Slashdot Mirror

Total tax rate for average person in the US is lower than most European countries... but not by much.

A recent report from the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago that compares tax rates in the US and Germany shows that the difference is quite a bit more than "not by much". By almost any measure of tax burden (other than corporate taxes), Americans have a significantly lower tax burden.

As always, there is no free lunch (unless someone else is paying for it).

Fine, then feel free to present your evidence. Oh wait, you don't have any.

Just for fun, here are some other reports
from 2012: http://milescorak.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/inequality-from-generation-to-generation-the-united-states-in-comparison-v3.pdf
from 2010: http://colorlines.com/archives/2010/02/moving_on_up_and_hitting_a_wall_social_mobility_in_the_us_and_europe.html
from 2009: http://search.oecd.org/officialdocuments/displaydocumentpdf/?doclanguage=en&cote=eco/wkp(2009)48
from 2008: http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/reports/2008/2/economic%20mobility%20sawhill/02_economic_mobility_sawhill_ch3.pdf
Or some historical numbers:
http://www.chicagofed.org/digital_assets/publications/working_papers/2005/wp2005_12.pdf

That last study finds that "mobility increased from 1950 to 1980 but has declined sharply since 1980". I guess the economy must have entered a sharp decline since 1980.

Oh wait....it didn't.

So many questionable assumptions in your post... If you are referring to US American history around the time of the American Revolution, quite a bit of the Colonial population fled to Canada to remain under the rule of the British Crown (as "Loyalists"). Canada got rid of slavery about 40 years sooner than the USA, never had a terrible Civil War, treat their indigenous people better, and now have universal health care. In many ways, the British were more socially advanced than the rough colonists. See also:
http://www.historyisaweapon.com/zinnapeopleshistory.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loyalist_(American_Revolution)

Of those people who stayed in the American Colonies, at least one of his own officers (Colonel Lewis Nicola) asked George Washington to become their new King, but he refused.
http://www.pbs.org/georgewashington/classroom/rule_of_law2.html

The major reason for the Colonies' revolt was banking policy -- that the British wanted to prevent American colonies from issuing their own currency, which caused an economic depression in the Colonies. so, a bad economy and high unemployment caused the revolt more than anything else. The reason the British wanted to do this was to collect more revenue to pay back debts incurred for the recent war with France over western territories. So, the end result was that the American colonists got the French territories without having to pay for the war that took them from France (and the natives). Both Britain and France were destabilized by such war debts, although France was worse off, leading towards the French Revolution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_and_Indian_War
http://www.chicagofed.org/webpages/publications/economic_perspectives/1981/ep_mar_apr1981_part4_wood.cfm
http://www.kamron.com/Liberty/colonial_script.htm

As for US interventions abroad since, most were just to ensure profits to specific wealthy investors, according to Marine Major General Smedley Butler:
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html

On the partisan politics of this disclosure and the Verizon one. Conservatives now are blaming Obama and Progressives. Liberals blame Bush and Republicans. Congress says it has been going on for seven years, so why worry now? What a mess. Somehow I don't feel much is going to change from this revelation though, because, to anyone paying attention, it is not that unexpected. Carnivore and Echelon did similar things over a decade ago, plus they are supposedly arrangements by US agencies to exchange data with other countries that can spy on US citizens without issues.

As is suggested here, gradual changes are rarely resisted:
"They Thought They Were Free: The Germans, 1933-45"
http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/511928.html
"To live in this process is absolutely not to be able to notice it -- please try to believe me -- unless one has a much greater degree of political awareness, acuity, than most of us had ever had occasion to develop. Each step was so small, so inconsequential, so well explained or, on occasion, 'regretted,' that, unless one were detached from the whole process from the beginning, unless one understood what the whole thing was in principle, what all these 'little measures' that no 'patriotic German' could resent must some day lead to, one no more saw it developing from day to day than a farmer in

Err, no it isn't. $10 of it is in the bank. Bob has the other $90. Imagine you and Bob are the only customers of the said bank, if you try to withdraw your $100 before he pays his loan back, you'll find out that the money is definitely not there.

Ah, you're talking about reality, the rest of us are talking about how our financial system works. Try searching this phrase "when a bank creates new money by making a loan" in this pdf from the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago http://www.chicagofed.org/digital_assets/publications/economic_perspectives/1982/ep_midyear1982_part2_laurent.pdf. You are correct that no new money is created, but the law says there is. That's why there's always comment on people's confidence in the financial markets, because it's a confidence trick, albeit one that is played with the full knowledge and complicity of governments around the world.

The regulation was needed because banks lend (you call it creating and destroying money, others call it lending).

The Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago in this document. [pdf warning] agree that banks create money through loans: "...when a bank creates new money by making a loan..."

I have also seen other Fed documents that have this information, this one is just the first one that I found when searching. It is not a secret, it is not a pet conspiracy theory, it is the way banking works. Do you have any reason we should accept your description of the way bank lending works over the Federal Reserve's description?

The regulation was needed because banks lend (you call it creating and destroying money, others call it lending).

The Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago in this document. [pdf warning] agree that banks create money through loans: "...when a bank creates new money by making a loan..."

I have also seen other Fed documents that have this information, this one is just the first one that I found when searching. It is not a secret, it is not a pet conspiracy theory, it is the way banking works. Do you have any reason we should accept your description of the way bank lending works over the Federal Reserve's description?

The money banks lend out does come from deposits, just like it always has (yes, even before the fed existed). The reason it counts as "creating" money, is that any individual depositor can still withdraw their entire deposit if they want to.

The money of a deposit can not be simultaneously available to the depositor and a borrower, even as printed notes. If the money is still available to the depositors then the money the borrower has is not the deposited money, it's a simple as that. If you take the view that they are not creating new money then they are lying about having the money available in depositors accounts, therefore the description "fraud" is accurate either way.

The Federal Reserve Bank says banks create new money, you say they don't, I guess we'll just have to leave it at that. http://www.chicagofed.org/publications/fedcentralbank/fedcentralbank.pdf Either way you like to describe it, as creating money (counterfeiting) or lying about deposits, it is still fraud.

Most people think banks loan out money from deposits. In reality the money they loan out is newly created "checkbook money" as confirmed by the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago [pdf warning]

The money banks lend out does come from deposits, just like it always has (yes, even before the fed existed). The reason it counts as "creating" money, is that any individual depositor can still withdraw their entire deposit if they want to. The fed doesn't tell banks "you can do this new thing, and the result is called 'checkbook money'", rather, it says "we are calling the result of this longstanding practice 'checkbook money', and putting limits on how far you can take that practice".

If a company sells stock or bonds, they are also creating money in exactly the same way.

If I buy bonds from some company, beforehand I have money, and afterwords the company has money and I have something that I can treat like money because it's so easy to sell. If a company issues stock, it works exactly the same way.

Look at the different definitions of "money supply", perhaps this will help these things make sense.

The average person is deceived about how banking works and the banks make money through the practice of that deception.

If that's the case, then where exactly do people think that the interest they're getting paid comes from?

Fractional reserve banking IS fraud!

No, it's statistics and psychology (and nowadays, also a bit of government assistance).

It certainly makes use of statistics and psychology and is made possible, not merely assisted, by government regulation. However it also meets the criteria for fraud IMO.

Most people think banks loan out money from deposits. In reality the money they loan out is newly created "checkbook money" as confirmed by the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago [pdf warning] To achieve this goal, the Fed works to control money at its source by affecting the ability of financial institutions to "create" checkbook money through loans or investments.

The average person is deceived about how banking works and the banks make money through the practice of that deception. With the government backing they have it doesn't work the same as if it were a privately conducted fraud. The impoverish the country instead of a specific individual who does business with them.

But if everyone defaulted on all their loans, you're saying we'd end up with a negative money supply, rather than just a very small positive one?

No:
(X+Y)-Y=X
even if Y>X

For clarification on this check what the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago has to say: http://www.chicagofed.org/publications/fedcentralbank/fedcentralbank.pdf
To achieve this goal, the Fed works to control money at its source by affecting the ability of financial institutions to "create" checkbook money through loans or investments.

If the Fed confirms that financial institutions create money through loans can I stop having this debate with people over whether this is actually so? Here is the frightening reality: most people in our society are trading their time and services for something they have no clue as to the origin or real value - dollars. This is a site that represents a higher level of education than most and look at the threads on this topic, you will find an appalling level of ignorance regarding a good we spend a great deal of effort obtaining.

The multiplier also has a cap which is dependent on the reserve ratio, but it rarely comes into play, as it is the demand of the economy that dictates everything, and not the other way around.

Control of interest rates (the price of loans) is used to influence demand up or down as seen fit by the central banks. That's the point of them and openly acknowledged so I don't see how anyone could dispute this.

But they aren't creating money out of nothing. They are lending out the same money you deposited.

If they are lending out my money, why doesn't my available balance go down when someone takes out a loan? Clearly it is not the same money, it can not simultaneously be available to me and the borrower. Think about it, many people have a mortgage on their house, very few people have enough savings to loan enough to buy a house. If they are just loaning out deposits then for every person who takes out a $250,000 loan for their house you need other people with net savings (savings - loans) of $250,000. Do you really think that for every person with a $250,000 loan there are 10 with no debt and $25,000 in savings? Where are they?

What about loan defaults causing deflation, how is that? If the loan money was existing money none of it would disappear on default (no deflation), the borrower would be bankrupt, the lender would lose money but the money itself would still be in circulation. Don't take my word for it though, check what the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago has to say: http://www.chicagofed.org/publications/fedcentralbank/fedcentralbank.pdf
To achieve this goal, the Fed works to control money at its source by affecting the ability of financial institutions to "create" checkbook money through loans or investments.

"you do know that 79% of the tax burden is carried by the top 20% of income earners, right?"

You mean those folks that hold the vast majority of the assets? Sure just cherry pick a single statistic from a single source and proclaim 'look what I know, you dip shits didn't know this did you, huh, huh?'. Look the issue here is just how out of balance things can get EITHER way before it breaks the system. The balance right now grossly favors those at the top of the economic food chain. If it continues to the point of breakdown just what do you think the fate of the top x% will be? In the end it is in everyones interest to not break the frickin system.

"Maybe for once we should stop being partisan"

Yea, thats rich, considering the drivel to from the "conservative" party I have listened with great restraint, and admittedly often with amusement, for most my life. Can you make a clear argument just using common sense instead of falling back on a single cherry picked statistic form BillO's list of "facts" to throw at a liberal---remember you have to use this word in with a dirty slur pretext or voice. Don't take this to mean I am a just another sheep in the Democratic flock, which in contrast to the Republican flock, is actually more like a herd of cats anyway. I will say I like many others are sick of the "good cop - bad cop" routine the two parties have used so successfully for so many years. So exactly whose drivel is it you like best? Oh thats right you like to quote the "fiducially conservative ones", hehehe, yea.

Wabi-Sabi
Matthew

read...

http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/speeches/2 007/20070206/default.htm

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/f5e905ce-69d8-11db-952e-00 00779e2340.html

http://neweconomist.blogs.com/new_economist/povert y_and_inequality/index.html

http://www.chicagofed.org/economic_research_and_da ta/wp_abstract.cfm?pubsID=732

http://multinationalmonitor.org/mm2003/03may/may03 interviewswolff.html

http://www.economist.com/world/displaystory.cfm?st ory_id=7055911

http://ideas.repec.org/a/ecj/econjl/v112y2002i478p c68-c73.htm

http://dollarsandsense.org/archives/2004/0704tilly .html

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/18995

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB11418244330 8492484.html

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/71954e1a-ad43-11da-9643-00 00779e2340,Authorised=false.html?_i_location=http% 3A%2F%2Fnews.ft.com%2Fcms%2Fs%2F71954e1a-ad43-11da -9643-0000779e2340.html&_i_referer=http%3A%2F%2Fne weconomist.blogs.com%2Fnew_economist%2Fpoverty_and _inequality%2Findex.html

http://ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/Research/wpaper.nsf/

Giving a private corporation special powers by the way of law is nothing new under the sun and a continuing trend as privatized law enforcement and private prison corporations etc. come to mind. I see nothing unique about that kind of entity.

And how many of those private corporations were a part of the government for decades beforehand? Look, I'm not quite sure if you're willfully turning a blind eye to the obvious differences between the fed and other private corporations or what, but I'd challenge you to name me one of those private corporations, I'll quickly point out just how greatly it differs from the fed for you.

But how about we cut away from the wiki article, let's go check the Fed:

Who owns the Federal Reserve?

The Federal Reserve System is not "owned" by anyone and is not a private, profit-making institution. Instead, it is an independent entity within the government, having both public purposes and private aspects.(Emphasis mine)

and again in the same FAQ

The twelve regional Federal Reserve Banks, which were established by Congress as the operating arms of the nation's central banking system, are organized much like private corporations--possibly leading to some confusion about "ownership." For example, the Reserve Banks issue shares of stock to member banks. However, owning Reserve Bank stock is quite different from owning stock in a private company. The Reserve Banks are not operated for profit, and ownership of a certain amount of stock is, by law, a condition of membership in the System. The stock may not be sold, traded, or pledged as security for a loan; dividends are, by law, 6 percent per year.

Back to you...
Without question, people to be trusted to do whatever in their power towards your best interests.

Just to fill you in a little more, the board acts based on the members. Most of the voting federal reserve banks actually support a team of research economists. For example the Chicago Fed hires a number of economists who regularly turn out publications. These economists make an informed decision based on their opinion of what is best for the long term economic growth of the country. These interests do /NOT/ necessarily fall in line with what the stockholders would like to see happen.

Believe it or not, this is a well documented system that is frequently audited and questioned by congress. This system is /not/ out to further the interests of the stock holders, member banks, or the US politicians.

This really isn't tin-foil hat time, you can read the minutes of the meeting. Part of the power of the USD is the ability to attract foreign investment. So really, you don't even have to trust me or trust the Fed, but if you trust greedy corporations to be greedy, then consider how they are reluctant to invest in countries which have poor monetary policy compared to the willingness to invest in the US. The stark contrast will illustrate that this system isn't just a "have faith in it" scheme, it's a system that greedy corporations have enough belief in to dump billions of dollars.

Real wages have not been falling, if wage includes total compensation.

See figure 1: http://www.chicagofed.org/publications/fedletter/1 997/cflmar97.pdf