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.
The more income the top 1% makes, the more tax revenue the U.S. government collects, because the top 1% pays the highest effective federal income tax rate. It is in the government's best interest to keep the income gap as wide as possible in order to maximize tax revenue.
There's an awful lot of Liberal Arts and Political Science majors working at Starbucks....
Just going to college does not guarantee a lucrative career.
Poor planning on your part does not require financial assistance on my part.
These were people with advanced degrees, not just college graduates. As the chart showed, they were doing better than regular college graduates, which shows they aren't working at Starbucks. But even this group was far outpaced by the top 1%.
The argument for the top 1% earning so much is defended by those that say they produce more than the rest of us. This argument is largely undercut by the fact that those in the financial industry, who are highly compensated, not only didn't produce anything during the financial crisis but their actions were largely negative.
Dean Baker argues that much of the very wealthy is due to government in the form of patent and copyright monopolies, which reward people like Steve Jobs and J.K. Rowling in a fabulous manor.
There is no reason these rewards have to be skewed to this extent. Nobody can tell me that Wall Street couldn't fine a managing director for less than $10 million a year.
No, but by smart investing, you would "earn" the interest.
To the rest of your questions, if you are paid $20 million for an acting role or $28 million for playing a game or $15 million from a private company, you have "earned" it.
BTW....the $20 million would be taxed, so if you "earn" money by investing the rest, what should your tax rate be?
Are you asking me how much investments should be taxes? I'm sure you're hoping I'd say "none...because that's their free money that they got by being smart and stuff!!" Incorrect. I believe investment income should be taxed at the same rate as all other income. And I say this as someone with a pretty decent amount of investments.
Quote:
Originally Posted by michiganmoon
Maybe you don't think it is "fair", but yes it was earned.
The New York Yankees pay a lot to their players, because the market demands that. There are only so few players with enough skill to compete at that level and a lot of demand to watch games in person or on TV, wear jerseys and etc...$$$$$$
The New York Yankees pay a sum that they agree to, to the players that also agree to those wages, based on the revenue that that player can help bring in for the team. These wages are influenced in part by what other teams are willing to pay that same player.
The New York Yankees didn't randomly walk up to their players and hand them millions of dollars for no reason. You seem to have typed out a child's view of the economy.
If I had immense baseball skill and could bring in millions of dollars to the Yankees...so they were willing to pay me millions in return...how did I not earn it? Maybe you don't think it is "fair" that the market demands more for an elite baseball player than a burger flipper, but the baseball player did "earn" the money.
Nope. Still don't agree with you. And "fair" has nothing to do with it. You see, I can disagree with something without thinking it's not "fair". Just like the Atlanta Braves here have decided to abandon their merely 16-year-old stadium and move to another county where they are planning on taking $450m in tax dollars to build a new stadium for themselves, somehow without a citizen vote. I think it's effing ridiculous waste, but I'm not annoyed due to my perceptions of "fairness". That's just a term your people like to use as an easy arguing point.
Yet, I still think the proper term for your examples above is "given". Hitting a a ball with a stick isn't "earning" $28 million. It's being "given" $28 million because you were able to negotiate such an absurd amount with other people who have so much money they don't know what to do with it. That kind of thing might "earn" about $1000 a day if you ask me. It does very little in terms of actually making the economy function. If baseball made a huge difference, you would think that the areas around every MLB stadium (or every sports stadium for that matter) would be thriving metropolises. These salaries are based on nothing more than one company trying to outdo another, and crony salary-setting. Let's be realistic here.
Now, this might seem like it has to do with fairness, but I have no reservations about how high of an income someone makes, as long as everyone is making enough, when working, to live. It's the people pulling in tens of millions being marginally effective managers (let's face it...a good number are) telling those who are still scraping by while working hard 50 hours a week that it's just because they haven't tried hard enough that irks me. It's an effing game and nothing else. There's so much money at the top that they just throw it around to each other and call it "earned". You can't cheat at Monopoly then tell me that I'm a poor sport for not agreeing with it.
When the highest income brackets are at or near the poverty line, while the absurd money bracket jumps, you have problems. If you can't admit that and still blame it on people "not trying hard enough" then you're too deluded to even have a conversation with.
Oh, and before you go off all half-cocked about how I'm poor and jealous, I typically fall between the 70%-80% line in income. So spare me that one.
The more income the top 1% makes, the more tax revenue the U.S. government collects, because the top 1% pays the highest effective federal income tax rate. It is in the government's best interest to keep the income gap as wide as possible in order to maximize tax revenue.
Who does not get that?
So it`s in the government`s interest to have millions of working poor paying no taxes?
Will Sutton was asked why he robs banks. He answered, "because that's where the money is." Taxing poor people doesn't raise much money. Taxing rich people a little raises a lot.
Compared to the size of the government and the debt, a radically higher tax rate on the incomes of rich people produces not much. Even if you somehow taxed wealth, it is a drop in the bucket compared to how much is spent by the feds.
Maybe you don't think it is "fair", but yes it was earned.
The New York Yankees pay a lot to their players, because the market demands that. There are only so few players with enough skill to compete at that level and a lot of demand to watch games in person or on TV, wear jerseys and etc...$$$$$$
The Yankees have the highest payroll in baseball. How did they do this year?
Yes. Politicians promise them free and/or low-cost benefits and services. And they vote.
Which nets more votes? One person earning $1 million? Or 50 people earning $20,000 each?
Let me remind you that Reagan instituted the Earned Income Tax Credit that accounts for why the poor by little or no income taxes.
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.
