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.
People are sadly misinformed and misled. They seem to think that only the wealthy have unearned income.
Do they think their pensions/retirement account growths in value 'magically' appear out of nowhere?
Honestly, I wish people would start applying a little common sense and perhaps even just a smidgen of critical thinking skills.
Like... for example... one of the U.S.'s biggest investors is CalPERS, the California public employees retirement system. All those California public employee pensions? Guess what? They're funded with unearned investment income, aka capital gains.
People are sadly misinformed and misled. They seem to think that only the wealthy have unearned income.
Everybody likes unearned income. The Democrats like their table scraps and the Republican's like their prime rib. That is why I am virtually alone in support producers.
The new political landscape is welfare vs finance. Neither of them actually produce anything. Since they are not distracted by having to make anything useful, they have time to fight over how much they can steal from those who work. FIRE sector + rabble = majority.
I'll admit I like the occupiers more because the enemy of my enemy is my friend. My loathing of Wall Street is simply in another category. They have no problem with welfare and are behind it because the middle class will pay for the medical and dental the rich don't have to pay for their imported third world labor.
Everybody likes unearned income. The Democrats like their table scraps and the Republican's like their prime rib. That is why I am virtually alone in support producers.
The new political landscape is welfare vs finance. Neither of them actually produce anything. Since they are not distracted by having to make anything useful, they have time to fight over how much they can steal from those who work. FIRE sector + rabble = majority.
I'll admit I like the occupiers more because the enemy of my enemy is my friend. My loathing of Wall Street is simply in another category. They have no problem with welfare and are behind it because the middle class will pay for the medical and dental the rich don't have to pay for their imported third world labor.
I miss the old labor vs capital politics.
But if you try to take down Wall Street via higher taxes you're also going to pull in the middle class with that. $200K/$250K is nowhere near what these CEO's make yet they are grouped with the CEO's and called "wealthy". You'll end up pulling in small/medium business owners in your quest for financial revenge. You'll also pull in retirees by increasing taxes on unearned income because that is how they are existing today in retirement..off of their investments. And the medicare tax will hit anyone (200K salary and up) who rents out their home which could be many due to the sluggish RE market.
Farm profits are unearned income and not everyone qualifies as big Ag, especially not the ones who show up at Farmer Markets to sell their produce.
why should you be taxed at more than 15%(current) when you are only earning 1%
why not just tax ALL income (earned and unearned) for all income levels at 15% OR LESS (like 10%)...let EVERYONE have skin in the game...or better yet..tax spending
example....warren buffet...he pays (about) 17% total (earned and unearned combined) (and then he lies, and says his secreatary pays more..in fact she gets EVERYTHING back and pays nothing)...but he spends a 100 million a year
tax spending...think of the tax on the yacht or the wifes furs, or that lexus/rolex...you want the rich to pay..tax spending
Taxing spending will continue to hurt the poor and middle class since they are the ones that buy crap that they either don't need and can't afford (see Air Jordan basketball shoes). Most people blame the wall st types who ran off with billions and left their retirements and savings in shambles, but yet pay very little in comparision. I'm not demonizing all well off people but their are enough of them that obtain their wealth unethically through gouging the poor and uneducated. Like I said before in earlier post the "trickle down theory" does not work and the ways of the past (tax breaks for the rich) does not work either. So I, like many others in this country want to try something different.
Taxing spending will continue to hurt the poor and middle class since they are the ones that buy crap that they either don't need and can't afford (see Air Jordan basketball shoes). Most people blame the wall st types who ran off with billions and left their retirements and savings in shambles, but yet pay very little in comparision. I'm not demonizing all well off people but their are enough of them that obtain their wealth unethically through gouging the poor and uneducated. Like I said before in earlier post the "trickle down theory" does not work and the ways of the past (tax breaks for the rich) does not work either. So I, like many others in this country want to try something different.
So the family earning $250K a year is just as evil as a Wall Street banker earning $500 million a year ?
Because that is how the administration is playing this..$250K and up is wealthy and we need to tax the hell out of them. That $250K a year guy has a family, doesn't need food stamps, can put his kids through college with no loans and can save for retirement. Now, start taxing the hell out of him and what breaks ?
You want to attack Wall Street then remove Joe Upper Middle Class from the equation.
But if you try to take down Wall Street via higher taxes you're also going to pull in the middle class with that. $200K/$250K is nowhere near what these CEO's make yet they are grouped with the CEO's and called "wealthy". You'll end up pulling in small/medium business owners in your quest for financial revenge. You'll also pull in retirees by increasing taxes on unearned income because that is how they are existing today in retirement..off of their investments. And the medicare tax will hit anyone (200K salary and up) who rents out their home which could be many due to the sluggish RE market.
Farm profits are unearned income and not everyone qualifies as big Ag, especially not the ones who show up at Farmer Markets to sell their produce.
No you won't. Brush up on Ricardo's law of rents. Taxing rent has no effect on the production of goods and services. In fact taxation can increase production because it can force rentiers to sellout their speculative positions. This in turn will allow producers access who can easily pay the tax and shift taxes off production since taxes on ground and monopoly rents are hard to pass on.
For example of you are willing to pay for the ocean view rather than the garden view, taxing the ocean view only will not allow them to pass the tax on. The reason is people are willing to substitute the hotel across the street past a certain point. However there will still be more profits for the ocean view so long as the entire pricing power is not taxed away.
The only time that taxes must add dead weight to the production of goods and services is before rents appear.
First, the share of income taxes are in the top rates because that's where most of the income is.
Second, this is a 2004 graph.
Third, this graph hides the wealthy and the super-wealthy in the corn stalks of the top 20%. The income of the top 1% grew dramatically compared to other groups. This is from the CBO:
Quote:
After-Tax Income Grew More for the Highest-Income Households
CBO finds that between 1979 and 2007:
For the 1 percent of the population with the highest income, average real after-tax household income grew by 275 percent (see figure below).
For others in the 20 percent of the population with the highest income, average real after-tax household income grew by 65 percent.
For the 60 percent of the population in the middle of the income scale, the growth in average real after-tax household income was just under 40 percent.
For the 20 percent of the population with the lowest income, the growth in average real after-tax household income was about 18 percent.
Growth in Real After-Tax Income from 1979 to 2007
As a result of that uneven income growth, the distribution of after-tax household income in the United States was substantially more unequal in 2007 than in 1979: The share of income accruing to higher-income households increased, whereas the share accruing to other households declined.
First, the share of income taxes are in the top rates because that's where most of the income is.
Second, this is a 2004 graph.
Third, this graph hides the wealthy and the super-wealthy in the corn stalks of the top 20%. The income of the top 1% grew dramatically compared to other groups. This is from the CBO:
Law of rents....
The rise of rent is always the effect of the increasing wealth of the country, and of the difficulty of providing food for its augmented population. It is a symptom, but it is never a cause of wealth; for wealth often increases most rapidly while rent is either stationary, or even falling. Rent increases most rapidly, as the disposable land decreases in its productive powers. Wealth increases most rapidly in those countries where the disposable land is most fertile, where importation is least restricted, and where through agricultural improvements, productions can be multiplied without any increase in the proportional quantity of labour, and where consequently the progress of rent is slow.
You can attribute the rise in the wealth of the 1% to be the reduction of the productive alternatives, meaning that the 1% was able to monopolize more resources. Labor arbitrage and capital is an obvious sign aka "out sourcing" . Keep in mind Ricardo had not expanded this law to financial and industrial overhead.
No you won't. Brush up on Ricardo's law of rents. Taxing rent has no effect on the production of goods and services. In fact taxation can increase production because it can force rentiers to sellout their speculative positions. This in turn will allow producers access who can easily pay the tax and shift taxes off production since taxes on ground and monopoly rents are hard to pass on.
For example of you are willing to pay for the ocean view rather than the garden view, taxing the ocean view only will not allow them to pass the tax on. The reason is people are willing to substitute the hotel across the street past a certain point. However there will still be more profits for the ocean view so long as the entire pricing power is not taxed away.
The only time that taxes must add dead weight to the production of goods and services is before rents appear.
It's only 3.8% so renters most probably can afford it and not worth selling their investment. Not all investments are "speculative"; some are done to provide income.
There was a guy at my job that bought small apt buildings (4-6 units). He was handy and did the maintenance work on them and retired when he hit his magic number. That was not speculation but investing.
The flippers are the speculators and they could care less; they don't rent out homes because it ties up their flipping money.
Also with this RE crisis many more are renting rather than buying and are driving up rents.
First, the share of income taxes are in the top rates because that's where most of the income is.
You do realize that the percentage of taxes paidoutstrips the percentage of income for those in the highest quintile, no?
Quote:
Second, this is a 2004 graph.
It's the most recent available data. Hell, even the U.S. Senate recently had to estimate what percentage of income earners actually even paid any federal income tax in 2009 because the data still hadn't been finalized.
Quote:
Third, this graph hides the wealthy and the super-wealthy in the corn stalks of the top 20%. The income of the top 1% grew dramatically compared to other groups.
No, it's FALLEN dramatically compared to other groups since 2007.
As a matter of fact, from 2001 to 2009, the income of the top 0.1% increased less percentage-wise than did the income of the top 50% (8.2% vs. 13.6%).
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.
