growing crops when there is limited water for drinking.

It's not a corporation getting a tax benefit to come to an area. There is also no logic to expecting different types of taxes to have the same rates (ordinary income and capital gains).

Also, the thread topic is about the national debt and the fact that spending is the major problem here and not the rate of taxation.

 

[billvon]

Tragedy of the commons refers to overusing a resource to its detriment because there is no incentive not to. Not being charged for water so you build golf courses when there is limited water for crops or growing crops when there is limited water for drinking.

Or not being charged much in taxes, so you get the resources that those taxes pay for without having to pay for them. In such situations, the market is broken; the normal laws of supply and demand no longer apply, and you take as much as you wish, paying little to nothing for those resources.

Like that poor patch of grass that everyone overuses.

 

[billvon]

As with Obama Care and the ACA, Americans seem to get easily confused by names. The wealthiest corporations have long been the biggest beneficiaries of what is, essentially, welfare, but because it goes by other names most people seem wholly unaware of this. Amazon benefits enormously from the Federal Highway Administration and the USPS, for instance, but that's not "welfare" to most people.

Exactly. And if you call it an "entitlement" (which it is) people get mad, because the right wing media machine has told them that "entitlements" are evil, and are used by illegal aliens who come to the US to live high on the hog while contributing nothing.

 

[Seattle]

Or not being charged much in taxes, so you get the resources that those taxes pay for without having to pay for them. In such situations, the market is broken; the normal laws of supply and demand no longer apply, and you take as much as you wish, paying little to nothing for those resources.

Like that poor patch of grass that everyone overuses.

Except that line of thought is just a myth. The wealthy pay for most Federal Income taxes and all cars, and trucks (including those owned by Amazon) pay gas taxes and other fees that maintain the infrastructure.

Just repeating that the wealthy don't pay their fair share doesn't make it so.

 

[parmalee]

Exactly. And if you call it an "entitlement" (which it is) people get mad, because the right wing media machine has told them that "entitlements" are evil, and are used by illegal aliens who come to the US to live high on the hog while contributing nothing.

This actually kinda surprised me:

Undocumented immigrants paid nearly $26 billion into Social Security coffers in a single year, a new report has found.

New analysis by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) found that undocumented residents paid £25.7 billion into Social Security funds and $6 billion into Medicare in 2022; both programs that they are not entitled to use. In total, undocumented immigrants paid $96.7 billion, or roughly $9,000 per person, in taxes in 2022.

Altogether, undocumented people paid a total of $96.7 billion in taxes in 2022, with $59.4 billion paid to the federal government and the remaining $37.3 billion paid to state and local authorities. In 40 states, undocumented immigrants were found to pay higher state and local tax rates than the top 1 percent of households living in the same state.

Undocumented immigrants' payments into Social Security detailed in report

Undocumented residents paid £25.7 billion into Social Security funds and $6 billion into Medicare in 2022.

www.newsweek.com

(Emphasis mine.)

I knew undocumented immigrants contributed a fair bit to such, but I don't fully understand the logistics of how. I mean, as far as payroll goes, there are the matters of not having social security numbers, being off the books, etc.

Then:

Dr. Shayak Sarkar, professor of law at the University of California Davis School of Law, told Newsweek: "Existing immigrants already in the United States are contributing to the SSA [Social Security Administration] even without work authorization, and others with work authorization are oddly barred from contributing.

(Same source.)

 

[billvon]

This actually kinda surprised me:

Yep. There are several myths that get propagated ad infinitum by the right:

-Illegal immigrants don't pay taxes
-Illegal immigrants get lots of welfare
-Illegal immigrants are illegal because they snuck across the border
-Illegal immigrants are more criminal than US citizens
-Illegal immigrants take away agricultural jobs from US citizens that they would otherwise work

 

[TheVat]

David Graeber's observations have never seemed more relevant here - in particular, how the ruling classes like to stoke resentment against those who do the jobs that are most essential to any society. Which are often done by immigrants. His 2013 bombshell essay, On the Phenomenon of Bullshit Jobs, which led later to a book, is maybe worth linking.

STRIKE! Magazine – On the Phenomenon of Bullshit Jobs: A Work Rant

Ever had the feeling that your job might be made up? That the world would keep on turning if you weren't doing that thing you do 9-5?

strikemag.org

I am not sure we really need the logistical support subcontractor who is now required to move a county government employee's desktop PC to the office two doors down, but I am pretty certain I needed the new roof which a team of four Honduran citizens installed over my head at a price I could afford. But the logistical support man was paid six times more than the roofer and is also spared being branded a criminal drug-dealing rapist out to destroy our nation by angry men with bullhorns on street corners (either literal or figurative).

At the heart of a lot of nativist contempt for immigrants is the nagging inner feeling that it is they (the native born) who contribute very little.

 

[Seattle]

David Graeber's observations have never seemed more relevant here - in particular, how the ruling classes like to stoke resentment against those who do the jobs that are most essential to any society. Which are often done by immigrants. His 2013 bombshell essay, On the Phenomenon of Bullshit Jobs, which led later to a book, is maybe worth linking.

STRIKE! Magazine – On the Phenomenon of Bullshit Jobs: A Work Rant

Ever had the feeling that your job might be made up? That the world would keep on turning if you weren't doing that thing you do 9-5?

strikemag.org

I am not sure we really need the logistical support subcontractor who is now required to move a county government employee's desktop PC to the office two doors down, but I am pretty certain I needed the new roof which a team of four Honduran citizens installed over my head at a price I could afford. But the logistical support man was paid six times more than the roofer and is also spared being branded a criminal drug-dealing rapist out to destroy our nation by angry men with bullhorns on street corners (either literal or figurative).

At the heart of a lot of nativist contempt for immigrants is the nagging inner feeling that it is they (the native born) who contribute very little.

It's a fun rant and like most rants there is a little logic to it. Also, like most rants it's also largely ridiculous. It does sound more like a description of a government job and not so much like the description of most private sector productive jobs. Of course the overall rant is recognizable to most officer workers to one degree or another but it largely depends on the industry that the office is in.

What part speaks to you the most? The engineers who design the cars aren't doing much and those who assemble them are the only ones doing the "real" work? Things would make more sense if we had no engineers and just had the "workers"?

Or maybe it's the part about only working 3-4 days a week? I'm guessing the government workers who work from home already are doing no more than that.

Describe your preferred system and how it would work if you had total control. Would it involve free markets, profit, competition or would it reward those who physically work by what would happen to society if they didn't do that job?

Where would the money come from, who would make these decisions and exactly who are the "ruling" class? Apparently financial jobs are worthless so would there be no capital? Would all jobs be on farms or in small mom and pop shops?

Again, what exactly is it that particularly speaks to you about this article? I get it if it's just a rant about immigrants and who would do the jobs if there were no immigrants. That's a small part of the article. What is the most interesting part in your opinion?

As a side note, most academia, government and highly regulated jobs such as much of banking have a much greater BS feel to them than most jobs in the rest of the private sector. There is a reason for some of the "BS" jobs, which is largely regulation but it can still feel that way and some of it is just that. This is the reason that many want government to be no larger than necessary.

 

[billvon]

David Graeber's observations have never seemed more relevant here - in particular, how the ruling classes like to stoke resentment against those who do the jobs that are most essential to any society. Which are often done by immigrants.

 

[parmalee]

It's a fun rant and like most rants there is a little logic to it. Also, like most rants it's also largely ridiculous. It does sound more like a description of a government job and not so much like the description of most private sector productive jobs. Of course the overall rant is recognizable to most officer workers to one degree or another but it largely depends on the industry that the office is in... blah blah blah

I am fairly confident that Hitler also probably used some of these words at some point or another over the course of his life; therefore, everything you have said is utterly ridiculous and without merit.

 

[parmalee]

What part speaks to you the most? The engineers who design the cars aren't doing much and those who assemble them are the only ones doing the "real" work? Things would make more sense if we had no engineers and just had the "workers"?
...
Describe your preferred system and how it would work if you had total control. Would it involve free markets, profit, competition or would it reward those who physically work by what would happen to society if they didn't do that job?

Hmmm... work... make... free...

Where have I heard that before? What exactly are you advocating here?

 

[parmalee]

Clearly over-spending is the problem. Our tax rates are within a "normal" range of other developed economies. Our spending is way outside of that norm.

Yeah, clearly. Likewise, it is a known fact that vampires and werewolves existed in ancient society, and that's why they built the pyramids. What are you gonna do about it?

So let's say we cut spending, say, 100 percent? OK. 2025 federal budget = 0 dollars. 2026 national debt still = 35 trillion dollars. Great. You solved it.

Now, let's say we tax the shit out of, say, just the top 1 percent--total net worth = 40-something trillion--for the next 20 years. Also, let's, say, kill just a few at the very top--say the Bezos and Musk types--and take all of "their" wealth. 2045 national debt = I don't know, let's say 20 trillion or 10 trillion or whatever. I did better.

 

[parmalee]

What was I thinking?

OK, we'll kill all of the top 1 percent, take all of "their" wealth; then we've eliminated the debt and we get a several trillion dollar surplus to spend on abortions, trans surgeries, cigarettes and crack.

 

[Sarkus]

The tax burden in the US is at the lower end of the OECD countries (as share of GDP).
The average across the OECD is 34.1% while the US comes in at just 26.6%, which puts them 33rd out of the 38 OECD countries. Only Turkey, Chile, Ireland, Colombia, and Mexico have a lower tax burden.
At the top end, Denmark is top with 46.9%, and most of Europe in the 35-45% range.
UK is currently at 33.5%, but this is forecast to go up to 37.7% by 2027/8.

source: https://ifs.org.uk/taxlab/taxlab-key-questions/how-do-uk-tax-revenues-compare-internationally

So would you consider the US tax burden to be in the "normal" range?
There's then the question of who that burden falls on, which is another kettle of fish.

 

[TheVat]

What part speaks to you the most? The engineers who design the cars aren't doing much and those who assemble them are the only ones doing the "real" work? Things would make more sense if we had no engineers and just had the "workers"?

One way to tell someone didn't read the article is when they assign opinions to the author that were not actually expressed or implied. Have a good one.

 

[parmalee]

Just a quick note to the sticklers out there, regarding post #35:

Don't worry! There will be enough left over for meth, oxy and an abundance of drag queen story hours! I did not omit those from my laborious calculations.

 

[Seattle]

The tax burden in the US is at the lower end of the OECD countries (as share of GDP).
The average across the OECD is 34.1% while the US comes in at just 26.6%, which puts them 33rd out of the 38 OECD countries. Only Turkey, Chile, Ireland, Colombia, and Mexico have a lower tax burden.
At the top end, Denmark is top with 46.9%, and most of Europe in the 35-45% range.
UK is currently at 33.5%, but this is forecast to go up to 37.7% by 2027/8.

source: https://ifs.org.uk/taxlab/taxlab-key-questions/how-do-uk-tax-revenues-compare-internationally

So would you consider the US tax burden to be in the "normal" range?
There's then the question of who that burden falls on, which is another kettle of fish.

The effective tax rate is higher than Japan and Germany and just below that of France. That's in a "normal" range to me compared to spending.

The point being that there can't be enough taxation to fix this problem. Reducing spending is the only solution.

 

[parmalee]

The effective tax rate is higher than Japan and Germany and just below that of France. That's in a "normal" range to me compared to spending.

Ah, got it. So "'normal" range" is established only in relation to Japan, Germany and France, and not in relation to all OECD countries. Makes perfect sense--we really ought to have known that. Shame on Sarkus.

The point being that there can't be enough taxation to fix this problem. Reducing spending is the only solution.

Ah, nuance. Taxation alone--within your accepted parameters and confines, of course--cannot fix this problem; therefore, reducing spending is the only solution.