APP - Isn't the solution higher taxes on the rich?

CA is 6th in size but it is not a free-standing economy. The CA economy is integrated within the larger US economy and this constrains its economic options just as federal law constrains its political options.
 
Alice in Liberaland said:
http://www.dailynews.com/social-aff...less-encampments-isnt-working-councilman-says

Supposedly California is the sixth biggest economy in the world. Surely they can afford to give all of their homeless housing. They are home to some of the richest people in the world. Surely we can tax them more in order to make sure children aren't living in the streets.

I thought these people were compassionate
Click to expand...

California sucks ,it is time to split that mess up.
 
Bill Fishlore said:
CA is 6th in size but it is not a free-standing economy. The CA economy is integrated within the larger US economy and this constrains its economic options just as federal law constrains its political options.
Click to expand...

Specifically with regards to the OP, how does any federal law, statute or policy prevent the state of California, or any California municipality, from taxing its wealthy and spreading it out to the poor?
 
Right said:
Specifically with regards to the OP, how does any federal law, statute or policy prevent the state of California, or any California municipality, from taxing its wealthy and spreading it out to the poor?
Click to expand...
The OP claims, "Surely they can afford to give all of their homeless housing." The constraint is not from federal law but the necessity of operating the California economy within the context of the US economy. If CA were a sovereign country, it might try a universal housing program of some sort. Tied to the other 49 states by the federal government, such a program would not be feasible.
 
Bill Fishlore said:
The OP claims, "Surely they can afford to give all of their homeless housing." The constraint is not from federal law but the necessity of operating the California economy within the context of the US economy. If CA were a sovereign country, it might try a universal housing program of some sort. Tied to the other 49 states by the federal government, such a program would not be feasible.
Click to expand...

I think what you're trying to say is that if CA had free housing for the homeless then homeless from other states could move to CA and take advantage of that, inundating the program. This ignores the fact that CA could restrict the program to residents of CA, the precedent being its University system, which does exactly that.
 
Right said:
I think what you're trying to say is that if CA had free housing for the homeless then homeless from other states could move to CA and take advantage of that, inundating the program. This ignores the fact that CA could restrict the program to residents of CA, the precedent being its University system, which does exactly that.
Click to expand...
I appreciate your effort to understand what you think I am trying to say but please remember that what you think I am trying to say isn't what I said. Your are correct that CA could restrict a free housing program to California residents; the issue of how the state defines its citizenship isn't quite as simple as it might appear. In any event, the very high cost of a free housing program would require taxation which could adversely effect the CA economy if other states had no such burden. State economies aren't closed systems.
 
Bill Fishlore said:
I appreciate your effort to understand what you think I am trying to say but please remember that what you think I am trying to say isn't what I said. Your are correct that CA could restrict a free housing program to California residents; the issue of how the state defines its citizenship isn't quite as simple as it might appear. In any event, the very high cost of a free housing program would require taxation which could adversely effect the CA economy if other states had no such burden. State economies aren't closed systems.
Click to expand...

Please explain why what other states do or not do matters in this situation.
 
Right said:
Please explain why what other states do or not do matters in this situation.
Click to expand...
Each state must budget its social programs within the confines of the tax revenue it can raise from its economy. Unlike the federal government, the states can't print money or run endless deficits. The Constitution imposes restrictions on the power of states to interfere with inter-state trade, so no state can seal its borders and set up its social programs without regard other states.

Some states have relatively strong economies -- California is a big one, my New Hampshire is a tiny one. Some states have lots of poor people in need, some have fewer. Some states have economies that are self-contained, others depend of a highly competitive inter-state economy.

Put these parameters together and let the system run and you get the kind of concentration of capital we saw in the 19th century. Simply put, the rich states get richer and the poor states get poorer. The Civil War taught America a bitter lesson about how concentration of capital weakens the union and ever since, the federal government has undertaken responsibility to balance and distribute some degree of the national wealth to maintain social stability and economic development across the diverse states. All Americans benefit from the wealth and power generated by our huge nation.
 
Bill Fishlore said:
CA is 6th in size but it is not a free-standing economy. The CA economy is integrated within the larger US economy and this constrains its economic options just as federal law constrains its political options.
Click to expand...

???....what federal law constrains its economic options or its political options?....
 
Bill Fishlore said:
The OP claims, "Surely they can afford to give all of their homeless housing." The constraint is not from federal law but the necessity of operating the California economy within the context of the US economy. If CA were a sovereign country, it might try a universal housing program of some sort. Tied to the other 49 states by the federal government, such a program would not be feasible.
Click to expand...

sure they could.....they would just have to impose immigration controls and build a fence...
 
Bill Fishlore said:
I appreciate your effort to understand what you think I am trying to say but please remember that what you think I am trying to say isn't what I said. Your are correct that CA could restrict a free housing program to California residents; the issue of how the state defines its citizenship isn't quite as simple as it might appear. In any event, the very high cost of a free housing program would require taxation which could adversely effect the CA economy if other states had no such burden. State economies aren't closed systems.
Click to expand...

wait.......taxation adversely effects the economy?......
 
Bill Fishlore said:
Each state must budget its social programs within the confines of the tax revenue it can raise from its economy. Unlike the federal government, the states can't print money or run endless deficits. The Constitution imposes restrictions on the power of states to interfere with inter-state trade, so no state can seal its borders and set up its social programs without regard other states.

Some states have relatively strong economies -- California is a big one, my New Hampshire is a tiny one. Some states have lots of poor people in need, some have fewer. Some states have economies that are self-contained, others depend of a highly competitive inter-state economy.

Put these parameters together and let the system run and you get the kind of concentration of capital we saw in the 19th century. Simply put, the rich states get richer and the poor states get poorer. The Civil War taught America a bitter lesson about how concentration of capital weakens the union and ever since, the federal government has undertaken responsibility to balance and distribute some degree of the national wealth to maintain social stability and economic development across the diverse states. All Americans benefit from the wealth and power generated by our huge nation.
Click to expand...

That's an interesting theory but really doesn't make much sense, especially with respect to the OP.

For instance, the last paragraph, you claim that without FedCo the system would concentrate capital in a few states. There is no mechanism for that. Then you double down and claim that was the reason for the Civil War. Non sequitur on top of non sequitur.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
wait.......taxation adversely effects the economy?......
Click to expand...
Taxation is a necessary business expense. Taxation makes the economy possible. Without tax revenue there would be no roads, bridges, police, legal system -- all the things without which a modern economy is impossible. In addition, without government health, education, and welfare support a modern workforce would not exist.
 
Alice in Liberaland said:
http://www.dailynews.com/social-aff...less-encampments-isnt-working-councilman-says

Supposedly California is the sixth biggest economy in the world. Surely they can afford to give all of their homeless housing. They are home to some of the richest people in the world. Surely we can tax them more in order to make sure children aren't living in the streets.

I thought these people were compassionate
Click to expand...

the answer to your question is no,although i thank the 15% capital gains tax ripoff needs to go.
 
Bill Fishlore said:
Taxation is a necessary business expense. Taxation makes the economy possible. Without tax revenue there would be no roads, bridges, police, legal system -- all the things without which a modern economy is impossible. In addition, without government health, education, and welfare support a modern workforce would not exist.
Click to expand...

it looks like we just might get rid of the state tax deduction ,no more ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;

First, let’s start with why the state and local deduction is a problematic provision that needs to go from a policy standpoint. The biggest problem with the state and local deduction - one of the largest deductions in the federal code - is that it entices states and municipalities to tax and spend more than they would without it.

,no more subsidizing high tax states
 
chink said:
the answer to your question is no,although i thank the 15% capital gains tax ripoff needs to go.
Click to expand...
The way that capital is taxed is indeed obsolete and unfair. We need to rethink the basis of all our taxes. Taxes are levied on profit. Profit comes from the action of labor on invested capital. In everyday terms, this means workers using tools, facilities and materials bought by whoever is paying the worker to use them. This is true whether we are talking about a steel mill, a pizza shop, a car factory, a shopping mall or a surgical hospital.

So far, so good. When we consider how much of that taxable profit comes from labor (salaries) versus invested capital, we see that we are in the biggest technological revolution since the invention of the steam engine because of very recent computer and automation technologies.

Computers and robots aren't cheap; neither are workers. But labor costs are shrinking as a creator of profit because money invested in them multiplies the productivity per worker enormously. Computers wiped out the jobs of bank tellers with the ATM machine a generation ago. Now, self-driving trucks are about to take away CDL jobs, some of the best available without a degree. Even lawyers are being cut thanks to new legal software and doctors can perform surgery on the Internet.

So, when we look a dollar of profit, we see that more and more of it comes from capital invested in productivity technology and less and less comes from human labor. Workers are becoming obsolete. Heavy industry has more than doubled worker productivity -- meaning half the workers are needed. Services, even retail is undergoing the same transformation.

What this means in terms of tax revenue is that our system of taxing labor (income tax) is crushing people as wages stagnate and good jobs are harder to find while the robots who are making the real money pay less in taxes on the wealth they create than humans do. It's time to give humans a break and tax robots at the same rate or higher than Americans.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top