Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 16:58:01 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2011 16:53:07 GMT -5
I do think the AMT needs to be eliminated, and we need to add higher income brackets... as SF said, years ago, putting in brackets above 350K wasn't necessary... but i think we should treat 500K, 1 Million, 2 Million etc differently than 350K ... and certainly different than 125K...
|
|
|
Post by Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ on Feb 24, 2011 16:55:28 GMT -5
No... the top tier actually does not change that much, and generationally, we actually don't have a whole lot of mobility... even though there is the perception that we do...
Larry Ellison, Michael Dell, Carlos Slim, Marc Zuckerburg, Sergey Brin and Larry Page, just to name a few off the top of my head, were no where to be found in the mid 90s. I'll toss in Mark Cuban in to the mix also.
$70 billion in wealth fled New Jersey in the last 18 months.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 16:58:01 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2011 17:13:50 GMT -5
Yes, i see, you can move money itself... i was thinking mobility in terms of the ability to of people to move up and down the spectrum... thinking you meant who was in the top 1% changed consitently...
I did say there are a few innovators who move up and stand out... but for the majority, mobility between classes doesn't happen as often as we like to think it happens...
|
|
|
Post by Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ on Feb 24, 2011 17:22:52 GMT -5
Yes, i see, you can move money itself... i was thinking mobility in terms of the ability to of people to move up and down the spectrum... thinking you meant who was in the top 1% changed consitently...
That is exactly what I posted. The people at the top of the heap were not there 15 years ago.
|
|
|
Post by Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ on Feb 24, 2011 17:25:56 GMT -5
I did say there are a few innovators who move up and stand out... but for the majority, mobility between classes doesn't happen as often as we like to think it happens...
The general US population is not sufficiently educated enough to move up in wealth and income ranges. I posted on this item a while back. Many graduate college and go into fields that offer nothing but low pay. The US however, leads the globe in self esteem.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 16:58:01 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2011 18:07:31 GMT -5
There was still a top... it just wasn't so high/ so disparate... those graphs going around still show a top 1%... it just wasn't so high... i guess you are saying it is so different as to be a novel thing rather than just an outgrowth of prior top 1%? ...
Maybe not move to the top 1%... but you can't tell me there aren't enough sufficiently educated and intelligent people to create a more realistic curve...
|
|
skweet
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 13:49:27 GMT -5
Posts: 1,061
|
Post by skweet on Feb 24, 2011 18:47:58 GMT -5
The rich are getting richer, the wealth gap is growing, that's great news. History in economies around the world have proven that the poor cannot get richer. If they were capable of being middle class in the US, then they would be. The state lottery systems show over and over that making a poor person rich, without sacrifice, is temporary. If you raise minimum wage, more people become unemployed and on welfare, therefore keeping them poor. Individual poor people become rich, all of the time, (PBP points that the wealthy faces always change) out of hard work and taking risks, but the strata of poor will not change as a bulk. Since that group will never become "richer", then the rich getting "richer" causes increase in the wealth gap, and is the only way to tell that the US is getting "richer" As Dezi points out we tax the rich higher, so every income dollar "richer" the rich get, we get a 35% cut. Shouldn't we all cheer that Uncle Sam is getting richer, by 35% of the rich's increase? Shoot, we could even use some of the new tax money to fund some new socialist program to keep the poor voting Dem.
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Feb 24, 2011 19:23:28 GMT -5
The rich are getting richer, the wealth gap is growing, that's great news. History in economies around the world have proven that the poor cannot get richer. If they were capable of being middle class in the US, then they would be. The state lottery systems show over and over that making a poor person rich, without sacrifice, is temporary. If you raise minimum wage, more people become unemployed and on welfare, therefore keeping them poor. Individual poor people become rich, all of the time, (PBP points that the wealthy faces always change) out of hard work and taking risks, but the strata of poor will not change as a bulk. Since that group will never become "richer", then the rich getting "richer" causes increase in the wealth gap, and is the only way to tell that the US is getting "richer" As Dezi points out we tax the rich higher, so every income dollar "richer" the rich get, we get a 35% cut. Shouldn't we all cheer that Uncle Sam is getting richer, by 35% of the rich's increase? Shoot, we could even use some of the new tax money to fund some new socialist program to keep the poor voting Dem. They can afford the 35 %...I feel they can also afford, easily the 37 and 1/2 %..
|
|
|
Post by BeenThere...DoneThat... on Feb 24, 2011 22:43:32 GMT -5
<<< The US however, leads the globe in self esteem. >>> ...we might be a close 2nd to the french...
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Feb 25, 2011 0:04:17 GMT -5
I did say there are a few innovators who move up and stand out... but for the majority, mobility between classes doesn't happen as often as we like to think it happens... The general US population is not sufficiently educated enough to move up in wealth and income ranges. I posted on this item a while back. Many graduate college and go into fields that offer nothing but low pay. The US however, leads the globe in self esteem. Well, I started out life making $3.00 an hour. I joined the NAVY and when I started out as an E-1 in the NAVY, I earned roughly $11,800 a year (plus a lot of goodies like food, room, board-- so you could probably impute an income of approximately $24,000). I later had a job paying $11.00 an hour. Then I got a serving job making $700 to $1,000 a week in cash plus another $400 or so in hourly every month. I doubt my story is unique. I was once numbered among people making $11,800 a year, but I'm not the only one. And this silly idea that we can solve this perceived problem-- even if we concede it's a problem-- by allowing government to take from one group and give to another is absurd. The idea that life will be better once we're ALL miserable (well, except for our elite ruling class) has been tested and has failed.
|
|
Loopdilou
Well-Known Member
AKA Mrs. Dark Honor
Joined: Feb 27, 2012 19:41:33 GMT -5
Posts: 1,365
|
Post by Loopdilou on Feb 25, 2011 0:06:06 GMT -5
I did say there are a few innovators who move up and stand out... but for the majority, mobility between classes doesn't happen as often as we like to think it happens... The general US population is not sufficiently educated enough to move up in wealth and income ranges. I posted on this item a while back. Many graduate college and go into fields that offer nothing but low pay. The US however, leads the globe in self esteem. Well, I started out life making $3.00 an hour. I joined the NAVY and when I started out as an E-1 in the NAVY, I earned roughly $11,800 a year (plus a lot of goodies like food, room, board-- so you could probably impute an income of approximately $24,000). I later had a job paying $11.00 an hour. Then I got a serving job making $700 to $1,000 a week in cash plus another $400 or so in hourly every month. Then I sponged off my wife for a while... I doubt my story is unique. I was once numbered among people making $11,800 a year, but I'm not the only one. And this silly idea that we can solve this perceived problem-- even if we concede it's a problem-- by allowing government to take from one group and give to another is absurd. The idea that life will be better once we're ALL miserable (well, except for our elite ruling class) has been tested and has failed. There, fixed!
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Feb 25, 2011 8:41:07 GMT -5
Well, again- I don't begin with the premise that there's a "problem" that needs to be "fixed".
|
|
|
Post by Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ on Feb 25, 2011 9:09:51 GMT -5
I doubt my story is unique. I was once numbered among people making $11,800 a year, but I'm not the only one.
It ain't. Mine is nearly parallel, as is many here.
|
|
Politically_Incorrect12
Senior Member
With a little faith, we can move a mountain; with a little help, we can change the world.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:42:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,763
|
Post by Politically_Incorrect12 on Feb 25, 2011 9:23:03 GMT -5
There is this thing called" compound" interest. If you live within your means you can make money from your money. If you don't and you borrow yourself into debt than you lose money. It's a pretty simple concept. I've said this numerous times in regard to this claim. It's really not a surprise that the rich are getting richer and the gap is growing...but it doesn't catch as many headlines I guess if you try to think about it.
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Feb 25, 2011 9:46:19 GMT -5
"by allowing government to take from one group and give to another is absurd. " We are doing that now.
When ever you tax more from one then another which we do, higher income , higher % of taxes
"In the case of the Bush Tax cuts..it was simply increasing the % taken from them..reason was , feeling they were under taxed.
The argument really seems to be some feel they are paying all they should and others is that they are not.
The reason the subject is referred to as the "Bush Tax Cuts " is they were proposed and passed by President Bush when he was in office. They were not a permanent tax decrease for those in those tax bracket's but a temporary one.
The reason the argument was given that they should be allowed to expire by those who favor the expiration of the tax cuts, is that at this time in our history, we are just ending one War and are still deep in another where we will be involved for many years. None of these wars by the way , were funded by taxes or fees to pay for them and they were and are very expensive. We as a country find out selves in a unprecedented financial crises because of the wars and the over spending of decades by our governments , present and past , of decades, leaving us with , as I type a $14 trillion dollar debt, and counting. Since those who would be affected by these cuts are thought to be able to afford the increase, about 3% more then they are scheduled to pay with them, give or take, and also taken into consideration that for the most part this group are doing very, very well financially , those who support the expiration feels they should expire, the extra funds going to help the government out of the financial distress that it is in now,
Then there are those who feel the cuts should stay, Many reasons for that. Some feel they are taxed at a high enough rate already, over paying their share in effect thought by some. Some feel that by taking more from this group , less would be invested back into the economy and that would have even more of a negative effect then the gain of $ by the government with the extra tax $ received. Some just thinks it's not fair. There be other reasons..but basically , that It, two different ways of looking at it.
Nothing sinister or underhanded about it.
Who is right?
To me, I think my feelings of allowing the Bush Tax cuts to expire would have been the correct choice, reasons above and the reasons to keep them, to me don't make sense or hold water beyond in a way, possible not fair, but as said before so many times, since when is...you know how that one ends, and that to me is not enough of a argument to keep the cuts.
|
|
|
Post by Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ on Feb 25, 2011 9:57:51 GMT -5
To me, I think my feelings of allowing the Bush Tax cuts to expire would have been the correct choice, reasons above and the reasons to keep them, to me don't make sense or hold water beyond in a way, possible not fair, but as said before so many times, since when is...you know how that one ends, and that to me is not enough of a argument to keep the cuts.
In just a few short years following the tax cuts, the fed govt took in record revenues. Govt at every single level do not have revenue problems. During the early 2000s, the social and human services budget items were increasing at an 8 to 9% rate per year. All these increases were mandated by laws passed in the 90s. Half the population is not paying taxes.
|
|
rockon
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 8:49:55 GMT -5
Posts: 2,384
|
Post by rockon on Feb 25, 2011 10:02:35 GMT -5
Is it possible that as each new generation assumes they are entitled to more things from their government and society that the real movement in these numbers is related to little talked about issues like work ethic, desire to succeed and personal responsibility. From what I've have seen over the last couple decades is a huge change in the way many younger people view the government and it's role in their life. More and more of them show up wanting a job but they also come with expectations that they are entitled to a lot of things that we had to earn when we were that age. There are still many examples of people who come from other countries and become incredible wealthy in short periods of time largely due to their passion, work ethic and gratitude for a country in which they can work hard and receive the rewards of their efforts. It's ironic that some don't have a problem with a baseball player getting paid 30 million dollars a year or the Democrats in Michigan who gave the movie industry a 42% tax credit but yet they want to increase the tax rate on the business owner who risks almost everything they own each day, already pays over 3 times the rate of taxation of most others and works endless hours to succeed. It's used to be called the American Dream and most were happy when someone achieved it. Now anyone who is successful is publicly shamed and ridiculed for their success. This gap would close if we would only remove the road blocks that discourage new workers from starting new ventures and we again encouraged personal responsibility instead of a sense of entitlement.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Feb 25, 2011 10:31:13 GMT -5
Exactly. America is about equality of opportunity, not equality of outcomes.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Feb 25, 2011 10:37:50 GMT -5
Bush actually made the tax code more progressive than it has ever been in the whole history of the tax code. We've got redistribution now. 53% pay taxes, 47% of households do not. 45% of households have at least one member of the household receiving some benefit paid by those who actually the taxes. We've got what the left wanted, and it has failed. We really can't afford to just say, "Stay the course" when it's clearly not working. We need to drop this failed policy and move on.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,516
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Feb 25, 2011 10:46:44 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ on Feb 25, 2011 10:47:51 GMT -5
TAX THE RICH....TAX THE RICH....TAX THE RICH.... TAX THE RICH....TAX THE RICH....TAX THE RICH.... TAX THE RICH....TAX THE RICH....TAX THE RICH.... TAX THE RICH....TAX THE RICH....TAX THE RICH.... TAX THE RICH....TAX THE RICH....TAX THE RICH.... TAX THE RICH....TAX THE RICH....TAX THE RICH....
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,516
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Feb 25, 2011 11:07:15 GMT -5
|
|
rovo
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:20:19 GMT -5
Posts: 3,628
|
Post by rovo on Feb 25, 2011 11:09:07 GMT -5
I seldom agree with palmbeachpaul but in this case I do agree. There are no guarantees of success but the opportunity is still there. That said, the more progressive the tax code becomes the more difficult it becomes to acquire significant net worth.
It doesn't take cheating, luck, or conniving to become wealthy. It takes hard work and a desire to grow your net worth. I've done well in the net worth arena while getting no inheritances, etc. Started out with $0 and now in the 97+ percentile of net worth.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 16:58:01 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2011 11:09:53 GMT -5
It's true, the rich are getting richer and...
During bad economic times anyone (not just the rich) that has money should be making money (getting richer). A lot of things go on sale during those times & those with money can snap them up. The same thing applies to the stock market, you buy when things go on sale (Duh). As I see it, it's not just the poor that lose out it's the middle & even upper class that spend everything they make every month (live payday to payday). There's a lot of those people out there. Add that to people getting laid off & of course some are going to lose everything. What you can "make money on" runs the whole spectrum as to people taste. Less building so contractor are willing to do better deals. Car prices can drop. Land (& home) value can drop. Even collectibles (trust me, I know about this one) can drop. Just about the only things that don't normally drop are hedge type items (like gold) & food. To me a statement like "the rich are getting richer" doesn't really cover it. It should be something like the prepared will get richer or the smart will get richer. My guess is that the young would (percentage wise) usually come out poorer simply because they haven't lived thru something like this & they don't know to be prepared for it. Older people (who have seen this before & that manage their money well) would usually come out of these trying times a lot better off than most. Just my thoughts.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 16:58:01 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2011 11:10:22 GMT -5
I seldom agree with palmbeachpaul but in this case I do agree. There are no guarantees of success but the opportunity is still there. That said, the more progressive the tax code becomes the more difficult it becomes to acquire significant net worth. It doesn't take cheating, luck, or conniving to become wealthy. It takes hard work and a desire to grow your net worth. I've done well in the net worth arena while getting no inheritances, etc. Started out with $0 and now in the 97+ percentile of net worth. Except that whatever study this thread is about states that the rich are still getting richer at a faster rate than the poor.
|
|
rovo
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:20:19 GMT -5
Posts: 3,628
|
Post by rovo on Feb 25, 2011 11:17:23 GMT -5
Sure they are. Why would you expect otherwise? The poor, or at least most of them, are poor because of making bad choices in life. Why would we think they will suddenly start making good choices?
I would also argue government policies tend to keep the poor poor. Basic fact of taxation is to tax what you don't want to happen and to subsidize what you do want to happen. We subsidize the poor and in effect cause them to not try to do better. Conversely we tax wealth which means we do not want people to acquire wealth. Keep them poor and win their votes by promising to "give" them more subsidies.
|
|
rockon
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 8:49:55 GMT -5
Posts: 2,384
|
Post by rockon on Feb 25, 2011 11:24:46 GMT -5
Archie, The point being made is that increasing a taxation rate is very unlikely to change this fact. The people who are already ultra rich are taxed on income which in some cases may not be that high even though their net worth is. Secondly taxing the shoe maker typically results in a higher price for shoes that the working class consumer pays for. So the burden just shifts right back down regardless of the tax rate. Thirdly these changes are much more likely to be happening from our factors like I mentioned in my post #46. If we want to address the problem then we have to stop and identify the most likely causes first.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 16:58:01 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2011 11:25:09 GMT -5
Sure they are. Why would you expect otherwise? The poor, or at least most of them, are poor because of making bad choices in life. Why would we think they will suddenly start making good choices? I would also argue government policies tend to keep the poor poor. Basic fact of taxation is to tax what you don't want to happen and to subsidize what you do want to happen. We subsidize the poor and in effect cause them to not try to do better. Conversely we tax wealth which means we do not want people to acquire wealth. Keep them poor and win their votes by promising to "give" them more subsidies. Except the statics don't bear that out because the rich keep increasing their net worth...
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Feb 25, 2011 11:29:55 GMT -5
Well, what I do when I come across two opposing views is try to gather evidence from the best sources I can to establish the truth.
|
|
rovo
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:20:19 GMT -5
Posts: 3,628
|
Post by rovo on Feb 25, 2011 11:30:59 GMT -5
I take exception to your comment. I was referring to the ability to obtain wealth and climb the net worth ladder.
Once a person obtains some significant wealth and makes that wealth work for him, then it becomes a compounding function.
|
|