Redistribution Upwards?

We are looking for discussions more then debates. Come with an open mind, maybe we all can grow.

Moderators: 4E Admin, 4E Mod

LivingRock
Posts: 258
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2019 8:27 pm
Has thanked: 62 times
Been thanked: 149 times

Re: Redistribution Upwards?

Post by LivingRock » Fri Sep 20, 2019 6:26 pm

John B Des Moines wrote:
Fri Sep 20, 2019 6:23 pm
LivingRock wrote:
Fri Sep 20, 2019 4:13 pm
John B Des Moines wrote:
Fri Sep 20, 2019 3:23 pm
The wealthy pay vastly more than the majority of the population than the rest of the population...

Since that's the case, how has the since-Reagan tax dynamic somehow distributed wealth upwards? The overall income tax burden as measured by a percentage of total tax revenue generated has actually increased for the top 1 percent since 1986 from about 26 percent to 37 percent.
That's actually proof the wealthy elites have been treated preferentially. The share of total income claimed by the 1% almost doubled, but their share of taxes increased by 42%.
The share of income increasing is not evidence that the tax laws since Reagan has caused some upward wealth distribution.



John B Des Moines
Posts: 594
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2019 8:39 pm
Has thanked: 2044 times
Been thanked: 1190 times

Re: Redistribution Upwards?

Post by John B Des Moines » Fri Sep 20, 2019 6:32 pm

Arphaxad wrote:
Fri Sep 20, 2019 4:47 pm
John B Des Moines wrote:
Fri Sep 20, 2019 4:10 pm
If we "punish(ed) success" the rich wouldn't be getting richer while everyone else struggles. There's absolutely nothing which says we do anything but coddle and pander to the rich.
To put it simply the rich are getting richer because there is no reason for them to invest their money in the poor. Nearly half of their income is confiscated to redistribute to the poor already, then you expect them to create high paying jobs for the middle class?

The fact the poor are getting poorer shows you that our system punishes success. Businesses stop higher because of tax laws. Businesses stop paying more to their employees because of tax laws. Corporate tax laws hurt the poor, that is why the rich get richer.
The poor are getting poorer and the rich are getting richer because we punish the rich.

That makes exactly zero sense, and your explanation is logically supportable. The rich are getting richer, but we STILL aren't treating them well enough to give up a single dime of their immense wealth to anyone else.

What you're describing is unbridled greed, nothing more.

The problem with the Conservative view of economics is that it is deliberately turned on its head to benefit the wealthy.
Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. -- Abraham Lincoln

John B Des Moines
Posts: 594
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2019 8:39 pm
Has thanked: 2044 times
Been thanked: 1190 times

Re: Redistribution Upwards?

Post by John B Des Moines » Fri Sep 20, 2019 6:34 pm

LivingRock wrote:
Fri Sep 20, 2019 6:26 pm
John B Des Moines wrote:
Fri Sep 20, 2019 6:23 pm
LivingRock wrote:
Fri Sep 20, 2019 4:13 pm

Since that's the case, how has the since-Reagan tax dynamic somehow distributed wealth upwards? The overall income tax burden as measured by a percentage of total tax revenue generated has actually increased for the top 1 percent since 1986 from about 26 percent to 37 percent.
That's actually proof the wealthy elites have been treated preferentially. The share of total income claimed by the 1% almost doubled, but their share of taxes increased by 42%.
The share of income increasing in not evidence that the tax laws since Reagan has caused some upward wealth distribution.
Of course it is. I've already provided a full explanation elsewhere with a long list of proposed corrective measures. I'm not going to repeat it here just because you choose to say NO IT ISN'T. That's not an argument. If you think some other mechanism has led to our massively increased inequality you're more than welcome to lay it out for all to see.

LivingRock
Posts: 258
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2019 8:27 pm
Has thanked: 62 times
Been thanked: 149 times

Re: Redistribution Upwards?

Post by LivingRock » Fri Sep 20, 2019 6:50 pm

John B Des Moines wrote:
Fri Sep 20, 2019 6:34 pm
LivingRock wrote:
Fri Sep 20, 2019 6:26 pm
John B Des Moines wrote:
Fri Sep 20, 2019 6:23 pm


That's actually proof the wealthy elites have been treated preferentially. The share of total income claimed by the 1% almost doubled, but their share of taxes increased by 42%.
The share of income increasing in not evidence that the tax laws since Reagan has caused some upward wealth distribution.
Of course it is. I've already provided a full explanation elsewhere with a long list of proposed corrective measures. I'm not going to repeat it here just because you choose to say NO IT ISN'T. That's not an argument. If you think some other mechanism has led to our massively increased inequality you're more than welcome to lay it out for all to see.
Respectfully, I think the burden of proof is on you to answer my question if you choose. It's your narrative that the tax codes since Reagan have caused upward wealth distribution, right? I just don't see it, but my mind is open.

The share of income increasing for the top one percent is not very good evidence of your premise without some kind of causality. I do know that the top 1 percent pay more now as a total of tax revenue than they did since 1986 (the IRS data set I've seen for stops there). This partly because expansions of the standard deduction and the personal exemption, along with the creation and expansion of the Child Tax Credit and Earned income Tax Credit increasing the percentage of the population that has a negative effective federal income tax rate. I also know that the marginal and effective federal income tax rates remain progressive, even while accounting for capital gains.

It's not that things economically aren't more challenging for middle and lower class households than they once were during the height of 20th century industrial age economy; it's just that I think structural issues like globalization, automation, and a slowing of technological innovation are more impactful here than the tax codes.

Deleted User 54

Re: Redistribution Upwards?

Post by Deleted User 54 » Fri Sep 20, 2019 6:52 pm

John B Des Moines wrote:
Fri Sep 20, 2019 6:32 pm
Arphaxad wrote:
Fri Sep 20, 2019 4:47 pm
John B Des Moines wrote:
Fri Sep 20, 2019 4:10 pm
If we "punish(ed) success" the rich wouldn't be getting richer while everyone else struggles. There's absolutely nothing which says we do anything but coddle and pander to the rich.
To put it simply the rich are getting richer because there is no reason for them to invest their money in the poor. Nearly half of their income is confiscated to redistribute to the poor already, then you expect them to create high paying jobs for the middle class?

The fact the poor are getting poorer shows you that our system punishes success. Businesses stop higher because of tax laws. Businesses stop paying more to their employees because of tax laws. Corporate tax laws hurt the poor, that is why the rich get richer.
The poor are getting poorer and the rich are getting richer because we punish the rich.

That makes exactly zero sense, and your explanation is logically supportable. The rich are getting richer, but we STILL aren't treating them well enough to give up a single dime of their immense wealth to anyone else.

What you're describing is unbridled greed, nothing more.

The problem with the Conservative view of economics is that it is deliberately turned on its head to benefit the wealthy.
Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. -- Abraham Lincoln
You ignore the fact the poor are getting rich also. In 1993Jeff Bezos "accepted an estimated $300,000 from his parents and invested in Amazon. He warned many early investors that there was a 70% chance that Amazon would fail or go bankrupt.". He was middle class at best. Now where does he rank?

In 2013 JK Rowlings gave an interview and said “I remember 20 years ago not eating so my daughter would eat,” she said. “I remember nights when there was literally no money.”

Give this article a read: "10 billionaires like Oprah Winfrey who grew up poor" https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/11/10-bill ... -poor.html

Many of today's "rich" were not so twenty years ago. The reverse is also true that many of the "rich" twenty years ago are poor today. Income mobility is real.

It would be easier for poor to join the middle class, or even the top income earners, if there weren't so many disincentives in businesses provided those opportunities. You can't honestly say that the current employment tax system encourages businesses to hire. This is also not accounting for the fact that government regulations, taxes, and fees on businesses does nothing but drive up the cost of living for the middle and lower income earners.

I will just add that I'm a realists. I understand the tax system is set up to favor the largest corporations and their pet politicians. There is no incentive for politicians to fix this. You and I can debate nuances, but it won't change a thing. Republicans and Democrats have both screwed us all for decades and that won't change. I think we can agree that Trump will do nothing to cut spending, leading to hire debt. If we honestly look at the field of Dem candidates all we see is more big spenders that will also drive up the debt, and take more of the middle class income with increased taxes. Sure, they say they're aiming for the evil rich, but the middle class will be collateral damage for their war on wealth.

I appreciate your opinion and thank you for this discussion. You articulate your points better than a lot of people I come across. I hope I don't bore you.

John B Des Moines
Posts: 594
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2019 8:39 pm
Has thanked: 2044 times
Been thanked: 1190 times

Re: Redistribution Upwards?

Post by John B Des Moines » Fri Sep 20, 2019 7:37 pm

LivingRock wrote:
Fri Sep 20, 2019 6:50 pm
John B Des Moines wrote:
Fri Sep 20, 2019 6:34 pm
LivingRock wrote:
Fri Sep 20, 2019 6:26 pm


The share of income increasing in not evidence that the tax laws since Reagan has caused some upward wealth distribution.
Of course it is. I've already provided a full explanation elsewhere with a long list of proposed corrective measures. I'm not going to repeat it here just because you choose to say NO IT ISN'T. That's not an argument. If you think some other mechanism has led to our massively increased inequality you're more than welcome to lay it out for all to see.
Respectfully, I think the burden of proof is on you to answer my question if you choose. It's your narrative that the tax codes since Reagan have caused upward wealth distribution, right? I just don't see it, but my mind is open.

The share of income increasing for the top one percent is not very good evidence of your premise without some kind of causality. I do know that the top 1 percent pay more now as a total of tax revenue than they did since 1986 (the IRS data set I've seen for stops there). This partly because expansions of the standard deduction and the personal exemption, along with the creation and expansion of the Child Tax Credit and Earned income Tax Credit increasing the percentage of the population that has a negative effective federal income tax rate. I also know that the marginal and effective federal income tax rates remain progressive, even while accounting for capital gains.

It's not that things economically aren't more challenging for middle and lower class households than they once were during the height of 20th century industrial age economy; it's just that I think structural issues like globalization, automation, and a slowing of technological innovation are more impactful here than the tax codes.
If you can't see how taxing stock options lower than income helps the rich then I'm afraid I can't help you. It really couldn't be more obvious. If you can't see that the average $34,000 tax cut for the 1% does more for them than the average $50 cut for the bottom 10% you're avoiding the obvious. If you think the 0.1% tax cut for the middle quintile is helpful to them while the 2.0% cut for the 0.1% doesn't make them richer I'm going to need to ask you to recheck your math. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front ... t-to-them/

John B Des Moines
Posts: 594
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2019 8:39 pm
Has thanked: 2044 times
Been thanked: 1190 times

Re: Redistribution Upwards?

Post by John B Des Moines » Fri Sep 20, 2019 7:43 pm

Arphaxad wrote:
Fri Sep 20, 2019 6:52 pm
You ignore the fact the poor are getting rich also. In 1993Jeff Bezos "accepted an estimated $300,000 from his parents and invested in Amazon. He warned many early investors that there was a 70% chance that Amazon would fail or go bankrupt.". He was middle class at best. Now where does he rank?

In 2013 JK Rowlings gave an interview and said “I remember 20 years ago not eating so my daughter would eat,” she said. “I remember nights when there was literally no money.”

Give this article a read: "10 billionaires like Oprah Winfrey who grew up poor" https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/11/10-bill ... -poor.html

Many of today's "rich" were not so twenty years ago. The reverse is also true that many of the "rich" twenty years ago are poor today. Income mobility is real.

It would be easier for poor to join the middle class, or even the top income earners, if there weren't so many disincentives in businesses provided those opportunities. You can't honestly say that the current employment tax system encourages businesses to hire. This is also not accounting for the fact that government regulations, taxes, and fees on businesses does nothing but drive up the cost of living for the middle and lower income earners.

I will just add that I'm a realists. I understand the tax system is set up to favor the largest corporations and their pet politicians. There is no incentive for politicians to fix this. You and I can debate nuances, but it won't change a thing. Republicans and Democrats have both screwed us all for decades and that won't change. I think we can agree that Trump will do nothing to cut spending, leading to hire debt. If we honestly look at the field of Dem candidates all we see is more big spenders that will also drive up the debt, and take more of the middle class income with increased taxes. Sure, they say they're aiming for the evil rich, but the middle class will be collateral damage for their war on wealth.

I appreciate your opinion and thank you for this discussion. You articulate your points better than a lot of people I come across. I hope I don't bore you.
I enjoy engaging debates with people who see things differently. It doesn't bore me even a little.

As for your argument, I'd just counter that everyone uses the same handful of examples to illustrate the concept of rags to riches because there are so few examples. Social mobility in America is among the lowest of any advanced nation. Our policies are making that worse, not better.

User avatar
Ham & Cheese on Wry
Posts: 702
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2019 2:20 pm
Location: North Carolina
Has thanked: 2894 times
Been thanked: 1340 times

Re: Redistribution Upwards?

Post by Ham & Cheese on Wry » Fri Sep 20, 2019 7:50 pm

Arphaxad wrote:
Fri Sep 20, 2019 6:52 pm
John B Des Moines wrote:
Fri Sep 20, 2019 6:32 pm
Arphaxad wrote:
Fri Sep 20, 2019 4:47 pm


To put it simply the rich are getting richer because there is no reason for them to invest their money in the poor. Nearly half of their income is confiscated to redistribute to the poor already, then you expect them to create high paying jobs for the middle class?

The fact the poor are getting poorer shows you that our system punishes success. Businesses stop higher because of tax laws. Businesses stop paying more to their employees because of tax laws. Corporate tax laws hurt the poor, that is why the rich get richer.
The poor are getting poorer and the rich are getting richer because we punish the rich.

That makes exactly zero sense, and your explanation is logically supportable. The rich are getting richer, but we STILL aren't treating them well enough to give up a single dime of their immense wealth to anyone else.

What you're describing is unbridled greed, nothing more.

The problem with the Conservative view of economics is that it is deliberately turned on its head to benefit the wealthy.
Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. -- Abraham Lincoln
You ignore the fact the poor are getting rich also. In 1993Jeff Bezos "accepted an estimated $300,000 from his parents and invested in Amazon. He warned many early investors that there was a 70% chance that Amazon would fail or go bankrupt.". He was middle class at best. Now where does he rank?

In 2013 JK Rowlings gave an interview and said “I remember 20 years ago not eating so my daughter would eat,” she said. “I remember nights when there was literally no money.”

Give this article a read: "10 billionaires like Oprah Winfrey who grew up poor" https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/11/10-bill ... -poor.html

Many of today's "rich" were not so twenty years ago. The reverse is also true that many of the "rich" twenty years ago are poor today. Income mobility is real.

It would be easier for poor to join the middle class, or even the top income earners, if there weren't so many disincentives in businesses provided those opportunities. You can't honestly say that the current employment tax system encourages businesses to hire. This is also not accounting for the fact that government regulations, taxes, and fees on businesses does nothing but drive up the cost of living for the middle and lower income earners.

I will just add that I'm a realists. I understand the tax system is set up to favor the largest corporations and their pet politicians. There is no incentive for politicians to fix this. You and I can debate nuances, but it won't change a thing. Republicans and Democrats have both screwed us all for decades and that won't change. I think we can agree that Trump will do nothing to cut spending, leading to hire debt. If we honestly look at the field of Dem candidates all we see is more big spenders that will also drive up the debt, and take more of the middle class income with increased taxes. Sure, they say they're aiming for the evil rich, but the middle class will be collateral damage for their war on wealth.

I appreciate your opinion and thank you for this discussion. You articulate your points better than a lot of people I come across. I hope I don't bore you.
To few ships are rising to the top. While to many already at the top are growing.
IE. Bezos took a $300,000 loan from his parents. how is that the poor raising up? 99% of people do not have parents who can write their child a $300,000 loan.

LivingRock
Posts: 258
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2019 8:27 pm
Has thanked: 62 times
Been thanked: 149 times

Re: Redistribution Upwards?

Post by LivingRock » Fri Sep 20, 2019 8:02 pm

John B Des Moines wrote:
Fri Sep 20, 2019 7:37 pm
LivingRock wrote:
Fri Sep 20, 2019 6:50 pm
John B Des Moines wrote:
Fri Sep 20, 2019 6:34 pm


Of course it is. I've already provided a full explanation elsewhere with a long list of proposed corrective measures. I'm not going to repeat it here just because you choose to say NO IT ISN'T. That's not an argument. If you think some other mechanism has led to our massively increased inequality you're more than welcome to lay it out for all to see.
Respectfully, I think the burden of proof is on you to answer my question if you choose. It's your narrative that the tax codes since Reagan have caused upward wealth distribution, right? I just don't see it, but my mind is open.

The share of income increasing for the top one percent is not very good evidence of your premise without some kind of causality. I do know that the top 1 percent pay more now as a total of tax revenue than they did since 1986 (the IRS data set I've seen for stops there). This partly because expansions of the standard deduction and the personal exemption, along with the creation and expansion of the Child Tax Credit and Earned income Tax Credit increasing the percentage of the population that has a negative effective federal income tax rate. I also know that the marginal and effective federal income tax rates remain progressive, even while accounting for capital gains.

It's not that things economically aren't more challenging for middle and lower class households than they once were during the height of 20th century industrial age economy; it's just that I think structural issues like globalization, automation, and a slowing of technological innovation are more impactful here than the tax codes.
If you can't see how taxing stock options lower than income helps the rich then I'm afraid I can't help you. It really couldn't be more obvious. If you can't see that the average $34,000 tax cut for the 1% does more for them than the average $50 cut for the bottom 10% you're avoiding the obvious. If you think the 0.1% tax cut for the middle quintile is helpful to them while the 2.0% cut for the 0.1% doesn't make them richer I'm going to need to ask you to recheck your math. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front ... t-to-them/
Well, I can see, and I appreciate the stats from the 2017 Trump (not Reagan) tax cuts. I dunno still...If the top one percent, or as you go up the income tax brackets in general, were paying a decreasing amount in the total revenue and had decreasing effective tax rates, while at the same time those in the lower income brackets were paying an increasing share while having an increase in effective rates, I could maybe see how the tax code has distributed wealth upward. But that's not the case, the opposite is happening.

Eryk
Posts: 3407
Joined: Thu Sep 19, 2019 3:39 am
Has thanked: 502 times
Been thanked: 1426 times

Re: Redistribution Upwards?

Post by Eryk » Fri Sep 20, 2019 8:05 pm

We have systems in place meant to redistribute wealth downwards.
-Progressive tax system
-Medicaid
-Welfare

We also have crony capitalism.
-subsidies
-tax loopholes

None of these explain why the rich get richer and the wealth gap keeps growing. The reason a wealth gap exists is because exceptional people exist who use their talents to amass wealth. This is what happens when you give people freedom. This is what happens when wealth is created. Everyone gets enriched but the top 1% more than others. It’s not because of oppression. It’s because special and extremely talented people exist. If we try to close this wealth gap and promote equality, we are promoting tyranny and oppression.

Having said that, I do realize that some people further enrich themselves unscrupulously. They cheat people, pay politicians to write laws in their favor, and Im sure there are 100 other ways cheaters cheat. We need to be vigilant in finding these cheats, pointing out crony capitalism, closing unfair loop holes, etc.

User avatar
GuideToACrazyWorld
Posts: 5563
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2019 1:31 pm
Location: California
Has thanked: 2501 times
Been thanked: 6497 times

Re: Redistribution Upwards?

Post by GuideToACrazyWorld » Fri Sep 20, 2019 8:15 pm

Arphaxad wrote:
Fri Sep 20, 2019 5:04 pm
Regulations are another form of taxation on businesses.
They are both ways of controlling business but they differ in important ways.

LivingRock
Posts: 258
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2019 8:27 pm
Has thanked: 62 times
Been thanked: 149 times

Re: Redistribution Upwards?

Post by LivingRock » Fri Sep 20, 2019 8:15 pm

With this Brookings piece you'll notice the first half is focused on stagnant incomes of the middle class as the problem. Then it maintains that recent tax laws have helped the rich more than they've helped the middle class. Finally, it advocates incitivizing middle class help through the tax code via a series of tax breaks to workers and employers. Frankly, I think he first point is definitely true, the second point is probably true with current policy, and I can even get on board with some of the third point's suggestions. But, I think that's is all very different than claiming that Reagan era tax laws have caused wealth in general to be distributed upward. The stagnant wages should be the focus imho.

User avatar
GuideToACrazyWorld
Posts: 5563
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2019 1:31 pm
Location: California
Has thanked: 2501 times
Been thanked: 6497 times

Re: Redistribution Upwards?

Post by GuideToACrazyWorld » Fri Sep 20, 2019 8:17 pm

LivingRock wrote:
Fri Sep 20, 2019 6:26 pm
The share of income increasing is not evidence that the tax laws since Reagan has caused some upward wealth distribution.
It's not definitive evidence but it certainly is valid evidence.

User avatar
GuideToACrazyWorld
Posts: 5563
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2019 1:31 pm
Location: California
Has thanked: 2501 times
Been thanked: 6497 times

Re: Redistribution Upwards?

Post by GuideToACrazyWorld » Fri Sep 20, 2019 8:19 pm

John B Des Moines wrote:
Fri Sep 20, 2019 6:32 pm
The problem with the Conservative view of economics is that it is deliberately turned on its head to benefit the wealthy.
Can you define what exactly you mean by Conservative in this case?

User avatar
GuideToACrazyWorld
Posts: 5563
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2019 1:31 pm
Location: California
Has thanked: 2501 times
Been thanked: 6497 times

Re: Redistribution Upwards?

Post by GuideToACrazyWorld » Fri Sep 20, 2019 8:21 pm

Arphaxad wrote:
Fri Sep 20, 2019 6:52 pm
You ignore the fact the poor are getting rich also. In 1993Jeff Bezos "accepted an estimated $300,000 from his parents and invested in Amazon. He warned many early investors that there was a 70% chance that Amazon would fail or go bankrupt.". He was middle class at best. Now where does he rank?
That's an entierly different conversation from John's point. And he's right. The GOP is not a friend of liberty, they give lip services to it while doing what they can to help the wealthy and ignoring everyone else.

User avatar
GuideToACrazyWorld
Posts: 5563
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2019 1:31 pm
Location: California
Has thanked: 2501 times
Been thanked: 6497 times

Re: Redistribution Upwards?

Post by GuideToACrazyWorld » Fri Sep 20, 2019 8:25 pm

John B Des Moines wrote:
Fri Sep 20, 2019 7:43 pm
njoy engaging debates with people who see things differently. It doesn't bore me even a little.
That's why I tag you.
John B Des Moines wrote:
Fri Sep 20, 2019 7:43 pm
As for your argument, I'd just counter that everyone uses the same handful of examples to illustrate the concept of rags to riches because there are so few examples. Social mobility in America is among the lowest of any advanced nation.
That may be true, but at the same time. For instance several studies have found that around 80% of millionaires received no inheritance what so ever. People rarely go from poverty to top .1% but they people go from poverty to wealthy all the time. I would ask you this, how much turn over in the wealthy is right?

User avatar
GuideToACrazyWorld
Posts: 5563
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2019 1:31 pm
Location: California
Has thanked: 2501 times
Been thanked: 6497 times

Re: Redistribution Upwards?

Post by GuideToACrazyWorld » Fri Sep 20, 2019 8:27 pm

Ham & Cheese on Wry wrote:
Fri Sep 20, 2019 7:50 pm
Bezos took a $300,000 loan from his parents.
Like John said to Arphaxad people use the same handful of examples because there are so few.

User avatar
GuideToACrazyWorld
Posts: 5563
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2019 1:31 pm
Location: California
Has thanked: 2501 times
Been thanked: 6497 times

Re: Redistribution Upwards?

Post by GuideToACrazyWorld » Fri Sep 20, 2019 8:29 pm

Eryk wrote:
Fri Sep 20, 2019 8:05 pm
None of these explain why the rich get richer and the wealth gap keeps growing. The reason a wealth gap exists is because exceptional people exist who use their talents to amass wealth.
Do you think the top are more exceptional today then they were in 1980? If so, what do you base this on?

John B Des Moines
Posts: 594
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2019 8:39 pm
Has thanked: 2044 times
Been thanked: 1190 times

Re: Redistribution Upwards?

Post by John B Des Moines » Fri Sep 20, 2019 9:09 pm

LivingRock wrote:
Fri Sep 20, 2019 8:02 pm
Well, I can see, and I appreciate the stats from the 2017 Trump (not Reagan) tax cuts. I dunno still...If the top one percent, or as you go up the income tax brackets in general, were paying a decreasing amount in the total revenue and had decreasing effective tax rates, while at the same time those in the lower income brackets were paying an increasing share while having an increase in effective rates, I could maybe see how the tax code has distributed wealth upward. But that's not the case, the opposite is happening.
Actually they are...proportional to their income and wealth. Their wealth is just growing so incredibly fast the raw number outpaces their decreasing tax rate.

John B Des Moines
Posts: 594
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2019 8:39 pm
Has thanked: 2044 times
Been thanked: 1190 times

Re: Redistribution Upwards?

Post by John B Des Moines » Fri Sep 20, 2019 9:13 pm

Eryk wrote:
Fri Sep 20, 2019 8:05 pm
We have systems in place meant to redistribute wealth downwards.
-Progressive tax system
-Medicaid
-Welfare

We also have crony capitalism.
-subsidies
-tax loopholes

None of these explain why the rich get richer and the wealth gap keeps growing. The reason a wealth gap exists is because exceptional people exist who use their talents to amass wealth. This is what happens when you give people freedom. This is what happens when wealth is created. Everyone gets enriched but the top 1% more than others. It’s not because of oppression. It’s because special and extremely talented people exist. If we try to close this wealth gap and promote equality, we are promoting tyranny and oppression.

Having said that, I do realize that some people further enrich themselves unscrupulously. They cheat people, pay politicians to write laws in their favor, and Im sure there are 100 other ways cheaters cheat. We need to be vigilant in finding these cheats, pointing out crony capitalism, closing unfair loop holes, etc.
Where were all the special and extremely talented people during the 5 decades when the inequality gap was closing, wealth was most broadly distributed, and the American economy was at its peak?

John B Des Moines
Posts: 594
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2019 8:39 pm
Has thanked: 2044 times
Been thanked: 1190 times

Re: Redistribution Upwards?

Post by John B Des Moines » Fri Sep 20, 2019 9:15 pm

LivingRock wrote:
Fri Sep 20, 2019 8:15 pm
With this Brookings piece you'll notice the first half is focused on stagnant incomes of the middle class as the problem. Then it maintains that recent tax laws have helped the rich more than they've helped the middle class. Finally, it advocates incitivizing middle class help through the tax code via a series of tax breaks to workers and employers. Frankly, I think he first point is definitely true, the second point is probably true with current policy, and I can even get on board with some of the third point's suggestions. But, I think that's is all very different than claiming that Reagan era tax laws have caused wealth in general to be distributed upward. The stagnant wages should be the focus imho.
Both are part and parcel of Reaganomics/neoliberalism, as can be seen in my list of potential solutions farther up the thread.

John B Des Moines
Posts: 594
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2019 8:39 pm
Has thanked: 2044 times
Been thanked: 1190 times

Re: Redistribution Upwards?

Post by John B Des Moines » Fri Sep 20, 2019 9:16 pm

GuideToACrazyWorld wrote:
Fri Sep 20, 2019 8:19 pm
John B Des Moines wrote:
Fri Sep 20, 2019 6:32 pm
The problem with the Conservative view of economics is that it is deliberately turned on its head to benefit the wealthy.
Can you define what exactly you mean by Conservative in this case?
I'm a bit short on time at the moment, but call it the conventional Republican economic plan as espoused since the Dawn of Reagan.

LivingRock
Posts: 258
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2019 8:27 pm
Has thanked: 62 times
Been thanked: 149 times

Re: Redistribution Upwards?

Post by LivingRock » Fri Sep 20, 2019 9:16 pm

John B Des Moines wrote:
Fri Sep 20, 2019 9:09 pm
LivingRock wrote:
Fri Sep 20, 2019 8:02 pm
Well, I can see, and I appreciate the stats from the 2017 Trump (not Reagan) tax cuts. I dunno still...If the top one percent, or as you go up the income tax brackets in general, were paying a decreasing amount in the total revenue and had decreasing effective tax rates, while at the same time those in the lower income brackets were paying an increasing share while having an increase in effective rates, I could maybe see how the tax code has distributed wealth upward. But that's not the case, the opposite is happening.
Actually they are...proportional to their income and wealth. Their wealth is just growing so incredibly fast the raw number outpaces their decreasing tax rate.
The amount of wealth within a particular tax bracket doesn't change the share of the total tax revenue paid by that bracket or group, like say the top one percent.
https://files.taxfoundation.org/2019030 ... hart-6.png

Eryk
Posts: 3407
Joined: Thu Sep 19, 2019 3:39 am
Has thanked: 502 times
Been thanked: 1426 times

Re: Redistribution Upwards?

Post by Eryk » Fri Sep 20, 2019 9:41 pm

GuideToACrazyWorld wrote:
Fri Sep 20, 2019 8:29 pm

Do you think the top are more exceptional today then they were in 1980? If so, what do you base this on?
Why do you use 1980 as a benchmark? Is it because statistically income inequality was low?

1980 had out of control inflation. Everyone was losing wealth including the rich because they were the ones who save their money. Poor people don’t save as much. The rich suffered as a result of the poor economy. the savers aka the rich, lost 14% of their wealth. So I guess we could say that income inequality was 14% better in 1980 because of inflation. Unemployment was also on the rise so we were not in good shape in 1980. I’m sure we can all agree on that.

If the argument you’re making is that income inequality is a good thing then you’ve laid out a very strong argument. One that I am inclined to agree with.

Anyway, the more wealth is created the more of that wealth the top 1% is going to gobble up. People only need a small amount of money to survive and the poor/middle class hate to save their money. so in a society where we have more wealth and money than we know what to do with, the rich are going to get more of the unneeded wealth since they’re the hoarders.

User avatar
GuideToACrazyWorld
Posts: 5563
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2019 1:31 pm
Location: California
Has thanked: 2501 times
Been thanked: 6497 times

Re: Redistribution Upwards?

Post by GuideToACrazyWorld » Fri Sep 20, 2019 9:54 pm

John B Des Moines wrote:
Fri Sep 20, 2019 9:16 pm
I'm a bit short on time at the moment, but call it the conventional Republican economic plan as espoused since the Dawn of Reagan.
So the GOP where they give lip service to a free economy and fiscal responsibility while enacting polices that are conducive to neither. In which case we agree.

Post Reply