This is worth reading because it
allows us to overturn conventional wisdom and ask good questions. There is also something important here that
needs to be said. The bottom 50 % is not
properly integrated into the tax system though they contribute through
consumption taxes.
For them to contribute more
efficiently we need to establish a base income model linked directly to
deliverables such as rental costs, food and basic services such as medical and
communication. My personal preference is
to link the core delivery of basic services to land based needs on the rural
environment were local capital is
available to support personal initiative and wealth creation for even the
elderly
It may sound utopian but it is
not as this is what actually worked in non monetized societies of the
past. Reinventing the structure is the
challenge when monetizing because money is associated with the natural inclination
to impose wage slavery.
Most criticisms of such bottom up
models are based on pure ignorance of economic systems and the ignorant fight
for control of the apparent lolly. We
have become less barbaric during the past century, but still have far to go.
Surprisingly, the Chinese have
much to teach us on this subject, though much of what is there is also an
accident of history rather that intelligent planning. It is a case of building from the least worse
alternatives 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 the
bottom 50% of Americans pay 2.7%. Now, if we were actually going to make the
tax code more “fair,” who would actually be paying more and who would be paying
less? Maybe the rich aren’t getting quite as sweet a deal as you’d think if you
got 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 gone
up as high as 90% in some brackets. Yet, the actual amount of revenue coming in
doesn’t change very much in relation to revenue. It’s almost as if
conservatives are right and people do react to higher tax rates by changing
their behavior. Maybe they work less, take more loopholes, lobby Congress to
create loopholes, invest differently, move industry offshore, etc., etc…it
really doesn’t matter.
The key thing to take away from this is that the amount of revenue the
government can bring in via the income tax is, for whatever reason, more
inelastic than most people think. That’s yet another reason to put more
emphasis on balancing the budget via spending cuts as opposed to trying to fix
the problem with tax increases.
Now, if Hauser’s law is as spot-on as it has been in the past and it’s
going to be difficult to raise the government’s revenue level much beyond the
20% 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 halfway
mark) in 2012 and then 100% of all of tax revenue in 2052. Some people may take
a little comfort from that. After all, 2052 seems like a long time away — and
so it is. But, don’t forget — we have a 14 trillion dollar debt we need to pay
off and the federal government funds a lot of other things besides those
entitlement programs. That money is where defense, intelligence, border
security, government salaries, interest payments on the debt, welfare, and even
Harry Reid’s precious Cowboy Poetry comes from. At one point do people look at
the size of the deficit, size of the debt, and numbers like these and then
conclude it’s not safe to lend us money anymore? It could be much sooner than
we think unless we start showing the world we’re serious about controlling
spiraling entitlement costs.
Here's a better way to finance government:
ReplyDeletehttp://webspace.webring.com/people/eu/um_1099/c03r5a.html
“Tax Privilege, Not People”
http://tinyurl.com/yc7yxp6