US Taxes Explained Simply
I saw this on-line and had to share it.
Quote:
|
Re: US Taxes Explained Simply
This, at the very least, predates the good day of Digg....so at least pre-circa-08. It's an interesting analogy, but I wonder what someone who knows the ins-and-outs of taxes and economic theory would say?
I wonder if Bond has heard this before. |
Re: US Taxes Explained Simply
Quote:
|
Re: US Taxes Explained Simply
Well, this is true. I think the analogy has a few more key takeaways as well:
- Is there an inherent problem with a tax system in which those who utilize the most government services (the first four men in this analogy), pay nothing in taxes? This seems to be an extreme free rider problem. In contrast, why are we providing / offering the same government services to the poor and the rich (shouldn't some of the core entitlement programs be means tested?)? - I know I've said this before, but tax rates and tax revenue are not correlated (at the most, they are very loosely correlated). Tax revenue is much more correlated with GDP growth. The single biggest tax revenue year (in terms of total money collected by the government) was the year after the Bush tax cuts. This seems to be counter-intuitive, as tax rates were lowered, but that year also saw a quite significant uptick in GDP growth, hence increased tax revenue. - In conjunction with the above point, we can see that debates over what tax rates should be for the wealthiest Americans, etc. are political debates, not economic debates. As I've said before, the best way to increase tax revenue would be to adopt a modified flat tax structure, in conjunction with an increase in growth over the anemic pace of the last few years. - The analogy is easy to tear apart under a strict economic view, as referenced by above. The important thing to remember is that whenever the government intervenes in the free market it necessarily creates inefficiencies. Business is not the government's game. A very reputable argument can be made, though, that the government should intervene in certain areas for social justice reasons, but rarely for economic reasons. The most effective government intervention in the economy comes when it subsidizes a prevailing trend (ex. GI homes post WWII). Notice, though, that this is not the government influencing or controlling a shift in behavior, but rather reinforcing a trend that already existed. So, intervening for social justice reasons often makes sense, but not when it comes at the expense of creating huge unfunded liabilities that threaten to bankrupt the country and stifle economic growth. |
Re: US Taxes Explained Simply
One of the variables that the article fails to address is the type of class warfare inflationary oddities which tie directly into 'quality of life' measures. The beer guzzling free-riders have to contend with a serious shortfall in nutrition. This has been more notably evident since petrol based fertilization has had an increasingly hazardous afffect on those whose economic status keeps them from not only an objective source of health related information, but also an alternative to the predominant supply of nutrient void, carcinogenic foods which have been touted by big business as the answer to world-wide food shortages.
Regardless of what constitutes as fair, motivating forms of free market regulatory policies, these issues are too complicated to resolve through economic theories alone. Until the western market is regulated in a way that protects the ability of its citizens to be able to practice appropriate neural transmissions without hindrence from what is scientifically proven to be cognitive inhibitors, the idea of a democratically reformed market which serves all classes of society in a fair manner, seems a little redundant and more importantly, ignorant of the greater problem which sees revolving door politics take precedence over preventative, altruistic policy making at the local and federal levels of governance. I really believe that less government is more, but this has been taken to the extreme of creating a slave wages environment that literally forces the least wealthy in our countries to abide with basic food shortfalls that are only an infringement on personal freedoms when examined against the draconian laws, enforced by agencies such as the FDA, to inhibit the poorer populations f rom participating in unobstructed food self-sufficiency practices (I point out seed patents, antiquated bi-laws that restrict 'yard gardens', and the legislation which allows government agencies to inflict bankrupt inducing regulations on small organic farmers who pose little threat to the public in regards to food safety when compared to the de-regulated practices of the largest and most virulently unhealthful sources of food production). What continues to be absent from mainstream news feeds is the abuse that is practiced by agencies at the bequest of big pharma and big agri business interests. /rant |
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:32 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
GameTavern