The rich just keep getting richer...
- Thread starter UncleBob
- Start date
speedracer
Banned
Income and wealth are two different things. The article rips on Reich for talking about wealth inequality, then launches into an income discussion.
My family is a perfect example of this. Our income is extremely high by any measure, but the debt load required to achieve that income puts our "wealth" at the time of writing this at less than 5k (and is why I'm a cheap ass gamer). My brother's family's wealth is significantly higher even though they make roughly 30% less income than we do (and he buys games at launch).
Income is not wealth.
My family is a perfect example of this. Our income is extremely high by any measure, but the debt load required to achieve that income puts our "wealth" at the time of writing this at less than 5k (and is why I'm a cheap ass gamer). My brother's family's wealth is significantly higher even though they make roughly 30% less income than we do (and he buys games at launch).
Income is not wealth.
Last edited by a moderator:
I think that article misses the point. The very, very highest of any group, 10, 15 or 20 years later will be different as turnover takes place. And the very bottom is going to be severely underreported over a long timescale because life expectancy for the ultrapoor is much lower. By 1988, the poor from 1979 who died in poverty, whether out of sickness, drugs, crime, or lack of basic resources are (of course) not going to be filing taxes and so mobility appears rosier.
And if the argument is that the very poor through hard work have a better chance of moving up the income ladder than a wealthy person doing an equal amount of hard work, that's silliness.
It is more appropriate to look at the barriers to entry or what advantages the wealthy enjoy in staying wealthy, and for that part of the story, this article sheds a bit more light-
http://www.wweek.com/portland/article-17350-9_things_the_rich_dont_want_you_to_know_about_taxes.html
And if the argument is that the very poor through hard work have a better chance of moving up the income ladder than a wealthy person doing an equal amount of hard work, that's silliness.
It is more appropriate to look at the barriers to entry or what advantages the wealthy enjoy in staying wealthy, and for that part of the story, this article sheds a bit more light-
http://www.wweek.com/portland/article-17350-9_things_the_rich_dont_want_you_to_know_about_taxes.html
Yeah, there's always going to be turnover as people have investments go bad, as people retire and have their incomes go down (while still being very wealthy from their investments and savings) etc.
The only thing that matters from the "rich get richer" standpoint is that the highest income brackets are the only ones that have seen real income increases over the past couple decades, while middle class wages have stagnated and working class jobs continue to evaporate. And as a result, the gap between the upper class and the middle class is continuing to widen dramatically.
The only thing that matters from the "rich get richer" standpoint is that the highest income brackets are the only ones that have seen real income increases over the past couple decades, while middle class wages have stagnated and working class jobs continue to evaporate. And as a result, the gap between the upper class and the middle class is continuing to widen dramatically.
usickenme
CAGiversary!
this piece is dishonest at best and idiotic at worst. You mean the same top 1,000 income earners vary from 15 years ago? No shit sherlock. Also all he is really showing is the mobility from the very rich to obscenely rich and back.
Furthermore, he is only focused on income as noted by speedracer. The cutting of capital gains taxes certainly help many of the "rich" appear poor for tax reasons.
Furthermore, he is only focused on income as noted by speedracer. The cutting of capital gains taxes certainly help many of the "rich" appear poor for tax reasons.
[quote name='speedracer']Income and wealth are two different things. The article rips on Reich for talking about wealth inequality, then launches into an income discussion.
[...]
Income is not wealth.[/QUOTE]
So, if the argument is that income isn't the issue, it's overall wealth (which I can understand), why does half the country push for taxes that are solely based upon income?
[...]
Income is not wealth.[/QUOTE]
So, if the argument is that income isn't the issue, it's overall wealth (which I can understand), why does half the country push for taxes that are solely based upon income?
speedracer
Banned
[quote name='UncleBob']So, if the argument is that income isn't the issue, it's overall wealth (which I can understand), why does half the country push for taxes that are solely based upon income?[/QUOTE]
It's a paradigm. It's just the way we think.
I keep this to myself because I think it makes me look like sort of an insane person (and maybe I am), but I am very curious about what would happen if we replaced all federal taxes with a 1% tax on wealth. No income tax at all. I've got a bunch of theories on what would happen, but I don't want to totally blow this thread up with them, unless you actually want to hear them or even have this discussion. But I'm totally fascinated by it.
It's a paradigm. It's just the way we think.
I keep this to myself because I think it makes me look like sort of an insane person (and maybe I am), but I am very curious about what would happen if we replaced all federal taxes with a 1% tax on wealth. No income tax at all. I've got a bunch of theories on what would happen, but I don't want to totally blow this thread up with them, unless you actually want to hear them or even have this discussion. But I'm totally fascinated by it.
Well, I'd think the major practical problem with taxing wealth is that it's harder to define and easier to hide than income.
It would be easy to do things like tax all capital gains on wealth. But there's big objections to that as being a double tax since income was taxed and now you're taxing gains on money that was already taxed. Speedracer's idea would solve that objection, and personally I have no objection to it. Gains on my investments are income (even if it's a retirement account and I can't touch it for decades without penalty. I have no problem having those taxed just like my salary.
Other forms of wealth like houses/land and cars etc. are already taxed--but only at the state level in the form of property taxes and/or sales tax when buying. And those vary by state. Would probably be a losing battle to try to get any federal property tax or other form on non-monetary wealth in place.
So realistically we're probably stuck with an income tax that needs to go up to at least the Clinton levels (and not just for the rich) and needing to get the estate tax back, raise capital gains taxes and close loopholes on investments and corporate taxes etc.
It would be easy to do things like tax all capital gains on wealth. But there's big objections to that as being a double tax since income was taxed and now you're taxing gains on money that was already taxed. Speedracer's idea would solve that objection, and personally I have no objection to it. Gains on my investments are income (even if it's a retirement account and I can't touch it for decades without penalty. I have no problem having those taxed just like my salary.
Other forms of wealth like houses/land and cars etc. are already taxed--but only at the state level in the form of property taxes and/or sales tax when buying. And those vary by state. Would probably be a losing battle to try to get any federal property tax or other form on non-monetary wealth in place.
So realistically we're probably stuck with an income tax that needs to go up to at least the Clinton levels (and not just for the rich) and needing to get the estate tax back, raise capital gains taxes and close loopholes on investments and corporate taxes etc.
[quote name='speedracer']I've got a bunch of theories on what would happen, but I don't want to totally blow this thread up with them, unless you actually want to hear them or even have this discussion. But I'm totally fascinated by it.[/QUOTE]
My guess is that the rich would, as dmaul pointed out, just hide their wealth better.
And yes, I'd like to hear your ideas - while I may not agree with them, I do tend to take the time to read the posts of other people who have taken the time to write them - even more so when it's a direct reply to something I've posted.
So - It's not income, it's overall wealth. And we can't tax overall wealth because it's too easy to hide. So what's left?
My guess is that the rich would, as dmaul pointed out, just hide their wealth better.
And yes, I'd like to hear your ideas - while I may not agree with them, I do tend to take the time to read the posts of other people who have taken the time to write them - even more so when it's a direct reply to something I've posted.
So - It's not income, it's overall wealth. And we can't tax overall wealth because it's too easy to hide. So what's left?
[quote name='speedracer']It's a paradigm. It's just the way we think.
I keep this to myself because I think it makes me look like sort of an insane person (and maybe I am), but I am very curious about what would happen if we replaced all federal taxes with a 1% tax on wealth. No income tax at all. I've got a bunch of theories on what would happen, but I don't want to totally blow this thread up with them, unless you actually want to hear them or even have this discussion. But I'm totally fascinated by it.[/QUOTE]
I see no problem in taxing wealth via an estate tax or other measures.
See also: capital gains etc. that are taxed at lower rates.
You might want to check out "Free Lunch" and "Perfectly Legal" by David Cay Johnston speed.
I keep this to myself because I think it makes me look like sort of an insane person (and maybe I am), but I am very curious about what would happen if we replaced all federal taxes with a 1% tax on wealth. No income tax at all. I've got a bunch of theories on what would happen, but I don't want to totally blow this thread up with them, unless you actually want to hear them or even have this discussion. But I'm totally fascinated by it.[/QUOTE]
I see no problem in taxing wealth via an estate tax or other measures.
See also: capital gains etc. that are taxed at lower rates.
You might want to check out "Free Lunch" and "Perfectly Legal" by David Cay Johnston speed.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
Just think friends - there is mobility in and out of the 1/10000th segment of richest Americans, that must mean we live in a meritocracy amirite.
[quote name='camoor']Just think friends - there is mobility in and out of the 1/10000th segment of richest Americans, that must mean we live in a meritocracy amirite.[/QUOTE]
C'mon camoor, what more do you need? I also know a black guy who got hired for a job he was fully qualified for. Meritocracy validated.
C'mon camoor, what more do you need? I also know a black guy who got hired for a job he was fully qualified for. Meritocracy validated.
BTW speed (or any other takers but speed gets first dibs) I can mail you copies of those books for free.
PM me if you wish.
Also:
http://www.stumbleupon.com/su/4tlbL.../2011/04/taxes-richest-americans-charts-graph
PM me if you wish.
Also:
http://www.stumbleupon.com/su/4tlbL.../2011/04/taxes-richest-americans-charts-graph
[quote name='Msut77']BTW speed (or any other takers but speed gets first dibs) I can mail you copies of those books for free.
PM me if you wish.
Also:
http://www.stumbleupon.com/su/4tlbL.../2011/04/taxes-richest-americans-charts-graph[/QUOTE]
My friend posted the same link today on FB and I was ready to blast him. This article (not only re-linked from Feb) is extremely ignorant and the biggest piece of crap I've ever seen. First off, they conveniently include the employer paid portion of payroll taxes into their figure to show the janitor is effectively taxed at 24.9%... it's more like 17.2%. Second, they are assuming that the janitor is taking the standard deduction when maybe he is putting a kid through college, paying a mortgage and spending a ton on medical bills for his wife. It's completely asinine to put a hypothetical janitor against real life figures.
Let's cut the crap here and step back. Janitor making 33k pays about $5k of taxes. It would take him an entire 30 year career to match what the guy making 1.2m pays in one year of taxes, 160k. Are we so caught up on % figures that we can't see the difference in contribution? How much more do we want the "rich" to pay in?
Also, don't get me started on using GE as an example for how normal corporations handle their taxes. How many people bothered to look into that and see how much of their billions is earned and respent/reinvested out of the country? Creative accounting for sure but if they do indeed earn a vast majority of their income somewhere else, why should it be taxed here if it never reaches our borders?
PM me if you wish.
Also:
http://www.stumbleupon.com/su/4tlbL.../2011/04/taxes-richest-americans-charts-graph[/QUOTE]
My friend posted the same link today on FB and I was ready to blast him. This article (not only re-linked from Feb) is extremely ignorant and the biggest piece of crap I've ever seen. First off, they conveniently include the employer paid portion of payroll taxes into their figure to show the janitor is effectively taxed at 24.9%... it's more like 17.2%. Second, they are assuming that the janitor is taking the standard deduction when maybe he is putting a kid through college, paying a mortgage and spending a ton on medical bills for his wife. It's completely asinine to put a hypothetical janitor against real life figures.
Let's cut the crap here and step back. Janitor making 33k pays about $5k of taxes. It would take him an entire 30 year career to match what the guy making 1.2m pays in one year of taxes, 160k. Are we so caught up on % figures that we can't see the difference in contribution? How much more do we want the "rich" to pay in?
Also, don't get me started on using GE as an example for how normal corporations handle their taxes. How many people bothered to look into that and see how much of their billions is earned and respent/reinvested out of the country? Creative accounting for sure but if they do indeed earn a vast majority of their income somewhere else, why should it be taxed here if it never reaches our borders?
[quote name='QiG']First off, they conveniently include the employer paid portion of payroll taxes into their figure to show the janitor is effectively taxed at 24.9%... it's more like 17.2%.[/quote]
Perhaps you are right. I will get back to you on that.
Although judging from the rest of your post... it isn't like if the number was corrected you would be less irate.
Your hypothetical is better than their hypothetical?
Why the quote marks around rich?
Also, are you unequivocally against progressive taxation?
So is this one of them hypothetical situations that you seem to be so selectively against?
Let's just go along with it, if GE did make the "vast majority" of its money overseas (call it 80%) then why did it pay zero on the 20%?
Perhaps you are right. I will get back to you on that.
Although judging from the rest of your post... it isn't like if the number was corrected you would be less irate.
Your hypothetical is better than their hypothetical?
Why the quote marks around rich?
Also, are you unequivocally against progressive taxation?
So is this one of them hypothetical situations that you seem to be so selectively against?
Let's just go along with it, if GE did make the "vast majority" of its money overseas (call it 80%) then why did it pay zero on the 20%?
GE rather famously "made" 3.2 Billion in tax windfalls.
Irate? I supposed, but only because people read headlines and look at pretty graphs and numbers and take it as fact without trying to read between the lines. I won't say that any hypothetical is better just that hypothetical is just that.. fictitious.
I'll address the single counterpoint you made in your post with this link regarding the GE situation:
http://www.propublica.org/article/setting-the-record-straight-on-ges-taxes
The whole thing is still clear as mud but there is a vast misconception that a 3.2B tax benefit means the govt is paying GE 3.2B and that they made $0 in tax payments.
I'll address the single counterpoint you made in your post with this link regarding the GE situation:
http://www.propublica.org/article/setting-the-record-straight-on-ges-taxes
The whole thing is still clear as mud but there is a vast misconception that a 3.2B tax benefit means the govt is paying GE 3.2B and that they made $0 in tax payments.
[quote name='QiG']Irate?[/quote]
Apoplectic?
I have seen that a hypothetical can be constructed that is better than most others. You just seem to be running with whatever "makes" your "case".
http://www.propublica.org/article/setting-the-record-straight-on-ges-taxes
Your link didn't set anything straight, it says GE may pay a small amount of tax (and points out they won't tell anyone unless they were forced to anyway).
Meanwhile there is this:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iKsuJGAIixQeosmxOctEB-0bhW3g
"GE did not pay US federal taxes last year because we did not owe any," spokeswoman Anne Eisele told AFP, rejecting suggestions the United States' fourth largest company was gaming the system."
---
I can see that there "may" be a "misconception" based on repeating what their chosen mouthpiece says.
Also, care to respond to whether you are against progressive taxation or not?
Apoplectic?
I have seen that a hypothetical can be constructed that is better than most others. You just seem to be running with whatever "makes" your "case".
http://www.propublica.org/article/setting-the-record-straight-on-ges-taxes
Your link didn't set anything straight, it says GE may pay a small amount of tax (and points out they won't tell anyone unless they were forced to anyway).
Meanwhile there is this:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iKsuJGAIixQeosmxOctEB-0bhW3g
"GE did not pay US federal taxes last year because we did not owe any," spokeswoman Anne Eisele told AFP, rejecting suggestions the United States' fourth largest company was gaming the system."
---
I can see that there "may" be a "misconception" based on repeating what their chosen mouthpiece says.
Also, care to respond to whether you are against progressive taxation or not?
bread's done