The Distribution of Wealth [W:446] (2 Viewers)

[Daize]

It is my intention here-within to make various propositions, in no particular order, that argue for the progressive, some might say radical, re-distribution of wealth. I have purposely left the title of this post ambiguous so as not to discourage persons of unlike mind from presenting their own opinions (and arguments, if at all possible).

Proposition 1:
The wealthier an individual, the more taxes they should pay because wealth is, to a large extent, just an indicator of one's debt to society. Simply put; the richer one is, the higher one's debt. Although a small portion of an individual's wealth may sometimes be attributable to that individual's actions, by and large it has necessarily been attained due to various outside forces, which in general terms we can refer to as “society”. These forces include (also in no particular order) : The circumstances of one's birth, having been born at all, blind luck, knowing the right people, being in the right place at the right time, having gotten a good education, being in good health or having one's health well taken care of, being able to take advantage of the sum of human knowledge provided by all those who lived previous to you, eating well (having enough food to develop properly, that food most likely provided by others), not being killed randomly and/or outright etc. etc. This non-exhaustive list already far-outweighs any efforts any particular individual may have made or not made in attaining said wealth. The lion's share of an individual's wealth is literally owed to circumstance and society in general. It should not therefore seem strange or unusual to ask for some, or even most of it back, as might be needed by society, and in higher proportions dependant on the individual's level of wealth.

Proposition 2:
Every next dollar earned is inherently less useful then the previous one, and at a relatively early point in earnings level should be redistributed in order to increase utility. It simply cannot be argued that a 40 meter gas-guzzling yacht owned by some prick sailing the seven seas is as useful as a good education.

Proposition 3:
Money attracts money and left alone tends to gravitate to a smaller and smaller portion of the population resulting in inevitable economic and social strife. Hell, I'm not even gonna bother arguing this one.

Proposition 4:
Money is not, and has never been, man's (nor woman's) primary motivating factor. Therefore income tax, even in the extreme, does not demotivate, though other forms of taxation may discourage due to opportunity cost.

 

[imagep]

Correct on all of the above.

 

[NolaMan]

Proposition 1:
The wealthier an individual, the more taxes they should pay because wealth is, to a large extent, just an indicator of one's debt to society. Simply put; the richer one is, the higher one's debt.

What a load of crap -- if I get rich because I start a company and create 10,000 jobs, then the reality is that society is far better off because of me. Why would I owe more to that society?

Although a small portion of an individual's wealth may sometimes be attributable to that individual's actions, by and large it has necessarily been attained due to various outside forces, which in general terms we can refer to as “society”. These forces include (also in no particular order) : The circumstances of one's birth, having been born at all, blind luck, knowing the right people, being in the right place at the right time, having gotten a good education, being in good health or having one's health well taken care of, being able to take advantage of the sum of human knowledge provided by all those who lived previous to you, eating well (having enough food to develop properly, that food most likely provided by others), not being killed randomly and/or outright etc. etc. This non-exhaustive list already far-outweighs any efforts any particular individual may have made or not made in attaining said wealth. The lion's share of an individual's wealth is literally owed to circumstance and society in general. It should not therefore seem strange or unusual to ask for some, or even most of it back, as might be needed by society, and in higher proportions dependant on the individual's level of wealth.

You get plenty of it back via MY contributions to society -- such as starting a business and creating jobs. The vast majority of people are not simply handed a nice life -- you go out and earn it.

Proposition 2:
Every next dollar earned is inherently less useful then the previous one, and at a relatively early point in earnings level should be redistributed in order to increase utility. It simply cannot be argued that a 40 meter gas-guzzling yacht owned by some prick sailing the seven seas is as useful as a good education.

I do redistribute my wealth to increase utility. I loan it to a bank so the bank can loan it out to other people.

Proposition 3:
Money attracts money and left alone tends to gravitate to a smaller and smaller portion of the population resulting in inevitable economic and social strife. Hell, I'm not even gonna bother arguing this one.

Because its a stupid argument.

Proposition 4:
Money is not, and has never been, man's (nor woman's) primary motivating factor. Therefore income tax, even in the extreme, does not demotivate, though other forms of taxation may discourage due to opportunity cost.

Why do people start a business? To make money -- nothing more. I will tell you that there is indeed a threshold on taxes for me that if they raise above I will simply stop working. I don't have to work, and it is pointless to do so for less and less reward.

 

[Mach]

roposition 1:
The wealthier an individual, the more taxes they should pay because wealth is, to a large extent, just an indicator of one's debt to society.

So the more productive work I do for our society, the more I owe society?
What an absurd claim.

Every next dollar earned is inherently less useful then the previous one

Funny, last time I had a next dollar, it had the same unit of $1, not less.
Just so you know, there a thresholds for R&D, innovation, etc.
A person who only makes 50K a year but has incredible ambition and potential, may not feel secure enough to try their hand at running thier own business.
However, if they earn $200K and save $150K of that (live off $50K), for a few years, they may amass enough wealth to justify the risk of trying to start a business for a few years. It also gives them seed capital without having to beg investors or go into debt. So you'd have to tell them that this reality, did not exist. (hint, you're exactly wrong on this one too)

Money attracts money and left alone tends to gravitate to a smaller and smaller portion of the population resulting in inevitable economic and social strife. Hell, I'm not even gonna bother arguing this one.

Try getting that into the journal of science. 100% nonsense, attraction and gravity are not physical laws related to money. Please stop spreading misinformation.

Money is not, and has never been, man's (nor woman's) primary motivating factor. Therefore income tax, even in the extreme, does not demotivate, though other forms of taxation may discourage due to opportunity cost.

Absurd on the face.
Super ****ing ironic what it looks like logically too:

1. Money is not a motivator for human behavior.
2. Therefore I want more of your money.

What are they teaching you in France Daize, it doesn't look like it's reasonable.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

It is my intention here-within to make various propositions, in no particular order, that argue for the progressive, some might say radical, re-distribution of wealth. I have purposely left the title of this post ambiguous so as not to discourage persons of unlike mind from presenting their own opinions (and arguments, if at all possible).

Proposition 1:
The wealthier an individual, the more taxes they should pay because wealth is, to a large extent, just an indicator of one's debt to society. Simply put; the richer one is, the higher one's debt. Although a small portion of an individual's wealth may sometimes be attributable to that individual's actions, by and large it has necessarily been attained due to various outside forces, which in general terms we can refer to as “society”. These forces include (also in no particular order) : The circumstances of one's birth, having been born at all, blind luck, knowing the right people, being in the right place at the right time, having gotten a good education, being in good health or having one's health well taken care of, being able to take advantage of the sum of human knowledge provided by all those who lived previous to you, eating well (having enough food to develop properly, that food most likely provided by others), not being killed randomly and/or outright etc. etc. This non-exhaustive list already far-outweighs any efforts any particular individual may have made or not made in attaining said wealth. The lion's share of an individual's wealth is literally owed to circumstance and society in general. It should not therefore seem strange or unusual to ask for some, or even most of it back, as might be needed by society, and in higher proportions dependant on the individual's level of wealth.

Proposition 2:
Every next dollar earned is inherently less useful then the previous one, and at a relatively early point in earnings level should be redistributed in order to increase utility. It simply cannot be argued that a 40 meter gas-guzzling yacht owned by some prick sailing the seven seas is as useful as a good education.

Proposition 3:
Money attracts money and left alone tends to gravitate to a smaller and smaller portion of the population resulting in inevitable economic and social strife. Hell, I'm not even gonna bother arguing this one.

Proposition 4:
Money is not, and has never been, man's (nor woman's) primary motivating factor. Therefore income tax, even in the extreme, does not demotivate, though other forms of taxation may discourage due to opportunity cost.

Hmm - wealth is an indicator of debt to society . . . are you using debt figuratively or literally?

Literally: If someone is in debt then they will pay on their debt - isn't that 'payback' enough?

Figuratively: Maybe it's not your place to decide how much one 'owes' back to the public. . . or - if you want to try to hash out it out like that - then maybe you should do a background check and deep personal history research stent to determine how much of one's history is 'because of public interjection' and 'not'

Maybe - before condemning someone as if they've done something wrong by being successful - you should learn how and why they are situated as they are . . . and maybe try to figure out how to apply some of their mode of success to your life rather than trying to drag them down to your level since you didn't make it.

Because unless you dig deep and plant some roots of common sense and understanding all you're doing is being jealous and spiteful because you want what they have - and you don't have it.

 

[Neomalthusian]

Proposition 1:
The wealthier an individual, the more taxes they should pay because wealth is, to a large extent, just an indicator of one's debt to society.

So a person who is 67 years old and has accumulated $3 Million working for $40,000 a year for the last 40 years should pay more than a trader who earns $500,000 a year and spends it all? You said "wealthier," after all. The prudent retiree is "more indebted to society" than the high-rolling spendthrift?

One of many signals that progressive thought is an oxymoron.

 

[Neomalthusian]

Although a small portion of an individual's wealth may sometimes be attributable to that individual's actions, by and large it has necessarily been attained due to various outside forces, which in general terms we can refer to as “society”. These forces include (also in no particular order) : The circumstances of one's birth, having been born at all, blind luck, knowing the right people, being in the right place at the right time, having gotten a good education, being in good health or having one's health well taken care of, being able to take advantage of the sum of human knowledge provided by all those who lived previous to you, eating well (having enough food to develop properly, that food most likely provided by others), not being killed randomly and/or outright etc. etc. This non-exhaustive list already far-outweighs any efforts any particular individual may have made or not made in attaining said wealth. The lion's share of an individual's wealth is literally owed to circumstance and society in general.

You generalize this across all wealth, which is absurd. Some wealthy people inherited all of it. Others saved it, bit by bit, living below their means. Some accumulated it by manipulating financial instruments. Others by inventing a product people wanted and were willing to pay for. Some by playing a sport well. Some by rising up the ranks in the illegal drug trade. Your generalizations about wealth in general are beyond ridiculous.

Proposition 2:
It simply cannot be argued that a 40 meter gas-guzzling yacht owned by some prick sailing the seven seas is as useful as a good education.

Well that's not being argued, so moving on.

Proposition 4:
Money is not, and has never been, man's (nor woman's) primary motivating factor.

Survival is the fundamental motivator, and currently we use money to acquire the things we need to survive.


I'm not so baffled that you alone came up with these gems as I am by the types who "Liked" your post, who I have seen argue much more rational, reasonable things around here.

 

[sookster]

I don't really necessarily agree with the claims in the OP.

However...

If corporate executives refuse to put money back into their company and administer pay raises to the employees that make their business work in the first place, then there is no other option than to tax corporations more. Use the tax money to at least make certain specific government services that may or may not have been provided in the past. I've seen figures that since the 1950's, the average worker's wage has increased about seven percent. Whereas, the corporate executives have reaped in about six hundred percent in the same time span. And, the workers over years have been losing money if you take into account inflation.

This is why a progressive tax system is put into place. People have a love of money so much they will refuse to give back to the people that made their current life possible. The executives, and the men and women working in the cubicle or working on the warehouse floor make things possible. If it is a regulation problem, as a lot of executives might believe (even though they could still put money back into wages) that only a policy/regulation determines their actions, then I believe a regulation should be put into place. If this regulation is put into place, then the progressive tax system should be discarded. If this regulation is not put into place, then progressive tax system should be implemented.

It's like depending how much a person makes, determines how much a person is worth (not talking about monetary here, but human worth). We all have over 99 percent of the same DNA. Authority and priority is just a figment of our overall perception. Also, corporations strive to maximize profit, not necessarily make a profit. This means, that if a company made any profit, the company is solvent. Sure, there would be less money for the executives, but that is part of the responsibility when they want to see the overall operations of a company. It's part of the job with the added responsibility. Should they be compensated more than their employees, absolutely. But if any profit is made by whatever company, a certain amount (percentage) that can be afforded should be added to the wages to the men and women who helped make a profit possible.

 

[Neomalthusian]

I don't really necessarily agree with the claims in the OP.

However...

If corporate executives refuse to put money back into their company and administer pay raises to the employees that make their business work in the first place, then there is no other option than to tax corporations more. Use the tax money to at least make certain specific government services that may or may not have been provided in the past.

As an ongoing policy, the best this could do is just maintain the inequality of the status quo... in fact it creates dependence on the status quo of inequality, because on an ongoing basis we require a source of wealth to tap to meet our needs.

Whatever it is that would eventually happen if we didn't confiscate this wealth... that's probably what's going to need to happen at some point. So we should not confiscate it, and let the game play itself out. No welfare statism, and no bailouts.

 

[sookster]

I agree that people should be held more accountable for what their decisions entail, whether they were planned or not.

The status quo is to not give more money to the employees of said company. If corporate executives were to pay money to their employees whenever there is a profit (not necessarily a maximization of profit) then that would actually decrease the inequality between the executives and employees, especially if profits were less than they anticipated.

As of right now, we depend on people/institutions with more wealth than us to provide wealth to us if that means through labor or more education to increase our earning potential.

Point?

For years, we have been, "on an ongoing basis we require a source of wealth to tap to meet our needs."

 

[imagep]

So a person who is 67 years old and has accumulated $3 Million working for $40,000 a year for the last 40 years should pay more than a trader who earns $500,000 a year and spends it all? You said "wealthier," after all. The prudent retiree is "more indebted to society" than the high-rolling spendthrift?

One of many signals that progressive thought is an oxymoron.

Can you explain how someone making $40k/yr can save $75k/year?

 

[imagep]

So the more productive work I do for our society, the more I owe society? What an absurd claim.

You are equating productivity to income/wealth. Thats not neccesarally true. Exceptionally high incomes and wealth are most likely products of acquiring other peoples productivity, than as the result of one persons productivity. Do you really think that the last CEO of GM, the one that lost billions of dollars for 9 out of the 12 years that he was CEO was actually more productive each year than a thousand of his employees?

Funny, last time I had a next dollar, it had the same unit of $1, not less.

You are smarter than that. The first dollar I make feeds me and thats very valuable, the next dollar cloths me, the next dollar houses me, the next dollar provides me with medical care, the next provides me with entertainment, the next buys me a tv, the next buys me a video game, the next buys me a bigger tv, the next dollar buys me a decoration to put on top of the tv, eventually I have more dollars than I even know what to do with.

 

[JP Hochbaum]

You are equating productivity to income/wealth. Thats not neccesarally true. Exceptionally high incomes and wealth are most likely products of acquiring other peoples productivity, than as the result of one persons productivity. Do you really think that the last CEO of GM, the one that lost billions of dollars for 9 out of the 12 years that he was CEO was actually more productive each year than a thousand of his employees?



You are smarter than that. The first dollar I make feeds me and thats very valuable, the next dollar cloths me, the next dollar houses me, the next dollar provides me with medical care, the next provides me with entertainment, the next buys me a tv, the next buys me a video game, the next buys me a bigger tv, the next dollar buys me a decoration to put on top of the tv, eventually I have more dollars than I even know what to do with.

This applies to what you just typed:

" Rentiers are those who benefit from control over assets that the economy needs to function, and who, therefore, grow disproportionately rich as the economy develops. These proceeds are rents – revenues from ownership “without working, risking, or economizing”, as John Stuart Mill (1848) wrote of the landlords of his day, explaining that “they grow richer, as it were in their sleep”. Classical economics from Adam Smith onwards analysed rents, its effects, and policies towards rents, but the very concept is lost on today’s economics.

Just as landlords were the archetypal rentiers of their agricultural societies, so investors, financiers and bankers are in the largest rentier sector of today’s financialized economies: finance controls the economy’s engine of growth, which is credit in all its forms. Economies obviously need banking services, insurance services, and real estate development and so, of course, not all of finance is “without working, risking, or economizing”. The problem today remains what it was in the 13th century: how to isolate what is socially necessary for ‘retail’ banking – processing payments by checks and credit cards, deciding how to relend savings and new credit under normal (non-speculative) conditions – from extortionate charges such as 29% interest on credit cards, penalty fees and other charges in excess of what is socially necessary cost-value."

Getting Economics to Acknowledge Rentier Finance « naked capitalism

This is pertaining to those who think that the richer you are the more productive you are, which if you understood rentier finance you would know they aren't the most productive, they just own the assets that produce.

 

[Slartibartfast]

It is my intention here-within to make various propositions, in no particular order, that argue for the progressive, some might say radical, re-distribution of wealth. I have purposely left the title of this post ambiguous so as not to discourage persons of unlike mind from presenting their own opinions (and arguments, if at all possible).

Proposition 1:
The wealthier an individual, the more taxes they should pay because wealth is, to a large extent, just an indicator of one's debt to society. Simply put; the richer one is, the higher one's debt. Although a small portion of an individual's wealth may sometimes be attributable to that individual's actions, by and large it has necessarily been attained due to various outside forces, which in general terms we can refer to as “society”. These forces include (also in no particular order) : The circumstances of one's birth, having been born at all, blind luck, knowing the right people, being in the right place at the right time, having gotten a good education, being in good health or having one's health well taken care of, being able to take advantage of the sum of human knowledge provided by all those who lived previous to you, eating well (having enough food to develop properly, that food most likely provided by others), not being killed randomly and/or outright etc. etc. This non-exhaustive list already far-outweighs any efforts any particular individual may have made or not made in attaining said wealth. The lion's share of an individual's wealth is literally owed to circumstance and society in general. It should not therefore seem strange or unusual to ask for some, or even most of it back, as might be needed by society, and in higher proportions dependant on the individual's level of wealth.

Proposition 2:
Every next dollar earned is inherently less useful then the previous one, and at a relatively early point in earnings level should be redistributed in order to increase utility. It simply cannot be argued that a 40 meter gas-guzzling yacht owned by some prick sailing the seven seas is as useful as a good education.

Proposition 3:
Money attracts money and left alone tends to gravitate to a smaller and smaller portion of the population resulting in inevitable economic and social strife. Hell, I'm not even gonna bother arguing this one.

Proposition 4:
Money is not, and has never been, man's (nor woman's) primary motivating factor. Therefore income tax, even in the extreme, does not demotivate, though other forms of taxation may discourage due to opportunity cost.

I agree with 2, 3, and 4. I somewhat agree with 1, but have reservations.

 

[Neomalthusian]

Can you explain how someone making $40k/yr can save $75k/year?

Way to intentionally miss the point. Some people with moderate incomes retire rich because of their choices throughout life. Some people who earn high incomes retire poor because of their choices throughout life. This is why the OP had to make up the generalization that wealth is MOSTLY due to random external circumstances, not choices, which is an arbitrary overgeneralization. Without this generalization though, the argument to tax according to wealth falls apart.

 

[Cardinal Fang]

This is why the OP had to make up the generalization that wealth is MOSTLY due to random external circumstances, not choices, which is an arbitrary overgeneralization. Without this generalization though, the argument to tax according to wealth falls apart.

No, the OP made the generalization in hopes of discussing the situtaion in general. That's not fertile ground for right-wingers though, so they will seek a change in venue by trying to subdivide the discussion into the obscurity of debating every possible circumstance of relative wealth. Ultimately, this is just right-wing unwillingness to deal with reality. Reality almost always damages right-wing arguments, usually seriously.

 

[imagep]

Way to intentionally miss the point. Some people with moderate incomes retire rich because of their choices throughout life. Some people who earn high incomes retire poor because of their choices throughout life. This is why the OP had to make up the generalization that wealth is MOSTLY due to random external circumstances, not choices, which is an arbitrary overgeneralization. Without this generalization though, the argument to tax according to wealth falls apart.

Maybe I did intentionally miss the point, but I wanted to stop the spread of the right wing lie that the median income earn can live frugally and save and die rich. Thats virtually impossible with our current income distribution system.

 

[Aberration]

The Distribution of Wealth

Its only a lie when you turn it in to hyberbole.

You can live frugally, and save, and die comfortably on the median income.

Who ever said you would die rich?

 

[imagep]

Its only a lie when you turn it in to hyberbole.

You can live frugally, and save, and die comfortably on the median income.

Who ever said you would die rich?

When right wingers claim that someone making $45k can save up $4 million dollars, thats akin to suggesting that they can become rich, or nearly rich. Of course the math to support someone making $45k saving up $4 million doesn't work, unless you use pie in the sky numbers, like a 20% after inflation return on investment.

Right wingers can only prove their points with pie in sky made up number. When someone has to lie to prove their point, I don't have a lot of respect for the point that they are trying to make.

A couple of weeks ago, during a discussion on what would happen if we doubled the minimum wage, one right winger claimed that bread would go up to $100 a loaf. When I worked through a set of realistic numbers and scenarios proving that bread would likely not go up more than a few percent, they guy then told me that I missed his point. Of course the reason I missed his point was because he had no valid point. If you have to make up unrealistic scenarios to prove something, then you have actually disproved it.

I would suggest that people who are wanting to prove a point should stay within the realm of reality, and not venture into fantasy land. Show me realistic numbers and likely scenarios, not something way out in space.

A more realistic scenario for that $45k/year income earner would be to retire at age 65, after working 40+ years, with a paid off house, maybe a hundred thousand dollars worth of personal chattle, and an investment portfolio of a half million - which would likely result in him consuming all of his personal wealth by age 77, leaving him in poverty if he happened to live longer than the median age. Thats the best-best-best case scenario for most frugal median income earners.

 

[Neomalthusian]

Maybe I did intentionally miss the point, but I wanted to stop the spread of the right wing lie that the median income earn can live frugally and save and die rich. Thats virtually impossible with our current income distribution system.

The real lie is that people who end up rich must have been born rich and/or had unfair advantage, and thus a wealth-based tax is fair. This is a stereotype that completely disregards the means by which some accumulate wealth. A stereotype that is the keystone of the entire wealth tax redistribution argument.

A median income earner CAN live frugally. His neighbor, who earns the same income his whole life, might live in debt and spend like an idiot his whole career. By what ****ed up chain of rationalizations is the guy that CHOSE to live frugally somehow "more indebted to society" at the end of the game than his misguided neighbor?

 

[iguanaman]

What a load of crap -- if I get rich because I start a company and create 10,000 jobs, then the reality is that society is far better off because of me. Why would I owe more to that society?




You get plenty of it back via MY contributions to society -- such as starting a business and creating jobs. The vast majority of people are not simply handed a nice life -- you go out and earn it.



I do redistribute my wealth to increase utility. I loan it to a bank so the bank can loan it out to other people.



Because its a stupid argument.



Why do people start a business? To make money -- nothing more. I will tell you that there is indeed a threshold on taxes for me that if they raise above I will simply stop working. I don't have to work, and it is pointless to do so for less and less reward.

Romney makes 20 million a year doing nothing and pay only 13% of his earnings in income tax. How you can equate that with high taxes is beyond comprehension. He actuall y spends an even smaller % of that income the rest is rolled over. Even Corporations have record amounts of cash on hand and the banks don't need your money either so stop patting yourself on the back for socking money away. It will not be used for investments that create jobs. You would be alot more helpful if you SPENT that money.

What if you don't create jobs with your money? More and more money is tied up in commodities markets, hedge funds, stocks and other "investments that don't create many jobs. As wealth becomes more and more maladjusted this is where more and more of the $40 Trillion in net wealth of the top 5% goes. It is not spent on expansion of busness or really spent at all. Consumer economys depend on spending not net worth, and the wealthy spend only a samll fraction of their earnings.

 

[imagep]

The real lie is that people who end up rich must have been born rich and/or had unfair advantage, and thus a wealth-based tax is fair. This is a stereotype that completely disregards the means by which some accumulate wealth. A stereotype that is the keystone of the entire wealth tax redistribution argument.

A median income earner CAN live frugally. His neighbor, who earns the same income his whole life, might live in debt and spend like an idiot his whole career. By what ****ed up chain of rationalizations is the guy that CHOSE to live frugally somehow "more indebted to society" at the end of the game than his misguided neighbor?

I totally agree that a frugal lifestyle when combined with wise investments is a cure to poverty for the individual. But if EVERYONE lived like that, there would be few jobs because demand for stuff would be so low. Frugal living has some merit on the individual level, but it's not a national solution, it's actually a contributor to unemployment and poverty. The fellow who "spent like an idiot" actually does much more to increase demand, and thus he is the real job creator.

Now I have nothing against the person who is highly productive and who winds up rich by saving and investing, but thats not really going to be the median income earner. Thats mathmatically impossible in todays economy. Thats going to be the exceptional person. Some rich people do get moderately rich on their own merit, and I congratulate those people for a significant accomplishment, but they are people who have incomes of far above the median. In this group I am including people with advanced college degrees and advanced skills - engineers, higher paid college professors, business managers above the front line level, a few rare small business owners, many doctors, some lawyers, etc. But those are all people that we might meet everyday - and few of them will ever be uber rich or be able to afford an uber rich lifestyle.

Others will get far richer, some by skill and hard work, but even more by croneyism, inheritance, luck, or theft. Those are the individuals who should for reasons of practicality (if nothing else) be required to pay a higher tax rate on their income. Into this category falls the Beverly Hills plastic surgeon, the overpaid top executive (the perfect example of croneyism), the Wall Street thief (think Maddoff), those that picked the right parents (think Walmart heirs), those who were simply in the right place at the right time, people of extreme luck (lottery winners), those who may have great skills and are lucky enough to also have made the right contacts (movie stars and pop music stars), and those who have the luck of having exceptional genetics combined with extreme work ethic and the luck to not have their special abilities taken away from them due to unfortunate circumstances like injury (mostly sports stars in this category). this is the group of people, who although hard work may indeed be part of their success, also have something else going for them that the masses don't, which when combined gives them extroidinary income that is largely derived from the wealth produced by the masses - and the group which I would suggest applying an "excess income tax" to, not out of an effort to bring them down, but for reasons of practicality, they can afford to pay what most of us can't, and they can afford to pay it without reducing their standard of living.

 

[imagep]

Romney makes 20 million a year doing nothing and pay only 13% of his earnings in income tax. How you can equate that with high taxes is beyond comprehension. He actuall y spends an even smaller % of that income the rest is rolled over. Even Corporations have record amounts of cash on hand and the banks don't need your money either so stop patting yourself on the back for socking money away. It will not be used for investments that create jobs. You would be alot more helpful if you SPENT that money.

What if you don't create jobs with your money? More and more money is tied up in commodities markets, hedge funds, stocks and other "investments that don't create many jobs. As wealth becomes more and more maladjusted this is where more and more of the $40 Trillion in net wealth of the top 5% goes. It is not spent on expansion of busness or really spent at all. Consumer economys depend on spending not net worth, and the wealthy spend only a samll fraction of their earnings.

Romney is the perfect example of someone who can afford to pay much more in taxes, without risk of reducing his standard of living. It's a matter of our tax code being practical. Increasing his tax rate will do far less harm to our economy, than increasing the tax rate of the majority of us who spend most of what we earn (resulting in job creation) and who struggle to save and invest enough to tide us through bad times and retirement.

 

[Neomalthusian]

I totally agree that a frugal lifestyle when combined with wise investments is a cure to poverty for the individual. But if EVERYONE lived like that, there would be few jobs because demand for stuff would be so low. Frugal living has some merit on the individual level, but it's not a national solution, it's actually a contributor to unemployment and poverty. The fellow who "spent like an idiot" actually does much more to increase demand, and thus he is the real job creator.

In other words, our "economy" needs a lot of us to be financial idiots, so therefore we should discourage financial wisdom. That's quite sick, and a core reason the country is, as they say, going straight to hell. Discouraging saving is encouraging poverty.

Now I have nothing against the person who is highly productive and who winds up rich by saving and investing, but thats not really going to be the median income earner.

Forget about "who gets rich" for a second. The OP made an argument that the wealthier you are, the more indebted you are to society. This fallacy does not apply well to people who have always had similar incomes but one saved and the other spent like an idiot. You appear to be agreeing that the person who saved is, by virtue of his decision to save, more indebted than the person who squandered the same amount. Either you're accidentally agreeing with this or you're consciously doing so. Either way, disturbing.

Some rich people do get moderately rich on their own merit, and I congratulate those people for a significant accomplishment, but they are people who have incomes of far above the median.

You are backpedaling and trying to declare who gets rich how, which is a careless armchair generalization and it's ultimately irrelevant. Taxing wealth disregards any and all of the more respectable ways people accumulate it, and liberals don't care one iota what they're punishing. As Greenspan once said many many years ago, "the financial policy of the welfare state requires that the owners of wealth have no way to protect themselves."

 

[iguanaman]

In other words, our "economy" needs a lot of us to be financial idiots, so therefore we should discourage financial wisdom. That's quite sick, and a core reason the country is, as they say, going straight to hell.



Forget about "who gets rich" for a second. The OP made an argument that the wealthier you are, the more indebted you are to society. This fallacy does not apply well to people who have always had similar incomes but one saved and the other spent like an idiot. You appear to be agreeing that the person who saved is, by virtue of his decision to save, more indebted than the person who squandered the same amount. Either you're accidentally agreeing with this or you're consciously doing so. Either way, disturbing.



You are backpedaling and trying to declare who gets rich how, which is a careless armchair generalization and it's ultimately irrelevant. Taxing wealth disregards any and all of the more respectable ways people accumulate it, and liberals don't care one iota what they're punishing. As Greenspan once said many many years ago, "the financial policy of the welfare state requires that the owners of wealth have no way to protect themselves."

As is usual with Conservatives, what you find "disturbing" is reality. We are a consumer economy, 75% of our economic activity is from consumer spending. Those who spend a tiny part of what they earn are not contributing equally to the society. It makes sense then to tax those people more to compensate and mitigate the loss by spending their tax money. That $40 Trillion that the top 5% have socked away (mostly due to low taxes) is not helping to grow our economy at anywhere near the effect that that money would have in the hands of people that would spend it. That is the reality of our situation at the moment.
Oh and Greenspan also said that removing banking regulations would be the best thing since sliced bread. At least he apologized for that mistake.