81–90 of 162 posts
the top 1% of earners pay 38% of all income tax while earning 27% of all income. The top 50% pay 97% of all income tax.
Broken windows fallacy, broken window fallacy and zero-sum thinking everywhere in this whole debate.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd change it to disallow consecutive terms --yet as many terms so long as not consecutive
Then you end up with a situation like they have in Russia: 1999-2000: Prime Minister: Putin 2000-2008: President: Putin 2008-2012: Prime Minister: Putin 2012-2016 (anticipated): President: Putin
It happens in Russia because they have collusion. Presumably we would have less chance of that happening as other candidates would be free to join in on the political race. There is non-such in Putin's Russia.
In Russia, candidacies are controlled (and those two had an "understanding"), so you end up with that. Anyhow, Russia is an exception. Why do you bother bringing up an exception as in this case it would appear irrelevant?
What we do have is people who, due to name establishment (incumbency) recognition and or party backing, end up stringing together many terms --this alternative, would at least break that pattern up and give other candidates a chance due to stalled momentum (of the what would have been incumbent). It's seems an obvious difference to me.
1. Choosing 1979. If you started from 1999 all the graphs would look nearly the same. So, does that mean in the last 12 years the 1% is no better off?
2. Notice that the 1%'s advantage drops down significantly in a recession. They seem to have ignored the last one though, and stopped right at the height of the bubble.
That's what I can read.
Five points for the OWS guys. 1. Transparency. We need to see where every dollar of the US federal gov't is spent. It needs to be on the internet, and it needs to be easily accessable. An exception can be made for classified spending in specific, but not so categorically (IE we spend X on classified stuff). Additionally, just like there is a Surgeon's General Warning on cigarette packages, there needs to be a link on…
3. Something similar is actually already the case in areas like Hong Kong and other commonwealth states. It's called a stamp tax ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stamp_tax#Hong_Kong ) Might be an issue in the US for obvious reasons :)
The reason it is so high is that it was set a long time ago on a sliding scale, and bracket creep of house prices means that every house traded is on the old 'high' value.
As a result, housing liquidity is low and people sit on unsuitable houses for long periods of time because they can't afford to sell and buy another. This leads to excessive commuting as people drive long distances rather than move closer to jobs, and leads to old people staying in oversized houses, tying up housing stock.
With a median priced home, if you sell it, and buy another of identical value, you will have spent nearly $50,000 on agents fees, stamp duties and other costs.
I would dearly love someone to explain to me how that is a good idea, fair or any other justification.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then you end up with a situation like they have in Russia: 1999-2000: Prime Minister: Putin 2000-2008: President: Putin 2008-2012: Prime Minister: Putin 2012-2016 (anticipated): President: Putin
That's pretty declarative. You seem pretty sure the situation in the States would be comparable to that in Russia --I think that's a very tenuous stretch. It happens in Russia because they have collusion. Presumably we would have less chance of that happening as other candidates would be free to join in on the political race. There is non-such in Putin's Russia. In Russia, candidacies are controlled (and those two ha…
Here's why the rich get richer: because the 99% produce too damn much. Consumerism worked for a while to keep things even, but we've reached a plateau. People can only buy so much crap. But we're more productive now than ever [1]. So where does all that extra money go? The people at the top take it. CEOs don't give their employees raises, and pocket the rest. Bankers play games with your excess money you've dumped in…
Strangely enough, because of the way the EITC is tied with wages and already distorting the economics at the bottom, raising the minimum wage could result in net transfer of wealth from the rich to the poor and therefore reduce inequality. I had more relevant comments here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3120123
You seem to subscribe to the aim of total income equality as a goal. To do this you would force the productive to hand over most of the product of their work to those who are less productive. Obviously, to do this, you need to force them using the apparatus of the state to do so.
In other words, they either spend the majority of their time working for others or they go to jail. They are not asked to share the product of their work, they are threatened to do so or be locked up.
Does that sound fair to you? That is a very perverse sense of justice, where you don't have a choice in how the output of your labour is divided.
Honestly I cannot understand after a century of misery from forced wealth redistribution and forced work and millions of deaths people still come up with these ideas.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hoo boy are you wrong. You are so, so wrong. I was hoping you were being ironic, but apparently you're serious. Raising minimum wage and cutting working hours will drop productivity like a stone. You're effectively saying that all workers are equal, and interchangeable. You want to forcibly stop the more productive ones from working, so that their tasks and livelihoods can be given to others. In the case of a softwar…
You're exactly right - by killing productivity and massively increasing employment without reason, you're going to have massive increases in exogenous consumption. Fantastic, except where are all of these consumed goods going to come from? You'll see huge inflationary pressure which means tighter monetary policy; higher interest rates and reduced borrowing and lending. Yes, there will be economic growth and increased…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hoo boy are you wrong. You are so, so wrong. I was hoping you were being ironic, but apparently you're serious. Raising minimum wage and cutting working hours will drop productivity like a stone. You're effectively saying that all workers are equal, and interchangeable. You want to forcibly stop the more productive ones from working, so that their tasks and livelihoods can be given to others. In the case of a softwar…
You're exactly right - by killing productivity and massively increasing employment without reason, you're going to have massive increases in exogenous consumption. Fantastic, except where are all of these consumed goods going to come from? You'll see huge inflationary pressure which means tighter monetary policy; higher interest rates and reduced borrowing and lending. Yes, there will be economic growth and increased…
You can't herd invididuals, as anyone who has tried to round up a group of cats knows. You either accept that individuals have the right to be individuals or you have to force people submit to your plans and forego their individual choices. Too many people come out of education nowadays thinking they could organise society, if just given a chance. But the truth is that society is a loose collection of individuals, and by nature can only be convinced, not coerced. You either believe in the fundamental human right to choose your own destiny, or you don't - there are no half measures.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
3. Something similar is actually already the case in areas like Hong Kong and other commonwealth states. It's called a stamp tax ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stamp_tax#Hong_Kong ) Might be an issue in the US for obvious reasons :)
Stamp duty or taxes are a horrible idea. I live in a stamp duty regime, and if I want to sell my house and buy another one, then I have to pay about $30,000 to the government. First home buyers are exempt, but after that, you're in. The reason it is so high is that it was set a long time ago on a sliding scale, and bracket creep of house prices means that every house traded is on the old 'high' value. As a result, ho…