You are exactly right:
"A remarkable study (Norton & Ariely, 2010) reveals that Americans have no idea that the wealth distribution (defined for them in terms of "net worth") is as concentrated as it is. When shown three pie charts representing possible wealth distributions, 90% or more of the 5,522 respondents -- whatever their gender, age, income level, or party affiliation -- thought that the American wealth distribution most resembled one in which the top 20% has about 60% of the wealth. In fact, of course, the top 20% control about 85% of the wealth"
"The ratio of CEO pay to factory worker pay rose from 42:1 in 1960 to as high as 531:1 in 2000"
"Most amazing of all, the top 0.1% -- that's one-tenth of one percent -- had more combined pre-tax income than the poorest 120 million people (Johnston, 2006)."
"Furthermore, if the top 20% have 84% of the wealth (and recall that 10% have 85% to 90% of the stocks, bonds, trust funds, and business equity), that means that the United States is a power pyramid. It's tough for the bottom 80% -- maybe even the bottom 90% -- to get organized and exercise much power."
"only 39 of the 134 countries have worse income inequality."
Who Rules America: Wealth, Income, and Power
Dodge? I just did not feel like responding to you. Between the bonds, derivatives, dividends, and interest these people earn, they make well over the amount of taxes they pay. They make money just by having money.
Poppycock! In order to maintain a budget, you must have enough income to pay your debts. Very few of us get through life without incurring debts. The key is having enough income to pay your bills. If your debt exceeds your income then you have a problem. You can balance your budget in two ways. Increasing income and cutting spending. Beginning with Reagan, the new paradigm in Washington has been to both increase spending and decrease income, by slashing taxes for the top income earners. Our two unfunded wars (over $3 trillion) and the unfunded tax cuts for the rich (almost i trillion over just two years) while we simultaneously cut our income by cutting taxes for the super wealthy are glaring examples of this new paradigm.
That's a talking point. Cut spending means what? What spending are they going to cut? Hell, Boehner did not even want to cut spending on an engine that was going to cost 3 billion to make, and everyone admitted was not necessary in anyway.
Why? Because it would cut jobs in Ohio. Everyone wants to cut until it's their program being cut.
Do what? Raise taxes? I wish. I am still not sure to this day why the democrats agreed to extending the tax cuts.
As previously posted:
"Obama's new budget puts forward a plan to achieve $1.1 trillion in deficit reductions over the next decade, according to an administration official who spoke to the Associated Press on condition of anonymity in advance of the formal release of the budget.
Those reductions -- averaging just over $100 billion each year -- are achieved mainly by squeezing social programs. A deal struck to extend the Bush tax cuts for just two years, meanwhile, increased the deficit by $858 billion dollars. More than $500 billion of that bargain constituted tax cuts, with billions more funding business tax breaks and a reduction in the estate tax. Roughly $56 billion went to reauthorize emergency unemployment benefits.
The president's budget was expected to mostly target "non-defense discretionary spending," which makes up less than one-quarter of the overall budget, making balancing the budget with such cuts mathematically impossible.
Indeed, the driver of the deficit is tax cuts. The Wall Street Journal is reporting that as a result of the tax cut deal, the projected deficit in Obama's budget will reach a "record" level of $1.6 trillion this year, though that figure, relative to the size of the American economy, is far lower than many other governments around the world, according to data compiled by the Central Intelligence Agency. And the relative deficit is well below the levels of the 1940s, a time of economic prosperity. "President Barack Obama's 2012 budget proposal projects this year's deficit will reach $1.6 trillion, the largest on record, as December's tax-cut deal begins to reduce federal revenues, a senior Democrat said Sunday," the Journal reported Sunday evening. (The deficit is only a record if it is neither adjusted for inflation nor considered relative to the size of GDP.)"
Obama Budget Proposal: Cuts To Target Working Poor, Middle Class & Students (LIVE UPDATES)
And I bet they still pay waaaaay more taxes than you do.
The best part... you won't hear me bitching about it. If I ever make enough to pay millions in taxes, you won't hear a peep out of me. In fact, I'd probably pay that much and give more in charity.
While those are good statistics, what do they tell us. The founders of these social media companies are worth billions each. In a global world where we can sell an idea not just to americans but all over the world there is a great payday for folks who can create this sort of value. Corp CEOs are a different scenario. Here we do need to be able to put more pressure on the boards of directors to do their jobs and pay these execs more reasonably. You could also change the taxes on stock options where most of the money comes from.
Nobody is stopping rich democrats from giving more to the IRS if they think they are not paying enough
That's a mindless red herring. Frankly, even if they did, it wouldn't be enough. That's why we impliment systems.
Tax cuts for the "rich" cost $70 billion a year at most. This year's deficit is about $1.6 trillion. Want another try on why we have a deficit. Debating is a lot less fun when one side uses such inept arguments.
.... $70B is 5% of the problem. Given how much they are struggling to come up with $100B though cuts, it seems like its more than a drop in the bucket, its almost 50% of a realistic solution ($70B tax cut repeal + $100B in cuts). It will be very difficult to actually come up with $100B in cuts, given so much of the annual deficit is either fixed or firmly entrenched. Given that, people walked away from a huge down-payment of significant deficit reduction without serious discussion.
The fact that people were so nonchalant about extend tax cuts to the wealthy shows there really is no serious interest in cutting the deficit. Virtually every serious economist will tell you that the budget can not be balanced without tax increases..... and I hate to break it to people, but the whole think is a charade....
BTW... $500B of the fix will come by merely fixing the economy.
The study tells us that, "Americans have no idea that the wealth distribution (defined for them in terms of "net worth") is as concentrated as it is." The statistics show the result of the undermining of our progressive tax system that began with Reagan and continued by Bush and the new Congress.
I would have been fine if congress had allowed all of the Bush tax cuts to expire and also not lower the social security contribution by 2%. Not sure where you get this fantasy $500 billion by fixing the economy.
You really have to be rocky mountain high to think that running a budget deficit is only a charade and not a problem.
As to what economists say about balancing the budget all depends on many assumptions. To say we are not spending more than we can afford should be obvious.
OK so what if they know it. Now what, what changes? What would any changes to tax laws do to lower the wealth of gates or buffet. Their wealth is mostly stock. Same for the guy who created facebook.
When you complain about tax rates don't forget to include Obama who signed the extension of the bush rates.
The should be resurrected. You cannot tackle the bidget deficit without address Medicare, SS, and the military in terms of cuts, and looking at tax increases. To believe otherwise is to be disconnected from reality.
jacking up taxes on the minority that pays most of the taxes makes political sense in the short run but will only cause more bloated government and more spending when those who want the goodies don't have to pay for them
Might not be my choice, as I woudl support just letting the Bush tax cuts expire. But, the concept that there needs to be an increase in taxes is sound. It is just a matter of which ones.
You know what I think is incompetent? Continuing to give tax breaks to the rich while claiming that you want to balance the budget. Republicans have admitted they do not have a plan to balance the budget yet (Paul Ryan has admitted this), and yet they will not raise taxes. They don't want to cut Defense spending. Cutting medicare/medicaid has proven to be very difficult, especially since it was already trimmed and overhauled during the new Health Care bill that just passed. That leaves non defense discretionary spending - a category that gets picked on every time the budget comes up. Because of this, non defense discretionary spending already runs fairly efficiently and smoothly. There is not much to cut.
So how do you balance a budget when you can't cut anything and you can't raise taxes? That's incompetent.
Poppycock! In order to maintain a budget, you must have enough income to pay your debts. Very few of us get through life without incurring debts. The key is having enough income to pay your bills. If your debt exceeds your income then you have a problem. You can balance your budget in two ways. Increasing income and cutting spending. Beginning with Reagan, the new paradigm in Washington has been to both increase spending and decrease income, by slashing taxes for the top income earners. Our two unfunded wars (over $3 trillion) and the unfunded tax cuts for the rich (almost i trillion over just two years) while we simultaneously cut our income by cutting taxes for the super wealthy are glaring examples of this new paradigm.
By jacking them up you mean returning them to the level they were at a few years ago that was already well lower than they had been in years before that? I already showed that the top money earners in this country only pay a marginal 17%.
Asking for more than 17% is going to far?
jacking up taxes on the minority that pays most of the taxes makes political sense in the short run but will only cause more bloated government and more spending when those who want the goodies don't have to pay for them
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?