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.
Good gracious this is a horribly written article. I thought I was reading the communist manifesto.
Could you please explain how this is not available to the poor people? You can form your own LLC or trust and create your own hedge funds so that you can enjoy the same “benefits.”
Good gracious this is a horribly written article. I thought I was reading the communist manifesto.
Could you please explain how this is not available to the poor people? You can form your own LLC or trust and create your own hedge funds so that you can enjoy the same “benefits.”
Investopedia is about as capitalist as it comes. You might not have understood the article fully. It complicated stuff and not easily explained.
Private equity is not available to poor people because the minimum investment is over 1 million - and usually much much higher.
Hey, why don’t you explain tax advantages given to private equity and how those tax laws came to be. Seems like it might be a perfect topic for tax PhD.
The Washington Post ran on article on this. The fact is that most of the evidence indicates that a progressive tax system (like we have here in the US) is the most likely to harm the economy, and a regressive tax system, like European countries have (reliant on flat or flatter tax rate brackets and user/consumption fees/taxes), harms the economy the least.
The result? I'll quote the researchers cited in the following link...
"...the progressivity of countries' tax codes is negatively correlated with the amount of redistribution they do.'
Why? A progressive tax system is overly reliant on too few people (payers). Not enough tax revenue is generated to fund the generous social welfare programs, services, and benefits those other countries have. In direct contrast, a regressive tax system generates revenue from everyone on an equitable basis, which consequently results in significantly more funding for those generous programs, services, and benefits.
"The Washington Post ran on article on this", one of the WORST sources you could cite!
Let's look at the author you are giving so much credit to, who isn't even an economist! "Dylan Matthews is an American journalist.
"Matthews graduated from Hanover High School in Hanover, New Hampshire, in 2008.He went on toHarvard University, where he studied social and political philosophy"
Most would be EMBARRASSED to use this guy as a "credible" source but, not YOU!
What does that mean? Do you mean did they ever influence policy or did they ever had a job? My answer to both is yes.
I was responding to the post that stated that nobody who ever took an economics class would back the policy of higher taxes.
How about Paul Krugman as a current example? I could name a dozen more.
"Most never WORKED in the economics world."
"What does that mean?" "I you have to ask THAT question, you would NOT understated the answer!",as they say.
The top 1% is increasing their wealth faster than any other group, including the bottom 80%.
If taxes on the 1% were increased to the point that their share of the pie was only increasing at the same rate as the bottom 80%, they would still be extremely wealthy and they still wouldn't have to work for the money.
The richest Americans can certainly pay more.
"The top 1% is increasing their wealth faster than any other group,"
If you have 1 dollar and get a 10% return on it you now have $1.10.
If you have 1 MILLION dollars and get a 10% return on it, how mauch do you now have?
"and they still wouldn't have to work for the money." a LIE and I smell a LOT of jealousy!
If you mean lobby for advantageous tax laws as well as banking oversight regulations then you are correct. As an expert on taxes you should know exactly how fair/unfair the system is and how the rich have and continue to game it.
"If you mean lobby for advantageous tax laws" That is what you get when you vote for the dems to control the House for 40 STRAIGHT YEARS.
Most of the debt increases disincentivized Reagan have occurred in tandem with tax cuts on the rich. It’s almost like the country is going into debt to make rich people richer.....so yes.
"The Washington Post ran on article on this", one of the WORST sources you could cite!
Let's look at the author you are giving so much credit to, who isn't even an economist! "Dylan Matthews is an American journalist.
"Matthews graduated from Hanover High School in Hanover, New Hampshire, in 2008.He went on toHarvard University, where he studied social and political philosophy"
Most would be EMBARRASSED to use this guy as a "credible" source but, not YOU!
Instead of posting a mindless kneejerk reaction complaining about the Post and the article's author, how about you engage your mind and read the research on which the article was based (which I included at the link) and the book "Growing Public" by Economist Peter H Lindert, PhD, also cited in the article.
Dont just mindlessly emote. Use critical thinking skills.
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.
