Zone1 What is Wrong with Inequality?

[AZrailwhale]

No, it's actually not.

Imagine you earn $30,000 a month compared to someone who earns $200,000 a month.

If I put an income tax of 20% on both of these, then the $30,000 will pay $6,000 in tax and the $200,000 will pay $40,0000 in tax

If I put a sales tax of 20% on items instead, the $30,000 will end up paying $6,000 in tax because they're going to spend all their money. The $200,000 might only spend $50,000, and therefore they're going to be paying $10,000 in tax.

In reality if you just had sales tax, it would need to be HIGHER than if you just had income tax, because you make more money from income tax than sales tax. So, a poor person who spends all their money will pay more.

Your argument is a wrong one. You're trying to say that the rich pay so much in income tax, they do, because they earn most of the money. However as a percentage of money that someone has, the rich are paying far, far less.

Also, the more money poor people have, the more they will buy (up to a certain amount), therefore more things will be bought, more things will be bought, meaning money is flowing more.

You are completely wrong. The rich will pay more sales tax because they have more disposable income to buy taxable items with. When I was poor, the only taxable items I bought was one paperback book per pay period. My disposable income was barely enough for that book and one medium Shakeys pizza. Now being comfortably retired I think nothing of spending two to three hundred dollars a week on taxable items.

 

[Woodznutz]

Inequality existed back in the past. The rich had a lot of money, and the poor had almost nothing. Was that good?

We're far more equal now. The problem is that the rich are using their wealth to enrich themselves and impoverish the poor. Why? Supposedly there's an electoral system where the poor can vote for their own interests. But no, the electoral system doesn't really allow that, it forces the poor to vote for two people who are usually out to enrich themselves and do the bidding for the rich.

Time to change the electoral system.

Poor people can get rich. They just have to decide to do it.

 

[IM2]

View attachment 1130893

You have never created or ran a business.

 

[MarcATL]

Inequality existed back in the past. The rich had a lot of money, and the poor had almost nothing. Was that good?

We're far more equal now. The problem is that the rich are using their wealth to enrich themselves and impoverish the poor. Why? Supposedly there's an electoral system where the poor can vote for their own interests. But no, the electoral system doesn't really allow that, it forces the poor to vote for two people who are usually out to enrich themselves and do the bidding for the rich.

Time to change the electoral system.

Basically

 

[IM2]

Yep you have just described the old Soviet Union/ Russia where they had shit for quality and variety and then even less ambition. But the party line was Everyone was taken care of.

Wrong.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

You are completely wrong. The rich will pay more sales tax because they have more disposable income to buy taxable items with. When I was poor, the only taxable items I bought was one paperback book per pay period. My disposable income was barely enough for that book and one medium Shakeys pizza. Now being comfortably retired I think nothing of spending two to three hundred dollars a week on taxable items.

Clinton had the idea of taxing the wealthy with a luxury tax on yachts and planes. What happened was, the wealthy just didn't buy yachts or planes, which impacted the industries that built, serviced, and maintained these luxury items, which impacted the little small businesses the people who worked in the luxury market patronized. The tax was eventually repealed as being too stupid to continue.

 

[Woodznutz]

Inequality is bad because inequality reduces revenues and causes debt and deficits. It can kill an economy if people don't have money to spend on gadgets. Your entire post is stupid, because 1 entrepreneur would not create a problem, but government policy that has denied wealth to certain people has created a problem. It is a problem whereby America has lost more than 51 trillion dollars since 1990 alone.

But since you're a white male, the most protected class in America, it's easy for you to try excusing inequality.

Lots of wealthy minorities here.

 

[IM2]

Lots of wealthy minorities here.

No there aren't.

 

[Woodznutz]

If all the money in circulation was divided equally each person would receive $6,857.

 

[Concerned American]

Sales tax is a tax on the poor,

Sales tax is probably the most fair tax. Everyone pays the same and you have full control of whether you pay it or not. As for the rest of your post's description, we do have a progressive income tax currently. It just doesn't use the same numbers as you do.

 

[cnm]

Speaking of personal wealth as measured in economic Net Worth, there is absolutely no question that "inequality" is increasing beyond any precedent in a free country. The people at the bottom, so to speak, have less than nothing; their Net Worth is below zero, while the wealthiest of us - mainly entrepreneurs and investors - accumulate more and more wealth.

It is axiomatic on the Left that "inequality" is bad. They obviously feel that increasing "inequality" is self-evidently evil, and must be fought. They base whole political campaigns on promises to fight inequality.

What's wrong with inequality? Imagine an entrepreneur who invents a new gadget that millions of people quickly decide that they are willing to pay substantial amounts of money to have, and that entrepreneur is able to accumulate a King's Ransom on the profits from those gadgets.

So what? Why is that a bad thing? Is anyone else made poorer or more wretched by the entrepreneur's accumulation of wealth? Assume he pays millions and millions in all manner of taxes, complying with every relevant tax law.

I think only in the US would equality be measured by bank balance.

 

[cnm]

Sales tax is probably the most fair tax. Everyone pays the same and you have full control of whether you pay it or not.

Sure. You can starve with dignity intact, no doubt.

 

[Woodznutz]

No there aren't.

There are 25 million Asians here, with double the net worth of whites.

 

[Woodznutz]

The rich are the movers and shakers of the economy. Without them there would be no economy. In America most any sane person can become rich.

 

[frigidweirdo]

You are completely wrong. The rich will pay more sales tax because they have more disposable income to buy taxable items with. When I was poor, the only taxable items I bought was one paperback book per pay period. My disposable income was barely enough for that book and one medium Shakeys pizza. Now being comfortably retired I think nothing of spending two to three hundred dollars a week on taxable items.

The problem is your anecdote isn't relevant for a lot of people. Also you're talking about a situation where some things are subject to tax, and other things aren't. The less you have for income tax, the more you need to put it on things like food.

Sales Tax vs. Income Tax: Overview | EBSCO

Sales tax and income tax are two primary methods by which governments generate revenue, each with distinct implications for taxpayers and the economy. Sales tax is levied on transactions, typically as a percentage of the sale price, and is mainly collected by state and local governments. It...

www.ebsco.com

"income taxes tend to extract more money from the rich than from the middle-class or the poor."

 

[frigidweirdo]

Poor people can get rich. They just have to decide to do it.

Oh please. It's as if everyone can go out there and get a $150,000 a year job just like that. As if there are 200 million $150,000 jobs out there.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Basically

Except in the heads of people who have been told by rich people how to think

 

[toobfreak]

What's wrong with inequality?

Not only is there nothing wrong with inequality, it is the natural state of the universe. Everything that exists is unequal.

Only in fictitious leftist fantasy-land is there equality. Outside of liberal minds, there is no equality anywhere. Yet, the left spend their entire lives searching for it and complaining about not having it.

Inequality drives the weather, the currents in the oceans, our economies, and our laws. Inequality creates the stars and drives a chef's palette.

Without inequality, our world would be nothing but an amorphous cloud of completely uniform, unchanging, unmoving nothingness.

 

[fncceo]

Was that good?

Absolutely.

 

[alang1216]

Speaking of personal wealth as measured in economic Net Worth, there is absolutely no question that "inequality" is increasing beyond any precedent in a free country. The people at the bottom, so to speak, have less than nothing; their Net Worth is below zero, while the wealthiest of us - mainly entrepreneurs and investors - accumulate more and more wealth.

It is axiomatic on the Left that "inequality" is bad. They obviously feel that increasing "inequality" is self-evidently evil, and must be fought. They base whole political campaigns on promises to fight inequality.

What's wrong with inequality? Imagine an entrepreneur who invents a new gadget that millions of people quickly decide that they are willing to pay substantial amounts of money to have, and that entrepreneur is able to accumulate a King's Ransom on the profits from those gadgets.

So what? Why is that a bad thing? Is anyone else made poorer or more wretched by the entrepreneur's accumulation of wealth? Assume he pays millions and millions in all manner of taxes, complying with every relevant tax law.

I think you're very wrong, the wealthiest of us are NOT entrepreneurs and investors they are people and families who have inherited wealth from those first-generation entrepreneurs and investors. They did nothing to earn their wealth but they have opportunities the rest of us never get. Would Trump be president if his father was able to pass on his business and wealth to him? He is just a good example but families like the Bushes and the Kennedys essentially occupy an upper class nobility. It is that 2nd and 3rd generation wealth I don't like.