Discuss economics. Here's a topic to start off:
>In your country, do you feel the taxes on the rich are too low/high? Do you feel the poor get too many/few benefits? What would be your ideal layout for this?
But feel free to talk and debate anything economics-related.
I'm American, so I think the military budget needs a severe cut. Use that to give some tax relief, welfare, pay the national debt or whatever is needed. That budget is a wasteful goldmine.
>>866193
>In your country, do you feel the taxes on the rich are too low/high?
The whole taxation system and administration is broken as hell, so it doesn't matter.
>Do you feel the poor get too many/few benefits?
Whatever the agenda, shit never gets done. So, doesn't matter again.
>What would be your ideal layout for this?
Non-economic measures, like strengthening law and bureaucracy, transparency accountability, etc. Deliberative and participative action.
Why have the bourgeoisie not yet been overthrown and liquidated.
>>866198
And to continue on this, I think it's interesting (and unsurprising) that this wasn't mentioned at the last FOX Republican debate. They were talking about cutting all sorts of things that weren't even close to making up the difference in the debt. Partisanship is shameful.
>>866216
I was hoping we could have insightful, productive discussion. Instead of memes.
Ayoo senpai we should only mass produce one type of rifle because simplicity man!
Wow the m16 is shit, its okay, we didnt want that international market share anyways!
Wp
>>866211
Checked
>>866224
Is Marxism not relevant to economics?
>>866224
There will never be a discussion until the memes of production are seized
>>866193
Taxes as a whole should be lower on everyone. The rich should pay less than 30% and the poor should pay virtually nothing.
Nationally most federal programs should be transferred to the states or abolished to allow this
>>866232
Of course it is. But saying "lel fuck bourgeoisie amirite XD" is useless.
>>866198
Our military is entirely self sustaining, like 100% economic recycling, by far the most fiscally efficient military to ever exist. I'm tired of scrubs saying its innefficient.
>>866232
most economist dismiss marxism
>>866193
I'm reading the Naomi Klein book "The Shock Doctrine" right now.
Basically, I'm more convinced than ever that this guy's policies were evil and unworkable and will end up on the dustheap of history.
>>866245
So then why do we keep funding it, if it's recycling...
What do you think about post-scarcity, /econ/? Is there any orthodox economists that discuss it, along with digital reproduction? Only heteredox seems to talk about them.
>>866252
>JUST FUCK MY JOBS UP
>>866251
Because circulation of currency is important in a keynes economy.
Name one thing our military buys that isnt american
>hr
>weapons
>steel
>fuel
>food
>technology
Also, what do you think about experimental econ? Is it a meme?
>muh keynes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTQnarzmTOc
>>866264
I know that Marxist economists are an extreme minority
>>866264
>lol
That's not an answer
>>866281
Is keynesian economics momentum based?
For instance in 2008, what if literally everybody could just fall back on usd?
What do you guys think of the US candidates this year?
>>866302
they all stink.
>>866302
All are shit. The only honest and consistent one is Bernie and i disagree with him pretty much on everything.
t. Northern Euro
>>866321
Well, on paper Clinton sounds good. But it's hard to trust her.
>>866330
>muh e-mails
partisanship. pure partisanship
Sociopaths own the system, fuck it all
Let it burn
>>866336
If that's the only reason why you think people see her as distrustful, you haven't been paying attention.
>>866336
>it's perfectly fine to send and receive extremely classified information on an insecure server
>>866245
>He dosent know that our military literally drives jeeps off the fucking cayons along with other "outdated equipment" to have an excuse to buy the newer models
>>866245
>supporting the military industrial complex
>falling for the military spending jew
>>866198
to be fair american military is essential to american economic interests. It allows america to have leverage in international politics and economics, as a means of blackmail. So in a way it returns its investment. What you need is to crack down on black budgets though
>>866232
It's relevant if your 15 or are from 1880.
>>866458
*you're
Fuck autocorrect.
>>866264
>Marxism isn't taken seriously
>But Marxists take it seriously!
>mfw
>>866313
>the only honest and consistent one is Bernie
>t. Northern Euro
>>866198
I disagree. You need to remember that a large chunk of that money goes to R&D which has directly been a benefit to us regular people, it is an unfortunate fact that war is a driving force for innovation. Also the U.S military spending isn't as much as people make it out to be (compared to GDP)
>>866232
>Is Marxism not relevant to economics?
As an example of how not to do things? Absolutely.
>>866473
pic.
>>866469
I don't agree with him, i think he is an idiot. But he has been what he is for all his life. He is consistent and honest, we know what his "endgame is". Where as with Trump and Clinton we do not know.
>>866479
>i think he is an idiot. But he has been what he is for all his life.
This is not a positive thing.
>>866479
How about Cruz, Rubio or Kasich then?
I present to you a public choice theory application of economics to politics: quadratic vote buying.
Instead of voting for free like in most democratic nations, quadratic vote buying has been devised to make voting more like trade, where you usually get what you pay for. Whereas with free voting, your vote only counts if you manage to swing the result by one, with quadratic vote buying, the more you pay, the more votes you get.
At first this seems unfair and very illiberal. Couldn't the financially advantaged just buy out elections and undermine the democratic process?
In quadratic vote buying however, the more money you spend on votes, the more of a diminishing return you get. For example, for $10 you might be able to buy one vote, but with $1000 you might only be able to buy 800.
The other safeguard for the poor is that the money that is spent on voting is redistributed to those who don't vote, so people are paid for either not having the money to vote, or not having enough of an interest in politics to vote.
This system is by no means perfect, what are your thoughts, /econ/?
>>866479
Nigga he is 100% aware that 15 dollars min wage wouldnt pass through congress, hed fight for 11-12 an hour if he got in. Same with trump, theres literally no way he could pass a motion to exile all shtskins.
>>866193
I think tax levels are okay, but the loopholes are ridiculous. I think they should be closed, but the statutory rate lowered slightly to compensate for this however. Our welfare programs actually work pretty well for how small they are compared to other countries, and I wouldn't change anything - though it might be interesting to see what would happen if we removed the programs and their administrative apparatus entirely and just cut everyone a check. And I do mean everyone - from millionaires to the jobless. I think they could spend the money more efficiently, but I believe it should be collected. Provided what the return to each citizen was, it might also allow for less regulation in general - as the workforce would have a safety net - which could in turn save businesses money for reinvestment and the like.
>>866245
There are literally thousands of fucking tanks gathering dust RIGHT NOW because no one fucking needs them and there is no point to having them
>>866302
I'm into tech and the only two candidates that support H1B reform are Trump and Bernie. I disagree with most Bernie's policies and he isn't likely to win the nomination and Trump has no chance in the general election because his unfavorability ratings are too high. I'm angry.
I want marxists to leave the econ threads
the rich gets rich by avoiding taxes, corruption, state money and so
it shouldnt be this way, trying to tax it is not the right approach
there are no benefits
the ideal layout would be making reasonable laws and uphold it with an iron fist
>china executes tax evaders
that would be a start
>>867199
The rich pay the majority of taxes moron
>>866193
I live in Norway, and as far as I know, the highest income tax rate here is 48% + 7% of that again, which would be something like 52%.
I personally think that our income tax rate might've been fine as is(it is a lot of course and retarded in principle), but it's not the tax that bothers me the most.
The tax that bothers me the most is all the "hidden" taxes on consumption and VATs on everything. If you add it all up, you are essentially paying 70% taxes in this country in one way or another.
It seems to me that it wouldn't be such an issue having relatively high income tax, as long as VATs and consumption taxes were low.
>>866240
Those at the top spend about 5% of what they make, they could pay a 50% tax and easily maintain their quality of life, they just don't want to because social responsibility has been a meme since the death of Queen Victoria.
>>867217
>48% + 7%
How does this work.
>>867215
>avoid laws
>dont pay
>pay a portion of what youd have to by wealth taxed
get sliced open by a nigger amerifat
also
>there is only one country on earth
moron
>>867230
they still pay the majority of taxes. In the U.S and in Europe. I know you want to hate some socio-economic class but come on.
>>867226
The idea is that around 700k Norwegian crowns, you reach a cap on taxes. At 700k, you pay 48%, and anything after that will be taxed at something call a "fortune tax". So you pay 48% base income tax, and a further 7% on everything above the 700k.
700k NOK is around 85000 US dollars if I'm not mistaken.
>>867199
They don't evade taxes per criminal code, they're just exploiting the loopholes. Blame the idiotic legislators and not the companies that only exploit stupidly written laws.
Real solution to this is just slapping a flat tax rate on literally everything + don't make any tax exemptions.
>>867243
So it's just a progressive tax which increases by 7% at 700k crowns?
>>867257
That hurts the poor.
>>867258
Essentially yes. But like I said, this is only income tax. There are *alot* of other taxes that are very high too, which makes the overall taxes in the country very high in practice.
>>867260
No it doesn't. What really hurts the poor is the rich reclassifying their income to get a more friendly rate while the poor pay an effectively higher rate.
And take Germany for example, officially highly progressive rates but like 500 extremely rich companies are completely exempt from paying taxes because they're a "strategic interest" or some shit. There were calculation that proved that with a low flat rate they'd actually get a higher revenue.
Progressive taxation is a fucking horseshit myth and only leads to cronyism. Sadly the only person in the US who wants to install a flat rate across the board is Ted Cruz and he's such a slimy fucktard I would never consider voting for him.
>>867257
if every single person would undergo an investigation how they got their assests, youd find something illegal, every case
theres no loopholes and evading when you live off on salary
when they are found, they have to pay a fee usually, which does not cover all the money they made from not paying
dont even start on companies, deliberately breaking the law and calculate the fees because it worths for them
>>866193
Things I would do if I were in charge (thank god I'm not) of my nation
>make shit like embezzlement, specially of public funds, a heinous crime punished accordingly
>remove or alter the stability of public employees. Personally know too many leeches so I'm probably biased. Anyway, they are a drain of funds, and most are completely fucking useless
>end the bureaucratic nightmares people face, streamline as much as I can. Useful for both business and people.
>cut taxes and import tariffs. We don't have national industries for half the shit we tax the hell outta
>review the tax code and make it so it's actually understandable and simple as opposed to a hundred superfluous taxes
>hand out a few concessions on the basis they actually need to make things work to make a dime, will help us
>whatever money I can scrounge goes into fixing the infrastructure necessary for both producing and transporting goods
>>867310
>if every single person would undergo an investigation how they got their assests, youd find something illegal, every case
I can assure you this is not the case. There's really just extremely stupid laws that are easy to exploit. I can also tell by your posts you're probably no older than 20.
>>866262
I enjoyed that; thanks for posting anon
>>867314
>>end the bureaucratic nightmares people face, streamline as much as I can. Useful for both business and people.
You'd never, ever be able to do this. Bureaucracy is its own end.
>>866517
It's stupid and broken simply by paying people to vote for you by proxy.
So instead of having diminshing returns by paying 80 grand I get 10 people to pay 8 grand.
Big plan
>>867323
Don't need to remind me.
I cry at night thinking about it.
>>866479
>He is consistent and honest, we know what his "endgame is". Where as with Trump and Clinton we do not know.
Clinton no, but Trump?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEPs17_AkTI&ab_channel=OWN
>>867331
This. Trump is big on slashing the trade deficit, even bigger than building the wall (although the wall sells better). Guy is pretty clearly a protectionist or even a mercantilist and his policies reflect that big time. The people screaming BUT HE HAS NO POLICIES, HE ONLY SPOUTS MEMES! are shallow morons who don't even bother listening to him outside of his rallies.
>>866599
McAfee is running for the Libertarian nomination. You could help them get 5% so they can become a major party
>>867351
Not him but I heavily doubt that Libertarians of all people would like to nip work visas.
>le taxes on the rich
I want socialists to fuck off.
>>867358
I just recommended him because the anon said he was into tech
>>867361
Taxing the rich isn't a socialist meme, socialist memery would be forcibly requisitioning the assets of the rich.
>>866262
>hayek getting cavity checked
>>867343
Well yeah, but i'm European so his rallies are what we get.
>>867319
i am 32
you are naive and/or want to live in your delusion
flat out lieing
get some life experience after done spending daddies "hard earned" cash
>>867384
I think he's responding to your assertion that EVERYONE owns illegal assets, which is simply untrue.
>>867417
its not illegal assets
the process is as follows
make some money
pay as little tax as humanly possible
now you invest the money you shouldnt have because half of it would go into tax
make even more money
repeat till you are big enough not worth risking cheating the system, or be greedy fuck and continue
>>866193
>>In your country, do you feel the taxes on the rich are too low/high? Do you feel the poor get too many/few benefits? What would be your ideal layout for this?
Really? This is an economical question? This is what you discuss in economy classes?
>>867464
Whenever economists write something op-ed, it's always like that. It's obvious that OP wanted economics discussion that still accessible to non-economists.
That, or he's an undergread.
this thread reminds me of how honestly surprised i am by how quickly this board turned from a nice place where people had intelligent discussions to a bunch of idiots who have no idea of what they're talking about.
>>867220
Reinvestment is social responsibility silly econ illiterate
It's very clear nobody in this thread knows anything about econ. This is all just political discussion. I've seen maybe 1 post drop a technical term of the science of econ.
>>867556
WHICH ONE
HE MUST BE BURNED AT THE STAKE
>>867343
Will Trump pull the AVE CAESAR against the Senate or not?
>>866193
>In your country, do you feel the taxes on the rich are too low/high?
As an American, taxes on the richest of the richest are absurdly low, given that most of income gains have been going to them.
Do you feel the poor get too many/few benefits?
Too few. There is a myth of meritocracy in this country that keeps the poor in line, because they are made to believe that if they manage to excel they can rise out of poverty. It's been proven to be objectively false in research. Social mobility in America is lower than in Western Europe. And wealth is more likely to be a heritable trait than height or weight.
Most successful entrepreneurs come from the already well off.
What would be your ideal layout for this?
The mark of a civilization is the standard of living it is able to provide it's citizens. In America, you can buy plenty of cheap plastic junk, but affording healthcare or education is an iffy proposition. In order to provide the foundation for a real meritocracy, steps should be taken to ensure fair and equal access to the necessities of life and requirements for success.
>>867628
Oops, forgot to greentext properly
>>867324
You'd have to pay them much more than that, since they'd be handsomely compensated for not voting anyway.
>>867556
>It's very clear nobody in this thread knows anything about econ.
Nobody does in general. You can't predict dynamic systems
>>867163
>get out, we want to discuss our economics, no dissenting opinions allowed
Let the guy have his fun.
>>867220
a 50% tax is a violation of all my country is suppose to stand for.
instead of arguing about things we do not understand, why don't we post videos of people who really do?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJEP7G7C0As&list=PLOv-GldVeFiXd1exZU0QLYC6ynwkQwbvz&index=31
>>867343
Fine, but protectionism and mercantilism are shit that will do more harm than good anyway.
>>866264
I'd say marxism is the rough equivalent to austrian econ in terms of academic presence and respectability
but austrians in whole have made greater contributions to heterodox economics
it's somewhat silly to try and differentiate between the different schools, because any contributions that a school may make a claim of fame for, get absorbed into mainstream economics
>>866247
>I'm reading the Naomi Klein book "The Shock Doctrine" right now.
It is not a serious book. It is a conspiracy theory.
