Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Panthro

Wealth Inequality in America

271 posts in this topic

And while we are on the topic of taxation, I am not a big fan of redistribution of wealth. But I do firmly believe that we cannot have any meaningful reduction in our national debt unless we increase revenue by increasing taxes and closing loopholes for the wealthy and for major corporations.

Just making cuts to entitlements isn't going to do the trick, just like just raising taxes won't. There needs to be balance and they both have to be part of any discussion that is actually about reducing our deficits and national debt.

Anyone who says you can solve this problem by just doing one or the other is either intellectually incompetent or lying to you.

Closing the loopholes is a big part of the solution but it won't happen because the politicians are in the pockets of those big corporations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are not advocating making a fairer system through lowering the wage of top earners and distributing them to lower wage earners, then what exactly are you arguing? As the system exists today, taxes ARE redistribution of wealth through confiscation whether you choose to recognize that or not. Whether redistribution is actually going to lower wage earners can be debated to some degree. However, there can be no doubt that the concept of "fair" is ALWAYS followed with a linear thought pattern on how to take those ill-gotten gains and distribute them fairly.

Equal opportunity discussion is great when it isn't a veiled talk on outright theft with hopes of being on the winning end of whomever gets to do the taking. If you want an actual discussion about equal opportunity, you don't start the discussion off with the end result. You START with the playing field and making THAT level.

I do not in fact have the answers. I wish I did....I do think the system we have today is a form of sharecropping with lipstick. I'm all for a discussion on it though.

How are we valued or what is our worth? Are people paid according to their worth, intelligence, or work ethic? For instance In sales I know that if I sold $1M this year....reoccurring revenue from that will be $150k per year.

My worth to the company would be $1.15M but we also have support and developers and other salaries...like do nothing accountants.

Again I know that taxes are a redistribution of wealth. Again....raising those taxes to redistribute wealth is not the answer. The conversation is interesting to me though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no problem with people becoming wealthy due to genuine hard work.

The problem with the American hierarchy, though, is that there is an abundance of people at the top that got there because they or their ancestry have and continue to take advantage of others that are "beneath" them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why are they poor exactly?

I don't think the contention is they become poor because of catastrophic medical conditions just that an unexpected medical condition is financially unbearable to the majority of the population.

That's an extremely broad question so I guess it's ok to respond with an extremely broad answer, but I believe the inherent reality in a capitalist society is that some people are just going to be poor and some people are just going to be rich.

Outside of that, I do more cases than not can be directly attributed to how positive or negative a person's upbringing was/is, how intelligent they are, and how hard they work. I know that's not popular, but I don't really know anyone who's smart and hard working and is out of work or near the poverty line. I think any one of those factors is more important in determining why a person poor or not compared to steep medical bills.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Being smart means leaving a legacy behind. Some want to live their children in better shape than themselves. Some won't give their kids a dime.

To me this is similar to universal health care. Don't try to address from the macro. Take a surgical, strategic approach.

Who is not on a living wage? How old are they? What is their education level? If they are 20- 40 we need to dig deeper.

The lazy approach always ends up with the macro/govt/reform is the only answer. It might get things on the radar but you have to do more homework.

I mentioned a certain amount of credit card per income. FICO is already in place. If too many are drowning in debt I would argue that's a much more significant drag on the economy as well as capital for a bank.

Keep in mind how credit is not viewed in the money supply for M1 or M2. That's a dif can of worms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that 50% figure is based on bad math if you're referring to the stuff that bounced around the conservative echo chamber a few months back and i believe it doesn't include capital gains which make up over a third of income above your 450k mark while uhhhh not being taxed all that much

The marginal tax rate for anyone making over $400K is 39.6%, and that's before you factor in Social Security & Capital Gains for which an argument could be made is money being taxed twice, assuming you took taxable money earned and then invested it in a brokerage account.

So yeah, 50% is entirely possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And while we are on the topic of taxation, I am not a big fan of redistribution of wealth. But I do firmly believe that we cannot have any meaningful reduction in our national debt unless we increase revenue by increasing taxes and closing loopholes for the wealthy and for major corporations.

Just making cuts to entitlements isn't going to do the trick, just like just raising taxes won't. There needs to be balance and they both have to be part of any discussion that is actually about reducing our deficits and national debt.

Anyone who says you can solve this problem by just doing one or the other is either intellectually incompetent or lying to you.

We can also cut spending in places other than so-called entitlement programs. Our government spends money that it should never be spending on stupid stuff. That needs to be brought under control as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Being smart means leaving a legacy behind. Some want to live their children in better shape than themselves. Some won't give their kids a dime.

To me this is similar to universal health care. Don't try to address from the macro. Take a surgical, strategic approach.

Who is not on a living wage? How old are they? What is their education level? If they are 20- 40 we need to dig deeper.

The lazy approach always ends up with the macro/govt/reform is the only answer. It might get things on the radar but you have to do more homework.

I mentioned a certain amount of credit card per income. FICO is already in place. If too many are drowning in debt I would argue that's a much more significant drag on the economy as well as capital for a bank.

Keep in mind how credit is not viewed in the money supply for M1 or M2. That's a dif can of worms.

where's personal responsibility in your scenario?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no problem with people becoming wealthy due to genuine hard work.

The problem with the American hierarchy, though, is that there is an abundance of people at the top that got there because they or their ancestry have and continue to take advantage of others that are "beneath" them.

But part of the American dream is leaving your children, and their children, in a better financial situation than you were/are. Why shouldn't I be able to leave my children a comfortable life?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But part of the American dream is leaving your children, and their children, in a better financial situation than you were/are. Why shouldn't I be able to leave my children a comfortable life?

This is my view. People work all their lives to gain capital to do the things they want. I don't see why my kids shouldn't have a little capital start due to my hard-work. I'm never making enough that my kids will be trust fund kids but having the opportunity to attend the school they want or buy a house without worry is important.

I would much rather have my kids using my leftover capital for something productive than the government. They will use it much more efficiently

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites