Top income brackets should be taxed at 99%. - Page 3 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

"It's the economy, stupid!"

Moderator: PoFo Economics & Capitalism Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15049279
Julian658 wrote:
Taxing the rich into oblivion will not solve the problem of the poor. Eliminating the rich class and hence the income gap will not eliminate poverty.

In every society there will always be people at the bottom and it is the duty of the society care for this people. However, this people are not poor because someone else is rich.



Image

While back in the real world...

https://www.amazon.com/Price-Inequality-Divided-Society-Endangers/dp/0393345068/ref=sr_1_1?crid=UC3YKD9YBDHK&keywords=price+of+inequality&qid=1574088089&sprefix=price+of+in%2Caps%2C152&sr=8-1
#15049282
Godstud wrote:Taxing them into oblivion? You're shitting us, right, @Julian658 ?

YOU PAID TAXES. THESE CORPORATIONS DIDN’T.
At least 60 companies reported that their 2018 federal tax rates amounted to effectively zero, or even less than zero, on income earned on U.S. operations, according to an analysis released today by the Washington, D.C.-based think tank, the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy. The number is more than twice as many as ITEP found roughly, per year, on average in an earlier, multi-year analysis before the new tax law went into effect.

Company U.S. Effective Tax Rate
Amazon.com –1%
Delta Air Lines –4%
Chevron –4%
General Motors –2%
EOG Resources –7%
Occidental Petroleum –1%
Honeywell International –1%
Deere –12%
American Electric Power –2%
Principal Financial –3%
FirstEnergy –1%
Prudential Financial –24%
Xcel Energy –2%
etc.
https://publicintegrity.org/business/ta ... ons-didnt/


I do not deny that the elected officials mostly work for the donor class. And the donor class wants to save money by paying less taxes. In that sense I agree with you.

But, there is another philosophical principle here. Increasing the taxes to the rich and and sending the money to the poor will not solve poverty. At most it creates a class of poor people that are morbidly obese due to excess calories and lack of exercise due to inactivity.

You don't solve poverty by giving fish to the poor. You solve poverty by teaching the poor how to fish. And this is a difficult task in a developed western capitalist society. OTOH, the redistribution of wealth will work quite well in a 3rd world nation where you find lots of bright people that are poor due to the system. The poor in developed countries are often incapable to care for themselves. For example the overwhelming majority of homeless are mentally ill or drug addicts.

How would you care for the poor in a wealthy developed capitalist democracy?
#15049287
late wrote:Image

While back in the real world...

https://www.amazon.com/Price-Inequality-Divided-Society-Endangers/dp/0393345068/ref=sr_1_1?crid=UC3YKD9YBDHK&keywords=price+of+inequality&qid=1574088089&sprefix=price+of+in%2Caps%2C152&sr=8-1



The income gap is a poor method to asses poverty. Choosing the top 1% to determine or analyze the fortunes of everyone else makes no sense. Next to Bill Gates or Jeff Bezos I am dirt poor, but there are very few Bill Gates and Bezos in the world. This is a very unrealistic standard of reference. What matters to me is that my standard of living is rising. I could care less than billionaires make more than I do.

Furthermore the income of the rich increases more than the income of the poor even if the poor are earning more than in the past. Simple math can explain this.

How about this example:

Person A earns 100K a year
Person B earns 10K a year
That is an income gap of 90K

Both get a 10% salary increase and now:

Person A earns 110K a year
Person B earns 11K a year
That is an income gap of 99K

Even tough the rate of growth is the same for both the income gap widens. But, what really matters is that the person earning 10k now earns 11K. He has improved regardless of how the rich person did.

I get it! People pay more attention to relative poverty than absolute poverty and this causes a lot of stress for the poor.
#15049303
Godstud wrote:Why a Flat-Rate Tax is Unfair: A Quick Overview of America's Wealth Inequality and Tax Structure
The reason why a progressive tax structure works best is that it bases off someone’s ability to pay. For somebody that makes $25,000 dollars a year compared to someone that makes a million dollars, a tax rate at 10% is more damaging to their ability to survive off their income than someone who makes a million dollars. For example, after taxes (with a 10% tax rate), it is hard to survive on $22,500 compared to $900,000.
Image

Middle-class and working-class people are what stimulate economy because many are forced to spend the majority of their income on needs such as food and housing. Allowing them to keep more of their income, allows them to spend more which will increase the economy and the nation’s GDP.

Realizing the wealth inequality and the fact that middle-class and working-class people are what stimulate the economy, it should be at no shock that as wealth-inequality increases, the strength of the economy weakens.

Until Corporations and their CEOs pay their workers a living wage, and give up part of their income, they should be responsible for making up the taxes that many people are no longer able to pay.Because many companies like Walmart, pay such a low-wage that the taxpayers are forced to subsidize Walmart’s greed through welfare, and then those big-shot CEOs go on TV and complain that they have to pay taxes and criticize those who rely on social services like welfare to survive. The average Walmart cost taxpayers $400,000 per store.

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2013/5 ... -Structure


Great post. Nobody should be taxed until they have achieved the standard living salary needed to survive and then get taxed the excess of that.

Does a cleaner who works 40 hours a week do less than a CEO who works 40 hours a week and sits on his desk all day looking at figures? Me thinks not. So why does the cleaner get punished by the government whereas the CEO is rewarded?
#15049312
Julian658 wrote:
1)The income gap is a poor method to assess poverty.

2) Choosing the top 1% to determine or analyze the fortunes of everyone else makes no sense.

3) What matters to me is that my standard of living is rising.




1) I wasn't "assessing" poverty, you can't read a chart.

2) Again, you can't read a chart. What those 2 charts say is that the income of the rich has gone up at the expense of everyone else. We have an infestation of parasites, economists call it rent seeking.

3) Income has been stagnant for most Americans for over a generation. Here's a statistic that reflects that, the amount of hours worked, by family, went up almost 300%, from the 1960s to the crash a decade ago. What that means is that families avoided a decline in living standards by working more, a lot more.
#15049451
Julian658 wrote:The income gap is a poor method to asses poverty. Choosing the top 1% to determine or analyze the fortunes of everyone else makes no sense. Next to Bill Gates or Jeff Bezos I am dirt poor, but there are very few Bill Gates and Bezos in the world. This is a very unrealistic standard of reference. What matters to me is that my standard of living is rising. I could care less than billionaires make more than I do.

Furthermore the income of the rich increases more than the income of the poor even if the poor are earning more than in the past. Simple math can explain this.

How about this example:

Person A earns 100K a year
Person B earns 10K a year
That is an income gap of 90K

Put another way, this is a gap of 900%.
Both get a 10% salary increase and now:

Person A earns 110K a year
Person B earns 11K a year
That is an income gap of 99K

If we put this the same other way, this is still a gap of 900%.

Even tough the rate of growth is the same for both the income gap widens.

But, put in the other way it didn't widen. It is still 900%.
But, what really matters is that the person earning 10k now earns 11K. He has improved regardless of how the rich person did.

However, here you are calculating the dollar amount of the gap. The graphs you were responding to were not in dollar amount. They were in percentages. That is, they were done in the other way way I just used above.
. . Your calculations showed that the percentages stayed the same when both got a 10% increase. But, the graphs showed that the percentages DID NOT stay the same.
. . Therefore, your reply proves the opposite of what you wanted to prove.
I get it! People pay more attention to relative poverty than absolute poverty and this causes a lot of stress for the poor.

Your calculations, also, assumed that there was no inflation or that your income numbers were adjusted for inflation. However, there was inflation. This is one reason thinking of the gap in percentage terms makes more sense.

The current systems of calculating inflation are not accurate. Inflation is really higher for workers than the official number. So, when inflation adjusted incomes are flat for 3 decades, it really means their real incomes have done down for 3 decades.
. . I'm guessing that you, personally, earn in the top 10% to 20% of incomes. That slice of the income distribution has seen its incomes go up slightly for the last 3 decades {even when we leave out the top 1% who's incomes are so huge it skews the data}. So, if my assumption is correct, then your personal income has gone up faster than inflation.
. . You said there you don't care if a few billionaires got much more as long as you do better. What you don't see is that you are not typical. At least 60% of households have seen their living standards fall for 3 decades, if we leave out the increase in debt they have accumulated. For example, student loans are debt that a family has now that it didn't accumulate 30-40 years ago.
. . Growing private debt is not sustainable. There is a mathematical reason that it must keep growing. If aggregate growth in debt stops growing {but does not fall} that means spending starts falling, which means GDP growth stops growing and starts falling, which means layoffs, which means income loss, which means more GDP loss, which means a recession and a Depression if the Gov. doesn't step in and spend to stop it.

With all due respect, you said that you don't care if billionaires do great as long as you see an improvement. Is it fair for me to say that you also don't care if 60% of house holds have gone backwards as long as you see an improvement? [I think maybe not, but maybe.]
. . I know, you didn't think they have gone backwards. You believed the lies that economists tell you. Well, open your eyes. I'm telling you that 60% or more of households have gone backwards for 3 decades. Can you see now that they have gone backwards? And then, do you care?
#15049499
Steve_American wrote:Put another way, this is a gap of 900%.

If we put this the same other way, this is still a gap of 900%.

But, put in the other way it didn't widen. It is still 900%.

However, here you are calculating the dollar amount of the gap. The graphs you were responding to were not in dollar amount. They were in percentages. That is, they were done in the other way way I just used above.
. . Your calculations showed that the percentages stayed the same when both got a 10% increase. But, the graphs showed that the percentages DID NOT stay the same.
. . Therefore, your reply proves the opposite of what you wanted to prove.

Your calculations, also, assumed that there was no inflation or that your income numbers were adjusted for inflation. However, there was inflation. This is one reason thinking of the gap in percentage terms makes more sense.

The current systems of calculating inflation are not accurate. Inflation is really higher for workers than the official number. So, when inflation adjusted incomes are flat for 3 decades, it really means their real incomes have done down for 3 decades.
. . I'm guessing that you, personally, earn in the top 10% to 20% of incomes. That slice of the income distribution has seen its incomes go up slightly for the last 3 decades {even when we leave out the top 1% who's incomes are so huge it skews the data}. So, if my assumption is correct, then your personal income has gone up faster than inflation.
. . You said there you don't care if a few billionaires got much more as long as you do better. What you don't see is that you are not typical. At least 60% of households have seen their living standards fall for 3 decades, if we leave out the increase in debt they have accumulated. For example, student loans are debt that a family has now that it didn't accumulate 30-40 years ago.
. . Growing private debt is not sustainable. There is a mathematical reason that it must keep growing. If aggregate growth in debt stops growing {but does not fall} that means spending starts falling, which means GDP growth stops growing and starts falling, which means layoffs, which means income loss, which means more GDP loss, which means a recession and a Depression if the Gov. doesn't step in and spend to stop it.

With all due respect, you said that you don't care if billionaires do great as long as you see an improvement. Is it fair for me to say that you also don't care if 60% of house holds have gone backwards as long as you see an improvement? [I think maybe not, but maybe.]
. . I know, you didn't think they have gone backwards. You believed the lies that economists tell you. Well, open your eyes. I'm telling you that 60% or more of households have gone backwards for 3 decades. Can you see now that they have gone backwards? And then, do you care?


Can you explain how you arrived at the 900% income gap?
Otherwise, you make good points. It is quite possible those in the lower income brackets are losing ground. In fact this has been stated many times by the media. Only recently have salaries started to go back up due to a surplus of jobs.

I do care about the poor. I like to be around people that are not poor. Why would I want others to be poor.
#15049523
Julian658 wrote:
Can you explain how you arrived at the 900% income gap?
Otherwise, you make good points. It is quite possible those in the lower income brackets are losing ground. In fact this has been stated many times by the media. Only recently have salaries started to go back up due to a surplus of jobs.

I do care about the poor. I like to be around people that are not poor. Why would I want others to be poor.

OK.
The gap between $100K and $10K is $90K.
90K is 9 times 10K.
So, in your example, we can say the richer guy is earning 900% more than the less rich or poorer guy is.
9 times more is 900% more
Just as 1 times more is 100% more.
#15049533
Steve_American wrote:OK.
The gap between $100K and $10K is $90K.
90K is 9 times 10K.
So, in your example, we can say the richer guy is earning 900% more than the less rich or poorer guy is.
9 times more is 900% more
Just as 1 times more is 100% more.


OK, thanks!
The gaps even goes up in the rich increases by 5%b and the poor by 10%. And this is only a difference between 100k and 10k. Imagine a difference between 10k and a million.
But, the question is: Why should the poor worry bout the gap as long as the salary is increasing? Envy?
Wealth is not a zero sum game.
#15049552
Julian658 wrote:
Why should the poor worry bout the gap as long as the salary is increasing?




It's not increasing.

Amazing how few here can read a simple chart.

Image

Image
#15049557
late wrote:It's not increasing.

Amazing how few here can read a simple chart.

Image

Image


The X axis on the graph says "share of national income". The "share of national income" for poor people can go down while their salaries are increasing or stay the same. The share of income has gone down because the rich people are getting richer. "The rich are getting richer" is a common left wing slogan that sounds attractive to the poor, I get that.

Look at the example below

Person A makes 100K a year
Person B makes 10K a year

That is a total income of 110K in a nation with two people.

The share of income for A is 100/110 = 91%
The share of income for B is 10/110 =9%

A now earns 140k (40% increment)
B now earns 11k (10% increment)

The share of income for A is 140/151= 93%
The share of income for B is 11/151 = 7%

I have proven that the share of income can go down even if the actual salary has gone up.

The issue is that the rate of growth of income among the wealthy is higher. I am not saying this is good or bad. I am simply explaining the math to you.

Have a great day! :D
#15049561
@Julian658, salary as a figure is completely irrelevant as inflation is a thing. Ultimately does the poor need to work more hours today in order to have the same standard of living as they did 50 years ago? The answer is yes. That being the case they have every reason to ask for more of the pie as if the trend continues they will need 10 jobs rather than three in the next 50 years just to live.
#15049569
B0ycey wrote:@Julian658, salary as a figure is completely irrelevant as inflation is a thing. Ultimately does the poor need to work more hours today in order to have the same standard of living as they did 50 years ago? The answer is yes. That being the case they have every reason to ask for more of the pie as if the trend continues they will need 10 jobs rather than three in the next 50 years just to live.

I am 100% in agreement with the above.
However, making the rich poor is not the solution.
#15049575
Julian658 wrote:I am 100% in agreement with the above.
However, making the rich poor is not the solution.


Are you expecting the rich to become poor if the income bracket increases?

Ultimately there should be a standard living before tax. And most definitely a minimum wage that reflects a standard of living. If you cannot afford to live on a 40 hour week there is something fucking wrong with the system. Expecting the wealthy to pay their fair share who exploit surplus labor of their employees is a very small ask indeed.
#15049580
Julian658 wrote:
The "share of national income" for poor people can go down while their salaries are increasing or stay the same.



The incomes of the poor haven't changed much. But the number of parasites exploiting them has increased significantly.
Last edited by late on 19 Nov 2019 17:32, edited 1 time in total.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 9

Time’s Person of the Year is not meant to be an h[…]

The Irishman...

As far as Harvey Weinstein comment your post to @[…]

He definitely wouldn't be looming behind her as he[…]

The one that erased the 1910-1940 warming and the[…]