Taxes On The Rich Near 30-Year High: Tax Policy Center

Quote from darkfrog : Wealth inequality is only meaningful if there was a set amount of wealth and it could not be created by virtually anyone AND if income mobility was extremely low or zero. Considering that someone in the less than 20% wealth category today could be in the top 5% tomorrow, it's hard to take complaints about 'unfair' wealth distribution seriously. The disingenuous thing about these charts is it implies that each of these categories are static wrt groups of people when in fact people are moving up and down between categories all of the time. The wealthy today are not the same wealthy next year, same with the poor.

Economic mobility is far less prevalent than you make it out to be. Recent research has shown that a widening wealth gap leads to LESS economic mobility, not more.

Quote from DJPlayer : is it fair that professional basketball players are better than 99.999999999% of other humans at basketball in the U.S.?

Psst.....you have at least 5 9s too many.

Quote from Rebound : Question for conservatives: Of America's total wealth, what percentage should the top 1% own? When is it too much? Is it too much if 1% of Americans own 99% of the wealth? Is it too little if 50% Americans own less than 1% of the wealth?

Apparently 6 Waltons have more wealth than 96 million Americans put together.

That is sickening.

Quote from TRNT : Psst.....you have at least 5 9s too many.

my just random guess was

so just an incredibly rough calculation.. there are a maximum 450 players in the NBA.

currently 315.4M Americans.

so that's roughly 2 9's to many.. but then you'd have to factor in how many basketball players are recruited per year (obviously they don't fire and restart every year). Also a good number of basketball players don't even come from America.. So we could expand the population group a little..

So.. my rough guess is actually rather close.

Quote from Mike A. : Likely not so much sleight of hand but more because it's an average across a very wide range at that top percentile. You may think of yourself as "average" in a general sense, but the top 20% comprises everyone from probably about mid-$80K to billions. The actual mathematical average may be much different. Also this includes more than just income tax (e.g., payroll, estate, etc.). And these are projections going forward for 2013. There have been several changes which increase taxes at the higher end of the range as well as payroll changes which apply at the lower. The latter accounts for an increase of 2% alone at that end. Taxes will be higher one way or another for everyone in the range.

That's a good point. Since we're at the "low" end of the top 5% and the income bar basically goes vertical right after us as we move into the tippy top percent, even a butt ton of exotic shelters wouldn't be enough when we're talking that much money.

Quote from Tony_Danza : Why are you talking about fairness as if it answers his question?

because to be quite frank his question is moronic (and that is not a personal attack). It's just that having a cap on what the top people own makes absolutely no sense.

It makes as much such as saying.. you're basketball skills are to great. We have to stop you from practicing because other people have to catch up.. there's far to much disparity in your field. Same thing would work for education and virtually every other field I can imagine.

There's a simple reason for a wealth gap and why the top 1% have so much.. it's because a long time ago their relatives rose up from little, grew their wealth to mediocre levels.. and passed it on. It is a chain of responsibility, where you work hard to ensure that your children also are successful, as well as their children etc.. Who doesn't want this??? Do not we want all of our children to be more successful than ourselves? So rather than splurge away what you have before death.. you pass it on. Over time you create a high probability that your next of kin and then kin have the best education and economic success.

Apparently the issue is that people are angry with people that have been successful and make intelligent decisions.

Quote from DJPlayer : Apparently the issue is that people are angry with people that have been successful and make intelligent decisions.

I think it's just a question of point of view. Conservatives see the government as having created the conditions that cause these problems. Liberals see business as having created the conditions that cause these problems. The answer is probably somewhere in the middle.

Quote from DJPlayer : my just random guess was so just an incredibly rough calculation.. there are a maximum 450 players in the NBA. currently 315.4M Americans. so that's roughly 2 9's to many.. but then you'd have to factor in how many basketball players are recruited per year (obviously they don't fire and restart every year). Also a good number of basketball players don't even come from America.. So we could expand the population group a little.. So.. my rough guess is actually rather close.

No.

(100% - 99.999999999%) * 315.4 M = 0.003 people
(100% - 99.99999999%) * 315.4 M = 0.03 people
(100% - 99.9999999%) * 315.4 M = 0.3 people
(100% - 99.999999%) * 315.4 M = 3 people
(100% - 99.99999%) * 315.4 M = 32 people
(100% - 99.9999%) * 315.4 M = 315 people

So you see....to get to the 300-400 range you need to get rid of at least 5 9s.

ETA: BTW I find this more entertaining than serious. No biggie.

Quote from loop610bob : I think it's just a question of point of view. Conservatives see the government as having created the conditions that cause these problems. Liberals see business as having created the conditions that cause these problems. The answer is probably somewhere in the middle.

really we're in a position where lower/middle class people will have a hard time. I only see it this way because of how far we've now moved to a global economy. We have people in India and China making subpar wages. This pushes jobs overseas and increases imports (reducing our GDP). It also decreases our number of jobs, just also decreases the cost of many items. We are spreading the wealth.. but most people assume that it's within the United States.. essentially our wealth bell curve has extended to other countries. As countries like China and India move up on their subpar wealth and income, a large majority of our scale shifts lower. This would typically not affect upper income individuals because they can profit from overseas employment rather than be hurt.

If Federal tax revenue is projected to hit an all time record high this year, why are we still running a $1 Trillion annual shortfall?

Seem pretty clear that given that fact (of record revenues) that the problem is on the spending side of the equation.



http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-D...ideMonitor

Quote from TRNT : No. (100% - 99.999999999%) * 315.4 M = 0.003 people (100% - 99.99999999%) * 315.4 M = 0.03 people (100% - 99.9999999%) * 315.4 M = 0.3 people (100% - 99.999999%) * 315.4 M = 3 people (100% - 99.99999%) * 315.4 M = 32 people (100% - 99.9999%) * 315.4 M = 315 people So you see....to get to the 300-400 range you need to get rid of at least 5 9s. ETA: BTW I find this more entertaining than serious. No biggie.

ugh.. actually you're right.. I forgot to convert back to percent so I was 2 decimal places off. oh well it's early and coffee hasn't set in yet.. 99.99985%

Quote from homers : If Federal tax revenue is projected to hit an all time record high this year, why are we still running a $1 Trillion annual shortfall? Seem pretty clear that given that fact (of record revenues) that the problem is on the spending side of the equation. http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-D...ideMonitor

There is no problem....revenue, spending, or otherwise. Let history (and not FOX news) be your guide. Next stop Dow 20k.

Quote from loop610bob : I think it's just a question of point of view. Conservatives see the government as having created the conditions that cause these problems. Liberals see business as having created the conditions that cause these problems. The answer is probably somewhere in the middle.

This is an interesting point.

This need not be about fairness. It need not be about theft (on the part of the rich people). We need not to have an evil side here, bet it the rich or the poor. Wealth distribution depends on the rules that we have adopted. If we change the rules, the distribution will change.

I often give the NBA analogy. Right now we have rules such as goal tending, 3 point shots, number of time outs, etc etc etc. Given present rules, LV creates odds for NBA games (which are amazingly accurate, BTW). Now if we change one of the said rules, those odds would instantly change.

Same with taxes. This need not be a mortal fight between the rich and the poor. It simply can be as a result of the rules that we have. I say the wealth and income gap that we have today are not good. I say we should change the rules.

Let's start with eliminating the favorite treatment of cap gain and by eliminating or income testing all deductions. Let's also put a ceiling on the total deduction a person can claim. Let's put a total mortgage deduction a person can claim.

Of course these are just tax rules. I am sure there are other rules that we have that favor the rich. Those could be changed too. But why would politicians who are in the pocket of the rich change these rules to the disadvantage of the super rich? Which beings me to the biggest rule that should change. Let's eliminate the influence of money on our politics and our elections. I believe with this one change, the rest might by itself fall into place.

Quote from dynamite : There is no problem....revenue, spending, or otherwise. Let history (and not FOX news) be your guide. Next stop Dow 20k.

So you're in the same kick as thikthird...
Care to expand on this a bit?

Quote from DJPlayer : because to be quite frank his question is moronic (and that is not a personal attack). It's just that having a cap on what the top people own makes absolutely no sense.

Are you saying you would be OK with 1 person having 99.99999% of the wealth? I mean, that's fair, right?

Quote from DJPlayer : really we're in a position where lower/middle class people will have a hard time. I only see it this way because of how far we've now moved to a global economy. We have people in India and China making subpar wages. This pushes jobs overseas and increases imports (reducing our GDP). It also decreases our number of jobs, just also decreases the cost of many items. We are spreading the wealth.. but most people assume that it's within the United States.. essentially our wealth bell curve has extended to other countries. As countries like China and India move up on their subpar wealth and income, a large majority of our scale shifts lower. This would typically not affect upper income individuals because they can profit from overseas employment rather than be hurt.

Is this you admitting that trickle down economics perhaps isn't the best solution?