Wealth inequality in America

[Belsnickel]

(07-26-2017, 08:29 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Old enough that it's irrelevant.

2000-2005? You started before 9/11, so no war in the Middle East, and it cuts out Obama's entire two-term Presidency and the huge recession we had.

War in the ME means there is a need for more revenue. Tax cuts are good for the recession, but now that the economy has stabilized they need to go back up. This is far from irrelevant, this shows that economic growth is sustainable with higher corporate tax rates and income tax rates. For example, let's look at the corporate rate here:


There was a significant amount of economic growth in this country when both the personal and corporate tax rates were higher than they are today.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(07-26-2017, 04:39 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: We are headed towards a mincome. This will also allow the push for automation.

That will really hurt manufacturing jobs and the middle class workers who rely on those jobs to support their families.

Let's hope the corporate world never figures out how to reduce costs by shipping jobs overseas or import labor with work visas.

Oh, wait; corporate has already done all that.

Allow the push for automation. LOL

[Benton]

(07-26-2017, 06:36 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: What'd be the point of working hard or innovating, and making over $1m then? You'd be working for free 3/4ths of the time. More once you figure in state taxes, and the costs of actually going to work (car, insurance, gas, etc.)

"Work 10 hours, get paid for 1" sounds like a terrible idea.

All the country's rich people would just move away to other countries, taking their companies with them. Then we'd be stuck with only poor people, and even less money for education and job training for them, and less jobs on top of that.

Two things.

One, would you want 25% of $1 million + $40 million? Or would you stop at $1 million and say "nay, I don't want $10 million" ?

Two, even when the country had outrageously high taxes on capital gains and the 1%, they didn't pay it. Just like now, there were tax breaks. That was the intent in a lot of the tax breaks that exist today. You might be taxed at 75% over $1 million (or whatever percentage and dollar amount), but you got a break for reinvesting that money.

Now, the country gives people the tax breaks, but the tax rates are much much lower. 

I'm ok with low rates, provided there's no breaks. Or conversely, make the rates high and give breaks to encourage growing the economy. Either way it should leave plenty of money in people's pockets and grow the economy. Right now, though, we've got low rates and lots of breaks... which is why we have such little growth regardless of what party is in power.

[Dill]

(07-26-2017, 04:34 PM)Yojimbo Wrote: There's a difference between what should/could be done and what will be done. Since our federal and most of our state governments are bought and paid for by the people/corporations that are causing the inequality problem, the "will be done" is more tax cuts for corporations and capital gains incomers.

What should be done is a return to the older tax code of extremely high percentages (75%+) on income/capital gains over ~$1 million.

Use that tax revenue to provide education and job training, those that receive better training and education tend to have higher earning jobs and then pay more in taxes.

Then you use that to provide more education and training and infrastructure projects. This creates a POSITIVE feedback loop.

Cutting taxes which leads to less spending on education/training, hourly workers being paid less because they are less skilled, lower wages leads to lower tax revenue, which leads to less money for education and infrastructure creates a NEGATIVE feedback loop.

Commynism dont werk.  Luk at Rusha and Obama.  Rich cant hire us unles they hav muny. So quit always taxing them. Stp givin muny to welfair who don werk.

 If we ban aborton god wil reward us and Trump will bring back coal jobs mexiko stol.

[Dill]

(07-26-2017, 08:32 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: War in the ME means there is a need for more revenue. Tax cuts are good for the recession, but now that the economy has stabilized they need to go back up. This is far from irrelevant, this shows that economic growth is sustainable with higher corporate tax rates and income tax rates. For example, let's look at the corporate rate here:


There was a significant amount of economic growth in this country when both the personal and corporate tax rates were higher than they are today.

Yow! well said.

If I were in the 1% I would rush up a chart showing how our tax dollars educate illegal immigrants in public schools or something.

[xxlt]

(07-26-2017, 03:56 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Without doing any research, how do you think wealth is distributed in the U.S.? Divide the population into quintiles and assign a percentage of total wealth to each. How much total wealth is held by the bottom 20%, second 20%, third 20%, fourth 20%, and top 20%)?

Then watch the video. How close were you? What do you think about this issue?





And because there will be the inevitable "equality of opportunity" commentary: https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/06/what-matters-inequality-or-opportuniy/393272/?utm_source=fbb

I was exactly right. And I've been told by a certain cross section of this very board since its inception and by others from the mother ship for years before that that I'm an idiot, don't understand economics, etc. Well, I understand reality better than 92% of Americans per the video. No wonder so many of them call me an idiot for speaking the truth.