I realized we were talking past each other, and that your point was more important than the one I was making, so I did my best to articulate it here.

when arguments end in some meeting of the minds.

t-a-x-t-h-e-r-i-c-h

I'm not against that, either. But we wouldn't even need to raise taxes on the rich if wages were rising at the same rate as productivity.

"I'm not against that, either. But we wouldn't even need to raise taxes on the rich if wages were rising at the same rate as productivity."

...there would still be the need for Romney to pay at least 30 percent of his income in taxes and the need for all individuals and corporations to pay the appropriate tax.

Revenues are at a 60-year low.

It's surprisingly flat:

There's an absolute exemption up to the median national household income.

After that, there's a single flat tax levied on all income above that, at say 15% or so.

Beyond that, there's a surtax on income one sigma over the median income, at a rate indexed to the national poverty level. So, if the poverty level is 0, there is no additional tax. If the "job creators" can create an economy without poverty, I am fine with their keeping all their money.

"Want to know my ideal, dream tax structure? It's surprisingly flat...If the "job creators" can create an economy without poverty, I am fine with their keeping all their money."

...that's a "dream," and the flat tax is completely regressive.

....by technology....as we have seen. TEchnology is responsible for the loss of vast numbers of manufacturing jobs as well as service jobs. The advent of the computer age has only begun to eliminate jobs, IMO. As more and more jobs are lost to technology, I'm not sure how people are going to be able to earn money. Eventually, it seems, we will have to go to some sort of socialism because there simply will not be enough jobs to go around to feed the populace. Of course, the "I've got mine, you get yours" crowd don't give a flip about that, but it will impact them, too, eventually. The rich will continue to get richer and the poor poorer until there is revolt. At that point, all their money will be worthless because it will place a target on their backs.

I'm not jealous of rich people.....I am rather well off, myself. I retired at age 45 and have a coupla million dollars to last me the rest of my life. But, I was a blue collar guy most of my life, and all my friends are blue collar workers, struggling to make ends meet. So I know the need that exists. One doesn't have to be a genius to see where the current system is leading us. The question is, how long can the rich stave off revolt? We have seen the beginnings in the Occupy movement. It is a growing sentiment that will eventually snowball and lead to a complete collapse of the capitalistic economy we now enjoy. In a hundred years, everything will be different. I'm not sure what it will be like, but it will have to change to appease the masses.

Productivity change in the nonfarm business sector, 1947-2011:

Average annual
percent change
1947-1973 2.8
1973-1979 1.1
1979-1990 1.4
1990-2000 2.1
2000-2007 2.5
2007-2011 1.8


Last updated: March 7, 2012

ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/opt/lpr/nfbbardata.txt

If so, you're pretty much backing up my point. That level of increased levies would make Medicare and SS flush into the near future.

<possible> reduction of bottom line.

what ARE you thinking?

WHY DO YOU HATE AMERICA???

I'm only half-kidding there. I've sworn an oath of allegiance to the Constitution that I consider very much binding, but I often wish it were not how it is.

But, yes, that shitstorm would start if this were ever brought up in The Media.

...the actuarial issues facing our social safety net.

Productivity's soared overall, i.e., in the US as a whole.

Should all wages keep pace with this?

I ask, because not all industries have seen increases in productivity. So should just the industries that have seen productivity see pay increases?

The problem is that not all plants or worksites have seen the same increases. This would just drive old plants out of business and help move jobs overseas--or to places where it's cheaper to build new work sites.

So perhaps it should go worksite by worksite? So if the steel mill in Podunk, MI sees increases in efficiency but the one in NoWhere, Georgia, doesn't then the Podunkers see a hefty raise while the NoWherians see nothing.

That seems hardly fair. Moreover, it could be the case that the productivity gains at Podunk are entirely due to just the open hearth. Why spread the wealth when the open hearth workers are doing much more work? So perhaps the pay increases should go job by job at a given workplace.

The problem is that a lot of jobs have seen no increases in productivity. Or you have to figure out how to define productivity.

Take teachers. Colleges have seen just about 0 increase in productivity. My high school's seen an increase because class size has increased--fewer teachers teaching more students. But if class size goes down next year, should we get pay decreases?

Or maybe we count "productivity" as student count x GPA. (In which case, surprise class--everybody gets an A!) Or student count x standardized test scores.

Don't know. But I do know this: The metric for evaluating productivity will suddenly be revised to make sure that the revisers and measurers have triple-digit productivity increases each of the first 3 years its implemented.

pushing cheap-labor policies and asking for more tax breaks.

But this would be a better topic for all the talented economists and legislative assistants to be discussing than what they discussing now.

Again, this isn't about the best possible policy or what I would do if I were king. I'm simply making the actuarial notice that if wages were rising at the same rate as productivity, SS and Medicare would be fully funded for the next few centuries.

That would work too, and would probably be easier.

Unless you had a monetazation plan for the Moon. Which you might. In which case, let's get married.

a four with 6 billion dollars.