issuevoter wrote on Jan 18^th, 2022 at 5:47pm:

Since you've decided to resort to strawman fallacies, you're accepting all points I raised without further discussion.

Good. That means you won't be making any further contributions to the topic.

Belgarion wrote on Jan 18^th, 2022 at 5:55pm:

The billionaires are not contributing enough so everyone else has to pay more.

A possible way of ensuring the rich pay more without affecting most workers would be limiting tax deductions in any one financial year to $10 million, or another similarly high figure that most people (maybe 99.99%) won't reach.

Or individual tax deductions can be limited. The "tax advice" deduction is particularly prone to abuse. If anyone is spending a million dollars a year on "tax advice", that's unlikely to be legitimate (especially if this money just happens to end up being paid to family members). A limit of $10,000 a year should be plenty for most people, and this should be paid to qualified accountants, not an income stream for the kids.

It is all explained here

https://mobile.twitter.com/yvtweets/status/1482477560483270665

Bam wrote on Jan 19^th, 2022 at 9:33am:


I was hoping you might think for yourself. I guess that was too much to ask.

Quote:


Do you have any proof of your claim?

Quote:


What makes you think I want to replace anything?

freediver wrote on Jan 19^th, 2022 at 12:40pm:

That is the burden of proof fallacy. YOU made the claim, YOU prove it. It is NOT up to me to prove it for you.

freediver wrote on Jan 19^th, 2022 at 12:40pm:

Payroll taxes are state-based taxes with different rates in different states. These are usually adjusted every year in various state budgets. Keeping track of these different rates adds a compliance burden on businesses, especially those businesses with offices in multiple states.

Payroll taxes have a threshold where no tax is payable. If a business exceeds that threshold, they must start paying payroll tax. Any business that is close to the threshold may be discouraged from hiring additional staff due to payroll tax. This threshold is typically around 15 full-time staff.

Payroll taxes give an incentive to reduce the pay of workers. This is strongest near the payroll tax threshold.

freediver wrote on Jan 19^th, 2022 at 12:40pm:

Critics who won't offer alternatives are like eunuchs in a harem. Don't be a eunuch.

Lisa Jones wrote on Jan 18^th, 2022 at 8:53pm:


This whole debate demonstrates why the public sector must be able to finance itself, ie, the sovereign currency-issuing  government must be authorized to create its own funds out of thin air,  using its own treasury and central bank.

Thus avoiding the never-ending disputation between private sector individuals re who will pay for public sector spending.

Note: the sovereign currency-issuer is constrained by available resources and the nation' productive capacity, NOT money....which is indeed the constraint facing you and me.

But this simple reality is so removed from individuals' own lived experience, we recoil from it.  Or think inflation will result, not understanding inflation is a resource availability issue, not a quantity of money issue (since money is created out of thin air whether in private banks, or the nation's treasury).   

http://moslereconomics.com/mandatory-readings/innocent-frauds/

Truth is: "money doesn't grow on rich people" (Stephanie Kelton) ....so we don't need to tax the wealthy  to fund a Job Guarantee, or decent aged-care, age-pensions, healthcare, or education.

Anyway carry on.

Unfortunately most of you would only be convinced if a 'decent' covid variant  appeared,  which forced everyone (except farmers and drivers etc)  into lockdown for a year or more (to avoid catching a truly deadly version of covid capable of killing, eg, half the population who caught it).

Then we would all see the government simply changing (via treasury's computers) the digits in the bank accounts of all locked down workers, so they could pay essential  bills (food rent utilities), without taxing or borrowing money from anyone, (and no job keeper/seeker) for as long as the pandemic lasted....because the government  can't run out of money.... 

freediver wrote on Jan 19^th, 2022 at 6:38pm:


Wrong. Inflation is always a result of rising supply constraints, following market failure; and therein lies the problem - the market economy is inadequate as a basis for a functional economy in which sustainable growth with minimum above-poverty employment for all can always be assured.

eg, as to so-called "inflation" in the US currently: it's absurd that food, fuel, and rent prices are rising, because there is no REAL shortage of these things, only supply blockages caused by the pandemic.
The correct solution as I hinted (in the pandemic) is a suspension of the free market and government-created money credited to workers banks accounts via the treasury's computer to keep citizens alive while in lock-down. 
No "inflation". (Pouring money into job keeper was poor policy, risking too much cash in the hands of consumers when the pandemic ended).

So your argument fails BECAUSE it assumes an unregulated  market economy must be the basis of the economy, which is by no means the case.      

Quote:


Wrong. So long as there is no resource shortage, there will be no 'inflation' which might affect peoples' savings. 

freediver wrote on Jan 20^th, 2022 at 5:56pm:


Oh.... people like Gittins and Kohler:

http://www.rossgittins.com/2021/03/funding-budget-by-printing-money-is.html