U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-24-2014, 03:59 PM
 
12,704 posts, read 9,959,474 times
Reputation: 9515

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by I_Like_Spam View Post
Once you get marginal rates above a reasonable rate like 25%, you're going to see a slack off in people wanting to produce more. It doesn't have to get all the way to 100%.

During the roaring 20's, the marginal tax rate was at the 25% level with Harding and Coolidge. President Hoover raised it to 63% or so, and the financial panic of 1929 swirled out of control in the unproductive, low income 1930's. We had a lot of equality in the 30's, but it wasn't good.
Yes, but how do you determine that the peak of the Laffer Curve is at such a low level? The top marginal rate has been as high as 90% in times past and in the not too distant past was 70% even excluding attempts to pay down war debt, did people stop working at that point then?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-24-2014, 04:19 PM
 
11,780 posts, read 8,586,532 times
Reputation: 3425
Quote:
Originally Posted by I_Like_Spam View Post
Once you get marginal rates above a reasonable rate like 25%, you're going to see a slack off in people wanting to produce more. It doesn't have to get all the way to 100%.

During the roaring 20's, the marginal tax rate was at the 25% level with Harding and Coolidge. President Hoover raised it to 63% or so, and the financial panic of 1929 swirled out of control in the unproductive, low income 1930's. We had a lot of equality in the 30's, but it wasn't good.
If that were true the GDP would have shrank or at least slowed down during periods of high taxation.

http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42111.pdf

Historical data on labor participation rates and average hours worked compared to tax rates indicate little relationship with either top marginal rates or average marginal rates on labor income. Relationships between tax rates and savings appear positively correlated (that is, lower savings are consistent with lower, not higher, tax rates), although this relationship may not be causal. Similarly, during historical periods, slower growth periods have generally been associated with lower, not higher, tax rates.



Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-24-2014, 04:31 PM
 
26,075 posts, read 28,473,598 times
Reputation: 24783
Quote:
Originally Posted by Opin_Yunated View Post
Don't say it's not a problem in the United States, because it is.

Let's discuss some policy approaches to alleviating the gross income and wealth inequality. For starters, income inequality and wealth inequality are different. Also, inequality is natural. The goal is to create a system where it isn't a drag on the economy and poverty can be minimized. Excessive inequality is a drag on the economy, which is a fact..
First let me say that I think the entire premise of policy initiatives is faulty. The government is so corrupt, I really don't think it's a good idea for anyone to wait around to expect it to fix anything. The left wants more handouts in various forms to the poor & middle class to bribe people to vote for them. The right subsidizes crony capitalism (actually they all subsidize crony capitalism in varying degrees). Few on either side seem interested in having truly free and competitive markets for all that would lower the overall cost of living.

The true parasites in our economy span the socioeconomic spectrum, as is explained very well here:

The Class Warfare We Need » AEI

And as far as inequality being a drag on the economy. That is NOT AN UNDISPUTED FACT. Even liberal economists question it, including Obama's top economist, Jason Furman, as well as liberal economist Paul Krugman:

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/201...=tw-share&_r=1

Obama’s Top Economist Questions Thomas Piketty’s Inequality Claims - Real Time Economics - WSJ

About the only thing I agree with you on is banking reform. Actually, I'd call it credit reform. It absolutely should be more difficult for people to borrow money. It's now been proven that the majority of people will borrow themselves into oblivion.

And by the same token, we should make it easier and more convenient to save. 401K type plans should be UNIVERSAL, and automatic. Employers should be required to set them up and at least 3% should be taken out of a person's check automatically and put into an age appropriate mix of indexed stocks and bonds that gets more conservative over time. The percentage should also automatically go up by 1% every time a person gets a raise until they get up to 10%. There should be an opt out feature, but it should be made difficult to do. And borrowing against 401ks etc. shouldn't be allowed. Hardship withdrawals should be allowed but be few and far between.


As CD poster Mr. Rational has said, we have too many warm bodies competing for the same few jobs. I would hesitate to have a national policy in legal form, but I do think everything possible should be done to discourage single parenthood as kids from single parent families disproportionately end up with more problems in life (higher unemployment, behavioral problems, teen pregnancy, jail, lower life expectancy). Single parenthood is a disaster for kids and single parents alike. Once again, even liberal researchers are saying a 41% out of wedlock birth rate is not sustainable and not good for society, both economically and in a lot of other ways:

20 years later, it turns out Dan Quayle was right about Murphy Brown and unmarried moms - The Washington Post

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...makes_two.html

Some researchers identify out-of-wedlock births as the chief cause for the increasing stratification and inequality of American life, the first step that casts children into an ever more rigid caste system. Studies have found that children born to single mothers are vastly more likely to be poor, have behavioral and psychological problems, drop out of high school, and themselves go on to have out-of-wedlock children.

As far as health care goes, I would like to see a true free market health care system....which we have not had in 70 years. A true free market health care system would give people real choices and make health care costs transparent, so that people could easily comparison shop for care, which is difficult or impossible to do now. This book by Harvard economist Regina Herzlinger is a good read on the subject:

Who Killed Health Care?: America's $2 Trillion Medical Problem - and the Consumer-Driven Cure: Regina Herzlinger: 9780071487801: Amazon.com: Books

And to go along with health care reform, we also need food reform. I would start with not allowing people to buy soda, candy & other junk food with food stamps. And the school lunch programs also need to be reformed as well.

I generally also agree with reducing or eliminating agricultural subsidies, although I am not holding my breath. But clearly the way we do agriculture does not serve the people.

Incentivizing healthier diets of fresh fruits & vegetables over diets of meat heavy & processed foods will reduce health care costs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-24-2014, 05:40 PM
 
2,485 posts, read 1,844,525 times
Reputation: 2140
Quote:
Originally Posted by mysticaltyger View Post
First let me say that I think the entire premise of policy initiatives is faulty. The government is so corrupt, I really don't think it's a good idea for anyone to wait around to expect it to fix anything. The left wants more handouts in various forms to the poor & middle class to bribe people to vote for them. The right subsidizes crony capitalism (actually they all subsidize crony capitalism in varying degrees). Few on either side seem interested in having truly free and competitive markets for all that would lower the overall cost of living.

The true parasites in our economy span the socioeconomic spectrum, as is explained very well here:

The Class Warfare We Need » AEI

And as far as inequality being a drag on the economy. That is NOT AN UNDISPUTED FACT. Even liberal economists question it, including Obama's top economist, Jason Furman, as well as liberal economist Paul Krugman:

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/201...=tw-share&_r=1

Obama’s Top Economist Questions Thomas Piketty’s Inequality Claims - Real Time Economics - WSJ

About the only thing I agree with you on is banking reform. Actually, I'd call it credit reform. It absolutely should be more difficult for people to borrow money. It's now been proven that the majority of people will borrow themselves into oblivion.

And by the same token, we should make it easier and more convenient to save. 401K type plans should be UNIVERSAL, and automatic. Employers should be required to set them up and at least 3% should be taken out of a person's check automatically and put into an age appropriate mix of indexed stocks and bonds that gets more conservative over time. The percentage should also automatically go up by 1% every time a person gets a raise until they get up to 10%. There should be an opt out feature, but it should be made difficult to do. And borrowing against 401ks etc. shouldn't be allowed. Hardship withdrawals should be allowed but be few and far between.


As CD poster Mr. Rational has said, we have too many warm bodies competing for the same few jobs. I would hesitate to have a national policy in legal form, but I do think everything possible should be done to discourage single parenthood as kids from single parent families disproportionately end up with more problems in life (higher unemployment, behavioral problems, teen pregnancy, jail, lower life expectancy). Single parenthood is a disaster for kids and single parents alike. Once again, even liberal researchers are saying a 41% out of wedlock birth rate is not sustainable and not good for society, both economically and in a lot of other ways:

20 years later, it turns out Dan Quayle was right about Murphy Brown and unmarried moms - The Washington Post

Forget Juno. Out-of-wedlock births are a national catastrophe.

Some researchers identify out-of-wedlock births as the chief cause for the increasing stratification and inequality of American life, the first step that casts children into an ever more rigid caste system. Studies have found that children born to single mothers are vastly more likely to be poor, have behavioral and psychological problems, drop out of high school, and themselves go on to have out-of-wedlock children.

As far as health care goes, I would like to see a true free market health care system....which we have not had in 70 years. A true free market health care system would give people real choices and make health care costs transparent, so that people could easily comparison shop for care, which is difficult or impossible to do now. This book by Harvard economist Regina Herzlinger is a good read on the subject:

Who Killed Health Care?: America's $2 Trillion Medical Problem - and the Consumer-Driven Cure: Regina Herzlinger: 9780071487801: Amazon.com: Books

And to go along with health care reform, we also need food reform. I would start with not allowing people to buy soda, candy & other junk food with food stamps. And the school lunch programs also need to be reformed as well.

I generally also agree with reducing or eliminating agricultural subsidies, although I am not holding my breath. But clearly the way we do agriculture does not serve the people.

Incentivizing healthier diets of fresh fruits & vegetables over diets of meat heavy & processed foods will reduce health care costs.
You're proposing a lot of laws that people are not going to support. There are too interventionist.

Anyone who has half a brain would know that for a child to succeed in school and to be happy, you must have a two parent household and that's not enough both parents have to be wholeheartedly involved in nurturing a child.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-24-2014, 05:48 PM
 
Location: NNJ
9,498 posts, read 5,354,273 times
Reputation: 10441
Quote:
Originally Posted by Costaexpress View Post
But people don't kownwhat is in their best interest.
Not disagreeing.... just wondering how we got to that discussion from the post I replied to. A post that perpetuates generalization that those in tough economics situations are at fault because they are lazy. That simply is not true. Its even worse because it keeps people from really addressing the issues... its too easy to pass blame on the poor.



The rant that follow was only to distract... and in your case... it worked.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-24-2014, 05:53 PM
 
2,485 posts, read 1,844,525 times
Reputation: 2140
Quote:
Originally Posted by usayit View Post
Not disagreeing.... just wondering how we got to that discussion from the initial post I replied to... one of generalization of the lazy. Its simply a distraction from the over generalization that those that are not as fortunate must be lazy.
They aren't all lazy. That is a generalization. It's just bad as the generalization of hall people who work on Wall Street are. But people like one generalization over the other if they like it.

It's more like that these people were not properly Todd's how things work, or steered away from developing skills to better their lives and were not informed about making good decisions. A lot of them in this country just want to give people handouts is set of really helping people to get out of poverty and misery. The left has a bit of maintaining poverty so that these people would keep voting for the Democratic Party.The handouts that's the Democratic Party gives out arms generous and will never be generous but they are good enough to bribe people for votes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-24-2014, 06:00 PM
 
Location: NNJ
9,498 posts, read 5,354,273 times
Reputation: 10441
Quote:
Originally Posted by Costaexpress View Post
They aren't all lazy. That is a generalization. It's just bad as the generalization of hall people who work on Wall Street are. But people like one generalization over the other if they like it.
I didn't say they were all lazy..... The guy I responded to did. Hence why I responded... its a despicable generalization.

Some of the hardest people I have met in my lifetime do not make 1/2 of what I make.... some just barely making it.

I also wanted to point it out to him that inequality isn't just about poor vs the rest.... its also about the inequality between middle class and upper. People who are not lazy and do work hard... yet.. are slipping out of middle class.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-24-2014, 06:23 PM
 
Location: Washington State
18,438 posts, read 9,548,793 times
Reputation: 15732
You don't need to reverse high incomes, rather you need to reverse the low incomes. You do this by teaching values of work, ethics, education, training, and reducing drugs and watching reality tv. I'm fine with raising the minimum wage but if you aren't getting the value of the higher labor cost, you won't keep or expand the jobs base...so go back to my 2nd sentence.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-24-2014, 06:54 PM
 
2,485 posts, read 1,844,525 times
Reputation: 2140
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tall Traveler View Post
You don't need to reverse high incomes, rather you need to reverse the low incomes. You do this by teaching values of work, ethics, education, training, and reducing drugs and watching reality tv. I'm fine with raising the minimum wage but if you aren't getting the value of the higher labor cost, you won't keep or expand the jobs base...so go back to my 2nd sentence.
I think the reality is also one such that it is just much more difficult today because of globalization and automation. We don't necessarily have enough jobs to go around in this country. Don't get me wrong. I think teaching those values is the number one most important thing in confronting the issue of wealth gaps.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-24-2014, 07:13 PM
 
26,304 posts, read 12,831,657 times
Reputation: 12547
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tall Traveler View Post
You don't need to reverse high incomes, rather you need to reverse the low incomes. You do this by teaching values of work, ethics, education, training, and reducing drugs and watching reality tv. I'm fine with raising the minimum wage but if you aren't getting the value of the higher labor cost, you won't keep or expand the jobs base...so go back to my 2nd sentence.
The productivity of the American worker has been higher and higher every year. So arguably they are getting higher productivity today by far then they did 20 years ago.......IE higher value. And they are paying less for it.

You're trying to blame people who work hard for not being worth it, while reality demonstratively indicates they are worth more then ever.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top