Wealth Distribution in the United States

[kong]

I've said it over and over. Capital gains and regular income should be treated the same. Why should someone who lives off investments be favored over someone who works a regular job? They shouldn't.

You're a Keynsian right? You believe in easy credit correct? Selling stock is just another way companies get a loan, equity instead of interest. Jack up capital gains and the fed will have to loan money at -5% to make up for it.

See the graphs and tables in the first two posts of this thread. They obviously are not paying enough.

Again, read the first two posts in this thread.

We have a lot of billionaires. But on the other hand, 50% of the population earns less than the Australian minimum wage. Wealth isn't something to brag about when it's concentrated in the hands of a small minority of the country.

So what we tax 95% past 1m?

Libertarian solution to all social problems = ignore them

I think we have a pretty good solution to the war on drugs. I'm guessing you voted for Biden the guy who brought us mandatory minimums and the rave act...

Liberal response to fiscal reality-hope human nature suddenly changes.

There is no marginal gain? What about A MILLION DOLLARS a year, and 5% after that? That is a lot of money.

Exactly, there is no *marginal* gain, hence no work after a point. Sorry, rich people (i.e. business owners i.e. half the country to some degree or another) won't provide jobs when they can only keep 5% of their profits.

Whatever. If someone really is going to reject that, I'm sure we could find other people who can do the same job, who will happily accept 1 million a year.

Good luck.

But this is all hypothetical anyway. I'm just making a point. It could be 95% or it could be 50%. I don't really care all that much. I just think it's ridiculous that there can be such a huge disparity in wealth in a country where all people are supposedly created equal.

Which is why I'm not a fan of government contracts I don't have the money to lobby for, the tax breaks I don't have the money to lobby for, the anti-competitive regulation that helps some other guy I don't have the money to lobby for etc...

I believe government enables much of this wealth concentration. The problem is, every program is someone's pet project, everything appeals to some "deserving" constituency. So instead of trying to take other peoples money so I can compete for corruption on an equal level, I'd rather the government didn't do much in the first place.

If all your saying is raise the marginal rate 15% than thats a little different. Fine, we disagree about where we are on the laffer curve. When people get all enraged against wealth its wrong. Its wrong to hate people who are successful. Its wrong to expect your "cut". The only way you can get rid of the power that comes with money and level the playing field is to get the government out of as much as possible.

And sorry, but CEO's and investors aren't worth nearly as much as they are paid. Why should they be paid millions when scientists and doctors are only paid like $100,000? Does the CEO really contribute that much more? Does he create all that wealth on his own? No.

They get paid so much because the organization they run is often huge. As a % of revenue they aren't getting paid near as much as a small business. If there is a huge organization to run it is real important that the absolute best person is hired. (I know, I know...)

Do you know how high our top tax bracket used to be? It was 93% in the 50's. The country was doing really good at that point. It didn't hurt the economy at all.

Thats because hardly anyone paid them.

And nobody knows what the ideal tax rate is, so the laffer curve is basically irrelevant. It says basically nothing besides "don't tax too much, and don't tax too little."

I can tell you what its not...95%

 

[Unbreakable]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3yCC_jap6k&feature=player_embedded

soooo true gotta see this, i totally agree....Gerald Celente

 

[Heuristic]

Looking at the numbers in the OP relating to relative net worth, over the last 27 years:

the top 1% gained about a percentage point,
the bottom 80% lost 3 percentage points,
and the top 20% excluding the top 1% gained about 3 percentage points.

That's not really a massive shift in wealth, and much of the loss for the bottom 80% occurred during the period 1983-1989.

Meanwhile, the top 1% of earners paid more in income tax than the bottom 95% of earners combined. The top 1% of earners paid 40% of all federal income tax receipts in 2007. http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2...in-federal-income-taxes-than-bottom-95-in-07/

With respect to marginal tax rates, the problem with taxing any income bracket at 90% is that, as kong pointed out, you remove any incentive to continue working once you hit that bracket. Why would anyone bother working past the 1 million mark, if 90 cents of each additional dollar is taken as tax?

The rate also just strikes me as frankly punitive.

 

[marsmellow]

Heuristic, you are only looking at the income tax. That doesn't give you the whole picture. Most people pay more in payroll taxes than income taxes.

I think we have a pretty good solution to the war on drugs. I'm guessing you voted for Biden the guy who brought us mandatory minimums and the rave act...

It's funny you say that because the first thread I started in CE&P was one which criticized Obama for picking Biden, because of his record of being a drug warrior. I'm honestly not a big fan of the democrats, because they are too conservative. And I criticize them for it all the time.

But libertarians stole this idea (drug law reform) from leftists. Libertarianism has only a few good ideas that they didn't steal from progressives, and I can't think of any right now.

Liberal response to fiscal reality-hope human nature suddenly changes.

What is human nature? Do you really know the answer to this question?

Exactly, there is no *marginal* gain, hence no work after a point. Sorry, rich people (i.e. business owners i.e. half the country to some degree or another) won't provide jobs when they can only keep 5% of their profits.

You can keep saying this but the truth won't change. Our top tax bracket used to be 93%. The USA didn't collapse because of it. It worked fine.

But you are so fixated on this 95% number, that you are totally missing the point of my post. I didn't say 95% (it was 90% originally, but I have bad short term memory) because I thought it was the right place on laffer curve, I said it because I thought it would be the best way to redistribute money from the super-rich to everyone else.

There is no reason why people should earn billions while others go without healthcare and housing. It's just a bad use of resources. And you keep criticizing the solution I proposed, but you never offer any solution of your own. What is the libertarian solution to this problem described in the first two posts? Are you going to ignore it until America is like a third world oligarchy? Where there is a small group of obscenely rich elites, and everyone else is poor?

Good luck.

Good luck proving your point. There is a lot of evidence for my point of view. You haven't even tried to prove me wrong. Like Pander Bear said, where are all these French and Scandinavian billionaires? Why didn't our rich people leave the USA when we had much higher taxes?

Where is the proof for what you are saying? It really seems like your whole point is based on a fictional novel... Atlas Shrugged. Where else has this scenario happened?

Which is why I'm not a fan of government contracts I don't have the money to lobby for, the tax breaks I don't have the money to lobby for, the anti-competitive regulation that helps some other guy I don't have the money to lobby for etc...

I do see your point. If the government did nothing which affected them, businesses wouldn't have a reason to lobby the government. But I'm just not willing to give up a lot of government programs and regulations, because they are too valuable. If that means there will be some corruption... so be it.

I'd rather the government didn't do much in the first place.

Are you going to have your own police and fire departments? Are you going to build your own roads? Are you going to regulate pollution all by yourself? There are lots of things that governments do that we need. We can't just expect the market to provide these things.

If all your saying is raise the marginal rate 15% than thats a little different. Fine, we disagree about where we are on the laffer curve.

We do. Taxes on the wealthy have been much higher in the past. But maybe the best rate is 50% or 70%. I'm not completely certain. But the ideal tax rate on the wealthy is higher than we have it now.

And I think the economy (and democracy) works best when there is a strong middle class. We get a strong middle class by preventing a small amount of people from monopolizing all the wealth, and by creating government programs which help people have equal opportunities in life.

When people get all enraged against wealth its wrong. Its wrong to hate people who are successful.

I don't "hate" people who are successful. I actually am related to two multi-millionaires. One who is a bond broker and another who manages a hedge fund. I don't hate them... I just think they should pay higher taxes.

I think it is wrong for people to be hungry and homeless when others have millions. That is a much greater wrong than demanding that they pay higher taxes, don't you think?

Its wrong to expect your "cut".

I'm not the one demanding more than a million dollars a year to work. Wealthy people do... according to you. Isn't that quite a big slice of the economic pie? Isn't it greedy and selfish to demand that much money?

I can tell you what its not...95%

This 95% tax would only apply to a tiny number of people. I do agree that taxing everyone at that rate would be very counterproductive.

 

[kong]

It's funny you say that because the first thread I started in CE&P was one which criticized Obama for picking Biden, because of his record of being a drug warrior. I'm honestly not a big fan of the democrats, because they are too conservative. And I criticize them for it all the time.

But libertarians stole this idea (drug law reform) from leftists. Libertarianism has only a few good ideas that they didn't steal from progressives, and I can't think of any right now.

Oh right, we stole that from progressives, well thanks, I guess putting people in cages for what they put in their bodies would be a libertarian philosophy otherwise8) What are you trying to do here? thats just an insult...I could just as easily say the opposite, but what for?

What is human nature? Do you really know the answer to this question?

Yea, I do, its not to work if you're not getting rewarded. See Soviet Russia for evidence...

You can keep saying this but the truth won't change. Our top tax bracket used to be 93%. The USA didn't collapse because of it. It worked fine.

Like I said, no one paid it so it didn't have much of an effect.

But you are so fixated on this 95% number, that you are totally missing the point of my post. I didn't say 95% (it was 90% originally, but I have bad short term memory) because I thought it was the right place on laffer curve, I said it because I thought it would be the best way to redistribute money from the super-rich to everyone else.

The best way to redistribute money from the rich to the poor is t* on the laffer curve, thats the whole point of the graph. Unless of course you just feel like taking it out on them because they have more than you...at the expense of *you* I might add.

The laffer curve isn't some libertarian invention. We would argue that the best point on the graph maximizes individual freedom not government revenue. I merely posted it for your benefit. If wealth distribution is your goal than pick t* carefully. It will only hurt your efforts to tax too much. The fact that you don't understand this leads me to believe you are less interested in helping the poor than punishing the rich.

It comes down to this...do you want to maximize what poor people get period or maximize what they get relative to rich people?

There is no reason why people should earn billions while others go without healthcare and housing. It's just a bad use of resources. And you keep criticizing the solution I proposed, but you never offer any solution of your own. What is the libertarian solution to this problem described in the first two posts? Are you going to ignore it until America is like a third world oligarchy? Where there is a small group of obscenely rich elites, and everyone else is poor?

You keep acting like I never give my view of the way things should be.

Good luck proving your point. There is a lot of evidence for my point of view. You haven't even tried to prove me wrong. Like Pander Bear said, where are all these French and Scandinavian billionaires? Why didn't our rich people leave the USA when we had much higher taxes?

Why would someone from Finland move to go from 37% to 35%? I already answered this. They have dropped their rates considerably. I guess even super liberal utopias agree that 80% marginal tax is shooting yourself in the foot. I'm no fan of Atlas Shrugged.

I do see your point. If the government did nothing which affected them, businesses wouldn't have a reason to lobby the government. But I'm just not willing to give up a lot of government programs and regulations, because they are too valuable. If that means there will be some corruption... so be it.

Corruption which leads to wealth concentration which is solved by higher taxes which just makes it that much harder for me to compete.

And don't start in on firetrucks, of course I believe in those.

I don't "hate" people who are successful. I actually am related to two multi-millionaires. One who is a bond broker and another who manages a hedge fund. I don't hate them... I just think they should pay higher taxes.

So they aren't greedy selfish pigs?

I think it is wrong for people to be hungry and homeless when others have millions. That is a much greater wrong than demanding that they pay higher taxes, don't you think?

I've actually worked with homeless people. I think they generally have way bigger problems than the tax brackets. The idea that the streets are filled with people who "almost" made it is wrong. The majority of them live like that because of drug addiction and mental illness, problems money doesn't necessarily solve.

I'm not the one demanding more than a million dollars a year to work. Wealthy people do... according to you. Isn't that quite a big slice of the economic pie? Isn't it greedy and selfish to demand that much money?

Not when they create wealth. People don't "demand" millions of dollars a year, they create millions of dollars of new value a year. There isn't some pie they are taking a chunk of, its not a zero sum game. I thought we had beat this to death already...I mean, try "demanding" a million dollars...it won't get you far. No one's stopping you from *creating* millions of dollars of value, except higher taxes of course.

The government can't employ people at the market cost. It costs the government way more to pay a person the same wage as the market. Never mind that the government must tax the market to pay the wage. We need business owners. Look at Gates and Buffet. They have both brought an incredible amount of progress to the world and are now just giving all the money back.

Its overlooked, but Buffet has allocated capital to companies that deserved it. His profitability wasn't at anyone's expense. He gave money to companies who could employ people and produce things in the sustainable way. Its very important we have people in the market doing that. Like your relatives for example.

Thats the beautiful thing about low capital gains, anyone can be an owner of a company and benefit from that ownership. If there is some evil company that is making to much money than buy their stock!! No one's saying you can't. If you have three kids and work at taco bell than tough shit, no one made you fuck off instead of learning a trade, no one made you get your dick wet. I've watched a bunch of my friends who all basically started in the same place end up in a wide variety of jobs based almost completely on work ethic. Sure some went to the ivy league and some went to state, but some are electricians and plumbers and some work at a fast food joint, but there is no one else to blame...(I'll admit we all had a leg up in general, my point is the only people who aren't doing well had to push the limits for what is possible in the laziness dept.)

You already get to tax corporate owners twice (income/dividends) how much more do you want to discourage the little guy from investing their money. People are over leveraged enough, the last thing we need to do is discourage the middle class from saving. (I'd like to add that thanks to keynsian economics inflation is too high to consider keeping your money in a bank. We are pretty much forced to invest it for it to maintain value).

This 95% tax would only apply to a tiny number of people. I do agree that taxing everyone at that rate would be very counterproductive.

Even if it hits one person there will be jobs lost, but you don't need to worry about that cause the government can just pick up the slack

 

[marsmellow]

Oh right, we stole that from progressives, well thanks, I guess putting people in cages for what they put in their bodies would be a libertarian philosophy otherwise8) What are you trying to do here? thats just an insult...I could just as easily say the opposite, but what for?

I'm just saying don't try to pin the drug war on liberals. After all, it was Ronald "Small Government" Reagan who is most responsible for it. We don't support it any more than you do. I voted for Obama because there was nobody better that had a chance, not because I liked the RAVE Act.

Yea, I do, its not to work if you're not getting rewarded. See Soviet Russia for evidence...

Yeah, being allowed to earn more than a million dollars a years is JUST like living in the Soviet Union.

Like I said, no one paid it so it didn't have much of an effect.

No, the tax brackets change every few years, because of inflation. Now the highest is $350,000, but in the early 90's it was like $280,000. It was much lower in the fifties. Maybe $50,000 or something. There were definitely some people who earned enough to pay it though.

You keep acting like I never give my view of the way things should be.

No, I just think that if we did what you are proposing, things would get much worse, not better.

http://www.bidstrup.com/economics.htm
http://www.shmoop.com/gilded-age/summary.html

So they aren't greedy selfish pigs?

I didn't say ALL wealthy people were greedy and selfish. I said that the ones who whine about paying their taxes are.

I've actually worked with homeless people. I think they generally have way bigger problems than the tax brackets. The idea that the streets are filled with people who "almost" made it is wrong. The majority of them live like that because of drug addiction and mental illness, problems money doesn't necessarily solve.

What about government funded mental health and drug treatment clinics? That could probably help them.

Not when they create wealth. People don't "demand" millions of dollars a year, they create millions of dollars of new value a year.

No. They don't create all that wealth by themselves. They don't build the factories. They don't make the things they sell. They didn't do all the scientific research that makes their products work. Almost every step of the way, businessmen depend on other people to help them. Without other people, they would just be a random person with a lot of money and an idea. They wouldn't be creating anything.

And actually, a lot of the time they depend on the government. Would the CEO of Google be rich if the government hadn't done the research that led to the internet? Would the CEOs of car companies be rich if the government didn't build roads? No, they wouldn't.

There isn't some pie they are taking a chunk of, its not a zero sum game.

No, there is a limited amount of wealth in society, and the top 20% have almost all of it. Yes, some people are smart and lucky enough to make that pie bigger, but not everyone can do that.

The government can't employ people at the market cost. It costs the government way more to pay a person the same wage as the market.

Why do you assume this? Yeah, there are definitely some overpaid people in the government, and some waste and corruption, but there is no unbreakable law that says government can't employ people and be efficient about it. Just look at the healthcare system in the UK, and look at all the money wasted by our insurance companies here. Our system is much more wasteful than theirs.

Even if it hits one person there will be jobs lost

Says who? I think there would be even more jobs, because more people would be able to start a small business. For every Bill Gates we lose, there will be another 100 small business owners. That means more new products, and more competition.

I don't want to get rid of rich people and businesses totally, I just think that having all the wealth concentrated like this is a bad thing. It actually hurts the economy. It doesn't help it.

 

[kong]

Yeah, being allowed to earn more than a million dollars a years is JUST like living in the Soviet Union.

In the sense that you aren't rewarded for marginal effort past a certain point yes.

No, the tax brackets change every few years, because of inflation. Now the highest is $350,000, but in the early 90's it was like $280,000. It was much lower in the fifties. Maybe $50,000 or something. There were definitely some people who earned enough to pay it though.

Nobody paid it because of loopholes, and it wasn't targeted towards many people anyway so I don't see it as proof that 93% is workable.

What about government funded mental health and drug treatment clinics? That could probably help them.

Sure, and letting them just buy the drugs they want wouldn't hurt either.

No. They don't create all that wealth by themselves. They don't build the factories. They don't make the things they sell. They didn't do all the scientific research that makes their products work. Almost every step of the way, businessmen depend on other people to help them. Without other people, they would just be a random person with a lot of money and an idea. They wouldn't be creating anything.

Try getting a bunch of people united to build a business without capital. Someone has to take a risk. That someone has to be rewarded

No, there is a limited amount of wealth in society, and the top 20% have almost all of it. Yes, some people are smart and lucky enough to make that pie bigger, but not everyone can do that.

We have been hearing that since recorded history began and the pie keeps getting bigger.

Why do you assume this? Yeah, there are definitely some overpaid people in the government, and some waste and corruption, but there is no unbreakable law that says government can't employ people and be efficient about it. Just look at the healthcare system in the UK, and look at all the money wasted by our insurance companies here. Our system is much more wasteful than theirs.

There is no unbreakable law, only years of data.

Says who? I think there would be even more jobs, because more people would be able to start a small business. For every Bill Gates we lose, there will be another 100 small business owners. That means more new products, and more competition.

How so?

I don't want to get rid of rich people and businesses totally, I just think that having all the wealth concentrated like this is a bad thing. It actually hurts the economy. It doesn't help it.

Maybe so, I think your treatment is worse than the ailment however.

The overall issue is that everyone is invested and higher taxes are pushed off to the consumer. If you raise taxes you raise prices and lower investment. Sure the government gets to spend money (well that depends on what t* is) but that isn't what most poor people want. They want money like everyone else whether they know it or not. If you could figure out the cost of healthcare (using all the indirect ways it affects people) and let them choose between getting that in cash or "free" healthcare I'd wager most of them take the cash.

The bigger you make the government the easier it is for these giant companies to collude with it. The companies most able to absorb higher taxes by passing them right back on the consumer are the biggest. You're just consolidating power by raising taxes, especially when you talk about a million bucks being your starting point.

This pass the tax on to the consumer concept is well proven.

 

[Heuristic]

Heuristic, you are only looking at the income tax. That doesn't give you the whole picture. Most people pay more in payroll taxes than income taxes.

That doesn't change the relatively small movements in relative net worth.

It also doesn't change the fact that the tax burden in this country is already borne, for the most part, by upper economic classes. Someone earning a very large income will already be paying over one-third, to one-half, of it to federal, state, and local government in taxes.

You mentioned that the highest tax bracket in this country was once incredibly high--which is true. But I don't think that worked out very well.

I'm in favor of a progressive system of taxation, but a 90% bracket severely disincentivizes work beyond a certain point of income. I know that it seems like a person should be completely happy to give away 90% beyond one million earned each year, but there are two things to consider. First, at a 90% tax rate, that person is going to decide that not working makes a lot more sense than working. Second, human beings adapt very quickly to what they have, meaning that to get them to work more, you need to offer more (or threaten less). The second thing is good in some ways, since it keeps human beings on a path of continual attempt at improvement, but largely rules out the notion that most people will simply be happy to work for free past a certain income point.

 

[marsmellow]

That doesn't change the relatively small movements in relative net worth.

Look at table 6 and figure 7, and also look at the news story at the bottom. So far, the change in net worth hasn't been so bad. But number one, the distribution of wealth was pretty bad in the first place, and number two, it is going to get much worse because of these changes in income, and because of the recession. The rich are earning much more (in % of total income) than they have in the past, and everyone else is earning less.

It also doesn't change the fact that the tax burden in this country is already borne, for the most part, by upper economic classes. Someone earning a very large income will already be paying over one-third, to one-half, of it to federal, state, and local government in taxes.

Yes, they do. But this hasn't led to a more fair distribution of wealth in society. They still control as much as they have in the past. They still have most of the money so they should pay most of the taxes.

There is all this talk about the tax burden on wealthy people. The horrible tax burden. OMG, it's so tyrannical. But what about the burden of working constantly but never having enough to make ends meet? What about the burden of not having healthcare or a warm bed to sleep in? Lots of people deal with these things and it's a lot worse than paying taxes when you have more than enough to pay them.

You mentioned that the highest tax bracket in this country was once incredibly high--which is true. But I don't think that worked out very well.

Why not?

I'm in favor of a progressive system of taxation, but a 90% bracket severely disincentivizes work beyond a certain point of income. I know that it seems like a person should be completely happy to give away 90% beyond one million earned each year, but there are two things to consider. First, at a 90% tax rate, that person is going to decide that not working makes a lot more sense than working. Second, human beings adapt very quickly to what they have, meaning that to get them to work more, you need to offer more (or threaten less). The second thing is good in some ways, since it keeps human beings on a path of continual attempt at improvement, but largely rules out the notion that most people will simply be happy to work for free past a certain income point.

I know. You and kong have repeatedly made this point. I can see what you mean but I have a hard time believing that people would just stop working because they stop earning so much after a million dollars. That is A LOT of money and they will still gain some after that. What can a person possibly do with all this money? Why does someone need five mansions, two yachts and caviar every night? It's just ridiculous to give so much to a small minority of people, when there are so many ways it could be used better.

In the sense that you aren't rewarded for marginal effort past a certain point yes.

Nobody paid it because of loopholes, and it wasn't targeted towards many people anyway so I don't see it as proof that 93% is workable.

You would still earn 5% or 10%. But okay, fine. Maybe 95% is a bit excessive. How about 75% instead? Say someone earns 1.5 million before taxes. 25% of $500,000 is $125,000. That is more than most people earn in a whole year. I think 75% is fair, and it wouldn't be so little that they would stop working.

Try getting a bunch of people united to build a business without capital. Someone has to take a risk. That someone has to be rewarded

That someone could be the public. Why not? We could do everything that investors do now, but the money would just be controlled by servants of the public (AKA government bureaucrats with finance degrees) instead of a small group of private citizens. That way, we could have all the benefits of capitalists, without the massive disparity in wealth.

There is no unbreakable law, only years of data.

Umm... could you show me this data?

(It better not be something from the Heritage Foundation. They have no credibility at all.)

How so?

Okay, imagine that some person earns 500 million a year. If we had those tax rates I mentioned, their wealth would spread out among other people. Maybe there are 500 people who have 1 million, instead of one person with 500 million. These 500 would create businesses. Now we have 500 small or medium sized companies, instead of one huge mega corporation. This would lead to more new ideas and products, and stronger competition. Do you really think that only the CEOs of Apple and Microsoft are capable of doing what they do? Do you think they are they only ones who have innovative ideas? No, I don't think so. A lot more people would do it, if they had the money to get started.

There would actually be MORE rich people in my society, not less. They would just earn a bit less than the rich people in the US today. But there would be more.

The overall issue is that everyone is invested and higher taxes are pushed off to the consumer. If you raise taxes you raise prices and lower investment. Sure the government gets to spend money (well that depends on what t* is) but that isn't what most poor people want. They want money like everyone else whether they know it or not.

I'm not sure what you mean here. I'm not talking about just giving free money to poor people. We would use the money to make society better so poor people have the ability to pull themselves out of poverty.

Imagine there's an area with lots of gang violence, high drop out rates, and few jobs. The government could use all this revenue to do lots of things to help this area. They could start free education centers (kind of like community colleges, but completely free) that teach people about math and science, vocational training, business and investing skills, personal finance, GED classes, and other things like that. The people who live there would eventually learn enough to start businesses, and this would help provide jobs in the community.

The government could also start some make-work projects there, maybe fixing up run down houses or something, and this would give people skills and give them a way to earn money besides gangs and crime. They could also increase funding for police but I'm not a big fan of that approach.

 

[qwe]

I just can't see socialism as fixing this problem. Just like communism it all sounds great in theory. Sadly I do not see a socialist society working out nearly as great as it looks on paper. Nothing ever does. Especially a society like the United States where individualism, hard-work, and privacy is ingrained in a large percent of the population. I do realize we are losing ground in this area but where will that take us? A country as large and powerful as the United States have never tried a socialist government so going that direction could lead us to greatness or to our demise.

That's why I think it is imperative to attempt to fix our current system, free-market and all and try to work with it. After all it is how we got so powerful in the first place. We just need to have a competitive advantage versus other nations. Our workforce is very productive now we just need to use it as best we can!

democratic socialism A) does not have to interfere with most or even virtually all of the free market and B) is a way to fix the problem because it addresses specifically those problems that need to be addressed--ensuring people have enough to eat after the government fucks them over with inflation and killing off labor unions for example (something like two thirds of people on food stamps have jobs)

 

[qwe]

so which party is more likely to be fiscally responsible and more likely to stop crap pork spending?

hmm... harry reid gets some balls. seems to be the democrats

http://www.youtube.com/user/theyoungturks?blend=1&ob=4#p/u/19/4FAyD_EfZ3M

http://www.youtube.com/user/theyoungturks?blend=1&ob=4#p/u/13/GpsfseqEflM

time and time again the republicans brazenly vote against the little guy. every single republican always votes in favor of drug company profit. and obama totally sells out all of his previous ideals

http://www.youtube.com/user/theyoungturks?blend=1&ob=4#p/u/22/-l3c8QWJaoQ

a solution is presented in the above video (totally nonpartison)

 

[L O V E L I F E]

Will someone please explain to me the difference between "redistribution of wealth" and theft?

Thanks In Advance,

"Greedy Pig"

 

[kong]

I know. You and kong have repeatedly made this point. I can see what you mean but I have a hard time believing that people would just stop working because they stop earning so much after a million dollars. That is A LOT of money and they will still gain some after that. What can a person possibly do with all this money? Why does someone need five mansions, two yachts and caviar every night? It's just ridiculous to give so much to a small minority of people, when there are so many ways it could be used better.

Don't ask me to rationalize it or justify it. Its how it works. There has to be a marginal benefit to working. Even people who really need the money don't work that hard if they aren't getting paid enough, why would you expect someone who doesn't *really* need the money to work much if they just keep a sliver.

You would still earn 5% or 10%. But okay, fine. Maybe 95% is a bit excessive. How about 75% instead? Say someone earns 1.5 million before taxes. 25% of $500,000 is $125,000. That is more than most people earn in a whole year. I think 75% is fair, and it wouldn't be so little that they would stop working.

Now we are on a sliding scale where every dollar you take away from me makes me that less likely to provide jobs. Back to the laffer curve, where do you think that point is? I'd say 75% is shooting yourself in the foot. France, Sweden, Norway and Finland all agree with me after trying it themselves.

That someone could be the public. Why not? We could do everything that investors do now, but the money would just be controlled by servants of the public (AKA government bureaucrats with finance degrees) instead of a small group of private citizens. That way, we could have all the benefits of capitalists, without the massive disparity in wealth.

Thats communism. It sounds great though.

Umm... could you show me this data?

Our recent "put people back to work" stimulus package has some juicy figures.

Okay, imagine that some person earns 500 million a year. If we had those tax rates I mentioned, their wealth would spread out among other people.

Via welfare? Free healthcare?

Maybe there are 500 people who have 1 million, instead of one person with 500 million. These 500 would create businesses. Now we have 500 small or medium sized companies, instead of one huge mega corporation.

There is a gap in your logic, how did taxing 1 corporation create 500 new ones?

How many companies exist because of the ipod/iphone/itouch?

This would lead to more new ideas and products, and stronger competition. Do you really think that only the CEOs of Apple and Microsoft are capable of doing what they do? Do you think they are they only ones who have innovative ideas? No, I don't think so. A lot more people would do it, if they had the money to get started.

O.K. I'm starting to understand..we just need Chris Dodd to take our money and invest it for us? Its only fair since there are so many people with such great idea.

Don't forget, Jobs and Gates started out as acid addled nerds in a garage. Its a good thing your generation wasn't around to tax them into the dirt.

There would actually be MORE rich people in my society, not less. They would just earn a bit less than the rich people in the US today. But there would be more.

Until high tax rates kill government revenues which at this point sustain the economy.

I'm not sure what you mean here. I'm not talking about just giving free money to poor people. We would use the money to make society better so poor people have the ability to pull themselves out of poverty.

Imagine there's an area with lots of gang violence, high drop out rates, and few jobs. The government could use all this revenue to do lots of things to help this area. They could start free education centers (kind of like community colleges, but completely free) that teach people about math and science, vocational training, business and investing skills, personal finance, GED classes, and other things like that. The people who live there would eventually learn enough to start businesses, and this would help provide jobs in the community.

It seems like the government already provides those things however poorly. More money? Public schools cost far more than private ones and deliver piss poor results.

We tried highschool, what makes you think a "life" college will work.

My solution would be to quit dealing with a teachers union that doesn't allow you to fire a teacher or give a teacher a raise on anything but seniority. We discussed adverse selection information asymmetry in the educational thread.

The government could also start some make-work projects there, maybe fixing up run down houses or something, and this would give people skills and give them a way to earn money besides gangs and crime. They could also increase funding for police but I'm not a big fan of that approach.

If we are trying to fix the inner city I think the answer is obvious. Legalize drugs. Then kids grow up with fathers who work at jobs rather than going in and out of jail on dope charges. The last thing we need are more cops which just make dealing drugs more profitable and risky at the same time.

The problem is to fix a house you need to know how. So basically the the best you can hope for is paying existing businesses to fix houses. Without getting into the futility of borrowing money from China to finance consumption I doubt it will help much, (although the houses might look better).

 

[qwe]

what passes for sociological and economic reasoning in the conservative meme-world often makes me facepalm

 

[kong]

Does that mean I'm discredited?

 

[capstone]

Will someone please explain to me the difference between "redistribution of wealth" and theft?

"Theft" is when a private citizen steals another's car. "Redistribution of wealth" is when the government says its okay, because that person who stole it "has need."

"Redistribution" is when you go on vacation, come back, see someone else has moved into your house, and you can't do a damn thing about it.

This is Vatican economic policy, and is what's going on with their "liberation theology" down in Latin America.

 

[kandytime]

Raising taxes stifles business and economic growth, that is 100% fact. Raise taxes to an obscene amount, watch our GDP shrink. There is a healthy medium but going to the extremes is a bad decision.

 

[Pander Bear]

"Theft" is when a private citizen steals another's car. "Redistribution of wealth" is when the government says its okay, because that person who stole it "has need."

"Redistribution" is when you go on vacation, come back, see someone else has moved into your house, and you can't do a damn thing about it.

This is Vatican economic policy, and is what's going on with their "liberation theology" down in Latin America.

aren't you a strict constructionist? levying taxes (to whatever end) is the sine qua non of american (and really any other) government.

 

[capstone]

^I'm all for legit taxes that actually go to our government to build(AND MAINTAIN) roads and deliver my mail. But this is not the case today. Income tax, among others, only goes directly to the Federal Reserve as payment on international debt. All the while, the other private banks are taking what's left.

This is not the way things should be done.

Entitas ipsa involvit aptitudinem ad extorquendum certum assensum.

 

[hobhead]

63 and on social security . blue collar union mutt with 2 pensions as well . it's up to you youngsters to burn the whole warmongering shit down . i don't care if i do die dooo .