GG Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 You've just redefined the terms to meet your 99% certainty statement. I said tax policy influences measured income inequality, and you've changed it to wages paid--I'm sure that will fool a few people. ....... We're not too far away. The top 20% owns 95% of the financial wealth in the US. Speaking of - income & wealth are the same thing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 Speaking of - income & wealth are the same thing? Since you left out the pertinent info for that part of the response, I suppose you can make it look like that's what I said...if that's your intention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 Since you left out the pertinent info for that part of the response, I suppose you can make it look like that's what I said...if that's your intention. No, it is essentialy what you've said. You're simply trying to disguise that truth with faux-indigantion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meathead Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 The goal of a progressive tax system is to keep inequality from reaching its logical conclusion (from compound interest)--an elite 0.01% that controls all private wealth and uses that wealth to buy political influence to maintain their wealth and control. Extreme inequality and democracy do not tend to be compatible. thats one of the smarter things ive read here recently Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 No, it is essentialy what you've said. You're simply trying to disguise that truth with faux-indigantion. The argument isn't complicated:1. Lowering the top marginal rate leads to a lower effective average tax rate for the 1%. 2. In the example I gave for 2009, the top 1% gained an additional $140 billion in after-tax income from the decline in their average tax rate relative to their 1981 rate (versus about $40 billion for the bottom 50%, and the bottom 50% spend all of their income). 3. The after-tax income gains reinvested over time (going back to 1981) add to the growing asset base of the top 1-10% and therefore their income. As #3 suggests, the additional gains add to their "growing asset base" (wealth), which also adds to income inequality. Yes, they are connected, assuming you understand that wealth generates a return. That is the connection made with the rise in after-tax income over time--it leads to increasing "savings" or wealth, which leads to increased investment income. Rising income inequality leads to rising wealth inequality which leads to rising income inequality which leads to..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 No, what leads to that condition is the creation of a commodity which their wealth can buy: government influence. You insist on a government prone to corruption, empowered to do most anything, incentivize most anything, led by unaccountable politicians; and the whole mess funded by a banking cartel synonymous with the oldest of old boy networks running them, whose family wealth of so old that it's moldy... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 As #3 suggests, the additional gains add to their "growing asset base" (wealth), which also adds to income inequality. Yes, they are connected, assuming you understand that wealth generates a return. That is the connection made with the rise in after-tax income over time--it leads to increasing "savings" or wealth, which leads to increased investment income. Rising income inequality leads to rising wealth inequality which leads to rising income inequality which leads to..... Using that logic, there's no way that Bills Gates, Sam Walton & their heirs would ever get to the top, and the top would forever be dominated by Vanderbilts, Gettys, & Rockefellers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 Using that logic, there's no way that Bills Gates, Sam Walton & their heirs would ever get to the top, and the top would forever be dominated by Vanderbilts, Gettys, & Rockefellers. The left likes to pretend that wealth is largely static, and that those who hold it are also static and confiscatory rather than admit to it being to any degree fluid. With that said, unnatural capital formation does exist, but that is largely due to our current neo-mercantilist structure Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 With that said, unnatural capital formation does exist, but that is largely due to our current neo-mercantilist structure Setting aside the ridiculous sounding neo-mercantilist moniker, the more preferred system is ...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 http://www.financialsamurai.com/2011/04/12/how-much-money-do-the-top-income-earners-make-percent/ The top 10% earn 46% of the income and pay 70% of income taxes. As a card carrying member of the top 10, I have no problem with this type of progressive tax system... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 A goal. It's an issue that's been discussed for thousands of years--the impact inequality has on social stability. Maybe you missed it? Better than "the goal"...but I'd still even dispute that. For thousands of years, the goal of taxes was generally to promote inequality (last I checked, demense work didn't benefit the serf, the helots didn't have income redistributed to them, etc., all the way back to Hammurabi). And for thousands of years, that promoted social stability - there was little more stable than a being a serf working his land and his lord's fief, and in turn getting protection for his work. Philosophically, given that the idea of individuality was largely a creation of the Romance period, and the history of most of the planet before then, the idea that the goal of tax policy as means of wealth redistribution predated 1800 is largely silly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 Better than "the goal"...but I'd still even dispute that. For thousands of years, the goal of taxes was generally to promote inequality (last I checked, demense work didn't benefit the serf, the helots didn't have income redistributed to them, etc., all the way back to Hammurabi). And for thousands of years, that promoted social stability - there was little more stable than a being a serf working his land and his lord's fief, and in turn getting protection for his work. Philosophically, given that the idea of individuality was largely a creation of the Romance period, and the history of most of the planet before then, the idea that the goal of tax policy as means of wealth redistribution predated 1800 is largely silly. I meant inequality and social stability have been discussed for as long as society's have existed. Progressive taxes and restraining inequality come into play in the early 20th c. for US. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meathead Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 As a card carrying member of the top 10, I have no problem with this type of progressive tax system... hear hear i used to be a big earner and i didnt mind paying a larger pcent in taxes. i knew that my success wasnt mine alone, that a lot of other people were in the path that helped me get to where i was. sure, i tried to save money on taxes by buying rental properties and managing my portfolio properly, but i still paid far more as a percentage than most people i also happen to respect the spiritual principle that you treat everyone like your brother. i happened to be doing very well at the time, but it wasnt bc i was so much more awesome than ppl who werent. i earned my money for sure, but didnt mind that a good chunk of it went to help those not as financially successful as i was now that im disabled and poor im on the other end of that paradigm. and im really glad i saw that light before and that it didnt take my current situation to force that realization on me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 (edited) Setting aside the ridiculous sounding neo-mercantilist moniker, the more preferred system is ...? A truely capitalist system not rife with the perverse incentives created by federal insurance, too-big-to-fail lables, regulation designed to create permanent market share by creating artificial barriers to market entry, and the ludicrous protections afforded to individuals by the current standard limited liability. Edited March 18, 2013 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
We Come In Peace Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 Using that logic, there's no way that Bills Gates, Sam Walton & their heirs would ever get to the top, and the top would forever be dominated by Vanderbilts, Gettys, & Rockefellers. Um... do you realize who owns most of the central banks? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 Um... do you realize who owns most of the central banks? You could buy shares of a central bank? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 hear hear i used to be a big earner and i didnt mind paying a larger pcent in taxes. i knew that my success wasnt mine alone, that a lot of other people were in the path that helped me get to where i was. sure, i tried to save money on taxes by buying rental properties and managing my portfolio properly, but i still paid far more as a percentage than most people i also happen to respect the spiritual principle that you treat everyone like your brother. i happened to be doing very well at the time, but it wasnt bc i was so much more awesome than ppl who werent. i earned my money for sure, but didnt mind that a good chunk of it went to help those not as financially successful as i was now that im disabled and poor im on the other end of that paradigm. and im really glad i saw that light before and that it didnt take my current situation to force that realization on me well said. i don't mind either except that so many masters of the universe pay little as a percentage in comparison. that really pi$$e$ me off. at least some in that category also find it ridiculous: http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/04/16/465195/wealthy-banker-raise-taxes/?mobile=nc. but, i'm sure there are those on the other side who feel they're wallowing in their guilt and somehow enjoying it. warren buffet's got nothin if you take away that wallowing, don't ya know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 well said. i don't mind either except that so many masters of the universe pay little as a percentage in comparison. that really pi$$e$ me off. at least some in that category also find it ridiculous: http://thinkprogress...axes/?mobile=nc. but, i'm sure there are those on the other side who feel they're wallowing in their guilt and somehow enjoying it. warren buffet's got nothin if you take away that wallowing, don't ya know. I wish I could say that I was surprised that you subscribe to foolish theories about taxing wealth, but I'm not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 I wish I could say that I was surprised that you subscribe to foolish theories about taxing wealth, but I'm not. i guess schoenberg, buffet and others like them are fools as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 Um... do you realize who owns most of the central banks? No. Who? The Jews? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts