This is worth reading because itallows us to overturn conventional wisdom and ask good questions. There is also something important here thatneeds to be said. The bottom 50 % is notproperly integrated into the tax system though they contribute throughconsumption taxes.
For them to contribute moreefficiently we need to establish a base income model linked directly todeliverables such as rental costs, food and basic services such as medical andcommunication. My personal preference isto link the core delivery of basic services to land based needs on the ruralenvironment were local capital isavailable to support personal initiative and wealth creation for even theelderly
It may sound utopian but it isnot as this is what actually worked in non monetized societies of thepast. Reinventing the structure is thechallenge when monetizing because money is associated with the natural inclinationto impose wage slavery.
Most criticisms of such bottom upmodels are based on pure ignorance of economic systems and the ignorant fightfor control of the apparent lolly. Wehave become less barbaric during the past century, but still have far to go.
Surprisingly, the Chinese havemuch to teach us on this subject, though much of what is there is also anaccident of history rather that intelligent planning. It is a case of building from the least worsealternatives and hoping it all works out.
Three economic charts blow your mind
Written By : John Hawkins
First off, here’s a breakdown of who pays into personal income taxes.Look at those numbers and SMELL the unfairness.
So, the top 10% of income earners pay 69.9% of the income tax while thebottom 50% of Americans pay 2.7%. Now, if we were actually going to make thetax code more “fair,” who would actually be paying more and who would be payingless? Maybe the rich aren’t getting quite as sweet a deal as you’d think if yougot your information from Obama speeches and MSNBC.
Now, here’s another chart that defies conventional wisdom.
Over the decades, tax rates have varied quite a bit. They’ve even goneup as high as 90% in some brackets. Yet, the actual amount of revenue coming indoesn’t change very much in relation to revenue. It’s almost as ifconservatives are right and people do react to higher tax rates by changingtheir behavior. Maybe they work less, take more loopholes, lobby Congress tocreate loopholes, invest differently, move industry offshore, etc., etc…itreally doesn’t matter.
The key thing to take away from this is that the amount of revenue thegovernment can bring in via the income tax is, for whatever reason, moreinelastic than most people think. That’s yet another reason to put moreemphasis on balancing the budget via spending cuts as opposed to trying to fixthe problem with tax increases.
Now, if Hauser’s law is as spot-on as it has been in the past and it’sgoing to be difficult to raise the government’s revenue level much beyond the20% mark, this is one hell of a scary graph.
Notice that we’re up from 2.7% of GDP in 1965 to 9.1% (the halfwaymark) in 2012 and then 100% of all of tax revenue in 2052. Some people may takea little comfort from that. After all, 2052 seems like a long time away — andso it is. But, don’t forget — we have a 14 trillion dollar debt we need to payoff and the federal government funds a lot of other things besides thoseentitlement programs. That money is where defense, intelligence, bordersecurity, government salaries, interest payments on the debt, welfare, and evenHarry Reid’s precious Cowboy Poetry comes from. At one point do people look atthe size of the deficit, size of the debt, and numbers like these and thenconclude it’s not safe to lend us money anymore? It could be much sooner thanwe think unless we start showing the world we’re serious about controllingspiraling entitlement costs.
No comments:
Post a Comment