http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-chart-graph

2/23/2011 10:21:39 PM

I've been following Kevin Drum lately. Most of the time he pisses me off with his big government love and slavish devotion to Keynes...and the fact that he constantly and apparently only references Ezra Klein and Matt Iglesias (of which I don't read, so I only assume its a a liberal circle jerk)...but about once a week or so he digs up some good points to counter the bullshit that the GOP spews.

[Edited on February 23, 2011 at 10:25 PM. Reason : .]

2/23/2011 10:25:01 PM

i just thought it was interesting article. im not republican or democrat, but i do believe tax rate should be the same for all income levels. if you have the ability and know-how to get wealthy by all means you should be awarded, not punished.

2/23/2011 10:30:39 PM

Oh, right, punished. Did you think that up yourself or did the constant din of the Fox News/Drudge/Rush noise convince you that being merely insanely wealthy instead of just unfathomably wealthy (because of those damn evil taxes) is what punishment is all about?

[Edited on February 23, 2011 at 10:33 PM. Reason : .]

2/23/2011 10:32:42 PM

Quote :

"i just thought it was interesting article. im not republican or democrat, but i do believe tax rate should be the same for all income levels. if you have the ability and know-how to get wealthy by all means you should be awarded, not punished. "

I agree. Should treat everyone equally, even with the tax code. 15% of 2M is a lot more than 15% of 50k.

2/23/2011 10:41:26 PM

Quote :

"15% of 2M is a lot more than 15% of 50k."

It may be more money but it makes a much smaller impact on that person's standard of living. God forbid they make $1.7 million instead of $2 million. On the other hand, $3000 for someone making $20k/yr is a huge amount of money.

2/23/2011 10:53:01 PM

Quote :

"I agree. Should treat everyone equally, even with the tax code. 15% of 2M is a lot more than 15% of 50k."

This line here actually has me convinced that eyedrb is an elaborate troll, and I'm embarrassed for not seeing it earlier

2/23/2011 10:55:17 PM

Quote :

"It may be more money but it makes a much smaller impact on that person's standard of living. God forbid they make $1.7 million instead of $2 million. On the other hand, $3000 for someone making $20k/yr is a huge amount of money. "

But isnt the purpose of taxes to raise revenue for the government? Not have politicians determine how much, or what percentage, of what you earned you really need? I dont feel that is up to you or them. Treat everyone the same, cut out the deductions, and end negative tax rates.

2/23/2011 11:02:09 PM

I don't get it...isn't it fairly fucking obvious that a progressive system isn't doing a damn fucking thing to damage the wealthy or even the upper middle class? You try to call it punishment, but all I see is a growing wealth gap and a whole slew of mindless drones going on about how 12.4% of the working populations that are part of union (both public and private) are fucking the country up and we need to attack the problem there.

At the very least try to make the case that it's in fact damaging the middle class and would be workers because the wealthy can't open up a new job...i mean, we can at least begin a discussion from there. But punishment? For fucks sake.

[Edited on February 23, 2011 at 11:15 PM. Reason : .]

[Edited on February 23, 2011 at 11:15 PM. Reason : ,]

2/23/2011 11:14:02 PM

12.4% and dropping…

If your argument is that things are bad and getting worse, and it’s unions and progressive taxes that are the cause, then how do you explain taxes becoming LESS progressive over the years, and unions losing more power over the years? Shouldn’t things be getting decidedly better if these were the causes?

I have no partiality to unions, but i don’t really see how they are the ruination of the country. NC has very little union influence and we’re doing about as well as everyone else.

I’m not sure why unions are always the right’s whipping boy…? They’re an organic part of a free market necessary to help keep corporations in check.

2/23/2011 11:18:01 PM

Quote :

"They’re an organic part of a free market necessary to help keep corporations in check. "

Which is fine. So who do public unions keep in check?
I think private unions should be allowed, but also businesses should be allowed to fire them all. You walk off a job, and I cant replace you? Doesnt seem right. Unions served a vital role in this country in passing laws to protect workers. Like other groups, I think they have outlived their usefullness, esp in a global economy.

I think the real story is that the unions dont want people to have the choice of opting out.

Sorry fellas, but I dont feel that just because someone makes a lot more than you do, that something is wrong. You dont feel our quality of life has increased in 50 yrs?

We have lost a lot of our manufacturing jobs overseas. Simply costs too much to do business here. Im sure the unions did all they could to keep them here though.

2/23/2011 11:28:21 PM

Quote :

"They’re an organic part of a free market necessary to help keep corporations in check."

No. It is the job of consumers and workers to keep corporations in check and both do their job by shopping elsewhere and taking jobs elsewhere. A union assists in neither of these tasks. At best, unionization restricts the movement of workers between employers, making this organic part of a free market work less well. At worst, unions form a cartel to restrict trade and rip off consumers and non-union workers alike.

Quote :

"how do you explain taxes becoming LESS progressive over the years"

Just because you are ill informed. Taxes in this country are more progressive now than ever.



[Edited on February 24, 2011 at 1:45 AM. Reason : .,.]

2/24/2011 1:41:52 AM

[Edited on February 24, 2011 at 1:49 AM. Reason : troll nvm]

2/24/2011 1:49:31 AM

it seems that an increase in % of people with zero or negative tax liability would be a sign of taxes become less progressive

2/24/2011 6:16:35 AM

^^^ Weird how the tax system is more progressive and yet the rich are richer.

HOW DOES THAT HAPPEN?!


[Edited on February 24, 2011 at 6:17 AM. Reason : .]

2/24/2011 6:16:41 AM

Quote :

"Oh, right, punished. Did you think that up yourself or did the constant din of the Fox News/Drudge/Rush noise convince you that being merely insanely wealthy instead of just unfathomably wealthy (because of those damn evil taxes) is what punishment is all about? "

Funny. I actually hate Fox news, but whatever.
Tell me, on what basis you have an entitlement to have a lower tax rate from Bill Gates?

2/24/2011 8:14:32 AM

I wonder if there are more people who have negative or no tax liability now because people make less in real terms. If, taking into account inflation, people make less than they did 30 years ago, then I could understand that as a reason why more people have zero or negative tax liability.

That being said, I do not see why a national sales tax would be a bad thing, or, with all the stupidity that we enact on the regular, why we cannot establish it for a short term (4 years) and see what happens.

2/24/2011 8:42:59 AM

Everyone is taxed the same.

-Every individual's first $8,350 of income is taxed at 10%
-The next $25,600 is taxed at 15%
-The next $48,300 is taxed at 25%
-The next $89,300 is taxed at 28%
-The next $201,400 is taxed at 33%
-Any income beyond that is taxed at 35%


Can we just have a thread dedicated to charts?

2/24/2011 9:27:22 AM

Revoke all income and coporate taxes. Revoke all production subsidies. Remove all limits on liabilites. Remove all tarrifs and other restrictions on trade. Institute a progressive VAT.

2/24/2011 9:38:32 AM

Wealth accumulation is itself progressive. Economics of scale means that a company with a budget of 10 billion is going to get more bang for their buck than a startup. Rich people get better rates on their savings accounts than poor people. Larger investments have higher rates of return than smaller ones, this isn't really a matter of opinion it's just how things work and we see it all the time. Hell, if you can afford a 30-pack of toilet paper rolls you're going to get squares per dollar than someone who can only afford a single roll.

The more money you have, the more it's worth per dollar, and the easier it becomes to get more money. That's why we tax the rich at a higher rate than the poor, because they accumulate wealth at a higher rate, not just in absolute terms. If we tax everyone at the same rate, it will exceed the wealth accumulation of the poor and fall short of the wealth accumulation of the rich, and the gap will just grow faster and faster.

[Edited on February 24, 2011 at 10:25 AM. Reason : .]

2/24/2011 10:23:45 AM

Ahaha our top marginal rate has gone from 95% to 35% in the past 50 years, wages for the middle class have been stagnating for the past 30 years while the rich's share of income has tripled.

Them paying more of the share of tax isn't because we're getting more progressive, it's because we are getting less progressive and they are getting a larger proportion of income. They pay so much in taxes because they have so much income and everyone else has so little. Even if we had a flat tax rate of 15%, that chart wouldn't look much different because the top 1% would still have a huge proportion of the nation's income and thus pay much more. More than anything that chart demonstrates, knowing that marginal tax rates have been falling, that the wealth, gap is growing faster than ever and the progressiveness of our tax system correlates with that gap very strongly.


[Edited on February 24, 2011 at 10:32 AM. Reason : .]

2/24/2011 10:29:05 AM

Quote :

"I have no partiality to unions, but i don’t really see how they are the ruination of the country. NC has very little union influence and we’re doing about as well as everyone else. "

Yeah, not like unions have helped destroy the domestic auto industry or anything...

2/24/2011 10:43:39 AM

Quote :

"NC has very little union influence and we’re doing about as well as everyone else. "

I'd say we're running circles around the rust belt.

2/24/2011 12:26:41 PM

I don’t have a problem with the idea of unions, but I do have a problem with how they’ve manifested in this country. Sure, people should be able to negotiate the terms and conditions under which they labor. The issue is when the union becomes so prolific that it’s nearly mandatory, and when local/state/federal officials are in direct cahoots with union leaders, all trying to extract as much money as possible at the expense of the consumer/taxpayer. An employee or employer should be allowed to end employment at any time.

Quote :

"Ahaha our top marginal rate has gone from 95% to 35% in the past 50 years, wages for the middle class have been stagnating for the past 30 years while the rich's share of income has tripled. Them paying more of the share of tax isn't because we're getting more progressive, it's because we are getting less progressive and they are getting a larger proportion of income. They pay so much in taxes because they have so much income and everyone else has so little. Even if we had a flat tax rate of 15%, that chart wouldn't look much different because the top 1% would still have a huge proportion of the nation's income and thus pay much more. More than anything that chart demonstrates, knowing that marginal tax rates have been falling, that the wealth, gap is growing faster than ever and the progressiveness of our tax system correlates with that gap very strongly. "

Let's just accept your premise, then. Taxes aren't high enough the rich, or they're too high on the poor, and if we simply raise tax rates on the "rich," we'll see more overall equality.

That jump takes an incredible amount of faith. I mean, I would be more likely to accept Jesus Christ as my personal savior than believe that by simply giving the government more money, we'll have a better overall society. That's never what happens, especially in the United States. You can guarantee that the money will be used for wars, back room corporate deals, poorly run welfare/entitlement programs, and various other objectionable initiatives. No, "your guys" (whoever they may be) are not going to gain such a stronghold in government that this doesn't take place. It will always happen, because people become monsters when they're given a taste of power.

I don't disagree that our system has become less progressive. It certainly has. The middle class has been crowded out, but it's not because of a lack of tax revenue, it's because there's no reason to hire Americans. Why? 7.25 an hour for them to dick around and complain? Yeah, right. There's a guy in Manila that will work his ass off 12 hours a day for 3 bucks an hour. U.S. workers are getting dumber and lazier. You can jack up corporate tax rates and top 5% tax rates all day, but it will never result in "social equality." It'll result in the exact problem that you cite: stagnation of the middle and lower class. The job market becomes more competitive, because job growth is outpaced by population growth. Government places all these restrictions on business, and people like you cry that minimum wage needs to be higher or corporate taxes get higher. Your solution is fucked, dude, you're totally off base.

It's so easy, Shaggy said it, I said it in another thread and you ignored it, but it's time for you to embrace it. A progressive VAT replacing all current federal taxes. Luxury goods are at a higher rate. Food and energy has a lower tax rate. It's progressive, you should like that, but it doesn't attempt to confiscate people's earnings every single time money changes hands.

[Edited on February 24, 2011 at 12:38 PM. Reason : ]

2/24/2011 12:36:10 PM

It doesn't require a leap of faith if you actually know history. The Great Depression occurred when the wealth gap was at an all-time high. After top marginal rates were raised to 95% by FDR, that gap dropped quickly over the next decade, then started creeping up again as tax rates were slowly lowered. They really sped up in the late 70's onward as taxation on high brackets dropped towards where they are now, and right now the wealth gap is larger than it was before the Great Depression.

2/24/2011 2:47:31 PM

And yet, income tax rates before the Great Depression were far lower than they are today. Similarly, the wealth gap in the early 19th century was lower, yet income tax rates were zero. It is almost as if the wealth gap is far more influenced by something other than raw income tax rates.

2/24/2011 3:26:54 PM

Quote :

"And yet, income tax rates before the Great Depression were far lower than they are today. Similarly, the wealth gap in the early 19th century was lower, yet income tax rates were zero. It is almost as if the wealth gap is far more influenced by something other than raw income tax rates. "

Yep. Watch Bait Car for some of the reasons of the wealth gap. Another might be that women on welfare have 3x as many kids as women who arent. Not that that means the kids wont succeed but the odds are against them.

[Edited on February 24, 2011 at 5:22 PM. Reason : .]

2/24/2011 5:21:50 PM

Quote :

"Similarly, the wealth gap in the early 19th century was lower"

Link?

Quote :

"U.S. workers are getting dumber and lazier."

Strange that your argument depends on this, but it's likely you have no evidence to prove it.

Quote :

"The job market becomes more competitive, because job growth is outpaced by population growth."

No it doesn't. Population growth contributes to long term job growth.

Quote :

"Luxury goods are at a higher rate. Food and energy has a lower tax rate. It's progressive"

That's not progressive. Please, learn what "progressive taxation" is. It's not just "the rich pay more", a flat tax could achieve that, it's that the more money you make, the higher rate you pay.

2/24/2011 6:03:55 PM

Quote :

"No it doesn't. Population growth contributes to long term job growth."

Not if there's a shortage of jobs. It just makes the job market more competitive, since there's an excess of workers.

Quote :

"That's not progressive. Please, learn what "progressive taxation" is. It's not just "the rich pay more", a flat tax could achieve that, it's that the more money you make, the higher rate you pay."

How many poor people are buying yachts? High end projectors? Below ground pools? Those things are luxuries. Everyone has to buy food and gas, but there are some items that are only accessible to the affluent. A VAT system like we're talking about charges lower consumption tax rates on things that everyone needs (food, gas), but higher rates on markets where the average American is priced out.

2/24/2011 6:12:45 PM

^legalizing immigrates will help boost our unemployment numbers....just not in a good way.

2/24/2011 6:24:50 PM

Oh, you mean when it's exposed that people are willing to work for less than minimum wage? But...but...

2/24/2011 6:27:09 PM

Quote :

"Not if there's a shortage of jobs. It just makes the job market more competitive, since there's an excess of workers."

WTF? You are saying that if there is a shortage of jobs then there are a shortage of jobs? People, themselves, not only consume jobs, but they create them as well.

Quote :

"How many poor people are buying yachts?"

Irrelevant. People's yacht buying rises at a slower rate than their income growth due to the nature of marginal propensity to consume.

The fact is that any kind of sales tax is regressive because poorer people spend a larger percentage of their income.

2/24/2011 7:04:10 PM

Quote :

"Another might be that women on welfare have 3x as many kids as women who arent."

is that controlled for age?

2/24/2011 7:21:49 PM

Response to OP and Thread Title:




GREAT IDEA!

2/24/2011 7:28:17 PM