Libertarianism is the best ideology

[Coito ergo sum]

Well, actually, the tax burden in the US is very high right now, and corporate taxes are not really higher than in other 1st world countries. As of 2007, the top 1% of income earners pay 40% of all income taxes and that was up from 37% of all income taxes two years prior to that. The top 5% of income earners pay something like 60% of all income taxes. The top 10% pay something like 71% of all income taxes, and the top 25% of income earners pay 86% of all income taxes.

That means that the other 75% of income earners pay 14% of all income taxes. The bottom 50% of income earners pay 2.89% of all income taxes!

I mean - I'm not sure how much fairer it can get. I suppose we could get the top 1% to pay half of all the taxes, and the top 10% to pay 85% of all the taxes and the top 25% to pay 99% of all the taxes, leaving the other 75% to divvy up the remaining 1%.

In the US not only do we have federal tax rates, but most states have state income taxes (usually around 4 or 5%) and some cities, like NYC, Detroit and other big cities also have income taxes of about 1% or so.

This should be placed in the context of the distribution of income, which is heavily skewed toward the top and has been trending that way since GWB's tax cuts in 2001. The top two per cent of earners now hold 40 per cent of the wealth.

And the top 1% pay 40% of the income taxes. So, we could make them pay 50% of all the taxes, leaving the remaining 99% of income earners to pay the other half. One might wonder what amount is, in fact, fair.

Plus, there is a distinction between wealth and income. Wealth is not taxed, except perhaps property taxes.

A few posts upthread you were going on about how little income tax the lower percentiles pay, which came off like a complaint, yet here you say the taxation burden is "fair." A bit puzzling that.

I never said it was fair. I said what the amounts were and asked how much would be fair if the present amounts were not.

The middle class is being squeazed out of existence,

I've heard that for 40 years.

with incomes stagnant for the past 30 years

That's plainly not true. Incomes are far higher now than they were 30 years ago.

and declining in recent years as most of the wealth is being sucked up to the top and unemployment remains high.

The Internal Revenue Service's data does not reflect what you are saying. income tax data seem to show the exact opposite: People in the bottom fifth of income-tax filers in 1996 had their incomes increase by 91 percent by 2005. The top one percent -- "the rich" who are supposed to be monopolizing the money, according to the left -- saw their incomes decline by a whopping 26 percent. The average taxpayers' real income increased by 24 percent between 1996 and 2005. Note - those are the years of the "Contract With America." There's a University of Michigan study out there that finds about the same.

I'll find links, but in any case, most of the data that people point to for the rich getting richer and poor getting poorer are Census data, and there are many reasons why the IRS data is better, but I don't have time to go into it now as I have to get going.

In 1980 there were two legitimate billionaires in America, today there are more than 400. And no fewer than ten million new millionares have been added to the rolls since 1980.

Sounds good. But, that doesn't tell us very much.

If these trends continue, and nobody thinks they'll do anything but continue,

Your stated trend is not in conformity with IRS data. Some people do not think your assertion is correct.

income distribution in the US will soon be exactly like it is in third world countries,

Doubtful. Do you have data to back that up?

[Coito ergo sum]

The biggest problem with libertarianism is their incredibly narrow vision of what liberty is.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, but how so?

What is a broad vision of liberty?

Libertarians only look at "freedom to", I also like to include "freedom from", one without the other is useless.

I don't think libertarians would agree with you. Libertarians are big on freedom from religion. Freedom from government intrusion into private affairs. Freedom from other individual's harming them, etc.

[Coito ergo sum]

Also I did the political compass test for a larf and got this

That's essentially where I end up on the graph as well. I'd say most Progressives would end up roughly in the middle of that quadrant.

I ended up here: http://www.politicalcompass.org/printab ... &soc=-4.62

I guess that's probably in line with how I describe myself.

I think that some of the questions were poorly worded though.

Well, the quiz is run by Libertarians after all.

Is that true? I couldn't really tell from a quick google search. It looks like it's out of the UK.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_compass

Do you have info that it is made by Libertarians?

I didn't like some of the questions, but after answering them all I couldn't pin down an evident bias.

[NineOneFour]

The biggest problem with libertarianism is their incredibly narrow vision of what liberty is.

A number of them (and conservatives as well) only view civil rights as economic rights, that it doesn't matter if you're discriminated against because of your race or gender, just that you are "free" to make lots of money.

[NineOneFour]

I am however prepared to pay for 1/60 millionth of one (UK) as long as I know 59.9999 million other people will pay the rest on the basis that if I need one in the future the rest of the country will do the same

The reality is that the other 59,999 do not pay an equal share, and a good many people pay nothing. Whether that's acceptable in a given circumstance depends on one's philosophy. In the US, for example, a huge number of people end up paying zero federal income taxes, and this is masked by things called "credits" where people wind up paying either no taxes or actually get money back.

This is one of the things that I think libertarians are right to point out. We hear so much about how "selfish" it is for people to not want a nationalized health care plan. However, a single taxpayer already subsidizes people who choose to have children in this country, in addition to lower income people. So, to call that person "selfish" because he or she questions the wisdom of another plan designed to further increase that person's subsidy of other people is wrongheaded, I think.

Nice dodge. "A huge number of people end up paying zero federal income taxes,"

Oh, gee, are the only taxes federal?

Are the only taxes income?

Nope.

In fact, everyone pays nearly the same when ALL taxes are added up. In fact, a lot of the rich that libertarians cry in their milk over pay LESS taxes than some that are less rich:

[NineOneFour]

Under libertarianism the haves would have more and the have nots would have less.

I don't believe libertarians would agree with that.

Who cares what they believe? What matters is the results of their philosophy, not what they *think* will happen.

And, under any system the haves have more and the have nots have less.

That isn't what Martok said. He rightly said, that under libertarianism the haves would have more and the have nots would have less.

In the Roman Empire the emperors would often give out free loafs of bread to the poor.

Libertarians would call this socialism.

No, I think they would call that "monarchy" and "tyranny." Maybe "despotism."

No, they actually would call it socialism, because libertarians despise any government largesse, at least largesse that doesn't benefit them directly.

Many socialists, however, do seem to side with the despots these days, like Chavez among others. I've wondered about that. I see a lot of socialists or Left leaning folks applauding Chavez while he seizes private companies, "nationalizes" the media to eliminate free press and dissent, consolidates power, eliminates his term limits, oppresses the people....but, he does give them some bread....

Yeah, cry me a river. After people who shared libertarian philosophy trashed Latin America, especially Chile, damn near took America over a cliff in '08, and are quite happy with 44,000 Americans dying every year from lack of health care, I can't much care about the crimes of Chavez.

[NineOneFour]

I'd like to see some research on the contribution that the very rich and very large corporations pay in taxes. Not what they SHOULD pay, what they ACTUALLY pay. I'm sure there will be quite a gap...

See graph with gap below...

Also I did the political compass test for a larf and got this

Nice, you're almost as much of a maniac as I am!

[NineOneFour]

I am however prepared to pay for 1/60 millionth of one (UK) as long as I know 59.9999 million other people will pay the rest on the basis that if I need one in the future the rest of the country will do the same

The reality is that the other 59,999 do not pay an equal share, and a good many people pay nothing. Whether that's acceptable in a given circumstance depends on one's philosophy. In the US, for example, a huge number of people end up paying zero federal income taxes, and this is masked by things called "credits" where people wind up paying either no taxes or actually get money back.

This is one of the things that I think libertarians are right to point out. We hear so much about how "selfish" it is for people to not want a nationalized health care plan. However, a single taxpayer already subsidizes people who choose to have children in this country, in addition to lower income people. So, to call that person "selfish" because he or she questions the wisdom of another plan designed to further increase that person's subsidy of other people is wrongheaded, I think.

Thats mainly because taxes are far lower in the US than any other 1st world country, obviously the tax burden isnt spread evenly but it is at least spread. People obviously abuse the system the problem is determining who exactly is abusing it costs more money than just letting people abuse it. Unless you are prepared to just cut back and not care if innocent people get hit

Well, actually, the tax burden in the US is very high right now,

and corporate taxes are not really higher than in other 1st world countries.

Actually, they are also quite low:

As of 2007, the top 1% of income earners pay 40% of all income taxes

Another nice dodge.

Do you get your talking points from NRO?

Let's see....the top 1% of income earners pay 40% of all income taxes....hmmm....

I wonder what percentage of the actual country they own?

Could it be more than 40%???

and that was up from 37% of all income taxes two years prior to that. The top 5% of income earners pay something like 60% of all income taxes. The top 10% pay something like 71% of all income taxes, and the top 25% of income earners pay 86% of all income taxes.

That means that the other 75% of income earners pay 14% of all income taxes. The bottom 50% of income earners pay 2.89% of all income taxes!

Given that the top 1% pay 40% of all income taxes, what about the top 20% - surely they pay their fair share, right?



Oh, gee whiz, guess not.

Another of your happy libertarian memes shot to Hell.

I mean - I'm not sure how much fairer it can get.

Yeah, I mean, the poor rich fucks.

I suppose we could get the top 1% to pay half of all the taxes, and the top 10% to pay 85% of all the taxes and the top 25% to pay 99% of all the taxes, leaving the other 75% to divvy up the remaining 1%.

Yeah, how much fairer could it get?



Ever hear of the GINI Coefficient?



In the US not only do we have federal tax rates, but most states have state income taxes (usually around 4 or 5%) and some cities, like NYC, Detroit and other big cities also have income taxes of about 1% or so.[/quote]

[NineOneFour]

Well, actually, the tax burden in the US is very high right now, and corporate taxes are not really higher than in other 1st world countries. As of 2007, the top 1% of income earners pay 40% of all income taxes and that was up from 37% of all income taxes two years prior to that. The top 5% of income earners pay something like 60% of all income taxes. The top 10% pay something like 71% of all income taxes, and the top 25% of income earners pay 86% of all income taxes.

That means that the other 75% of income earners pay 14% of all income taxes. The bottom 50% of income earners pay 2.89% of all income taxes!

I mean - I'm not sure how much fairer it can get. I suppose we could get the top 1% to pay half of all the taxes, and the top 10% to pay 85% of all the taxes and the top 25% to pay 99% of all the taxes, leaving the other 75% to divvy up the remaining 1%.

In the US not only do we have federal tax rates, but most states have state income taxes (usually around 4 or 5%) and some cities, like NYC, Detroit and other big cities also have income taxes of about 1% or so.

This should be placed in the context of the distribution of income, which is heavily skewed toward the top and has been trending that way since GWB's tax cuts in 2001. The top two per cent of earners now hold 40 per cent of the wealth.

And the top 1% pay 40% of the income taxes. So, we could make them pay 50% of all the taxes, leaving the remaining 99% of income earners to pay the other half. One might wonder what amount is, in fact, fair.

Plus, there is a distinction between wealth and income. Wealth is not taxed, except perhaps property taxes.

Wonder why that is?

*ponders*

I wonder which group of earners makes the tax laws in the United States....?

A few posts upthread you were going on about how little income tax the lower percentiles pay, which came off like a complaint, yet here you say the taxation burden is "fair." A bit puzzling that.

I never said it was fair. I said what the amounts were and asked how much would be fair if the present amounts were not.

Oh yes, you did.

The middle class is being squeazed out of existence,

I've heard that for 40 years.

And since it didn't happen to you, it didn't happen?

with incomes stagnant for the past 30 years

That's plainly not true. Incomes are far higher now than they were 30 years ago.

Oh, yeah, we're kicking ass.

Actually, real incomes have been stagnant for 30 years using actual dollars and adjusting for inflation.

and declining in recent years as most of the wealth is being sucked up to the top and unemployment remains high.

The Internal Revenue Service's data does not reflect what you are saying. income tax data seem to show the exact opposite: People in the bottom fifth of income-tax filers in 1996 had their incomes increase by 91 percent by 2005. The top one percent -- "the rich" who are supposed to be monopolizing the money, according to the left -- saw their incomes decline by a whopping 26 percent. The average taxpayers' real income increased by 24 percent between 1996 and 2005. Note - those are the years of the "Contract With America." There's a University of Michigan study out there that finds about the same.

I'll find links, but in any case, most of the data that people point to for the rich getting richer and poor getting poorer are Census data, and there are many reasons why the IRS data is better, but I don't have time to go into it now as I have to get going.

Uh, huh....







Looks like reality has a well-known liberal bias.

In 1980 there were two legitimate billionaires in America, today there are more than 400. And no fewer than ten million new millionares have been added to the rolls since 1980.

Sounds good. But, that doesn't tell us very much.

If these trends continue, and nobody thinks they'll do anything but continue,

Your stated trend is not in conformity with IRS data. Some people do not think your assertion is correct.

income distribution in the US will soon be exactly like it is in third world countries,

Doubtful. Do you have data to back that up?

Yes, is Mali your idea of a third world country? Because we've already surpassed it. Libertarians should be very proud.

[NineOneFour]

The biggest problem with libertarianism is their incredibly narrow vision of what liberty is.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, but how so?

What is a broad vision of liberty?

Libertarians only look at "freedom to", I also like to include "freedom from", one without the other is useless.

I don't think libertarians would agree with you. Libertarians are big on freedom from religion. Freedom from government intrusion into private affairs. Freedom from other individual's harming them, etc.

As long as they themselves can exploit others, I'm certain they'd have no problem with this arrangement.

[pErvinalia]

Awright! It's ON again!!1!11!!!

Can't believe it got to 70 posts before I realised what was going on!

Oh well, so much for recuperation after the Great Purge. Back to battle stations....

[Squeak_the_Mouse]

Under libertarianism the haves would have more and the have nots would have less.

In the Roman Empire the emperors would often give out free loafs of bread to the poor.

Libertarians would call this socialism.

Greetings from another libertarian. Let us take a look at the real world to see the effect economic liberalism has on income inequality:

First, here are the countries of the world ranked by economic freedom by the "Heritage Foundation". I will admit that this source may potentially be bias but I can find no other ranking of countries by economic freedom and in general the results are roughly what one might expect.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... m_2009.png

Secondly, here are the countries of the world ranked by their GINI as recorded in the CIA world factbook.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... t_2009.png

By eye at least, I observe no relationship between the two.


As for the second part of your statement, that would be socialistic perhaps, but that doesn't have to mean it is wrong.

[Daan]

Awright! It's ON again!!1!11!!!

Can't believe it got to 70 posts before I realised what was going on!

Oh well, so much for recuperation after the Great Purge. Back to battle stations....

And that for a 99 year old.

Great smilies, by the way.

[NineOneFour]

Under libertarianism the haves would have more and the have nots would have less.

In the Roman Empire the emperors would often give out free loafs of bread to the poor.

Libertarians would call this socialism.

Greetings from another libertarian. Let us take a look at the real world to see the effect economic liberalism has on income inequality:

First, here are the countries of the world ranked by economic freedom by the "Heritage Foundation". I will admit that this source may potentially be bias but I can find no other ranking of countries by economic freedom and in general the results are roughly what one might expect.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... m_2009.png

The Heritage is a Libertarian think tank. So here we have a libertarian using a libertarian ranking system to prove libertarianism.

Not. buying. it. for. one. second.

Secondly, here are the countries of the world ranked by their GINI as recorded in the CIA world factbook.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... t_2009.png

By eye at least, I observe no relationship between the two.

Yeah, I wonder why? The first is a completely subjective ranking by libertarians and the second one actually has a mathematical and scientific calculation behind it.

It's like you just stated that you observe no relationship between clouds and earthquakes.

No, really?

As for the second part of your statement, that would be socialistic perhaps, but that doesn't have to mean it is wrong.

It does if you buy into Ludwig von Mises, F.A. Hayek, Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman (although he was sometimes disabled by bouts of sanity), Albert Jay Nock, and/or Murray Rothbard.

[NineOneFour]

Let's dispense with the stupid and insane canard of the "Fair Tax" as well.



To hell with that.