Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
Wealth Distribution in the USA
Topic Started: Sep 20 2016, 03:18 PM (547 Views)
Aqua Letifer
Member Avatar
ZOOOOOM!
^_^ Maybe so.
I cite irreconcilable differences.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Quote:
 
I never justified trickle down. I simply stated that if working class and poor had better wages than they currently do, that extra money wouldn't be socked under a mattress. It would be used to go eat out more often, see a movie, take a trip, live a little. IOW, stimulate our economy.


That IS trickle down economics.

Quote:
 
I just don't get it. The right side , which includes many middle class and poor, will defend the uber rich to the death. There is a class warfare building whether you want to admit it or not. Things are going to get ugly if something isn't done.


So tell me - at what dollar point do we decide that what a man has earned he doesn't deserve any more, and he must give it to everyone else? Do we really want to give away the freedom to rise to our highest and best level through hard work just because of base emotions such as jealousy? And once we decide that we have a right to separate a man from what he has earned because we don't think he has the right to keep it, who's going to stop government from lowering that bar? You think the top 1% are hording their money - do you think it might be that they have no incentive any more to put that money to work?

You're discussing a legitimate issue - the middle class and the poor are suffering. But you mistakenly assume that it is because those who made it to the top are the cause of it, when nothing could be further from the truth. If you want the poor and the middle class to increase their wealth, get government OFF the backs of people, and yes, that includes the top 1%. Let them make as much money as they can. Create an environment where they can invest that money into job creating companies, and put the poor to work, and give the middle class more opportunities to move on up the ladder.

Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moonbat
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
North European 'socialist' countries e.g Denmark have a much better wealth distribution, people there pay more tax, work much more sensible hours, (and are unsurprisingly much happier). The solution is not more capitalism.

If the problem were really 'getting the government off people's backs' then how the juice do you explain the fact that America has one of the worst income distributions in the Western world yet you are amongst the least 'socialist' western countries?
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aqua Letifer
Member Avatar
ZOOOOOM!
Moonbat
Sep 21 2016, 08:05 AM
North European 'socialist' countries e.g Denmark have a much better wealth distribution, people there pay more tax, work much more sensible hours, (and are unsurprisingly much happier). The solution is not more capitalism.

If the problem were really 'getting the government off people's backs' then how the juice do you explain the fact that America has one of the worst income distributions in the Western world yet you are amongst the least 'socialist' western countries?
Problem is, we have a different legal structure and a very different social climate. There's just no way we'd adopt a more European model; you guys should stop barking up that tree because it's just not going to happen.

If we're going to figure this out, it has to be in a way that makes legal and social sense over here. (Yeah I know, good luck, right?)
I cite irreconcilable differences.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kathyk
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
An easy solution would be a total revamping of the tax laws, including a very high upper income tax rate. It used to be as high as 80% for the top earners. And also removing loopholes that prevent companies like Apple to get away with paying tiny amounts of corporate tax using overseas tax shelter. Another thing to keep in mind is inheritance tax. The whole idea of inheritance tax was to prevent family dynasties from hoarding all the wealth. There has been so much moaning about that. When I first started practicing law, you could only pas on $600,000 before estate tax kicked in. You now can currently pass $5.33 Million before federal inheritance tax kicks in and it's a graduated tax beyond that. But, the moaning continues and many of the predictables in Congress are lobbying hard to eliminate the estate tax entirely.
Blogging in Palestine: http://kksjournal.com/
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
George K
Member Avatar
Finally
kathyk
Sep 21 2016, 08:24 AM
An easy solution would be a total revamping of the tax laws, including a very high upper income tax rate. It used to be as high as 80% for the top earners
Full Stop: No one paid that rate. Deductions that have been eliminated were used (remember the "sales tax" deduction?).
A guide to GKSR: Click

"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... "
- Mik, 6/14/08


Nothing is as effective as homeopathy.

I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles.
- Klaus, 4/29/18
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kathyk
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
Historical highest marginal tax ratesWow! Let me edit that. The highest marginal rate was in the 40s and a whopping 94%!
Blogging in Palestine: http://kksjournal.com/
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kathyk
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
All the same, you start with 94% and deduct away. You're still probably going to end up with a higher rate than the highest paid today.
Blogging in Palestine: http://kksjournal.com/
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moonbat
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
Quote:
 
Problem is, we have a different legal structure and a very different social climate. There's just no way we'd adopt a more European model; you guys should stop barking up that tree because it's just not going to happen.

If we're going to figure this out, it has to be in a way that makes legal and social sense over here. (Yeah I know, good luck, right?)
I'm not really advocating a European model, I'm not sure what that would mean - does the UK follow a European model?

It's just that it's obvious that wealth inequality isn't coming from over taxation/regulation.
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
George K
Member Avatar
Finally
kathyk
Sep 21 2016, 08:27 AM
Historical highest marginal tax ratesWow! Let me edit that. The highest marginal rate was in the 40s and a whopping 94%!
No, despite the rates being higher, people paid no more taxes then than now. In fact, they frequently paid less.

http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/income_tax_history

Here's a hundred years of history.

Posted Image

Here's the 1%:

Posted Image

No one cares about rates, they care about total taxes paid.

And since 1986, the poor pay less:

Posted Image
A guide to GKSR: Click

"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... "
- Mik, 6/14/08


Nothing is as effective as homeopathy.

I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles.
- Klaus, 4/29/18
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kathyk
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
I'd like to see the graph for the top 1% from 1900 to present. That aside, corporate taxes have decreased, as Apple has graphically demonstrated with its latest tax debacle in Ireland.

Also to be considered is that we are the least-taxed of advanced industrial nations, with 28% of gross domestic product taken for taxes, vs. an average of 36%, while, at the same time, spending way in excess any other nation on the military.

You can find an economist to support pretty much any view, but I find this guy's compelling.


Quote:
 
To overhaul these behaviors and the policies that support it, Stiglitz says that America should give up what he deems the “incorrect and outdated” belief in supply-side economics, which grows from the premise that regulation and taxes dampen business opportunities and economic growth. Instead, massive changes to tax laws, regulations, and the financial sector are needed, he says, in order to curb rent-seeking. For instance, increasing tax rates, ending preferential treatment for top earners, and refining the tax code would decrease incentives to amass extreme amounts of wealth, since it would be so heavily taxed, and that tax would be difficult to shirk. Stiglitz suggests a 5 percent increase to the tax rate of the top 1 percent of earners—a move that he says would raise as much as $1.5 trillion over 10 years. He also calls for a “fair tax,” which would eliminate preferential tax treatment for money earned from capital gains and dividends—perks enjoyed primarily by people who can afford to own a lot of stock.


Joseph Stiglitz on Fixing Inequality



Blogging in Palestine: http://kksjournal.com/
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
George K
Member Avatar
Finally
http://teachinghistory.org/history-content/ask-a-historian/24489
Quote:
 
Very few individuals encountered this top rate, however. The actual proportion of earnings citizens paid as income taxes in 1945 was far lower: for the poorest 20% of Americans, 1.7%; for the next 20%, 6.2%; for the middle quintile, 8.9%, for the upper-middle 20%, 10%; and for the wealthiest quintile, 20.7%. Tax rates have fallen since then: the current top level is 35% of income above $357,000, or $30,000 in 1945 dollars. Then the median family income was $2,379 per year. Brackets also have simplified (24 in the 1950s, just six today), yet the federal government takes in far more revenue than 60 years ago and citizens complain hugely about being over-taxed. What has happened?

Did you get that? In 1945, the highest earners paid 20.7%. Marginal rates are irrelevant. The actual amount paid is what matters, and that was lower in the 1940s than it is today. I've NEVER paid anything as low as 20.7%. But, maybe I had lousy accountants... :lol2:

That top rate, by the way, was for people who (in todays dollars) earned in excess of $14,000,000.
A guide to GKSR: Click

"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... "
- Mik, 6/14/08


Nothing is as effective as homeopathy.

I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles.
- Klaus, 4/29/18
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums with no limits on posts or members.
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2