7 ms·

Forced sharing of prosperity (in form of transfer payments / taxes) is at a much higher non-wartime rate (% gdp) vs say 100 years ago (in the US). If you want

Forced sharing of prosperity (in form of transfer payments / taxes) is at a much higher non-wartime rate (% gdp) vs say 100 years ago (in the US). If you want to use our parents (and before) proportion of transfer of prosperity, we should lower it significantly.

arcticbull 4y ago
Forced sharing is a silly way of referring to taxes which are fees assessed for collective services. Nobody builds anything alone and is a benefactor of all sorts of common goods, services and infrastructure. To say otherwise is to prefer the bootstraps narrative to reality. Top marginal tax rate in the mid 1900s was 70-90% and the estate tax was actually assessed without exempting the first $14M or whatever it is. It’s all a social construct and we collectively set the rules.
- notch656a 4y ago
  - arcticbull 4y ago
    Forced sharing isn’t an accepted term or even one that is worth using in discourse. Transfer payments benefit society which in turn benefits the best off too. They benefit from them.
  - Aloha 4y ago
    This only seems to account for direct social spending, not indirect - which much of the cold war was, that large peacetime military, its transfer payments from the government to rural america. Also, when I say shared prosperity, I dont mean transfer payments, nor do I mean forced sharing, I mean why are so few benefits of our greater productivity seen by the majority (bottom 2/3rds), why has the standard of living fallen in real terms for the bottom 50% of the country? why do we feel poorer?
    - notch656a 4y ago
      Median real personal income has risen significantly in the past 1-2 generations. It looks like the common man in the US is doing quite well compared to our ancestors. If we're looking at voluntary trade of wealth, rather than forced sharing, that seems to be doing quite well! https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEPAINUSA672N https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEPAINUSA672N >why has the standard of living fallen in real terms for the bottom 50% of the country? >Right, but again, I'm not talking transfer payments, or forced sharing, if I'd meant to speak to transfer payments, I would have said transfer payments, not 'shared prosperity'. Do you think those at the bottom are getting most of their income from transfer payments or are they getting it from voluntary trade and charity? The people at the bottom are living off of transfer payments (forced sharing). -----------replies [since mine are spent]-------- >which makes the actual situation very clear: real median personal income has lagged substantially behind real GDP per capita ever since 1975 or so. Perhaps the median worker is being 'robbed', but another explanation is merely the median worker isn't where the majority of the value creation gains have been located for the past ~50 years.
      - Aloha 4y ago
        There is effectively no cash welfare in the United States. Those who are getting cash income at the bottom of the scale are getting it because of disability or age. Because there is no cash welfare, people are indeed earning their money mostly by performing work.
      - PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
        > Median real personal income has risen significantly in the past 1-2 generations. That's already a warped measure. Given that we've seen GDP (and some other measures of overall economic productivity) rise during that time, the least you'd expect is that "median real personal income would rise". But the more relevant question is: how has median real personal income risen compared to the overall increase in productivity? That is, we're doing/making more (and also buying/selling more), but who are the beneficiaries of this growth? If it isn't basically everyone, why not and should it be? And here's the SLF graph for that: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=Vgqj https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=Vgqj which makes the actual situation very clear: real median personal income has lagged substantially behind real GDP per capita ever since 1975 or so.
- jandrewrogers 4y ago
  The effective tax rates when the marginal rates were 70-90% were not much different than they are now. Cherrypicking marginal tax rates while ignoring deductions against those rates is misleading and deceptive.
  - BobbyJo 4y ago
    Havea source on that? I hadn't heard that before and am interested in what that looked like.
    - songeater 4y ago
      https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYFRGDA188S https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYFRGDA188S
Aloha 4y ago
Why are you comparing to 100 years ago - thats a non-sensical one, even my great-grandparents were minors 100 years ago.
- notch656a 4y ago
  Fine, go back 20, 30, 60 years. Practically take your pick. If you look at say federal transfer payments as percent GDP they were way lower. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=jU5N https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=jU5N And we all know anyone talking about the standard of the bottom is looking exactly at transfer payments. That's how those at the bottom survive. We shouldn't try to trick the reader by saying "I'm not talking transfer payments."
  - Aloha 4y ago
    Right, but again, I'm not talking transfer payments, or forced sharing, if I'd meant to speak to transfer payments, I would have said transfer payments, not 'shared prosperity'.
    - BobbyJo 4y ago
      How would you define "shared prosperity" then? How would we compare it to some other time or place?
      - Aloha 4y ago
        More good jobs for everyone. Largely, in my adult life, I've seen management and shareholders pots grow, and labor stay the same. When the pie grows everyone ought to get a little bigger piece of it. Meanwhile, rent, price of a used or new car, college education, homeownership and medical costs have grown unabated - and generally faster than inflation.
      - Red_Leaves_Flyy 4y ago
        Profit sharing is probably the term we’re looking for here.
systemvoltage 4y ago
Yeah, things are about to get worse. The newer generation wants equality of outcome and wealth (aka communism). They're enamored by income equality and climate which is just a complete subjectivism take over. You can do no little and you can always do more. We're here to shame you. Asian countries have adopted what worked in the west: Capitalism and lifting people out of poverty at an unprecendented rate. Those that complain about inequality are totally ok with not comparing themselves to someone in Bangladesh. To them, you look like a multi-millionaire. The hypocrisy is so blindingly bright, it is unbelievable. None of the current zeitgeist has any reason, rationality and logic. It is subjectivism and post-modernism in its worst form. Biting off the hand that feeds them.
- mindslight 4y ago
  The "newer generation" is reacting this way because there is no political alternative being offered. Speaking in terms of the US, where is the party that advocates fiscal responsibility? Not fake "fiscal responsibility" where the Fed gives away trillions of dollars in "loans" to the financial industry while politicians run interference by making a show about legislative spending, but actual fiscal responsibility that respects the inherently-distributed economy. It's been outside the Overton window since the everything-bubble was kicked off by the ending of the gold standard.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - notch656a 4y ago
    There are folks running for office that advocate for significantly less spending by the government as well as balanced fiscal discipline. People don't tend to vote for them.
    - soco 4y ago
      Why bother talking about them? They stand zero chances to be elected, not having one of the two parties behind them. I repeat, zero chances. Zero.

arcticbull 4y ago

Forced sharing is a silly way of referring to taxes which are fees assessed for collective services. Nobody builds anything alone and is a benefactor of all sorts of common goods, services and infrastructure. To say otherwise is to prefer the bootstraps narrative to reality. Top marginal tax rate in the mid 1900s was 70-90% and the estate tax was actually assessed without exempting the first $14M or whatever it is. It’s all a social construct and we collectively set the rules.

notch656a 4y ago
- arcticbull 4y ago
  Forced sharing isn’t an accepted term or even one that is worth using in discourse. Transfer payments benefit society which in turn benefits the best off too. They benefit from them.
- Aloha 4y ago
  This only seems to account for direct social spending, not indirect - which much of the cold war was, that large peacetime military, its transfer payments from the government to rural america. Also, when I say shared prosperity, I dont mean transfer payments, nor do I mean forced sharing, I mean why are so few benefits of our greater productivity seen by the majority (bottom 2/3rds), why has the standard of living fallen in real terms for the bottom 50% of the country? why do we feel poorer?
  - notch656a 4y ago
    Median real personal income has risen significantly in the past 1-2 generations. It looks like the common man in the US is doing quite well compared to our ancestors. If we're looking at voluntary trade of wealth, rather than forced sharing, that seems to be doing quite well! https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEPAINUSA672N https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEPAINUSA672N >why has the standard of living fallen in real terms for the bottom 50% of the country? >Right, but again, I'm not talking transfer payments, or forced sharing, if I'd meant to speak to transfer payments, I would have said transfer payments, not 'shared prosperity'. Do you think those at the bottom are getting most of their income from transfer payments or are they getting it from voluntary trade and charity? The people at the bottom are living off of transfer payments (forced sharing). -----------replies [since mine are spent]-------- >which makes the actual situation very clear: real median personal income has lagged substantially behind real GDP per capita ever since 1975 or so. Perhaps the median worker is being 'robbed', but another explanation is merely the median worker isn't where the majority of the value creation gains have been located for the past ~50 years.
    - Aloha 4y ago
      There is effectively no cash welfare in the United States. Those who are getting cash income at the bottom of the scale are getting it because of disability or age. Because there is no cash welfare, people are indeed earning their money mostly by performing work.
    - PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
      > Median real personal income has risen significantly in the past 1-2 generations. That's already a warped measure. Given that we've seen GDP (and some other measures of overall economic productivity) rise during that time, the least you'd expect is that "median real personal income would rise". But the more relevant question is: how has median real personal income risen compared to the overall increase in productivity? That is, we're doing/making more (and also buying/selling more), but who are the beneficiaries of this growth? If it isn't basically everyone, why not and should it be? And here's the SLF graph for that: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=Vgqj https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=Vgqj which makes the actual situation very clear: real median personal income has lagged substantially behind real GDP per capita ever since 1975 or so.
jandrewrogers 4y ago
The effective tax rates when the marginal rates were 70-90% were not much different than they are now. Cherrypicking marginal tax rates while ignoring deductions against those rates is misleading and deceptive.
- BobbyJo 4y ago
  Havea source on that? I hadn't heard that before and am interested in what that looked like.
  - songeater 4y ago
    https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYFRGDA188S https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYFRGDA188S

Aloha 4y ago

Why are you comparing to 100 years ago - thats a non-sensical one, even my great-grandparents were minors 100 years ago.

notch656a 4y ago
Fine, go back 20, 30, 60 years. Practically take your pick. If you look at say federal transfer payments as percent GDP they were way lower. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=jU5N https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=jU5N And we all know anyone talking about the standard of the bottom is looking exactly at transfer payments. That's how those at the bottom survive. We shouldn't try to trick the reader by saying "I'm not talking transfer payments."
- Aloha 4y ago
  Right, but again, I'm not talking transfer payments, or forced sharing, if I'd meant to speak to transfer payments, I would have said transfer payments, not 'shared prosperity'.
  - BobbyJo 4y ago
    How would you define "shared prosperity" then? How would we compare it to some other time or place?
    - Aloha 4y ago
      More good jobs for everyone. Largely, in my adult life, I've seen management and shareholders pots grow, and labor stay the same. When the pie grows everyone ought to get a little bigger piece of it. Meanwhile, rent, price of a used or new car, college education, homeownership and medical costs have grown unabated - and generally faster than inflation.
    - Red_Leaves_Flyy 4y ago
      Profit sharing is probably the term we’re looking for here.

systemvoltage 4y ago

Yeah, things are about to get worse. The newer generation wants equality of outcome and wealth (aka communism). They're enamored by income equality and climate which is just a complete subjectivism take over. You can do no little and you can always do more. We're here to shame you. Asian countries have adopted what worked in the west: Capitalism and lifting people out of poverty at an unprecendented rate. Those that complain about inequality are totally ok with not comparing themselves to someone in Bangladesh. To them, you look like a multi-millionaire. The hypocrisy is so blindingly bright, it is unbelievable. None of the current zeitgeist has any reason, rationality and logic. It is subjectivism and post-modernism in its worst form. Biting off the hand that feeds them.

mindslight 4y ago
The "newer generation" is reacting this way because there is no political alternative being offered. Speaking in terms of the US, where is the party that advocates fiscal responsibility? Not fake "fiscal responsibility" where the Fed gives away trillions of dollars in "loans" to the financial industry while politicians run interference by making a show about legislative spending, but actual fiscal responsibility that respects the inherently-distributed economy. It's been outside the Overton window since the everything-bubble was kicked off by the ending of the gold standard.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- notch656a 4y ago
  There are folks running for office that advocate for significantly less spending by the government as well as balanced fiscal discipline. People don't tend to vote for them.
  - soco 4y ago
    Why bother talking about them? They stand zero chances to be elected, not having one of the two parties behind them. I repeat, zero chances. Zero.