Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Income inequality "solutions"
- Thread starter two fingers
- Start date
- Status
I think America, in general, needs to quit thinking in terms of income and think in terms of total wealth when it comes to decreasing the gap between the rich and poor.
If you have $1M in the bank but only make $60k/year are you better or worse off than someone who has mortgaged their life, lives paycheck to paycheck, and makes $120k/year? I'd argue that the person making $60k with $1M in the bank is in better financial shape. The money you have is better than the money you make.
That's not to say we should discourage saving. Quite the opposite, actually. I think taxing consumption would encourage saving and over time would change the entire mindset of American consumerism.... And maybe... Just maybe... The government's propensity to spend, spend, spend.
To answer your question though... You're right that poor people spend more of their income on the day to day items and that won't change if there's an income tax vs. a national sales tax. If you're the type that thinks the rich should shoulder more of the tax burden (not saying I agree or disagree) then there could be relaxed sales taxes on necessities like food and a primary homes and "luxury" taxes on things like $100k cars and vacation homes. Again, not saying I'd argue for that but it's a possibility for those that believe we should eat the rich.
Really though... The uber rich remain rich because of their investments and corresponding tax shelters. Take those away and things would change a lot.
If you take a look at the Fair Tax plan it gives back to lower income families a rebate each month in the amount of estimated tax that would be spent on necessary living expenses such as food and clothing. Therefore they would only being paying a consumption tax on non essential items.
Invalid Link Removed
I think our govt is the worst offenders when it comes to spending. All those politicians that fly 1st class or private jets from their nice house to a high end place in DC? Travel expenses alone are way more than they're worth, especially since they often don't accomplish much.
Saving is good, unless you pass it along to future generations according to this thread.
A consequence of discouraging spending is that retailers would suffer. I think we all know people who work in some sort of retail store and probably don't want them out of the job.
There are always examples out there to point to that help people justify their side of the argument, be that 'welfare queens' driving Cadillacs or rich CEO's performing layoffs and flying corporate jets to island resorts. You have to separate the general from the particular. The numbers don't lie; the amount of people struggling to make a living, obtain access to education, living wages and upward mobility prove that 'gumption' is far from being the determining factor to success.
I think our govt is the worst offenders when it comes to spending. All those politicians that fly 1st class or private jets from their nice house to a high end place in DC? Travel expenses alone are way more than they're worth, especially since they often don't accomplish much.
Saving is good, unless you pass it along to future generations according to this thread.
A consequence of discouraging spending is that retailers would suffer. I think we all know people who work in some sort of retail store and probably don't want them out of the job.
Not sure the government is the "worst" offender but they're bad. The Obamacare website is an easy target for that. Me and three of my friends could have built that site way better and for far less money, but I wouldn't have consented to their obligatory drug test, anyway.
Saving is good and so is passing your financial happiness onto your children, to some extent. I'm not too proud to say I'll receive a pretty hefty chunk of cash when my mom and dad die (someday), but I've earned a living apart from that, have raised a family without it, and am not hedging my financial future on it.
I think a lot of folks' anger with inheritance are with the ones that leave/give their kids everything and those kids never work a day in their lives while living a life of privilege. That's not always the way it happens, but whatever. I can see that resentment for sure and will punch a rich doucher in the face if they deserve it!
As far a national sales tax discouraging spending... I'm not sure it would happen real soon. People still want stuff and money/status is still important to the general populous. I agree that it's a possibility, but I'm not sure it would be very sudden and if it did happen would happen over a long period of time.
Rev. Boetcker was a known and outspoken neo-conservative zealot.
This list is terrible too, almost every item is a false dilemma. Any critically thinking being should be able to realize that there is more than just ONE possible option to any of these items.
Oh, here we go again... No one is suggesting income inequality should be eradicated!! People are merely arguing that the gap needs to be closed!
Happens every single time this topic is discussed. Talk about smelly horses...
IMO, a distinction without a difference.
Yes, exactly part of my point. Thread is repeated, responses are repeated, rinse, wait for the next repetition of the thread.
The only problem is that saving money doesn't help the economy work, if you spend money, that puts money in someone else's pocket, who can then spend money and so on and so on.
A strong economy is one with a lot of movement. Though I'm not downing saving money entirely. Saving money instead of banging it on the credit card is certainly a clever option! The big issue with spending is when people spend beyond their means.
Part of our economic woes right now stem from the fact that there has been an enormous credit crunch. Banks are sitting on metric tons of cash but how easy is it to get a small business loan right now? Economies work when cash flows. After the crash in '08/'09 the cash stopped flowing. Saving IS good, but an economy only grows and flourishes when currency is coursing through its veins. Capitalism doesn't work very well when people don't spend money. Furthermore, debt is not necessarily evil, it is a tool, and like any tool it can be abused and used incorrectly.
Take ARMs, for instance. If you knew what you were doing you could have gotten a ridiculously low rate ARM on your house and then refinanced into a traditional 30 mortgage before your ARM's rate adjusted. Doing this allowed me to remodel my basement into a mother-in-law apartment that now pays for over half of my mortgage. Debt is a tool when used properly. I didn't roll a boat or a new car into my mortgage.
I think one small thing that would help a lot of people is basic financial education and it ought to be part of every school's curriculum.
*edit* mohawk kind of beat me to it
Take ARMs, for instance. If you knew what you were doing you could have gotten a ridiculously low rate ARM on your house and then refinanced into a traditional 30 mortgage before your ARM's rate adjusted. Doing this allowed me to remodel my basement into a mother-in-law apartment that now pays for over half of my mortgage. Debt is a tool when used properly. I didn't roll a boat or a new car into my mortgage.
I think one small thing that would help a lot of people is basic financial education and it ought to be part of every school's curriculum.
*edit* mohawk kind of beat me to it
Far more eloquent than my post.
Debt is sometimes a requirement, no doubt, for instance schooling you can think of it as an investment, or for taking out a mortgage too. I was meaning the more frivolous spending, like banging a new TV onto a credit card or whatnot.
Not sure the government is the "worst" offender but they're bad. The Obamacare website is an easy target for that. Me and three of my friends could have built that site way better and for far less money, but I wouldn't have consented to their obligatory drug test, anyway.
Saving is good and so is passing your financial happiness onto your children, to some extent. I'm not too proud to say I'll receive a pretty hefty chunk of cash when my mom and dad die (someday), but I've earned a living apart from that, have raised a family without it, and am not hedging my financial future on it.
I think a lot of folks' anger with inheritance are with the ones that leave/give their kids everything and those kids never work a day in their lives while living a life of privilege. That's not always the way it happens, but whatever. I can see that resentment for sure and will punch a rich doucher in the face if they deserve it!
As far a national sales tax discouraging spending... I'm not sure it would happen real soon. People still want stuff and money/status is still important to the general populous. I agree that it's a possibility, but I'm not sure it would be very sudden and if it did happen would happen over a long period of time.
Obamacare would work if the country weren't so unhealthy. I would guestimate we could focus a lot more on the national debt if we didn't have to spend so much on health care.
My family isn't relying on inheritance, either. The idea of getting less of it BECAUSE doesn't really jive with us. Besides, certain states tax the hell out of inheritance, even if it's inside that 5 million+ mark. I would have liked to think a former stripper trophy wife would have done less damage.
I get the idea that lazy trust fund kids are bad. I'd willingly admit that I'd quit my job if I had the funds to do, provided I could pass a good chunk on. My dad and I work demoralizing hospital pharmacy jobs that take us away from family. It would sure be nice if we had the dough and could spend that time with family instead. My dad's job meant he missed out on a lot of stuff and you never get it back.
People will still buy stuff with a consumption tax... They'll probably buy more because they'll have 20%-38% more money without a federal income tax.
I wish I could find that TED talk from the rich dude business owner who says tax breaks for the rich don't work. It's a good one.
Of course tax breaks for the rich don't stimulate the economy. Just because John Gagillionaire pays less in taxes doesn't mean he's going to invest what he saves in job-creating companies. He's going to invest in companies with max ROI (companies that may, for instance, be downsizing to 'lean out' and 'achieve max efficiency'), or he's going to sit on it, or he's going to take a vacation. The whole 'job creators' thing is a self-congratulatory myth.
Bob Lee (QSC)
In case you missed it, I work for QSC Audio!
- Jul 3, 2001
- 12,668
- 2,036
- 67
- Disclosures
- Former Technical Communications Developer, QSC Audio
I think it's possible the false dilemmas were structured that way to create straw man arguments.
Bob Lee (QSC)
In case you missed it, I work for QSC Audio!
- Jul 3, 2001
- 12,668
- 2,036
- 67
- Disclosures
- Former Technical Communications Developer, QSC Audio
- Status
