The Real Causes of Income Inequality

[ThinkCritically]

The "we" have become parasitic and I'll have nothing to do with any of them and all that enslaving evilness.

SO which third world hellhole do you plan to move to?

Costa Rica or New Zealand sound nice

 

[IndependntLogic]

.

The correct statistic to use is what percentage of people's income is paid in taxes, not what percentage of total taxes people of a given income bracket pay.

That is certainly how a communist looks at it.

There is nothing 'correct' about your statement.

Pretty weak rebuttal there sniper. Perhaps you'd like to expound.

Let's say that in Country A, the rich are 25% of the population and the end up paying half (or 7%) of the total tax.
In Country B, the rich are 15% of the population and they also end up paying half of the total tax.
Sound the same right? Wrong.
Same countries. In A, the rich pay an average of 10% of their income and the middle class pays an average of 20%.
Does this seem equitible to you?
This is what the author in the OP is trying to ignore and what Dragon points out.

I know this is a tad more complex than just writing "You're an idiot nazi dog molester!" but if you (or anyone else agreeing with the premise in the OP) care to actually debate, I would cordially invite a well-reasoned rebuttal.

 

[Dragon]

The decline in real wages, the loss of good manufacturing jobs, the increase in the unemployment rate even in times of growth

if so, then Demand for domestic Labor has declined, led by losses in manufacturing

Blah blah blah. I suggest you need to get your excuses straight so they're consistent The reason for the increase of inequality cannot be BOTH factors such as this, AND at the same time the fault of poor people.

 

[Dragon]

As wealth grows, income generated by that wealth grows.

Nope, nothing like that can be the reason, either. Income inequality DROPPED DRAMATICALLY after World War II, and stayed low (compared to now) until the 1980s. Accumulation of wealth through interest or returns on investment cannot account for this pattern.

 

[Dragon]

Regarding the misleading use of statistics in regard to taxes, I give you two hypotheticals.

Hypothetical 1: A town of 100 people. 1 person makes $1 million. The other 99 make $10,000. Taxes are a flat 10%, no deductibles. Everyone pays 10% of his income in taxes. The millionaire pays half of all taxes paid.

Hypothetical 2: The following year, all of the poor people get a 100% raise and make $20k, while the millionaire's income stays the same. Taxes remain a flat 10%, no deductibles. The millionaire pays the exact same percentage of his income in taxes, and the same dollar amount as well, but he now pays only 33.5% of the total taxes.

Have his taxes gone down? No. Has his tax rate gone down? No. All that's happened is that he takes home a smaller share of the total income.

Same thing happens in reverse. The share of total taxes paid by any income group is an inherently misleading and useless statistic -- useless, that is, unless what you want is to lie with it.

 

[IndependntLogic]

.

The correct statistic to use is what percentage of people's income is paid in taxes, not what percentage of total taxes people of a given income bracket pay.

That is certainly how a communist looks at it.

There is nothing 'correct' about your statement.

Pretty weak rebuttal there sniper. Perhaps you'd like to expound.

Let's say that in Country A, the rich are 25% of the population and the end up paying half (or 7%) of the total tax.
In Country B, the rich are 15% of the population and they also end up paying half of the total tax.
Sound the same right? Wrong.
Same countries. In A, the rich pay an average of 10% of their income and the middle class pays an average of 20%.
Does this seem equitible to you?
This is what the author in the OP is trying to ignore and what Dragon points out.

I know this is a tad more complex than just writing "You're an idiot nazi dog molester!" but if you (or anyone else agreeing with the premise in the OP) care to actually debate, I would cordially invite a well-reasoned rebuttal.

Regarding the misleading use of statistics in regard to taxes, I give you two hypotheticals.

Hypothetical 1: A town of 100 people. 1 person makes $1 million. The other 99 make $10,000. Taxes are a flat 10%, no deductibles. Everyone pays 10% of his income in taxes. The millionaire pays half of all taxes paid.

Hypothetical 2: The following year, all of the poor people get a 100% raise and make $20k, while the millionaire's income stays the same. Taxes remain a flat 10%, no deductibles. The millionaire pays the exact same percentage of his income in taxes, and the same dollar amount as well, but he now pays only 33.5% of the total taxes.

Have his taxes gone down? No. Has his tax rate gone down? No. All that's happened is that he takes home a smaller share of the total income.

Same thing happens in reverse. The share of total taxes paid by any income group is an inherently misleading and useless statistic -- useless, that is, unless what you want is to lie with it.

Yes, same thing I did. Sniper seems quick with petty insults and slow with real facts, valid points etc...

 

[Katzndogz]

Here’s a simple, logical example that any open minded individual can understand explaining the fallacy behind ‘taxing the rich’.

Suppose that every day, ten men go out to eat. The bill for all ten is $100. If they paid their bill the way we currently pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.

The fifth man would pay $1.

The sixth man would pay $3.

The seventh man would pay $7.

The eighth man would pay $12.

The ninth man would pay $18.

The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

This seems like a good plan so it’s what they decide to do. The ten men eat at the same place every day and are quite happy with the arrangement until one day, the owner throws them a curve. “Since you are all such good customers I’m going to reduce the cost of your meal by $20.” The meal for the ten men is now only $80. The group still wants to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men are unaffected by the change. They will still eat for free. But what about the other six men – the paying customers? How could they divide up the savings so that everyone would get their ‘fair share’?

They realize that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But, if they subtract that from everybody’s share, then the fifth and the sixth man would each end up being paid to eat as they were only paying $1, and $3. So, the owner suggests that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same amount or a percentage of the savings which he proceeds to do and it works out like this:

The first four men (the poorest) again pay nothing.

The fifth man now pays nothing (100% savings).

The sixth man now pays $2 instead of $3 (33% savings).

The seventh man now pays $5 instead of $7 (28% savings).

The eighth man now pays $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).

The ninth man now pays $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).

The tenth man now pays $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

The first four still eat for free and the remaining six are better off than they were before. But, once they leave the restaurant the men begin to compare their savings. “Hey, I only got $1 out the $20 discount” declares the sixth man. He points to the tenth man and says “but he got $10!”. “Yeah, that’s right,” exclaims the fifth man. “I only got $1 too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more than I did.” “That’s true!!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $10 back when I only got $2? The wealthy always get all the breaks!” “Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men, “We didn’t get anything. The system always exploits the poor!”

So, the nine men surround the tenth man and beat him up. The next day the tenth man doesn’t show up to eat, so the nine men sit down and have a big meal without him. However, when it came time to pay the $80 bill, guess what? The nine men discovered something very important. Without the tenth man (the richest) they don’t have enough money to pay even half the bill. And, that, boys and girls, is how tax system works. In spite of the Liberal mantra of ‘tax the rich, tax the rich’, the people who pay the highest taxes logically get the most benefit from any tax reduction. Those that pay nothing or very little receive little or no benefit. Common sense! Tax the ‘rich’ too much, attack them for being wealthy, accuse them too much and they may not show up to play the stupid game anymore.

 

[UpAndAbout]

What do the liberals want? For the rich to pay MOST of the money to the government so that everyone's take-home pay is the same. That's gonna go over big with Hollywood, isn't it?

 

[konradv]

Did you see Obama's taxes? Effective rate of only 20.5%, but he had a huge deduction for chariable contributions amounting to 22% of his gross!

 

[Dragon]

What do the liberals want? For the rich to pay MOST of the money to the government so that everyone's take-home pay is the same.

If you're going to make up some shit to answer your own question with, why ask it in the first place?

 

[UpAndAbout]

What do the liberals want? For the rich to pay MOST of the money to the government so that everyone's take-home pay is the same.

If you're going to make up some shit to answer your own question with, why ask it in the first place?

Well we've never gotten a straight answer from you about just how much you think rich people should pay, what percentage, so this is the best I could come up. Since you're so jealous of them, makes sence to just make them give up all the money so some of it could be given to you. So --- just what percentage do you think somebody making, say a million a year should pay? 30%, 40%, 50% Simple question. But betcha won't answer it.

 

[UpAndAbout]

Did you see Obama's taxes? Effective rate of only 20.5%, but he had a huge deduction for chariable contributions amounting to 22% of his gross!

Isn't that special. JFK donated his ENTIRE salary while president to charity.

 

[Dragon]

Well we've never gotten a straight answer from you about just how much you think rich people should pay

That may have something to do with none of us being experts on the U.S. budget capable of expressing an informed opinion on the subject, and it may also have something to do with the fact that nailing an answer down exactly is apropos of nothing and the question is meant only as a diversion in the first place.

Either factor will do.