Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The GINI coefficient is based on data that is pretax and doesn't count gov't transfer payments such as SS and medicare and the like.
I'm not going to say that income inequality isn't an issue, but I do think it's overblown by politicians who want to build support for raising taxes and redistributing wealth. They go for short term policies that get them re-elected rather than long term solutions that address the roots of the issue.
Our society depends on the gini coefficient to be within a range where the supply side (basically the investment classes) has enough money to invest AND the demand side (basically the working classes) has enough money to BUY what the SUPPLY side makes.
The GINI coefficient is based on data that is pretax and doesn't count gov't transfer payments such as SS and medicare and the like. So, rich guys income is not adjusted for the taxes they pay and the data for the low income people doesn't reflect the money and benefits they get from the gov't.
Which is not to say there isn't any income inequality, of course there is. But it is somewhat overstated. They changed the way they collected data for the GINI in 1993, so the results are somewhat skewed for data before then compared to after. And the data collection in one country may not be the same as in another, so comparing 2 countries may not be an exact indication o actual inequality. And in many cases, the total amount of income is not that great, so the inequality is less if only because there's less wealth to accumulate in that country.
I'm not going to say that income inequality isn't an issue, but I do think it's overblown by politicians who want to build support for raising taxes and redistributing wealth. They go for short term policies that get them re-elected rather than long term solutions that address the roots of the issue.
Income in the United States is counted before benefits, while in France it is counted after benefits, which may lead the United States to appear somewhat more unequal vis-a-vis France.
Wiseacre said:Unwise tax policies, what would that be? You know why Buffet pays a lower tax rate than his secretary? It's cuz most of his income is capital gains and dividends, which is taxed at 15%. I see that Obama wants to raise that up to about 23% in total, does anybody really think you can do that without economic consequences?
If you equate capital gains income with ordinary personal income for tax purposes, you are in effect disincentivizing investments here in the US. I can't say this often enough, we live in a global economy, and if you do not incentivize investments here then all that money WILL flow elsewhere. Make no mistake, there IS an economic consequence if you do that.
If you equate capital gains income with ordinary personal income for tax purposes, you are in effect disincentivizing investments here in the US. I can't say this often enough, we live in a global economy, and if you do not incentivize investments here then all that money WILL flow elsewhere. Make no mistake, there IS an economic consequence if you do that.
Yes, we get it. That's why nobody in this thread has proposed the high tax rates of the Eisenhower-Nixon years. But, I'm sorry, we disagree on the level of optimum taxation. I think we were very close to that in the Clinton years.
Yes, we get it. That's why nobody in this thread has proposed the high tax rates of the Eisenhower-Nixon years.
Yes, we get it. That's why nobody in this thread has proposed the high tax rates of the Eisenhower-Nixon years.
Very well, then let me go on record as doing exactly that. The idea of high taxes on the rich as a disincentive to investment is false, and the fact that the U.S. economy in the Eisenhower-Nixon years outperformed the post-Reagan economy in terms of per-capita economic growth by more than two to one shows it.
As long as we make investments in real wealth creation (that is, the production of goods and services) fully deductible, a very high top marginal tax rate spurs investment rather than suppressing it. That's because investment in job-creating activity becomes, in effect, a tax shelter. But a highly desirable one.
Yes, we get it. That's why nobody in this thread has proposed the high tax rates of the Eisenhower-Nixon years.
Very well, then let me go on record as doing exactly that. The idea of high taxes on the rich as a disincentive to investment is false, and the fact that the U.S. economy in the Eisenhower-Nixon years outperformed the post-Reagan economy in terms of per-capita economic growth by more than two to one shows it.
As long as we make investments in real wealth creation (that is, the production of goods and services) fully deductible, a very high top marginal tax rate spurs investment rather than suppressing it. That's because investment in job-creating activity becomes, in effect, a tax shelter. But a highly desirable one.
Weren't the marginal tax rates back in the 50's upwards of 90%? LOL, you really think you can raise taxes that much in today's global economy with no blowback? You don't think everybody and his brother will try to find all sorts of ways to park or invest their money offshore, and that the people who are rich enough to do so will leave this country in droves?
The purpose of rate increases is fairness, not revenue. During the '08 primary debates Obama was asked why he wanted tax rate hikes if they lowered revenue, and his answer was "it's a question of fairness." Historically revenue rises after rate cuts and falls with rate hikes....a 5-10% increase on the top rate would be quite reasonable, and needed to pay down the deficit.
murka will be blue soon.All the rich(and corporations) will leave and you'll all be broke. It's called duh fall of duh Mpyre.
" Nevertheless, a 5-10% increase on the top rate would be quite reasonable, and needed to pay down the deficit. "
If we were really paying down the debt I'd go along with this. But we all know that isn't the case, lib/dems raise taxes for one reason and one reason only - to spend more money. When the gov't wastes as much money as they are on bullshit like Solyndra and high speed rail, and refuse to take money out of that area to pay for FEMA, that's when I know beyond doubt that debt/deficits are not their focus. When we have a 1.5 trillion deficit and you get maybe 70 billion in new revenue from raising taxes and you squawk like a plucked chicken, that's when I know you have no interest in paying down the debt.