Why not make tax rates porportional to the inequality gap.

[ivwshane]

Because after it does its job of reducing income inequality it'll completely kill any motivation to become successful.

Like all these grand-scheme plans in a complex system, the end result over the long term is always different than the problem you originally set out to solve and brings about ever more complex problems.

Lol! What a retarded thing to think.

 

[Matt1970]

Lol! What a retarded thing to think.

Right, because people will go through the stress of running a company and be responsible for the jobs of thousands of people just for the fun of it.

 

[Moonbeam]

No you didn't. You said to spend it on the poor and middle class.

You are right. I know what I had intended under the rubric of "Why not then keep our base tax rate where it is and set up a separate tax to be used to stimulate the economy via government spending" but the words I used after that did not make that very clear.

 

[Moonbeam]

No you didn't. You said to spend it on the poor and middle class.

Via stimulus, government infrastructure spending, benefits, etc.

 

[OverVolt]

Lol! What a retarded thing to think.

You don't even understand the current system then. The original problem with student loans was that they were unsecured and you could just declare bankruptcy after getting your degree. They can't repo knowledge.

Now we have the totally opposite and more complex problem of some people with worthless degrees and huge sums of non-dischargeable debt.

 

[boomerang]

I see no compelling argument being made for why the poor and middle class need more. This plan needs to have more effort put into the justification for it. Right now, it just sounds like petty jealousy.

A good plan needs a good foundation. Make a case for why the poor and the middle class need to be subsidized. If that can be done, build from there.

 

[halik]

Income inequality that leads to the creation of a governing wealth class and the transformation of the middle class into the lower class is not a society most people would want to live in, probably why, in our current state of self hate, that we have it that way. Why not then keep our base tax rate where it is and set up a separate tax to be used to stimulate the economy via government spending on social issues based on the income inequality gap. Tax those who have wealth at progressively greater levels and spend that money on the poor and middle class until the gap comes down to some reasonable level so that a few folk don't have 90% of the wealth. Make it rain instead of trickle down. A Scandinavian level of income inequality would create a society here for which we could feel a similar pride in themselves like they are known to have.

Of course, there will be one obstacle that will be hard to get around, our massive societal self hate, and the notion that if you are wealthy beyond the dreams of avarice you can justifiably look down on other people, our current mentally ill trick, the wealth class makes sure it instills in the American people, that you too will someday be rich.

The issue is that one the very top end you'd essentially have to tax people at 99.999%... it's very difficult to motivate people to work/be productive when they get nothing in return.

Stalin found that out the hard some 100 years ago, when he dropped prices on grain below average cost and then saw the grain output drop. The commies view was that the kulaks are conspiring against them, rather than it being a rational response of people not wanting to lose money.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivization_in_the_Soviet_Union

 

[realibrad]

I said reasonable with the intention not to be definitive. I suggested a concept, not a new tax law in a finalized form. You are a pin head and always look for the silliest reasons you can find to suggest some error in somebody else's post. I am patient, but you are an annoying nit picker. From now on think of me as a poster whose genius is beyond your comprehension and comment accordingly. Thank you. To reiterate: Everything you find wrong with my posts was put there intentionally. There is noting you will notice that I missed. Thank you again.

How much income inequality do you want? Should the top only have 70% of the wealth, vs 90+%?

The issue with what you are doing, is coming up with a solution before you have fully addressed what the issues are. You should first explain where you are coming from, instead of making a bunch of presuppositions and then coming up with an answer. Your hubris will likely lead to a polluted solution that could very well exacerbate any problems.

So, instead of trying to come up with solutions, try defining what the issues are, and how they got that way. Its a much more efficient problem solving structure.

 

[halik]

^ Also kind of an interesting question - how much inequality should be there? If you make it too flat, you'll demotivate everyone bring and ambitious and you get the same thing that killed every single communist set up out there.

On the other side of the spectrum, you've got the cliche Colombia set up where you drive around in convoys of armored vehicles, flanked by jeeps with machineguns.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh Utopia!!!

Where lawmakers make laws that require their financial backers and themselves as well to pay more taxes to the government.

 

[brianmanahan]

Explosive inequality & lack of good jobs are symptoms of the same problem- 35 years of top down class warfare.

it's more technological advancement than class warfare

eventually, almost everyone is going to be out of a job as we will have machines and systems that can perform them

 

[ivwshane]

You don't even understand the current system then. The original problem with student loans was that they were unsecured and you could just declare bankruptcy after getting your degree. They can't repo knowledge.

Now we have the totally opposite and more complex problem of some people with worthless degrees and huge sums of non-dischargeable debt.

What does student loans have to do with the statement, "after reducing income inequality it will completely kill any motivation to be successful"?

Our current inequality hasn't always been what it is now and it sure as shit didn't stop people from being motivated to be successful when the gap was smaller.

So I'll stand by my original comment.

 

[ivwshane]

Right, because people will go through the stress of running a company and be responsible for the jobs of thousands of people just for the fun of it.

I know it's hard for your mind to understand concepts when they aren't black and white but no one has proposed eliminating income inequality.

But besides that, you've basically just said people are only motivated by money, which is equally retarded as the original comment I was responding to.

 

[waggy]

Because after it does its job of reducing income inequality it'll completely kill any motivation to become successful.

Like all these grand-scheme plans in a complex system, the end result over the long term is always different than the problem you originally set out to solve and brings about ever more complex problems.

I don't think it will completely kill it. but it would be a major blow to the economy. and in the end do more harm then good.

I do think the tax system needs a major overhaul.

 

[ivwshane]

The issue is that one the very top end you'd essentially have to tax people at 99.999%... it's very difficult to motivate people to work/be productive when they get nothing in return.

Stalin found that out the hard some 100 years ago, when he dropped prices on grain below average cost and then saw the grain output drop. The commies view was that the kulaks are conspiring against them, rather than it being a rational response of people not wanting to lose money.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivization_in_the_Soviet_Union

Why would you have to tax the top at 99.9%?

 

[ivwshane]

I don't think it will completely kill it. but it would be a major blow to the economy. and in the end do more harm then good.

I do think the tax system needs a major overhaul.

Without defining what a reduction in inequality means how can you make such a statement?

Can you show me a period in our history where taxes were so high that the economy took a major blow?

 

[realibrad]

Without defining what a reduction in inequality means how can you make such a statement?

Can you show me a period in our history where taxes were so high that the economy took a major blow?

No. And the reason is that when taxes get too high, wealth is moved and hidden from taxes. So even though the tax rate for the top is say 80+%, the effective rate is much lower. Its the whole idea of the Laffer Curve. Now, I should say that the current tax system means that even with a lower tax rate, you are not likely to see a direct increase in revenue, because of the loopholes that would allow for further reducing the tax rate. What you are likely to see with a reduced tax rate, is capital moving from offshore to onshore. I think its pretty well understood that access to capital allows for investment, so having more money onshore could increase investment, and boost the economy. Probably not much though, as the US is currently the best place to invest among developed economies right now.

 

[ivwshane]

No. And the reason is that when taxes get too high, wealth is moved and hidden from taxes. So even though the tax rate for the top is say 80+%, the effective rate is much lower. Its the whole idea of the Laffer Curve. Now, I should say that the current tax system means that even with a lower tax rate, you are not likely to see a direct increase in revenue, because of the loopholes that would allow for further reducing the tax rate. What you are likely to see with a reduced tax rate, is capital moving from offshore to onshore. I think its pretty well understood that access to capital allows for investment, so having more money onshore could increase investment, and boost the economy. Probably not much though, as the US is currently the best place to invest among developed economies right now.

So there is no way to stop or minimize how much money people put in off shore accounts? That's just too big of a feat for our little country to handle right? /s

Does that mean with our low tax rate that we have now, there isn't any interest in people hiding their money in off shore accounts now? The answer, of course, is that there is and will always be people willing to skirt around the law, no matter what the tax rate is. There is also absolutely no reason why we couldn't address off shore bank accounts.

 

[cubby1223]

Damn near all of the big money these days is internationally mobile. And there are plentiful opportunities to invest outside the U.S., make money abroad, than ever before.

The U.S. government is not entitled to a portion of someone's wealth any more than any foreign government is entitled. And the citizens of the U.S. are not entitled to benefiting from the wealth any more than citizens of foreign nations are.

To all of you who believe you have full control to tax what you want on who you want, fucking get a clue on how the world really works. You can spend all your time thinking of your dream utopia, but the fact is it is time wasted that should have been used towards more productive purposes.

 

[ivwshane]

Damn near all of the big money these days is internationally mobile. And there are plentiful opportunities to invest outside the U.S., make money abroad, than ever before.

The U.S. government is not entitled to a portion of someone's wealth any more than any foreign government is entitled. And the citizens of the U.S. are not entitled to benefiting from the wealth any more than citizens of foreign nations are.

To all of you who believe you have full control to tax what you want on who you want, fucking get a clue on how the world really works. You can spend all your time thinking of your dream utopia, but the fact is it is time wasted that should have been used towards more productive purposes.

Like posting on a forum telling people how they could be more productive? You tell them Pot!



/face palm

 

[realibrad]

So there is no way to stop or minimize how much money people put in off shore accounts? That's just too big of a feat for our little country to handle right? /s

Does that mean with our low tax rate that we have now, there isn't any interest in people hiding their money in off shore accounts now? The answer, of course, is that there is and will always be people willing to skirt around the law, no matter what the tax rate is. There is also absolutely no reason why we couldn't address off shore bank accounts.

Your presupposition is that tax rates are low. Income tax might be "low" but there are many more taxes out there. Much of the money that is hidden, is capital, and not just income. There are many legal ways to move money offshore and not pay taxes on it. I'm not taking a stance on right or wrong there, its just fact. When it becomes cheaper to pay people to hid money, vs pay taxes, you will get lots of people doing it.

Hiding money is not cheap either. We would be better off trying to find a way to fix the issue of how to get taxable money back. Obviously there will be a point where breaking the law is cheaper. But, right now, if you raise the taxes on the top, many will simply hide more. Many may pay the tax, but many wont.

A big issue is that the tax system in the US is so complex, that many just simply dont want to deal with it, and hide their money. I know its a dead horse, but the tax system is set up so that only the wealthy can work around it.

I dont know what the solution is, but simply raising taxes does not seem like it would work out the way you think it will.

 

[Moonbeam]

How much income inequality do you want? Should the top only have 70% of the wealth, vs 90+%?

The issue with what you are doing, is coming up with a solution before you have fully addressed what the issues are. You should first explain where you are coming from, instead of making a bunch of presuppositions and then coming up with an answer. Your hubris will likely lead to a polluted solution that could very well exacerbate any problems.

So, instead of trying to come up with solutions, try defining what the issues are, and how they got that way. Its a much more efficient problem solving structure.

Here we go again......

When I look at the world I see a massive disparity in wealth between the rich and the poor, one that is growing and growing. I believe this will lead to the disaster. For that reason I think about this issue somewhat frequently and decided to float the above notion, taxes based on wealth disparity with the proviso that that the special tax be used for economic stimulus. To me that means government spending on infrastructure and other forms of income supplementation, using all the means possible to give more people more money to spend, that have basic needs and will actually spend it immediately.

My thoughts are that this will boost the economy for everybody, more like rain than trickle down.

I am not tied down by your notions of the proper way to problem solve and never will be. I just get a problem in my mind and go to sleep. When I wake up I have the answer. There are technocrats for that. I can do that too, but it's not what I'm doing here. No product reaches market without somebody first having some sort or ah ha moment.

 

[Moonbeam]

it's more technological advancement than class warfare

eventually, almost everyone is going to be out of a job as we will have machines and systems that can perform them

Not a problem if the robots have to pay a tax for the profit they earn based on how much they fall off the charts of the human norm. Say a robot can replace a human and earn the factory the profit of 100 men after costs and the owner of the factory earns 100 times the average wage but must pay taxes that bring that down to 50 times, 50 times what a human can do is then redistributed to the human population in the form of direct income or a better infrastructure and environment, or more jobs not yet replaceable by robots. In shout the government will own part of the robot labor force and if robots do everything everybody will get a free ride on what they are worth. Say good bye to poverty and fear. I always wanted to have time to finger paint.

 

[ivwshane]

Your presupposition is that tax rates are low. Income tax might be "low" but there are many more taxes out there. Much of the money that is hidden, is capital, and not just income. There are many legal ways to move money offshore and not pay taxes on it. I'm not taking a stance on right or wrong there, its just fact. When it becomes cheaper to pay people to hid money, vs pay taxes, you will get lots of people doing it.

Hiding money is not cheap either. We would be better off trying to find a way to fix the issue of how to get taxable money back. Obviously there will be a point where breaking the law is cheaper. But, right now, if you raise the taxes on the top, many will simply hide more. Many may pay the tax, but many wont.

A big issue is that the tax system in the US is so complex, that many just simply dont want to deal with it, and hide their money. I know its a dead horse, but the tax system is set up so that only the wealthy can work around it.

I dont know what the solution is, but simply raising taxes does not seem like it would work out the way you think it will.

I don't think the point of this exercise is to work within the limits of current reality but rather to have a new system that is more fair and more effective.

I think it's better if the tax rate was based on a formula that wasn't easily manipulated by politicians whome seem to have motives based on self interest. Starting from there we can then get into the nitty gritty and address the realities of such a system.

Now if you want to attack the problem of wealth inequality (I assume you agree that that is a problem) differently than how moonbeam is doubt it then by all means, post your solution or at least post the underlying issues.

 

[Matt1970]

I know it's hard for your mind to understand concepts when they aren't black and white but no one has proposed eliminating income inequality.

But besides that, you've basically just said people are only motivated by money, which is equally retarded as the original comment I was responding to.

You just don't get it. You think people will keep working just as hard and long as they do when all jobs pay the same, or get closer to paying the same. You also seem to think people will still be willing to rack up six figure debt to get a PHD or go through all the stress to run a multi-billion dollar corporation or risk millions of their own money when outcomes are equaled out in the name of fairness.

And I never said people as a whole are only motivated by money as you are insinuating, but there are plenty of people who are and whether you like it or not they are major contributors to the economy.