Closing the wealth gap

26,865 Views | 526 Replies | Last: 7 mo ago by DiabloWags
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
All you have to do to get continually referenced by name in a post around here is to cite an article that disagrees with the resident economic experts.

If Francis Elroy Duffy was a billionaire instead of a drunk, 75 or a 100 years from now ( if absurd wealth disparity lasts that long) some of the justifying explanations posted here would make a great gallows speech for him.



Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
DiabloWags
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bearister said:

All you have to do to get continually referenced by name in a post around here is to cite an article that disagrees with the resident economic experts.


You mean like people referencing by name BearForce (BF), Hell to Pay (HTP), and Minot State Beav?
DiabloWags
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cal_79 said:

dajo9 said:

Cal_79 said:

And when the $28B increase occurred, how much of it is a realized gain that shows up as cash in a bank account? How much of it is an unrealized gain that exists only on paper? When the value of my house fluctuates does my bank account fluctuate, too? When my house appreciates, how much of that gain in value should be taken from me and given to someone else?
It depends. Do you have assets above $50 million?

https://2020.elizabethwarren.com/toolkit/umt

When it's an unrealized gain it's all Monopoly money, a made up number that may or may not reflect actual value.

But because you or someone else thinks a person's estate is worth 'too much' it's okay to take part of that estate based on perceived value? Why? Just because someone has something you don't have, you think it's okay to take it from them? Why?

BTW, how did they amass this fortune? Was it from robbing banks? Or was it from solving problems? Did Musk's estate have such a huge increase in value because nobody wants a Tesla?

When an entrepreneur creates something that lots of people want, and purchases of this product makes the entrepreneur wealthy, why do you feel it's appropriate to go back to the entrepreneur and say, "Gee, now you're too successful"?

Excellent post!

Never mind that the people that didnt solve any problems or take on any RISK are the one's that feel entitled to take away part of the perceived value of one's estate.


bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
DiabloWags said:

bearister said:

All you have to do to get continually referenced by name in a post around here is to cite an article that disagrees with the resident economic experts.


You mean like people referencing by name BearForce, Hell to Pay, and Minot State Beav?



I will admit I have called out HTP several times (and he me) but not the others. The most flamboyant is BearForce and I am pretty sure he would be the first to tell you that I don't call him out. In addition, I only PM people to compliment them or to respond to a non snarky PM sent to me.
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
According to a very knowledgeable poster here, the economy is working for a lot of people right now. So why is wealth inequality our biggest problem?

dajo9 said:

The pandemic recovery economy has been best for low wage workers

dajo9 said:

#ThankYouBrandon

dajo9 said:

Real wages are up 2.1% since pre-Covid

dajo9 said:

#ThankYouBrandon

dajo9 said:


dajo9 said:

The economic recovery is so strong right now, Biden haters are pulling out the "alternative" measurements
dajo9 said:

Did someone say hysterical?

dajo9 said:

Democratic communism has some work to do

dajo9 said:


dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cal_79 said:

dajo9 said:

Cal_79 said:

And when the $28B increase occurred, how much of it is a realized gain that shows up as cash in a bank account? How much of it is an unrealized gain that exists only on paper? When the value of my house fluctuates does my bank account fluctuate, too? When my house appreciates, how much of that gain in value should be taken from me and given to someone else?
It depends. Do you have assets above $50 million?

https://2020.elizabethwarren.com/toolkit/umt

But because you or someone else thinks a person's estate is worth 'too much' it's okay to take part of that estate based on perceived value? Why? Just because someone has something you don't have, you think it's okay to take it from them? Why?

BTW, how did they amass this fortune? Was it from robbing banks? Or was it from solving problems? Did Musk's estate have such a huge increase in value because nobody wants a Tesla?

When an entrepreneur creates something that lots of people want, and purchases of this product makes the entrepreneur wealthy, why do you feel it's appropriate to go back to the entrepreneur and say, "Gee, now you're too successful"?
https://bearinsider.com/forums/6/topics/106533/replies/1972846
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bearister said:

All you have to do to get continually referenced by name in a post around here is to cite an article that disagrees with the resident economic experts.

If Francis Elroy Duffy was a billionaire instead of a drunk, 75 or a 100 years from now ( if absurd wealth disparity lasts that long) some of the justifying explanations posted here would make a great gallows speech for him.




Are you planning to lead the insurrection against our capitalistic system?
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:

According to a very knowledgeable poster here, the economy is working for a lot of people right now. So why is wealth inequality our biggest problem?

dajo9 said:

The pandemic recovery economy has been best for low wage workers

dajo9 said:

#ThankYouBrandon

dajo9 said:

Real wages are up 2.1% since pre-Covid

dajo9 said:

#ThankYouBrandon

dajo9 said:


dajo9 said:

The economic recovery is so strong right now, Biden haters are pulling out the "alternative" measurements
dajo9 said:

Did someone say hysterical?

dajo9 said:

Democratic communism has some work to do

dajo9 said:



The economy is doing well under Biden. People are leaving bad jobs to get better jobs. Your socialist economists like Piketty say that during recessions wealth concentration goes down and vice-versa in strong economies, so this good economy is bad news for you.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Even allowing for the idea that wealth is not finite (and I think I generally agree with that), don't folks also think there are at least some social/political issues that get raised when wealth or income inequality goes past a certain amount? Like, even if absolute wealth is generally raised across the board for all groups, the obvious disparity between the highest and lowest groups is going to have consequences if people are aware of it.

Even if it's all just psychological and not based on concrete numbers, that still matters in a democracy. Heck, even in a non-democracy it will matter past a certain point. Revolutionary attitudes can foment in such an environment, where the have-nots become increasingly envious of the haves.
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
wifeisafurd said:

concordtom said:

wifeisafurd said:

going4roses said:

When your great great grandparents/grandparents were legally considered as property(chattel slaves) that directly shapes ones outlook on a lot of things.
Wait, is this from the guy who posted about the cost of the apartment in the tony (read white liberal artsy) gentrified East Village? Holy crap. Hey get your butt over to East Queens to live with the brothers for far less.


Wife,
Not a good look, man.
Kinda ugly, actually.
Tom, coming from you that is really rich. Who you looking to have die today?

The bizarro guy starts talking about F-ing people and then is a complete hypocrite on the housing thing and gets called out and you of all people say its a bad look.



Really not sure what you are talking about!
Who is talking about F-ing people? Go ahead and quote that. Context??? What are you talking about?

You also wrote: "Who you looking to have die today?"
Did you omit the word "are" after who?
Hey, I've got a long and healthy list. Heart attacks, strokes, hit by a train. Did you want that list?
There are lots of people who are ruining this country through their lies and nastiness. Call it rich. I don't care. It's true.
I've asked rhetorically many times, "would you have preferred Hitler be dead in 1935?" The correct answer, it turns out, is Yes.

I'm a hypocrite on housing?
How so?
Where was I "called out"?

By the way, you've not stoned (edit: atoned) for your racist comment, merely attacked the person who pointed it out.

Not a good look #2.
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
wifeisafurd said:

bearister said:

All you have to do to get continually referenced by name in a post around here is to cite an article that disagrees with the resident economic experts.

If Francis Elroy Duffy was a billionaire instead of a drunk, 75 or a 100 years from now ( if absurd wealth disparity lasts that long) some of the justifying explanations posted here would make a great gallows speech for him.




Are you planning to lead the insurrection against our capitalistic system?




"…and last, but not least, no one was ever able to define or prove my wealth." Francis Elroy Duffy
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
Cal_79
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

Even allowing for the idea that wealth is not finite (and I think I generally agree with that), don't folks also think there are at least some social/political issues that get raised when wealth or income inequality goes past a certain amount? Like, even if absolute wealth is generally raised across the board for all groups, the obvious disparity between the highest and lowest groups is going to have consequences if people are aware of it.

Even if it's all just psychological and not based on concrete numbers, that still matters in a democracy. Heck, even in a non-democracy it will matter past a certain point. Revolutionary attitudes can foment in such an environment, where the have-nots become increasingly envious of the haves.
Perspective matters. For some, they see 'haves and have nots' and are jealous for what the 'haves' have that they don't. For others, they see the 'haves', imagine what's possible, and think that perhaps they can do it, too.
Big C
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cal_79 said:

And when the $28B increase occurred, how much of it is a realized gain that shows up as cash in a bank account? How much of it is an unrealized gain that exists only on paper? When the value of my house fluctuates does my bank account fluctuate, too? When my house appreciates, how much of that gain in value should be taken from me and given to someone else?

No, I get that part (I'm not as dumb as I look.). You wrote, "$28 billion added to their fortune". Yes, if that $28 billion consists of increased valuation of an enterprise, it should not be treated just like income, of course.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cal_79 said:

sycasey said:

Even allowing for the idea that wealth is not finite (and I think I generally agree with that), don't folks also think there are at least some social/political issues that get raised when wealth or income inequality goes past a certain amount? Like, even if absolute wealth is generally raised across the board for all groups, the obvious disparity between the highest and lowest groups is going to have consequences if people are aware of it.

Even if it's all just psychological and not based on concrete numbers, that still matters in a democracy. Heck, even in a non-democracy it will matter past a certain point. Revolutionary attitudes can foment in such an environment, where the have-nots become increasingly envious of the haves.
Perspective matters. For some, they see 'haves and have nots' and are jealous for what the 'haves' have that they don't. For others, they see the 'haves', imagine what's possible, and think that perhaps they can do it, too.
Fine, but I'm talking about this on a sociological level. If too many people become jealous you have a problem.
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Even if, for the sake of argument, we stipulate that any resentment the under classes have is unreasonable and not supported by facts, it still doesn't change the fact that the growing gap between the haves and have nots is not a sustainable business model for a successful, functioning and peaceful Republic over time (Sorry if this is flowery language instead of clinical economic theory).

Altruism will have to sprout among the haves to contribute more, even if they believe in their heart of hearts that no one helped them, they are self made, they don't owe anyone anything and that those on the other end of the chain are wholly undeserving. They can look at it strictly as a self serving business decision: Toss more crumbs on the floor to keep as big a wealth differential going for as long as possible before they start oiling up the guillotine.

Wealth inequality and the collapse of civilizations | The Kansas City Star


https://www.kansascity.com/news/business/biz-columns-blogs/talking-business/article344527.html

History tells us where the wealth gap leads | Aeon Essays


https://aeon.co/essays/history-tells-us-where-the-wealth-gap-leads
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
DiabloWags
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Big C said:

Cal_79 said:

And when the $28B increase occurred, how much of it is a realized gain that shows up as cash in a bank account? How much of it is an unrealized gain that exists only on paper? When the value of my house fluctuates does my bank account fluctuate, too? When my house appreciates, how much of that gain in value should be taken from me and given to someone else?

No, I get that part (I'm not as dumb as I look.). You wrote, "$28 billion added to their fortune". Yes, if that $28 billion consists of increased valuation of an enterprise, it should not be treated just like income, of course.

Problem is, that $28 Billion increase is changing in valuation every second of the day.

Given that TSLA has a little over 1 Billion shares outstanding, the shares of TSLA can and have experienceed $50 Billion swings in market-cap in an hour. Just today, it had an intra-day change in valuation of $68 Billion. Since Tuesday, TSLA's valuation has dropped as much as $180 Billion. Like I've mentioned on numerous occasions before, calculating wealth can be very complicated.


Big C
How long do you want to ignore this user?
DiabloWags said:

Big C said:

Cal_79 said:

And when the $28B increase occurred, how much of it is a realized gain that shows up as cash in a bank account? How much of it is an unrealized gain that exists only on paper? When the value of my house fluctuates does my bank account fluctuate, too? When my house appreciates, how much of that gain in value should be taken from me and given to someone else?

No, I get that part (I'm not as dumb as I look.). You wrote, "$28 billion added to their fortune". Yes, if that $28 billion consists of increased valuation of an enterprise, it should not be treated just like income, of course.

Problem is, that $28 Billion increase is changing in valuation every second of the day.

Given that TSLA has a little over 1 Billion shares outstanding, the shares of TSLA can and have experienceed $50 Billion swings in market-cap in an hour. Just today, it had an intra-day change in valuation of $68 Billion. Since Tuesday, TSLA's valuation has dropped as much as $180 Billion. Like I've mentioned on numerous occasions before, calculating wealth can be very complicated.




Agreed.
DiabloWags
How long do you want to ignore this user?
wifeisafurd said:

Unit2Sucks said:

Quote:

The economy is doing well under Biden. People are leaving bad jobs to get better jobs. Your socialist economists like Piketty say that during recessions wealth concentration goes down and vice-versa in strong economies, so this good economy is bad news for you.


Yup.
The wealth gap is dramatically increasing under Joe Biden, to the consternation of Dajo.
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
concordtom said:

wifeisafurd said:

concordtom said:

wifeisafurd said:

going4roses said:

When your great great grandparents/grandparents were legally considered as property(chattel slaves) that directly shapes ones outlook on a lot of things.
Wait, is this from the guy who posted about the cost of the apartment in the tony (read white liberal artsy) gentrified East Village? Holy crap. Hey get your butt over to East Queens to live with the brothers for far less.


Wife,
Not a good look, man.
Kinda ugly, actually.
Tom, coming from you that is really rich. Who you looking to have die today?

The bizarro guy starts talking about F-ing people and then is a complete hypocrite on the housing thing and gets called out and you of all people say its a bad look.



Really not sure what you are talking about!
Who is talking about F-ing people? Go ahead and quote that. Context??? What are you talking about?

You also wrote: "Who you looking to have die today?"
Did you omit the word "are" after who?
Hey, I've got a long and healthy list. Heart attacks, strokes, hit by a train. Did you want that list?
There are lots of people who are ruining this country through their lies and nastiness. Call it rich. I don't care. It's true.
I've asked rhetorically many times, "would you have preferred Hitler be dead in 1935?" The correct answer, it turns out, is Yes.

I'm a hypocrite on housing?
How so?
Where was I "called out"?

By the way, you've not stoned for your racist comment, merely attacked the person who pointed it out.

Not a good look #2.
Tom, let me invite you back to the planet. I you go through the posts, you will see going4roses, who as pointed out by others communicates in garbled language, posted about a tour of an apartment in a posh portion of Manhattan, known for it white liberal hipness, that said all landlord should get f--ked. He then asked if anyone saw a problem.

His next post was to say: "When your great great grandparents/grandparents were legally considered as property(chattel slaves) that directly shapes ones outlook on a lot of things." He did not say they were his grandparents. I assumed, perhaps incorrectly becuase one never is sure what this poster is talking about given his failure to often communicate in full sentences, is African Americans.

It seems to me there is a hypocrisy that the guy is upset about housing prices because he wants to live where the cool white people live, and then he pulls out the race card. It might not to you, but you have not followed the discussion to even consider this and why I said what I said and what it means. Somehow you think I'm talking about you. Not the first time on just this thread you didn't keep-up. Your too busy calling people Nazis and other things, wanting people you don't like to die immediately, demanding people disclose personal information, and saying other stuff that actually got you a time out from off topic, which is almost impossible to do, you can't even keep up with what is being talked about. Try to keep up and get a grip dude.
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bearister said:

Even if, for the sake of argument, we stipulate that any resentment the under classes have is unreasonable and not supported by facts, it still doesn't change the fact that the growing gap between the haves and have nots is not a sustainable business model for a successful, functioning and peaceful Republic over time (Sorry if this is flowery language instead of clinical economic theory).

Altruism will have to sprout among the haves to contribute more, even if they believe in their heart of hearts that no one helped them, they are self made, they don't owe anyone anything and that those on the other end of the chain are wholly undeserving. They can look at it strictly as a self serving business decision: Toss more crumbs on the floor to keep as big a wealth differential going for as long as possible before they start oiling up the guillotine.

Wealth inequality and the collapse of civilizations | The Kansas City Star


https://www.kansascity.com/news/business/biz-columns-blogs/talking-business/article344527.html

History tells us where the wealth gap leads | Aeon Essays


https://aeon.co/essays/history-tells-us-where-the-wealth-gap-leads
You talk a big game above the masses rebelling, but so far, the only thing I have seen that has been called a revolution was a bunch of Trump protesters overrunning the Capital Building.
DiabloWags
How long do you want to ignore this user?
wifeisafurd said:

bearister said:

Even if, for the sake of argument, we stipulate that any resentment the under classes have is unreasonable and not supported by facts, it still doesn't change the fact that the growing gap between the haves and have nots is not a sustainable business model for a successful, functioning and peaceful Republic over time (Sorry if this is flowery language instead of clinical economic theory).

Wealth inequality and the collapse of civilizations | The Kansas City Star


You talk a big game above the masses rebelling, but so far, the only thing I have seen that has been called a revolution was a bunch of Trump protesters overrunning the Capital Building.


Interestingly enough, the stock market climbed another 40% under Joe Biden and there werent any riots.
Hmmmmm...

Cal_79
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

Cal_79 said:

sycasey said:

Even allowing for the idea that wealth is not finite (and I think I generally agree with that), don't folks also think there are at least some social/political issues that get raised when wealth or income inequality goes past a certain amount? Like, even if absolute wealth is generally raised across the board for all groups, the obvious disparity between the highest and lowest groups is going to have consequences if people are aware of it.

Even if it's all just psychological and not based on concrete numbers, that still matters in a democracy. Heck, even in a non-democracy it will matter past a certain point. Revolutionary attitudes can foment in such an environment, where the have-nots become increasingly envious of the haves.
Perspective matters. For some, they see 'haves and have nots' and are jealous for what the 'haves' have that they don't. For others, they see the 'haves', imagine what's possible, and think that perhaps they can do it, too.
Fine, but I'm talking about this on a sociological level. If too many people become jealous you have a problem.
So it's okay to take from the 'haves' to keep the 'have nots' from being jealous? Since wealth is not finite, how about empowering and encouraging the 'have nots' to strive for more?

If people are unable to provide for themselves, then it makes sense to provide assistance. If they're simply unwilling to provide for themselves, then that's on them.

Everyone in this country deserves an equal opportunity to succeed (good education, level playing field). But then it's up to the individual (strong desire to succeed, good work ethic, willingness to start at the bottom and work their way up, willingness to fail and pick themselves up to try again). Equal opportunity does not equate to equal results.
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
wifeisafurd said:

bearister said:

Even if, for the sake of argument, we stipulate that any resentment the under classes have is unreasonable and not supported by facts, it still doesn't change the fact that the growing gap between the haves and have nots is not a sustainable business model for a successful, functioning and peaceful Republic over time (Sorry if this is flowery language instead of clinical economic theory).

Altruism will have to sprout among the haves to contribute more, even if they believe in their heart of hearts that no one helped them, they are self made, they don't owe anyone anything and that those on the other end of the chain are wholly undeserving. They can look at it strictly as a self serving business decision: Toss more crumbs on the floor to keep as big a wealth differential going for as long as possible before they start oiling up the guillotine.

Wealth inequality and the collapse of civilizations | The Kansas City Star


https://www.kansascity.com/news/business/biz-columns-blogs/talking-business/article344527.html

History tells us where the wealth gap leads | Aeon Essays


https://aeon.co/essays/history-tells-us-where-the-wealth-gap-leads
You talk a big game above the masses rebelling, but so far, the only thing I have seen that has been called a revolution was a bunch of Trump protesters overrunning the Capital Building.


So my adoption of the theory that lopsided wealth inequality is dangerous to stability is only viable if wide scale resentment boils over now or in the next few years?

With regard to someone else's comment about the stock market going up, that just compounds the problem because the people I'm concerned about don't own stocks.

The comments that call out anyone that resents wealth inequality as someone that has to be shiftless and not willing to work hard to achieve their piece of the American Dream is nothing more than a retread of Ronald Reagan's Welfare Queen schtick.

Finally, the money being sucked out of the system by the grifters at the bottom is minuscule compared to that getting wheel barrowed out by the thieves at the top.
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cal_79 said:

sycasey said:

Cal_79 said:

sycasey said:

Even allowing for the idea that wealth is not finite (and I think I generally agree with that), don't folks also think there are at least some social/political issues that get raised when wealth or income inequality goes past a certain amount? Like, even if absolute wealth is generally raised across the board for all groups, the obvious disparity between the highest and lowest groups is going to have consequences if people are aware of it.

Even if it's all just psychological and not based on concrete numbers, that still matters in a democracy. Heck, even in a non-democracy it will matter past a certain point. Revolutionary attitudes can foment in such an environment, where the have-nots become increasingly envious of the haves.
Perspective matters. For some, they see 'haves and have nots' and are jealous for what the 'haves' have that they don't. For others, they see the 'haves', imagine what's possible, and think that perhaps they can do it, too.
Fine, but I'm talking about this on a sociological level. If too many people become jealous you have a problem.
So it's okay to take from the 'haves' to keep the 'have nots' from being jealous?
To a point, yes. Though it's more than that. The "haves" didn't literally make all their wealth on their own. The country, the society they live in also contributes to that, so being asked to give some back to keep said society functioning isn't necessarily an undue burden.

There can be extremes on either end and you need to strike a balance. I don't think it's ridiculous to think that increasing income/wealth inequality indicates that the balance is getting out of whack.
DiabloWags
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Just curious Bearister . . .

What do you do to give back to your Community?


bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
DiabloWags said:

Just curious Bearister . . .

What do you do to give back to your Community?



Is this the part where I'm suppose to brag about the money I give away and hours donated like you guys brag about how self made and successful you are?
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
DiabloWags
How long do you want to ignore this user?
It's a pretty simple question.
Why are you deflecting?
Why so snarky?

I asked you what you did to give back to your Community.

PS. I'm the President of a 501c3 which most likely doesnt go along with your "look how self-made and successful I am" narrative.

DiabloWags
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:


To a point, yes. Though it's more than that. The "haves" didn't literally make all their wealth on their own. The country, the society they live in also contributes to that, so being asked to give some back to keep said society functioning isn't necessarily an undue burden.

There can be extremes on either end and you need to strike a balance. I don't think it's ridiculous to think that increasing income/wealth inequality indicates that the balance is getting out of whack.

Your post above states that successful entrepreneurs who have made money in our Society need to give some back to keep "said society functioning". - - - Question: Are they not already paying their income taxes and giving back? Is the Federal Income Tax rate of 37% not high enough for your stated goal?

If so, what marginal income tax rate do you believe would be "fair" to tax single filing entrepreneurs who reside in California who have over $539,000 or more of annual income?
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
DiabloWags said:

sycasey said:


To a point, yes. Though it's more than that. The "haves" didn't literally make all their wealth on their own. The country, the society they live in also contributes to that, so being asked to give some back to keep said society functioning isn't necessarily an undue burden.

There can be extremes on either end and you need to strike a balance. I don't think it's ridiculous to think that increasing income/wealth inequality indicates that the balance is getting out of whack.

Your post above states that successful entrepreneurs who have made money in our Society need to give some back to keep "said society functioning". - - - Question: Are they not already paying their income taxes and giving back? Is the Federal Income Tax rate of 37% not high enough for you and your stated goal?

If so, what marginal income tax rate do you believe would be "fair" to tax single filing entrepreneurs who reside in California who have over $539.000 or more of annual income?
The Federal Income Tax rate used to be higher, FWIW.

I don't pretend to be an expert on the details of where the perfect balance would lie or what the best mechanisms are. I'm not an economist. I'm simply arguing that the principle of trying to avoid too much inequality is valid. Some of that might involve government redistribution and that is okay.
DiabloWags
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:



The Federal Income Tax rate used to be higher, FWIW.

I don't pretend to be an expert on the details of where the perfect balance would lie or what the best mechanisms are. I'm not an economist. I'm simply arguing that the principle of trying to avoid too much inequality is valid. Some of that might involve government redistribution and that is okay.

I'm well aware that the federal income tax rate used to be higher.
It also used to be lower as well.
It's currently at 37%

Barring the question (and assumptions being made) of whether or not increasing income tax rates would actually wind up with a redistribution of "wealth" that would facilitate a better "functioning" society - - - I'm just curious to learn from those that are in favor of trying to reduce the wealth inequality gap via higher marginal income tax rates, what their idea of a "fair" marginal rate would be?

At 37% + 12.3% (CA state > $590,000) you are at 49.3%

Is that not enough?
If it isnt, how much higher do people making over $590,000 need to be taxed?


wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

DiabloWags said:

sycasey said:


To a point, yes. Though it's more than that. The "haves" didn't literally make all their wealth on their own. The country, the society they live in also contributes to that, so being asked to give some back to keep said society functioning isn't necessarily an undue burden.

There can be extremes on either end and you need to strike a balance. I don't think it's ridiculous to think that increasing income/wealth inequality indicates that the balance is getting out of whack.

Your post above states that successful entrepreneurs who have made money in our Society need to give some back to keep "said society functioning". - - - Question: Are they not already paying their income taxes and giving back? Is the Federal Income Tax rate of 37% not high enough for you and your stated goal?

If so, what marginal income tax rate do you believe would be "fair" to tax single filing entrepreneurs who reside in California who have over $539.000 or more of annual income?
The Federal Income Tax rate used to be higher, FWIW.

I don't pretend to be an expert on the details of where the perfect balance would lie or what the best mechanisms are. I'm not an economist. I'm simply arguing that the principle of trying to avoid too much inequality is valid. Some of that might involve government redistribution and that is okay.
There are plenty of government programs that redistribute, and also private charity. I'm assuming, perhaps incorrectly, from your comments that the current scale is insufficient, which obviously begs the question at what amount is enough? I'm not sure why we have people argue the wealthy don't pay taxes and then think Federal income tax rates increases will change that. Increased rates only impact those paying taxes - which seems to fall disproportionately on most people who post here, the woking professionals.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
wifeisafurd said:

sycasey said:

DiabloWags said:

sycasey said:


To a point, yes. Though it's more than that. The "haves" didn't literally make all their wealth on their own. The country, the society they live in also contributes to that, so being asked to give some back to keep said society functioning isn't necessarily an undue burden.

There can be extremes on either end and you need to strike a balance. I don't think it's ridiculous to think that increasing income/wealth inequality indicates that the balance is getting out of whack.

Your post above states that successful entrepreneurs who have made money in our Society need to give some back to keep "said society functioning". - - - Question: Are they not already paying their income taxes and giving back? Is the Federal Income Tax rate of 37% not high enough for you and your stated goal?

If so, what marginal income tax rate do you believe would be "fair" to tax single filing entrepreneurs who reside in California who have over $539.000 or more of annual income?
The Federal Income Tax rate used to be higher, FWIW.

I don't pretend to be an expert on the details of where the perfect balance would lie or what the best mechanisms are. I'm not an economist. I'm simply arguing that the principle of trying to avoid too much inequality is valid. Some of that might involve government redistribution and that is okay.
There are plenty of government programs that redistribute, and also private charity. I'm assuming, perhaps incorrectly, from your comments that the current scale is insufficient, which obviously begs the question at what amount is enough? I'm not sure why we have people argue the wealthy don't pay taxes and then think Federal income tax rates increases will change that. Increased rates only impact those paying taxes - which seems to fall disproportionately on most people who post here, the woking professionals.
I'm not sure changing the income tax rate will change anything, in fact I can see good arguments that it won't. That's why ideas like "wealth taxes" that go beyond just taxing income are being discussed.

Again, I'm not wonky enough to know what the right approach would be, and I acknowledge the economy is complex and that just moving money from here to there doesn't always solve things. I just think some folks probably need to acknowledge that increasing inequality is a problem on SOME level. Do you think there's anything that could reasonably be done to address that? Or do you think it's all just fine at the moment?
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

wifeisafurd said:

sycasey said:

DiabloWags said:

sycasey said:


To a point, yes. Though it's more than that. The "haves" didn't literally make all their wealth on their own. The country, the society they live in also contributes to that, so being asked to give some back to keep said society functioning isn't necessarily an undue burden.

There can be extremes on either end and you need to strike a balance. I don't think it's ridiculous to think that increasing income/wealth inequality indicates that the balance is getting out of whack.

Your post above states that successful entrepreneurs who have made money in our Society need to give some back to keep "said society functioning". - - - Question: Are they not already paying their income taxes and giving back? Is the Federal Income Tax rate of 37% not high enough for you and your stated goal?

If so, what marginal income tax rate do you believe would be "fair" to tax single filing entrepreneurs who reside in California who have over $539.000 or more of annual income?
The Federal Income Tax rate used to be higher, FWIW.

I don't pretend to be an expert on the details of where the perfect balance would lie or what the best mechanisms are. I'm not an economist. I'm simply arguing that the principle of trying to avoid too much inequality is valid. Some of that might involve government redistribution and that is okay.
There are plenty of government programs that redistribute, and also private charity. I'm assuming, perhaps incorrectly, from your comments that the current scale is insufficient, which obviously begs the question at what amount is enough? I'm not sure why we have people argue the wealthy don't pay taxes and then think Federal income tax rates increases will change that. Increased rates only impact those paying taxes - which seems to fall disproportionately on most people who post here, the woking professionals.
I'm not sure changing the income tax rate will change anything, in fact I can see good arguments that it won't. That's why ideas like "wealth taxes" that go beyond just taxing income are being discussed.

Again, I'm not wonky enough to know what the right approach would be, and I acknowledge the economy is complex and that just moving money from here to there doesn't always solve things. I just think some folks probably need to acknowledge that increasing inequality is a problem on SOME level. Do you think there's anything that could reasonably be done to address that? Or do you think it's all just fine at the moment?
Okay, I'm wiling to take on the consequences of a direct answer. I'm not an advocate of more redistribution program presently with the proviso there is a need to take most medical costs off the table. So something that looks like the British system of dual health care as part of the safety net. I'm not an expert in the area so don't look for specifics. Tax wise I can see some type of estate tax reform for those with very significant asset levels that don't give it away to charities. Okay, fire away.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
wifeisafurd said:

sycasey said:

wifeisafurd said:

sycasey said:

DiabloWags said:

sycasey said:


To a point, yes. Though it's more than that. The "haves" didn't literally make all their wealth on their own. The country, the society they live in also contributes to that, so being asked to give some back to keep said society functioning isn't necessarily an undue burden.

There can be extremes on either end and you need to strike a balance. I don't think it's ridiculous to think that increasing income/wealth inequality indicates that the balance is getting out of whack.

Your post above states that successful entrepreneurs who have made money in our Society need to give some back to keep "said society functioning". - - - Question: Are they not already paying their income taxes and giving back? Is the Federal Income Tax rate of 37% not high enough for you and your stated goal?

If so, what marginal income tax rate do you believe would be "fair" to tax single filing entrepreneurs who reside in California who have over $539.000 or more of annual income?
The Federal Income Tax rate used to be higher, FWIW.

I don't pretend to be an expert on the details of where the perfect balance would lie or what the best mechanisms are. I'm not an economist. I'm simply arguing that the principle of trying to avoid too much inequality is valid. Some of that might involve government redistribution and that is okay.
There are plenty of government programs that redistribute, and also private charity. I'm assuming, perhaps incorrectly, from your comments that the current scale is insufficient, which obviously begs the question at what amount is enough? I'm not sure why we have people argue the wealthy don't pay taxes and then think Federal income tax rates increases will change that. Increased rates only impact those paying taxes - which seems to fall disproportionately on most people who post here, the woking professionals.
I'm not sure changing the income tax rate will change anything, in fact I can see good arguments that it won't. That's why ideas like "wealth taxes" that go beyond just taxing income are being discussed.

Again, I'm not wonky enough to know what the right approach would be, and I acknowledge the economy is complex and that just moving money from here to there doesn't always solve things. I just think some folks probably need to acknowledge that increasing inequality is a problem on SOME level. Do you think there's anything that could reasonably be done to address that? Or do you think it's all just fine at the moment?
Okay, I'm wiling to take on the consequences of a direct answer. I'm not an advocate of more redistribution program presently with the proviso there is a need to take most medical costs off the table. So something that looks like the British system of dual health care as part of the safety net. I'm not an expert in the area so don't look for specifics. Tax wise I can see some type of estate tax reform for those with very significant asset levels that don't give it away to charities. Okay, fire away.
I don't disagree with either of those ideas. Beefing up estate taxes seems like a bit of a no-brainer, frankly.
Cal_79
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

Cal_79 said:

sycasey said:

Cal_79 said:

sycasey said:

Even allowing for the idea that wealth is not finite (and I think I generally agree with that), don't folks also think there are at least some social/political issues that get raised when wealth or income inequality goes past a certain amount? Like, even if absolute wealth is generally raised across the board for all groups, the obvious disparity between the highest and lowest groups is going to have consequences if people are aware of it.

Even if it's all just psychological and not based on concrete numbers, that still matters in a democracy. Heck, even in a non-democracy it will matter past a certain point. Revolutionary attitudes can foment in such an environment, where the have-nots become increasingly envious of the haves.
Perspective matters. For some, they see 'haves and have nots' and are jealous for what the 'haves' have that they don't. For others, they see the 'haves', imagine what's possible, and think that perhaps they can do it, too.
Fine, but I'm talking about this on a sociological level. If too many people become jealous you have a problem.
So it's okay to take from the 'haves' to keep the 'have nots' from being jealous?
To a point, yes. Though it's more than that. The "haves" didn't literally make all their wealth on their own. The country, the society they live in also contributes to that, so being asked to give some back to keep said society functioning isn't necessarily an undue burden.

There can be extremes on either end and you need to strike a balance. I don't think it's ridiculous to think that increasing income/wealth inequality indicates that the balance is getting out of whack.
How is an entrepreneur producing a product, a product that's so popular the entrepreneur ultimately becomes wealthy, not giving back? Why do people want this product? Perhaps it's because it fills a need or solves a problem. How is filling a need or solving a problem not good for society?

Just curious, why do you feel the government knows better what to do with your money than you do? When millionaires and billionaires (including Buffet, Gates, Musk, Zuckerberg) pledge to give their fortunes to philanthropic causes, how is this not a good thing? Is this not a redistribution of wealth? Why do you want the government to step in and take their money instead of allowing these people to give it away freely?

By the way, one of the scariest phrases ever uttered is, "Hi, I'm from the government and I'm here to help..."
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.