AgentR wrote:On the tax thing, while personally I don't really care, in order to formulate policy you have to understand that there is a difference between how the wealthy perceive and react to changes in taxation versus Joe Middleclass.
Joe Professional makes as much money as he can within the limits of his tolerance for labor and his ability to perform. The more he makes, the better his lifestyle, and he pays a little bit more in taxes as well.
Joe WealthyDude has more money in his generic bank accounts than he will ever spend on personal activities. He could earn zero dollars for the rest of his life, and have absolutely no changes in his lifestyle as a result. His estate is held in a variety of corporations and trusts and whatnots, likely in several countries, invested in various activities. He pursues these ventures because it is what he does, not because he needs the income. If the government comes along and sets taxation policy in such a way that removes his ability to grow his estate by participating in economic activity X... he will simply stop doing X. This is exactly the opposite of what you want to happen. You want owners of capital to have a reason to WANT to risk their existing assets in an effort to create more assets.
So its a balance, set taxation rates too low on the upper 5%; and the civil society simply can not function. Set it too high, and the only people who will have an interest in employing people will be government agency heads.
Policy wise, I don't think its the amount the wealthy pay that is the problem, but rather what they are taxed on and what they are NOT taxed on. Particularly these huge "non-profit" trusts, land holdings, etc.
You want to hit the wealthy without really punishing Bob the GoGetter? Asset Tax... exempt first $5 million (inflation indexed) and 500 acres of land; then a flat x-odd tax per dollar *AND* acre; assessed regardless of income tax status of the holding organization, Bobs Benevolent Band of Buddies pays the exact same rates as Industrial Idgits Inc.
In other words trickle down isn't working anymore in the US (if it ever did) unless you are a dry cleaner or domestic servant.
PrestonSturges wrote:The concentration of wealth in the top 1% of the population is definitely on the minds of the corporate elites, which is why Fox News and the right wing are all over the Negro Menace virtually 24/7, which has replaced the Liberal Menace, the Gay Agenda, Muslim Americans, and Feminism as their boogeyman.
Even abortion and Bin Laden have vanished from the media.
They are using every ugly trick, every Mein Kampf propaganda tactic to get the middle class to cut their own throats and keep shoveling tax cuts to the wealthy. And they are going all in on round-the-clock racism. And the wingnuts are responding in classic lynch mob fashion. Wind people up enough, and it's all one big celebration of stereotypes and hatred.
But there will always be whites that would rather go homeless than imagine one black child gets a free measles vaccine. And you can bet that Social Security is the next thing that will be described as "reparations for slavery."
The long con is to make the (formerly) middle class bear the burden of paying off those deficits caused by tax cuts for the wealthy..
For economic data up to 2010, the model (red line) closely matches the actual wealth inequality (blue line), which is measured by the share of wealth owned by the top 10% of the population. After 2010, possible scenarios are those described in the graph above (where α represents an increase in the dominance of capital income over labor income), as well as a simple linear extrapolation of the wealth inequality during 2000-2010 (dashed blue line) and predictions based on the model (dashed red line). The results suggest that, by increasing private savings to 10% in 2030 (squares), wealth inequality can be reversed. Credit: Berman, et al.
...
The research was led by Eshel Ben-Jacob, who was Professor at the School of Physics & Astronomy at Tel-Aviv University, but passed away unexpectedly before the paper was published. Ben-Jacob was perhaps best known for his work on bacterial self-organization and its applications in complex systems.
americandream wrote:The choice is a simple one. It's either capitalism and the profit rationale with all that entails in terms of self interest, or a system which elevates the common good above personal gain.
If one opts for the former, one cannot complain about its natural consequences. What does one expect? Ethical self interest?
midnight-gamer wrote:
Nice video, the visual aid makes the comparison shocking. I think the argument that the rich should have fewer impediments to wealth accusation is distasteful. I personally, would think it vulgar if I had all that cash while others made due without. But that's just a projection on how I might feel, if my position was reversed with a billionaire.
onlooker wrote:Outcast you are trotting out the same old tired arguments neo-liberals and their captive media have since at least the 70's. Sure trickle down economics , all boats lifted. Lazy bums on welfare. Tired cliches which do not address factors such as your computer boom which is taking more jobs away then creating. The American dream is dead RIP. What you have now is things like temporary part-time work, contracting work such as Uber and people basically leaving the work force not so voluntarily. Check out cities like Detroit or Flint- Michigan. Now tell me where the high-tech fancy jobs are. What you got are abandoned lots and drug addicts. In your world Outcast, everyone is born with a silver spoon. So you justify that by saying that with some work and education people rise up. That could be in a fantasy ideal world, but in the real world some are not born with a silver spoon which includes the overwhelming portion of humanity who lives in poor countries.
Unless and until people quit imagining and moaning that it's all a rich / political consipracy, and understand that it's mainly technology and tax preferences, and really leans on those they elect to DO SOMETHING about it -- aside from the moaning and blaming, little will change.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests