What ceiling?

[Polk]

Typical liberal response, 'income redistribution' will make things 'fair.'

Who is calling for income redistribution? Another red herring.

Umm, you. http://www.usmessageboard.com/1719291-post33.html

So?

Typical conservative response. "Who cares if the nation is slipping to third world status for most of it's people, as long as the megawealthy can afford another yacht."

That's not calling for income redistribution. That's saying that our current rules, written to favored a preexisted moneyed elite, are a problem and that he wants to ignore that it's a real issue.

 

[Annie]

What do you mean?

If you make 100,000 dollars from working, you get taxed at 28 percent.
If you make 100,000 from capital gains, it only gets taxed at 15 percent.

Try 30% minimum for Capital gains and going higher. Why? The initial capital was already taxed at anywhere from 15--45% to begin with. It is a classic example of double taxation.

Indeed. Failure to understand those types of taxes, is the reason so many feel 'gypped'. They can't understand why reducing an onerous tax like that, has an invigorating effect on the economy. Fuck the rich is f'ing yourself. They just stop investing.

 

[Polk]

If you make 100,000 dollars from working, you get taxed at 28 percent.
If you make 100,000 from capital gains, it only gets taxed at 15 percent.

Try 30% minimum for Capital gains and going higher. Why? The initial capital was already taxed at anywhere from 15--45% to begin with. It is a classic example of double taxation.

Indeed. Failure to understand those types of taxes, is the reason so many feel 'gypped'. They can't understand why reducing an onerous tax like that, has an invigorating effect on the economy. Fuck the rich is f'ing yourself. They just stop investing.

Except that most capital doesn't come from investing wages.

 

[Zander]

Try 30% minimum for Capital gains and going higher. Why? The initial capital was already taxed at anywhere from 15--45% to begin with. It is a classic example of double taxation.

Indeed. Failure to understand those types of taxes, is the reason so many feel 'gypped'. They can't understand why reducing an onerous tax like that, has an invigorating effect on the economy. Fuck the rich is f'ing yourself. They just stop investing.

Except that most capital doesn't come from investing wages.

Proof?

 

[The Rabbi]

It happens in the developed world too. The United States ranks around the same as Kenya and Nigeria on measures of income distribution.

So?

Typical conservative response. "Who cares if the nation is slipping to third world status for most of it's people, as long as the megawealthy can afford another yacht."

Because the megawealthy in this country keep changing. Look at the list of Fortune 400 people today compared to 20 years ago and compared 50 years ago. The list keeps changing. That is the difference in this country vs the third world, mobility in both directions.
So explain, given that mobility, why current income distribution patterns are bad.

 

[Polk]

So?

Typical conservative response. "Who cares if the nation is slipping to third world status for most of it's people, as long as the megawealthy can afford another yacht."

Because the megawealthy in this country keep changing. Look at the list of Fortune 400 people today compared to 20 years ago and compared 50 years ago. The list keeps changing. That is the difference in this country vs the third world, mobility in both directions.
So explain, given that mobility, why current income distribution patterns are bad.

Wealth isn't nearly as fluid as you make it out to be. Sure, those lists will change over time due to changing products and deaths. That's not really representative of mobility though. Consider the following: Someone born in to parents in the top fifth of earners has a better chance of remaining in the top fifth with only a high school diploma than someone born to parents in the bottom fifth of earners with a college degree has of making it to the top fifth.

 

[Annie]

Typical conservative response. "Who cares if the nation is slipping to third world status for most of it's people, as long as the megawealthy can afford another yacht."

Because the megawealthy in this country keep changing. Look at the list of Fortune 400 people today compared to 20 years ago and compared 50 years ago. The list keeps changing. That is the difference in this country vs the third world, mobility in both directions.
So explain, given that mobility, why current income distribution patterns are bad.

Wealth isn't nearly as fluid as you make it out to be. Sure, those lists will change over time due to changing products and deaths. That's not really representative of mobility though. Consider the following: Someone born in to parents in the top fifth of earners has a better chance of remaining in the top fifth with only a high school diploma than someone born to parents in the bottom fifth of earners with a college degree has of making it to the top fifth.

So you do want income redistribution.

 

[The Rabbi]

Typical conservative response. "Who cares if the nation is slipping to third world status for most of it's people, as long as the megawealthy can afford another yacht."

Because the megawealthy in this country keep changing. Look at the list of Fortune 400 people today compared to 20 years ago and compared 50 years ago. The list keeps changing. That is the difference in this country vs the third world, mobility in both directions.
So explain, given that mobility, why current income distribution patterns are bad.

Wealth isn't nearly as fluid as you make it out to be. Sure, those lists will change over time due to changing products and deaths. That's not really representative of mobility though. Consider the following: Someone born in to parents in the top fifth of earners has a better chance of remaining in the top fifth with only a high school diploma than someone born to parents in the bottom fifth of earners with a college degree has of making it to the top fifth.

That's true for all kinds of reasons other than wealth.
But look at the current list and you won't find many whose parents were also super-wealthy.
So please explain what is wrong with that.

 

[Zander]

Typical conservative response. "Who cares if the nation is slipping to third world status for most of it's people, as long as the megawealthy can afford another yacht."

Because the megawealthy in this country keep changing. Look at the list of Fortune 400 people today compared to 20 years ago and compared 50 years ago. The list keeps changing. That is the difference in this country vs the third world, mobility in both directions.
So explain, given that mobility, why current income distribution patterns are bad.

Wealth isn't nearly as fluid as you make it out to be. Sure, those lists will change over time due to changing products and deaths. That's not really representative of mobility though. Consider the following: Someone born in to parents in the top fifth of earners has a better chance of remaining in the top fifth with only a high school diploma than someone born to parents in the bottom fifth of earners with a college degree has of making it to the top fifth.

Proof????

 

[The Rabbi]

Because the megawealthy in this country keep changing. Look at the list of Fortune 400 people today compared to 20 years ago and compared 50 years ago. The list keeps changing. That is the difference in this country vs the third world, mobility in both directions.
So explain, given that mobility, why current income distribution patterns are bad.

Wealth isn't nearly as fluid as you make it out to be. Sure, those lists will change over time due to changing products and deaths. That's not really representative of mobility though. Consider the following: Someone born in to parents in the top fifth of earners has a better chance of remaining in the top fifth with only a high school diploma than someone born to parents in the bottom fifth of earners with a college degree has of making it to the top fifth.

Proof????

Nah. It might be that if both have college degrees but you have to distinguish one degree from another.
Sowell in Black Rednecks points out that a black who has a library card as a kid and has X number of books around the house and a white with the same things will end up making about the same amount of money in their careers.

 

[Polk]

Because the megawealthy in this country keep changing. Look at the list of Fortune 400 people today compared to 20 years ago and compared 50 years ago. The list keeps changing. That is the difference in this country vs the third world, mobility in both directions.
So explain, given that mobility, why current income distribution patterns are bad.

Wealth isn't nearly as fluid as you make it out to be. Sure, those lists will change over time due to changing products and deaths. That's not really representative of mobility though. Consider the following: Someone born in to parents in the top fifth of earners has a better chance of remaining in the top fifth with only a high school diploma than someone born to parents in the bottom fifth of earners with a college degree has of making it to the top fifth.

So you do want income redistribution.

No, I want a society where people rise and fall based on the merits of their own work.

 

[Polk]

Because the megawealthy in this country keep changing. Look at the list of Fortune 400 people today compared to 20 years ago and compared 50 years ago. The list keeps changing. That is the difference in this country vs the third world, mobility in both directions.
So explain, given that mobility, why current income distribution patterns are bad.

Wealth isn't nearly as fluid as you make it out to be. Sure, those lists will change over time due to changing products and deaths. That's not really representative of mobility though. Consider the following: Someone born in to parents in the top fifth of earners has a better chance of remaining in the top fifth with only a high school diploma than someone born to parents in the bottom fifth of earners with a college degree has of making it to the top fifth.

Proof????

Here.

Across every income group, Americans are more likely to surpass their parents’ income in absolute terms if they earn a college degree, reinforcing the conventional wisdom that higher education provides a means for opportunity. The report, authored by Ron Haskins and using data from the Panel Study of Income Dynamics, finds that 84 percent of Americans born into the bottom quintile who earn a college degree move up at least one rung on the economic ladder— and 19 percent make it to the top. This compares to only 5 percent of those born into the bottom that make it to the top without a college degree. Yet, family background plays an equally, if not more important, role than education. Of Americans born into the top quintile who earn a college degree, 54 percent remain there as adults; nearly triple the percentage of college graduates born to parents at the bottom that make it to the top of the income distribution. Perhaps more strikingly, 23 percent of those born into the top quintile that do not get a degree stay at the top as adults, a slightly higher percentage than the number of college graduates from the bottom quintile who manage to climb to the top. “The good news is that education matters and provides a robust return to all Americans,” said Haskins. “The more sobering news is that family background still has a big impact on economic success and the nation’s educational system does not do enough to help poor children overcome their family background.”

Economic Mobility Project Releases Comprehensive Study of Income Mobility in the U.S. - The Pew Charitable Trusts

Or, if you want to read the full study:
Getting Ahead or Losing Ground: Economic Mobility in America - Brookings Institution

 

[Polk]

Wealth isn't nearly as fluid as you make it out to be. Sure, those lists will change over time due to changing products and deaths. That's not really representative of mobility though. Consider the following: Someone born in to parents in the top fifth of earners has a better chance of remaining in the top fifth with only a high school diploma than someone born to parents in the bottom fifth of earners with a college degree has of making it to the top fifth.

Proof????

Nah. It might be that if both have college degrees but you have to distinguish one degree from another.
Sowell in Black Rednecks points out that a black who has a library card as a kid and has X number of books around the house and a white with the same things will end up making about the same amount of money in their careers.

And you'd be wrong.

Perhaps more strikingly, 23 percent of those born into the top quintile that do not get a degree stay at the top as adults, a slightly higher percentage than the number of college graduates from the bottom quintile who manage to climb to the top.

Economic Mobility Project Releases Comprehensive Study of Income Mobility in the U.S. - The Pew Charitable Trusts

 

[Annie]

Wealth isn't nearly as fluid as you make it out to be. Sure, those lists will change over time due to changing products and deaths. That's not really representative of mobility though. Consider the following: Someone born in to parents in the top fifth of earners has a better chance of remaining in the top fifth with only a high school diploma than someone born to parents in the bottom fifth of earners with a college degree has of making it to the top fifth.

So you do want income redistribution.

No, I want a society where people rise and fall based on the merits of their own work.

Removing incentives to build wealth? Do you have children? Do you wish to leave them, your spouse anything? You going to give it to the indigent instead through your will? I'd say that's your right. Others have done so. But why if it's not your desire, should the government force it?

The government should tax what they need to, to do the things they must do. They don't 'need' to redistribute, that should be up to individuals.

Me? Not that I'll leave a lot Lord knows, but I give to organizations regularly. What little I have to 'leave' will go to my children.

If someone has more, many do, I don't expect THEM to give it to my kids or anyone else's.

 

[The Rabbi]

Proof????

Nah. It might be that if both have college degrees but you have to distinguish one degree from another.
Sowell in Black Rednecks points out that a black who has a library card as a kid and has X number of books around the house and a white with the same things will end up making about the same amount of money in their careers.

And you'd be wrong.

Perhaps more strikingly, 23 percent of those born into the top quintile that do not get a degree stay at the top as adults, a slightly higher percentage than the number of college graduates from the bottom quintile who manage to climb to the top.

Economic Mobility Project Releases Comprehensive Study of Income Mobility in the U.S. - The Pew Charitable Trusts

Have any proof my statement was wrong?

 

[The Rabbi]

So you do want income redistribution.

No, I want a society where people rise and fall based on the merits of their own work.

Removing incentives to build wealth? Do you have children? Do you wish to leave them, your spouse anything? You going to give it to the indigent instead through your will? I'd say that's your right. Others have done so. But why if it's not your desire, should the government force it?

The government should tax what they need to, to do the things they must do. They don't 'need' to redistribute, that should be up to individuals.

Me? Not that I'll leave a lot Lord knows, but I give to organizations regularly. What little I have to 'leave' will go to my children.

If someone has more, many do, I don't expect THEM to give it to my kids or anyone else's.

Never mind that. If that's what Polk wants then we need to amputate one finger off every promising pianist's hand, because he might get ahead through talent. We need to lobotomize every artist because their native talent rather than hard work might account for success. Every basketball player over 6ft needs to have a little off the bottom, to make it fair.
Wasn't there an Isaac Asimov book or something that had this as its theme?

 

[Polk]

Nah. It might be that if both have college degrees but you have to distinguish one degree from another.
Sowell in Black Rednecks points out that a black who has a library card as a kid and has X number of books around the house and a white with the same things will end up making about the same amount of money in their careers.

And you'd be wrong.

Perhaps more strikingly, 23 percent of those born into the top quintile that do not get a degree stay at the top as adults, a slightly higher percentage than the number of college graduates from the bottom quintile who manage to climb to the top.

Economic Mobility Project Releases Comprehensive Study of Income Mobility in the U.S. - The Pew Charitable Trusts

Have any proof my statement was wrong?

You claimed the numbers were about when both groups have college degrees. It's not.

 

[Polk]

No, I want a society where people rise and fall based on the merits of their own work.

Removing incentives to build wealth? Do you have children? Do you wish to leave them, your spouse anything? You going to give it to the indigent instead through your will? I'd say that's your right. Others have done so. But why if it's not your desire, should the government force it?

The government should tax what they need to, to do the things they must do. They don't 'need' to redistribute, that should be up to individuals.

Me? Not that I'll leave a lot Lord knows, but I give to organizations regularly. What little I have to 'leave' will go to my children.

If someone has more, many do, I don't expect THEM to give it to my kids or anyone else's.

Never mind that. If that's what Polk wants then we need to amputate one finger off every promising pianist's hand, because he might get ahead through talent. We need to lobotomize every artist because their native talent rather than hard work might account for success. Every basketball player over 6ft needs to have a little off the bottom, to make it fair.
Wasn't there an Isaac Asimov book or something that had this as its theme?

You're thinking of a short story by Kurt Vonnegut. Harrison Bergeron. And no, that's not even remotely close to what I'm arguing. In fact, it's much closer to what you're arguing. Your argument is effectively that unless your parent was a famous pianist, you should be allowed to be a pianist no matter how good you are.

 

[The Rabbi]

Removing incentives to build wealth? Do you have children? Do you wish to leave them, your spouse anything? You going to give it to the indigent instead through your will? I'd say that's your right. Others have done so. But why if it's not your desire, should the government force it?

The government should tax what they need to, to do the things they must do. They don't 'need' to redistribute, that should be up to individuals.

Me? Not that I'll leave a lot Lord knows, but I give to organizations regularly. What little I have to 'leave' will go to my children.

If someone has more, many do, I don't expect THEM to give it to my kids or anyone else's.

Never mind that. If that's what Polk wants then we need to amputate one finger off every promising pianist's hand, because he might get ahead through talent. We need to lobotomize every artist because their native talent rather than hard work might account for success. Every basketball player over 6ft needs to have a little off the bottom, to make it fair.
Wasn't there an Isaac Asimov book or something that had this as its theme?

You're thinking of a short story by Kurt Vonnegut. Harrison Bergeron. And no, that's not even remotely close to what I'm arguing. In fact, it's much closer to what you're arguing. Your argument is effectively that unless your parent was a famous pianist, you should be allowed to be a pianist no matter how good you are.

I have absolutely no idea what you're saying, much less how you got that out of anything I wrote.
My position is that government should not concern itself with results, only with rules. So what if a small number of people have a disproportionate amount of wealth, as long as no one is legally barred from competing? Some people are brighter, harder working, more talented, or come from wealthy families. So what?

 

[jreeves]

Never mind that. If that's what Polk wants then we need to amputate one finger off every promising pianist's hand, because he might get ahead through talent. We need to lobotomize every artist because their native talent rather than hard work might account for success. Every basketball player over 6ft needs to have a little off the bottom, to make it fair.
Wasn't there an Isaac Asimov book or something that had this as its theme?

You're thinking of a short story by Kurt Vonnegut. Harrison Bergeron. And no, that's not even remotely close to what I'm arguing. In fact, it's much closer to what you're arguing. Your argument is effectively that unless your parent was a famous pianist, you should be allowed to be a pianist no matter how good you are.

I have absolutely no idea what you're saying, much less how you got that out of anything I wrote.
My position is that government should not concern itself with results, only with rules. So what if a small number of people have a disproportionate amount of wealth, as long as no one is legally barred from competing? Some people are brighter, harder working, more talented, or come from wealthy families. So what?

Come on now, we should tax the shit out of them. We have all these programs, to level the playing field, that we have to pay for.