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.
Oh, so then why mention "wage growth" for the middle-class at all in your statement if not to infer an effect from those higher marginal tax rates? The inference is there.
To show that the economy was not during poorly during this time, not to infer some sort of causal claim. Again, I'm citing this period to refute the idea that high marginal taxes will end in ruin and I was explicit about that. You are just trying to be straw-man to above dealing with the actual issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chopchop0
Btw, Reagan's tax cuts definitely spurred economic growth in the early-to-mid 80s, leading us out of Carter's recession, arguably the worst one before the current recession.
Really? You do realize there was a big recession in the early 80's right? Naturally the economy grew after the recession. But how about some actual data? Well since I know you won't bother looking up data to support a position you just want to believe I will do it for you.
Wewll then all you have to do is increase the minimum wage and see what happens isn't it. We have seen what has happened i europt where the exact thing has been done.If you look at the amount paid on the high rates and the size of governmant spending the numbers are not near as large. One has to remmeebr its not what the rate is but the combination of rate and actaul taxbale insome. It really doesn't matter. Then you have to look at where the revenues collected was spent. Certainly noe intitlemnts liek today. Much of it was spent to benefit the robber barons as they were called for good reason. i am sure the rich would like to fully return to those days.It was once said that the risch paid for nothig personally during thsoe days.You might regret what you wish for really.
This article shows that the gap we have today is over the levels seen in 1928.
It further says that the greater the gab the more unstable the economy.
That is certainly proving true today..one week good numbers and the next bad. Market soaring one week and tanking the next. Very volatile, very unstable.
We have things like food stamps, welfare, unemployment insurance, government subsidies today that, IMO, are masking the true state of the economy.
"The greater the disparity in wealth between the very rich and everyone else, the more unstable an economy becomes. Our nation has now created a larger gap in the distribution of wealth than the massive chasm that helped fuel the Great Depression. In 1928, one year before the global economic collapse, the wealthiest .001% of the U.S. population owned 892 times more than 90% of the nation’s citizens. Today, the top .001% of the U.S. population owns 976 times more than the entire bottom 90%. This is not sustainable, and makes for a very volatile economy."
But what you are trying to do here is similar to the other poster, namely pretend that the rich are actually working for their income. They aren't, they are generating most of their income from rents on capital/land.
Bed time for the kids, so I will tackle the rest later.
I would love to see your stats that show MOST of the income to the "rich" comes from rents?
To give you a head start, I will provide some info taken from the IRS tax roles for 2007.
Total AGI for ALL people making more than $500,000. $1.8 Trillion. Total net rental and royalty income $20 BILLION.
Just for fun Total Salaries and Wages $581 billion. Total net business income $40 Billion. S-Corp and partnership income $352 billion.
So over half of the income is from people working and a fraction I from rents. I am sympathetic to you view but the world has changed, the old money land owners aren’t where the income is at, the high income comes from productivity.
You really need to learn the difference between High Income earners and the wealthy. Your way will keep the wealthy that way and hurt the HIEs the mostr.
To give you a head start, I will provide some info taken from the IRS tax roles for 2007.
When I say "rents" I'm referring to the general economic meaning of the word, not just rents collected for land/real estate. Though you are very much under estimating this sort of rent (see below).
Quote:
Originally Posted by hilgi
I would love to see your stats that show MOST of the income to the "rich" comes from rents?
All you had to do is look at the data for those making $1 million or more, instead of $500k or more. The latter includes a lot of upper-middle class families that derive most of their income from wages, where as the former does not. Returns with $1 million only derive around 25% of their income from wages, the rest largely come from some form of rent-seeking.
And just to note looking at "rental income" really does not tell you how much money is being generated via rents on land/real estate and it should be pretty obvious that more than $20 billion generated from this source. Most real estate (excluding residential owner-occupied) is not owned by individuals but rather corporations, LLPs, etc.
My suggested tax brackets from another post distinguished between the $500~$1,000k group and the $1,000+ group for a reason. The former is largely upper-middle class (doctors, lawyers, etc) and the latter is what most would consider "rich" (folks that can collect rents instead of working).
Quote:
Originally Posted by hilgi
You really need to learn the difference between High Income earners and the wealthy.
I've already commented about this, but apparently reading comprehension is not your strong point.
When I say "rents" I'm referring to the general economic meaning of the word, not just rents collected for land/real estate. Though you are very much under estimating this sort of rent (see below).
All you had to do is look at the data for those making $1 million or more, instead of $500k or more. The latter includes a lot of upper-middle class families that derive most of their income from wages, where as the former does not. Returns with $1 million only derive around 25% of their income from wages, the rest largely come from some form of rent-seeking.
And just to note looking at "rental income" really does not tell you how much money is being generated via rents on land/real estate and it should be pretty obvious that more than $20 billion generated from this source. Most real estate (excluding residential owner-occupied) is not owned by individuals but rather corporations, LLPs, etc.
My suggested tax brackets from another post distinguished between the $500~$1,000k group and the $1,000+ group for a reason. The former is largely upper-middle class (doctors, lawyers, etc) and the latter is what most would consider "rich" (folks that can collect rents instead of working).
I've already commented about this, but apparently reading comprehension is not your strong point.
Ya, I just don't understand this stuff. Come on, you can do better than that. I posted that before your answer.
Of the 392,000 returns with income over $1,000,000, they earned $1.4 trillion.
Of that $368 billion were from wages. $21 billion in Business income. $271 billion in S-Corp/Partnership income.
So this is still 47% of the income EARNED. As I say much of it is transient, these are one time events, not chronically "rich" people. Trying to devise a revenue program on back of 392,000 people just doesn't seem to make a lot of sense. Especially when this group has the largest motivation to make lifestyle and economic decisions that will affect revenue greatly.
No, you just want to categorize partnership income as "earned income" which is just silly Certainly some of it is "earned income", but much of it is not. Just because you can show partnership income on your tax return does not mean you were an active member in a partnership*, Schedule E explicitly distinguishes between passive and active partnership* income.
A lot of this income is from real estate, investing in start-ups, etc. Tax returns don't tell you the details of source income, but even from the tax returns its clear that the rich do not derive the majority of their income from "earned income".
*Using "partnership" to refer to entities that are taxed as partnerships, which can of course include LLCs, LLPs, S-corps, etc.
No, you just want to categorize partnership income as "earned income" which is just silly Certainly some of it is "earned income", but much of it is not. Just because you can show partnership income on your tax return does not mean you were an active member in a partnership*, Schedule E explicitly distinguishes between passive and active partnership* income.
A lot of this income is from real estate, investing in start-ups, etc. Tax returns don't tell you the details of source income, but even from the tax returns its clear that the rich do not derive the majority of their income from "earned income".
*Using "partnership" to refer to entities that are taxed as partnerships, which can of course include LLCs, LLPs, S-corps, etc.
Actually it is not what I want to do, it is how the IRS does it, I would love to get a breakdown between passive and active income. Since the category is S-Corps and partnerships, I don't know if they included Limited Partnerships such as the type that purchase a pool of office building as sell shares to the public in this, or if it is "business" type partnerships such as LLC’s used by law firms etc. Passive income could land in another category.
Since you seem to discount the majority of the S-Corp/Partnership income, please let me know how much of the $271 Billion you would deem as “earned” as opposed to wrongfully extracted from the economy?
The same goes with the $368 billion in W-2 wage income?
As can be seen, the gap has been growing because the wealthiest are getting wealthier and the bottom 80% are getting poorer.
It says forbidden, I can't access that page, can you post the pic here?
Either way I agree but as opposed to lumping in the transient rich with the landed wealthy, I prefer to go after monopoly status, not someone who had a great year in sales.
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.
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.
