Income Inequality: Another Aspect

[PoliticalChic]

Wish the rich were paying my income taxes, property taxes, water sewer, sales, car tags .....

Oh I'm supposed to feel sorry for them cause they pay so much. Not.

They don't pay for your Baskin-Robbins, either.

The OP is about income taxes, dope.

 

[PoliticalChic]

For those too lazy to read the link.....there is a reason for a link.....

The top 20% pay 92.9% of all taxes collected.
The next 20% of income earners paid 13.3% of same.

I don't trust you to do the addition....so here is the total: 106.2%...which takes into account the government transfer-payments to the bottom two groups.



Welcome to "reality."

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Monopolies are the result of government. Government being a monopoly itself and granting other entities such privilege. One would be hard pressed to find an example of monopoly that wasn't sponsored by the largest monopoly in a given domain.

And I would press you to lay examples of mises "ill conveived" "rantings", but i have strong doubts that you've actually read any Mises in order to make first hand critiques about his work.

The only monopoly the government has is the monetary system. It fits the traditional analysis of monopoly.

I've read Human Action at least three times (I have a copy on my Kindle), and I'm very knowledgeable about von Mises, Rothbard, Menger, Seglin, etc. The amount of unsubstantiated assumptions in Human Action are beyond the pale.

Hardly. The State have the monopoly on the use of force and violence as well. Anyone found using such tactics without state sponsorship can be sure to have it used against them by the state. And that is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the monopoly power of the state.

Speaking of unsubstantiated assumptions/claims.....

 

[Kimura]

Monopolies are the result of government. Government being a monopoly itself and granting other entities such privilege. One would be hard pressed to find an example of monopoly that wasn't sponsored by the largest monopoly in a given domain.

And I would press you to lay examples of mises "ill conveived" "rantings", but i have strong doubts that you've actually read any Mises in order to make first hand critiques about his work.

The only monopoly the government has is the monetary system. It fits the traditional analysis of monopoly.

I've read Human Action at least three times (I have a copy on my Kindle), and I'm very knowledgeable about von Mises, Rothbard, Menger, Seglin, etc. The amount of unsubstantiated assumptions in Human Action are beyond the pale.

Hardly. The State have the monopoly on the use of force and violence as well. Anyone found using such tactics without state sponsorship can be sure to have it used against them by the state. And that is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the monopoly power of the state.

Speaking of unsubstantiated assumptions/claims.....

A monopoly on violence isn't the same as a monopoly. We have to differentiate between monopolies in the general economy where real goods and services are provided by one firm. The state doesn't have a monopoly on weapons or arms for that matter. It's impossible for the state to prevent or suppress all types of violence in society.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Correct, as the old understanding of monopoly goes...


Monopoly: The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics | Library of Economics and Liberty

Even today, most important enduring monopolies or near monopolies in the United States rest on government policies. The government’s support is responsible for fixing agricultural prices above competitive levels, for the exclusive ownership of cable television operating systems in most markets, for the exclusive franchises of public utilities and radio and TV channels, for the single postal service—the list goes on and on. Monopolies that exist independent of government support are likely to be due to smallness of markets (the only druggist in town) or to rest on temporary leadership in innovation (the Aluminum Company of America until World War II).

The use of force and violence as a monopoly power gives the State the opportunity to create monopolies. They are government sponsored. by and large. That's why I use it as the tip of the iceberg. Because from there, all types of monopolistic authority exists in the entire spectrum of liberty. Which is commonly, and yet to me erroneously, separated into compartmental sectors.

usually the facade of competition is maintained by incorporating a big 3 or 4 conglomerate into the "monopoly" fold of a given State Pet sector.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I do not know that we can solely place value judgments on labor prices by nagivating taxation alone. There are a plethroa of variables to consider when consdiering labor vs. capital venture.

To my understanding, a big portion of the chasm can be identified through few indicators.

1) Inflation, regulation and taxation
2) Supply and demand in the labor force
3) Technology

the first one the OP touches on. While it is certainly true that "the rich" pay a hefty tax burden compared to other income levels in society, they also endure government regulation (another tax essentially) on production and overhead, as well as the effects of consistent monetary inflation, which always favors "the rich". And in general leads to resource misallocation, including labor forces.

We are currently at a 35 year low in labor force participation. But this isn't due to an aggregate rise in wealth (things such as the need for only one household income) Instead, it is the result of the destruction of real wealth and investment, and replaced with speculative gambling and legislative covenance in industries. Along with automation replacing the need to expend on workforce skill upgrades. Which is the third area.

Stagnated wages is a byproduct of these things, along with other variables in labor market forces.

I'm gonna have to disagree with you, Take......

....the motto on the t-shirt in your avi should be item#1 on the list you provided.


I'll bet you've commented on this yourself.....too often economics is viewed through a static prism, when it should be via a dynamic one.

 

[PoliticalChic]

PC - you might find this useful in research of the subject. Taking it back to the 1800s in labor force and up until today.

http://www.nber.org/chapters/c2486.pdf

That's a lot to study....but I'll try.



I wonder if you saw this:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/330022-america-s-most-prominent-marxist-economist.html

 

[Geaux4it]

Income Inequality?

As to compared to what?

There is no such thing.

Work harder, and reap the benefits

-Geaux

 

[TakeAStepBack]

I do not know that we can solely place value judgments on labor prices by nagivating taxation alone. There are a plethroa of variables to consider when consdiering labor vs. capital venture.

To my understanding, a big portion of the chasm can be identified through few indicators.

1) Inflation, regulation and taxation
2) Supply and demand in the labor force
3) Technology

the first one the OP touches on. While it is certainly true that "the rich" pay a hefty tax burden compared to other income levels in society, they also endure government regulation (another tax essentially) on production and overhead, as well as the effects of consistent monetary inflation, which always favors "the rich". And in general leads to resource misallocation, including labor forces.

We are currently at a 35 year low in labor force participation. But this isn't due to an aggregate rise in wealth (things such as the need for only one household income) Instead, it is the result of the destruction of real wealth and investment, and replaced with speculative gambling and legislative covenance in industries. Along with automation replacing the need to expend on workforce skill upgrades. Which is the third area.

Stagnated wages is a byproduct of these things, along with other variables in labor market forces.

I'm gonna have to disagree with you, Take......

....the motto on the t-shirt in your avi should be item#1 on the list you provided.


I'll bet you've commented on this yourself.....too often economics is viewed through a static prism, when it should be via a dynamic one.

Well, I'm at a loss. Considering I agreed with and tried to re-enforce and provide more depth to a premise you initiated.

 

[f252863]

I’d like to add a caveat: the rich aren’t more productive like some people say. My problem is with the ridiculous statement that the wealthy are more productive then everyone else and we should genuflect to the owners of capital.

Take a look at the Forbes 400 of the wealthiest Americans. The MAJORITY owe their massive wealth to inheritance, speculation, real estate and stock investments. They don’t produce anything. All they do is collect rents off of their assets. They haven’t contributed any capital to the economy.

Are we saying that some landlord collecting rents off of a portfolio in NYC, Los Angeles, Seattle or Chicago is more productive than the engineer, pharmacist, plumber, electrician or garbage man? Is some equities guru more productive than school teachers or firemen? Are they more important than RNs who take care of the sick or the guy fixing our highways?

The OP has it backwards. We are taking money away from the productive folks, just not the people the OP thinks are productive. Any type of budget cuts, education, Medicare, SS, etc are the fiscal equivalent of a tax increase since $$$$ is being taken away from the most productive in our society. A deficit reduction is the fiscal equivalent of a tax increase since both remove income from the economy.

I’m not knocking the “rich” or those who made their fortunes adding to our supply of real goods and services. These are things which improve our standard of living. It’s just time to stop with this delusional belief that people who have a ton of $$$$ are somehow more important or productive than citizens who have less $$$$.

We should tax economic rent (profits from non-productive sources) as a disincentive. We should incentivize production/productive investment as opposed to taxing workers and incomes while giving rent extractors an exemption. The breakdown of capitalism has handed over our political process to a financial oligarchy.

How does renting property not qualify as a real service? If we didn't have landlords people who couldn't afford to buy homes would be living in the streets.

 

[oldfart]

I’d like to add a caveat: the rich aren’t more productive like some people say. My problem is with the ridiculous statement that the wealthy are more productive then everyone else and we should genuflect to the owners of capital.

Take a look at the Forbes 400 of the wealthiest Americans. The MAJORITY owe their massive wealth to inheritance, speculation, real estate and stock investments. They don’t produce anything. All they do is collect rents off of their assets. They haven’t contributed any capital to the economy.

Are we saying that some landlord collecting rents off of a portfolio in NYC, Los Angeles, Seattle or Chicago is more productive than the engineer, pharmacist, plumber, electrician or garbage man? Is some equities guru more productive than school teachers or firemen? Are they more important than RNs who take care of the sick or the guy fixing our highways?

The OP has it backwards. We are taking money away from the productive folks, just not the people the OP thinks are productive. Any type of budget cuts, education, Medicare, SS, etc are the fiscal equivalent of a tax increase since $$$$ is being taken away from the most productive in our society. A deficit reduction is the fiscal equivalent of a tax increase since both remove income from the economy.

I’m not knocking the “rich” or those who made their fortunes adding to our supply of real goods and services. These are things which improve our standard of living. It’s just time to stop with this delusional belief that people who have a ton of $$$$ are somehow more important or productive than citizens who have less $$$$.

We should tax economic rent (profits from non-productive sources) as a disincentive. We should incentivize production/productive investment as opposed to taxing workers and incomes while giving rent extractors an exemption. The breakdown of capitalism has handed over our political process to a financial oligarchy.

How does renting property not qualify as a real service? If we didn't have landlords people who couldn't afford to buy homes would be living in the streets.

Your answer is the phrase I bolded above. If you don't know what economic rent and rent-seeking behavior mean, look up David Ricardo. We had a pretty thorough string on this a couple of months ago as well.

 

[f252863]

I just looked it up:

"In public choice theory, rent-seeking is an attempt to obtain economic rent, (i.e., the portion of income paid to a factor of production in excess of that which is needed to keep it employed in its current use), by manipulating the social or political environment in which economic activities occur, rather than by creating new wealth. One example is spending money on political lobbying in order to be given a share of wealth that has already been created. A famous example of rent-seeking is the limiting of access to lucrative occupations, as by medieval guilds or modern state certifications and licensures. People accused of rent-seeking typically argue that they are indeed creating new wealth (or preventing the reduction of old wealth) by improving quality controls, guaranteeing that charlatans do not prey on a gullible public, and preventing bubbles."

One problem here. This is not a description of capitalism, this is crony capitalism, e.g., a politically controlled market.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I do not know that we can solely place value judgments on labor prices by nagivating taxation alone. There are a plethroa of variables to consider when consdiering labor vs. capital venture.

To my understanding, a big portion of the chasm can be identified through few indicators.

1) Inflation, regulation and taxation
2) Supply and demand in the labor force
3) Technology

the first one the OP touches on. While it is certainly true that "the rich" pay a hefty tax burden compared to other income levels in society, they also endure government regulation (another tax essentially) on production and overhead, as well as the effects of consistent monetary inflation, which always favors "the rich". And in general leads to resource misallocation, including labor forces.

We are currently at a 35 year low in labor force participation. But this isn't due to an aggregate rise in wealth (things such as the need for only one household income) Instead, it is the result of the destruction of real wealth and investment, and replaced with speculative gambling and legislative covenance in industries. Along with automation replacing the need to expend on workforce skill upgrades. Which is the third area.

Stagnated wages is a byproduct of these things, along with other variables in labor market forces.

I'm gonna have to disagree with you, Take......

....the motto on the t-shirt in your avi should be item#1 on the list you provided.


I'll bet you've commented on this yourself.....too often economics is viewed through a static prism, when it should be via a dynamic one.

Well, I'm at a loss. Considering I agreed with and tried to re-enforce and provide more depth to a premise you initiated.

I'm not disagreeing with you, simply making the point that economic theory that does not include the fact that human activity that results from policy changes is flawed.

It must attempt to be more like calculus, and account for changes that occur during the outcomes.


e.g., raise the rent, some people move out.....and it is a mistake to count future rents, or taxes, based on current situations.