World's 85 richest have same wealth as 3.5 BILLION poorest

[achilles28]

Uh, no. The last thing we need is a hyperactive Congress, passing more laws and killing more freedoms than they do now. And by its nature (and design, fortunately), the government will never be a super efficient machine. The economy does better in times of gridlock, and silly, arbitrary measures (the Top "XX" have the same wealth as the bottom "XX") aren't helpful at all.

See this link (which I posted earlier) to see similar statements debunked.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/01/21/fact-free_liberals_121302.html

This.

Congressional gridlock is the best we can hope for in times where lawmakers hastily eviscerate every single right we have, while jacking taxes and regulation.

 

[achilles28]

Some Americans are intelligent... most of us aren't. Sheesh, only about 30% of registered Repubs voted in 2012. If 50% had voted, perhaps we'd be rid of Odumbo today...

What to do?.... you know politicians aren't going to take any action until "they have no choice and we're in the middle of a crisis". Messing with (reducing) entitlements, SS, and Medicare are a political no-no. The party deemed responsible for the reductions will surely get wiped out in the next election. How smart is THAT? Anyone with half-a-brain and who has paid attention KNOWs significant reductions are necessary.

Too many grasshoppers, not enough ants.

I hear you. But it's time to act now. Light a fire under the asses of collective america.

 

[badnewsbear]

Guess what....

wait for it....



Income inequality today is the result of Reaganomics. Since Reagan's policies went into affect in the 80s, wealth concentration at the top has tripled. Wealth concentration at the top was at an all time low before Reagan took office. Also in an unrelated event, national debt tripled under Reagan.


In conclusion, never vote for a republican. Republicans plunder from the masses.

 

[achilles28]

It's not one party or the other. That's the mindset of partisan retards.

It's both - mainstream democrat and republican. They both destroyed America.

 

[piezoe]

You don't want to limit how much money people can make. That also stagnates the economy, although there is evidence that very high tax rates for extreme income (>$1M a year) don't adversely deter innovation.

The problem is thus:

You don't want very high tax rates because the government is aweful in general in getting people to want to better themselves. They use the money taken in poorly.

You don't want enourmous inequality because amazing huge amounts of wealth, as you point out, becomes just a selling game to get more of it. Central banks then are forced to print more money, leading eventually to high inflation.

So, imo, one key is for government to own and promote infrastructure of any kind. For example, the government should own or at least compete with corporations for high speed internet access. It should cost almost nothing to get on the internet and have a high speed connection. Same thing with the interstate highway system. Mobility and access to information should cost almost nothing.

The problem with wealth creation is that it is misunderstood. People want to be rich which they equate with wealth, when what they should be aiming for is to be happy at their work. This bottom up approach works much better than just trying to create dull employment. As a government, if all you do is want to create jobs for corporations, you get a dull bunch of people that all they do is either: a) go to work and do nothing else, or b) are extremely poor. "Job" creation looks good on paper, but it leads to a dysfunctional society if the work is not suited to the person, which is the case in about 80% of the work force.

So, the question is, how do you encourage people to find their professional calling, and then, how do you create an economy that supports just about any conceivable job so that people can sustain themselves doing what they love.

That Monet, Mozart, etc died broke is the wrong answer. Having 3.5 BILLION people make $1 a day is the wrong answer.

Nitro, I've just now read your entire post above. It is difficult to find much to disagree with. However that said, I think you will not find much support in econometrics for this:

"You don't want to limit how much money people can make. That also stagnates the economy, although there is evidence that very high tax rates for extreme income (>$1M a year) don't adversely deter innovation."

Naturally, the first sentence agrees with our capitalist sensibilities. The next sentence, however, does not ring true in practice. There is ample evidence to not just suggest, but prove, that total wealth of an economy mostly concentrated among a very small fraction of a nation's population leads to, as you put it "stagnation", of the economy. Isn't it logical then to assume that were you to limit wealth to some reasonably high value there would be no measurable adverse effect on the overall economy.

No one in their right mind would want to limit how much people can make , but paradoxically that may be precisely the thing to do if the goal is to achieve the most dynamic economy possible with the greatest rate of innovation, and most importantly, the highest degree of class mobility.

All available evidence suggests that an extremely progressive income tax achieves better mobility and a more dynamic economy than does a regressive tax structure, whereby the less one makes the greater percentage of their total income is paid in taxes. In the U.S. the tax structure of the early Reagan economy became unintentionally regressive. We essentially had, at that time, a flat tax, yet the favorable treatment of unearned income was retained. This was achieved
by raising the tax rate of the lowest bracket to 17% from 15% and lowering the top rate dramatically to 27%; thus creating an income tax structure in which there was only ten percent difference between the highest and lowest marginal rates. We have moved away from that, but probably not far enough. The four percent increase in the top rate recently proposed made logical sense based on what we know now as the regressive and damaging effect of eliminating the progressive nature of our U.S. income tax structure.

If we are to retain our present method of taxing income -- and certainly many good arguments can be made for jettisoning it and going to something else entirely-- than we most certainly should pay attention to the econometric evidence and adjust rates so that they are progressive rather than neutral, or worse yet, regressive. The health of our economy depends on this.

Arthur Laffer drew that now famous napkin graph -- the idea was by no means original with him. Unfortunately he erred when guessing we might be on the down slope, when in fact we were still very much on the up slope. There is a similar graph that can be drawn with class mobility, rather than revenue, on the y-axis and the maximum marginal tax rate on the x-axis. But that curve may be monotonic. It is of great importance to understand where the Country's current position on that graph lies. How far below the upper bound is it?

In your poll results, I am rather shocked to see how many apparent devotees of Ayn Rand we have posting on ET. If the past 30 years have taught us anything, they have taught us that supply-side, trickle down economics is silly nonsense. You can't help the poor and the middle class by making the rich richer!

 

[Money Trust]

It's not one party or the other. That's the mindset of partisan retards.

It's both - mainstream democrat and republican. They both destroyed America.

Pretty much. You can look through every presidential term each party served and find policies that led to the mess that we are in today.

 

[Optionpro007]

Not long ago I either read or heard a story, but I can't remember exactly where unfortunately, if not I would link it.

At any rate the story goes like this. Three men stranded on an island have not much to survive except some vegetation and rain water. One of them, decides to find a way to fish with whatever tools he can find. After many trial and error attempts he does put together a method and discovers a new way to fish.

Does his discovery make the other two men poor?

 

[failed_trad3r]

Guess what....

wait for it....



Income inequality today is the result of Reaganomics. Since Reagan's policies went into affect in the 80s, wealth concentration at the top has tripled. Wealth concentration at the top was at an all time low before Reagan took office. Also in an unrelated event, national debt tripled under Reagan.


In conclusion, never vote for a republican. Republicans plunder from the masses.

people dont vote republican because they like facts. they vote republicans because they want to be part of a group that find gays yucky and loves guns.

i mean these facts are public and if the markets were efficient then everybody would know republicans are bigger spenders than democrats. I mean a simple government debt on y-axis and time on x-axis then it is easy to see republicans have severely outspent democrats.

 

[failed_trad3r]

It's not one party or the other. That's the mindset of partisan retards.

It's both - mainstream democrat and republican. They both destroyed America.

This is true, both parties are wasteful spenders, but the fact of the matter is most republican voters believe the oppositie. they believe democrats are more wasteful spenders than republicans, when facts are completely the opposite.

If people cannot even grasp this fact then they certainly are not even gonna grasp the fact both parties are wasteful spenders.

 

[jem]

Personal income taxes crush GDP cement in classes and promote haves and have nots.

piezoe, you could never hope to prove that leftist baloney. The only thing an progressive tax structure like the one you suggest could do is lower the standard of living of everybody.

Evidence: eastern block. Europe until they became less socialist. France today. Income taxes destroy GDP. The president's own advisor Romer wrote a paper on this.

Additionally what right does govt have to steal an man's earnings or wealth.
The govt spends trillions a year. A trillion in deficit. The Federal Reserve bank probably spreads multi trilions more around the world. It makes no economic sense to steal a mans earnings when you can print more anyway. Income taxes do far more harm to the individual than they do to benefit the state. They are designed to cement in cronies. They stop potential competition from forming the capital.

The income tax system is the device that creates an unfair society. It is designed to cement in a lack of mobility. It is designed to steal a family's wealth within 2 generations.


You want a fair society. You want a society with a mobile class structure. You want to end the income tax.

When govt spends an extra trillion a year... it makes far more sense to let is spend a little more and end income taxes. There would be far more opportunity for all.

Personal income taxes crush GDP cement in classes and promote haves and have nots.


Income inequality and lack of fairness goes up with bigger govt... cronies.

Nitro, I've just now read your entire post above. It is difficult to find much to disagree with. However that said, I think you will not find much support in econometrics for this:

"You don't want to limit how much money people can make. That also stagnates the economy, although there is evidence that very high tax rates for extreme income (>$1M a year) don't adversely deter innovation."

Naturally, the first sentence agrees with our capitalist sensibilities. The next sentence, however, does not ring true in practice. There is ample evidence to not just suggest, but prove, that total wealth of an economy mostly concentrated among a very small fraction of a nation's population leads to, as you put it "stagnation", of the economy. Isn't it logical then to assume that were you to limit wealth to some reasonably high value there would be no measurable adverse effect on the overall economy.

No one in their right mind would want to limit how much people can make , but paradoxically that may be precisely the thing to do if the goal is to achieve the most dynamic economy possible with the greatest rate of innovation, and most importantly, the highest degree of class mobility.

All available evidence suggests that an extremely progressive income tax achieves better mobility and a more dynamic economy than does a regressive tax structure, whereby the less one makes the greater percentage of their total income is paid in taxes. In the U.S. the tax structure of the early Reagan economy became unintentionally regressive. We essentially had, at that time, a flat tax, yet the favorable treatment of unearned income was retained. This was achieved
by raising the tax rate of the lowest bracket to 17% from 15% and lowering the top rate dramatically to 27%; thus creating an income tax structure in which there was only ten percent difference between the highest and lowest marginal rates. We have moved away from that, but probably not far enough. The four percent increase in the top rate recently proposed made logical sense based on what we know now as the regressive and damaging effect of eliminating the progressive nature of our U.S. income tax structure.

If we are to retain our present method of taxing income -- and certainly many good arguments can be made for jettisoning it and going to something else entirely-- than we most certainly should pay attention to the econometric evidence and adjust rates so that they are progressive rather than neutral, or worse yet, regressive. The health of our economy depends on this.

Arthur Laffer drew that now famous napkin graph -- the idea was by no means original with him. Unfortunately he erred when guessing we might be on the down slope, when in fact we were still very much on the up slope. There is a similar graph that can be drawn with class mobility, rather than revenue, on the y-axis and the maximum marginal tax rate on the x-axis. But that curve may be monotonic. It is of great importance to understand where the Country's current position on that graph lies. How far below the upper bound is it?

In your poll results, I am rather shocked to see how many apparent devotees of Ayn Rand we have posting on ET. If the past 30 years have taught us anything, they have taught us that supply-side, trickle down economics is silly nonsense. You can't help the poor and the middle class by making the rich richer!