THE U.S. IS A LOW-TAX COUNTRY

[NPT]

I remind her it's only worth that when it sells.

Unless you find a fool that will give you more something is only worth what someone will give for it.

In other words, don’t worry about the size of “the gap.” Worry about how well the average person is doing.

For the most part i agree, it's no skin off of my teeth if Bill Gates got rich. I didn't have to buy the products Microsoft offers.

 

[snarlcakes]

I’m just not sure that income inequality is necessarily a bad thing. It certainly can be - and often is.

But it’s not lost on me, for instance, that during the same period China started generating numerous billionaire entrepreneurs, they also saw tremendous gain in the standard of living of the average Chinese citizen.

You’ll see a similar phenomenon in any country that becomes wealthy. It will result in a small number of people becoming very wealthy. And they’ll tend to have high inequality.

They shouldn’t fret that. Because the “good” inequality means that people who aren’t rich will also do very well…even if they don’t keep pace with wealthy people.

In “bad” inequality, people who aren’t rich will do very poorly.

In other words, don’t worry about the size of “the gap.” Worry about how well the average person is doing.

I would much rather have our 40ish Gini than what many European countries have - which is a lower Gini, but also a generally lower standard of living for everybody else.

Egalitarianism sounds good. But it works like shit.

I agree with all of this and most people do as well in my opinion. However, the problem is for the first time in U.S. history (or really long time) people under the age of 30 is worse off than their parents. That is when people start to get angry with the “wealthy”. Of course they will call for more taxes on the rich, which will just make it worse, but I understand their frustration.

Crazed do you think free markets are deflationary? If yes, why aren’t prices decreasing? The answer is the control system we use won’t allow it to happen, which begs the question who benefits from that system? Who suffers the trade offs from the system?

 

[HurryingHoosiers]

I’m just not sure that income inequality is necessarily a bad thing. It certainly can be - and often is.

But it’s not lost on me, for instance, that during the same period China started generating numerous billionaire entrepreneurs, they also saw tremendous gain in the standard of living of the average Chinese citizen.

You’ll see a similar phenomenon in any country that becomes wealthy. It will result in a small number of people becoming very wealthy. And they’ll tend to have high inequality.

They shouldn’t fret that. Because the “good” inequality means that people who aren’t rich will also do very well…even if they don’t keep pace with wealthy people.

In “bad” inequality, people who aren’t rich will do very poorly.

In other words, don’t worry about the size of “the gap.” Worry about how well the average person is doing.

I would much rather have our 40ish Gini than what many European countries have - which is a lower Gini, but also a generally lower standard of living for everybody else.

Egalitarianism sounds good. But it works like shit.

There is very little correlation between how many wealthy people there are and how poor people are doing.

Sounds similar to the trickle down economic bs that Republicans have touted in the past imo but barely anything trickles down other than the extra business for real estate, yacht and private jet sales

 

[HurryingHoosiers]

I agree with all of this and most people do as well in my opinion. However, the problem is for the first time in U.S. history (or really long time) people under the age of 30 is worse off than their parents. That is when people start to get angry with the “wealthy”. Of course they will call for more taxes on the rich, which will just make it worse, but I understand their frustration.

Crazed don’t think free markets are deflationary? If yes, why aren’t prices decreasing? The answer is the control system we use won’t allow it to happen, which begs the question who benefits from that system and suffers the trade offs?

How does taxing the wealthy make it worse?

Often times the wealthy are paying a lower percentage than middle class due to deductions or how different types of revenue is treated.

 

[snarlcakes]

How does taxing the wealthy make it worse?

Often times the wealthy are paying a lower percentage than middle class due to deductions or how different types of revenue is treated.

Slows growth and capital starts to flow elsewhere. It’s one of the main reasons Europe is struggling so much in comparison to the U.S. We still have a lot more growth because we have lower tax rates.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

There is very little correlation between how many wealthy people there are and how poor people are doing.

So…is what has happened in mainland China over the past 40 years or so a coincidence? Did poor peoples’ standard of living grow in spite of the introduction of wealthy Chinese entrepreneurs?

Similarly, is it also a coincidence that poor countries around the world have no such wealthy entrepreneurs? Who are the most successful and wealthy people from Burundi, Afghanistan, or Haiti? I certainly couldn’t name any. Anybody who’s well off there probably came by their wealth in other (likely bad) ways.

But all countries should want to have rich people living there, starting businesses there, investing there. The more the merrier. Because virtually everybody who has grown significant wealth has done so by creating an extraordinarily high amount of value for others.

Sounds similar to the trickle down economic bs that Republicans have touted in the past imo but barely anything trickles down other than the extra business for real estate, yacht and private jet sales

Well, that’s ridiculous on its face. Three guys got fabulously wealthy from Microsoft. But many, many more have gained a lot by its creation and success…either by working there, investing in it, being a vendor, selling companies to them….or even just using their products to become more productive. Even taxing authories and charities have gained immensely because of their success.

We’re fortunate as hell that MSFT and Apple are American companies and not, say, British or Canadian.

And I hope the next Bill Gates becomes very wealthy here instead of anywhere else.

 

[HurryingHoosiers]

So…is what has happened in mainland China over the past 40 years or so a coincidence? Did poor peoples’ standard of living grow in spite of the introduction of wealthy Chinese entrepreneurs?

Similarly, is it also a coincidence that poor countries around the world have no such wealthy entrepreneurs? Who are the most successful and wealthy people from Burundi, Afghanistan, or Haiti? I certainly couldn’t name any. Anybody who’s well off there probably came by their wealth in other (likely bad) ways.

But all countries should want to have rich people living there, starting businesses there, investing there. The more the merrier. Because virtually everybody who has grown significant wealth has done so by creating an extraordinarily high amount of value for others.



Well, that’s ridiculous on its face. Three guys got fabulously wealthy from Microsoft. But many, many more have gained a lot by its creation and success…either by working there, investing in it, being a vendor, selling companies to them….or even just using their products to become more productive. Even taxing authories and charities have gained immensely because of their success.

We’re fortunate as hell that MSFT and Apple are American companies and not, say, British or Canadian.

And I hope the next Bill Gates becomes very wealthy here instead of anywhere else.

I never said we shouldn't want businesses here but trickle down doesn't do much trickling.

I mention European countries tax their wealthy higher than us and get told we shouldn't care what other countries do. So with that in mind, why do I care about those countries?

Not being able to name rich people doesn't really mean or prove anything. In fact most of your conclusions don't really have much behind them to say for a fact one had anything to do with the other

 

[HurryingHoosiers]

Slows growth and capital starts to flow elsewhere. It’s one of the main reasons Europe is struggling so much in comparison to the U.S. We still have a lot more growth because we have lower tax rates.

Bet we could raise taxes and still be lower than Europe and thus maintain that advantage

 

[DANC]

I agree with all of this and most people do as well in my opinion. However, the problem is for the first time in U.S. history (or really long time) people under the age of 30 is worse off than their parents. That is when people start to get angry with the “wealthy”. Of course they will call for more taxes on the rich, which will just make it worse, but I understand their frustration.

Crazed do you think free markets are deflationary? If yes, why aren’t prices decreasing? The answer is the control system we use won’t allow it to happen, which begs the question who benefits from that system? Who suffers the trade offs from the system?

Jealousy of 'the rich' has always been there. Actually, I don't think it's as bad today as it's been in the past. Today, it's just a talking point for Dems. During the 80s, under Reagan, there were fierce 'eat the rich' arguments.

 

[DANC]

There is very little correlation between how many wealthy people there are and how poor people are doing.

Sounds similar to the trickle down economic bs that Republicans have touted in the past imo but barely anything trickles down other than the extra business for real estate, yacht and private jet sales

lol You remember Clinton's 'luxury tax'? So many people were thrown out of work - yacht sales plummeted - that they had to take it off.

Now, if that's not an example of 'trickle down' economics working, then you may be unteachable.

 

[DANC]

You've always been the largest voting block.

And you think all of us were for cutting taxes on 'the rich'?

 

[DANC]

I’m just not sure that income inequality is necessarily a bad thing. It certainly can be - and often is.

But it’s not lost on me, for instance, that during the same period China started generating numerous billionaire entrepreneurs, they also saw tremendous gain in the standard of living of the average Chinese citizen.

You’ll see a similar phenomenon in any country that becomes wealthy. It will result in a small number of people becoming very wealthy. And they’ll tend to have high inequality.

They shouldn’t fret that. Because the “good” inequality means that people who aren’t rich will also do very well…even if they don’t keep pace with wealthy people.

In “bad” inequality, people who aren’t rich will do very poorly.

In other words, don’t worry about the size of “the gap.” Worry about how well the average person is doing.

I would much rather have our 40ish Gini than what many European countries have - which is a lower Gini, but also a generally lower standard of living for everybody else.

Egalitarianism sounds good. But it works like shit.

And don't forget that movement up and down the wealth scale is common in the US. People can be all over the economic scale in a lifetime. We are not a class society.

That's why people come to the US at the risk of their lives - they can get ahead here, whereas in their countries, that movement up is not possible.

Liberal philosophy always sees the US as static - you're born into a class and in that class you'll stay. Nothing could be farther from the truth. They see the economy as a zero sum game - if you gain, someone has to lose.

It's frustrating to argue against them, because history and facts don't seem to matter to them.

 

[DANC]

I agree with all of this and most people do as well in my opinion. However, the problem is for the first time in U.S. history (or really long time) people under the age of 30 is worse off than their parents. That is when people start to get angry with the “wealthy”. Of course they will call for more taxes on the rich, which will just make it worse, but I understand their frustration.

Crazed do you think free markets are deflationary? If yes, why aren’t prices decreasing? The answer is the control system we use won’t allow it to happen, which begs the question who benefits from that system? Who suffers the trade offs from the system?

I have heard 'this is the first generation who wont do better than their parents' trope for the last 50 years.

It's never been true in the past and it won't be true in the future

 

[snarlcakes]

I have heard 'this is the first generation who wont do better than their parents' trope for the last 50 years.

It's never been true in the past and it won't be true in the future

Those are the numbers. So, whether you heard or not, it doesn’t matter. I will add young people have one of the greatest opportunities ever if they adopt the Bitcoin so I don’t feel bad for them.

 

[DANC]

Those are the numbers. So, whether you heard or not, it doesn’t matter. I will add young people have one of the greatest opportunities ever if they adopt the Bitcoin so I don’t feel bad for them.

What numbers?

 

[snarlcakes]

What numbers?

The cost of healthcare, education, and housing would be the big three.





Disregard the dudes comments. I just wanted the chart. Also, you can easily run these numbers on real world examples yourself. My parents house has gotten significantly more expensive in relationship to wages since they purchased it. The community they live is also worse off and less desirable today than it was in 1990 when they purchased their home.

 

[DANC]

The cost of healthcare, education, and housing would be the big three.

View embedded media

View embedded media

Disregard the dudes comments. I just wanted the chart. Also, you can easily run these numbers on real world examples yourself. My parents house has gotten significantly more expensive in relationship to wages since they purchased it. The community they live is also worse off and less desirable today than it was in 1990 when they purchased their home.

Of course some costs go up. Others go down, as shown. But show it in 2000 dollars.

And also, show the wage and salary increases along with it.

 

[hoot1]

I’m just not sure that income inequality is necessarily a bad thing. It certainly can be - and often is.

But it’s not lost on me, for instance, that during the same period China started generating numerous billionaire entrepreneurs, they also saw tremendous gain in the standard of living of the average Chinese citizen.

You’ll see a similar phenomenon in any country that becomes wealthy. It will result in a small number of people becoming very wealthy. And they’ll tend to have high inequality.

They shouldn’t fret that. Because the “good” inequality means that people who aren’t rich will also do very well…even if they don’t keep pace with wealthy people.

In “bad” inequality, people who aren’t rich will do very poorly.

In other words, don’t worry about the size of “the gap.” Worry about how well the average person is doing.

I would much rather have our 40ish Gini than what many European countries have - which is a lower Gini, but also a generally lower standard of living for everybody else.

Egalitarianism sounds good. But it works like shit.

Agree almost entirely with your thinking.

Craze, the inequality gap isn't a big deal, as you point out, except when it comes to closing the gap between tax revenues and spending (reducing the federal debt). Here again the high earners pay lots of the income taxes, but the super wealthy to date have kept their wealth pretty much out if the "greedy hands" of government.

Most of the wealthy focus more on accumulating wealth than increasing their income. In fact a good many are Warren Buffet types who are frugal and really don't need a lot of income.

Let us face it, if the government attempts to tap into the wealth of the wealthy in order to reduce the deficits or redistribute funds to help the less fortunate, the super wealthy will take their wealth to another country as the Russian oligarchs have done.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Agree almost entirely with your thinking.

Craze, the inequality gap isn't a big deal, as you point out, except when it comes to closing the gap between tax revenues and spending (reducing the federal debt). Here again the high earners pay lots of the income taxes, but the super wealthy to date have kept their wealth pretty much out if the "greedy hands" of government.

Most of the wealthy focus more on accumulating wealth than increasing their income. In fact a good many are Warren Buffet types who are frugal and really don't need a lot of income.

Let us face it, if the government attempts to tap into the wealth of the wealthy in order to reduce the deficits or redistribute funds to help the less fortunate, the super wealthy will take their wealth to another country as the Russian oligarchs have done.

The idea of a wealth tax makes about as much economic sense as Trump’s tariffs. The last thing we should want is people relocating their wealth to avoid having it taxed. We need that capital invested - because growth is the single best way to increase tax revenues and, thus, to repair this structural imbalance.

I do think we’re likely to see net higher taxes in the coming decades. It should be possible to squeeze out an extra 1 - 1.5% of GDP in taxes without killing the golden goose. But scaring off capital isn’t a good way to do it. And that doesn’t mean that the distribution of the additional tax burden can’t be weighted towards the well-off.

But we shouldn’t let resentments fuel our policy decisions.