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.
I would like the Leftists to explain the term "income inequality." What is it? How does it occur, and what should be done to correct it?
In your posts, please discuss wealth, wealth distribution, wealth creation, and the moral issues involved in creating wealth, which would include the right to own property, and the right to the fruit of ones labor, and the exclusive right to ones intellectual property.
You may also want to answer the following:
How does one improve ones standard of living; i.e., rise from poverty to middle class, to wealthy?
How should one put their money to work?
What does it mean to own stock?
What obligations does a company have to it's employees?
What obligations does an employee have to his employer?
I don't consider myself a leftist but massive income inequality has proven itself to be corrosive in any capacity. Countries like Mexico, Columbia, Singapore, Hong Kong, Russia, Ukraine, Peru, South Africa, and Poland have very unfavorable Gini Coefficients. These countries have the economic power and infrastructure to assist in pulling people out of poverty but they haven't proactively enacted social insurance programs to do so.
Now, I'm not going to profess to be an expert on this subject by any stretch of the imagination but the correlation of high crime rates and high poverty rates follows countries with low instances of income inequality, whereas the counter is the opposite...countries with higher displays of income equality prove to be more successful, have less poverty, and tend to be more innovative. But again...is correlation a direct link to causation? I don't know for sure in this case...but it would have to be one hell of a statistical anomalie for it not to be.
Much is hidden in "averages." If I were to accept your data that the top 5% (income of $161,579 or more) pays an average effective income tax rate of 20% or more, we also know that billionaire hedge fund managers pay a top rate of 15% on there income.
Yes, it's an average effective tax rate. Also hidden in "average" effective tax rates is that fact that many of the bottom 50%, who reportedly pay an average effective federal income tax rate of 2.37%, actually have a NEGATIVE effective tax rate, meaning they receive more money FROM the federal government than they pay in federal taxes. 30% of them, in fact, get more money back than they've paid in for the year.
Quote:
"In summary, for tax year 2009, approximately 22 percent of all tax units, including filers and non filers, will have zero income tax liability, approximately 30% will receive a refundable credit, and approximately 49% will have a positive income tax liability."
It is most certainly a fact that the 30% making a profit off of the federal government is a MUCH larger percentage then those who are supposedly billionaire hedge fund managers.
I don't consider myself a leftist but massive income inequality has proven itself to be corrosive in any capacity.
No, if you can't demonstrate or explain HOW it happens, it doesn't.
Quote:
Countries like Mexico, Columbia, Singapore, Hong Kong, Russia, Ukraine, Peru, South Africa, and Poland have very unfavorable Gini Coefficients.
So, you can calculate an arbitrary number. Is this supposed to be impressive, or even interesting?
Quote:
These countries have the economic power and infrastructure to assist in pulling people out of poverty but they haven't proactively enacted social insurance programs to do so.
You don't "pull" anyone out of poverty. They have to get out ALL ON THEIR OWN.
Quote:
Now, I'm not going to profess to be an expert on this subject by any stretch of the imagination but the correlation of high crime rates and high poverty rates follows countries with low instances of income inequality, whereas the counter is the opposite...countries with higher displays of income equality prove to be more successful, have less poverty, and tend to be more innovative. But again...is correlation a direct link to causation? I don't know for sure in this case...but it would have to be one hell of a statistical anomalie for it not to be.
No, it's a meaningless bit of trivia.
You know, like producing anagrams from signs. It means precisely... Nothing.
I object on the ground that most conservatives do not support the right of poor and low-wage workers to own property i.e. the premise of this thread is deficient.
This is nonsense.
It is liberal, nanny state government that does this to you.
??? Check your local zoning code. Most conservatives support zoning codes that prop up their property values by restricting property rights and specifically by zoning out affordable property ownership opportunities for the poor.
Much is hidden in "averages." If I were to accept your data that the top 5% (income of $161,579 or more) pays an average effective income tax rate of 20% or more, we also know that billionaire hedge fund managers pay a top rate of 15% on there income. According to the New York Times, the top 400 richest taxpayers:
In 1995, the top 400 riches paid an average of 30%.
Thus, those in the 5% bracket to the top 0.01% bracket are paying more than the richest Americans.
Most Americans have no idea how steep the income and wealth ladder is. This video illustrates it:
The thread isn't about Capital Gains, but you make a good point that is often over-looked. Many on that Top 400 list are Hedge Fund managers - in fact they are very near the top of the list. They avoid paying the Tax rate they should pay through a Loophole that was written expressly for them - it's called Carried Interest. It's also important to note that NONE of our CongressCritters, nor the President are interested in "fixing" this Tax Loop-Hole because a LOT of Campaign donations flow from Hedge Fund managers. It's self interest on the part of the Politicians to ignore the Tax Loop-Hole and instead go after the small amounts of Capital Gains that Investors (including retirees) get from their Investments.
Quote:
Carried interest
Carried interest—a common means of paying managers in private equity and hedge funds—currently retains the same character of income for the manager as the source of the income; if the source of the income is such that it generates capital gain for the investors, the manager shares in the income as a capital gain (and is taxed at capital gains rates), if the source of the income is such that it generates ordinary income for the investors, the manager shares in the income as ordinary income (and is taxed at ordinary income rates). Carried interest is the share of any profits that the general partners of private equity and hedge funds receive as compensation, despite not contributing any initial funds. Hedge fund "general partners" typically receive two types of compensation for managing such funds: a fee tied to some percentage of the fund’s assets under management (usually around 2%); and a profit share, or "carried interest," tied to some percentage of the profits generated by the fund (usually 20% or thereabouts). This tax treatment, often dubbed the "hedge fund loophole", has been criticized as unfair, and the Congressional Budget Office estimates that taxing carried interest as ordinary income would increase federal tax revenue by $10 billion "from 2012 through 2016 and $21 billion from 2012 through 2021".
All that said …… none of it has anything to do with whatever "income inequality" is defined as …. which we still don't know after all these pages.
If the point is to show that Federal Income Tax rates in the USA are somewhat "unfair" - I don't think there is any doubt of that. We now have about 47% of the population that don't pay ANY Federal Income Tax at all. We have people like the Hedge Fund Managers that are almost obscenely wealthy due in part to their "special" Federal Income Tax loopholes and we have Corporations that don't bring their profits back to the USA to invest because of the onerous Federal Income Tax rules.
All of that can be "fixed", but nobody seems too interested in doing it. Picking "winners" and "losers" is not a FAIR way to assign Federal Tax liability.
Income inequality in laymans terms is when the income distribution becomes so lopsided that it hurts the overall Economy.
Explain how that works. Libs ASSERT it all the time. Not one of them can make any factual argument to explain HOW IT HAPPENS.
Quote:
That's why many, including Economist, are arguing for measures to be done to reverse the trends.
Force can only harm. You can't "help".
Quote:
It typically occurs when there is a monopoly held in a particular industry and there is very little competition.
Which occurs due to government intervention.
Quote:
What we have now in many industries, is corporate monopolies where large conglomerates own and control the markets. When this occurs you usually have higher prices (less competition; competition keeps prices lower) and inferior products/service.
Which occurs due to government intervention.
Quote:
I think we all can agree we are experiencing both in this country. Despite stagnant wages, prices continue to increase and in 2008 the unheard of was done when some of largest finance institutions were bailed out despite making detrimental decisions and high risks that had a crippling effect on our ENTIRE economy.
Which was due to government intervention.
Quote:
The whole issue of "rising out of poverty" is a totally different discussion. I do have family experience in that area as well though. My family went from the projects to living very comfortably. That is a totally separate discussion though and has little to do with the topic being discussed about income inequality.
If you didn't learn anything from the experience, then the deficit is yours.
Quote:
Income inequality is more systematic and deals more with employees than entrepreneurs.
There is a strong correlation between risk and possible reward.
Money doesn't grow on trees. You make it off someone through selling a product, providing a service, investment, etc.
WEALTH does indeed grow on trees. Money, however, is merely our medium of trade. It's how we denominate the value of our trades. So, no, MONEY does not grow on trees, but it can be gained by the wealth that grew on trees, in the case of a farmer.
Quote:
if a person had a job that depended on other people spending their income on a product; however, other people saved and did not spend; wouldn't he be laid off for lack of business?
In reality, the economy changes... and his job is lost... but another may be created. Government is pretending that a good economy is a high consumption economy - that is, we're supposed to get rich by serving each other burgers and mowing each other's lawns and selling each other TV's imported from China. The whole idea is absurd from the start. We must have excess WEALTH creation before we can trade in money and CONSUME those things we want to consume.
Quote:
If a person looked for investment in a business that required people to buy the stuff he made, but people saved instead of spent their money, would that person attract investors?
I don't think anyone here thinks that stuffing money under the mattress is a great economic engine, so let's not go there. "Saving" means to not spend beyond your means, to retain an adequate amount of cash accumulated over time, and to use your spare money to invest in things that produce more wealth. You seem to be arguing that consumption is required. No, INVESTMENT IN PRODUCTION OF WEALTH is required to produce the wealth that enables consumption.
Quote:
Saving is good for the individual, but for stable economic growth, government and businesses want people to buy. The art is to find that happy median between spending and saving that would provide optimum national economic growth
This is pure horse manure.
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.
