The consequences of throwing away mainstream semantics and ascribing new meanings to existing words to fit your personal worldview or branch of ethics is that it makes discussion with or even understanding the viewpoint of an opponent impossible.In other words, I haven't got a clue what you're talking about.
A concise summary of the problem progressives have in dealing with Republicans and Conservatives in general. Thank you. And you'd have a valid complaint if that's what I was doing. But let me be precise. That was in response to this exchange:
He: Wealth distribution in the usual sense is measured by comparing how much money you have before government intervention with how much money after government intervention. Those that end up with less are said to be taxed, and those that end up with more are said to be subsidized.Which is NOT the usual way wealth is measured, but I digressMe:By your definition, the upper economic class is well subsidized and the lower is heavily taxed.I'm more than willing to make the vocabulary shift if it makes things clearer.
He: How exactly is someone who pays 40% taxes on his income subsidized?
Me:Through having their non-earned income exempted from taxation.
He: Whaddaya mean non-earned income?
Me:Non-earned, un-earned...Income you get by means other than earning it.
You mean income from sources other than labour?
Me: Nope.
Now for the precision: Unearned income (as defined by the US Tax code) is taxed at a much lower rate than earned income. In the U.S. Tax code, unearned income is privileged over earned income, and in Republican political and economic policy even more so.
People whose earned income is taxed at 40% can be subsidized if their income is mostly of the unearned sort.
Remember that when Republicans talk about keeping your "hard earned money." Their tax cuts are almost all on the unearned type of income.
Posted by P6 at August 1, 2004 10:30 AM
Trackback URL: http://www.niggerati.net/mt/mt-tb.cgi/5778
Comments
The tax rate is a red herring.
It's the guy who pays the most taxes in absolute terms who subsidizes the others, not the guy who pays the most taxes in relative terms.
Posted by dof at August 1, 2004 01:52 PMThen you shouldn't have mentioned the guy who's income is taxed at 40% in the last thread.
And when all taxes (federal, state, local, sales, user, gasoline, etc) are taken into account, we DO have a flat tax structure in the USofA.
Add to that the vast services the wealthy receive to service their wealth (everything from national defense to contract enforcement to garbage collection) that the middle and lower class don't get because they don't own the property that gets serviced, and yes, the wealthy are TREMENDOUSLY subsidized by the middle and lower classes.
Subsidies aren't just about the amount you pay. It's the amount you pay vs the goods and services you receive.
Posted by P6 at August 1, 2004 01:57 PMIf you really believe that the lower and middle classes subsidize the filthy rich, you would agree with me that a smaller government is to be preferred, because then the filthy rich would be subsidized to a lesser degree, and the middle and lower classes would keep more of their money.
Posted by dof at August 1, 2004 03:46 PMI don't want them subsidized to a lesser degree. I don't want them subsidized at all. And I have no preference on the size of government because THAT is a red herring. Chasing smaller government irrespective of the repercussions of that shrinkage is something I will always actively oppose.
I want government that serves everyone fairly. One that shepards the long term health of the nation because if it is not looked out for, typical human behavior will have us backsliding into feudalism. On the other hand, if everyone was dealt with fairly there'd be no complaints about government size, or laws, or anything else.
Fair means you get your share and you pay your share. The poor aren't getting their share and the rich aren't paying their share…and are angling to pay even less.
The "free market" isn't free. It takes active support from a society, and all I'm asking is everyone get a piece.
Go P6! Go! Go!
If I were a glassmaker, I'd do that comment in meter-high letters of blue-green neon.
Posted by James R MacLean at August 3, 2004 02:58 AMSaying you want a "government that serves everyone fairly" isn't saying very much, as different people will have different opinions on what constitutes fair.
Posted by dof at August 3, 2004 10:33 AMI've stated very clearly what fairness is to me, clearly enough that you can discuss it without using the word.
Fair means you get your share and you pay your share. The more you get, the more you pay.
Saying "I want a smaller government" irrespective of any other concerns, on the other hand, is saying a LOT.
And saying I'm not saying a lot kinda shifts the topic, don't it? Not a problem, I just don't want anyone to think I didn't notice.
Let me give an example:
I think it's fair that someone who sends his kids to a private school ought not to pay taxes for running public schools, since he's clearly not getting his share.
Posted by dof at August 3, 2004 01:45 PMYou don't isolate single issues that way. It's like discussing the function of your liver when asked about your life.
Gotta get dressed, but I want to leave you with a question:
What's the cash value of being a member of a literate nation and society?
What's the cash value of being a member of a literate nation and society?
You make it sound as if only government intervention keeps society literate. I don't buy that. Normal parents feed and clothe their children, why wouldn't they educate their children?
And anyway, any cash benefit I get from my neighbour being literate is the same benefit my neighbour gets from ME being literate, so those would cancel themselves out.
Posted by dof at August 4, 2004 09:29 AMYou make it sound as if only government intervention keeps society literate. I don't buy that.
Compare literacy rates before and after public education.
Normal parents feed and clothe their children, why wouldn't they educate their children?
They would...on how to farm, how to hunt, how to weave. Subsistance skills.
How many kids RIGHT NOW would never see the inside of a school if the full cost of schooling fell on each individual family? Not from lack of desire but because they aren't paid enough that they could afford to both educate and feed the child.
More, how many people actually know how to teach?
Compare literacy rates before and after public education.
My point is that if there wasn't public education, there would be private education.
How many kids RIGHT NOW would never see the inside of a school if the full cost of schooling fell on each individual family?
I don't think that people who can't buy their food should be left to starve either, so people who can't afford to educate their children can be subsidized. Nor do I buy that farming stuff. Most, if not all people want their kids to do better than themselves. They want their kids to be doctors, laywers, writers and whatnot.
Posted by dof at August 4, 2004 04:02 PMMy point is that if there wasn't public education, there would be private education.
My point is, under free market conditions an education would be so valuable only the wealthy could afford it.
Most, if not all people want their kids to do better than themselves. They want their kids to be doctors, laywers, writers and whatnot.
Which aspirations are only possible because we have a literate society.
Education as a public good has changed the playing field such that your very desires are for things it makes possible.
To change now would put us in the ridiculous position of the guy who declared we could close the patent office everything had been invented.
My point is, under free market conditions an education would be so valuable only the wealthy could afford it.
Whenever x is produced by the government and people suggest to privatize it, the cry goes out: "What, and only have rich people be able to buy X?"
And again and again, as history shows, once something is privatized, there's an incentive to innovate and do things more efficiently.
Here in Flanders, Catholic schools operate more efficiently than state-run, neutral schools: they receive about 30% less subsidies on a per-student basis, yet they are usually considered to be of higher quality.
Posted by dof at August 5, 2004 03:35 AMAnd again and again, as history shows, once something is privatized, there's an incentive to innovate and do things more efficiently.
I'm looking at the history of privatization and deregulation inthe USofA and can't find a single instance to support that statement.
Here in Flanders, Catholic schools operate more efficiently than state-run, neutral schools: they receive about 30% less subsidies on a per-student basis, yet they are usually considered to be of higher quality.
Really?
What else is different about Flanders and the USofA?
Wait, let me try something else...
You know, if the competition of public schooling was removed all their incentive to innovate and do things differently vanishes. Less supply, higher prices.
Economic principle? Oh, no we can't have none of THAT. Okay, try this:
Subsidy? If they're truly private schools they'd get no subsidy at all. They are actually a joint venture, public and private funds. And they are actually an excellent example to consider because they give you a concrete price to work with.
Check it out: take your per student subsidy. That's the amount in additional tuition each student in each family would have to pay for their education were there no public education (or in the case of Flanders public involvement in educational funding). We can disregard for the moment the price increase caused by less competition.
Seventy percent of the cost of education in public school PLUS the cost of annual tution at Catholic school. That's what market pricing of education would be like in Flanders.
Posted by P6 at August 5, 2004 04:55 AMHere in America it's otherwise.
The catholic schools receive more subsidies on a per-student basis, or are considered to deliver lower quality?
Posted by dof at August 5, 2004 05:22 AMSory about that. I realized a one-liner was insufficient so the comment you responded to is gone. I don't want anyone to think you're psychotic or anything.
Posted by P6 at August 5, 2004 05:28 AMHere in Flanders, Catholic schools operate more efficiently than state-run, neutral schools: they receive about 30% less subsidies on a per-student basis, yet they are usually considered to be of higher quality.
By the way, are these schools profit-making ventures? Or are they also subsidized by the Catholic Church?
That's the amount in additional tuition each student in each family would have to pay for their education were there no public education
Well, it's the cost of education. They are allready paying it through their taxes.
We can disregard for the moment the price increase caused by less competition.
Or competition could increase when the market is no longer distorted. Why would anyone want to enter the education market as long as it is rigged to favour the government schools?
are these schools profit-making ventures? Or are they also subsidized by the Catholic Church
Nobody knows the real truth about Catholic finances! Anyway, they're non-profit, unless you want to ascribe a cash-value to a saved soul. The resident priests may pay above free-market prices for their rent, you could call that a subsidy. Though priests usually only make up a small fraction of the staff.
Posted by dof at August 5, 2004 07:42 AMThat's the amount in additional tuition each student in each family would have to pay for their education were there no public educationWell, it's the cost of education. They are allready paying it through their taxes.
You think so?
I'm going to ask you to do a bit of research because the situation in Flanders is out of my reach. Look at the the middle third of your economy. What is their average tax bill, on the level that pays for education...in other words, if it's paid for by the federal government I want their average federal tax; if it's local, the average local tax. Then I'd like to know the average subsidy per student in public or Catholic school; whichever you give, I can calculate the other one.
Why would anyone want to enter the education market as long as it is rigged to favour the government schools?As long as it serves the greater good, I could give a shit if it doesn't present business opportunities.
You can't possibly believe it would have been better had publicly funded education never been established.
Do you believe it would have been better had publicly funded education never been established?
Nobody knows the real truth about Catholic finances! Anyway, they're non-profit
So...
These Catholic schools are publicly funded to the tune of 70% of the public schools, collect tuition and get an unspecified amount of support from the Vatican, all on a non-profit basis (thereby receiving preferential tax treatment).
Whch of us are you trying to prove is gullible?
Those Catholic schools do not collect tuition, I should have said financed instead of subsidized. They bill parents for some expenses, mostly trips, movies, theatre, that kind of stuff. Anyway, I think it would be a gullible person who believes there's a net cashflow OUT of the vatican :-)
Median income would be about 20K gross, your employer would add another 4K to that, for a total of 24K, of which 10K would end up in taxes and 14K in your hands, assuming a single-earner with two kids.
A Catholic school would get 4K for a student. Add another .5K to that for expenses. If you have two kids, that would add up to 9K, or about 90% of what you pay in taxes. Then again, if we leave college out of the picture, you would only pay that for 12 years out of an average 40 year career, so spread out over your whole career that would be less than 30% of your payroll taxes.
Also note that you haven't finished paying taxes when you receive your net-income. Gas is taxed at about 150%, so if your gasbill is 1K, that's another .6K in taxes.
Also, most families with school-going kids would tend to be 2-income households
Posted by dof at August 5, 2004 11:16 AMMedian income would be about 20K gross, your employer would add another 4K to that
You're going to have to explain that one. Where's the 20K coming from if not your employer?
And by the way...
Do you believe it would have been better had publicly funded education never been established?
Posted by P6 at August 5, 2004 11:37 AMIt costs your employer 24K for you to have a 20K "gross" income.
It's a little gimmick to confuse people about the amount of taxes they pay.
So someone earning 20K "gross" and 14K net may be deluded into thinking his tax rate is 30% while it is really 40%.
Do you believe it would have been better had publicly funded education never been established?
No. Then again, my problem is more with the government running the education system, rather than financing it.
Posted by dof at August 5, 2004 11:57 AMIt costs your employer 24K for you to have a 20K "gross" income. It's a little gimmick to confuse people about the amount of taxes they pay.So someone earning 20K "gross" and 14K net may be deluded into thinking his tax rate is 30% while it is really 40%.
Like the Social Security and unemployment tax employers pay here.
I see. It's me you're trying to prove is gullable. You're claiming the tax paid by an employer is actually paid by the employee.
Aren't you the one who wrote that bit about redefining terms according to your politics or whatever makes communication impossible?
Since you know that, and you do that, it's intentional right? I need to know if this is a real discussion or not; at the moment it ain't looking like it.
You're claiming the tax paid by an employer is actually paid by the employee.
The correct term is "tax wedge" . I stand corrected.
http://www.oecdobserver.org/news/fullstory.php/aid/661/Taxing_work.html