Income inequality "solutions"

[Unrepresented]

Thank you for clarifying for the masses. I assure you that I am fully up to date on CURRENT estate tax laws. However, my statement was in response to the idea having been floated that somehow keeping your net worth in the family is somehow immoral.

I would argue that nepotism is less moral than contributing to the overall health of society.

And both could be reduced by doing things that shall not be discussed (by me) in this thread. And, no, I don't want anyone to be homeless or starve.

Oooh! Secrets!

SS and Medicare absolutely are entitlements. Anything one is entitled to is, by definition, an entitlement.

Doesn't matter one whit whether you earned that right.

Entitlement: the condition of having a right to have, do, or get something.

It's so much more familiar to me when we agree on things again.

 

[UncleFluffy]

Because the government gave all the money your dad gave them to some schmuck in Yemen. Or some corporation in Dallas.

And who voted for the politicians who did that?

 

[aborgman]

Also, the EITC is still on a very small scale. And it does little to really close the gap for the masses. I have not suggested doing away with it anyway. But to simply suggest that "It works on this level so it has to work more better....er on a bigger scale" is intellectually lazy. (Not that you did that. I am trying to understand what you are getting at.)

What I'm getting at is that your statement below from the first post regarding the money being taken from the wealthy not being re-distributed is a falsehood.

However, every time the conversation comes up, the "solution" seems to be higher taxes, fees, penalties, etc. for the rich. And those monies go to the government, NOT those at the other end of the income scale. The money is not redistributed.

The EITC is a direct contradiction to that statement. The money involved IS redistributed, and it goes to "those at the other end of the income scale" and NOT "government".

So what exactly ARE you suggesting? What plan would you put in place? Or what plan have you read that you would approve of? Pointing out what has worked on a small scale, and what you are NOT saying doesn't clarify for me what you would approve of. How would you "reduce" inequality?

1)
Decreased statutory corporate tax rates while removing great majority of loopholes/credits/subsidies.

Also apportion taxable income by sales - prevent offshoring of profits to avoid paying taxes on "stateless income".

2)
Mostly keep current tax brackets, but increase standard deduction to poverty line. Index tax brackets to inflation. Add one additional tax bracket at top with 45% rate.

3)
Change from 2 types of Capital Gains (short & long term) to three (short, medium, long term).

Under the current system -
Short = less than one year, taxed as regular income.
Long = more than one year, taxed at 15%.

Under my system -
Short = less than 1 month, taxed as regular income with +10%

Medium = 1 month to 2 years, taxed as regular income.

Long = 2 years or more, taxed as regular income with schedule shifted -10%

4)
Allow anyone who wants to join Medicare/Medicaid

5)
Remove earnings cap on SS/FICA making it a flat tax instead of regressive

6)
Means test SS/Medicare with benefits beginning to taper above 4x median income.

7)
Free university education for all high school graduates desiring it and qualifying for a given university.

...just a start.

 

[Unrepresented]

If that is the case, I disagree that entitlement is a derogatory term. It is likely that exactly what it refers to is blurred purposely in order to lump those who oppose welfare and wealth redistribution in with whatever jackass exists that believes SS and medicare are government handouts.

FWIW, I would opt out of those systems right now if I were allowed to. Given the retirement age it is highly unlikely I am getting my money's worth. I also support the idea that once you have expended what you have contributed you are cut off.

Haven't read your profile, but I will assume you're under 30.

 

[jazzy grille]

And who voted for the politicians who did that?

Currently, just about anyone over the age of 50 is to blame for that.

 

[Jared Lash]

I'd be pretty down with most of that.

Yeah, aborgman has a way of distilling things down pretty neatly and logically.

 

[Ben B]

It is likely that exactly what it refers to is blurred purposely in order to lump those who oppose welfare and wealth redistribution in with whatever jackass exists that believes SS and medicare are government handouts.

You got it! I'm not naming anybody, but, yes, there are some self-serving "groups" that blur the definition of entitlement to enrage people. I know a few people who, unfortunately, have fallen for it. The people I know support these "groups" because they think they will be cutting welfare to illegal aliens which, in their mind, is about 50% of the federal budget. But what they really will be supporting is cutting Social Security and Medicare from their parents.

Ben

 

[Unrepresented]

Yeah, aborgman has a way of distilling things down pretty neatly and logically.

+1.

His talking points are far more succinct than the ones I have.

 

[Rocker949]

And who voted for the politicians who did that?

I'm not sure if that is any longer at the core of the problem. As you know, initially the system was created in which citizens (at least theoretically) served in the House or Senate in the spirit of true public service. In time, those positions became more like full-time jobs and many of the people being elected looked at what they were doing as more of a career. Lobbyists and others seeking their own interests increasingly exerted more influence on those career politicians. Also, fewer and fewer people who ran for office were actually "of the people, since, especially for the Senate, it became necessary to be a person of prominence and some wealth to even run in the first place. The bottom line is that the idea that people in Congress are actually trying to do the will of the people has pretty much become a joke. Nevertheless, I'm not trying to give a free pass to the "people," either. When I look at results of various elections throughout time, it sometimes becomes clear that the "people" weren't very diligent, either, in keeping up with what was going on politically.

To add to this, a two-party system mired in dogmatic political ideologies ensures that meaninglessness and mediocrity are firmly entrenched. Up to this point, no credible challengers to those two parties have emerged. It has reached the point that it doesn't matter too much who a person votes for anymore anyway since most people in Washington who have their positions are people we wouldn't really have wanted to be running for office anyway. Blaming the voters on placing these people in office may not be quite fair. There isn't anyone left to vote for anymore, of course, with a few exceptions. What's the approval rating of Congress now? 8%?

 

[Unrepresented]

I'm not sure if that is any longer at the core of the problem. As you know, initially the system was created in which citizens (at least theoretically) served in the House or Senate in the spirit of true public service. In time, those positions became more like full-time jobs and many of the people being elected looked at what they were doing as more of a career. Lobbyists and others seeking their own interests increasingly exerted more influence on those career politicians. Also, fewer and fewer people who ran for office were actually "of the people, since, especially for the Senate, it became necessary to be a person of prominence and some wealth to even run in the first place. The bottom line is that the idea that people in Congress are actually trying to do the will of the people has pretty much become a joke. Nevertheless, I'm not trying to give a free pass to the "people," either. When I look at results of various elections throughout time, it sometimes becomes clear that the "people" weren't very diligent, either, in keeping up with what was going on politically.

To add to this, a two-party system mired in dogmatic political ideologies ensures that meaninglessness and mediocrity are firmly entrenched. Up to this point, no credible challengers to those two parties have emerged. It has reached the point that it doesn't matter too much who a person votes for anymore anyway since most people in Washington who have their positions are people we wouldn't really have wanted to be running for office anyway. Blaming the voters on placing these people in office may not be quite fair. There isn't anyone left to vote for anymore, of course, with a few exceptions. What's the approval rating of Congress now? 8%?

I can't quite tell if you're advocating a technocratic rule or just banging the populist drum.

 

[Rocker949]

I can't quite tell if you're advocating a technocratic rule or just banging the populist drum.

Not a populist or technocrat. I do find, however, that people have a problem trying to label me. That may be because I'm a political independent who usually doesn't even much like talking about politics. I just happened to see something there of interest that I decided to comment on.

 

[spade2you]

Not a populist or technocrat. I do find, however, that people have a problem trying to label me. That may be because I'm a political independent who usually doesn't even much like talking about politics. I just happened to see something there of interest that I decided to comment on.

Cheers to that. Political agendas seem to remove objectivity. Objectively, I don't think politicians can get much done and aren't worth what we're paying them.

 

[fhm555]

...I think an entitlement complex is part of the problem...

I think it's much more than part of the problem, and I also think it exists at both ends of the spectrum as well as all points in between.

When you have someone with no personal financial risk in the business making as much as 75 people doing the actual work, there is a problem with the basic structure of the company unless that individual is bringing in enough business to pay 151 line workers.

When you have a board whose members feel entitled to the kind of money they make for no other reason than they have an MBA, when that board is the single largest negative on the balance sheet, that entitlement mentality is killing the company.

When you have a union that believes they are entitled to a certain amount of compensation for their members with no regard for what the company profit is, that entitlement mentality is killing the company.

What it's going to take is a mental adjustment on the part of everyone in order to kill this entitlement attitude.

Please don't get me wrong here, I'm all for an atmosphere where any individual willing to risk it all can reap whatever reward they can generate.

Where I get disheartened is when I read about individuals who never had a single personal risk in the game, retire with multi million dollar golden parachutes while line workers are being laid off in the same company, or the CEO who leaves with a 13 billion dollar retirement package, when consumers are facing 60% price increases for the (essential) products produced by the company this CEO is retiring from.

I don't know the history, but I do know the there was a period, post WWII where rice was in limited supply and a group of Japanese businessmen bought up essentially the entire world supply, then tried to rape (financially) their countrymen by jumping up the price. It got so bad people were doing without their daily staple because it was too high for the lower and lower middle income brackets to afford. LSS, the government stepped in and regulated the price of rice, and to this day the industry is still thriving. In short, some regulation to reign in greed and avarice is not altogether a bad thing and does not kill the spirit of entrepreneurship the way a lot of folks here would want you to believe will happen if there is any government involvement in the free market.

 

[BawanaRik]

Seniors seem to enjoy entitlements. That's a huge proportion of our spending. Those entitlements were created for compelling reasons.

When someone puts 15% of their earnings year in and year out for 50 years the resultant payout is hardly an entitlement.

It is simply due them. And much more.

 

[BawanaRik]

But if they were paid for, why are they being paid for a second time?

Because the first money was misappropriated and spent on others who deserved nothing.

 

[BawanaRik]

You've got it backwards. An average joe will pull substantially more out than he put in.

It's my opinion this isn't true. When you consider the time value of the money he will get next to nothing of what he should.

 

[Unrepresented]

Not a populist or technocrat. I do find, however, that people have a problem trying to label me. That may be because I'm a political independent who usually doesn't even much like talking about politics. I just happened to see something there of interest that I decided to comment on.

Cheers to that. Political agendas seem to remove objectivity. Objectively, I don't think politicians can get much done and aren't worth what we're paying them.

While you don't have to toe a consistent single party line on every issue, you'll ultimately be subscribing to pieces of either party's ideology. There are only so many "maybe" boxes you can check before you're voting "yes" or "no."

You can have an opinion that's progressive, conservative, environmentalist, corporativist, socialist, Martian, etc. without being a card carrying member of said party.

 

[spade2you]

While you don't have to toe a consistent single party line on every issue, you'll ultimately be subscribing to pieces of either party's ideology. There are only so many "maybe" boxes you can check before you're voting "yes" or "no."

You can have an opinion that's progressive, conservative, environmentalist, corporativist, socialist, Martian, etc. without being a card carrying member of said party.

Hmmmm, I might have to look into the Martian party.

 

[BawanaRik]

Entitled is a noun. How it comes about is a verb, i.e. earned or given. It doesn't seem like people understand this they just like to use "entitlement" as a derogatory term.

So the people who get money they haven't earned are not getting entitlements? It's just plain and simple an hand out?

 

[Unrepresented]

When someone puts 15% of their earnings year in and year out for 50 years the resultant payout is hardly an entitlement.

It is simply due them. And much more.

That's no different than welfare, with the exception of the qualifications.

I tried making this point earlier, but apparently I don't understand my own talking points.

No, BawanaRik doesn't understand his own talking points either.