Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

America's 1% Has Taken $50T From the Bottom 90%

time.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 961 posts

Re: America's 1% Has Taken $50T From the Bottom 90%

#161

Post by robrenaud »

readams wrote: post #85
koboll wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From 1960 to 1985 the top marginal tax rate crashed from 90% to 30%. And then of course there's the demise of private sector unions, the effects of computerization, etc. Arguably, it was always a natural law, but the 1970s were an inflection point after which capital was allowed to accrue advantages at a much faster rate.

It's mostly a myth that there was a 90% marginal tax rate. It's technically true, but when the top tax rate was removed they also removed all the loopholes and deductions that were being used to reduce the effect tax rate on top earners to below 45%. All the while the proportion of tax receipts as a percentage of GDP has remained constant. Meanwhile, the proportion of taxes paid by the top quintile earners has increa…

Did the effective tax rate change on the top quantile from 1980 to 2013, or did they just earn a lot larger fraction of income?

Re: America's 1% Has Taken $50T From the Bottom 90%

#162

Post by supercanuck »

Pfhreak wrote: post #74
md_ wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your intuition here is basically what's formalized by Piketty in "Capital in the 21st Century": that the rate of growth of capital exceeds the rate of economic growth. What's interesting is that while intuitively this makes sense (for the reasons you gave), the implication (that the rich get richer and inequality grows) is the opposite of what was hypothized by Kuznets ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuznets_curve);…

I'm halfway through reading Piketty right now, amusingly.

Watch the Netflix documentary. Basically cuts to the chase.

Re: America's 1% Has Taken $50T From the Bottom 90%

#163

Post by findthewords »

h3rsko wrote: post #2

Inequality seems to be a completely pointless buzzword to me. The only thing that matters is if there are more or less poor people, and how poor are those people compared to similar percentiles in the past. It shouldn't matter how rich the richest people on earth are. I really love seeing people on the Internet try to convince themselves that because Bezos or Musk are worth $100B, they must be stealing it from poor p…

Is social mobility also meaningless? The two are linked.

Re: America's 1% Has Taken $50T From the Bottom 90%

#166

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

robrenaud wrote: post #161
readams wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's mostly a myth that there was a 90% marginal tax rate. It's technically true, but when the top tax rate was removed they also removed all the loopholes and deductions that were being used to reduce the effect tax rate on top earners to below 45%. All the while the proportion of tax receipts as a percentage of GDP has remained constant. Meanwhile, the proportion of taxes paid by the top quintile earners has increa…

Did the effective tax rate change on the top quantile from 1980 to 2013, or did they just earn a lot larger fraction of income?

It changed a lot. The marginal rate for someone earning $100,000 in 2020 dollars (so $31,837 in 1980) was 44% then and 24% now.

Re: America's 1% Has Taken $50T From the Bottom 90%

#167

Post by draw_down »

natenthe wrote: post #57

Correction: The Fed's policies have taken $50T of wealth from the Bottom 90%. When you bail out irresponsibly over-leveraged and nearly bankrupted banks and corporations, and pay for those bailouts with tax-payer money, you steal from the poor and give to the rich. Most importantly, when the Fed decides to print money ad nauseam, they create massive asset inflation, which steals from the poor and gives to the rich. T…

Come on, who do you think runs the Fed? Plumbers?

Re: America's 1% Has Taken $50T From the Bottom 90%

#168

Post by ska »

readams wrote: post #85
koboll wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From 1960 to 1985 the top marginal tax rate crashed from 90% to 30%. And then of course there's the demise of private sector unions, the effects of computerization, etc. Arguably, it was always a natural law, but the 1970s were an inflection point after which capital was allowed to accrue advantages at a much faster rate.

It's mostly a myth that there was a 90% marginal tax rate. It's technically true, but when the top tax rate was removed they also removed all the loopholes and deductions that were being used to reduce the effect tax rate on top earners to below 45%. All the while the proportion of tax receipts as a percentage of GDP has remained constant. Meanwhile, the proportion of taxes paid by the top quintile earners has increa…

I wouldn't call it a myth. High income earners both then and now have a lot of ways to avoid paying tax, so they don't pay nearly as much as the top marginal rate. It's also true that the top marginal rate used to be much higher.

> Meanwhile, the proportion of taxes paid by the top quintile earners has increased from 55% in 1980 to 70% by 2013.

Isn't this exactly what you would expect with growing income & wealth inequality, so long as your tax system maintains some aspect of progressive taxation.

Re: America's 1% Has Taken $50T From the Bottom 90%

#169

Post by pmiller2 »

stickyricky wrote: post #152
pmiller2 wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Potato, potatoe. Who do you think controls "the Fed?" Cui bono ? Your comment would also imply that before there was such a thing as a Federal Reserve, income and wealth inequality didn't exist. This is false.

It does not imply "wealth inequality is the result of federal policies". It implies that the current transfer of wealth is a result of federal policy.

Well, considering how the comment literally says "Wealth inequality and social unrest in America is DIRECTLY related to corrupt and/or incompetent (you choose) Fed policies," you'll forgive me for disagreeing.

Re: America's 1% Has Taken $50T From the Bottom 90%

#170

Post by pmiller2 »

bmlpl wrote: post #155
pmiller2 wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Potato, potatoe. Who do you think controls "the Fed?" Cui bono ? Your comment would also imply that before there was such a thing as a Federal Reserve, income and wealth inequality didn't exist. This is false.

The comment implies no such thing. It says that post Alan Greenspan, who started printing money in an unprecedented manner, the Fed saw that it could get away with it and continued the bubble. Ironically Greenspan also spoke about irrational enthusiasm. Words are cheap.

Then, what does "Wealth inequality and social unrest in America is DIRECTLY related to corrupt and/or incompetent (you choose) Fed policies," mean?
Post reply on HN