Economics Thread

DwlQ5SsXcAIaLOS.jpg
 
The vast majority of Americans who are in dire financial straits are there because of their own bad decisions. Not anyone keeping them down. Its no one elses fault if you have 2 kids by the time you are 21 and no one is making minimum wage beyond their teens and early 20's unless they are incompetent,lazy, cant speak English and/or untrustworthy. Many of those minimum wage service jobs can lead to higher paying jobs. My first job they started the process of promoting me after the first week.
 
maura quint
‏Verified account @behindyourback
Jan 11

So many people want to argue if you tax the very rich they won’t be

incentivized to earn more money as though they’re hoarding more

cash than they’ll need in serveral lifetimes for any reason other

than addiction and competitive ego

to want to have just more than the next person.
20 replies 133 retweets 837 likes
 
As I said above, doubling tax rates wouldn't even get yes out of current deficits.

How do you expand services without cutting spending?

Anything?
 
Greg Mankiw on how the shutdown is affecting GDP:

In this interview, CEA chair Kevin Hassett (around minute 4:00) dismisses the adverse impact of the government shutdown on real GDP. It seems to me that he is more wrong than right. Kevin appears to be assuming that government workers don't produce anything of value when they are at work, or that they will make up all the undone work when they return, so making them stay at home has no significant economic impact. If that were really the case, we should give them all shorter work weeks, so they can enjoy more leisure.

To me, that does not seem tenable. Take, for example, the national parks that are now closed because of the shutdown. Those families that would otherwise be enjoying them are suffering a true reduction in economic well-being that is forever lost.

My very rough calculation is that economic cost of the government shutdown is in the ballpark of about $100 million per day.

https://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/
 
acesfull86 said:
http://https://www.wsj.com/articles/economists-statement-on-carbon-dividends-11547682910

Any thoughts on this?
Click to expand...

Looks like I need to pony up for a subscription. From the headline, I tend to agree with the concept of a carbon tax. I think we are moving more toward fees and consumption taxes and likely away from depending more on the income tax. I think the problem in the country now is everyone wants services and no one wants to pay the taxes to support them. The budget, while not having to be brought into complete balance, has to be reined in to the extent the deficit is not so large. That is probably going to take some measure of tax increase and a wiser and more frugal approach to spending.
 
The carbon tax is an example of what economists call a pigouvian tax, named after a long dead economist named Arthur Pigou. There is a well-developed body of research that analyzes how pigouvian taxes can be used to address externatilies. Do a search on pigouvian taxes and you can learn about it.
 
I would be in favor of a broad array of measures that accurately price carbon emissions based on its true societal impact, i.e. pricing in the many externalities and reducing subsidies, while shifting those resources to the most vulnerable to straight-up consumption taxes.
 
50PoundHead said:
Looks like I need to pony up for a subscription. From the headline, I tend to agree with the concept of a carbon tax. I think we are moving more toward fees and consumption taxes and likely away from depending more on the income tax. I think the problem in the country now is everyone wants services and no one wants to pay the taxes to support them. The budget, while not having to be brought into complete balance, has to be reined in to the extent the deficit is not so large. That is probably going to take some measure of tax increase and a wiser and more frugal approach to spending.
Click to expand...

Whoops...I am auto-logged into WSJ on my computer and forgot there was a paywall.

"I. A carbon tax offers the most cost-effective lever to reduce carbon emissions at the scale and speed that is necessary. By correcting a well-known market failure, a carbon tax will send a powerful price signal that harnesses the invisible hand of the marketplace to steer economic actors towards a low-carbon future.

II. A carbon tax should increase every year until emissions reductions goals are met and be revenue neutral to avoid debates over the size of government. A consistently rising carbon price will encourage technological innovation and large-scale infrastructure development. It will also accelerate the diffusion of carbon-efficient goods and services.

III. A sufficiently robust and gradually rising carbon tax will replace the need for various carbon regulations that are less efficient. Substituting a price signal for cumbersome regulations will promote economic growth and provide the regulatory certainty companies need for long- term investment in clean-energy alternatives.

IV. To prevent carbon leakage and to protect U.S. competitiveness, a border carbon adjustment system should be established. This system would enhance the competitiveness of American firms that are more energy-efficient than their global competitors. It would also create an incentive for other nations to adopt similar carbon pricing.

V. To maximize the fairness and political viability of a rising carbon tax, all the revenue should be returned directly to U.S. citizens through equal lump-sum rebates. The majority of American families, including the most vulnerable, will benefit financially by receiving more in “carbon dividends” than they pay in increased energy prices."

The recommendations are signed by 27 winners of the Nobel in Economics, 4 former Fed chairs, among others.

I worked for one of those men while in grad school and am familiar with the work of most of the others - when a group of people this intellectually and politically diverse come together on something, it's at least worth seriously considering. I've said before on these boards that despite hating taxes in almost all their forms, this is one I could support, in theory, depending on how it was executed. That said, for a number of different reasons. I'm skeptical the government could successfully design and implement a tax and dividend system.
 
acesfull86 said:
Whoops...I am auto-logged into WSJ on my computer and forgot there was a paywall.

"I. A carbon tax offers the most cost-effective lever to reduce carbon emissions at the scale and speed that is necessary. By correcting a well-known market failure, a carbon tax will send a powerful price signal that harnesses the invisible hand of the marketplace to steer economic actors towards a low-carbon future.

II. A carbon tax should increase every year until emissions reductions goals are met and be revenue neutral to avoid debates over the size of government. A consistently rising carbon price will encourage technological innovation and large-scale infrastructure development. It will also accelerate the diffusion of carbon-efficient goods and services.

III. A sufficiently robust and gradually rising carbon tax will replace the need for various carbon regulations that are less efficient. Substituting a price signal for cumbersome regulations will promote economic growth and provide the regulatory certainty companies need for long- term investment in clean-energy alternatives.

IV. To prevent carbon leakage and to protect U.S. competitiveness, a border carbon adjustment system should be established. This system would enhance the competitiveness of American firms that are more energy-efficient than their global competitors. It would also create an incentive for other nations to adopt similar carbon pricing.

V. To maximize the fairness and political viability of a rising carbon tax, all the revenue should be returned directly to U.S. citizens through equal lump-sum rebates. The majority of American families, including the most vulnerable, will benefit financially by receiving more in “carbon dividends” than they pay in increased energy prices."

The recommendations are signed by 27 winners of the Nobel in Economics, 4 former Fed chairs, among others.

I worked for one of those men while in grad school and am familiar with the work of most of the others - when a group of people this intellectually and politically diverse come together on something, it's at least worth seriously considering. I've said before on these boards that despite hating taxes in almost all their forms, this is one I could support, in theory, depending on how it was executed. That said, for a number of different reasons. I'm skeptical the government could successfully design and implement a tax and dividend system.
Click to expand...

The Grover Norquists of the world would certainly take aim at it. I'm not a fan of consumption taxes, but they can be effective in both raising revenue and moving consumer choices. The bottom line is nothing good is ever free and Americans are going to have to figure that out at some point.
 
50PoundHead said:
The Grover Norquists of the world would certainly take aim at it. I'm not a fan of consumption taxes, but they can be effective in both raising revenue and moving consumer choices. The bottom line is nothing good is ever free and Americans are going to have to figure that out at some point.
Click to expand...

From a political point of view, a policy shift from income and payroll taxes to a carbon tax or some other consumer tax will likely have to be sold as a revenue neutral proposition. There is enough to recommend such a shift on its own merits. Getting entangled in the debate about the right size of government would make what is already an uphill fight even harder.
 
The combined fortunes of the world's 26 richest individuals reached $1.4 trillion last year — the same amount as the total wealth of the 3.8 billion poorest people.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/20/business/oxfam-billionaires-davos/index.html



Alyssa Milano
‏Verified account @Alyssa_Milano
10h10 hours ago

If Trump’s shutdown continues, SNAP, could run out of funding—leaving 42 million Americans without access to food.

That’s like cutting off the food supply to the entire state of New York.

And Ohio.

And Michigan.
 
for clarity's sake:



Jane Mayer
‏Verified account @JaneMayerNYer
7h7 hours ago

Jane Mayer Retweeted

correction: 26 individuals don't own half the world's wealth, but rather as much as that owned by half the world's population
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top