Would inverting the tax brackets give the govt more revenue?

[Unmoosical]

And what stops the poor workers from making more income? 😕

Point taken. However, this argument only works on the individual level.

If all (or a large percentage of) poor people decided they wanted to make more money so they: learn a skill, get a better education, start a business that provides a product/service which is in demand, etc.... There will still be a need for people in those lower wage positions (people at mcdonalds, working retail, cleaning houses, cutting lawns, working on farms, etc., I need my starbucks damnit!)

Would the population as a whole be better off if everyone was ambitious/wanted to better their socio-economic status? Certainly, but to a point.🙂

 

[smackababy]

Point taken. However, this argument only works on the individual level.

If all (or a large percentage of) poor people decided they wanted to make more money so they: learn a skill, get a better education, start a business that provides a product/service which is in demand, etc.... There will still be a need for people in those lower wage positions (people at mcdonalds, working retail, cleaning houses, cutting lawns, working on farms, etc., I need my starbucks damnit!)

Would the population as a whole be better off if everyone was ambitious/wanted to better their socio-economic status? Certainly, but to a point.🙂

If people would strive to better themselves, there is always immigrants who would trade everything they owned to do unskilled labor in America. There is no shortage of poor people in the world. And if we had to import them, it wouldn't be a bad thing.

 

[Craig234]

And what stops the poor workers from making more income? 😕

The policies that are in place about how wealth is distributed.

Those include the distribution of power of who makes the rules.

If workers have more power, their share goes up. If less, it goes down.

You seem to have the idea that your fantasy of everyone just 'making more income' is a solution to the issue of concentration of wealth. That's incorrect.

You seem happy to ignore the issue and blame the victim as your only response.

Workers not making decent wages? It's their fault. End of issue, next topic?

The issue we have some say in about worker compensation most is policy. There are some other things like education as well. But largely policy.

It's not a coincidence, for example, that union strength especially started to decline when Ronald Reagan was elected and went to war on the unions.

Or that the workers' strength - and share of our economy's rewards - increased under a President like Franklin Roosevelt.

One thing keeping workers from higher incomes is the raw globalization of being put in competition with poor countries in the labor market.

We could approach that in ways that considers only the interests of the owners - and their profits has been growing greatly - or we could balance that with concern for workers.

The first step is to recognize that there is a problem with the disparity between the 1% and the 99%, with how the rich are taking a greatly increasing share at the expense of everyone else, while workers' incomes are flat and their wealth declining. viewing that as a problem is a first step - because the rich view that as a solution. More for them, good!

Nevermind the harm to the economy that excessive concentration of wealth brings - they're not about to give up any of theirs for the 'larger good of society'.

Even if it would profit them to do so in the long term. I'm referring to some/most of the rich, the ones supporting right-wing policies, not all of them, of course.

Individual workers can do some things. But that's only one part of the issue - not the entire 'solution' as you seem to imply. We have that now - and we have a big problem.

 

[Unmoosical]

If people would strive to better themselves, there is always immigrants who would trade everything they owned to do unskilled labor in America. There is no shortage of poor people in the world. And if we had to import them, it wouldn't be a bad thing.

I don't disagree. Actually, I agree and that's really my point, there will always be poor. So to say "the poor" (collectively) can make more money if they decide to isn't a great argument. 🙂

 

[Craig234]

I don't disagree. Actually, I agree and that's really my point, there will always be poor. So to say "the poor" (collectively) can make more money if they decide to isn't a great argument. 🙂

'There will always be poor' should not be used as an excuse for them to be more poor instead of less poor, or to do nothing to improve things. Not saying you are, but others.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Each individual worker can increase their income if they choose to;
should all of them; then you have removed the problem.

It is the lack of drive; willingness to take a chance; fear of failing that is the problem; not that someone is preventing them from doing it.

On does not check into the work force and get handed a limitations card with rules.
One writes their own limitations and then complains that the rules are there and they can not do anything about it.

If you need a shovel and one is not handed to you; you have three choices.

• Gripe and moan that you need a shovel.
• Go get a shovel
• Use your hands.

The above list is in order of ease but hardest to succeed with.

Wealth and success is not handed to one; it should be earned/worked for

 

[Craig234]

Each individual worker can increase their income if they choose to;
should all of them; then you have removed the problem.

It is the lack of drive; willingness to take a chance; fear of failing that is the problem; not that someone is preventing them from doing it.

On does not check into the work force and get handed a limitations card with rules.
One writes their own limitations and then complains that the rules are there and they can not do anything about it.

If you need a shovel and one is not handed to you; you have three choices.

• Gripe and moan that you need a shovel.
• Go get a shovel
• Use your hands.

The above list is in order of ease but hardest to succeed with.

Wealth and success is not handed to one; it should be earned/worked for

Sorry, but that is an ideological bit of dogma that badly misrepresents labor issues.

It's a type of nonsense that fights against real solutions for workers.

You could very much use some education on the labor issues, the history of them and the actual issue, so you better understand than that 'blame the workers' propaganda.

Need some reading? Off the top of my head, Robert Reich, Joseph Stiglitz, Howard Zinn.

 

[EagleKeeper]

You are trying to lump the workers as a single entity against the wealthy/management as a single entity.

the error in this reasoning is that the worker has the choice to improve themselves; geta different job and/or strike out on their own.

They are not forced into the servitude; but have chosen to accept it for the security blanket.

Those that have the wealth/power at one point ignored the security blanket and to the road less traveled.

There is no law that says a person must chose the easy road.

 

[Craig234]

You are trying to lump the workers as a single entity against the wealthy/management as a single entity.

the error in this reasoning is that the worker has the choice to improve themselves; geta different job and/or strike out on their own.

They are not forced into the servitude; but have chosen to accept it for the security blanket.

Those that have the wealth/power at one point ignored the security blanket and to the road less traveled.

There is no law that says a person must chose the easy road.

Sorry, but that is an ideological bit of dogma that badly misrepresents labor issues.

It's a type of nonsense that fights against real solutions for workers.

You could very much use some education on the labor issues, the history of them and the actual issue, so you better understand than that 'blame the workers' propaganda.

Need some reading? Off the top of my head, Robert Reich, Joseph Stiglitz, Howard Zinn.

 

[ThinClient]

I never said that. Why not answer my question instead of going off topic?

The answer to your question is no. You're not very good at math, are you 😛

The biggest tax bracket for the highest income has people paying more money in one tax year than the lowest tax bracket folks will pay over the course of their lifetime. The rich in this country are paying the vast majority of the federal income taxes.

In states with both federal and state income tax, you can often times see 55% of one's income going to taxes. To be rich in this country is extremely costly. The more money you are paid, the less you bring home unless the jump in pay is considerable.