Page 3 of 17 FirstFirst 123456713 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 404
  1. #51
    🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆 ElNono's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Post Count
    152,607
    This has not been my experience.
    Good for you. You're an outlier.

  2. #52
    Displaced 101A's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Post Count
    7,711
    I did. I don't know that people have multi-million income year over year there though.



    It would look to me like it is.



    Maybe. Then again, it doesn't stray from the fact that everybody else has seen their growth to be pretty stagnant. Our progressive tax system was supposed to smooth some of that out, but it's pretty obvious those guys know how to get around it.
    Our system is regressive if you make your money by using money (in most cases other people's OR, FREE money you get from the fed - a "Get Rich for Free" card as Taibbii said it yesterday). Capital gains should be treated as all other income (Buffett has said this); would, first, cause working on Wal Street to immediately be that much less lucrative. On this we agree wholeheartedly. I'm just hoping we don't throw the baby out with the bath water.

  3. #53
    Veteran DarrinS's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    41,654
    BTW, there's a huge diparity between the 1% and the 0.1%.

  4. #54
    Veteran Th'Pusher's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Post Count
    6,097
    Did you see my post about 401K's?

    Also, is the rise that great for the entire top 1%?

    I would suspect not. A couple of guys making $250,000,000 can make an average of ANY group jump significantly. In fact, if you, instead of breaking it down like this, included those totals with either the top 10, or even 20%, I suspect the graph would make them appear to be the ones growing at great clip.

    Could it be the top .5, or even .1% that is showing extremely dramatic growth?
    Absolutely. The higher up you go, the more grotesque the numbers look. The top 0.01% went from less than $4M in average annual income in 1974 to over $35M today - more than 6% of national income to accruing to 0.01% of families

  5. #55
    Displaced 101A's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Post Count
    7,711
    BTW, there's a huge diparity between the 1% and the 0.1%.
    THAT's what I'm getting at, got a link?

    I think that top .1% is happy to keep the discussion about the top 1% where it is; diffuses the anger; and makes allies of people where no natural alliance actually exists. Our anger needs to be focused; it should be directed squarely at Washington and Wal Street - NOT necessarily at our successful neighbors.

  6. #56
    Displaced 101A's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Post Count
    7,711
    Absolutely. The higher up you go, the more grotesque the numbers look. The top 0.01% went from less than $4M in average annual income in 1974 to over $35M today - more than 6% of national income to accruing to 0.01% of families
    I like you.

    I spew bull , and you either call me on it, or have the data to back it up.

    So, "I'm the 99.99%", although it doesn't roll off the tongue quite as well, probably more accurately gets at the crux of the problem. Warm up the Guillotine!

  7. #57
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    89,421
    BTW, there's a huge diparity between the 1% and the 0.1%.
    http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...ghlight=0.1%25

  8. #58
    Displaced 101A's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Post Count
    7,711
    I like you.

    I spew bull , and you either call me on it, or have the data to back it up.

    So, "I'm the 99.99%", although it doesn't roll off the tongue quite as well, probably more accurately gets at the crux of the problem. Warm up the Guillotine!
    And, to me, it's not that those uber rich made all that money, it's specifically HOW they made that money that is the problem....by cheating; legalized stealing with the assistance of our elected officials. THEY have wrecked much of the economy, and not really produced that much in return (the Gates's of the world being the exceptions), but we can name most of those guys - no problem if you create hundreds of thousands of jobs; make what you will. If you created nothing of importance except more money to pay for politicians with, to with you.

  9. #59
    🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆 ElNono's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Post Count
    152,607
    Our system is regressive if you make your money by using money (in most cases other people's OR, FREE money you get from the fed - a "Get Rich for Free" card as Taibbii said it yesterday). Capital gains should be treated as all other income (Buffett has said this); would, first, cause working on Wal Street to immediately be that much less lucrative. On this we agree wholeheartedly. I'm just hoping we don't throw the baby out with the bath water.
    I don't think the vast amount of people hate (or are envious) of people that make money. I would even argue that it's the other way around.

    I think people hate the cheats. Which are the ones you described above. They're sitting pretty at the top playing with our money and using it to gain more influence and cheat more money.

    And that includes companies like GE unfortunately.

  10. #60
    Displaced 101A's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Post Count
    7,711

  11. #61
    🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆 ElNono's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Post Count
    152,607
    So we're in agreement here

  12. #62
    Veteran DarrinS's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    41,654
    And, to me, it's not that those uber rich made all that money, it's specifically HOW they made that money that is the problem....by cheating; legalized stealing with the assistance of our elected officials. THEY have wrecked much of the economy, and not really produced that much in return (the Gates's of the world being the exceptions), but we can name most of those guys - no problem if you create hundreds of thousands of jobs; make what you will. If you created nothing of importance except more money to pay for politicians with, to with you.


  13. #63
    Displaced 101A's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Post Count
    7,711
    I don't think the vast amount of people hate (or are envious) of people that make money. I would even argue that it's the other way around.

    I think people hate the cheats. Which are the ones you described above. They're sitting pretty at the top playing with our money and using it to gain more influence and cheat more money.

    And that includes companies like GE unfortunately.
    Common ground.

  14. #64
    Veteran Th'Pusher's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Post Count
    6,097
    Our system is regressive if you make your money by using money (in most cases other people's OR, FREE money you get from the fed - a "Get Rich for Free" card as Taibbii said it yesterday). Capital gains should be treated as all other income (Buffett has said this); would, first, cause working on Wal Street to immediately be that much less lucrative. On this we agree wholeheartedly. I'm just hoping we don't throw the baby out with the bath water.
    That's what I don't get. Every single Republican Candidate (with the exception of Romney) is for eliminating all capital gains taxes. Makes no sense, but you have morons lined up to vote directly against their own financial interests.

  15. #65
    Displaced 101A's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Post Count
    7,711
    That's what I don't get. Every single Republican Candidate (with the exception of Romney) is for eliminating all capital gains taxes. Makes no sense, but you have morons lined up to vote directly against their own financial interests.
    It's a talking point, I think, that Limbaugh et al. must be spewing. I guess this because my Mom listens to OAI all day long, and it's what she thinks....

    Eliminating capital gains is the worst thing we could do. All it would do, for instance, in encourage me to sell my business to a larger corporation; taking my capital gain - but eliminating 25 jobs overnight. NOT what should be happening. Capital gains taxes need to AT LEAST match regular income, if not be higher than them. The government ought to encourage what we need more of (earned income).

  16. #66
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,514
    "I thought 1% started at $250,000?"

    another report in the last week said 50% of US workers make $29K or less.

  17. #67
    Displaced 101A's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Post Count
    7,711
    That's what I don't get. Every single Republican Candidate (with the exception of Romney) is for eliminating all capital gains taxes. Makes no sense, but you have morons lined up to vote directly against their own financial interests.
    Also, if you are trying to run for president, and you're opponent is going to spend over a billion dollars, you better damn well say and support things that the people who have the money like.....damn we're screwed.

  18. #68
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    And, to me, it's not that those uber rich made all that money, it's specifically HOW they made that money that is the problem....by cheating; legalized stealing with the assistance of our elected officials. THEY have wrecked much of the economy, and not really produced that much in return (the Gates's of the world being the exceptions), but we can name most of those guys - no problem if you create hundreds of thousands of jobs; make what you will. If you created nothing of importance except more money to pay for politicians with, to with you.
    I would agree.

    That is why Riech's suggestion for an extra tax bracket for those making $5,000,000 sounds good to me.

  19. #69
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,514
    ( "Gates's of the world being the exceptions"

    Gates pushing shiny, new un-(long-term)-tested malaria vaccine to 100s of Ms of people ASAP could spell disaster long-term, no matter how well meaning he thinks he is. )

    =========

    The Big Lie by the VRWC is that the OWS are anti-corporate, when they are really

    anti-corporate crime/fraud/theft,

    anti-corporate "ethics/morality" where profits are above all (externalized) costs (to humans, land, air, water).

    anti-corporate control of government to enrich themselves while ing everybody and everything else.

    Big Lies, it's was the VRWC does.
    Last edited by boutons_deux; 10-27-2011 at 12:32 PM.

  20. #70
    Displaced 101A's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Post Count
    7,711
    I would agree.

    That is why Riech's suggestion for an extra tax bracket for those making $5,000,000 sounds good to me.

    I wouldn't argue - however with today's code; they'll just find a shelter or other vehicle to avoid anything punitive.

    Must make a "deduction less" tax system; just a few pages (not the 17,000 it currently is); whether flat or progressive; the power brokering that Congress gets to do (be bought off to do), picking winners and losers is destructive and cancerous to our markets.

  21. #71
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,514
    "Must make a "deduction less" tax system"

    try removing the mortgage interest deduction, or taxing people on "benefits" income like employer-paid health insurance, and see what happens.

  22. #72
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,514
    "they'll just find a shelter"

    Only 5K of the 50K US secret accounts in Switzerland were given to IRS.

    What kind of deal is that?

    and who picked which 5K?

  23. #73
    Veteran vy65's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Post Count
    8,002
    JEFFREY BROWN: Now to our own continuing series on inequality.

    A new analysis from the Congressional Budget Office supports the idea that income inequality has grown considerably over the past few decades. The report found that household income grew by 275 percent between 1979 and 2007 for the wealthiest 1 percent of the population. For the rest of the top fifth of the country, it grew by 65 percent. By contrast, the bottom fifth of the population saw its income grow by just 18 percent.

    The NewsHour's economics correspondent, Paul Solman, has been exploring the consequences of those trends in previous stories he has done in his series. Tonight, he gets a contrarian view, suggesting inequality in a free market system may not be as bad as advertised.

    It's part of his ongoing reporting on Making Sense of financial news.

    PAUL SOLMAN: Richard Epstein, welcome.

    RICHARD EPSTEIN, New York University School of Law: Thank you for having me.
    Join Paul on Twitter for a live chat on inequality Friday, Oct. 28, 2011. More information on Making Sen$e.
    Join Paul on Twitter for a live chat on inequality Friday, Oct. 28, 2011. More information on Making Sen$e.

    PAUL SOLMAN: What's good about inequality?

    RICHARD EPSTEIN: What's good about inequality is if, in fact, it turns out that inequality creates an incentive for people to produce and to create wealth, it's a wonderful force for innovation. So let's just go and take somebody like Bill Gates again or any entrepreneur.

    Guy earns $50 billion, right? How much consumer welfare has he created by selling products? We can estimate the amount of gains to purchases, because everybody who buys one of his products or one of Steve Jobs' products, in effect, values it more than he receives.

    The social gain from inequality to consumers of those goods probably dwarfs the entrepreneurial gain by a factor of 10-1 or 20-1.

    PAUL SOLMAN: So you mean the incentive for great wealth had Steve Jobs and Bill Gates create products which created so much value that it far outstripped the compensation to them?

    RICHARD EPSTEIN: Yes.

    And one of the fundamental mistakes about the egalitarians is they're so interested in trying to minimize differences that they don't understand the completely adverse effects that it has on the size of the pie.

    PAUL SOLMAN: Epstein worries about attempts to raise marginal tax rates, that is, the higher percentages paid on higher amounts of income.

    RICHARD EPSTEIN: You can tell the difference between a liberal and conservative by the following test. A liberal believes that changes in taxes have very little effect on production, but huge effects favorable on distribution.

    Folks like myself believe it's exactly the opposite. Very high tax rates or even small changes in taxes have very adverse effects on production, and they do very little to produce redistribution, because the money gets dissipated and taken away through the political process in the ways that even the most ardent supporters of redistribution will not like.

    PAUL SOLMAN: You think that Steve Jobs and Bill Gates wouldn't have done what they had done with higher marginal tax rates?

    RICHARD EPSTEIN: Well, yes, because they just don't do it. They have to be able to get investors to sign up for their things. Those investors have to have disposable income.

    You start changing the particular policies so that there is high or marginal rates on taxable income, two things happen simultaneously. People have less money to invest, and people will be less willing to invest it because they will get a lower rate of return.

    PAUL SOLMAN: In the period in which the American economy grew most vigorously, the United States had higher marginal rates, much higher, higher capital gains rate, and more prosperity and greater economic equality.

    RICHARD EPSTEIN: No.

    First of all, the highest marginal tax rates were also accompanied with tax shelters for everybody in those rates. The second thing is that the monies that were being spent in those days were being spent in much more intelligent ways. That is, if you go and you look at either state or federal budgets and see the amount of money that is spent on what we would call standard infrastructure improvements, and spent well, like the interstate highway program in 1956, that was very high.

    The money that is spent today on infrastructure improvements of a good variety is a tiny fraction of what it was then. And the amount of money that is spent essentially on transfer payments has mushroomed enormously.

    The fundamental truth is, the tax system is more redistributive than it was before, which will lead to a reduction in efforts, and the regulatory burden on the economy is vastly greater, and we would expect lower levels of growth.

    PAUL SOLMAN: So, if inequality is good because it provides incentives to people, is equality bad because it provides disincentives?

    RICHARD EPSTEIN: No, it's not the equality or the inequality. It's the possibility of earning a high rate of return which does it.

    And what happens is, if you let people go through voluntary transactions that produce mutual gain, you will increase overall welfare, you will improve the position of those on the bottom. But increased overall welfare will produce greater skews in income, because in a world with genuine opportunities, you will create billionaires.

    In a world without it, the people at the bottom will remain where they were, there will be nobody at the top to subsidize them, so everybody will turn out to be worse off.

    PAUL SOLMAN: Aren't many of the top 1 percent or 0.1 percent in this country rich because they're in finance?

    RICHARD EPSTEIN: Yes. Many of the very richest people in the United States are rich because they are in finance.

    And one of the things you have to ask is, why is anyone prepared to pay them huge sums of money if in fact they perform nothing of social value? And the answer is that when you try to knock out the financiers, what you do is you destroy the liquidity of capital markets. And when you destroy the liquidity of those markets, you make it impossible for businesses to invest, you make it impossible for people to buy home mortgages and so forth, and all sorts of other breakdowns.

    So they should be rich. It doesn't bother me.

    PAUL SOLMAN: Are you worried that a small number of people controlling a disproportionate share of the wealth can control a democratic system?

    RICHARD EPSTEIN: Oh, my God no.

    If you think the rich are controlling the situation, why is it that anything more than $1 million on a home mortgage turns out to be non-deductible, while the amounts that are below that are left? If one thinks that the rich dominate the particular system, why is it Obama is targeting for political advantage people with incomes over $250,000, rather than those who are under that particular figure?

    You're talking about 1 percent of the people, and they're going to win an electoral battle against the mul udes? Forget it. It's just not going to happen.

    PAUL SOLMAN: You mean to tell me that you don't think the top 1 percent of Americans don't have a disproportionate impact on the political process?

    RICHARD EPSTEIN: No, of course they have a disproportionate impact, but that doesn't mean that they control it. They also ought to have it.

    The last thing you would want to do in any kind of sensible society is to have a set of rules in which one man/one vote dictates over every issue. And the last thing we need is a popular democracy in which one man/one vote and which you can have select taxes on people, because once you can have selected taxes on certain people, why not go along and say, you know, this is a wonderful mansion that Mr. Gates owns, what we ought to do is just take it and sell it off to some foreign sheik, and take the money and divide it amongst ourselves?

    PAUL SOLMAN: Are you in favor of an inheritance tax?

    RICHARD EPSTEIN: I'm in favor of its abolition. I have said that for years. I think the estate tax is the most mad tax imaginable.

    PAUL SOLMAN: But if the point of inequality is to provide economic incentives to productivity, then why shouldn't everybody start from scratch?

    RICHARD EPSTEIN: Because that's a crazy -- I mean, starting everybody from scratch turns out to be exactly the worst way to do this thing, because it means that no parent is now going to be en led to make investments in human capital, in their children.

    That means you're going to try to socialize all the wealth. And once you try to do that, what will happen is that the level of excellence that you will get at the top, which is where you generate most of your future wealth, will be necessarily compromised.

    PAUL SOLMAN: Wait. But if you think that transfer payments to poorer people disincentivizes them, why wouldn't transfer payments that you and I would make to our children disincentivize them?

    RICHARD EPSTEIN: Because I can take care of my own money and deal with my own family in a prudential and rational way, knowing this incentive, knowing who my children are.

    I give it to the United States government, they just give it out at random. The chances are that it will be watched and flourished is completely different.

    PAUL SOLMAN: I assume you have some sympathy for people who are increasingly falling behind?

    RICHARD EPSTEIN: Everybody does. The question is, you will not be able to help them through transfer payments. The only way you could help them is through increased opportunities. The rules that people put into place to protect workers strangle them.

    PAUL SOLMAN: You don't think there's any change over the last bunch of decades in the United States, in the ethos that we all share as to what's fair?

    RICHARD EPSTEIN: No, I think there is a change, I think.

    But it runs both ways. Most Americans like both things. They like to have opportunities for themselves and they like to have guaranteed incomes for themselves. And it turns out that one of the things that is so sad today about the American ethos is that people are much more talking about the me generation or themselves, instead of trying to think about this thing as a more systematic and global issue.

    And if you start to think about that -- I'm going to quote Abraham Lincoln, because I like to do that -- which is, he said, quite rightly, that you do not make the poor rich by making the rich poor.

    PAUL SOLMAN: Richard Epstein, thank you very much.

    RICHARD EPSTEIN: It's been a great pleasure to be here.

    JEFFREY BROWN: That was libertarian law professor Richard Epstein. He teaches at New York University School of Law.
    http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/busin...nse_10-26.html

  24. #74
    Displaced 101A's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Post Count
    7,711
    It's a good academic discussion.

    Unfortunately, that's not where we are. Our financial sector did not behave as Epstein suggests they should. They took deep bets on risky ventures with ridiculous returns, and then got bailed out where it all went to - talk about the wrong kind of incentive! Much as what Krugman spouts only works in a vacuum, what Epstein is alleging doesn't meat the "where the tire meets the road" test.

  25. #75
    Veteran vy65's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Post Count
    8,002
    FWIW, I don't think Epstein is necessarily talking about the financial sector. That discussion was more in terms of general income inequality. The financial sector definitely contributes to the wealth gap - but is not the sole cause.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •